Ahh, yes. As a building estimator contract administrator I was to base all my future medical procedures on the lowest tender, are you absolutely fucking nuts. You got any idea about how often that lowest tender turned out to be a disaster, poor job execution, demands of extra payment, incomplete job et al. Let's reiterate, your in the operating theatre, the surgeon makes his first cut, you scream, surgeon says, oh by the way, aesthetic, that's extra and it ain't cheap.
Good regulation would limit the options to cut costs at the risk of delivering sub-standard service. Your example is ridiculous. Anesthesia is the norm for surgery, and in regulation it'd be reasonable to expect that a default lack of anesthesia would be made clear to the patient long before the initial incision.
Shopping around is more viable when purchasing health cover, opting for elective surgery, or necessary treatment that isn't an immediate emergency. Haggling while bleeding out on a gurney isn't appropriate - obviously.
A limited free market (all markets have limits) for medical care only works where there's sufficient regulation of standards, and where patients can make informed choices. Same applies to financial services, as an example, where lenders are required to make certain points clear to prospective borrowers. No bank could legally offer an unsecured consumer loan in which the customer is given just 30 seconds to read the terms prior to signing.
Did you just figure that out. Newsflash!!!! Government never provides anything for free. Someone, now or in the future, will pay for it.
That wasn't his point. He said that NI pays for the NHS, in the sense that it's money taken for a specific service - not a service that's paid for out general state funds. I don't see how you could read the AC comment as meaning that the NHS is magically funded by magic money that magically appears on a desk in HM Treasury.
AC is wrong here. NI doesn't pay for the NHS. It may contribute to some of the costs, but it isn't accurate to consider NI to be the bill that covers bandages.
To my knowledge, the only way in which NI translates in to a return based on contributions is when it comes to pensions. i.e. you would probably have a reduced pension (or none at all) if lacking a required number of contributions/credits.
The same reason why alcohol is legally permissible while some less harmless drugs are illegal - cultural entrenchment.
The substantial difference I can see is in how Scientology is more up-front about charging for its services than some of the more established religions. Most mainstream Christian churches I've seen are more about optional donations (with obvious peer pressure) than offering a price-list. I'd give Scientology the benefit of the doubt if the services they offer to paying customers would be available at no cost to everyone - with no need to sign-up for a billion years of servitude in exchange for the services.
It shouldn't matter whether it's a cult or a religion; if someone got fired for not undergoing religious courses and testing, that should be treated the same way by the law.
Agreed. The only exception I can see that should be allowed is where a position would be concerned with ministering. e.g. fine if x religion doesn't want to employ a gay black woman as a priest, but not so acceptable if they require the janitor to sign a statement of faith.
To some extent, people need to be aware of the roles in to which they are going. If I were black, it'd be disingenuous to claim discrimination if I were applying to be a Mormon elder prior to the "Hey guys! God told me that he changed his mind on the blacks!" revelation of 1978. I would however have a good complaint if I were applying for a secular role in the business.
One benefit is that the company can use its scale and tax incentives to increase the value of the cash they put in to schemes. Breaking it down individually (and considering income tax/BIK tax) may leave a seriously diminished sum.
Nope, mostly just different. Now you ask, I would say overall it's more secure than magnetic strip and signature. It's more secure in the sense that it's difficult for a complete stranger to find my card on the street and go spending money. Magnetic swipe and signature cards are way easier for casual theft.
I visit the US regularly, and I found that ID request thing a bit odd. We use chip and PIN here, so having to sign was a bit odd. I have been asked for ID in small convenience stores, but never in big stores or restaurants.
I'm no doctor, but if you are a man and consider a ring to be phallic, then something is wrong. Better to get this checked now than to wait. Trust me - a friend worked the STD clinic when studying and he saw the consequences if men who wait until shit is the size of a grapefruit before getting it checked out.
