Your confusing the just downloading it argument. If you obtain a file or copyrighted work, you havn't broken a law in most areas regardless of if you listen to it or not. Copyright doesn't give the owner the right to control who hear or sees the work, it gives them the right to control it's distribution and public performances and uses in other works.
Downloading can never be against copyright law because it has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with conversion and receiving something you didn't have a right to. Not to many places have laws specifically dealing with that on this scale. Now when you distribute the file or whatever it is, if you make copies in the act or do it in a way that violates one of the rights assigned to the copyright owner, your get into legal conflict with the copyright laws.
The making availible isn't a violation claim has to do with making sure the file is what you claim it is too. Simply having a file labeled metalica's greatest hits does not mean it is violating Metalica's copyright in any way. You could play the file and hear me saying they sold out for 45 minutes to a three cord melody I composed minutes before making the recording. Now, if you actually obtain the file from me, and it is your copyrighted works, then I have broken the law. But simple naming of something does not make a violation.
That being said, this is why rules like the three strikes and your offline are so stupid. It doesn't distinguish between actual violation and treats complaints as trialed facts when they aren't. The way to catch someone is to actually pose as a user and download something from them and review the content to ensure it is yours. This gets expensive because it's hard to automate. The recovery from copyright violations already allow extra money for damages but for some reason, they seem to want to short circuit this and take the least possible path of resistance. This leads to incorrectly being charged for things done, it leads to accusations that aren't true, and it leads to punishment without due process of the law. And yes, when the courts have used taking away internet access as punishment, it becomes punishment when it is done because of accusations.
The difference is that the others are actual countries. Quebec isn't a county, it's a province inside a country and they do more then attempt to preserve their culture, they push it onto anyone who comes in.
It may not be as simple as just starting an ISP. The last mile service is the most difficult to achieve. Most ISPs in place already have the last mile infrastructure in place from other offerings or had some government assistance to get access.
DSL, and it's slow adoption is probably the most obvious example of this issue. For years, the lines were not in a shape or quality that could carry DLS signals. This is true within Canada just as much as the US. When DSL tech came availible, some areas had to wait 5 or more years before lines where upgrades and so on before they could get access to it. What people don't really realize is that ADSL was originally developed back in 1988 or so with it's roots coming from the scientific paper released in 1948 "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". It probably wasn't until 2000 or so until DSL started becoming widely availible and affordable because of all the upgrades that needed to be made. Now this is despite the telecoms already using it as an extension to DS1 services to pipe the bulk of calls outside the local exchange.
Back in 1999, I was working with a guy and we were going to start a DSL ISP in my local area and even rent bandwidth to some local ISPs (mom and pop shops) so help cover the costs. Now, this was in the US so things might be a little different but to get the tech out to the limits of the existing technology at the time, we were going to have to rewire half of the city before we even thought about putting R-DSLAMS in to extend the ranges. And even though we were replacing wire that the telecoms were already obligated to replace, we had to go through the motions of getting a right of way and all that. In the end, it think we estimated it to take something like 15-25 years to repay the initial investment if we were operating at maximum capacity for that time. In 2000 or 2001, Time Warner started upgrading their lines in my local area and offered roadrunner which started taking some of the T1 internet access accounts away, the telcos then upgraded their lines (without having to fuck with 'right of ways') and offered DSL.
Now both Time Warner and SBC/ATT will offer fiber access to 90% of the local area if your a commercial customer but all your phones and stuff go over the fiber access too which is significantly pointing to the "other uses" which covers the last mile installation costs. Hell, even Verizon's FIOS services which are sold to private customers do the phone and all too.
It may be impossible for someone to set up a second network offering the speeds and such and remain competitive in the least. This wouldn't be because there aren't enough file sharers or P2P users, it's because so much of the costs are already offset by other services and those opertunities may not be availible to the people.
But seriously, just because a system is old that doesn't mean we don't have the right to object to it. That's just nonsense.
He can object to it all he wants. Hell, for that matter, he can even work toward changing the system for all I care. What he can't do is take something that is pretty much identical to how it was when it was created over 200 years ago and pretend it is something else because he hasn't invested the time or energy to learn about the damn thing in the first place. His free speech and freedom to be ignorant doesn't take away my free speech and freedom to correct him. Especially when he shows off that ignorance in a public place to which I am a part of.
And please don't take this in any context other than exactly what it says. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with this whole royalty vs elected officials discussion. Merely pointing out that, just because someone was born 200+ years after something was put into place, that doesn't mean they don't have the right to object to it.
Don't make the mistake of assuming his right to object to something overrides my right to object to his objections or to point out inaccuracies in his claim or to simply defend what he objects to. One person's right does not take another person's away. We have political "free speech zones" because too many people can't grasp the concept of all the people having the same rights and they want to impose their rights over others. Your right to protest or speech or religion or anything doesn't detract from my rights to do the same at all. Even if I am the government, I enjoy the exact same rights.
BTW, The comment about the length of time was more to show how wrong he was in the interpretation of Princes and Kings. He is probably the first person to ever relate to the sitting government in that way. Certainly the first person in over 200 years to do it publicly and in a way to draw my attention. Anyways, it 300 million people before you didn't see it that way, then chances are, that way is completely wrong. I'm not sure how you got the idea that I was attempting to say "it's been that way for 200 years so don't complain about it", but I really meant it as, no one else sees it that way, it's a sign that your way is wrong. It's like railing the 2+2 is 5 when everyone else says it's 4, then going about saying fuck that because he doesn't like 5 as the answer.
I don't think SCOTUS got any kickbacks, the more then likely applied the laws as they were written. Actually, if the SCOTUS was getting kickbacks and payoff, the legal system would be in far worse shape then it is now. You would have courts ruling opposite of each other based solely on supreme court cases that conflict with no apparent directions. That doesn't happen.
I do however, think maybe Microsoft was holding off on some action concerning fat32 until after the Rambus case was solved to avoid unnecessary litigation expenses.
Don't look at a chain of events that have one effect as the underlying motive for those effects. Just because you imagine something doesn't make it happen. It's more likely that Rambus was in the right according to how they were being prosecuted and MS was waiting for that to pan out. As you notice with Rambus, they never went after them for fraud which is the most obvious of the situation.
It's probably the recent FCC Rambus case that the courts ruled in favor of Rambus on.
