My wife likes watching movies on her iPhone when we go to bed. The thing is freakin bright when I'm trying to sleep and it annoys me. As a result, she has to roll over and use the covers to block the light. The iPad will have at least 4x the screen area (probably more, I'm not doing the math) and as a result, would be ridiculously bright and ridiculously annoying.
I presume he was referencing "collateral estoppel" though it isn't exactly clear to me what issue some other party might want to use as a sword against the RIAA unless it is the decision that damages much over $2250 per song are too high. Anyway, very broadly speaking and leaving plenty of room for clarification, amplification, and exceptions, the type of estoppel you read about is important when thinking about contracts. This should be more informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel
I always check Emusic before buying from iTunes and for what I like, I probably find it on Emusic 50-60% of the time. I pay 33.3 cents per track, i.e. $10/mo for 30 tracks. No DRM -- plain jane MP3s. So why isn't Emusic radically famous? Apparently, price isn't everything.
The type of precedent it would set is called "persuasive precedent" -- this is why I phrased the case "influential" previously. "Persuasive precedent" does not require other courts to follow the same decisional route in similar circumstances. The type of precedent you are talking about, "binding precedent", is made only by appellate courts and applies only to the courts below that appellate court. So if the court of appeals above the court this decision came out of, issued a published decision, then the case would be "binding precedent" on the courts below that specific appellate court. The decision would still be nothing more than "persuasive precedent" for courts outside the appellate court's jurisdiction. For example, a trial court in San Diego could look at the decision and decide whether or not to apply it depending on the court's own beliefs. This happens. One of the primary purposes of supreme courts (*), whether state or federal, is to resolve situations where appellate courts in different districts come to different decisions.
(*) I belive that in NY state, trial courts are called supreme courts. By "supreme courts", I refer to the court at the apex of the state's appellate system.
One album by an already famous band is not exactly earth-shattering evidence. I'm sure everyone who is honest is with themselves, and who has also downloaded media via illegitimate means, will find that he/she downloaded music he/she liked and might otherwise have paid for, but did not.
Actually, it would not establish a precedent (you only get precedential decisions from appellate courts). It might be an influential decision, but no other court must follow it.
I don't understand why the RIAA would drop the case -- sure, millions sounds better in a headline, but for most people, $54k is seen as a heck of a lot of money. The RIAA is likely hoping that parents will see $54k and be worried about what their kids are doing on the net. In that respect, it probably has an effect near to what a millions verdict would because a millions verdict is so outside the ken of middle-class Americans, that they may not even see it as real. $54k on the other hand has some meaning because it can be paid off over time via garnishment, which would really suck.
As for the shadowy conspiracy-theory-esque person bankrolling her case -- well that seems too silly for further sarcastic commentary.
I suspect Thomas will rue the day she turned down the $25k settlement. While whatever millions the jury awarded was obviously excessive, her lawyer's assertion that $1/song is appropriate is also excessive, but in the opposite direction. If the law's bite was no more than the cost of purchase for what you get caught illegally "sharing", there would be no incentive for people to be honest and pay for their music.
Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt. Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.
I use mac laptops and linux desktops. I'm not an Apple hater, maybe even a fanboy to some degree. But I don't think a mac will help him do what he wants. With a second monitor on a mac, you can either do screen spanning or screen mirroring. He is saying he doesn't want spanning, he wants both monitors to have their own "desktop", i.e., separate menu bars and such with the added kicker of being able to move apps between the separate desktops. You can think of spanning as a big desk and separate desktops as two desks in two rooms making it a hassle to shuffle one set of papers to another. What he wants is two desks in one room with the ability to move papers back and forth at will, but with each having distinct work areas.
It would be cool if macs did that, but they don't. So getting a mac is totally useless for him.
The fact that the device will use ePub does not mean the user will be able to put anything he/she desires on the device without jailbreaking. Right now, the informational materials do not answer this question. I would guess that the answer will be "yes", but the absolute fact is unknown at this time.
I don't think I agree with you that Apple does not want you think about the innards of a mac. There is a cool video on Apple's site showing off how the aluminum unibody is milled, something sure to appeal to people who have an inkling of what a CNC router is. If you look at the video here: http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html#unibody you will see an industrial process -- giant cylinders of solid aluminum being heated and extruded, cut, milled, drilled, and polished. For people who are interested, apple is completely happy to show off what it has inside. That most people won't be interested is not a strictly an apple phenomenon however, and most PC users are just as clueless about what is inside the black or white box sitting under their desk that they call the "CPU".