But it's not the same file. We can probably agree that it's impractical for me to push this distinction. If you can understand why this distinction is pointless, you can maybe see why I don't understand why you're focussed on considering Aereo to be re-broadcasting. Sure, technically they are, but it's demonstrably not the same as if they were to be either sending the signals outside of the area intended by the broadcaster or sending the signal to anyone who could not otherwise get the same broadcasting if they could have an aerial. If Aereo would alter the content before re-broadcasting, then I would object. By alter, I mean actually changing what content - not just transcoding or similar. For example, if Aereo were to remove adverts before re-broadcasting to the user. There's certainly a relatively arbitrary line to draw here, and from what I see we're doing this but drawing the line in different places. i.e. for the file locker thing you consider the user simply retrieving a file they themselves originally uploaded (or a file identical to the one they uploaded) to be fine because the user provided it, which for some reason gives the host freedom to re-broadcast it - despite the user having no authorisation to grant such a right. This is why I say it's arbitrary - not necessarily wrong, but not black and white.
Would your objections be primarily moral or would they be legalistic in nature?
...but the users in question are STOOPID DICKS for clicking "Authorize App" on shit without reading it.
Absofuckinglutely! Shocking behaviour on the part of the advertiser, but greatly enabled by idiot users. They can't even argue this was buried in 6 pages of legalese - it's right there in front of them in a short bulleted list.
What about file locker services that conserve space by matching identical files? Although the two of us uploaded identical copies of a file, it's only one actual copy held on their end? Using your argument, that is copyright infringement, as the file I download isn't necessarily the one I uploaded.
I get your point, but I think it's the target of the re-broadcasting that's key here. They are not allowing people access to services they would not already be able to receive if they were to stick an aerial out the window. From what I see of their terms, I wouldn't even be able to watch my home TV channels if I'm out of state or abroad. If this is an illegal rebroadcasting then why would those things I mentioned not be copyright infringement?
The basic idea is that adverts must not dishonestly be represented as impartial consumer comments. e.g. I could right now say that Dr. Pepper is the best mass-market cola out there. I'd likely run afoul of the Advertising Standards Agency if I was receiving compensation for posting that message.
If it were plain and simple this probably wouldn't be at the stage it's at now. What I think we can note is that Aereo's service is not rebroadcasting in a vein similar to me setting up an antenna in New York and streaming it to all and sundry on the web. The broadcasts are one to one (a single antenna per user), and are reliant upon the subscriber providing a credit card billing address in the area of the signals they wish to receive. With these restrictions in mind, I don't see Aereo being substantially different from running a Slingbox or rebroadcasting a signal throughout my own house - with the understanding it is secure and not a public re-broadcast.
I use a remote backup service, to which I'm the only one having access to my data. I back-up some GNU licenced software (minus the source), which I can then download again later. Technically the backup host is now "broadcasting" GNU licenced software, and has made no provision for providing the source. I am the only one accessing this software - it's not free and open public file-hosting service.
Is the backup host committing copyright infringement? If not, then why is Aereo. Also, why have the lower courts already ruled the other way? I think you could, at a stretch, make some kind of moral argument, but I just don't see how this is copyright infringement unless we apply this to a broad range of other already commonly used applications. Congratulations, you have practically outlawed cloud computing, network routers, home-based services that allow users to redirect a TV signal to other TVs in the same household, and VNC.
The broadcasters are wrong here, but still I'd see a need to be pragmatic when it comes to things that enter our "spaces". We already have this as an important understanding in other laws, such as accepting that my tossing something in to the neighbour's garden doesn't automatically make it their property. We'd accept as well that leaving something in a public place doesn't mean it becomes the property of the finder, accepting that there may be abandonment or treasure trove laws that apply in specific cases.
We'd probably agree though that anyone who, in sound mind, deliberately discards coins in the road would struggle to argue that the finders should relinquish the property. Broadcast signals are intentionally broadcast willy nilly in a certain area, but this is the nature of the technology. Broadcasters can make a good argument that this is necessary and doesn't compare to scattering coins (which is pretty useless for anything but becoming a bit poorer). They'd have a far weaker argument if they set-up TV screens in public places, and tried to bill people who glance at them - this is closer to the coin analogy.
