This isn't a DMCA notice, or a case of someone filing (under penalty of perjury) a notice that they own the material and demanding you take it down.
This is an issue of YouTube's user agreement and the way YouTube shares revenue.
When you upload content to YouTube's site, you obviously agree to allow them to show the video.
YouTube also has a separate revenue sharing program, where you can get revenue from your videos - but YouTube is NOT obligated to do this. They could simply run ads on your content, say screw you, we're not giving you any revenue share, and keep all the revenue for themselves.
What YouTube has done is put in place a program where content owners can have YouTube automatically match content on their site with the content owner's content. YouTube has chosen, in the event such a match is made, to give the content owner the OPTION of allowing the infringing content to stay on the site and getting the ad revenue share instead of just having the content removed entirely.
So you're in a grey area - no one is asking your content to be taken down, so there's no DMCA request. YouTube has just agreed with the 3rd party to share the revenue from your content with the 3rd party - which is YouTube's perogative since they can do whatever they want with their ad revenue. If you don't like what they decide to do with your ad revenue, your recourse with YouTube is simple: Don't put your content there.
I'm guessing that YouTube really just didn't think through how their program actually works when bad actors are introduced (ala rumblefish). If YouTube were smart, they would realize Rumblefish is a bad actor and kick them out of the program and force Rumblefish to submit DMCA notices instead.
It's not that bad teachers would feel bad about themselves.
It's that most teachers are bad.
If we compensated teachers based on performance, we would have better teachers.
But since we don't, the people who will work hard for better compensation choose a different career path, creating a bias for those who DON'T want to perform better for better performance in the teaching profession.
Thus, even though pay for performance would attract better teachers to the teaching profession, CURRENT teachers don't want pay for performance, because the existing system is attractive primarily to those who don't want to perform.
Put another way, for most current teachers, supporting pay-for-performance doesn't mean more pay for current teachers, it means more pay for individuals who have avoided teaching as a profession due to poor pay who take the jobs from the current teachers.
(That's not to say all teachers are bad - I certainly had some great teachers who chose that profession despite the poor compensation because it's just what they wanted to do, and they were going to do it well no matter what. But I've had plenty of people who just showed up for the paycheck too.)
No companies are appreciably different from each other when you eliminate what they are actually selling from consideration.
For the submitter, they are selling telephone and text service. And in that regard, they really are not appreciably different. A call or text placed on Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile or Sprint is essentially the same product.
They ARE different when it comes to data. AT&T and T-Mobile don't offer real 4G. Sprint doesn't cap data use or throttle you. Verizon has real 4G and the largest, fastest 3G/4G cellular data network.
Do you pay a lot of attention to what brand of sugar or salt you buy? Probably not - because salt is salt. The same for phone calls and texts.
Violent criminals don't live in wealthy areas because violent crime isn't very profitable. The guy who embezzled a few hundred thousand from his company might be your neighbor though!
So while you're less likely to be mugged in a rich neighborhood, I wouldn't necessarily say you're less likely to get robbed.
You could, for example, live next to Barnie Madoff.
Put another way, like any other profession, only the really good criminals get to be rich.
The federal government requiring Catholics to pay for other people's contraception.
This is not true. The federal government is requiring ALL employers to offer health insurance or pay a fine, and all health insurance offered must pay for contraception.
The federal government is not, however, requiring anyone to be an employer.
Barring a completely different future propulsion system, everything in space is either in orbit, on its way into orbit, or on its way back to Earth. Current space ships have extremely little ability to adjust their trajectory on more than a very occasional basis.
So, for any near-earth combat, one would simply launch a missile from earth or a high altitude aircraft to destroy the target in orbit.
For combat near another celestial body, you would probably just toss some marbles in the other party's orbital path.
If you can get there. If something is in orbit around the moon, the only thing capable of touching it will have to get to the moon first. And that's not an action that happens on a whim.
For any extra-orbital combat, relative speeds and distances between objects are likely so great that there isn't any combat at all.
Consider all the effort it takes to design systems like this, to hire employees to use and maintain them, to purchase the equipment, to pay for data centers, etc.
The answer is, not much at all.
Computing power and disk are cheap. This isn't even a complex problem. The per-item costs of a system like this are probably on the order of hundredths of a cent.
You've already got to track all your products for inventory and revenue tracking purposes; attaching a "who bought this" token is a tiny addition once the rest of that is already in place.
