He did no such thing. He issued a tentative ruling as a heads' up courtesy to the litigants. This will allow one, the other, or both one mad dash, last-ditch effort to get their shit together if they actually have any shit to get together before they get kicked up to the next level.
Had I made the post with both definitions in mind, I could have modified it so it could be read snarkily using the much-lesser used definition of "tuition," but I wasn't in that frame of mind when I wrote it.
To bring something useful to this pedantic tangent: There have been studies done on excessive tuition (instruction), and yes, excessive tuition is exhausting and has diminishing (sometimes leading to reversing) returns.
Of course it is possible to get a world class education for $100 or less, but education isn't why people go to college.
Not anymore, though that used to be the primary purpose of higher education. Back when it only cost $150/year ($3,000 in today's currency) to go to one of the top private universities in the US, that's what college was for. Of course, there was always a networking component, but that's actually also been true of just about every practical post-secondary endeavor in existence. I'm not sure why the latter is so often overlooked or the networking in non-higher-educational endeavors considered so much less useful as to be not worth comparing, except perhaps it conflicts with the goal of excusing higher education as better or more noble.
Now that the focus has shifted from education, university admission appeals (or can be made to appeal) to people who cannot or will not use the educational opportunities a place in a university affords them. This increases the demand for finite resources, with predictable results. It increases the number of people holding something that was once useful for filtering spots for finite employment positions, again with predictable results.
I'm all for higher education, but only for people who have a drive to be there. You are either driven to succeed and get in on merit, or you are driven to succeed and overcome the financial barriers to it. If you want summer camp, maybe we should start an industry for that. Then the campers won't make it all the harder for those who are truly driven to getting a high-quality education. On the other hand, I guess those who are must just simply look at them as another hurdle, since that's currently what they are.
While the end result of your complaint is true, the reason it is true is not likely the one you put forward (private education). With the exception of a fairly new breed of commercial diploma mills (which target those who make poor economic decisions, much like any other predatory industry), private universities in the USA are responding to the same pressure sources public universities are. Public universities have had funding cut, while private universities lost major chunks of their endowments to the latest recession.
Private universities have an extraordinarily long history in the USA, and it's not one of excessive tuition. Excessive tuition is a very recent occurrence, and if it was due entirely (or even mostly) to the existence of private universities as a major educational force it would have started a couple hundred years ago. Given that Harvard's yearly tuition as a top university in 1900 ($150) is only equivalent to about $3k today (compare that to any other university, public or private), it stands to reason there's something else behind the increases than "private means slavery!"
I believe we should teach the other side of every scientific theory. After all, if they're right there's nothing to fear from teaching the other side of the story. I'll be petitioning the most enlightened Texas SBOE for the inclusion of the following into their public education curriculum:
Gravity: The law, or is it? Thermodynamics: Perpetual motion via the power of belief! Newton's Laws of Motion: There's no opposing reaction to stoning a heretic. Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle: Jesus > displacement.
Yeah, I didn't mention that, but the depth and breadth of titles available on Netflix has drastically reduced my desire to watch new Hollywood movies.
I'm not averse to watching subtitled films, and there are hundreds of epic movies I have now found a way to browse which I otherwise would have never even known to exist.
Older series' I would have had to watch in broken chunks or download 5 seasons? No thanks... Now I watch them at my leisure (without commercials on Netflix; even with commercials on Hulu).
I also agree with tmosely's sibling comment: If the "premium" networks introduced their own subscription streaming models, they could seriously undermine the traditional broadcast networks at almost no cost to their own revenue streams. I know so many people who have maintained basic subscription services to them get premium services just to watch HBO or Showtime productions. Cable and satellite providers make a lot of money off HBO and Showtime, but the time is rapidly approaching when HBO and Showtime realize they do not need to feed the broadcasters but can instead derive the same profits and bypass those providers entirely. As a result, they'd probably pick up even more subscribers. I could easily be one of them.
Speaking of micro-payments not being financially viable, it would definitely be interesting to see some large, well-capitalized entity break from the traditional $0.xx + x% per transaction, and instead just do a simple %x. I honestly believe that would eventually end up revolutionizing the financial outlook of a large number of content distribution models. It would probably never make the obscene sums such as are raked in by current payment processors (who knows what the future holds though), but I doubt it would be small potatoes either.
When I started using Netflix my usage of torrents to get shows I missed or otherwise had a hard time seeing via legitimate means dropped to basically zero.
If Netflix survives, the studios will continue to get money of which they would otherwise not see a dime.
My order of preference is: 1) Watching via legal, on-demand ala carte means. 2) Watching via illegal means. 3) Not watching at all. 4) Watching via current mass media distribution networks.
