That's a bit like building a power plant, distribution lines, home wiring, and a light socket, screwing in a lightbulb, and declaring it a massively expensive failure when the lightbulb burns out. Many project failures will appear massively expensive when there's also a failure to take advantage of economies of scale. For example, the B-2 is always quoted as being a two-billion-dollar aircraft, when that price takes into account R&D costs. Crashing a B-2 and building a new one doesn't really cost an extra two billion dollars, and Northrop quoted the USAF a price of a half billion each in the 1990s to build more.
Except for the actual damages, which they paid, and the $3.4 billion in fines and cleanup costs, which they paid. And the whole "3 weeks profit" statistic completely ignores inflation over the past 19 years, increases in oil and gasoline prices over the past 19 years, and the fact that Exxon merged with Mobil during the interim. $5 billion in punitive damages was a hell of a lot of money at the time, even for them.
That's 3.3 weeks of profit from 2006, a record year for Exxon. They made about a fourth that much in 2002, and certainly even less in 1989 when the incident occurred. Oil prices in 1989 were less than a third what they are today, and Exxon hadn't merged with Mobil yet in 1989, either.
Actually, cell phones are dirt cheap, and they are very frequently used in IED manufacture, to the point where standard procedure for IED disposal units includes the use of a high-powered cell phone jammer. The reason they use humans in some bombings is the same reason the Japanese (and, for a short time, the Germans) used humans in aircraft kamikaze runs during WWII: because humans make a cheap and effective guidance system. A human can infiltrate, say, a police checkpoint or a market packed with unarmed civilians.
Don't forget to mention the part where Exxon has incurred $3.4 billion in cleanup expenses and fines, and has already paid the compensatory damages (nearly $300 million) to the plaintiffs in the case. The point of punitive damages is (supposedly) to punish, not to be a windfall for the plaintiffs.
No need to assess the potential value of the work. Simply levy a tax sufficient to cover any expenses associated with collecting the tax itself, since the point here is to rescue orphaned works or other works where the copyright ownership is somehow muddled.
After reading your disclaimer, I think I may be experiencing severe side effects such as headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and death. Must be reacting with my MAOI inhibitors or something.
Agreed, although you definitely understated the underhandedness of the loser in this case. Anybody who has a problem with this story should take a few moments to read the ruling. The devil here is in the details.
1. The evil corporation started playing hardball first. 2. The evil corporation was infringing the copyright for profit. 3. The evil corporation provably distributed copies of the copyrighted material, and the number of copies could be proven as well. 4. The evil corporation appears to have undertaken actions to attempt to defraud both the copyright holder and the court by giving testimony that a person sold the copyright to the corporation. (The ruling expresses doubt that this person even exists.) 5. The damages claimed were not ridiculous given the extent of the violations, substantially less than the amount available at law.
You're assuming this goes to trial. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the pension fund lawyers will happily pocket a "reasonable" settlement fee to let the matter drop, and Yahoo will agree because it'd be cheaper than paying their own lawyers to litigate.
It's kind of like a mob protection racket, except it's actually encouraged by the legal system.
When I say "wasn't actually that bad", I guess what I'm really saying is that I liked it, but I also acknowledge that it had flaws that prevent it from fitting into the mainstream, such as so-so dialogue, expositional issues, and a somewhat inexperienced cast. The dialogue and exposition I chalk up to the D&D universe - much as D&D players like to think of roleplaying as an improvised movie in your imagination, the setting and rules can hamstring a writer into dialogue and exposition that smack of amateurism when compared to truly great movies.
Or just keep the HD-DVD player? Is that an option? I'm sure there's some sort of DRM in there that will cause it to self-destruct in dramatic fashion upon the MPAA's whim.
"Muahahahaha! Repurchase all your media yet again on Blu-Ray! Muahahaha!" **FOOM**
We use Teamspeak hosted on a private server I happen to have in a good location, but in a pinch we've also just had TS hosted on my laptop to good effect. TS is free for small-time private use. Also, yes, Fantasy Grounds is direct-connection software. The software authors host a forum and a game session registration service that can help you out with coordinating pickup game sessions, but it's a one-time purchase to get FG in the first place.
