The FCC lost the case because the Court said they lacked "statutory authority" only. It had nothing to do with "rights" as was alluded to in the article summary.
That means Congress can pass a law giving the FCC that statutory authority; the FCC's statement about looking at various aspects of their "Broadband Plan" to discern where they have "authority" and where they do not, is a bit on the disingenuous side, no? It's as if they're saying, "We'd like an open/fair internet access situation, but we just can't do it." Whether bought-off Senators and Congress-people can muster a little "independence" and simply enact a law giving them that authority is another issue.
My g-friend is an attorney who deals with legal/regulatory affairs for the Cable/Telecom industry, and her position (which was shared by Comcast, AT&T, Time/Warners, etc), before the ruling, was that the FCC lacked statutory authority. Whaddya know?
This was a simple, easily-ascertained fact, not an opinion, or "interpretation", and therefor, it seems obvious (to me) that the FCC was well aware of that same fact, and was just playing a "game" in order to get some jurisdictional precedent. Why would they do that? My guess: To appear "concerned' about net neutrality, on the surface, but to ratify the business-as-usual abdication of industry/utility oversight, the interests of the "Public" (and society, as a whole) be damned.
If you just want to stop feeling awkward, get some videos of the Grateful Dead in concert, and look for closeups up Jerry Garcia's guitar playing. He was missing a finger and managed to not look awkward.
Jerry was missing a joint on his middle finger (okay, the "bird" finger) on his right hand, and had a deep background in both banjo and the pedal steel guitar. He had a very spare, ergonomic (in the sense of 'no wasted motions') style of playing that was fun to watch. (and pretty much unparalleled if you liked his sound, too).
But, things that involve 'muscle memory' can be relearned, believe me. Back in '69, or '70, I was doing a handful of benefits with an impromptu R 'n' B outfit, in the Santa Cruz area, and I met a rather brilliant blues guitar player (a young white guy), who had an unusual style: He played left-handed, and, on closer inspection, it was revealed that he was holding his guitar pick in his left hand (normal for a "leftie"), but he was holding it between his thumb and pinky finger!
He was missing the other three fingers on his left hand, entirely. They'd been 'lost' (at the knuckle!) in a nasty woodshop accident. That's bad enough, but it turned out the accident had only happened within the two years previous to the time I met the guy, and he was originally a right-handed guitarist! In other words, he'd played since early childhood, with all the fingers of his left hand being used to make the notes on the neck, while his right hand was the one doing the picking. I was astonished, no shit, and boy could he play.
This typing topic is interesting, sure, but let's not get carried away with switching keyboard layouts, or marginally faster typing, as being some sort of huge feat, eh?
Then how dare you tell me how I can use it.
I wish more people would choose to not buy those things. Fuck Apple.
Right, and their business model/policy differs from Motorola, Samsung, LG et. al., and Verizon, MetroPCS, Sprint et. al., exactly how? So when Verizon cripples, or "meters," the built-in "features" of Android will that be Google's fault, or Verizon's or Motorola's, or, in the minds of you retarded Apple-haters, will that be more Apple shit? Fuck your logic pal.
Jobs (meaning Apple, Inc) did not wait for an investigation, or the results of one, before alerting the SEC and the Press to the presence of irregularities in their stock option pricing methods. You want to be an Apple/Jobs hater? Fine with me, but focus on the facts in pursuit of that noble quest; there's enough of them.
I proofread and edited the Apple press release that went to the SEC through EDGAR, and I also considered a little insider trading when I realized I had market-moving information, and 30 minutes in which to act. I decided it wasn't worth risking the reputation/incarceration of a friend or two out in the "real" world, and demurred. I'm no saint, though. I just wasn't interested in taking anyone else down with me, and it was against company policy (to say the least) where I worked.
The company ended up firing me without cause, months later, on the exact day when my corporate medical plan was going into effect; they'd gotten wind that I was very ill. Corruption and lack of ethics come in all sorts of colors, don't they? When Steve Jobs's illness was over-reacted to in the Market, Apple stock plunged. I encouraged several friends with serious cash to double-down and pile into Apple. AAPL was at $80... my friends passed on that advice. (That was 108 AAPL dollars ago, by the way, in what? 10 months?)
My point is that there are many ways to cash in legitimately. It takes patience, finesse, logic, realism and work. Painting all company-men with the same brush is not exactly indicative of the presence of any of those traits.
Didn't Standard Oil lower their prices below wholesale cost (i.e. selling their product at a loss) so that they could drive other oil companies out of business?