Yup, that was my thought. The margins are so small that requiring payment is going to make the ones I'd be looking for either disappear or compensate in their prices. I might use it a few times to see if it's still worthwhile, but I'm guessing this change is going to remove the last of its marginal usefulness.
Bleh, I've modded but probably nothing that is likely to be overlooked by other mods.
So here goes...
The argument stems from the portions of the Old Testament which a given person/sect/church/"random other division" decides to take literally and which they decide to take figuratively. Since this is much more likely to be a Christian issue for those who answer affirmatively to a question of any similar phrasing, it also depends on which sections they see as having been specifically overridden by the New Testament and those which weren't.
Given that each and every part of the above can and does vary a great deal, you now have a recipe for a large amount of disagreement over things that one may see as inconsequential and another may see as a core tenet of their belief system.
How long the Earth has existed is exactly one of those issues. There is even a fairly widely-used term to describe those who believe the Earth is no more than 5 figures old: Young Earthers. And yes, they even exist in the hard sciences, including a couple PhD geologists I'm aware of.
Free markets require knowledgeable consumers, as well as reductions in artificial barriers, in order to operate efficiently. I have no problem finding high price items which are well-made and also finding those which are crap. The difference is not that the market failed in those circumstances, but that I bothered to learn what was necessary to distinguish between the offerings.
I can think of few industries (and those all have an extremely limited pool of providers for good reason or otherwise have very specific regulatory controls) where due diligence will not turn up meaningful differences is cost and quality analysis amongst the various product offerings.
I'm not making a blanket statement that they are the best at fulfilling efficient cost-quality distributions in all markets though. That would be as ignorant as making an implied statement that they don't ever fulfill that role.
It's not a big assumption, because in order for drivers to work on secure boot hardware they have to be signed with a key resident in the UEFI BIOS. Guess which one will be the only default key pretty much guaranteed to reside in the BIOS? Microsoft's. Since the drivers can only be signed once, guess which key they'll be signed with? Microsoft's.
It's also not something that just affects low-end PCs. Anything certified to run Windows must comply with the process. This includes servers, tablets, high-end PCs, etc. As for other architectures, not only does it affect ARM, but secure boot cannot even be disabled on ARM and keys cannot be added after it leaves the equipment manufacturer. If your signing key doesn't come on it from the factory, you can't boot the device with it. At least in the case of ARM, the machines running Windows won't likely be designed to run anything else.
At least generic drivers usually exist for OEM hardware, since otherwise this would mean OEM hardware would probably no longer be usable on a motherboard not produced by that same OEM.
The US makes very little in the way of consumer goods. However, that is balanced by the fact they they produced some of the largest, most complex technical machinery made anywhere in the world.
I'm not a fan of off-shoring, but to say the US produces very little is disingenuous at best.
Well, obviously the Commerce Clause explicitly permits everything. Since it permits everything, there's nothing left to reserve to the States or the People.
If it's engaged in commerce, it falls under the Clause. If it's not, the lack of interaction in commerce affects commerce and falls under the Clause. End of story, according to SCOTUS.
The Constitution now begins and ends with the Commerce Clause, with very limited exceptions.
As artificial constructs existing at the pleasure of the State, their protections and obligations should be spelled out differently from those of natural people. I understand that, for the most part, they are not, and this is simply a question of my belief on what should be theoretically.
They are legal persons as a matter of expediency for the purposes of enforcing the law. There's no reason that they must be treated as people in areas where it creates impediments to the goals corporations were established to further.
People like to argue that making such changes would violate the rights of actual people in certain regards. This could not be further from the truth. Incorporation is but one of a number of options for collective operation, and is only really required as a means of legal protection for the principles in an operation they cannot reasonably oversee all of (thus legitimately having a reason to limit their liability for actions performed by others). Organizations created for the purpose of engaging in protected activities collectively could easily have other guidelines for operation, but being able to limit liability legally is an enormous legal advantage that individuals do not easily have access to in engaging in their own private, protected activities.
Granted, I have not explored some of the more complex intricacies of the "collective rights" arguments, so it's entirely possible there are important points I have not considered. I have a hard time believing that reasonable compromises could not be made which protect individual rights, assembly rights, and prevent wholesale purchasing of political power by massive entities. Who knows though, I could be entirely wrong and such changes could make things worse.
Slashdot Mirror
He did no such thing. He issued a tentative ruling as a heads' up courtesy to the litigants. This will allow one, the other, or both one mad dash, last-ditch effort to get their shit together if they actually have any shit to get together before they get kicked up to the next level.
8 brazillian DPI is a marketing ploy
Anything kinky is a marketing ploy, but they're effective ploys. Lots of people will buy the video.
Oh, wait...