Yeah, and it's very much prone to a slippery slope. Why should VCR manufacturers have the right to profit from providing systems that record TV shows for personal use? Why should newspapers be allowed to be profit from encouraging sales by providing TV listings? Why should websites be allowed to profit by posting reviews of TV shows.
My understanding of the service is that one could not, as a New York resident, be watching Boston local TV without having a residential address there. Conceptually it's not that different from having a Slingbox. It'd be a different matter if I could, as a Finnish resident with no residential address in the U.S. sign up to view U.S. terrestrial broadcasts - then I could see some licencing issues. The broadcasters still get their adverts played to intended locality, so that argument goes down the shitter. The only remaining argument I see is that it prevents the broadcasters from making money from cable subs, which is an asinine replaying of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
I see no good moral objection to this service, unless we'd decide that extension cables should also be unfair profiteering. Whether it's legal is an entirely different matter, and I can see no good reason why it should be illegal.
I guess it'll be appropriate when they award JK Rowling the Literature prize for the Harry Potter sequel she's going to write in 2019.
This'd only be comparable to Obama if Rowling, after receiving the award in advance, would quickly ditch Harry Potter in favour of writing erotic Star Trek fan fiction set on fucking DS9 while all the time claiming this is in fact Harry Potter! Fuck you, Obama and all your little government goblins.
Sod it. Give Clapper the peace prize, and crown Obana as Miss World. That would only slightly less sense than Obama receiving the award for future services to peace.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, yes. As a building estimator contract administrator I was to base all my future medical procedures on the lowest tender, are you absolutely fucking nuts. You got any idea about how often that lowest tender turned out to be a disaster, poor job execution, demands of extra payment, incomplete job et al. Let's reiterate, your in the operating theatre, the surgeon makes his first cut, you scream, surgeon says, oh by the way, aesthetic, that's extra and it ain't cheap.
Good regulation would limit the options to cut costs at the risk of delivering sub-standard service. Your example is ridiculous. Anesthesia is the norm for surgery, and in regulation it'd be reasonable to expect that a default lack of anesthesia would be made clear to the patient long before the initial incision.
Shopping around is more viable when purchasing health cover, opting for elective surgery, or necessary treatment that isn't an immediate emergency.
Haggling while bleeding out on a gurney isn't appropriate - obviously.
A limited free market (all markets have limits) for medical care only works where there's sufficient regulation of standards, and where patients can make informed choices. Same applies to financial services, as an example, where lenders are required to make certain points clear to prospective borrowers. No bank could legally offer an unsecured consumer loan in which the customer is given just 30 seconds to read the terms prior to signing.
Did you just figure that out. Newsflash!!!! Government never provides anything for free. Someone, now or in the future, will pay for it.
That wasn't his point. He said that NI pays for the NHS, in the sense that it's money taken for a specific service - not a service that's paid for out general state funds. I don't see how you could read the AC comment as meaning that the NHS is magically funded by magic money that magically appears on a desk in HM Treasury.
AC is wrong here. NI doesn't pay for the NHS. It may contribute to some of the costs, but it isn't accurate to consider NI to be the bill that covers bandages.
To my knowledge, the only way in which NI translates in to a return based on contributions is when it comes to pensions. i.e. you would probably have a reduced pension (or none at all) if lacking a required number of contributions/credits.
The same reason why alcohol is legally permissible while some less harmless drugs are illegal - cultural entrenchment.
The substantial difference I can see is in how Scientology is more up-front about charging for its services than some of the more established religions. Most mainstream Christian churches I've seen are more about optional donations (with obvious peer pressure) than offering a price-list. I'd give Scientology the benefit of the doubt if the services they offer to paying customers would be available at no cost to everyone - with no need to sign-up for a billion years of servitude in exchange for the services.