Actually, they might have done that, but their main , most effective tactic was to sign agreements with the transporters of oil in those days-the trains-to triple the cost of shipment by train, and to have the railroads radically increase prices between certain points-that were used mainly by Standard's competitors-with destination points that were also served by Standard, thereby driving their competitors into near-extinction.
They had other tactics that were concerned with raising the costs of their competitors.
The Sherman Act is rather complex, and has been messed with over the years, but the original Section One of the Act seems tailor-made to criminalize Standard's primary business model. It boiled down to an agreement that restrained competition and had a negative impact on interstate commerce.
As far removed from what appears to be happening with the uploading and "sharing" of copyrighted entertainment material as the Standard Oil "business model" might seem to be, there are some unusual similarities. In a "free" market Price is supposedly set by a combination of supply and demand and a (de facto) mutually agreed-upon price point where the spread between the bid and asking price of an item or service reach a given point. As well, the existence of competitors is theoretically an additional advantage on the "buy" side for numerous reasons. But all of this idealized market theory falls apart in the entertainment business. Why?
The short answer, from me, is: "I don't know, exactly." But when I look at the market for a new CD by (for the sake of argument) Bruce Springsteen, here's what I see: A cheaply-produced replica (the actual CD) of a work, done by an artist under an exclusive contract with a single company (record label), available, remarkably, at a price point that varies only marginally from the price for the exact same item, everywhere in the country, AND, is also priced at the same point(s) as other works by numerous artists all over the country, not only from the same record Label, but all "competing" labels.
Bruce's work is exclusively available from one "label" so I can't go to Warners or MCA (etc) to see if they can deliver the "same" product at a lower cost. There's no tiered pricing mechanism in the so-called "legitimate" marketplace, so, for all intents and purposes the price of the item is "posted" (in the same way that Standard "posted" their arbitrarily-set pricing of oil back in the pre-anti trust days).
Wow, okay, let's ignore the obvious price-fixing (for brevity, ha ha) and look at the alternatives to the "posted" price. There's only one. And it isn't iTunes. It's free. What has gone so wrong here? Lots of things: Markets aren't free, prices are fixed, there's no de facto "competition" in terms of a specific work's availability, the supply/demand ratio is horribly skewed by the labels's insistence on enforcing the myth of "scarcity" despite the de facto existence of truly unlimited copies of the same item, etc.
So many people download "copies" of equal or lesser quality/value. That is a classic "free market" response,under the current, enforced business model. When the band, Radiohead, made a new work available on an honor system they were incredibly successful. The argument against that method being viable for any and all other groups was that Radiohead had "clout" in the market-place, and other less-known/talented/savvy/etc bands wouldn't be as successful. But isn't that the nature of free-market price-point agreement?
My view is that the labels are doomed to anachronistic existence if they fail to grasp the realities of the modern age/market. C'est la vie. As a parting shot, I chose Bruce Springsteen on purpose, of course, as an example. Back in the mid-Seventies, when Bruce decided to unilaterally renegotiate his then recently-signe
Who cares about the battery life? What I'd like to see was how they managed to find that variety of machinery and OS (etc), that ran the same background processes on hardware that had all the same components/performance and little things like voltage to each module of all units. And of course they must have made sure that all the operating systems were using the same shared libs and everything... wow!!!!
I agree with you, because if having an army of lawyers isn't enough, there's an even money bet that the guy/artist involved has a clause in his contract that gives Sony some discretionary breathing room. Maybe the artist concerned had Sony over a barrel and didn't sign one of the variations of the typical recording contract out there. I seriously doubt it.
Big record labels are mostly lawyers and accountants. They can "prove" they "lost money" on almost anything, and if even one of this guy's records didn't turn profitable according to Sony... he's almost certainly left himself open (via advances under terms of the contract) for them to use stuff that was recorded, but not used (at the time, AND, at Sony's discretion), to recoup their "losses."
To wit: "ce n'est pas mon faute, c'est la faute des autres." It's a bureaucratic passing of the buck a la française. [Not a bad rhyme, and sums up Apple's position, quite nicely]
After trying to decipher your original post, I think it's safe to say you could add "... and I'm not exactly "gifted" as far as my use of syntax is concerned, either."
As for your alleged theory I did a get kick out of the event referencing a "radical departure from normal flight" several steps (or your version of "sentences") after the one about the steep dive. All the butchered syntax in the World fails to convince me that a "steep dive" is considered "normal flight.
In an instrument flight situation a pilot usually has the ability to go "manual." However, in a panicky situation, if one guy does a logical 180 and decides to "fight" the instruments, then having two co-pilots, who might very well be shitting Twinkies at that point, themselves, to "help" execute the pilots orders, is just mob rule hellbent for catastrophe.
