The government can do whatever, but the free market still marches on.
Too bad there is no such thing as all the bailouts have shown...
Entrepreneurs have modified Priuses that can be recharged either from the wall, or via a solar-paneled roof, and thereby travel 20 miles as pure electrics (and oil-fueled for longer distances).
Voiding any warranty they may have had in the process. Still, we are talking two different things. You are talking electric while TFA and I are talking about hydrogen powered. The gear needed to make hydrogen would essentially turn you house into the equivalent of a meth lab. Very dangerous. And just like meth labs, they would be outlawed forcing you to a supplier if you want to remain legal.
When we stop wasting the sunlight beating our roofs and tap it for running our cars or homes, then we will achieve near-independence from oil.
Oh, I do agree with you but the hydrogen fuel cell car is not the way to achieve that Independence. As I said in my original post, it still teathers you to a supplier. As long as the government is tied to that supplier, don't expect anything to come to fruition that would cut that tie.
...but it jumps to ~$10/Kg by the time it gets to the pump.
And that's why this boondogle is still afloat. They have to keep you coming back to a pump. That's the rub with this technology. It can't be produced on your own without the need for some supplier. The government isn't about to allow end users to produce their own because there is too much money tied to gas stations to allow it. The tax loss would mean most states won't be able to repair their roads.
High Definition TV != Digital TV mandated throughout the US although it becomes possible to transmit DHTV over the air when the switch is made. This too is often a common misunderstanding.
except the last stage never happens. As companies don't like change, they can't see their software is worth less over time.
It isn't just companies but people in general don't like change especially for change's sake. That's the rub with software over hardware. Hardware can drive changes in software and people will go for that but the reverse is rarely true. Look at Vista's uptake for an example of the failure of software to drive hardware sales and that's a forced upgrade path.
The only thing that makes software less valuable is a better version.
I argue the exact opposite. Better is a subjective thing and people define it differently. This does explain feature creep though. Firefox is an example of something that started out to be a leaner browser but feature creep happened to the point of it being one of the most bloated browsers on the market. Add in all the add-ons and it is a real beast code wise.
My problem with cloud computing is two fold. First, how do you know, for a fact, that Google isn't indexing your data or worse storing it for later use even after you delete it from the cloud? You don't. You only have their word and when push comes to shove if they can profit somehow on your data they will. Second, most cloud computing zealots want everything on the cloud. The cloud isn't suited for every application but just try to convince some PHB who was talked into it by one of these zealots and you got a fight on your hands. I speak from experience on this.
Actually, they are when you define the market, like the article points out, as the tying object (OS X). So my original statement stands. The market isn't defined as the computer market here. I think the judge erred on that one but IANAL and all...
The judge said that 'computers running OS X' isn't the applicable 'market' in this case, he defined the applicable market as 'computers running any OS', therefore Apple only have a minority of the market, and Psystar is wrong. In that market, Microsoft do have a big enough OS market share to be defined as a monopoly.
Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have historically been regarded as anti-competitive practices. The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately. The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of market competition. The tie may also harm other companies in the market for the tied good, or who sell only single components.
(emphasis added).
Since you can buy OS X without having to buy an Apple Computer and since OS X will run on non-Apple hardware, it is illegal tying especially since it is a contract only (EULA) that prevents you from running on non-Apple hardware. Whether or not Pystar pursued this line I have no idea.
No system is foolproof but I do tend to agree that online play copy protection is extremely effective combating piracy.
Until someone figures out a way to use another server instead of the one the manufacturer wants. It is surprising nobody has done this already (or if they have, I haven't heard of it).
For one, most people have no clue how to use computers. If you were to drive government through the internet then it's safe to say it would be an elite-driven government and would leave out most lower-income families.
Unlike the elite-driven corporate government we have today....
The reason you have only one broadband provider, one power company, et c. is because of the regulation in those industries. Deregulation is always a good thing for competition - it allows for startups to change the rules and provide choice to consumers.
That's untrue. The reason is because of physical infrastructure. Having the streets dug up on a weekly basis by competing companies to run 200 gas lines is physically unfeasible especially in built up areas. The grant on monopoly in the case of utilities, and the regulation that goes with that grant of monopoly, is a byproduct of the physical constraint.
