On the down side, it would still be seen as a treaty under international law, so if a future U.S. administration tried to back out of it, that would be perfectly legal under U.S. domestic law (if it were never properly adopted as a formal treaty), but not under international law, setting up a conflict.
The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents. Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60. Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.
Is that the case even if distribution is involved?
That people are mindless drones who will automatically vote for whomever spends the most dollars to communicate to them
As a rule of thumb, the bigger spender wins the election. This is especially true of lower profile contests that don't get the same media coverage as major statewide or nationwide elections. Of course it's not absolute but there is a very pronounced correlation.
Pot is not a gateway drug in the way that term is used
No kidding. I used the term as an attention getter, though I'd say I explained the reasoning behind it well enough to differentiate myself from the more traditional argument of it being a gateway drug.
I would argue, that you know nothing about pot
Based on what? Did I argue it was addictive or fatal? My argument is that it is a point of contact for a drug pusher which wouldn't be available to the pusher were pot legal. There's nothing in your post I didn't already know, except for this tidbit:
Unfortunately, right now where it's unregulated, people will cut it with far more addictive substances. Instead of just getting herb, you could be getting meth mixed in as well.
And that provides another angle to my primary premise which is that you'll have less non-marijuana usage if marijuana is legal.
Save more money - Stop most of the ridiculous "war on drugs" and the exorbitant spending and manpower on the marijuana aspect of it.
Not just the marijuana aspect. All aspects. Legalization would bring the price down by a hefty percentage, which would make marijuana even more attractive compared to the other choices. Plus, it's often argued that marijuana is a gateway drug... which I actually agree with. But why? It has a reputation as a relatively harmless substance. People are willing to buy it off of just about anyone. So you find a guy, you buy from him a few times, and when he's always delivered decent goods you start to have some faith in his products. You feel like trying something else, you go to the same guy who's been supplying marijuana to you. Now if you legalize that first guy stops being a dealer and instead is a corner deli that won't carry anything illegal. The dealer has lost a major trust building product. Of course this won't completely eliminate drug traffic (IMO, nothing ever will), but it'll make a bigger dent than anything else we could possibly do.
Google loses its footing and caves to pressure of the Chinese government and market
There's a chance that google is currently not making money in China right now. It may be a huge market, but all the advertisers hate it. Pageviews aren't translating to sales at anything remotely close to the rate they do in US/Europe.
Maybe you should RTFA yourself and you would realize my comment was entirely correct.
Your original post was not insightful at all. You were purely poking fun at TFA and the "editor". (Not that there was any editing done, a point that's already been made).
The mods on here today must have their heads screwed on backwards to give you Insightful and Funny.
So bitter. If you examined it a little more closely instead of channeling your nerd rage, you might have realized my 2nd comment was self deprecating and not critical of you, unlike this one.
Very likely. And when they finish they'll also give the world, free of charge, the cure for cancer that they accidentally discovered while genetically engineering pigs with wings.
Maybe I'm naive, but I think people shouldn't be fired for making mistakes.
One of my favorite interview questions: Tell me about something you worked on that went badly, and what you learned from it.
I want people who have made mistakes and recognize it. It's how you learn to be cautious. I just prefer that they made the mistake on someone else's dime:)
But here you have the situation where all the existing innovation (let alone future innovation) is disabled for the American market because the carriers don't like the consumers having more features unless they get a cut.
So far yes. I'm hoping to see a player enter the market who is willing to be just a carrier and not give a damn what your phone does. Not optimistic mind you, but hopeful.
Slashdot Mirror
Nor for that matter is GNR, though they come closer than Queen does.
Soon: "John's car rolled out of his driveway all by itself and hit a fire hydrant, honey! He should sue General Motors for faulty algorithms!"
If someone's car did that, couldn't "faulty algorithms" actually be the problem?
simply is recalculating what happened in the past instead.
which could still be enormously useful.
On the down side, it would still be seen as a treaty under international law, so if a future U.S. administration tried to back out of it, that would be perfectly legal under U.S. domestic law (if it were never properly adopted as a formal treaty), but not under international law, setting up a conflict.
Yeah, that's always been a show stopper for us.
Out in the tag dorms, taking a nap and waiting for a story where it might actually be relevant.
So Mr. Geisel was hiding social commentary in even the non-obvious spots. Neat.