Most jobs these days require the use of an online application process. The unemployment rate, here in Silicon Valley, is between 9 and 11% depending on whom one asks, and the margin of error (not to mention the "long term" unemployed, agroup that is generally not factored into the statistics).
Being homeless, something I am familiar with (having been in that "boat" while doing chemo last year in the Twin Cities), is not the funniest situation to be in. Homelessness is also conducive to powerful feelings of estrangement from society, compelling feelings of lack of self worth, etc.
Although bewildering, given the lack of empathy or anything approaching "humanity" in our self-absorbed culture, even the homeless harbor longings to be a productive member of society.
Your comment, whilst being regarded as "funny", betrays a deficiency where "reading for retention" (or, perhaps, "comprehension") is concerned.
I've often told younger people, when asked what really stopped the Vietnam War, that it was as good as over when those C-130s started unloading corn-fed Iowa and Nebraska boys, instead of Negroes.
Martin Luther King was killed after he started drawing the parallels between US foreign and domestic policy.
And today, desperate, angry victims of the West strap C4 to themselves for one reason: They don't have access to F-18s, drones and Stealth bombers.
I think it was JFK who said, "Those that make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." We see where that got him...
Right. This is why I shouldn't be writing when I haven't slept for so long. Nevertheless, most people decide, first, if they will do, or not do something.My position was that those people need to use their heads.
But, you're right, the safety or advisability of it should be (or "have been") the primary part of that decision. Even when I was downloading things on a regular basis I was going through known, trusted posters, and never encountered issues of security or compromise. Lucky? Maybe. But being in a gimme-gimme mode with applications/executables from torrents seems unwise to me, as a rule (a primary rule, overriding questions of right or wrong).
Many, if not most, computer users are conditioned to click through installation processes.I bought a small app recently and in the install process I read through a screen that had boilerplate language to the effect of: "As always, it is advised that you make a complete backup of all personal data and operating system files before proceeding" and I wondered, "How many people are actually going to do that for an innocuous installation of a minor application from a well-known software house?"
My guess? Between few and none. For me, personally, someone on a razor-thin budget, whose "production" box is involved in speculative (not salaried) production, risk aversion heightened and safety became paramount a while ago, and I clamped down on silly actions, that disregarded risk, as a result. So I see your point, clearly.
I agree with what you are saying.An old saying is, "if you sleep with dogs, don't complain about fleas." The fact is there are people who are going to do this, for all sorts of reasons, right or wrong.
I'll give an example. I was a musician all my life, and i loved records, and I collected them. I would pay big prices for rarities, and sometimes find jems in a thrown-away box. But when I was on Usenet, back a while, I would see something like Beatles outtakes, and I would get them.
The question is, first, is that right or wrong? The answer is: It is wrong, because doing the wrong thing, for a defensibly (not "definitively") "right" reason, is still doing the wrong thing.
Unfortunately, the world has no shortage of ethical relativists, ahem. So, barring a change of heart, the next smartest move is to prepare oneself. Know the other party, take precautions, etc. I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just saying, if one makes their choices, right or wrong, it behooves them to at least try to use their heads. [Take precautions, or stifle the infringing urge and try the tried and true fair use, bargain-hunting, etc, methods that are available.]
In the final analysis when users shoot themselves in the foot, when it comes time to blame Apple, MS, drive-by web sites, etc, they don't have a leg to stand on. Whoosh, yikes.:=)
Why guys insist on downloading questionable things without some preventive measures in place, first, is beyond the scope of my tired head. But dumping Apple's default 5-minute "grace period" on sudo (or admin passwords, in other words) will kill third-party attempts to piggyback on any password that is being used by the legit user for privilege escalation.
In a console (Terminal):
sudo visudo
[hit return, enter password]
scroll to: #Defaults specification, hit the letter 'o' to get a new line, and type:
Defaults:ALL timestamp_timeout=0
then hit [Escape] to end the editing session, then ':w' plus [Enter] to write the file to disk, and finally ':q' plus [Enter] to quit visudo.
Done. I get tired of vi, of course, and will usually use BBEdit to open/private/etc/sudoers and enter the admin password once to 'unlock' sudoers, then scroll down and add the new default line, and save the file. Done, quicker.
A nefarious app or script can poll the system asking if there's escalation until kingdom come and it will never get an affirmative. End of story; end of file
it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page.
Can anyone explain what the hell this means?