Had I made the post with both definitions in mind, I could have modified it so it could be read snarkily using the much-lesser used definition of "tuition," but I wasn't in that frame of mind when I wrote it.
To bring something useful to this pedantic tangent:
There have been studies done on excessive tuition (instruction), and yes, excessive tuition is exhausting and has diminishing (sometimes leading to reversing) returns.
The waveform he surfed on collapsed when people viewed it. He was surfing when nobody was looking.
Of course it is possible to get a world class education for $100 or less, but education isn't why people go to college.
Not anymore, though that used to be the primary purpose of higher education. Back when it only cost $150/year ($3,000 in today's currency) to go to one of the top private universities in the US, that's what college was for. Of course, there was always a networking component, but that's actually also been true of just about every practical post-secondary endeavor in existence. I'm not sure why the latter is so often overlooked or the networking in non-higher-educational endeavors considered so much less useful as to be not worth comparing, except perhaps it conflicts with the goal of excusing higher education as better or more noble.
Now that the focus has shifted from education, university admission appeals (or can be made to appeal) to people who cannot or will not use the educational opportunities a place in a university affords them. This increases the demand for finite resources, with predictable results. It increases the number of people holding something that was once useful for filtering spots for finite employment positions, again with predictable results.
I'm all for higher education, but only for people who have a drive to be there. You are either driven to succeed and get in on merit, or you are driven to succeed and overcome the financial barriers to it. If you want summer camp, maybe we should start an industry for that. Then the campers won't make it all the harder for those who are truly driven to getting a high-quality education. On the other hand, I guess those who are must just simply look at them as another hurdle, since that's currently what they are.
While the end result of your complaint is true, the reason it is true is not likely the one you put forward (private education). With the exception of a fairly new breed of commercial diploma mills (which target those who make poor economic decisions, much like any other predatory industry), private universities in the USA are responding to the same pressure sources public universities are. Public universities have had funding cut, while private universities lost major chunks of their endowments to the latest recession.
Private universities have an extraordinarily long history in the USA, and it's not one of excessive tuition. Excessive tuition is a very recent occurrence, and if it was due entirely (or even mostly) to the existence of private universities as a major educational force it would have started a couple hundred years ago. Given that Harvard's yearly tuition as a top university in 1900 ($150) is only equivalent to about $3k today (compare that to any other university, public or private), it stands to reason there's something else behind the increases than "private means slavery!"
I believe we should teach the other side of every scientific theory. After all, if they're right there's nothing to fear from teaching the other side of the story.
I'll be petitioning the most enlightened Texas SBOE for the inclusion of the following into their public education curriculum:
Gravity: The law, or is it?
Thermodynamics: Perpetual motion via the power of belief!
Newton's Laws of Motion: There's no opposing reaction to stoning a heretic.
Archimedes' Buoyancy Principle: Jesus > displacement.
21-12 = 9 years, and the program was an M.D. combined with a PhD. in molecular genetics and cell biology.
Happy to help. :)
Yeah, I didn't mention that, but the depth and breadth of titles available on Netflix has drastically reduced my desire to watch new Hollywood movies.
I'm not averse to watching subtitled films, and there are hundreds of epic movies I have now found a way to browse which I otherwise would have never even known to exist.
Older series' I would have had to watch in broken chunks or download 5 seasons? No thanks... Now I watch them at my leisure (without commercials on Netflix; even with commercials on Hulu).
I also agree with tmosely's sibling comment: If the "premium" networks introduced their own subscription streaming models, they could seriously undermine the traditional broadcast networks at almost no cost to their own revenue streams. I know so many people who have maintained basic subscription services to them get premium services just to watch HBO or Showtime productions. Cable and satellite providers make a lot of money off HBO and Showtime, but the time is rapidly approaching when HBO and Showtime realize they do not need to feed the broadcasters but can instead derive the same profits and bypass those providers entirely. As a result, they'd probably pick up even more subscribers. I could easily be one of them.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/27/apple-patent-ejectable-sim-card-tray-nano-sim-war/
Yes.
Speaking of micro-payments not being financially viable, it would definitely be interesting to see some large, well-capitalized entity break from the traditional $0.xx + x% per transaction, and instead just do a simple %x. I honestly believe that would eventually end up revolutionizing the financial outlook of a large number of content distribution models. It would probably never make the obscene sums such as are raked in by current payment processors (who knows what the future holds though), but I doubt it would be small potatoes either.
This.
When I started using Netflix my usage of torrents to get shows I missed or otherwise had a hard time seeing via legitimate means dropped to basically zero.
If Netflix survives, the studios will continue to get money of which they would otherwise not see a dime.
My order of preference is:
1) Watching via legal, on-demand ala carte means.
2) Watching via illegal means.
3) Not watching at all.
4) Watching via current mass media distribution networks.
