Neither of these articles say that. What they're talking about is domination - it's harder for a small number of artists to grab the majority of the revenue with streaming. So obviously not all artists are upset with streaming.
They very carefully don't say that, but I bet it is true anyway.
If the streamers pay the labels a blanket fee, that means they do not count (and may not be even able to count) listeners for each song, and provide labels with enough info to apportion these blanket payments in any rational way.
So the labels divi it up any way they want, and pay the artists what ever miserly pittance the labels can get away with.
Come home to a high paying US wage, with a pretty low tax rate, AND have your College debt forgiven? Why not. If you insist the grass is greener, you can always work a few years, get the debt forgiven, then move back for the lower paying foreign job and higher tax rates.
Most Universities likely charge higher for international students, so it should actually drive tuition down.
The amount of brief cases expands to contain all of the available money.
If I can fill my university seats with high-paying foreigners, why would I not do that more often? And why would I not jack up resident tuition so as to have more seats available for non-resident foreign students? An admission is a limited resource. It will tend to get sold to the highest bidder.
This is already happening in some states, even in State funded schools. Of course independent universities, including many of the most prestigious, aren't subject to state laws requiring a certain percentage of admissions being reserved for in-state students.
If the US government paid for your education in prestigious foreign universities, and you could have all that debt forgiven by coming home to work, wouldn't you find that attractive?
Actually, they have apparently been accepting grants all along, for many years, but never coming back.
The new decree (Do they not pass laws over there?) simply says:
Students who earned bachelor's degrees in Russian universities may enter leading [foreign] universities... and be eligible for financial support from the government. If these students would like to stay overseas after graduation, they would have to pay a hefty amount to Russia that would include all the money spent on the education plus a fine twice as large as this amount.
Good luck collecting, unless they want to hire a boat load of lawyers in each country students go to. (If they thought US tuition was high, wait till they see US lawyer bills). Maybe they will get the parents to co-sign these grants so they can at least threaten to put the parents in the hot seat if young Doctor Ivan doesn't come back.
On the other hand if you can legally wipe out all or most of your student loans by getting a good paying job in Russia (by virtue of your prestigious foreign doctorate), it just might work. It all depends on the job and pay opportunities at home, and how much of the government loans will be forgiven. It might be pretty hard to pay back a western sized debt on a Russian sized salary unless most or all of it were forgiven by the Russian Government.
If the corporations WERE paying licensing fees, that cost would be passed to the consumer who would THEN be paying twice for the rights to use the technology.
Corporations will NOW have to raise their prices to cover these double dipping license fees, and the consumers get to pay AGAIN for the technology produced at public expense with tax payer money.
Um ok? Then the big-corps that chipped in get a piece of the pie. Did Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and the others chip in? No? Then fuck them. (And no, simply paying taxes doesn't count. Otherwise, I and every other taxing paying U.S. citizen, want a piece of the pie)
You just don't get it do you? If the project was funded by federal monies it belongs to the people of the US, and the University has no business taking a patent in its own name. So, Yes, if the case of it being paid for by government grants, all citizens do get a piece of that pie, by free use of the technology.
Seems we just can't help our selves, we are building skynet piece by piece, each project ignoring the others, nobody building in firewalls or airgaps or kill switches, because their piece of the puzzle couldn't possibly do any of those science fiction things. Don't worry they are all simple machines. Just serving drinks to patients in hospitals. No, that mechanical hand couldn't possibly hold a weapon. Nobody is building autonomous robot soldiers, tha'ts just plain silly. You watch too much TV.
I'm not sure how this is an abuse. Boston University did the research, patented it and finally got around to exercising their patent rights. Don't wanna get sued? Pay the patent holder.
Well lets track it back to who funded the research shall we?
Its not like universities wake up one day and say, oh, lets spend a few years and several hundred million and fart around with some of these cute LEDs.
I bet you there's not only state money in it, and federal money in it, but also maybe some big-corp bucks too. But I'm betting 95% public funds of one sort or another.
Word documents for client "A", open that specific volume, make an edit, unmount. Excel spreadsheets? Same thing.
You will spend your entire days entering keys. Because you have so many of them, you will have to write them down, or use some trivial progression algorithm. Your keys will be weak because getting all those random gibberish keys just right will drive you to drink.
This is one of those ideas that sounds good, but is totally impractical in application.
What other methods of key storage are there other than relying on wetware ?
FYI - the fact that America has a "court" that is not open to public scrutiny is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what rationale you try to use to justify it.