Sure, be happy to. The guy in the article thinks his "mashup" is the next big thing, the alpha and the omega, etc. Fine. So he is saying two things that each have two parts:
The First Thing: Buy some cheap Ramen noodles, and second part "on a credit card" SUBTEXT: if you don't agree with him, you're a loser who needs to go live on cheap, non-nourishing stuff, that is if you can get credit (because anyone is already poor (in addition to stupid) if they don't see the brilliance in this guy's "next big thing")
The Second Thing: Lie about your past, and second part, to get a shitty job. Since we're probably all broke and stupid, by default (according to this moron's subtext), we also need to INVENT some good-sounding FACTS about our WORK HISTORY, and use them in that online mlm-recruiter, everybody's-a-salesman mess known as LinkedIn, in a probably vain attempt to get illegitimate shit jobs. SUBTEXT: We're all poorly-qualified in the past, and desperate re: the future. Why? Again, because we don't see things exactly the same way as the deluded asswipe in the article.
What the guy is really saying, without realizing it (because 'self-absorbed' and self aware' are two totally different things) is: "If you're smart, you'd be better off unemployed and living on the worst noodles ever for the rest of your life, than being me for a single minute."
But again, I have no data at hand and would love to see some either way.
Don't feel bad. One of the 3 or 4 most common of the foodborne diseases, salmonellosis, has an overwhelming percentage of current known cases of illness, hospitalization and death rates being caused by "agents" that are as yet unknown/unidentified. [We're talking 64-81%] Check the CDC (Atlanta) which bases its data summaries on a lot of cross-compared data from multiple sources. That peanut plant in East Texas, for instance, had never been inspected, even after numerous whistleblower reports.
Give me a gun and legal immunity I'd love to help.
Just throw yourself in front of a train, or drive off a cliff, if you really want to be of help. Don't forget to bring the wife and kids. No sense being half-assed, eh Clem?
Why is this rated as redundant? The post previous to this one was from someone who was "Not a Lawyer" and the post I'm replying to is from someone who isn't a lawyer YET. Now, maybe it's just me, but when I see the "yet", I picture someone who has read at least a decent chunk of the ton of books associated with an education in the Law. Add the Lexis-Nexis maze of case histories, that are crucial to many papers written in Law Schools, and I see someone with a radically different POV (Point of View), and, as a result, an opinion that logically carries considerably more weight.
Redundant? Not at all. Some of the mods needed to ask Santa for an elementary dictionary, from the look of it.
Wow, you might have set the record for the most terse combination of talking out of both sides of the mouth, mixed with some pretty neat self-canceling logic. Nice one. That's not easy to do. Unless you're a politician or a banker. In which case one can apparently do it in their sleep.
I'm glad that laws like assault, murder, etc., weren't "composed" with the same, um, cyclical logic, house of mirrors, razzle dazzle. It's kind of like an intellect's version of an Escher drawing. Artistic. Totally dangerous, too, of course. It's no wonder politicians and corporations have such a highly-evolved sociopathic death grip on our so-called "citizens."
Please don't do it Mr Google, oh no, we aren't saying you can't, just please don't. Okay?
Priceless, and the first post, to boot. Wonderful, no really.
It might have something to do with the fact that so many millions of people in China have liver diseases. The estimate on just Hepatitis B is around 130 million. A lot of traditional Chinese medicine revolves around liver treatments, probably because "as goes the liver, so goes the rest." So there's a huge population to use in the understanding of all sorts of issues related to liver function.
Hepatitis C was first isolated in the late 70s, I think. The first test for it was 1981. But it is known, now, to have been developing for at least several thousand years. The various genotypes of C each have millions of sub-species, in a sense. And it is thought that those shifting, replicating sub-species (or quasi-species might be the "real" term) are responsible for our immune systems' inability to fight it off indefinitely. The actual virus is small enough that it has never even been "seen" with the best microscopes in existence. So, having hundreds of millions of interested "subjects" makes research there almost a no-brainer.
Nice to know they may have a back up for me in a few years...
Ha ha, very funny! My chemo, for liver disease caused by blood products that were gathered at Arkansas, and later, Louisiana prison systems, comes to an end in two weeks (then follow-up). Those blood products cleared the FDA, despite not having been tested for hepatitis and HIV. Tests which were in existence for at least several years at that point. Connaught Labs. Blood is a billion dollar business, and nothing is as crucial to living as the functions (over 5,000) performed by livers every day.
But the idea that a liver that's going bad may allow you to wait a few years for a new extracorporeal? Don't bank on it pal. You'll drown in urine way before that happens. If you really sense you're having problems, get to a specialist. If you are noticing that it takes less alcohol to put you in gear, that's not a good sign. I don't need to know you, or anyone, to say that I wouldn't wish this shit on anybody. So, check it out. If I'm wrong, believe me, this is something I'd love being wrong about.
