In the article, it clearly states that like the mortgage boom, student lending also suffered from the same lax paperwork that plagued some mortgages. Invest companies were in such a hurry to buy loans that they didn't keep up with the paperwork or good record keeping. In a few cases mentioned in the article it's not just a matter of the person getting off free; the bad records meant the borrower trying to levy penalties for loans that the borrower never made. So then the lender has to prove that they own any of the loans but they can't prove it.
I'm confused; there isn't any reason why Comcast can't sell a particular service to automobile manufacturers, or self-driving car users, etc. Any ISP can provide a speciality service to anyone they want to provide it to, at least that is my understanding.
Depends on if that specialty service cripples other things without you having to pay more for your other services. Should all that be legal?
I thought that the idea of net neutrality and common carrier status is that if I (a consumer) purchase a general purpose Internet service, Comcast (the provider), doesn't interfere with the data that I want to transmit/receive over that service, regardless of where the data comes from; and doesn't start charging more just because the data is coming from source A rather than B.
Yes but Comcast also selling a service has been known to interfere with traffic that competes with them.
Bad analogy. A better analogy to what is proposing is that Comcast wants a toll road that's "faster". By "faster" they mean faster than what they have before but not faster than existing, competing roads. But you have to pay them whatever they'll charge. Your car manufacturer will also have to pay them for you to use your car. Also they get to dictate what kind of cars use the road. Also they sell cars themselves that will go faster than any cars you want to use--somehow. And if anyone else builds a competing road like your city, they'll sue them so a competing toll road doesn't get built.
I'm not familiar with Ethereum but does it have scheduled declines in the rate of return? I know bitcoin did in that periodically the reward for finding a Bitcoin was scheduled to drop over time. That and the number of Bitcoins dropping meant that after a while it simply wasn't profitable to mine anymore
If they are wired controllers, they should come with really long cables. That's one mistake Nintendo made with the NES Classic; people have bigger TVs and control them from further away than when the original
console was new.
I am well aware of what a ROM is. How does the act of making a ROM in any way remove the copyrights of the game? It doesn't remove any copyrights. At best it's space or format shifting which could fall under Fair Use if and only if the ROM is never distributed.
Yeah it would be nice if the companies do this; however, tracking down the actual owners might be a large task in itself. Companies have been bought and sold as well as the rights to the games themselves. In some cases it might be owned by major studios who want large amounts of money for any rights even if they never want to make a game from the franchise again.
why can't really just buy the roms and use your own emulators??
Buy the ROMs? I'm not sure what you are asking. There are cartridges of the old games. Getting the cartridges out of the old games and making them ROMs might, maybe constitute space shifting at best which is allowed under Fair Use. However, it only falls under Fair Use if the person that does it doesn't re-distribute the ROMs. Distribution or re-distribution can only be done legally by the copyright holder.
This is the same for any content. I can rip any of my movies off of DVDs or Blurays and put them on my computers. I can even network my computers so I can play the movies in any room in the house. It's copyright infringement if I BitTorrent or upload them to the world.
Most likely not. ROMs are legal grey areas. It could be considered copyright infringement if the copyright holder decided to pursue legal action. And this Atari company isn't exactly the same company as the one from the 1980s; I doubt they own any of the copyrights of the old games.
You know how I know you didn't watch the old series? You're technically correct - they didn't climb, but they did float right up them in later episodes of the original run.
You know why they didn't climb stairs? It was a matter of practicality and budget. Now there is more money, Daleks can go wherever. If the writers stuck with "legacy" they don't make them as mobile as they are now. If they stuck with "legacy" the Cybermen would look antiquated. If they stuck with "legacy" most alien species would look like an actor in a mask.
None of which makes it a good idea to change the Doctor's sex.
What part of "legacy" Doctor Who ever said that the regeneration could not be into a woman. I'm guessing no part. But it was implied because of the time in TV where men were always going to be leads. No one was ever going to give a woman the lead in a TV series back then especially a Sci-fi one. "Legacy" is a poor excuse to not use a woman. Legacy would be the same reason why Uhura shouldn't be a black woman. Or Sulu an Asian.