Plus you have to admit that Obama is a charismatic individual with enormous powers of persuasion at his disposal. He is an extraordinary speaker, unlike Bush or McCain. His speeches give hope instead of despair and tend to unite and charge his supporters. I too hope he can have the same powers with Congress but we will have to wait and see. His first year in office will be telling.
I live in WV and voted early. Communities were given the option for paper ballots with optical scanning OR touchscreen machines that print continuous roll tape. In both cases, it is the paper trail that will be followed on a recount. The problem here is one of mis-calibration of the machines and Betty Ireland, the Secretary of State who certified the machines, has ordered all touchscreen voter machines be re-calibrated EVERY DAY since their alignment slips with usage. These machines were calibrated on the first day but not beyond that.
On an aside, Kanawha County, where I live, chose paper / optical scan machines because most citizens are familiar with it since schools use the same "fill in the circle" for testing. Also, the paper trail is far easier with these type ballots.
It doesn't matter that he needed others to store his music or whatever, he was required to snail mail proof of copyright to the ISP and instead attempted to rely on a license he offers with works he owns or controls the copyright to.
He claims he owns. Without the registration, the ISP has to assume he doesn't.
More importantly, TFA doesn't say who made a complaint (if anyone). ISPs don't unilaterally decide something is infringing a copyright without a complaint. That's the double edge to the DMCA safe harbor provisions. Any ISP that does unilaterally remove content based on copyright is setting themselves up to lose that safe harbor. You can't have it both ways. Either you can tell if a file violates copyright or you can't.
I am hoping that this does get struck down but as a special case not because it's not "creative".
First of all it is creative on the part of the broadcasting company not the TV guide publishers. So using your logic the copyright should belong to the station broadcasting and the guide people have no standing.
Yeah, so I'm wondering where the 400k/month is really coming from.
That's the thing I couldn't find in TFA. I'm more inclined to believe it was gotten from phishing as well as the sources you list. We are talking about criminals using botnets and fraud as their business model.
"Set aside" != "Used". Worse, when $MEGA_CORP buys that spectrum, they are not only under no obligation to develop it but everybody else is prevented from using it. It has been, and ever shall be a lock-out tactic.
Wrong, the people who signed for loans they couldn't afford bear 100% of the blame. Just because the government forces banks to lend you more money doesn't mean you have to. I could have gotten a much larger house in a better neighborhood, but I bought within my means.
You see this one trotted out all over the place and it completely ignores the fact that most of those that got into trouble had one or more of the following happening to them:
1.) Pushy mortgage brokers looking for that hefty commission out and out lied about the effects of the ARM they were peddling. Many older folk were duped into getting an ARM under the guise of lower payments (short term being left out of the discussion). When the ARM balloned, they were left in the dust. Many of these people were duped to an ARM from a slightly higher fixed rate.
2.) Most Americans can't afford to be out of work for any length of time and outsourcing caused huge shifts in employment. While you were employed making $GOOD_MONEY you could afford that house. The economic downturn caused loss of $GOOD_MONEY that snowballed the foreclosure bubble. As that unravelled more jobs were lost causing more foreclosures. Wash, rinse and repeat.
3.) There was too much incentive for banks to approve these shady loans because they weren't the ones getting stuck with them. They sold them to the brokers trading them on the market. It didn't hit the banks until their credit was cut off because the red ink on the books much higher up couldn't be gotten rid of. Add to that Fannie & Freddie buying the things up like popcorn thinking they had real value the lower banks assigned which really was an inflated price.
4.) Housing values really shot through the roof way beyond the actual value of the property. A house that sold for $45,000 in 1990 sold for $250,000 in 2002. Most of that "value" was solely on paper further worsening the situation. As these values get reevaluated, expect people to become upsidedown in their loans owing more than the property is truly worth.
In short, I think the banks who issued the OK on the loans bears much more of the responsibility for their predatory lending practices. After all, they are the ones paid to know the ins and outs and are supposed to ensure the person making the loan FULLY understands what they are getting into. In short, greed clouded their judgment.
Don't forget that it wasn't just the mortgage brokers, but the government requiring banks to loan to people who normally wouldn't qualify for a loan and couldn't afford to pay it back.