It shouldn't matter whether it's a cult or a religion; if someone got fired for not undergoing religious courses and testing, that should be treated the same way by the law.
Agreed. The only exception I can see that should be allowed is where a position would be concerned with ministering. e.g. fine if x religion doesn't want to employ a gay black woman as a priest, but not so acceptable if they require the janitor to sign a statement of faith.
To some extent, people need to be aware of the roles in to which they are going. If I were black, it'd be disingenuous to claim discrimination if I were applying to be a Mormon elder prior to the "Hey guys! God told me that he changed his mind on the blacks!" revelation of 1978. I would however have a good complaint if I were applying for a secular role in the business.
One benefit is that the company can use its scale and tax incentives to increase the value of the cash they put in to schemes. Breaking it down individually (and considering income tax/BIK tax) may leave a seriously diminished sum.
The term GUI doesn't imply a control method. You're thinking of WIMP
Nope, mostly just different. Now you ask, I would say overall it's more secure than magnetic strip and signature. It's more secure in the sense that it's difficult for a complete stranger to find my card on the street and go spending money. Magnetic swipe and signature cards are way easier for casual theft.
Chip and PIN is by no means bullet proof.
And?
I visit the US regularly, and I found that ID request thing a bit odd. We use chip and PIN here, so having to sign was a bit odd. I have been asked for ID in small convenience stores, but never in big stores or restaurants.
In former Soviet Union, grits Beowulf your pants cluster. Ah, forget it...
I'm no doctor, but if you are a man and consider a ring to be phallic, then something is wrong. Better to get this checked now than to wait. Trust me - a friend worked the STD clinic when studying and he saw the consequences if men who wait until shit is the size of a grapefruit before getting it checked out.
Stick with jokes about TV dinners.
I didn't see that advert. Either it's changed or it depends on the client.
Sexily commited crimes at sex shops.
But it's not the same file. We can probably agree that it's impractical for me to push this distinction. If you can understand why this distinction is pointless, you can maybe see why I don't understand why you're focussed on considering Aereo to be re-broadcasting. Sure, technically they are, but it's demonstrably not the same as if they were to be either sending the signals outside of the area intended by the broadcaster or sending the signal to anyone who could not otherwise get the same broadcasting if they could have an aerial. If Aereo would alter the content before re-broadcasting, then I would object. By alter, I mean actually changing what content - not just transcoding or similar. For example, if Aereo were to remove adverts before re-broadcasting to the user. There's certainly a relatively arbitrary line to draw here, and from what I see we're doing this but drawing the line in different places. i.e. for the file locker thing you consider the user simply retrieving a file they themselves originally uploaded (or a file identical to the one they uploaded) to be fine because the user provided it, which for some reason gives the host freedom to re-broadcast it - despite the user having no authorisation to grant such a right. This is why I say it's arbitrary - not necessarily wrong, but not black and white.
Would your objections be primarily moral or would they be legalistic in nature?
Did the authors plot crime rates against sales of 50 Shades of Grey and similar "literature"? If so, they just might be on to something.
...but the users in question are STOOPID DICKS for clicking "Authorize App" on shit without reading it.
Absofuckinglutely! Shocking behaviour on the part of the advertiser, but greatly enabled by idiot users. They can't even argue this was buried in 6 pages of legalese - it's right there in front of them in a short bulleted list.
What about file locker services that conserve space by matching identical files? Although the two of us uploaded identical copies of a file, it's only one actual copy held on their end? Using your argument, that is copyright infringement, as the file I download isn't necessarily the one I uploaded.
I get your point, but I think it's the target of the re-broadcasting that's key here. They are not allowing people access to services they would not already be able to receive if they were to stick an aerial out the window. From what I see of their terms, I wouldn't even be able to watch my home TV channels if I'm out of state or abroad. If this is an illegal rebroadcasting then why would those things I mentioned not be copyright infringement?