Yup, that was my thought. The margins are so small that requiring payment is going to make the ones I'd be looking for either disappear or compensate in their prices. I might use it a few times to see if it's still worthwhile, but I'm guessing this change is going to remove the last of its marginal usefulness.
Bleh, I've modded but probably nothing that is likely to be overlooked by other mods.
So here goes...
The argument stems from the portions of the Old Testament which a given person/sect/church/"random other division" decides to take literally and which they decide to take figuratively. Since this is much more likely to be a Christian issue for those who answer affirmatively to a question of any similar phrasing, it also depends on which sections they see as having been specifically overridden by the New Testament and those which weren't.
Given that each and every part of the above can and does vary a great deal, you now have a recipe for a large amount of disagreement over things that one may see as inconsequential and another may see as a core tenet of their belief system.
How long the Earth has existed is exactly one of those issues. There is even a fairly widely-used term to describe those who believe the Earth is no more than 5 figures old: Young Earthers. And yes, they even exist in the hard sciences, including a couple PhD geologists I'm aware of.
Free markets require knowledgeable consumers, as well as reductions in artificial barriers, in order to operate efficiently. I have no problem finding high price items which are well-made and also finding those which are crap. The difference is not that the market failed in those circumstances, but that I bothered to learn what was necessary to distinguish between the offerings.
I can think of few industries (and those all have an extremely limited pool of providers for good reason or otherwise have very specific regulatory controls) where due diligence will not turn up meaningful differences is cost and quality analysis amongst the various product offerings.
I'm not making a blanket statement that they are the best at fulfilling efficient cost-quality distributions in all markets though. That would be as ignorant as making an implied statement that they don't ever fulfill that role.
As far as I'm aware, Nokia doesn't hold the patent on push-push, and if they do it's prior art because they likely made it prior art.
Two of the three designs incorporate push-push. The one which doesn't is Apple's. It requires a SIM tray, which Apple does hold a patent on.
Like most legal definitions, "monopoly" does not mean what most people think it means.
The payment actually goes to Verisign, not Microsoft.
It's not a big assumption, because in order for drivers to work on secure boot hardware they have to be signed with a key resident in the UEFI BIOS. Guess which one will be the only default key pretty much guaranteed to reside in the BIOS? Microsoft's. Since the drivers can only be signed once, guess which key they'll be signed with? Microsoft's.
It's also not something that just affects low-end PCs. Anything certified to run Windows must comply with the process. This includes servers, tablets, high-end PCs, etc. As for other architectures, not only does it affect ARM, but secure boot cannot even be disabled on ARM and keys cannot be added after it leaves the equipment manufacturer. If your signing key doesn't come on it from the factory, you can't boot the device with it. At least in the case of ARM, the machines running Windows won't likely be designed to run anything else.
At least generic drivers usually exist for OEM hardware, since otherwise this would mean OEM hardware would probably no longer be usable on a motherboard not produced by that same OEM.
You'll be stone dead in a moment.
The US makes very little in the way of consumer goods. However, that is balanced by the fact they they produced some of the largest, most complex technical machinery made anywhere in the world.
I'm not a fan of off-shoring, but to say the US produces very little is disingenuous at best.
Well, obviously the Commerce Clause explicitly permits everything. Since it permits everything, there's nothing left to reserve to the States or the People.
If it's engaged in commerce, it falls under the Clause. If it's not, the lack of interaction in commerce affects commerce and falls under the Clause. End of story, according to SCOTUS.
The Constitution now begins and ends with the Commerce Clause, with very limited exceptions.
As artificial constructs existing at the pleasure of the State, their protections and obligations should be spelled out differently from those of natural people. I understand that, for the most part, they are not, and this is simply a question of my belief on what should be theoretically.
They are legal persons as a matter of expediency for the purposes of enforcing the law. There's no reason that they must be treated as people in areas where it creates impediments to the goals corporations were established to further.
People like to argue that making such changes would violate the rights of actual people in certain regards. This could not be further from the truth. Incorporation is but one of a number of options for collective operation, and is only really required as a means of legal protection for the principles in an operation they cannot reasonably oversee all of (thus legitimately having a reason to limit their liability for actions performed by others). Organizations created for the purpose of engaging in protected activities collectively could easily have other guidelines for operation, but being able to limit liability legally is an enormous legal advantage that individuals do not easily have access to in engaging in their own private, protected activities.
Granted, I have not explored some of the more complex intricacies of the "collective rights" arguments, so it's entirely possible there are important points I have not considered. I have a hard time believing that reasonable compromises could not be made which protect individual rights, assembly rights, and prevent wholesale purchasing of political power by massive entities. Who knows though, I could be entirely wrong and such changes could make things worse.