If the FCC would have won, MS would have been facing regulatory challenges in attempting to enforce their patent and possibly have it ineffective to some degree because of how it has become a standard. When Rambus won, it doesn't matter anymore that it's a standard accepted across a large board of audiences or it's failure to protect against it before.
What may work in TomTom's favor is very public statements by MS officials leading to the approval of the Fat32 patent where they claimed it was defensive and wouldn't be using it against people using fat32. The interesting thing here is that MS may have granted a license by attempting to quite Critics of them patenting fat32. The devil is in the detail but the GPL works much the same way, if it says you can do X and they change their mind later, the cats already out of the bag. Now, if a spoke person for MS or any company said you can do X, they don't really have much of a case for going after a person for doing X because they have a patent now or all the sudden want to leverage the patent.
I guess maybe something that should happen is we need to find all of the statements that MS has made stating that they weren't going to use fat32 in this way. My memory could be a little off but I don't think so. I think TomTom might have a good change at proving an applied license already existed because of statements made by microsoft.
Have you considered what happens when your current boss, by coincidence, meets someone from your old company and they get talking?
Well, I'm long past that job anyways but what would the others say? Three of the four managers loved me and on had some sort of problem? I got alone with all of the employees so I'm just wondering who is going to say something that busts me. Suppose one of the employees I worked with comes around, what's he going to say "you remember so and so who always rode your ass"? Suppose the manager himself get hired, all I got to do is say that was the only reason I could find for his irrational behavior then direct whoever to speak with the other employees or management to see how irrational it was.
The world is small, the business world even smaller. Nobody likes liars, good luck trying to shake off that stigma.
That would go double for someone making bad references towards you. What exactly are people supposed to do then? I mean the op in this case was going to get blackballed because he was going to a different job, not because he was a crappy employee. You don't keep crappy employees around for 5 or more years if they don't do the job in an acceptable way. The op said "it has been implied that, in spite my record of above-average performance appraisals and promotions, I will be marked as leaving the company 'on bad terms' if I refuse to extend my departure date further." In my case, the guy was actively sabotaging my chances of getting employment somewhere else and he wasn't being truthful either. So what is the "correct thing to do" how do you make a person who screws you unscrew you? How do you do this when you don't have the money to sue them outright and in an at will state, probably not enough evidence to do anything anyways. So tell me, what should be done, should you just ignore it and suffer the mediocre jobs and job pay the rest of your life? Or having to go into an entirely different career path to escape the blackball? We are talking about something where the correct path in the first place is for the company and manager to have been honest- something outside most people's controls.
Generally your whole story smells fishy, as if a 16yr old made it up on the spot. But I'll give you that for the sake of the argument.,
I'm far from 16 but when I did do it, I was closer to 24 and I'm far from that too. Like I said, what's the right way if this way is so wrong? It isn't out of the ordinary to see inter office romances go bad, they are typically against the employee rules because they turn ugly so often. I don't personally care if someone who was willing to assault your integrity and damage your credibility gets hurt when those calls were falsely made.
I will admit that taking job advice from slashdot is probably not a smart Idea.
AS for the "poor man's terrorist tactics", you seem to be forgetting that the op is in a position where he won't be able to find another job anyways because of his supervisor stating falsehoods about him. Redirecting his surpervisors comments into the "there is a personal problem" bin and making them look to be his problem not yours is fair game.
As for it not working, well, yes it does. I have used it in the past. A job I once held had 4 supervisors over me. Three of them loved me and the work I did, the fourth one couldn't stand me. He attempted to fire me twice and I had to go over his head both times to save my job, each with the other three supervisors going to bat for me. Finally I had enough and started looking for another job. I couldn't understand why I couldn't find one, then I realized that the one manager was giving out bad references. I noted on my resume that I was leaving for personal reasons involved directly with this one person. The very next job that interviewed me hired me in spite of the bad reference when they called. I told them that a girl I used to date but stayed friend with after the break up started dating someone else, when I finally met him, it turned out to be my supervisor and he kept telling me I had to stay away from her. Then I said that when that didn't happen, he started going crazy at work towards me, After she broke it off with him, he kept attempting to fire me for no reasons and that other managers had to back me up on so now I thought it's time to move on and away from him.
When your screwed anyways, the only thing you can do is limit the damage. If that means telling a lie, then be it. It's not likely that someone will be able to prove anything in either situation in a court so when life gives you lemons, you make lemon aide. I'm not suggesting that people do this where they are at fault for a bad review, just where there is no reason for it like in my case where the guy just didn't like me and the opts case where they don't want him to leave but are too cheap to offer anything to make it worth him staying.
Not in this instance. There are way too many people using it in those ways outside of your control. You will end up with people continuing to spout one thing with a meaning and people like you who are purposely making it appear as something else. Word change and their definitions change, get over it.
Liberals as used incorrectly today. Much like the use of "hacker" people have twisted it's meaning.
Yep, and no matter how many people you attempt to corect, when you call yourself a hacker, there will be people thinking your a script kiddie attempting to steal credit card numbers to make your super female love bot.
Unfortunately what you say is all too true. Like newspeak, politicians incorrectly use words to make themselves or others look different than they really are. I like to call bullshit when I see it.
I used to be that way until I realized that it more or less made myself look crazy without tarnishing their appearance at all. I still object to things and call them for it, but I let them have that minor technicality and concentrate on whatever it is they are attempting to hide.
Depending on how "conservative" is used it and "liberal" can mean the same. The root of conservative is "conserve" which has as a definition to protect, or in an oxymoron, to preserve. Now if you use conservative as someone who wants to protect what the USA meant when founded then they would be similar.
That's sort of the point. If you use it in a certain way, it can be applied in a certain way that escapes the norm of what you or I walking in from outside would place it. The problem is that in American politics, you have the left and the right claiming a lot of the same things. The liberals claim X isn't here and the conservative claim it is or should be, then it becomes more of a what route to take to get back to X or if it is really missing. In America, it really carries a complexity because even the left seems to be to the right of most of the rest of the worlds left.
Self regulating markets and laissez-faire economics yes, but not individual liberty. A maj0r part of individual liberty is having control of your own body, doing whatever you want with it as long as you don't harm another. However today conservatives, I'll qualify that by using Reagan Conservatives, oppose individual control one's body. Reagan gave the War on Drugs a big boost and now we have minimum sentencing guidelines which causes violent criminals to be released early so the non-violent drug offender can serve his or her full sentence. The Democrats are no better when it comes the the "War on Drugs" though. During the presidential campaign that I know of only one candidate said how it should be, Ron Paul said he'd pardon those in prison for drug offenses and would legalize them.