Let's make a deal Monte. I won't blame the banks when they actually eat the losses they incurred. So far they haven't. The executives of AIG (not a bank I know but still part of the Golden Parachute Club (TM)) for example went on a spa trip to the tune of half a million dollars right after getting their corporate welfare check.
Believe? Sure. Whatever people like. And I'll defend their right. But, no, I won't stand by and let people teach any old nonsense as science. If they want to teach this other stuff, do it in a comparative religion course or philosophy.
First off, when was the last time you saw a "religion course or philosophy" taught in K-12 public schools? It isn't because to do so would be immediately challenged in court as violating the 1st amendment. Public school boards across the country are under the gun to educate while having their hands tied in what they can offer in education. College is usually the first place a person is exposed to either of those courses which I contend is too late.
Second, just read the comments in this topic. Read your comment again in the light of offering a religious class in public school. You would be screaming up and down about that too especially if they skip a religion or make it a mandatory class.
Every now and then I see some piece of code which uses methods which I can honestly say I would never have thought of, really novel ideas. Those should be patentable...
No they shouldn't. Copyright exists on that code and that is more than enough "protection". Why should that code be protected by both patents and copyright? If you are going to issue a patent then you should not receive a copyright on it.
So let me get this right. You are willing to sign away the very thing that will support your hobby for life+70 (and beyond if the RIAA has their way) for the instant gratification of a few $$$ up front? Doesn't sound very wise to me Mr. Wizard. And what happens 3-5 years down the road when your amp blows up or your guitar breaks? I guess with your reasoning it is little wonder the cycle continues.
If it doesn't like certain laws it doesn't have to enforce them very hard. It also doesn't have to tell Congress about everything it thinks or does. There is no Congressional oversight of the Executive.
Untrue. The Senate has right of confirmation of appointees. Even in the military, officers are confirmed by the Senate. Congress can also regulate Executive agencies such as the FCC, FTC, SEC and other 3 letter agencies. They are Constitutionally mandated to do so as part of the "power of the purse". How long do you think the Executive can do things without funding? It has happend more than a few times when Congress failed to pass the budgets. The only thing keeping the Executive running was continuing resolutions...
A law that requires the President to retain his emails is very likely to be considered unconstitutional should it be taken to the Supreme Court.
It has already been there and the Presidential Records Act has been upheld. This is fallout from administrations such as Nixon's where destruction of documents has caused the downfall of the Executive.
That can, and should be, argued. I believe it violates the first, fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution. The first is a violation of a persons right to have grievances redressed. The fourth is a violation of a persons right to be secure in their person or papers against warrent-less intrusions and the fifth is a violation of a persons right of due process. All these have been circumvented by the immunity. I for one do hope it is being challenged but don't hold my breath that the SCOTUS will hear it much less rule on it.
I know, 3rd party candidate and all that. I'm a supporter of breaking the 2-party system we have here in the US because I think it really hurts us; but to be completely honest, in this election it is down to two candidates.
Nice attempt but overall FAIL! If you really believed in 3rd party politics, this statement is the most ridiculous in the lot...
It is extremely unlikely that a 3rd party candidate will successfully run for president until there are a fair share of 3rd party candidates in congress who can prove their chops in a way that makes the lot of them look less crazy (some 3rd party candidates look that way, it gives the better ones a bad name). If you support this ideal, trying to support it top-down isn't the way to get it to happen, it's got to be bottom up - local, state, and federal officials.
3rd Party candidates do more for public discourse than you are giving credit for. A vote for a third party is a vote for the ideals and message of that party and can sway the big two into discussing it at the very least especially if it looks like votes will be taken from them by the 3rd party candidate. 3rd party candidates do pretty well where they matter. Local elections effect people far more than national ones. That is where 3rd party candidates need to concentrate. Lastly, calling 3rd party candidates names is a sure way to get those that support them to switch off everything you say after the insults. Consider that on your next AstroTurf adventure.
In the mean time, support a candidate who has the ability and perspicacity to restore our good will with the rest of the world. The way the economy is going right now, in 2 or 4 years, net neutrality is going to be a lot less important than food on the table and whether or not our troops are committing war crimes abroad, and whether or not our government is committing anti-constitutional crimes domestically.
All well and good but that doesn't sway this 3rd party supporter especially since both parties are receptors of the industrial complex's money. The same industrial complex that is profitting so heavily off the wars and corporate welfare system we have come to love....