That works for terrorists captured in foreign lands, but not for (most) US citizens. Think of all the people who would notice your absence if you were whisked away to a secret prison. There would be a police investigation of your disappearance, journalists picking up the story, tons of questions asked, etc. How can they expect to keep your disappearance a secret when there are so many people asking reasonable and important questions?
Wrath of the Dragon God (the D&D movie that hit Sci-Fi a while back) wasn't actually that bad. It had the nerd cheese of being a movie based on D&D, of course, but instead of trying to appeal to males 15-24 in general, it actually was written for players of the game. The lich was portrayed as the crafty manipulator you expect him to be, for instance, and all of the heroic characters were based on characters one might play (if they had a generous DM, anyway... +1 vorpal sword?!).
Worth a rental, at least (although I confess to buying the DVD).
And nobody tried to mack on the elf chick. (I don't know why not, though - she was hawt.)
Our group uses Fantasy Grounds. They released version 2 about a year ago, and it's highly customizable now if you know how to use XML and Lua. Unfortunately, they still don't have a demo of version 2 on the website yet - the difference between the two versions is like night and day.
When it comes down to it, this ruling (and the ruling of the lower court) isn't 100% onerous, because a US citizen who is tried using evidence obtained in this manner would finally have standing to contest the government's actions. In such a case, if (or, should I say, when) the government's wiretapping is found to be illegal, the evidence would be suppressed, and if the government's case was otherwise weak, the charges could be dismissed. If a person isn't practically affected in their ability to conduct legal day-to-day activities, then it's a reasonable conclusion (whether or not it's a correct one) that they were not damaged and therefore have no standing to sue.
Of course, it's still 95% onerous, because there are still people reviewing the wiretap data (recordings, records, etc.) and those people are privy to otherwise private conversations.
Unless/until private groups start getting interested in moon missions, the design will be bleeding edge no matter how long you wait. The difference in waiting five years includes that (a) it will need to be updated to work with any developed advancements in materials science in the interim, and (b) you'll likely have to get a bunch of new people familiarized with the old designs once you pick things back up.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a bit like building a power plant, distribution lines, home wiring, and a light socket, screwing in a lightbulb, and declaring it a massively expensive failure when the lightbulb burns out. Many project failures will appear massively expensive when there's also a failure to take advantage of economies of scale. For example, the B-2 is always quoted as being a two-billion-dollar aircraft, when that price takes into account R&D costs. Crashing a B-2 and building a new one doesn't really cost an extra two billion dollars, and Northrop quoted the USAF a price of a half billion each in the 1990s to build more.
Except for the actual damages, which they paid, and the $3.4 billion in fines and cleanup costs, which they paid. And the whole "3 weeks profit" statistic completely ignores inflation over the past 19 years, increases in oil and gasoline prices over the past 19 years, and the fact that Exxon merged with Mobil during the interim. $5 billion in punitive damages was a hell of a lot of money at the time, even for them.
That ol' Gorgatron's gonna get what's coming to him.
That's 3.3 weeks of profit from 2006, a record year for Exxon. They made about a fourth that much in 2002, and certainly even less in 1989 when the incident occurred. Oil prices in 1989 were less than a third what they are today, and Exxon hadn't merged with Mobil yet in 1989, either.
Actually, cell phones are dirt cheap, and they are very frequently used in IED manufacture, to the point where standard procedure for IED disposal units includes the use of a high-powered cell phone jammer. The reason they use humans in some bombings is the same reason the Japanese (and, for a short time, the Germans) used humans in aircraft kamikaze runs during WWII: because humans make a cheap and effective guidance system. A human can infiltrate, say, a police checkpoint or a market packed with unarmed civilians.
Don't forget to mention the part where Exxon has incurred $3.4 billion in cleanup expenses and fines, and has already paid the compensatory damages (nearly $300 million) to the plaintiffs in the case. The point of punitive damages is (supposedly) to punish, not to be a windfall for the plaintiffs.
No need to assess the potential value of the work. Simply levy a tax sufficient to cover any expenses associated with collecting the tax itself, since the point here is to rescue orphaned works or other works where the copyright ownership is somehow muddled.
After reading your disclaimer, I think I may be experiencing severe side effects such as headache, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and death. Must be reacting with my MAOI inhibitors or something.