Well, not. It isn't about freedom of the body as you mention. Lets take things like Abortion and Drug use for instance. Abortion effects the child's body too. That goes against the entire 'as long as you don't harm another'. Of course the pro-choice crowd use tricks and change terms much like we are talking about to turn an unborn child into just a cysts or something other then another human life. That's where the debate actually is with one side firmly believing life starts at conception and the other wanting to claim it doesn't until it's born. I personally believe it starts at conception and will only concede ground only up to a point where a baby can be reasonably expected to survive outside the human body with or without medical assistance. At whatever stage-age that can happen, there is no way to claim the child isn't a human. A human child can't survive without "a" parent for the first several years of life anyways so I don't see why there is debate on if it ca
o you're judging the enemy based on what systems our military has?
No, I'm judging the enlightement of society by what we have learned from actions past. It has nothing to do with the military systems we have, it has to do with perspective. Taking out an entire city because of military objectives in that city is no longer acceptable. Things like Carpet bombings just to make sue the target was hit isn't acceptable any more. It was 80 years ago but not now.
Terrorists don't have our fancy guided missiles, communication gear, tanks, UAVs and so on. They can't drop a couple thousand bombs on military targets in some country a thousand miles away. They can, however, blow up a bunch of civilians to try and break the willpower of that nation to continue fighting. We define proper warfare in precisely the way that best suits our current advantages and goals.
And that is why they are terrorists and not military forces or insurgents or anything resembling them. The targeting of innocent civilians in order to terrorist them into making political changes that the terrorist are too cowardly to attempt on their own makes them terrorists. If you think blowing up your kids is a viable way to get the city build roads, you would be a terrorist too.
WW2 did have more accurate weapon system however the advantage of using nukes made them a better weapon in the situation. Simply bombing a city conventionally doesn't scare the enemy enough for them to surrender outright.
Simply bombing or blowing a city up does make people give up. In fact, it pretty much united them and rallied them around a cause. Disruptions of services and so on made people less efficient but what ultimately makes people give up and stop fighting is knowing of their ultimate destruction. Buildings and roads can be rebuilt, as long as the majority of people in a city live after bombing attacks, they only strengthened their resolve to pay back whoever was responsable. The two bombings in Japan showed that they couldn't survive this new weapon which is the only reason they gave up. If you kill everyone in my family but me, I'm not going to give up, I'm going to try that much harder to kill you.
Mostly it's only okay to kill only a couple dozen civilians due to PR and the resulting counter-productiveness of doing otherwise.
Yep, but only when attempting to kill the bad guys. Never when the civilians are the sole targets. And that's because we are a different world then we were in WWWII or Vietnam or the civil war and so on.
Sure it was fine in 1940 something. The only reason it is wrong today is because we saw what happened and made more accurate weapons systems. Now it's only fine to kill a handful of civilians when killing the bad guys. No more entire villages wiped out because you couldn't tell the enemy from who you were supposedly helping (Vietnam). We learn from out actions, we learn from out mistakes, and we learn from processing both of them. Unless your some sort of fucked in the head asshole who is going to claim "talking solves everything", you need to use the perspective of the times, not what you know 100 years after the fact when viewing things.
If the new employer does any checking and the former boss is being an ass, I'm not getting the job anyways. Where do I lose more then then I already have.
The idea of a "personal" connection gone bad is something everyone can relate to. It detflects from your professional life and the idea that you can't get along with others which is what the manager wants to do- make you look undesirable for hire anywhere else. It's something that doesn't place blame and allows people to somewhat understand why someone was otherwise unreasonable. You will have an easier time convincing your new employer that you were fired for banging the bosses bitch over claiming "he was mad at me for wanting to quit and made crap up".
I wouldn't go to HR without going to a lawyer first.
Your essentially telling the company that you suspect wrong doing and possibly illegal behavior from the management directly over you and that you demand proper action.
The problem with that is you have brought up a legal threat to them that comes from you personally. Their first reaction is probably going to be to forward the letter to a legal department or a supervisor over them who will and then the company will attempt to protect itself from "you" suing them. Instead of you just being a "whistle blower" in this case, you are or could be the hostile party from their perspective. They will have to make a choice, cover their asses from liability or support you and hope you don't sue. There's probably a few other choices too but their fist inclination is probably going to be self preservation which means amassing a ton of information against you to paint you as a disgruntled employee upset with something else with an objective that may be to financially harm the company by fraudulent statements. At this point, any disciplinary actions they take against the manager in question will support your position so expect it to be you gone with him staying until they can find another reason to punish or fire your supervisor.
Speaking with a competent lawyer first could secure an accurate and proper copy of your record which heads off this burnt bridges campaign when they figure your intentions out. It will pretty mush leave them with the only appropriate action to be supporting you instead of the company. However, the lawyer will know better the we do on what is at stake and how to proceed. Reporting something like this can have legal ramifications for at least on of the parties and legal benefits for you so exploring those issues in order to limit destructive behavior is more then appropriate. Even if they stand on your side of things, after five years or so, the manager may be in a better position to react to a grudge over the demotion he received or the promotion he never got because of that shit.
On your new job application, just write that the reason for leaving was that the girl you started dating turned out to be your direct supervisors ex-wife/ex-flame and he went crazy-weird when she ended up getting a restraining order keeping him 500ft away at all time. IF you get an interview, expand that into a "I was honestly scared of what this guy might have done- he made several threats or at least they sounded like threats but when you asked him to repeat what he said, he always had something else to say.
Of course, if the guy really is an ass, that could be a selling point. I once received a job specifically because the interviewer knew my former boss was an ass and knew that we blew up over something resulting in my termination after walking out. Use the term constructive discharge to get unemployment benefits but don't lie to the government because they can check it pretty easily.
Actually, no. The ones that don't use the same tactics but have legitimate military targets and goals in mind are insurgents and rogue military operatives. The ones labeled "terrorist" are only done so when they target Innocent civilians who have no legitimate military value nor does their defeat result in any gain on a battle field. An insurgent driving a truck load of explosives into an army barracks is called an insurgent. If the same guy drived into a crowded market just to kill innocent civilians with the to terrorize the people into supporting them are terrorists.
The resistances, if you will, have always been called appropriately. Don't confuse your lack of understanding of the situation for the situation.