Much as I agree with the sentiment, I can't find anything in the constitution that forbids such a court.
You don't get to sit in while your local judge or magistrate issues search warrants either. If you could people would do it as a service and post it on line and advertise as warrantsRus.
Trials yes. Warrants, Grand Jury proceedings, not so much.
Perhaps they should rule that secret proceedings where the accused is unable to face his/her accusers are outright unconstitutional,
The accused is OFTEN not able to face the accuser prior to warranted searches and seizures. Only when charges are brought in a court of law do you have the right to confront your accusers.
You don't get advanced notice of a search warrant. That would be counter productive. What you do get is SERVED with the warrant at the time of the search or shortly there after.
I could see people getting a warrant delivered some time ( weeks or perhaps a few months) after one of these warranted (of FISA letter) searches took place. But unless you can file a claim against the government, simply knowing wouldn't help you much, other than teaching you the value of encryption.
To be fair, the judge is saying that what is being recommended is not an adversarial process, and he's right.
I don't have any better suggestions though.
It should't be that hard to com up with some better suggestions. In descending order of desirability
1 Get rid of unconstitutional secret courts. Prosecute judges that volunteered to participate in this charade for having violate their oath to uphold the constitution.
2 Require that EACH US citizen who's data was intercepted (via any means) must be be notified no later than 6 months from the first intercept date, unless an arrest warrant is issued, or investigation is continuing. but no investigation may continue for more than 1 year. Exact details of the information intercepted, must be provided. A signed warrant (issued prior to the intercept) by the court must be provided with this information, specifying the Agency, the information covered by the warrant and the general method of intercept.
3 Payment must be made according to a published scale to the victim of each intercept unless charges are pressed.
4 Any information accidentally intercepted must be deleted within 10 days unless a warrant is sought.
5 All data obtained by without a warrant is inadmissible in court, or for any other government use. Any provision of such information to law enforcement must be documented to the victim as per #2 above, within 6 months of the time it was provided to law enforcement. Any Parallel Reconstruction of any crime from information provided from intelligence sources without a warrant subjects the Law Enforcement agency to criminal charges.
I'm sure I could go on and on for days. The point is, your government has no business of conducting suspicion-less investigations of law abiding citizens and simply forcing them to tell the us exactly what they are doing will deter them from doing so.
"Secret court wants to remain secret.". Film at 11.
The judges were originally placed there to prevent abuse, and protect the public from abuses, and in short, to serve as an advocate for the citizens. Now, when they have been hopelessly co-opted by the intelligence community, they argue that this very role has no validity, and the vehemently object to any watch dog looking over their sholders.
While I agree with the judges that " Adding an advocate to "run-of-the-mill FISA matters would substantially hamper the work of the courts without providing any countervailing benefit in terms of privacy protection," its clear that this would ONLY be true because they, and the spy agencies they serve, would see to it that it was true.
These guys aren't interested in protecting the citizens or the constitution. They are interested in protecting their asses, because they have authorized so many illegal acts on a routine basis that they fear serious jail time.
Start with impeaching these judges. Then work your way down.
because of the government's gross misconduct and illegal evidence gathering.
So nothing has changed then....
Sooner or later, someone is going to jail, And I wager it won't be Snowden. We can start with a few Judges that violated their oath of office, and denigrated to constitution to the status of a village ordinance.
And I could not buy a computer at all. But there are places I want video. http://www.cnn.com/help/video.html#20 Listen, I want it my way. My computer, my way.
Point is, Google found it without me knowing a thing abut some "traditional" mode of addressing in NYC.
Quick, what's the traditional mode of address presentation in La Paz Bolivia? Q: Why should you have to know that? A: Because your hatred of Google makes you use an inferior product.
So, when I open up a Youtube video in a new tab, clearly I don't want it to play audio unless I go through the additional effort of unmuting that tab.
Exactly. Maybe you want to read the comments, before you launch a NSFW video in the office. Its exactly one click more. I'll take that every day over one one annoying ad a week.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither of these articles say that. What they're talking about is domination - it's harder for a small number of artists to grab the majority of the revenue with streaming. So obviously not all artists are upset with streaming.
They very carefully don't say that, but I bet it is true anyway.
If the streamers pay the labels a blanket fee, that means they do not count (and may not be even able to count) listeners for each song, and provide labels with enough info to apportion these blanket payments in any rational way.
So the labels divi it up any way they want, and pay the artists what ever miserly pittance the labels can get away with.