[sarcasm]Yes because in decades past so many TV shows like Doctor Who had women as leads. I can't imagine how men got TV roles back then. Especially in the Sci-fi genre. [/sarcasm]
The modern writers of Doctor Who have been using it to push a left wing, gay, genderless agenda and are ruining it in the process.
You seem triggered that writers of TV show decided to use a woman in a fictional universe. Perhaps you need a safe space.
Why would a person that believes nothing of value could possibly exist on an unmarked storage medium of unknown contents call for immediate destruction of the storage medium?
Maybe that person knows about the storage medium more than you. For example, the types of tapes that were used were never used for data that NASA would deem necessary. Second, it's not immediate destruction. NASA physically examined the tapes in 2015. It's now 2017. I'd 2 years is not "immediate".
It sounds like an archivist shirking their due-diligence and trying to get someone else to destroy the evidence just in case they are wrong.
That's a conspiracy theory and a half. You could say the archivist was just lazy and didn't want to look through all the tapes. Saying that he/she wants to destroy evidence is a bit much.
There are lots of things that are legacy that have changed or further clarified. From what I remember (I could be wrong about this), Gallifrey was destroyed in the Time War but nothing was said that it was actually the Doctor that was the one that did it. It was known that the Daleks and the Time Lords were combatants but nothing about how Gallifrey was destroyed. The newer episodes also shows why the Doctor felt he had to destroy Gallifrey and the Daleks and how he could not bring them back without bringing back other things out of the Time Lock
or that they can can change their biological sex during regeneration.
Nothing?
1) In the prequel The Night of the Doctor, The Sisterhood of Karn could control the regeneration: "Time Lord science is elevated here on Karn. The change doesn't have to be random. Fat or thin, young or old. Man or woman?"
2) Missy
3) In Season 9, in the Episode "Hell Bent", the General regenerates from an older white man to an older black woman.
Who cares about legacy?
Legacy also says that Daleks can't climb stairs too.
There have been three examples in the last several seasons that explicitly show/state that a Time Lord can be regenerate into a female.
1) In the prequel The Night of the Doctor The Sisterhood of Karn could control the regeneration: "Time Lord science is elevated here on Karn. The change doesn't have to be random. Fat or thin, young or old. Man or woman?"
2) Missy
3) In Season 9, in the Episode "Hell Bent", the General regenerates from an older white man to an older black woman.
Making them illegal requires a different piece of legislation. This particular legislation does not thing about that. However if we are talking about making strong encryption software illegal, the world has been down that road before. It didn't work out then; it's not going to work out now.
The archivist knows nothing about the content of the tapes, not even if they were blank. At best, he's guessing. At worst, he's too lazy to do his job.
The archivist did physically examine the tapes but did not read them. They might require a great of work locating the right equipment. He also noted that many of them had severe to moderate mold.
The owner says: "They belonged to IBM Allegheny Center Pittsburgh, PA 15212. During the 1968-1972 timeframe, IBM was getting rid of the items so [redacted engineer] asked if he could have them and was told he could have them."
So maybe the archivist knows something about the data that IBM handled during that time frame that most people don't.
An educated guess requires some basis in facts. So you have a background in lobbying? You've kept up to date with how much the opposition spends on lobbyists? No. You present no facts yet want to pretend that your lack of facts is the same as someone else's facts. You're just lying at that point.
Point remains, there is a gaping omission in TFA... So gaping, so obviously contrary to the journalistic rules and traditions, that it can only be deliberate. A lie by omission [rationalwiki.org].
You made your point that the author didn't present the other side. But you also made up numbers and tried to lie about it. When caught in a lie, you try to shift it to say the other person lied. Please.
You didn't finish reading the page I linked to... But you did trip over Godwin's Law [catb.org].
At this point you just lie and lie and lie. Why should anyone believe anything you have to say?