I have servers that I set up 10 years ago for small businesses and I'm probably the only one with the passwords assuming they are still running (486 and Pentium II machines running either Netware 3.something or some dos app). I get calls every once in a while from companies I haven't done business with in over 5 years asking me if I could remember the pass words to the servers.
I generally type everything out and put it in a sealed envelope within a binder with all the server specs, applications, network diagrams and so on. The problem is that someone has either decided they didn't need it and tossed it or whoever replaced me did something with it and it can't be found anymore. Most of the times, someone changed them and they aren't the same anymore. I think one situation occurred where a company raided an office because a manager was embezzling and the cops never returned the binder. Management leaves or whatever. Sometimes they need it only for data recovery or some sort of migration to a newer system and sometimes they are still using the crap but need to change something.
Filing the "keys to the kingdom" with the management doesn't always work well so check that they are still there and still current every once in a while.
That's not necessarily true. Just like the security guard, if the policy said no one enters the building without ID and a company Badge, then not letting anyone in without either of those is appropriate.
The same can be said about a corporations bank account or credit card numbers. It's completely ethical and responsible to not disclose those things to anyone you cannot personally verify their right to access the information. Credibility is only a stones throw from socially engineering the information away from someone. The police in the room could have been attempting to get access to install illegal taps on a public official or anything other then what they were doing. Childs was probably within his rights to demand that he be contacted by the proper people in a manner that he could verify their identity. The mayor was most likely his point of contact and his superior which is why he refused to do anything until he could give it to them.
Here is a thought experiment. Suppose I walked into your building in a uniform of some sort and asked you for the passwords to your servers and access to the server rooms. I gave you ID that matched the name on my uniform and claim I was hired by the company to perform a security audit of the system.
Do you A- give me access and the passwords B- tell me to get lost C- contact your superiors and verify that I am legit then give me the passwords and access
C- is the right answer (even though A happens all to often). But Childs wasn't in a position to contact his superiors or the mayor could have been his superior and instead stated that he would give the information to the mayor. When the mayor came around, he surrendered everything without hassle.
Until that time, the admin has no responsibility to hand over that information.
Sort of. If it is a case with injury or irreparable harm, each day the passwords were withheld could mean more money you ultimately have to compensate or repay.
A normal person would see a responsibility to himself and his family to limit the potential damages applied to himself. It's not a responsibility to the place that just fired you, but there is one there, especially if you have a family and any judgment effects their financial well being.
That is only because people like you refuse to correct people when they use a word incorrectly.
People have been using the term in this way long before either of us were using the term. It's the contrast to conservative which isn't really conservative in the US either. They are generic labels unique to US political discussion that hide mediocrity and idiocy that doesn't exactly fit into a specific category. Correcting people in the term's usage ends up lending legitimacy where it doesn't belong.
And it's not just wiki that uses that definition. Merriam Webster has "liberal" as meaning "of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism" and "liberalism" as "b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard"
And yet we know the liberals in America hate the self-regulating or free market. I don't mean this to sound confrontational, but it's exactly why politicians prefer to use the labels and attach the cannotations to themselves and it is exactly the reason why the definition has changed in American politic. Lets look at another set of terms that have Unique definitions like the word Owned. It's the past tense of own which means you have the right or title to something Owned also referes to something having an owner. But the Ubran dictionary defines it's use as: To be made a fool of; To make a fool of; To confound or prove wrong; embarrasing someone: Being embarrased. - As you can see, there is nothing mentioned along the terms of possession.
OneLook has more definitions along this line. Fact is is the first liberals used "liberal" to mean liberty and laissez-faire economics and self-regulating markets. Thomas Jefferson was one of those liberals as was Thomas Paine.
A fish has been called 200 some different names before the University of Oxford started writing down definitions and essentially created the dictionary. It's a basic evolution of language and a common reason to why there are so many different languages that are so similar. Spanish in Spain is quite a but different then Spanish in Mexico and Italian is relative to the same root languages too. But that probably going farther then I'm prepared to go. The thing is, groups of people often use a word outside it's defined intention for various reasons. The use of the term as applied to Jefferson or Paine would not be the same use as is being used today. However, when refering to Jefferson or Paine, it is proper to either define the term as for the period or explain it away with newer terminology. Now I didn't make the rules or the way things are, If we corrected people and still allowed politicians to label themselves and others in the way they do today, then we could easily slide Hitler and Mussolini into the same definition and promote their ideals.
It does make it difficult to follow which is why people shouldn't suffer from group think. But they need to be aware enough to not suffer incorrect assumptions based around them. Many conservatives in the US consider themselves to fit the definition of liberal much more then who we call liberal do. The battle cries of the conservatives over the last 20+ years was individual freedom, less government controls, a self-regulating market or free market and even the laissez-faire economics. The people we call liberals on the other hand, want to hamper freedoms they don't specifically approve of like Gun Ownership, Free speech with Talk Radio that they are as of now attempting to force the airing of their own arguments on with the fairness doctrine, a restricted and regulated economy and market, a restricted and regulated enterprise with deep controls on corporate activities and so on. Yet, the democrats are t
Regardless of what Wikipedia want's to claim, In the US, Liberals and liberalism is little more then socialist pushing government controls under the guise of freedom and enlightenment. It's a power thing that contracts the people to be obligated and dependent to them.
It may be confusing for outsiders but that's the raw gist of it in American politics.
In print media, they have to cover the costs of paper and ink plus a distribution system on top of all their news costs. The paper and ink and delivery are probably one of their biggest share of costs. A news paper is currently what, 50 cents or 75 cents now with a buck fifty for the Sunday edition where it seems that all the ads and coupons are so people actually want to buy them. The news is already digital, edited, and laid out when it get printed. It's trivial to place that on the internet along with a couple extra ads to cover a web monkey or two. Bandwidth probably offsets some of the savings from not having to print and deliver the news but those costs, at least for the smaller papers would probably already be paid because of how they aggregate their news sources.
I think the real problem is that they might have been making 5 cents a copy sold between the subscription costs and adds presented but don't exactly know how to translate copies viewed online as adds printed and delivered as they would with the paper which delivers every single add no matter who reads what. When I owned my second Business, I think I was paying something along the lines of $2000 a month for a two column 4 inch spot that ran three times a week and on Sunday which would change every Sunday. They through in a listing on their website free but few people read the entire site which means that add would have been grossly overpriced if it was web only. One of the difficulties is getting people to read more the one page that was linked to from someone's blog somewhere.