You might want to Rethink that
Come home to a high paying US wage, with a pretty low tax rate, AND have your College debt forgiven? Why not. If you insist the grass is greener, you can always work a few years, get the debt forgiven, then move back for the lower paying foreign job and higher tax rates.
That wiki is used frequently has almost nothing to do with it.
Lets face it, Wiki uses very few videos anyway, (thank god) and you aren't going to settle fact based arguments by watching videos on a phone.
Most Universities likely charge higher for international students, so it should actually drive tuition down.
The amount of brief cases expands to contain all of the available money.
If I can fill my university seats with high-paying foreigners, why would I not do that more often?
And why would I not jack up resident tuition so as to have more seats available for non-resident foreign students?
An admission is a limited resource. It will tend to get sold to the highest bidder.
This is already happening in some states, even in State funded schools.
Of course independent universities, including many of the most prestigious, aren't subject to state laws requiring a certain percentage of admissions being reserved for in-state students.
So... what's the point of this story?
Well, turn it around.
If the US government paid for your education in prestigious foreign universities, and you could have all that debt forgiven by coming home to work, wouldn't you find that attractive?
Actually, they have apparently been accepting grants all along, for many years, but never coming back.
The new decree (Do they not pass laws over there?) simply says:
Students who earned bachelor's degrees in Russian universities may enter leading [foreign] universities... and be eligible for financial support from the government.
If these students would like to stay overseas after graduation, they would have to pay a hefty amount to Russia that would include all the money spent on the education plus a fine twice as large as this amount.
Good luck collecting, unless they want to hire a boat load of lawyers in each country students go to. (If they thought US tuition was high, wait till they see US lawyer bills). Maybe they will get the parents to co-sign these grants so they can at least threaten to put the parents in the hot seat if young Doctor Ivan doesn't come back.
With US student loans defaulting at a rate of 10% they are just as likely to learn bad habits here.
On the other hand if you can legally wipe out all or most of your student loans by getting a good paying job in Russia (by virtue of your prestigious foreign doctorate), it just might work.
It all depends on the job and pay opportunities at home, and how much of the government loans will be forgiven. It might be pretty hard to pay back a western sized debt on a Russian sized salary unless most or all of it were forgiven by the Russian Government.
I can't see how Wiki has all that much leverage.
When did you last see someone turn down one Smartphone for another because it couldn't play a wiki video?
If the corporations WERE paying licensing fees, that cost would be passed to the consumer who would THEN be paying twice for the rights to use the technology.
Corporations will NOW have to raise their prices to cover these double dipping license fees, and the consumers get to pay AGAIN for the technology produced at public expense with tax payer money.
Son, stay in school.
Um ok? Then the big-corps that chipped in get a piece of the pie. Did Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and the others chip in? No? Then fuck them. (And no, simply paying taxes doesn't count. Otherwise, I and every other taxing paying U.S. citizen, want a piece of the pie)
You just don't get it do you?
If the project was funded by federal monies it belongs to the people of the US, and the University has no business taking a patent in its own name.
So, Yes, if the case of it being paid for by government grants, all citizens do get a piece of that pie, by free use of the technology.
Seems we just can't help our selves, we are building skynet piece by piece, each project ignoring the others, nobody building in firewalls or airgaps or kill switches, because their piece of the puzzle couldn't possibly do any of those science fiction things. Don't worry they are all simple machines. Just serving drinks to patients in hospitals. No, that mechanical hand couldn't possibly hold a weapon. Nobody is building autonomous robot soldiers, tha'ts just plain silly. You watch too much TV.
Nothing to to see here, move along now.
Depending on the state, within the past 3 years?
I'm not sure how this is an abuse. Boston University did the research, patented it and finally got around to exercising their patent rights. Don't wanna get sued? Pay the patent holder.
Well lets track it back to who funded the research shall we?
Its not like universities wake up one day and say, oh, lets spend a few years and several hundred million and fart around with some of these cute LEDs.
I bet you there's not only state money in it, and federal money in it, but also maybe some big-corp bucks too. But I'm betting 95% public funds of one sort or another.
Word documents for client "A", open that specific volume, make an edit, unmount. Excel spreadsheets? Same thing.
You will spend your entire days entering keys.
Because you have so many of them, you will have to write them down, or use some trivial progression algorithm.
Your keys will be weak because getting all those random gibberish keys just right will drive you to drink.
This is one of those ideas that sounds good, but is totally impractical in application.
What other methods of key storage are there other than relying on wetware ?