You're pretending that he didn't already pay the higher income tax rate on the money he earned and then risked in the investments that, if/when then make money, are once again taxed at the capital gains rate.
Mitt Romney NEVER paid the higher income tax rate. His initial earnings were as carried interest paid at the capital gains rate; he NEVER paid the regular income tax rate on those earnings.
So, first problem, you're wrong.
Second problem:
If "putting your money at risk" for some reason deserved a lower tax rate, why aren't gambling and lottery winnings taxed at the capital gains rate instead of the income tax rate? After all, the money spent on the lottery ticket was ALREADY taxed once, right?
Further, why does income from wages have a special tax that income from other sources doesn't?
First, the oft-touted "47% of tax units pay no income taxes" statistic is wrong. 47% of tax units may not pay the Federal Income Tax, but any of them with any wage income at all DO pay the Federal Payroll Tax of 15.3% on every dollar earned up to about $100k. That's a tax on income.
That's a higher tax rate than the very wealthy pay on their investment / dividend / carried interest income.
As a matter of fact, I personally pay a federal tax rate of about 29%, double the tax rate paid by Mitt Romney.
Most people advocating replacing the Federal Income Tax with a "flat" tax are really advocating HUGE tax breaks for the rich, because they're still going to charge anyone who dares to work for a living the new "flat" tax *AND* the 15.3% payroll tax which they're not going to pay.
Even better are those who argue for a 0% capital gains and dividend tax (Newt, Ron Paul), who don't want the wealthy to pay ANY TAXES AT ALL!
Being friends with a girl you like because you're just waiting for your chance to have a relationship with her is basically stalking.
Suddenly asking a girl out who you've never talked to before even though you've been around her is also creepy, because if you can't talk to her like a normal person, why would you think you should jump into a dating relationship? A girl doesn't want to go out with a guy who feels something about her that makes him unable to talk to her normally.
Think it out... let's say that for the past few weeks, you've noticed this girl in your class/at your job/whatever who is around you a lot, but avoids talking to you, averts her eyes if you look at her, etc, and then one day she suddenly approaches you and says, "Hey, I really like you, would you go out with me?"
If you get shot down in enemy territory, you're not going anywhere. You're going to either make friends with the locals, if possible, or hide until someone comes to get you.
What you are absolutely, positively, NOT going to try and do is travel 300 kilometers.
And even if you WERE going to try and do so, you'd probably steal a map while you were stealing food and/or a car.
If "nice" means approaching women who you are interested in romantically as "friends" so that you can get an in, and then after a year of being "friends" you make a tearful confession that you've fallen for her and you just can't take being "friends" anymore, then yes, you are right, that will not work very well.
People who do that think of themselves as nice guys, but what they really are is CREEPY.
Related creepy behavior: Asking out someone you've spent a lot of time around but barely talked to before.
If you're a nice guy, then having a girl who you can raise a family with is exactly what you want.
Or, if you're a nice guy who doesn't want to wait for the attractive girls to get past liking assholes, you could date women lower on the attractiveness scale. Plenty of perfectly nice girls of all ages not blessed with superb attractiveness who will date nice guys.
But if what you REALLY want is to have relationships with young attractive women, but such women are not paying attention to you, then you're really an just asshole who isn't very good at it.
Most people try online dating because they have exhausted the pool of potential partners in their work/social circles and prefer the online environment over forced social situations like bars.
I've done the online dating thing, and help some friends do the online dating thing, so here's some thoughts/advice:
Most profiles on the major websites are in fact real profiles of women who would like to date. The ones that are spam are also pretty easy to detect.
Most women don't care about salary. They DO care about drive. So if you make poop for cash because you're an under-compensated social worker, no problem. If you make poop for cash because your life plan is "bartender", that might be an issue.
Approach is key. Men on online dating sites tend to be indiscriminate, sending lots of messages to lots of women. This means women tend to get lots of messages from lots of men - but lots of poor, unspecific messages. For success, less is more. Pick a FEW profiles of people you find interesting, and take the time to write them something specific and interesting. Understand that 2/3rds of the time, you're not going to get a reply even from real people for various reasons.... they never read your message because there's too much crap in their inbox from all the indiscriminate men, they procrastinate, or something about you just isn't interesting to them.
There are other tricks. Start having your friends take pictures of you when you're out doing whatever, and post pics of you doing things to your profile. Talk about what you do and why you like doing it... or what you plan to do and what you're doing to get there.
Overall, you want to come across as looking for the right person, not just looking for any person.