I guess a solution might be to structure their sites to invite people to stick around more and read more of the stories so the same amounts of ads will be displayed. The AP is more or less in the business of selling to other news outlets so maybe they need to just push the link to articles at local sites to make their content that much more valuable to those news outlets. As for the large papers like the NY times or Post or WSJ or something, it won't have the local stories which is the only reason I visit local news sites. In fact, I gave up my local news paper subscription a few years ago when I realized that there was only one or two stories that I was interested in, the rest was a reprint of the WSJ or USA today. I could read that one story standing in the line at the grocery or pick it up on one of the local network news stations so it wasn't worth the $150 a year or whatever it costs me at the time.
Your right, if they charge, I won't pay. I would rather go back to the kid down the road throwing the paper into the bushed every day or stealing the neighbors paper when they are done with it then have to screw around with subscriptions to sites I will only visit 3 or 4 times a year.
No, "funded by" and "funded using" have separate meanings when applied in situation as you described.
"Funded by" would mean that someone took something of worth or value that they held and gave it to the other party. "Funded using" would mean that someone took something they controlled that another party declared has value and gave it to the other party. In your example, it would be "funded using" which would be just as accurate if someone gave them gold, diamonds, cars, or simply donated their time. One is the source, the other is the vehicle for the transfer.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't ruin his world view, it seems that it's all he has left.
Your confusing the just downloading it argument. If you obtain a file or copyrighted work, you havn't broken a law in most areas regardless of if you listen to it or not. Copyright doesn't give the owner the right to control who hear or sees the work, it gives them the right to control it's distribution and public performances and uses in other works.
Downloading can never be against copyright law because it has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with conversion and receiving something you didn't have a right to. Not to many places have laws specifically dealing with that on this scale. Now when you distribute the file or whatever it is, if you make copies in the act or do it in a way that violates one of the rights assigned to the copyright owner, your get into legal conflict with the copyright laws.
The making availible isn't a violation claim has to do with making sure the file is what you claim it is too. Simply having a file labeled metalica's greatest hits does not mean it is violating Metalica's copyright in any way. You could play the file and hear me saying they sold out for 45 minutes to a three cord melody I composed minutes before making the recording. Now, if you actually obtain the file from me, and it is your copyrighted works, then I have broken the law. But simple naming of something does not make a violation.
That being said, this is why rules like the three strikes and your offline are so stupid. It doesn't distinguish between actual violation and treats complaints as trialed facts when they aren't. The way to catch someone is to actually pose as a user and download something from them and review the content to ensure it is yours. This gets expensive because it's hard to automate. The recovery from copyright violations already allow extra money for damages but for some reason, they seem to want to short circuit this and take the least possible path of resistance. This leads to incorrectly being charged for things done, it leads to accusations that aren't true, and it leads to punishment without due process of the law. And yes, when the courts have used taking away internet access as punishment, it becomes punishment when it is done because of accusations.
The difference is that the others are actual countries. Quebec isn't a county, it's a province inside a country and they do more then attempt to preserve their culture, they push it onto anyone who comes in.
It may not be as simple as just starting an ISP. The last mile service is the most difficult to achieve. Most ISPs in place already have the last mile infrastructure in place from other offerings or had some government assistance to get access.
DSL, and it's slow adoption is probably the most obvious example of this issue. For years, the lines were not in a shape or quality that could carry DLS signals. This is true within Canada just as much as the US. When DSL tech came availible, some areas had to wait 5 or more years before lines where upgrades and so on before they could get access to it. What people don't really realize is that ADSL was originally developed back in 1988 or so with it's roots coming from the scientific paper released in 1948 "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". It probably wasn't until 2000 or so until DSL started becoming widely availible and affordable because of all the upgrades that needed to be made. Now this is despite the telecoms already using it as an extension to DS1 services to pipe the bulk of calls outside the local exchange.
Back in 1999, I was working with a guy and we were going to start a DSL ISP in my local area and even rent bandwidth to some local ISPs (mom and pop shops) so help cover the costs. Now, this was in the US so things might be a little different but to get the tech out to the limits of the existing technology at the time, we were going to have to rewire half of the city before we even thought about putting R-DSLAMS in to extend the ranges. And even though we were replacing wire that the telecoms were already obligated to replace, we had to go through the motions of getting a right of way and all that. In the end, it think we estimated it to take something like 15-25 years to repay the initial investment if we were operating at maximum capacity for that time. In 2000 or 2001, Time Warner started upgrading their lines in my local area and offered roadrunner which started taking some of the T1 internet access accounts away, the telcos then upgraded their lines (without having to fuck with 'right of ways') and offered DSL.
Now both Time Warner and SBC/ATT will offer fiber access to 90% of the local area if your a commercial customer but all your phones and stuff go over the fiber access too which is significantly pointing to the "other uses" which covers the last mile installation costs. Hell, even Verizon's FIOS services which are sold to private customers do the phone and all too.
It may be impossible for someone to set up a second network offering the speeds and such and remain competitive in the least. This wouldn't be because there aren't enough file sharers or P2P users, it's because so much of the costs are already offset by other services and those opertunities may not be availible to the people.
He can object to it all he wants. Hell, for that matter, he can even work toward changing the system for all I care. What he can't do is take something that is pretty much identical to how it was when it was created over 200 years ago and pretend it is something else because he hasn't invested the time or energy to learn about the damn thing in the first place. His free speech and freedom to be ignorant doesn't take away my free speech and freedom to correct him. Especially when he shows off that ignorance in a public place to which I am a part of.
Don't make the mistake of assuming his right to object to something overrides my right to object to his objections or to point out inaccuracies in his claim or to simply defend what he objects to. One person's right does not take another person's away. We have political "free speech zones" because too many people can't grasp the concept of all the people having the same rights and they want to impose their rights over others. Your right to protest or speech or religion or anything doesn't detract from my rights to do the same at all. Even if I am the government, I enjoy the exact same rights.
BTW,
The comment about the length of time was more to show how wrong he was in the interpretation of Princes and Kings. He is probably the first person to ever relate to the sitting government in that way. Certainly the first person in over 200 years to do it publicly and in a way to draw my attention. Anyways, it 300 million people before you didn't see it that way, then chances are, that way is completely wrong. I'm not sure how you got the idea that I was attempting to say "it's been that way for 200 years so don't complain about it", but I really meant it as, no one else sees it that way, it's a sign that your way is wrong. It's like railing the 2+2 is 5 when everyone else says it's 4, then going about saying fuck that because he doesn't like 5 as the answer.