Actually, Tmobile's new unlimited plans do provide a break to those who pay up front. Their plans are $10/mo more with a subsidized phone with a 2 year contract compared to paying for the phone and having a month-to-month plan. If you look at their phones and the amount of the downpayment with a subsidized plan, it's clearly a better deal to just buy the phone and go MTM.
When speech = money, politics = corruption. Maybe not illegal corruption, but the worse kind: endemic, all pervading, structural corruption. The type where it is legal to buy politicians' votes, though oddly, Joe Sixpack can't sell his vote to the highest bidder.
Your point about the importance of the password seems not to be analyzed much in rockyou.com data. Has anyone gone to rockyou.com to see what it is? If I was a member of that site, my password would be my weak easy throwaway because the site isn't that important. If it was banking, or the password for my encrypted data backups, that's a completely different matter. But junk sites don't require much more than junk passwords.
The whole "research" falls into the "well duh" category. If I pick up a paper copy of a newspaper, I skim the headlines till I find an article that is interesting to me, and then read it. If I go to my local paper's website, I skim the headlines till I find an article that is interesting to me, and then read it. If I go to google news, you guessed, I skim the headlines and only read the ones interesting to me. Given how much boring news is out there, I'm actually surprised that half the people actually find something worth reading.
The parent isn't off topic. The summary suggests outsider's dismay over "outlandish salaries" in the music biz. To say there should be an upper limit on income, is to say that some sort of regulating agency (presumably government) should see to it that incomes are leveled. At the extreme end, a burger flipper dropout would be seen as having a "right" to the same income as a doctor or other highly trained professional. To someone making $16k per year, a $200k salary likely seems quite outlandish and "fairness" would require spreading the wealth a bit. Of course, that would require punishing the people who actually try to succeed, and reward those who make little effort. Anyway, you can agree with the parent post or not, but it was directly respondive to a line in the summary and is thus, not offtopic.
I have Boostmobile and I've been satisfied with my service in the Pacific Northwest. The unlimited $50/month plan is about the best deal around if you use a cell phone a lot (although Washington State somehow figured how to add $5 to it, so it is actually $55/mo for me). I've been from the Canadian border down to Seattle on the I5 corridor as well over the Cascades North of I90 and west of the Columbia, which is a pretty challenging area considering all the mountains involved. I have found two dead zones, although one of them is accessible only by boat.
I have the motorola dumb phone with the keyboard which makes sending emails or SMS messages a snap. I can tether it to my laptop by bluetooth and then use it as a modem for internet access without going through acrobatics (though the speed is of course is like taking a time machine back to to 1994). And there's no contract so I can quit whenever I want.
The only annoyance is the "Yo Dude" style speaker for the menu when you call their customer service line.
Oh that'd work real well. Maybe as a big thank you to the government Walmart would decide to shut down and put more than a million people out of work.
That retail wouldn't go away and those workers would then likely get better paying jobs at the local businesses WM originally put out of business, which then spring back up. It really annoys me that people are too cheap to pay an extra percent or two to support local businesses where not only the workers spend their earnings in the local community, but the owners do as well. Shopping at WM simply supports the concentration of retail profit into the hands of fewer and fewer people, impoverishing far more people than it ever helps. It gets very disgusting when state and local governments lend a hand to the WalMarts of the world by offering them tax breaks, which just helps accelerate destruction of the local economy and speeds the transit of wealth out of the community -- all so people can save a dime on a box of eggs. Sick.
I was tempted to just mod you up, but I want to reiterate your point. Our debt is the greatest national security issue we face. Take for example how the US, as a creditor to Great Britain after WWII, forced GB to follow the will of the US:
The United States also put financial pressure on Great Britain to end the invasion. Eisenhower in fact ordered his Secretary of the Treasury, George M. Humphrey to prepare to sell part of the US Government's Sterling Bond holdings....
Britain's then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Harold Macmillan, advised his Prime Minister Anthony Eden that the United States was fully prepared to carry out this threat. He also warned his Prime Minister that Britain's foreign exchange reserves simply could not sustain a devaluation of the pound that would come after the United States' actions; and that within weeks of such a move, the country would be unable to import the food and energy supplies needed simply to sustain the population on the islands.
Why do you think there is nothing serious done about human rights violations or trade unfairness? It is because China could simply end the US economy. Debtors are slaves.
But in all fairness think of how smart the average person is. Then think that half of them are dumber.