Slashdot Mirror
The FCC lost the case because the Court said they lacked "statutory authority" only. It had nothing to do with "rights" as was alluded to in the article summary.
That means Congress can pass a law giving the FCC that statutory authority; the FCC's statement about looking at various aspects of their "Broadband Plan" to discern where they have "authority" and where they do not, is a bit on the disingenuous side, no? It's as if they're saying, "We'd like an open/fair internet access situation, but we just can't do it." Whether bought-off Senators and Congress-people can muster a little "independence" and simply enact a law giving them that authority is another issue.
My g-friend is an attorney who deals with legal/regulatory affairs for the Cable/Telecom industry, and her position (which was shared by Comcast, AT&T, Time/Warners, etc), before the ruling, was that the FCC lacked statutory authority. Whaddya know?
This was a simple, easily-ascertained fact, not an opinion, or "interpretation", and therefor, it seems obvious (to me) that the FCC was well aware of that same fact, and was just playing a "game" in order to get some jurisdictional precedent. Why would they do that? My guess: To appear "concerned' about net neutrality, on the surface, but to ratify the business-as-usual abdication of industry/utility oversight, the interests of the "Public" (and society, as a whole) be damned.
Jerry was missing a joint on his middle finger (okay, the "bird" finger) on his right hand, and had a deep background in both banjo and the pedal steel guitar. He had a very spare, ergonomic (in the sense of 'no wasted motions') style of playing that was fun to watch. (and pretty much unparalleled if you liked his sound, too).
But, things that involve 'muscle memory' can be relearned, believe me. Back in '69, or '70, I was doing a handful of benefits with an impromptu R 'n' B outfit, in the Santa Cruz area, and I met a rather brilliant blues guitar player (a young white guy), who had an unusual style: He played left-handed, and, on closer inspection, it was revealed that he was holding his guitar pick in his left hand (normal for a "leftie"), but he was holding it between his thumb and pinky finger!
He was missing the other three fingers on his left hand, entirely. They'd been 'lost' (at the knuckle!) in a nasty woodshop accident. That's bad enough, but it turned out the accident had only happened within the two years previous to the time I met the guy, and he was originally a right-handed guitarist! In other words, he'd played since early childhood, with all the fingers of his left hand being used to make the notes on the neck, while his right hand was the one doing the picking. I was astonished, no shit, and boy could he play.
This typing topic is interesting, sure, but let's not get carried away with switching keyboard layouts, or marginally faster typing, as being some sort of huge feat, eh?
"liable"
Right, and their business model/policy differs from Motorola, Samsung, LG et. al., and Verizon, MetroPCS, Sprint et. al., exactly how? So when Verizon cripples, or "meters," the built-in "features" of Android will that be Google's fault, or Verizon's or Motorola's, or, in the minds of you retarded Apple-haters, will that be more Apple shit? Fuck your logic pal.
Ah yes, and so much for neural net neutrality as well.
... when the Leafs win the Cup.
Jobs (meaning Apple, Inc) did not wait for an investigation, or the results of one, before alerting the SEC and the Press to the presence of irregularities in their stock option pricing methods. You want to be an Apple/Jobs hater? Fine with me, but focus on the facts in pursuit of that noble quest; there's enough of them.
I proofread and edited the Apple press release that went to the SEC through EDGAR, and I also considered a little insider trading when I realized I had market-moving information, and 30 minutes in which to act. I decided it wasn't worth risking the reputation/incarceration of a friend or two out in the "real" world, and demurred. I'm no saint, though. I just wasn't interested in taking anyone else down with me, and it was against company policy (to say the least) where I worked.
The company ended up firing me without cause, months later, on the exact day when my corporate medical plan was going into effect; they'd gotten wind that I was very ill. Corruption and lack of ethics come in all sorts of colors, don't they? When Steve Jobs's illness was over-reacted to in the Market, Apple stock plunged. I encouraged several friends with serious cash to double-down and pile into Apple. AAPL was at $80 ... my friends passed on that advice. (That was 108 AAPL dollars ago, by the way, in what? 10 months?)
My point is that there are many ways to cash in legitimately. It takes patience, finesse, logic, realism and work. Painting all company-men with the same brush is not exactly indicative of the presence of any of those traits.
Actually, they might have done that, but their main , most effective tactic was to sign agreements with the transporters of oil in those days-the trains-to triple the cost of shipment by train, and to have the railroads radically increase prices between certain points-that were used mainly by Standard's competitors-with destination points that were also served by Standard, thereby driving their competitors into near-extinction.