And, certainly, if you approach dating with the same jaded attitude you display here (women are just after money!) you're not going to have much success. Approach dating as a fun activity in-and-of-itself and you might also find someone you really like on accident.
We're ALL trained to find a mate of ultimate attractiveness/power. All the boys lust after the hot girls in high school, and all the girls like the adventurous/athletic/popular guys (all is an overstatement, but you get the idea). Somewhere in their 20's MOST girls re-arrange their expectations to marry someone who is good to them. The trick is being the first nice guy to come along after those expectations have been re-arranged. So, nice guys DO finish last... and when they finish that's one more girl off the market.
This creates the illusion that girls are not interested in nice guys, as they may date 20 assholes and one or two nice guys, but it's the one or two nice guys that they marry (and don't divorce a couple years later.... there are girls who marry the assholes and then become the single-divorced-30's women with baggage.)
That said, guys can be their own problem: There is NO shortage of women out there who would be more than happy to be with you. You probably just don't think they're attractive enough, so your own expectations are 50% of the problem.
You can't expect the girl who exercises, eats right, and puts resources into looking attractive to be interested in you if you're not doing the same things. So if you're not peak attractiveness, and you're not revamping your diet and popping in the P90X to bring up your physical appearance, time to dial down your own expectations to "normal looking people".
(As a handy side effect, getting rid of your rampant desire to associate with attractive women will also make you less creepy to attractive women.)
Slashdot Mirror
...but can't.
There are several countries where going through customs with TWO laptops will ding you for import fees on the 2nd laptop.
This isn't a DMCA notice, or a case of someone filing (under penalty of perjury) a notice that they own the material and demanding you take it down.
This is an issue of YouTube's user agreement and the way YouTube shares revenue.
When you upload content to YouTube's site, you obviously agree to allow them to show the video.
YouTube also has a separate revenue sharing program, where you can get revenue from your videos - but YouTube is NOT obligated to do this. They could simply run ads on your content, say screw you, we're not giving you any revenue share, and keep all the revenue for themselves.
What YouTube has done is put in place a program where content owners can have YouTube automatically match content on their site with the content owner's content. YouTube has chosen, in the event such a match is made, to give the content owner the OPTION of allowing the infringing content to stay on the site and getting the ad revenue share instead of just having the content removed entirely.
So you're in a grey area - no one is asking your content to be taken down, so there's no DMCA request. YouTube has just agreed with the 3rd party to share the revenue from your content with the 3rd party - which is YouTube's perogative since they can do whatever they want with their ad revenue. If you don't like what they decide to do with your ad revenue, your recourse with YouTube is simple: Don't put your content there.
I'm guessing that YouTube really just didn't think through how their program actually works when bad actors are introduced (ala rumblefish). If YouTube were smart, they would realize Rumblefish is a bad actor and kick them out of the program and force Rumblefish to submit DMCA notices instead.
If you want to compete with the big boys, you have to think like the big boys.
Sue Rumblefish for $150,000 for each time your video is played with their advertising on it.
Even better, file as a class action, that way you and your lawyer get paid for every case of Rumblefish doing this, and everyone else gets a coupon.
It's not that bad teachers would feel bad about themselves.
It's that most teachers are bad.
If we compensated teachers based on performance, we would have better teachers.
But since we don't, the people who will work hard for better compensation choose a different career path, creating a bias for those who DON'T want to perform better for better performance in the teaching profession.
Thus, even though pay for performance would attract better teachers to the teaching profession, CURRENT teachers don't want pay for performance, because the existing system is attractive primarily to those who don't want to perform.
Put another way, for most current teachers, supporting pay-for-performance doesn't mean more pay for current teachers, it means more pay for individuals who have avoided teaching as a profession due to poor pay who take the jobs from the current teachers.
(That's not to say all teachers are bad - I certainly had some great teachers who chose that profession despite the poor compensation because it's just what they wanted to do, and they were going to do it well no matter what. But I've had plenty of people who just showed up for the paycheck too.)
Verizon iPhone 3G is not the same as Verizon 3G.
I get MUCH faster transfers on Verizon 3G than the figures you cited using a 3G data modem.
No companies are appreciably different from each other when you eliminate what they are actually selling from consideration.
For the submitter, they are selling telephone and text service. And in that regard, they really are not appreciably different. A call or text placed on Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile or Sprint is essentially the same product.
They ARE different when it comes to data. AT&T and T-Mobile don't offer real 4G. Sprint doesn't cap data use or throttle you. Verizon has real 4G and the largest, fastest 3G/4G cellular data network.