The archivist didn't look on the tapes but perhaps the archivist knew enough about the computer to know nothing of value could exist. For example the control reels may not be data but software for controlling a piece of equipment. Since that equipment doesn't have use anymore what would be point of needing the control software?
Tremendous negative pressures. If you go much further than the stratosphere, negative pressures increase exponentially.
Well that's factually, mathematically, and scientifically impossible. On the surface of the Earth, the pressue is 1atm or 101.325 kPa. The least amount of pressure you can have is 0 as in a vacuum of space. It's not possible to have negative pressure much less exponentially increasing negative pressure.
Only if the message is ever stored in plain text locally. Otherwise that requires malware to be installed and surveillance software from the device. That's more than access. For example if a user is using end-to-end encrypted messaging app done well the message shows up only as plain text is within the app on the screen. In order to access that text, either the phone/device has to be capturing what is happening on screen. The app could also be set to never save the message once it's been shown.
The other alternative is the device knows where the app is storing the key and using it. Again that requires more than simple access.
Here is the correct statement: to counter the research someone has done, I pointed out a gaping omission in it.
Again where did your $100M estimate come from? Out of thin air? So in essence you're just making things up.
Uh, I dunno, maybe this part [journalists.org]?
BAHAHAHAHAHA. You know none of what you posted says anything of the sort. By your logic when reporting on the Holocaust, journalism must present the Nazis in a favorable light.
"I keep my eyes open when I go about the world."
No, you specifically said that you were not a journalist and then proceeded to say how journalists didn't do their jobs according to your standards. In other words you acknowledged lack of expertise while giving out an opinion on that same subject area. It's like saying "I'm not a doctor but that doctor performed surgery incorrectly." Why don't you just admit you had no idea and am just making things up.
Weird, is not it? I wish, journalists knew as much about some other profession — any other profession — as I know about theirs...
Journalists don't claim they do. You do. So are you lying when you do?
Slashdot Mirror
In the article, it clearly states that like the mortgage boom, student lending also suffered from the same lax paperwork that plagued some mortgages. Invest companies were in such a hurry to buy loans that they didn't keep up with the paperwork or good record keeping. In a few cases mentioned in the article it's not just a matter of the person getting off free; the bad records meant the borrower trying to levy penalties for loans that the borrower never made. So then the lender has to prove that they own any of the loans but they can't prove it.
I'm confused; there isn't any reason why Comcast can't sell a particular service to automobile manufacturers, or self-driving car users, etc. Any ISP can provide a speciality service to anyone they want to provide it to, at least that is my understanding.
Depends on if that specialty service cripples other things without you having to pay more for your other services. Should all that be legal?
I thought that the idea of net neutrality and common carrier status is that if I (a consumer) purchase a general purpose Internet service, Comcast (the provider), doesn't interfere with the data that I want to transmit/receive over that service, regardless of where the data comes from; and doesn't start charging more just because the data is coming from source A rather than B.
Yes but Comcast also selling a service has been known to interfere with traffic that competes with them.
Bad analogy. A better analogy to what is proposing is that Comcast wants a toll road that's "faster". By "faster" they mean faster than what they have before but not faster than existing, competing roads. But you have to pay them whatever they'll charge. Your car manufacturer will also have to pay them for you to use your car. Also they get to dictate what kind of cars use the road. Also they sell cars themselves that will go faster than any cars you want to use--somehow. And if anyone else builds a competing road like your city, they'll sue them so a competing toll road doesn't get built.
I'm not familiar with Ethereum but does it have scheduled declines in the rate of return? I know bitcoin did in that periodically the reward for finding a Bitcoin was scheduled to drop over time. That and the number of Bitcoins dropping meant that after a while it simply wasn't profitable to mine anymore
If they are wired controllers, they should come with really long cables. That's one mistake Nintendo made with the NES Classic; people have bigger TVs and control them from further away than when the original console was new.
I am well aware of what a ROM is. How does the act of making a ROM in any way remove the copyrights of the game? It doesn't remove any copyrights. At best it's space or format shifting which could fall under Fair Use if and only if the ROM is never distributed.