Some examples of this:
http://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Remit-Social-Media.aspx
The basic idea is that adverts must not dishonestly be represented as impartial consumer comments. e.g. I could right now say that Dr. Pepper is the best mass-market cola out there. I'd likely run afoul of the Advertising Standards Agency if I was receiving compensation for posting that message.
If it were plain and simple this probably wouldn't be at the stage it's at now. What I think we can note is that Aereo's service is not rebroadcasting in a vein similar to me setting up an antenna in New York and streaming it to all and sundry on the web. The broadcasts are one to one (a single antenna per user), and are reliant upon the subscriber providing a credit card billing address in the area of the signals they wish to receive. With these restrictions in mind, I don't see Aereo being substantially different from running a Slingbox or rebroadcasting a signal throughout my own house - with the understanding it is secure and not a public re-broadcast.
I use a remote backup service, to which I'm the only one having access to my data. I back-up some GNU licenced software (minus the source), which I can then download again later. Technically the backup host is now "broadcasting" GNU licenced software, and has made no provision for providing the source. I am the only one accessing this software - it's not free and open public file-hosting service.
Is the backup host committing copyright infringement? If not, then why is Aereo. Also, why have the lower courts already ruled the other way? I think you could, at a stretch, make some kind of moral argument, but I just don't see how this is copyright infringement unless we apply this to a broad range of other already commonly used applications. Congratulations, you have practically outlawed cloud computing, network routers, home-based services that allow users to redirect a TV signal to other TVs in the same household, and VNC.
The broadcasters are wrong here, but still I'd see a need to be pragmatic when it comes to things that enter our "spaces". We already have this as an important understanding in other laws, such as accepting that my tossing something in to the neighbour's garden doesn't automatically make it their property. We'd accept as well that leaving something in a public place doesn't mean it becomes the property of the finder, accepting that there may be abandonment or treasure trove laws that apply in specific cases.
We'd probably agree though that anyone who, in sound mind, deliberately discards coins in the road would struggle to argue that the finders should relinquish the property. Broadcast signals are intentionally broadcast willy nilly in a certain area, but this is the nature of the technology. Broadcasters can make a good argument that this is necessary and doesn't compare to scattering coins (which is pretty useless for anything but becoming a bit poorer). They'd have a far weaker argument if they set-up TV screens in public places, and tried to bill people who glance at them - this is closer to the coin analogy.
Yeah, and it's very much prone to a slippery slope. Why should VCR manufacturers have the right to profit from providing systems that record TV shows for personal use? Why should newspapers be allowed to be profit from encouraging sales by providing TV listings? Why should websites be allowed to profit by posting reviews of TV shows.
My understanding of the service is that one could not, as a New York resident, be watching Boston local TV without having a residential address there. Conceptually it's not that different from having a Slingbox. It'd be a different matter if I could, as a Finnish resident with no residential address in the U.S. sign up to view U.S. terrestrial broadcasts - then I could see some licencing issues. The broadcasters still get their adverts played to intended locality, so that argument goes down the shitter. The only remaining argument I see is that it prevents the broadcasters from making money from cable subs, which is an asinine replaying of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
I see no good moral objection to this service, unless we'd decide that extension cables should also be unfair profiteering. Whether it's legal is an entirely different matter, and I can see no good reason why it should be illegal.
I always preferred pulsar dial over tone dial phones.
I guess it'll be appropriate when they award JK Rowling the Literature prize for the Harry Potter sequel she's going to write in 2019.
This'd only be comparable to Obama if Rowling, after receiving the award in advance, would quickly ditch Harry Potter in favour of writing erotic Star Trek fan fiction set on fucking DS9 while all the time claiming this is in fact Harry Potter! Fuck you, Obama and all your little government goblins.
Sod it. Give Clapper the peace prize, and crown Obana as Miss World. That would only slightly less sense than Obama receiving the award for future services to peace.
Science needs more strippers.