You can't be certain the average represents a midpoint of the number of people who are smarter or dumber because a "curve-buster" could move the population numbers on either side of the average, up or down depending on the distribution of really-really-smart vs. really-really-dumb individuals. Median works mathematically, but it does feel clunky in prose.
Wasn't it the SX line that had the math coprocessor disabled? My first computer (not counting my CoCo) was a 386 SX 20, which was cheaper than a DX for want of a coprocessor.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife likes watching movies on her iPhone when we go to bed. The thing is freakin bright when I'm trying to sleep and it annoys me. As a result, she has to roll over and use the covers to block the light. The iPad will have at least 4x the screen area (probably more, I'm not doing the math) and as a result, would be ridiculously bright and ridiculously annoying.
When I said excessive in the opposite direction, I meant "excessively lenient".
I presume he was referencing "collateral estoppel" though it isn't exactly clear to me what issue some other party might want to use as a sword against the RIAA unless it is the decision that damages much over $2250 per song are too high. Anyway, very broadly speaking and leaving plenty of room for clarification, amplification, and exceptions, the type of estoppel you read about is important when thinking about contracts. This should be more informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel
I always check Emusic before buying from iTunes and for what I like, I probably find it on Emusic 50-60% of the time. I pay 33.3 cents per track, i.e. $10/mo for 30 tracks. No DRM -- plain jane MP3s. So why isn't Emusic radically famous? Apparently, price isn't everything.
The type of precedent it would set is called "persuasive precedent" -- this is why I phrased the case "influential" previously. "Persuasive precedent" does not require other courts to follow the same decisional route in similar circumstances. The type of precedent you are talking about, "binding precedent", is made only by appellate courts and applies only to the courts below that appellate court. So if the court of appeals above the court this decision came out of, issued a published decision, then the case would be "binding precedent" on the courts below that specific appellate court. The decision would still be nothing more than "persuasive precedent" for courts outside the appellate court's jurisdiction. For example, a trial court in San Diego could look at the decision and decide whether or not to apply it depending on the court's own beliefs. This happens. One of the primary purposes of supreme courts (*), whether state or federal, is to resolve situations where appellate courts in different districts come to different decisions.
(*) I belive that in NY state, trial courts are called supreme courts. By "supreme courts", I refer to the court at the apex of the state's appellate system.
One album by an already famous band is not exactly earth-shattering evidence. I'm sure everyone who is honest is with themselves, and who has also downloaded media via illegitimate means, will find that he/she downloaded music he/she liked and might otherwise have paid for, but did not.
Actually, it would not establish a precedent (you only get precedential decisions from appellate courts). It might be an influential decision, but no other court must follow it.
I don't understand why the RIAA would drop the case -- sure, millions sounds better in a headline, but for most people, $54k is seen as a heck of a lot of money. The RIAA is likely hoping that parents will see $54k and be worried about what their kids are doing on the net. In that respect, it probably has an effect near to what a millions verdict would because a millions verdict is so outside the ken of middle-class Americans, that they may not even see it as real. $54k on the other hand has some meaning because it can be paid off over time via garnishment, which would really suck.
As for the shadowy conspiracy-theory-esque person bankrolling her case -- well that seems too silly for further sarcastic commentary.
I suspect Thomas will rue the day she turned down the $25k settlement. While whatever millions the jury awarded was obviously excessive, her lawyer's assertion that $1/song is appropriate is also excessive, but in the opposite direction. If the law's bite was no more than the cost of purchase for what you get caught illegally "sharing", there would be no incentive for people to be honest and pay for their music.
Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt. Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.
I use mac laptops and linux desktops. I'm not an Apple hater, maybe even a fanboy to some degree. But I don't think a mac will help him do what he wants. With a second monitor on a mac, you can either do screen spanning or screen mirroring. He is saying he doesn't want spanning, he wants both monitors to have their own "desktop", i.e., separate menu bars and such with the added kicker of being able to move apps between the separate desktops. You can think of spanning as a big desk and separate desktops as two desks in two rooms making it a hassle to shuffle one set of papers to another. What he wants is two desks in one room with the ability to move papers back and forth at will, but with each having distinct work areas.
It would be cool if macs did that, but they don't. So getting a mac is totally useless for him.
The fact that the device will use ePub does not mean the user will be able to put anything he/she desires on the device without jailbreaking. Right now, the informational materials do not answer this question. I would guess that the answer will be "yes", but the absolute fact is unknown at this time.