Yeah it would be nice if the companies do this; however, tracking down the actual owners might be a large task in itself. Companies have been bought and sold as well as the rights to the games themselves. In some cases it might be owned by major studios who want large amounts of money for any rights even if they never want to make a game from the franchise again.
why can't really just buy the roms and use your own emulators??
Buy the ROMs? I'm not sure what you are asking. There are cartridges of the old games. Getting the cartridges out of the old games and making them ROMs might, maybe constitute space shifting at best which is allowed under Fair Use. However, it only falls under Fair Use if the person that does it doesn't re-distribute the ROMs. Distribution or re-distribution can only be done legally by the copyright holder.
This is the same for any content. I can rip any of my movies off of DVDs or Blurays and put them on my computers. I can even network my computers so I can play the movies in any room in the house. It's copyright infringement if I BitTorrent or upload them to the world.
Does it run Linux?
Most likely not. ROMs are legal grey areas. It could be considered copyright infringement if the copyright holder decided to pursue legal action. And this Atari company isn't exactly the same company as the one from the 1980s; I doubt they own any of the copyrights of the old games.
You know how I know you didn't watch the old series? You're technically correct - they didn't climb, but they did float right up them in later episodes of the original run.
You know why they didn't climb stairs? It was a matter of practicality and budget. Now there is more money, Daleks can go wherever. If the writers stuck with "legacy" they don't make them as mobile as they are now. If they stuck with "legacy" the Cybermen would look antiquated. If they stuck with "legacy" most alien species would look like an actor in a mask.
None of which makes it a good idea to change the Doctor's sex.
What part of "legacy" Doctor Who ever said that the regeneration could not be into a woman. I'm guessing no part. But it was implied because of the time in TV where men were always going to be leads. No one was ever going to give a woman the lead in a TV series back then especially a Sci-fi one. "Legacy" is a poor excuse to not use a woman. Legacy would be the same reason why Uhura shouldn't be a black woman. Or Sulu an Asian.
Yeah, as opposed to decades of him being a man.
[sarcasm]Yes because in decades past so many TV shows like Doctor Who had women as leads. I can't imagine how men got TV roles back then. Especially in the Sci-fi genre. [/sarcasm]
The modern writers of Doctor Who have been using it to push a left wing, gay, genderless agenda and are ruining it in the process.
You seem triggered that writers of TV show decided to use a woman in a fictional universe. Perhaps you need a safe space.
Why would a person that believes nothing of value could possibly exist on an unmarked storage medium of unknown contents call for immediate destruction of the storage medium?
Maybe that person knows about the storage medium more than you. For example, the types of tapes that were used were never used for data that NASA would deem necessary. Second, it's not immediate destruction. NASA physically examined the tapes in 2015. It's now 2017. I'd 2 years is not "immediate".
It sounds like an archivist shirking their due-diligence and trying to get someone else to destroy the evidence just in case they are wrong.
That's a conspiracy theory and a half. You could say the archivist was just lazy and didn't want to look through all the tapes. Saying that he/she wants to destroy evidence is a bit much.
There are lots of things that are legacy that have changed or further clarified. From what I remember (I could be wrong about this), Gallifrey was destroyed in the Time War but nothing was said that it was actually the Doctor that was the one that did it. It was known that the Daleks and the Time Lords were combatants but nothing about how Gallifrey was destroyed. The newer episodes also shows why the Doctor felt he had to destroy Gallifrey and the Daleks and how he could not bring them back without bringing back other things out of the Time Lock
or that they can can change their biological sex during regeneration.
Nothing?
1) In the prequel The Night of the Doctor, The Sisterhood of Karn could control the regeneration: "Time Lord science is elevated here on Karn. The change doesn't have to be random. Fat or thin, young or old. Man or woman?"
2) Missy
3) In Season 9, in the Episode "Hell Bent", the General regenerates from an older white man to an older black woman.
Who cares about legacy?