Do you pay a lot of attention to what brand of sugar or salt you buy? Probably not - because salt is salt. The same for phone calls and texts.
Violent criminals don't live in wealthy areas because violent crime isn't very profitable. The guy who embezzled a few hundred thousand from his company might be your neighbor though!
So while you're less likely to be mugged in a rich neighborhood, I wouldn't necessarily say you're less likely to get robbed.
You could, for example, live next to Barnie Madoff.
Put another way, like any other profession, only the really good criminals get to be rich.
Most people who get stopped for a ticket don't try to bribe the officer, but in India, this is common.
Actually, in India, the officer stops you to solicit a bribe.
The fine right now is $0.
Increasing the fine to $2,500 isn't going to cause less employers to offer insurance....
The federal government requiring Catholics to pay for other people's contraception.
This is not true. The federal government is requiring ALL employers to offer health insurance or pay a fine, and all health insurance offered must pay for contraception.
The federal government is not, however, requiring anyone to be an employer.
Barring a completely different future propulsion system, everything in space is either in orbit, on its way into orbit, or on its way back to Earth. Current space ships have extremely little ability to adjust their trajectory on more than a very occasional basis.
So, for any near-earth combat, one would simply launch a missile from earth or a high altitude aircraft to destroy the target in orbit.
For combat near another celestial body, you would probably just toss some marbles in the other party's orbital path.
If you can get there. If something is in orbit around the moon, the only thing capable of touching it will have to get to the moon first. And that's not an action that happens on a whim.
For any extra-orbital combat, relative speeds and distances between objects are likely so great that there isn't any combat at all.
Laser Beams.
Won't work; the sharks can't survive in space.
Consider all the effort it takes to design systems like this, to hire employees to use and maintain them, to purchase the equipment, to pay for data centers, etc.
The answer is, not much at all.
Computing power and disk are cheap. This isn't even a complex problem. The per-item costs of a system like this are probably on the order of hundredths of a cent.
You've already got to track all your products for inventory and revenue tracking purposes; attaching a "who bought this" token is a tiny addition once the rest of that is already in place.
I honestly don't know why Americans prefer corn-fed meat. It seems fattier than grass-fed
You answered your own question. We're Americans, and we want more fat. Fat taste good, mmmm+e@Ds%*a`v=\|3s};aH
NO HEARTBEAT
You're pretending that he didn't already pay the higher income tax rate on the money he earned and then risked in the investments that, if/when then make money, are once again taxed at the capital gains rate.
Mitt Romney NEVER paid the higher income tax rate. His initial earnings were as carried interest paid at the capital gains rate; he NEVER paid the regular income tax rate on those earnings.
So, first problem, you're wrong.
Second problem:
If "putting your money at risk" for some reason deserved a lower tax rate, why aren't gambling and lottery winnings taxed at the capital gains rate instead of the income tax rate? After all, the money spent on the lottery ticket was ALREADY taxed once, right?
Further, why does income from wages have a special tax that income from other sources doesn't?
First, the oft-touted "47% of tax units pay no income taxes" statistic is wrong. 47% of tax units may not pay the Federal Income Tax, but any of them with any wage income at all DO pay the Federal Payroll Tax of 15.3% on every dollar earned up to about $100k. That's a tax on income.
That's a higher tax rate than the very wealthy pay on their investment / dividend / carried interest income.
As a matter of fact, I personally pay a federal tax rate of about 29%, double the tax rate paid by Mitt Romney.
Most people advocating replacing the Federal Income Tax with a "flat" tax are really advocating HUGE tax breaks for the rich, because they're still going to charge anyone who dares to work for a living the new "flat" tax *AND* the 15.3% payroll tax which they're not going to pay.
Even better are those who argue for a 0% capital gains and dividend tax (Newt, Ron Paul), who don't want the wealthy to pay ANY TAXES AT ALL!
Being friends with a girl you like because you're just waiting for your chance to have a relationship with her is basically stalking.
Suddenly asking a girl out who you've never talked to before even though you've been around her is also creepy, because if you can't talk to her like a normal person, why would you think you should jump into a dating relationship? A girl doesn't want to go out with a guy who feels something about her that makes him unable to talk to her normally.
Think it out... let's say that for the past few weeks, you've noticed this girl in your class/at your job/whatever who is around you a lot, but avoids talking to you, averts her eyes if you look at her, etc, and then one day she suddenly approaches you and says, "Hey, I really like you, would you go out with me?"
