Personally, I'd not want a BAN on incandescents, just a "wattage tax" on lightbulbs, say $4/100W tax on bulbs regardless of the mechanism (LED, CFL, incandescent). Just something equivelent to 1 hour a day use for 1 year (assuming.14 kwh power cost), so that at the register you actually see what the bulb will cost.
Tax tax tax, that's all some of you people seem to want. Yet another way to take money out of our pockets, most likely to spend of programs the majority would never agree to in the first place. (Hint: If the majority did agree it was a wonderful idea, we'd probably already be doing it.
Where your hasty plan fails is that it doesn't take into effect the different lifespans of the different lighting technologies. If someone wants to burn 40W incandescent for whatever reason, instead of 40W CFL, why should they have to pay TWELVE TIMES AS MUCH (given the relative lifespans of the two technologies) for one over the other? You can't tell me that's fair.
...incandescent lamps currently provide at a price that will be less than CFLs.
Okay, they'll cost less than the $1.50/ea that GE CFL's cost in six-packs at Wal-Mart today. Will they last as long too? Just how will their overall cost of ownership compare to CFL's is what I'd like to know.
Excuse me, but are Tax Experts asking the IRS to require this reporting, or is the IRS trying to do it itself while shifting the blame to others. Most "Tax Experts" don't worry much about what the IRS doesn't know about itself. This is like the RIAA claiming that their extortion victims are calling for their ISPs to report on them without the need to go to court first because the RIAA is promising lower settlement amounts in these cases. Neither of these two stories wash well with me.
Or a file can be downloaded from multiple mirrors at once, usually making the download go much faster.
M users simultaneously download from N servers individually. Or M users simultaneously download from N servers in parallel. Aside from some load balancing, can you really gain dramatically? The same number of bytes must be transfered from the same number of servers.
I guess holding down the Shift key doesn't work for you.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(for the lame ones among you who didn't get the joke, yes I know he's using Linux.)
Re:Isn't that what they want? Not Quite!
on
DRM Causes Piracy
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Frankly, I don't think it's really the ads that ticked people off -
Not so fast here. The ads may not have ticked you off the first time you played the disc. But what about the second time? After all, nobody buys a DVD to only play once.
2) DRM-protected content is cheap - cheaper than their physical equivalents.
Weren't you listening??? DRM protected content is much less useful than the physical equivalent. To some people it's worth nothing at all since they can't play it on their own preferred music player. So they look for content they actually use.
And while the music industry has yet to lose a sale from me because of illegal downloading, they're not producing much I want to hear these days either. Hip-Hop, and Rap Music (an oxymoron if there ever was one) are not on my playlists. The Beatles are, but they can't be bought on-line yet.
'm more concerned about banks that help the super-rich hide their money from the IRS than ones that help impoverished migrant workers open up checking accounts.
I'm concerned about BOTH! And ignoring one to focus on the other is no acceptable solution.
I figured there would have been a much larger rush of people to move their accounts away from them.
The problem is that there are fewer and fewer acceptable choices every year as alternatives. BofA isn't the only bank you wouldn't want to do business with.
Are these kinds of organized 'advocate mobs' going to be the future of internet activism?
The short answer: Yes!
The longer answer: Yes, as long as it's more effective than other courts or methods. Banks that did nothing wrong should have little to fear from a better informed consumer.
forget about the RIAA for a moment and think of all the other cases that could use an overturned decision to their advantage citing "precedence" from this case.
Sorry. Nice idea, won't work. The fees were awarded under the specific tenets of The Copyright Act itself. The judge refused to award fees under the more general statutes regarding recovery of costs as the prevailing party. This logic only works under suits regarding copyright infringment.
The RIAA also bemoans what it calls the premature end of the discovery process
More accurately, The the premature end to the fishing expedition attempting to locate the actual person who did the infringement because there's no evidence at all that the already sued Internet account holder ever even touched a computer keyboard themselves, let alone actually committed the infringement, if any!
Remember: Providing files to hired Media Sentry investigators is not copyright infringement under the law!
I'd like to see the RIAA punished double for this. They don't know when to quit. They extort<<<<<< sue the wrong people who don't have their deep pockets, and then do everything possible to avoid responsibility for their mistakes when clearly proven wrong. Losing a case may not matter to them, however, anything involving the legal system costs the average consumer piles of money. The RIAA is pure Evil in this regard -- and that's without even going into their outright lies that: We're only doing this to protect the artists. I call total Bullshit on that claim!
And just what is this "Stalking" law they can be charged under? TFA didn't give any details.
IMnsHO, any judge that doesn't toss this case immediately needs to be impeached. And if the Chief of Police doesn't at least suspend this officer for a month w/o pay, that chief needs to be tossed as well. Where's the media in this? Where's Bill O'Reilly? 60 Minutes? Frontline? This is insane!!