Legacy also says that Daleks can't climb stairs too.
There have been three examples in the last several seasons that explicitly show/state that a Time Lord can be regenerate into a female.
1) In the prequel The Night of the Doctor The Sisterhood of Karn could control the regeneration: "Time Lord science is elevated here on Karn. The change doesn't have to be random. Fat or thin, young or old. Man or woman?"
2) Missy
3) In Season 9, in the Episode "Hell Bent", the General regenerates from an older white man to an older black woman.
Making them illegal requires a different piece of legislation. This particular legislation does not thing about that. However if we are talking about making strong encryption software illegal, the world has been down that road before. It didn't work out then; it's not going to work out now.
The archivist knows nothing about the content of the tapes, not even if they were blank. At best, he's guessing. At worst, he's too lazy to do his job.
The archivist did physically examine the tapes but did not read them. They might require a great of work locating the right equipment. He also noted that many of them had severe to moderate mold.
The owner says: "They belonged to IBM Allegheny Center Pittsburgh, PA 15212. During the 1968-1972 timeframe, IBM was getting rid of the items so [redacted engineer] asked if he could have them and was told he could have them."
So maybe the archivist knows something about the data that IBM handled during that time frame that most people don't.
Citation Needed
An educated guess.
An educated guess requires some basis in facts. So you have a background in lobbying? You've kept up to date with how much the opposition spends on lobbyists? No. You present no facts yet want to pretend that your lack of facts is the same as someone else's facts. You're just lying at that point.
Point remains, there is a gaping omission in TFA... So gaping, so obviously contrary to the journalistic rules and traditions, that it can only be deliberate. A lie by omission [rationalwiki.org].
You made your point that the author didn't present the other side. But you also made up numbers and tried to lie about it. When caught in a lie, you try to shift it to say the other person lied. Please.
You didn't finish reading the page I linked to... But you did trip over Godwin's Law [catb.org].
At this point you just lie and lie and lie. Why should anyone believe anything you have to say?
Yes, there is no evidence when one does not look.
The archivist didn't look on the tapes but perhaps the archivist knew enough about the computer to know nothing of value could exist. For example the control reels may not be data but software for controlling a piece of equipment. Since that equipment doesn't have use anymore what would be point of needing the control software?
Tremendous negative pressures. If you go much further than the stratosphere, negative pressures increase exponentially.
Well that's factually, mathematically, and scientifically impossible. On the surface of the Earth, the pressue is 1atm or 101.325 kPa. The least amount of pressure you can have is 0 as in a vacuum of space. It's not possible to have negative pressure much less exponentially increasing negative pressure.
But that's not "access". That's surveillance software. The law that way I read it is forcing Apple and others for "access".
Only if the message is ever stored in plain text locally. Otherwise that requires malware to be installed and surveillance software from the device. That's more than access. For example if a user is using end-to-end encrypted messaging app done well the message shows up only as plain text is within the app on the screen. In order to access that text, either the phone/device has to be capturing what is happening on screen. The app could also be set to never save the message once it's been shown.
The other alternative is the device knows where the app is storing the key and using it. Again that requires more than simple access.
Here is the correct statement: to counter the research someone has done, I pointed out a gaping omission in it.
Again where did your $100M estimate come from? Out of thin air? So in essence you're just making things up.
Uh, I dunno, maybe this part [journalists.org]?
BAHAHAHAHAHA. You know none of what you posted says anything of the sort. By your logic when reporting on the Holocaust, journalism must present the Nazis in a favorable light.
"I keep my eyes open when I go about the world."
No, you specifically said that you were not a journalist and then proceeded to say how journalists didn't do their jobs according to your standards. In other words you acknowledged lack of expertise while giving out an opinion on that same subject area. It's like saying "I'm not a doctor but that doctor performed surgery incorrectly." Why don't you just admit you had no idea and am just making things up.
Weird, is not it? I wish, journalists knew as much about some other profession — any other profession — as I know about theirs...
Journalists don't claim they do. You do. So are you lying when you do?