They had other tactics that were concerned with raising the costs of their competitors.
The Sherman Act is rather complex, and has been messed with over the years, but the original Section One of the Act seems tailor-made to criminalize Standard's primary business model. It boiled down to an agreement that restrained competition and had a negative impact on interstate commerce.
As far removed from what appears to be happening with the uploading and "sharing" of copyrighted entertainment material as the Standard Oil "business model" might seem to be, there are some unusual similarities. In a "free" market Price is supposedly set by a combination of supply and demand and a (de facto) mutually agreed-upon price point where the spread between the bid and asking price of an item or service reach a given point. As well, the existence of competitors is theoretically an additional advantage on the "buy" side for numerous reasons. But all of this idealized market theory falls apart in the entertainment business. Why?
The short answer, from me, is: "I don't know, exactly." But when I look at the market for a new CD by (for the sake of argument) Bruce Springsteen, here's what I see: A cheaply-produced replica (the actual CD) of a work, done by an artist under an exclusive contract with a single company (record label), available, remarkably, at a price point that varies only marginally from the price for the exact same item, everywhere in the country, AND, is also priced at the same point(s) as other works by numerous artists all over the country, not only from the same record Label, but all "competing" labels.
Bruce's work is exclusively available from one "label" so I can't go to Warners or MCA (etc) to see if they can deliver the "same" product at a lower cost. There's no tiered pricing mechanism in the so-called "legitimate" marketplace, so, for all intents and purposes the price of the item is "posted" (in the same way that Standard "posted" their arbitrarily-set pricing of oil back in the pre-anti trust days).
Wow, okay, let's ignore the obvious price-fixing (for brevity, ha ha) and look at the alternatives to the "posted" price. There's only one. And it isn't iTunes. It's free. What has gone so wrong here? Lots of things: Markets aren't free, prices are fixed, there's no de facto "competition" in terms of a specific work's availability, the supply/demand ratio is horribly skewed by the labels's insistence on enforcing the myth of "scarcity" despite the de facto existence of truly unlimited copies of the same item, etc.
So many people download "copies" of equal or lesser quality/value. That is a classic "free market" response,under the current, enforced business model. When the band, Radiohead, made a new work available on an honor system they were incredibly successful. The argument against that method being viable for any and all other groups was that Radiohead had "clout" in the market-place, and other less-known/talented/savvy/etc bands wouldn't be as successful. But isn't that the nature of free-market price-point agreement?
My view is that the labels are doomed to anachronistic existence if they fail to grasp the realities of the modern age/market. C'est la vie. As a parting shot, I chose Bruce Springsteen on purpose, of course, as an example. Back in the mid-Seventies, when Bruce decided to unilaterally renegotiate his then recently-signe
Who cares about the battery life? What I'd like to see was how they managed to find that variety of machinery and OS (etc), that ran the same background processes on hardware that had all the same components/performance and little things like voltage to each module of all units. And of course they must have made sure that all the operating systems were using the same shared libs and everything ... wow!!!!
I agree with you, because if having an army of lawyers isn't enough, there's an even money bet that the guy/artist involved has a clause in his contract that gives Sony some discretionary breathing room. Maybe the artist concerned had Sony over a barrel and didn't sign one of the variations of the typical recording contract out there. I seriously doubt it.
Big record labels are mostly lawyers and accountants. They can "prove" they "lost money" on almost anything, and if even one of this guy's records didn't turn profitable according to Sony ... he's almost certainly left himself open (via advances under terms of the contract) for them to use stuff that was recorded, but not used (at the time, AND, at Sony's discretion), to recoup their "losses."
To wit: "ce n'est pas mon faute, c'est la faute des autres." It's a bureaucratic passing of the buck a la française. [Not a bad rhyme, and sums up Apple's position, quite nicely]
After trying to decipher your original post, I think it's safe to say you could add "... and I'm not exactly "gifted" as far as my use of syntax is concerned, either."
As for your alleged theory I did a get kick out of the event referencing a "radical departure from normal flight" several steps (or your version of "sentences") after the one about the steep dive. All the butchered syntax in the World fails to convince me that a "steep dive" is considered "normal flight.
In an instrument flight situation a pilot usually has the ability to go "manual." However, in a panicky situation, if one guy does a logical 180 and decides to "fight" the instruments, then having two co-pilots, who might very well be shitting Twinkies at that point, themselves, to "help" execute the pilots orders, is just mob rule hellbent for catastrophe.