I don't think SCOTUS got any kickbacks, the more then likely applied the laws as they were written. Actually, if the SCOTUS was getting kickbacks and payoff, the legal system would be in far worse shape then it is now. You would have courts ruling opposite of each other based solely on supreme court cases that conflict with no apparent directions. That doesn't happen.
I do however, think maybe Microsoft was holding off on some action concerning fat32 until after the Rambus case was solved to avoid unnecessary litigation expenses.
Don't look at a chain of events that have one effect as the underlying motive for those effects. Just because you imagine something doesn't make it happen. It's more likely that Rambus was in the right according to how they were being prosecuted and MS was waiting for that to pan out. As you notice with Rambus, they never went after them for fraud which is the most obvious of the situation.
It's probably the recent FCC Rambus case that the courts ruled in favor of Rambus on.
If the FCC would have won, MS would have been facing regulatory challenges in attempting to enforce their patent and possibly have it ineffective to some degree because of how it has become a standard. When Rambus won, it doesn't matter anymore that it's a standard accepted across a large board of audiences or it's failure to protect against it before.
What may work in TomTom's favor is very public statements by MS officials leading to the approval of the Fat32 patent where they claimed it was defensive and wouldn't be using it against people using fat32. The interesting thing here is that MS may have granted a license by attempting to quite Critics of them patenting fat32. The devil is in the detail but the GPL works much the same way, if it says you can do X and they change their mind later, the cats already out of the bag. Now, if a spoke person for MS or any company said you can do X, they don't really have much of a case for going after a person for doing X because they have a patent now or all the sudden want to leverage the patent.
I guess maybe something that should happen is we need to find all of the statements that MS has made stating that they weren't going to use fat32 in this way. My memory could be a little off but I don't think so. I think TomTom might have a good change at proving an applied license already existed because of statements made by microsoft.
Well, I'm long past that job anyways but what would the others say? Three of the four managers loved me and on had some sort of problem? I got alone with all of the employees so I'm just wondering who is going to say something that busts me. Suppose one of the employees I worked with comes around, what's he going to say "you remember so and so who always rode your ass"? Suppose the manager himself get hired, all I got to do is say that was the only reason I could find for his irrational behavior then direct whoever to speak with the other employees or management to see how irrational it was.
That would go double for someone making bad references towards you. What exactly are people supposed to do then? I mean the op in this case was going to get blackballed because he was going to a different job, not because he was a crappy employee. You don't keep crappy employees around for 5 or more years if they don't do the job in an acceptable way. The op said "it has been implied that, in spite my record of above-average performance appraisals and promotions, I will be marked as leaving the company 'on bad terms' if I refuse to extend my departure date further." In my case, the guy was actively sabotaging my chances of getting employment somewhere else and he wasn't being truthful either. So what is the "correct thing to do" how do you make a person who screws you unscrew you? How do you do this when you don't have the money to sue them outright and in an at will state, probably not enough evidence to do anything anyways. So tell me, what should be done, should you just ignore it and suffer the mediocre jobs and job pay the rest of your life? Or having to go into an entirely different career path to escape the blackball? We are talking about something where the correct path in the first place is for the company and manager to have been honest- something outside most people's controls.
I'm far from 16 but when I did do it, I was closer to 24 and I'm far from that too. Like I said, what's the right way if this way is so wrong? It isn't out of the ordinary to see inter office romances go bad, they are typically against the employee rules because they turn ugly so often. I don't personally care if someone who was willing to assault your integrity and damage your credibility gets hurt when those calls were falsely made.
I will admit that taking job advice from slashdot is probably not a smart Idea.
AS for the "poor man's terrorist tactics", you seem to be forgetting that the op is in a position where he won't be able to find another job anyways because of his supervisor stating falsehoods about him. Redirecting his surpervisors comments into the "there is a personal problem" bin and making them look to be his problem not yours is fair game.
As for it not working, well, yes it does. I have used it in the past. A job I once held had 4 supervisors over me. Three of them loved me and the work I did, the fourth one couldn't stand me. He attempted to fire me twice and I had to go over his head both times to save my job, each with the other three supervisors going to bat for me. Finally I had enough and started looking for another job. I couldn't understand why I couldn't find one, then I realized that the one manager was giving out bad references. I noted on my resume that I was leaving for personal reasons involved directly with this one person. The very next job that interviewed me hired me in spite of the bad reference when they called. I told them that a girl I used to date but stayed friend with after the break up started dating someone else, when I finally met him, it turned out to be my supervisor and he kept telling me I had to stay away from her. Then I said that when that didn't happen, he started going crazy at work towards me, After she broke it off with him, he kept attempting to fire me for no reasons and that other managers had to back me up on so now I thought it's time to move on and away from him.
When your screwed anyways, the only thing you can do is limit the damage. If that means telling a lie, then be it. It's not likely that someone will be able to prove anything in either situation in a court so when life gives you lemons, you make lemon aide. I'm not suggesting that people do this where they are at fault for a bad review, just where there is no reason for it like in my case where the guy just didn't like me and the opts case where they don't want him to leave but are too cheap to offer anything to make it worth him staying.
Not in this instance. There are way too many people using it in those ways outside of your control. You will end up with people continuing to spout one thing with a meaning and people like you who are purposely making it appear as something else. Word change and their definitions change, get over it.
Yep, and no matter how many people you attempt to corect, when you call yourself a hacker, there will be people thinking your a script kiddie attempting to steal credit card numbers to make your super female love bot.
I used to be that way until I realized that it more or less made myself look crazy without tarnishing their appearance at all. I still object to things and call them for it, but I let them have that minor technicality and concentrate on whatever it is they are attempting to hide.
That's sort of the point. If you use it in a certain way, it can be applied in a certain way that escapes the norm of what you or I walking in from outside would place it. The problem is that in American politics, you have the left and the right claiming a lot of the same things. The liberals claim X isn't here and the conservative claim it is or should be, then it becomes more of a what route to take to get back to X or if it is really missing. In America, it really carries a complexity because even the left seems to be to the right of most of the rest of the worlds left.