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad there is no such thing as all the bailouts have shown...
Voiding any warranty they may have had in the process. Still, we are talking two different things. You are talking electric while TFA and I are talking about hydrogen powered. The gear needed to make hydrogen would essentially turn you house into the equivalent of a meth lab. Very dangerous. And just like meth labs, they would be outlawed forcing you to a supplier if you want to remain legal.
Oh, I do agree with you but the hydrogen fuel cell car is not the way to achieve that Independence. As I said in my original post, it still teathers you to a supplier. As long as the government is tied to that supplier, don't expect anything to come to fruition that would cut that tie.
And that's why this boondogle is still afloat. They have to keep you coming back to a pump. That's the rub with this technology. It can't be produced on your own without the need for some supplier. The government isn't about to allow end users to produce their own because there is too much money tied to gas stations to allow it. The tax loss would mean most states won't be able to repair their roads.
High Definition TV != Digital TV mandated throughout the US although it becomes possible to transmit DHTV over the air when the switch is made. This too is often a common misunderstanding.
It isn't just companies but people in general don't like change especially for change's sake. That's the rub with software over hardware. Hardware can drive changes in software and people will go for that but the reverse is rarely true. Look at Vista's uptake for an example of the failure of software to drive hardware sales and that's a forced upgrade path.
I argue the exact opposite. Better is a subjective thing and people define it differently. This does explain feature creep though. Firefox is an example of something that started out to be a leaner browser but feature creep happened to the point of it being one of the most bloated browsers on the market. Add in all the add-ons and it is a real beast code wise.
My problem with cloud computing is two fold. First, how do you know, for a fact, that Google isn't indexing your data or worse storing it for later use even after you delete it from the cloud? You don't. You only have their word and when push comes to shove if they can profit somehow on your data they will. Second, most cloud computing zealots want everything on the cloud. The cloud isn't suited for every application but just try to convince some PHB who was talked into it by one of these zealots and you got a fight on your hands. I speak from experience on this.
Actually, they are when you define the market, like the article points out, as the tying object (OS X). So my original statement stands. The market isn't defined as the computer market here. I think the judge erred on that one but IANAL and all...
However, the other part of the Sherman Act (illegal tying) was still not addressed. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
(emphasis added).
Since you can buy OS X without having to buy an Apple Computer and since OS X will run on non-Apple hardware, it is illegal tying especially since it is a contract only (EULA) that prevents you from running on non-Apple hardware. Whether or not Pystar pursued this line I have no idea.
Until someone figures out a way to use another server instead of the one the manufacturer wants. It is surprising nobody has done this already (or if they have, I haven't heard of it).
Unlike the elite-driven corporate government we have today....
That's untrue. The reason is because of physical infrastructure. Having the streets dug up on a weekly basis by competing companies to run 200 gas lines is physically unfeasible especially in built up areas. The grant on monopoly in the case of utilities, and the regulation that goes with that grant of monopoly, is a byproduct of the physical constraint.
Plus you have to admit that Obama is a charismatic individual with enormous powers of persuasion at his disposal. He is an extraordinary speaker, unlike Bush or McCain. His speeches give hope instead of despair and tend to unite and charge his supporters. I too hope he can have the same powers with Congress but we will have to wait and see. His first year in office will be telling.
It rolls by in an enclosed plexiglass housing allowing for the second verification (the first is in the screen).
I live in WV and voted early. Communities were given the option for paper ballots with optical scanning OR touchscreen machines that print continuous roll tape. In both cases, it is the paper trail that will be followed on a recount. The problem here is one of mis-calibration of the machines and Betty Ireland, the Secretary of State who certified the machines, has ordered all touchscreen voter machines be re-calibrated EVERY DAY since their alignment slips with usage. These machines were calibrated on the first day but not beyond that.
On an aside, Kanawha County, where I live, chose paper / optical scan machines because most citizens are familiar with it since schools use the same "fill in the circle" for testing. Also, the paper trail is far easier with these type ballots.
He claims he owns. Without the registration, the ISP has to assume he doesn't.
More importantly, TFA doesn't say who made a complaint (if anyone). ISPs don't unilaterally decide something is infringing a copyright without a complaint. That's the double edge to the DMCA safe harbor provisions. Any ISP that does unilaterally remove content based on copyright is setting themselves up to lose that safe harbor. You can't have it both ways. Either you can tell if a file violates copyright or you can't.