Most jobs these days require the use of an online application process. The unemployment rate, here in Silicon Valley, is between 9 and 11% depending on whom one asks, and the margin of error (not to mention the "long term" unemployed, agroup that is generally not factored into the statistics).
Being homeless, something I am familiar with (having been in that "boat" while doing chemo last year in the Twin Cities), is not the funniest situation to be in. Homelessness is also conducive to powerful feelings of estrangement from society, compelling feelings of lack of self worth, etc.
Although bewildering, given the lack of empathy or anything approaching "humanity" in our self-absorbed culture, even the homeless harbor longings to be a productive member of society.
Your comment, whilst being regarded as "funny", betrays a deficiency where "reading for retention" (or, perhaps, "comprehension") is concerned.
I find that rather "funny."
What an excellent piece; where are the mods?
I've often told younger people, when asked what really stopped the Vietnam War, that it was as good as over when those C-130s started unloading corn-fed Iowa and Nebraska boys, instead of Negroes.
Martin Luther King was killed after he started drawing the parallels between US foreign and domestic policy.
And today, desperate, angry victims of the West strap C4 to themselves for one reason: They don't have access to F-18s, drones and Stealth bombers.
I think it was JFK who said, "Those that make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." We see where that got him ...
Right. This is why I shouldn't be writing when I haven't slept for so long. Nevertheless, most people decide, first, if they will do, or not do something.My position was that those people need to use their heads.
But, you're right, the safety or advisability of it should be (or "have been") the primary part of that decision. Even when I was downloading things on a regular basis I was going through known, trusted posters, and never encountered issues of security or compromise. Lucky? Maybe. But being in a gimme-gimme mode with applications/executables from torrents seems unwise to me, as a rule (a primary rule, overriding questions of right or wrong).
Many, if not most, computer users are conditioned to click through installation processes.I bought a small app recently and in the install process I read through a screen that had boilerplate language to the effect of: "As always, it is advised that you make a complete backup of all personal data and operating system files before proceeding" and I wondered, "How many people are actually going to do that for an innocuous installation of a minor application from a well-known software house?"
My guess? Between few and none. For me, personally, someone on a razor-thin budget, whose "production" box is involved in speculative (not salaried) production, risk aversion heightened and safety became paramount a while ago, and I clamped down on silly actions, that disregarded risk, as a result. So I see your point, clearly.
I agree with what you are saying.An old saying is, "if you sleep with dogs, don't complain about fleas." The fact is there are people who are going to do this, for all sorts of reasons, right or wrong.
I'll give an example. I was a musician all my life, and i loved records, and I collected them. I would pay big prices for rarities, and sometimes find jems in a thrown-away box. But when I was on Usenet, back a while, I would see something like Beatles outtakes, and I would get them.
The question is, first, is that right or wrong? The answer is: It is wrong, because doing the wrong thing, for a defensibly (not "definitively") "right" reason, is still doing the wrong thing.
Unfortunately, the world has no shortage of ethical relativists, ahem. So, barring a change of heart, the next smartest move is to prepare oneself. Know the other party, take precautions, etc. I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just saying, if one makes their choices, right or wrong, it behooves them to at least try to use their heads. [Take precautions, or stifle the infringing urge and try the tried and true fair use, bargain-hunting, etc, methods that are available.]
In the final analysis when users shoot themselves in the foot, when it comes time to blame Apple, MS, drive-by web sites, etc, they don't have a leg to stand on. Whoosh, yikes. :=)
Why guys insist on downloading questionable things without some preventive measures in place, first, is beyond the scope of my tired head. But dumping Apple's default 5-minute "grace period" on sudo (or admin passwords, in other words) will kill third-party attempts to piggyback on any password that is being used by the legit user for privilege escalation.
In a console (Terminal):
[hit return, enter password]
scroll to: #Defaults specification, hit the letter 'o' to get a new line, and type:
then hit [Escape] to end the editing session, then ':w' plus [Enter] to write the file to disk, and finally ':q' plus [Enter] to quit visudo.
Done. I get tired of vi, of course, and will usually use BBEdit to open /private/etc/sudoers and enter the admin password once to 'unlock' sudoers, then scroll down and add the new default line, and save the file. Done, quicker.