Well, not. It isn't about freedom of the body as you mention. Lets take things like Abortion and Drug use for instance. Abortion effects the child's body too. That goes against the entire 'as long as you don't harm another'. Of course the pro-choice crowd use tricks and change terms much like we are talking about to turn an unborn child into just a cysts or something other then another human life. That's where the debate actually is with one side firmly believing life starts at conception and the other wanting to claim it doesn't until it's born. I personally believe it starts at conception and will only concede ground only up to a point where a baby can be reasonably expected to survive outside the human body with or without medical assistance. At whatever stage-age that can happen, there is no way to claim the child isn't a human. A human child can't survive without "a" parent for the first several years of life anyways so I don't see why there is debate on if it ca
No, I'm judging the enlightement of society by what we have learned from actions past. It has nothing to do with the military systems we have, it has to do with perspective. Taking out an entire city because of military objectives in that city is no longer acceptable. Things like Carpet bombings just to make sue the target was hit isn't acceptable any more. It was 80 years ago but not now.
And that is why they are terrorists and not military forces or insurgents or anything resembling them. The targeting of innocent civilians in order to terrorist them into making political changes that the terrorist are too cowardly to attempt on their own makes them terrorists. If you think blowing up your kids is a viable way to get the city build roads, you would be a terrorist too.
Simply bombing or blowing a city up does make people give up. In fact, it pretty much united them and rallied them around a cause. Disruptions of services and so on made people less efficient but what ultimately makes people give up and stop fighting is knowing of their ultimate destruction. Buildings and roads can be rebuilt, as long as the majority of people in a city live after bombing attacks, they only strengthened their resolve to pay back whoever was responsable. The two bombings in Japan showed that they couldn't survive this new weapon which is the only reason they gave up. If you kill everyone in my family but me, I'm not going to give up, I'm going to try that much harder to kill you.
Yep, but only when attempting to kill the bad guys. Never when the civilians are the sole targets. And that's because we are a different world then we were in WWWII or Vietnam or the civil war and so on.
Please keep times comparatively accurate.
Sure it was fine in 1940 something. The only reason it is wrong today is because we saw what happened and made more accurate weapons systems. Now it's only fine to kill a handful of civilians when killing the bad guys. No more entire villages wiped out because you couldn't tell the enemy from who you were supposedly helping (Vietnam). We learn from out actions, we learn from out mistakes, and we learn from processing both of them. Unless your some sort of fucked in the head asshole who is going to claim "talking solves everything", you need to use the perspective of the times, not what you know 100 years after the fact when viewing things.
If the new employer does any checking and the former boss is being an ass, I'm not getting the job anyways. Where do I lose more then then I already have.
The idea of a "personal" connection gone bad is something everyone can relate to. It detflects from your professional life and the idea that you can't get along with others which is what the manager wants to do- make you look undesirable for hire anywhere else. It's something that doesn't place blame and allows people to somewhat understand why someone was otherwise unreasonable. You will have an easier time convincing your new employer that you were fired for banging the bosses bitch over claiming "he was mad at me for wanting to quit and made crap up".
It's about damage control and who controls it.
I wouldn't go to HR without going to a lawyer first.
Your essentially telling the company that you suspect wrong doing and possibly illegal behavior from the management directly over you and that you demand proper action.
The problem with that is you have brought up a legal threat to them that comes from you personally. Their first reaction is probably going to be to forward the letter to a legal department or a supervisor over them who will and then the company will attempt to protect itself from "you" suing them. Instead of you just being a "whistle blower" in this case, you are or could be the hostile party from their perspective. They will have to make a choice, cover their asses from liability or support you and hope you don't sue. There's probably a few other choices too but their fist inclination is probably going to be self preservation which means amassing a ton of information against you to paint you as a disgruntled employee upset with something else with an objective that may be to financially harm the company by fraudulent statements. At this point, any disciplinary actions they take against the manager in question will support your position so expect it to be you gone with him staying until they can find another reason to punish or fire your supervisor.
Speaking with a competent lawyer first could secure an accurate and proper copy of your record which heads off this burnt bridges campaign when they figure your intentions out. It will pretty mush leave them with the only appropriate action to be supporting you instead of the company. However, the lawyer will know better the we do on what is at stake and how to proceed. Reporting something like this can have legal ramifications for at least on of the parties and legal benefits for you so exploring those issues in order to limit destructive behavior is more then appropriate. Even if they stand on your side of things, after five years or so, the manager may be in a better position to react to a grudge over the demotion he received or the promotion he never got because of that shit.
I can make this a lot easier.
On your new job application, just write that the reason for leaving was that the girl you started dating turned out to be your direct supervisors ex-wife/ex-flame and he went crazy-weird when she ended up getting a restraining order keeping him 500ft away at all time. IF you get an interview, expand that into a "I was honestly scared of what this guy might have done- he made several threats or at least they sounded like threats but when you asked him to repeat what he said, he always had something else to say.
Of course, if the guy really is an ass, that could be a selling point. I once received a job specifically because the interviewer knew my former boss was an ass and knew that we blew up over something resulting in my termination after walking out. Use the term constructive discharge to get unemployment benefits but don't lie to the government because they can check it pretty easily.
Actually, no. The ones that don't use the same tactics but have legitimate military targets and goals in mind are insurgents and rogue military operatives. The ones labeled "terrorist" are only done so when they target Innocent civilians who have no legitimate military value nor does their defeat result in any gain on a battle field. An insurgent driving a truck load of explosives into an army barracks is called an insurgent. If the same guy drived into a crowded market just to kill innocent civilians with the to terrorize the people into supporting them are terrorists.
The resistances, if you will, have always been called appropriately. Don't confuse your lack of understanding of the situation for the situation.
Or the Tow home when it crashes or gets infected with something like the Melissa Virus.
The Chinese aren't technically bad drivers. It's just that you can blindfold them with dental floss.
I have servers that I set up 10 years ago for small businesses and I'm probably the only one with the passwords assuming they are still running (486 and Pentium II machines running either Netware 3.something or some dos app). I get calls every once in a while from companies I haven't done business with in over 5 years asking me if I could remember the pass words to the servers.
I generally type everything out and put it in a sealed envelope within a binder with all the server specs, applications, network diagrams and so on. The problem is that someone has either decided they didn't need it and tossed it or whoever replaced me did something with it and it can't be found anymore. Most of the times, someone changed them and they aren't the same anymore. I think one situation occurred where a company raided an office because a manager was embezzling and the cops never returned the binder. Management leaves or whatever. Sometimes they need it only for data recovery or some sort of migration to a newer system and sometimes they are still using the crap but need to change something.
Filing the "keys to the kingdom" with the management doesn't always work well so check that they are still there and still current every once in a while.