Oh, that will solve it. Just make it illegal, and end of problem. Yeah, right. Until you can track, smash their computer toys in front of their eyes, empty their bank accounts, and lock them away for a good number of years, passing all the laws in the world is simply feel-good do nothing crap. And two years max isn't nearly enough!
Slashdot Mirror
Tax tax tax, that's all some of you people seem to want. Yet another way to take money out of our pockets, most likely to spend of programs the majority would never agree to in the first place. (Hint: If the majority did agree it was a wonderful idea, we'd probably already be doing it.
Where your hasty plan fails is that it doesn't take into effect the different lifespans of the different lighting technologies. If someone wants to burn 40W incandescent for whatever reason, instead of 40W CFL, why should they have to pay TWELVE TIMES AS MUCH (given the relative lifespans of the two technologies) for one over the other? You can't tell me that's fair.
Okay, they'll cost less than the $1.50/ea that GE CFL's cost in six-packs at Wal-Mart today. Will they last as long too? Just how will their overall cost of ownership compare to CFL's is what I'd like to know.
This is a case of awkward good timing, given California's and other's desire to ban the incandescent light bulb entirely.
Do I need my ocarina equipped for this first?
Hey, if I see a jackpot, even for only one screen frame scan, I EXPECT TO GET PAID!
Don't fight wars where they observe Daylight Savings Time.
And run a hundred copies of your battle software as virtual machines, so that if one crashes you've got 99 hot standby's to switch to.
What has likely changed is were the paycheck came from this week.
Excuse me, but are Tax Experts asking the IRS to require this reporting, or is the IRS trying to do it itself while shifting the blame to others. Most "Tax Experts" don't worry much about what the IRS doesn't know about itself. This is like the RIAA claiming that their extortion victims are calling for their ISPs to report on them without the need to go to court first because the RIAA is promising lower settlement amounts in these cases. Neither of these two stories wash well with me.
M users simultaneously download from N servers individually. Or M users simultaneously download from N servers in parallel. Aside from some load balancing, can you really gain dramatically? The same number of bytes must be transfered from the same number of servers.
(for the lame ones among you who didn't get the joke, yes I know he's using Linux.)
Not so fast here. The ads may not have ticked you off the first time you played the disc. But what about the second time? After all, nobody buys a DVD to only play once.
Weren't you listening??? DRM protected content is much less useful than the physical equivalent. To some people it's worth nothing at all since they can't play it on their own preferred music player. So they look for content they actually use.
And while the music industry has yet to lose a sale from me because of illegal downloading, they're not producing much I want to hear these days either. Hip-Hop, and Rap Music (an oxymoron if there ever was one) are not on my playlists. The Beatles are, but they can't be bought on-line yet.
Your definition of "good" differs from mine. My idea of "good" would to have not had it fail in the first place.
This appears to be a case where Prior Art really is Prior Art. How can you copyright something that's already 500+ years old?
I'm concerned about BOTH! And ignoring one to focus on the other is no acceptable solution.
The problem is that there are fewer and fewer acceptable choices every year as alternatives. BofA isn't the only bank you wouldn't want to do business with.
The short answer: Yes!
The longer answer: Yes, as long as it's more effective than other courts or methods. Banks that did nothing wrong should have little to fear from a better informed consumer.
Sorry. Nice idea, won't work. The fees were awarded under the specific tenets of The Copyright Act itself. The judge refused to award fees under the more general statutes regarding recovery of costs as the prevailing party. This logic only works under suits regarding copyright infringment.
More accurately, The the premature end to the fishing expedition attempting to locate the actual person who did the infringement because there's no evidence at all that the already sued Internet account holder ever even touched a computer keyboard themselves, let alone actually committed the infringement, if any!
Remember: Providing files to hired Media Sentry investigators is not copyright infringement under the law!
I'd like to see the RIAA punished double for this. They don't know when to quit. They extort<<<<<< sue the wrong people who don't have their deep pockets, and then do everything possible to avoid responsibility for their mistakes when clearly proven wrong. Losing a case may not matter to them, however, anything involving the legal system costs the average consumer piles of money. The RIAA is pure Evil in this regard -- and that's without even going into their outright lies that: We're only doing this to protect the artists. I call total Bullshit on that claim!
If the Internet Archive did this, I'll never trust them again as either impartial, or accurate. And I'd surely never give them any money.
IMnsHO, any judge that doesn't toss this case immediately needs to be impeached. And if the Chief of Police doesn't at least suspend this officer for a month w/o pay, that chief needs to be tossed as well. Where's the media in this? Where's Bill O'Reilly? 60 Minutes? Frontline? This is insane!!
Breaking their fingers is a good thought as well.
The think is selling the moment it arrives at the store, and someone is claiming that the excitement id dying??? WTF???
I like to use software after it has come its long way.