Agreed, although you definitely understated the underhandedness of the loser in this case. Anybody who has a problem with this story should take a few moments to read the ruling. The devil here is in the details.
There are several differences here:
1. The evil corporation started playing hardball first.
2. The evil corporation was infringing the copyright for profit.
3. The evil corporation provably distributed copies of the copyrighted material, and the number of copies could be proven as well.
4. The evil corporation appears to have undertaken actions to attempt to defraud both the copyright holder and the court by giving testimony that a person sold the copyright to the corporation. (The ruling expresses doubt that this person even exists.)
5. The damages claimed were not ridiculous given the extent of the violations, substantially less than the amount available at law.
You're assuming this goes to trial. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the pension fund lawyers will happily pocket a "reasonable" settlement fee to let the matter drop, and Yahoo will agree because it'd be cheaper than paying their own lawyers to litigate.
It's kind of like a mob protection racket, except it's actually encouraged by the legal system.
You could make a lunar telescope array far, far larger than anything you could park at the Earth-Moon L2.
When I say "wasn't actually that bad", I guess what I'm really saying is that I liked it, but I also acknowledge that it had flaws that prevent it from fitting into the mainstream, such as so-so dialogue, expositional issues, and a somewhat inexperienced cast. The dialogue and exposition I chalk up to the D&D universe - much as D&D players like to think of roleplaying as an improvised movie in your imagination, the setting and rules can hamstring a writer into dialogue and exposition that smack of amateurism when compared to truly great movies.
"Muahahahaha! Repurchase all your media yet again on Blu-Ray! Muahahaha!" **FOOM**
We use Teamspeak hosted on a private server I happen to have in a good location, but in a pinch we've also just had TS hosted on my laptop to good effect. TS is free for small-time private use. Also, yes, Fantasy Grounds is direct-connection software. The software authors host a forum and a game session registration service that can help you out with coordinating pickup game sessions, but it's a one-time purchase to get FG in the first place.
That works for terrorists captured in foreign lands, but not for (most) US citizens. Think of all the people who would notice your absence if you were whisked away to a secret prison. There would be a police investigation of your disappearance, journalists picking up the story, tons of questions asked, etc. How can they expect to keep your disappearance a secret when there are so many people asking reasonable and important questions?
Well, the difference between the police hanging out in your house and the feds tapping your phone is that in the latter case, you don't know about it.
Wrath of the Dragon God (the D&D movie that hit Sci-Fi a while back) wasn't actually that bad. It had the nerd cheese of being a movie based on D&D, of course, but instead of trying to appeal to males 15-24 in general, it actually was written for players of the game. The lich was portrayed as the crafty manipulator you expect him to be, for instance, and all of the heroic characters were based on characters one might play (if they had a generous DM, anyway... +1 vorpal sword?!).
Worth a rental, at least (although I confess to buying the DVD).
And nobody tried to mack on the elf chick. (I don't know why not, though - she was hawt.)
Maybe instead, the fighter and rogue should have "L2P". Noobs.
Our group uses Fantasy Grounds. They released version 2 about a year ago, and it's highly customizable now if you know how to use XML and Lua. Unfortunately, they still don't have a demo of version 2 on the website yet - the difference between the two versions is like night and day.
When it comes down to it, this ruling (and the ruling of the lower court) isn't 100% onerous, because a US citizen who is tried using evidence obtained in this manner would finally have standing to contest the government's actions. In such a case, if (or, should I say, when) the government's wiretapping is found to be illegal, the evidence would be suppressed, and if the government's case was otherwise weak, the charges could be dismissed. If a person isn't practically affected in their ability to conduct legal day-to-day activities, then it's a reasonable conclusion (whether or not it's a correct one) that they were not damaged and therefore have no standing to sue.
Of course, it's still 95% onerous, because there are still people reviewing the wiretap data (recordings, records, etc.) and those people are privy to otherwise private conversations.
Unless/until private groups start getting interested in moon missions, the design will be bleeding edge no matter how long you wait. The difference in waiting five years includes that (a) it will need to be updated to work with any developed advancements in materials science in the interim, and (b) you'll likely have to get a bunch of new people familiarized with the old designs once you pick things back up.