FYI - the fact that America has a "court" that is not open to public scrutiny is blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what rationale you try to use to justify it.
Much as I agree with the sentiment, I can't find anything in the constitution that forbids such a court.
You don't get to sit in while your local judge or magistrate issues search warrants either. If you could people would do it
as a service and post it on line and advertise as warrantsRus.
Trials yes. Warrants, Grand Jury proceedings, not so much.
Perhaps they should rule that secret proceedings where the accused is unable to face his/her accusers are outright unconstitutional,
The accused is OFTEN not able to face the accuser prior to warranted searches and seizures. Only when charges are brought in a court of law do you have the right to confront your accusers.
You don't get advanced notice of a search warrant. That would be counter productive. What you do get is SERVED with the warrant at the time of the search or shortly there after.
I could see people getting a warrant delivered some time ( weeks or perhaps a few months) after one of these warranted (of FISA letter) searches took place. But unless you can file a claim against the government, simply knowing wouldn't help you much, other than teaching you the value of encryption.
To be fair, the judge is saying that what is being recommended is not an adversarial process, and he's right.
I don't have any better suggestions though.
It should't be that hard to com up with some better suggestions. In descending order of desirability
1 Get rid of unconstitutional secret courts. Prosecute judges that volunteered to participate in this charade for having violate their oath to uphold the constitution.
2 Require that EACH US citizen who's data was intercepted (via any means) must be be notified no later than 6 months from the first intercept date, unless an arrest warrant is issued, or investigation is continuing. but no investigation may continue for more than 1 year. Exact details of the information intercepted, must be provided. A signed warrant (issued prior to the intercept) by the court must be provided with this information, specifying the Agency, the information covered by the warrant and the general method of intercept.
3 Payment must be made according to a published scale to the victim of each intercept unless charges are pressed.
4 Any information accidentally intercepted must be deleted within 10 days unless a warrant is sought.
5 All data obtained by without a warrant is inadmissible in court, or for any other government use. Any provision of such information to law enforcement must be documented to the victim as per #2 above, within 6 months of the time it was provided to law enforcement. Any Parallel Reconstruction of any crime from information provided from intelligence sources without a warrant subjects the Law Enforcement agency to criminal charges.
I'm sure I could go on and on for days. The point is, your government has no business of conducting suspicion-less investigations of law abiding citizens and simply forcing them to tell the us exactly what they are doing will deter them from doing so.
"Secret court wants to remain secret.". Film at 11.
The judges were originally placed there to prevent abuse, and protect the public from abuses, and in short, to serve as an advocate for the citizens. Now, when they have been hopelessly co-opted by the intelligence community, they argue that this very role has no validity, and the vehemently object to any watch dog looking over their sholders.
While I agree with the judges that
" Adding an advocate to "run-of-the-mill FISA matters would substantially hamper the work of the courts without providing any countervailing benefit in terms of privacy protection," its clear that this would ONLY be true because they, and the spy agencies they serve, would see to it that it was true.
These guys aren't interested in protecting the citizens or the constitution. They are interested in protecting their asses, because they have authorized so many illegal acts on a routine basis that they fear serious jail time.
Start with impeaching these judges. Then work your way down.
Probably. But other than closing a tab, there really isn't any way to do that without adding a whole bunch of add-ons.
These are copies that are being removed, there are two other libraries untouched.
because of the government's gross misconduct and illegal evidence gathering.
So nothing has changed then....
Sooner or later, someone is going to jail, And I wager it won't be Snowden.
We can start with a few Judges that violated their oath of office, and denigrated to constitution to the status of a village ordinance.
And I could not buy a computer at all.
But there are places I want video. http://www.cnn.com/help/video.html#20
Listen, I want it my way. My computer, my way.
Dude: Learn to post a link.
These aren't the only copies, fool.
Point is, Google found it without me knowing a thing abut some "traditional" mode of addressing in NYC.
Quick, what's the traditional mode of address presentation in La Paz Bolivia?
Q: Why should you have to know that?
A: Because your hatred of Google makes you use an inferior product.
So, when I open up a Youtube video in a new tab, clearly I don't want it to play audio unless I go through the additional effort of unmuting that tab.
Exactly.
Maybe you want to read the comments, before you launch a NSFW video in the office.
Its exactly one click more. I'll take that every day over one one annoying ad a week.
Google works for you to fella. Do your own damn homework.
Without looking in google, can you find the street address of even one of these 9 libraries?
No? I thought not.