I don't think I agree with you that Apple does not want you think about the innards of a mac. There is a cool video on Apple's site showing off how the aluminum unibody is milled, something sure to appeal to people who have an inkling of what a CNC router is. If you look at the video here: http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/design.html#unibody you will see an industrial process -- giant cylinders of solid aluminum being heated and extruded, cut, milled, drilled, and polished. For people who are interested, apple is completely happy to show off what it has inside. That most people won't be interested is not a strictly an apple phenomenon however, and most PC users are just as clueless about what is inside the black or white box sitting under their desk that they call the "CPU".
Actually, Tmobile's new unlimited plans do provide a break to those who pay up front. Their plans are $10/mo more with a subsidized phone with a 2 year contract compared to paying for the phone and having a month-to-month plan. If you look at their phones and the amount of the downpayment with a subsidized plan, it's clearly a better deal to just buy the phone and go MTM.
Because ST11 sucked so hard it is equivalent to -2 Star Treks.
Couldn't be worse than what we've got now.
(blatant grammar nazi bait)
When speech = money, politics = corruption. Maybe not illegal corruption, but the worse kind: endemic, all pervading, structural corruption. The type where it is legal to buy politicians' votes, though oddly, Joe Sixpack can't sell his vote to the highest bidder.
Your point about the importance of the password seems not to be analyzed much in rockyou.com data. Has anyone gone to rockyou.com to see what it is? If I was a member of that site, my password would be my weak easy throwaway because the site isn't that important. If it was banking, or the password for my encrypted data backups, that's a completely different matter. But junk sites don't require much more than junk passwords.
The whole "research" falls into the "well duh" category. If I pick up a paper copy of a newspaper, I skim the headlines till I find an article that is interesting to me, and then read it. If I go to my local paper's website, I skim the headlines till I find an article that is interesting to me, and then read it. If I go to google news, you guessed, I skim the headlines and only read the ones interesting to me. Given how much boring news is out there, I'm actually surprised that half the people actually find something worth reading.
The parent isn't off topic. The summary suggests outsider's dismay over "outlandish salaries" in the music biz. To say there should be an upper limit on income, is to say that some sort of regulating agency (presumably government) should see to it that incomes are leveled. At the extreme end, a burger flipper dropout would be seen as having a "right" to the same income as a doctor or other highly trained professional. To someone making $16k per year, a $200k salary likely seems quite outlandish and "fairness" would require spreading the wealth a bit. Of course, that would require punishing the people who actually try to succeed, and reward those who make little effort. Anyway, you can agree with the parent post or not, but it was directly respondive to a line in the summary and is thus, not offtopic.
I have Boostmobile and I've been satisfied with my service in the Pacific Northwest. The unlimited $50/month plan is about the best deal around if you use a cell phone a lot (although Washington State somehow figured how to add $5 to it, so it is actually $55/mo for me). I've been from the Canadian border down to Seattle on the I5 corridor as well over the Cascades North of I90 and west of the Columbia, which is a pretty challenging area considering all the mountains involved. I have found two dead zones, although one of them is accessible only by boat.
I have the motorola dumb phone with the keyboard which makes sending emails or SMS messages a snap. I can tether it to my laptop by bluetooth and then use it as a modem for internet access without going through acrobatics (though the speed is of course is like taking a time machine back to to 1994). And there's no contract so I can quit whenever I want.
The only annoyance is the "Yo Dude" style speaker for the menu when you call their customer service line.
Inattention blindness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
That retail wouldn't go away and those workers would then likely get better paying jobs at the local businesses WM originally put out of business, which then spring back up. It really annoys me that people are too cheap to pay an extra percent or two to support local businesses where not only the workers spend their earnings in the local community, but the owners do as well. Shopping at WM simply supports the concentration of retail profit into the hands of fewer and fewer people, impoverishing far more people than it ever helps. It gets very disgusting when state and local governments lend a hand to the WalMarts of the world by offering them tax breaks, which just helps accelerate destruction of the local economy and speeds the transit of wealth out of the community -- all so people can save a dime on a box of eggs. Sick.
Why do you think there is nothing serious done about human rights violations or trade unfairness? It is because China could simply end the US economy. Debtors are slaves.
MULE had a negative impact on my GPA my freshman year in college.
You can't be certain the average represents a midpoint of the number of people who are smarter or dumber because a "curve-buster" could move the population numbers on either side of the average, up or down depending on the distribution of really-really-smart vs. really-really-dumb individuals. Median works mathematically, but it does feel clunky in prose.
Wasn't it the SX line that had the math coprocessor disabled? My first computer (not counting my CoCo) was a 386 SX 20, which was cheaper than a DX for want of a coprocessor.