Like, WTF? CREEPY!
If you get shot down in enemy territory, you're not going anywhere. You're going to either make friends with the locals, if possible, or hide until someone comes to get you.
What you are absolutely, positively, NOT going to try and do is travel 300 kilometers.
And even if you WERE going to try and do so, you'd probably steal a map while you were stealing food and/or a car.
If "nice" means approaching women who you are interested in romantically as "friends" so that you can get an in, and then after a year of being "friends" you make a tearful confession that you've fallen for her and you just can't take being "friends" anymore, then yes, you are right, that will not work very well.
People who do that think of themselves as nice guys, but what they really are is CREEPY.
Related creepy behavior: Asking out someone you've spent a lot of time around but barely talked to before.
If you're a nice guy, then having a girl who you can raise a family with is exactly what you want.
Or, if you're a nice guy who doesn't want to wait for the attractive girls to get past liking assholes, you could date women lower on the attractiveness scale. Plenty of perfectly nice girls of all ages not blessed with superb attractiveness who will date nice guys.
But if what you REALLY want is to have relationships with young attractive women, but such women are not paying attention to you, then you're really an just asshole who isn't very good at it.
State in your profile that you prefer to meet people sooner rather than later.
People of similar persuasion will be attracted to this, and people who want to talk for weeks on end before meeting will not.
Online dating is all about filtering. So filter!
Not really. Online dating means a few women that photograph well are bombarded by the vast majority of men.
So let's say the top 10% of women by photographic attractiveness get 90% of the attention.
For men, the solution to this problem is simple:
Contact women in the 11th to 15th percentile.
Most people try online dating because they have exhausted the pool of potential partners in their work/social circles and prefer the online environment over forced social situations like bars.
I've done the online dating thing, and help some friends do the online dating thing, so here's some thoughts/advice:
Most profiles on the major websites are in fact real profiles of women who would like to date. The ones that are spam are also pretty easy to detect.
Most women don't care about salary. They DO care about drive. So if you make poop for cash because you're an under-compensated social worker, no problem. If you make poop for cash because your life plan is "bartender", that might be an issue.
Approach is key. Men on online dating sites tend to be indiscriminate, sending lots of messages to lots of women. This means women tend to get lots of messages from lots of men - but lots of poor, unspecific messages. For success, less is more. Pick a FEW profiles of people you find interesting, and take the time to write them something specific and interesting. Understand that 2/3rds of the time, you're not going to get a reply even from real people for various reasons.... they never read your message because there's too much crap in their inbox from all the indiscriminate men, they procrastinate, or something about you just isn't interesting to them.
There are other tricks. Start having your friends take pictures of you when you're out doing whatever, and post pics of you doing things to your profile. Talk about what you do and why you like doing it... or what you plan to do and what you're doing to get there.
Overall, you want to come across as looking for the right person, not just looking for any person.
And, certainly, if you approach dating with the same jaded attitude you display here (women are just after money!) you're not going to have much success. Approach dating as a fun activity in-and-of-itself and you might also find someone you really like on accident.
...but not just in the original meaning.
We're ALL trained to find a mate of ultimate attractiveness/power. All the boys lust after the hot girls in high school, and all the girls like the adventurous/athletic/popular guys (all is an overstatement, but you get the idea). Somewhere in their 20's MOST girls re-arrange their expectations to marry someone who is good to them. The trick is being the first nice guy to come along after those expectations have been re-arranged. So, nice guys DO finish last... and when they finish that's one more girl off the market.
This creates the illusion that girls are not interested in nice guys, as they may date 20 assholes and one or two nice guys, but it's the one or two nice guys that they marry (and don't divorce a couple years later.... there are girls who marry the assholes and then become the single-divorced-30's women with baggage.)
That said, guys can be their own problem: There is NO shortage of women out there who would be more than happy to be with you. You probably just don't think they're attractive enough, so your own expectations are 50% of the problem.
You can't expect the girl who exercises, eats right, and puts resources into looking attractive to be interested in you if you're not doing the same things. So if you're not peak attractiveness, and you're not revamping your diet and popping in the P90X to bring up your physical appearance, time to dial down your own expectations to "normal looking people".
(As a handy side effect, getting rid of your rampant desire to associate with attractive women will also make you less creepy to attractive women.)
You mean the reagan years where we ran up a bunch of debt, on top of stealing a bunch of money out of the social security trust fund?