The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents. Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60. Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.
Is that the case even if distribution is involved?
That people are mindless drones who will automatically vote for whomever spends the most dollars to communicate to them
As a rule of thumb, the bigger spender wins the election. This is especially true of lower profile contests that don't get the same media coverage as major statewide or nationwide elections. Of course it's not absolute but there is a very pronounced correlation.
Pot is not a gateway drug in the way that term is used
No kidding. I used the term as an attention getter, though I'd say I explained the reasoning behind it well enough to differentiate myself from the more traditional argument of it being a gateway drug.
I would argue, that you know nothing about pot
Based on what? Did I argue it was addictive or fatal? My argument is that it is a point of contact for a drug pusher which wouldn't be available to the pusher were pot legal. There's nothing in your post I didn't already know, except for this tidbit:
Unfortunately, right now where it's unregulated, people will cut it with far more addictive substances. Instead of just getting herb, you could be getting meth mixed in as well.
And that provides another angle to my primary premise which is that you'll have less non-marijuana usage if marijuana is legal.
Save more money - Stop most of the ridiculous "war on drugs" and the exorbitant spending and manpower on the marijuana aspect of it.
Not just the marijuana aspect. All aspects. Legalization would bring the price down by a hefty percentage, which would make marijuana even more attractive compared to the other choices. Plus, it's often argued that marijuana is a gateway drug... which I actually agree with. But why? It has a reputation as a relatively harmless substance. People are willing to buy it off of just about anyone. So you find a guy, you buy from him a few times, and when he's always delivered decent goods you start to have some faith in his products. You feel like trying something else, you go to the same guy who's been supplying marijuana to you. Now if you legalize that first guy stops being a dealer and instead is a corner deli that won't carry anything illegal. The dealer has lost a major trust building product. Of course this won't completely eliminate drug traffic (IMO, nothing ever will), but it'll make a bigger dent than anything else we could possibly do.
>The cynical among us might say that we're finally catching up...
Why is shit like this tolerated? If this was said about women then it would be sexist and marked as a troll.
I'll go with "we're expanding our lead" and see who complains...
What should I say then when I piss on your leg?
Shortcut the whole process and just stand in the toilet.
That you'll still have to eat something and eating like a plant means eating ... fertilizer.
Nah, you can just absorb that stuff through your roots.
Google loses its footing and caves to pressure of the Chinese government and market
There's a chance that google is currently not making money in China right now. It may be a huge market, but all the advertisers hate it. Pageviews aren't translating to sales at anything remotely close to the rate they do in US/Europe.
I say networks can be 1 MILLION times more energy efficient. Beat that, Bell Labs.
Maybe you should RTFA yourself and you would realize my comment was entirely correct.
Your original post was not insightful at all. You were purely poking fun at TFA and the "editor". (Not that there was any editing done, a point that's already been made).
The mods on here today must have their heads screwed on backwards to give you Insightful and Funny.
So bitter. If you examined it a little more closely instead of channeling your nerd rage, you might have realized my 2nd comment was self deprecating and not critical of you, unlike this one.
Key, then, to writing summaries is quality sentences, specifically sentences that don't read like this one.
The text was pulled straight from the article. You should direct your energy at the original article writer.
Key, then, to writing good comments is to RTFA, specifically the linked article?
Key, then, to writing summaries is quality sentences, specifically sentences that don't read like this one.
The difference between bushy and wooded is the depth of the foliage.
"Boned" != "Wooded"
True enough, but in order for someone to be boned, the bone goes where it's wooded.
I always thought that wood and bone pretty much referred to the same thing.
Very likely. And when they finish they'll also give the world, free of charge, the cure for cancer that they accidentally discovered while genetically engineering pigs with wings.
Maybe I'm naive, but I think people shouldn't be fired for making mistakes.
One of my favorite interview questions: Tell me about something you worked on that went badly, and what you learned from it.
I want people who have made mistakes and recognize it. It's how you learn to be cautious. I just prefer that they made the mistake on someone else's dime :)
But here you have the situation where all the existing innovation (let alone future innovation) is disabled for the American market because the carriers don't like the consumers having more features unless they get a cut.
So far yes. I'm hoping to see a player enter the market who is willing to be just a carrier and not give a damn what your phone does. Not optimistic mind you, but hopeful.