That's not necessarily true. Just like the security guard, if the policy said no one enters the building without ID and a company Badge, then not letting anyone in without either of those is appropriate.
The same can be said about a corporations bank account or credit card numbers. It's completely ethical and responsible to not disclose those things to anyone you cannot personally verify their right to access the information. Credibility is only a stones throw from socially engineering the information away from someone. The police in the room could have been attempting to get access to install illegal taps on a public official or anything other then what they were doing. Childs was probably within his rights to demand that he be contacted by the proper people in a manner that he could verify their identity. The mayor was most likely his point of contact and his superior which is why he refused to do anything until he could give it to them.
Here is a thought experiment. Suppose I walked into your building in a uniform of some sort and asked you for the passwords to your servers and access to the server rooms. I gave you ID that matched the name on my uniform and claim I was hired by the company to perform a security audit of the system.
Do you
A- give me access and the passwords
B- tell me to get lost
C- contact your superiors and verify that I am legit then give me the passwords and access
C- is the right answer (even though A happens all to often). But Childs wasn't in a position to contact his superiors or the mayor could have been his superior and instead stated that he would give the information to the mayor. When the mayor came around, he surrendered everything without hassle.
Sort of. If it is a case with injury or irreparable harm, each day the passwords were withheld could mean more money you ultimately have to compensate or repay.
A normal person would see a responsibility to himself and his family to limit the potential damages applied to himself. It's not a responsibility to the place that just fired you, but there is one there, especially if you have a family and any judgment effects their financial well being.
People have been using the term in this way long before either of us were using the term. It's the contrast to conservative which isn't really conservative in the US either. They are generic labels unique to US political discussion that hide mediocrity and idiocy that doesn't exactly fit into a specific category. Correcting people in the term's usage ends up lending legitimacy where it doesn't belong.
And yet we know the liberals in America hate the self-regulating or free market. I don't mean this to sound confrontational, but it's exactly why politicians prefer to use the labels and attach the cannotations to themselves and it is exactly the reason why the definition has changed in American politic. Lets look at another set of terms that have Unique definitions like the word Owned. It's the past tense of own which means you have the right or title to something Owned also referes to something having an owner. But the Ubran dictionary defines it's use as: To be made a fool of; To make a fool of; To confound or prove wrong; embarrasing someone: Being embarrased. - As you can see, there is nothing mentioned along the terms of possession.
A fish has been called 200 some different names before the University of Oxford started writing down definitions and essentially created the dictionary. It's a basic evolution of language and a common reason to why there are so many different languages that are so similar. Spanish in Spain is quite a but different then Spanish in Mexico and Italian is relative to the same root languages too. But that probably going farther then I'm prepared to go. The thing is, groups of people often use a word outside it's defined intention for various reasons. The use of the term as applied to Jefferson or Paine would not be the same use as is being used today. However, when refering to Jefferson or Paine, it is proper to either define the term as for the period or explain it away with newer terminology. Now I didn't make the rules or the way things are, If we corrected people and still allowed politicians to label themselves and others in the way they do today, then we could easily slide Hitler and Mussolini into the same definition and promote their ideals.
It does make it difficult to follow which is why people shouldn't suffer from group think. But they need to be aware enough to not suffer incorrect assumptions based around them. Many conservatives in the US consider themselves to fit the definition of liberal much more then who we call liberal do. The battle cries of the conservatives over the last 20+ years was individual freedom, less government controls, a self-regulating market or free market and even the laissez-faire economics. The people we call liberals on the other hand, want to hamper freedoms they don't specifically approve of like Gun Ownership, Free speech with Talk Radio that they are as of now attempting to force the airing of their own arguments on with the fairness doctrine, a restricted and regulated economy and market, a restricted and regulated enterprise with deep controls on corporate activities and so on. Yet, the democrats are t
Regardless of what Wikipedia want's to claim, In the US, Liberals and liberalism is little more then socialist pushing government controls under the guise of freedom and enlightenment. It's a power thing that contracts the people to be obligated and dependent to them.
It may be confusing for outsiders but that's the raw gist of it in American politics.
There really isn't a reason for them to charge.
In print media, they have to cover the costs of paper and ink plus a distribution system on top of all their news costs. The paper and ink and delivery are probably one of their biggest share of costs. A news paper is currently what, 50 cents or 75 cents now with a buck fifty for the Sunday edition where it seems that all the ads and coupons are so people actually want to buy them. The news is already digital, edited, and laid out when it get printed. It's trivial to place that on the internet along with a couple extra ads to cover a web monkey or two. Bandwidth probably offsets some of the savings from not having to print and deliver the news but those costs, at least for the smaller papers would probably already be paid because of how they aggregate their news sources.
I think the real problem is that they might have been making 5 cents a copy sold between the subscription costs and adds presented but don't exactly know how to translate copies viewed online as adds printed and delivered as they would with the paper which delivers every single add no matter who reads what. When I owned my second Business, I think I was paying something along the lines of $2000 a month for a two column 4 inch spot that ran three times a week and on Sunday which would change every Sunday. They through in a listing on their website free but few people read the entire site which means that add would have been grossly overpriced if it was web only. One of the difficulties is getting people to read more the one page that was linked to from someone's blog somewhere.
I guess a solution might be to structure their sites to invite people to stick around more and read more of the stories so the same amounts of ads will be displayed. The AP is more or less in the business of selling to other news outlets so maybe they need to just push the link to articles at local sites to make their content that much more valuable to those news outlets. As for the large papers like the NY times or Post or WSJ or something, it won't have the local stories which is the only reason I visit local news sites. In fact, I gave up my local news paper subscription a few years ago when I realized that there was only one or two stories that I was interested in, the rest was a reprint of the WSJ or USA today. I could read that one story standing in the line at the grocery or pick it up on one of the local network news stations so it wasn't worth the $150 a year or whatever it costs me at the time.
Your right, if they charge, I won't pay. I would rather go back to the kid down the road throwing the paper into the bushed every day or stealing the neighbors paper when they are done with it then have to screw around with subscriptions to sites I will only visit 3 or 4 times a year.
No, "funded by" and "funded using" have separate meanings when applied in situation as you described.
"Funded by" would mean that someone took something of worth or value that they held and gave it to the other party. "Funded using" would mean that someone took something they controlled that another party declared has value and gave it to the other party. In your example, it would be "funded using" which would be just as accurate if someone gave them gold, diamonds, cars, or simply donated their time. One is the source, the other is the vehicle for the transfer.