A nefarious app or script can poll the system asking if there's escalation until kingdom come and it will never get an affirmative. End of story; end of file
Sure, be happy to. The guy in the article thinks his "mashup" is the next big thing, the alpha and the omega, etc. Fine. So he is saying two things that each have two parts:
The First Thing:
Buy some cheap Ramen noodles, and second part "on a credit card"
SUBTEXT: if you don't agree with him, you're a loser who needs to go live on cheap, non-nourishing stuff, that is if you can get credit (because anyone is already poor (in addition to stupid) if they don't see the brilliance in this guy's "next big thing")
The Second Thing:
Lie about your past, and second part, to get a shitty job. Since we're probably all broke and stupid, by default (according to this moron's subtext), we also need to INVENT some good-sounding FACTS about our WORK HISTORY, and use them in that online mlm-recruiter, everybody's-a-salesman mess known as LinkedIn, in a probably vain attempt to get illegitimate shit jobs.
SUBTEXT: We're all poorly-qualified in the past, and desperate re: the future. Why? Again, because we don't see things exactly the same way as the deluded asswipe in the article.
What the guy is really saying, without realizing it (because 'self-absorbed' and self aware' are two totally different things) is:
"If you're smart, you'd be better off unemployed and living on the worst noodles ever for the rest of your life, than being me for a single minute."
To which the reply is: "Of course we would."
hth
Don't feel bad. One of the 3 or 4 most common of the foodborne diseases, salmonellosis, has an overwhelming percentage of current known cases of illness, hospitalization and death rates being caused by "agents" that are as yet unknown/unidentified. [We're talking 64-81%] Check the CDC (Atlanta) which bases its data summaries on a lot of cross-compared data from multiple sources. That peanut plant in East Texas, for instance, had never been inspected, even after numerous whistleblower reports.
Just throw yourself in front of a train, or drive off a cliff, if you really want to be of help. Don't forget to bring the wife and kids. No sense being half-assed, eh Clem?
Why is this rated as redundant? The post previous to this one was from someone who was "Not a Lawyer" and the post I'm replying to is from someone who isn't a lawyer YET. Now, maybe it's just me, but when I see the "yet", I picture someone who has read at least a decent chunk of the ton of books associated with an education in the Law. Add the Lexis-Nexis maze of case histories, that are crucial to many papers written in Law Schools, and I see someone with a radically different POV (Point of View), and, as a result, an opinion that logically carries considerably more weight.
Redundant? Not at all. Some of the mods needed to ask Santa for an elementary dictionary, from the look of it.
Wow, you might have set the record for the most terse combination of talking out of both sides of the mouth, mixed with some pretty neat self-canceling logic. Nice one. That's not easy to do. Unless you're a politician or a banker. In which case one can apparently do it in their sleep.
I'm glad that laws like assault, murder, etc., weren't "composed" with the same, um, cyclical logic, house of mirrors, razzle dazzle. It's kind of like an intellect's version of an Escher drawing. Artistic. Totally dangerous, too, of course. It's no wonder politicians and corporations have such a highly-evolved sociopathic death grip on our so-called "citizens."
Please don't do it Mr Google, oh no, we aren't saying you can't, just please don't. Okay?
Priceless, and the first post, to boot. Wonderful, no really.
It might have something to do with the fact that so many millions of people in China have liver diseases. The estimate on just Hepatitis B is around 130 million. A lot of traditional Chinese medicine revolves around liver treatments, probably because "as goes the liver, so goes the rest." So there's a huge population to use in the understanding of all sorts of issues related to liver function.
Hepatitis C was first isolated in the late 70s, I think. The first test for it was 1981. But it is known, now, to have been developing for at least several thousand years. The various genotypes of C each have millions of sub-species, in a sense. And it is thought that those shifting, replicating sub-species (or quasi-species might be the "real" term) are responsible for our immune systems' inability to fight it off indefinitely. The actual virus is small enough that it has never even been "seen" with the best microscopes in existence. So, having hundreds of millions of interested "subjects" makes research there almost a no-brainer.
Ha ha, very funny! My chemo, for liver disease caused by blood products that were gathered at Arkansas, and later, Louisiana prison systems, comes to an end in two weeks (then follow-up). Those blood products cleared the FDA, despite not having been tested for hepatitis and HIV. Tests which were in existence for at least several years at that point. Connaught Labs. Blood is a billion dollar business, and nothing is as crucial to living as the functions (over 5,000) performed by livers every day.
But the idea that a liver that's going bad may allow you to wait a few years for a new extracorporeal? Don't bank on it pal. You'll drown in urine way before that happens. If you really sense you're having problems, get to a specialist. If you are noticing that it takes less alcohol to put you in gear, that's not a good sign. I don't need to know you, or anyone, to say that I wouldn't wish this shit on anybody. So, check it out. If I'm wrong, believe me, this is something I'd love being wrong about.
The Labels used looser terms with Amazon in an effort to rob Apple of some marketing muscle and negotiating "leverage" and it failed, on both counts.