First of all it is creative on the part of the broadcasting company not the TV guide publishers. So using your logic the copyright should belong to the station broadcasting and the guide people have no standing.
That's the thing I couldn't find in TFA. I'm more inclined to believe it was gotten from phishing as well as the sources you list. We are talking about criminals using botnets and fraud as their business model.
"Set aside" != "Used". Worse, when $MEGA_CORP buys that spectrum, they are not only under no obligation to develop it but everybody else is prevented from using it. It has been, and ever shall be a lock-out tactic.
You see this one trotted out all over the place and it completely ignores the fact that most of those that got into trouble had one or more of the following happening to them:
1.) Pushy mortgage brokers looking for that hefty commission out and out lied about the effects of the ARM they were peddling. Many older folk were duped into getting an ARM under the guise of lower payments (short term being left out of the discussion). When the ARM balloned, they were left in the dust. Many of these people were duped to an ARM from a slightly higher fixed rate.
2.) Most Americans can't afford to be out of work for any length of time and outsourcing caused huge shifts in employment. While you were employed making $GOOD_MONEY you could afford that house. The economic downturn caused loss of $GOOD_MONEY that snowballed the foreclosure bubble. As that unravelled more jobs were lost causing more foreclosures. Wash, rinse and repeat.
3.) There was too much incentive for banks to approve these shady loans because they weren't the ones getting stuck with them. They sold them to the brokers trading them on the market. It didn't hit the banks until their credit was cut off because the red ink on the books much higher up couldn't be gotten rid of. Add to that Fannie & Freddie buying the things up like popcorn thinking they had real value the lower banks assigned which really was an inflated price.
4.) Housing values really shot through the roof way beyond the actual value of the property. A house that sold for $45,000 in 1990 sold for $250,000 in 2002. Most of that "value" was solely on paper further worsening the situation. As these values get reevaluated, expect people to become upsidedown in their loans owing more than the property is truly worth.
In short, I think the banks who issued the OK on the loans bears much more of the responsibility for their predatory lending practices. After all, they are the ones paid to know the ins and outs and are supposed to ensure the person making the loan FULLY understands what they are getting into. In short, greed clouded their judgment.
Let's make a deal Monte. I won't blame the banks when they actually eat the losses they incurred. So far they haven't. The executives of AIG (not a bank I know but still part of the Golden Parachute Club (TM)) for example went on a spa trip to the tune of half a million dollars right after getting their corporate welfare check.
First off, when was the last time you saw a "religion course or philosophy" taught in K-12 public schools? It isn't because to do so would be immediately challenged in court as violating the 1st amendment. Public school boards across the country are under the gun to educate while having their hands tied in what they can offer in education. College is usually the first place a person is exposed to either of those courses which I contend is too late.
Second, just read the comments in this topic. Read your comment again in the light of offering a religious class in public school. You would be screaming up and down about that too especially if they skip a religion or make it a mandatory class.
No they shouldn't. Copyright exists on that code and that is more than enough "protection". Why should that code be protected by both patents and copyright? If you are going to issue a patent then you should not receive a copyright on it.
So let me get this right. You are willing to sign away the very thing that will support your hobby for life+70 (and beyond if the RIAA has their way) for the instant gratification of a few $$$ up front? Doesn't sound very wise to me Mr. Wizard. And what happens 3-5 years down the road when your amp blows up or your guitar breaks? I guess with your reasoning it is little wonder the cycle continues.
Untrue. The Senate has right of confirmation of appointees. Even in the military, officers are confirmed by the Senate. Congress can also regulate Executive agencies such as the FCC, FTC, SEC and other 3 letter agencies. They are Constitutionally mandated to do so as part of the "power of the purse". How long do you think the Executive can do things without funding? It has happend more than a few times when Congress failed to pass the budgets. The only thing keeping the Executive running was continuing resolutions...
It has already been there and the Presidential Records Act has been upheld. This is fallout from administrations such as Nixon's where destruction of documents has caused the downfall of the Executive.
That can, and should be, argued. I believe it violates the first, fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution. The first is a violation of a persons right to have grievances redressed. The fourth is a violation of a persons right to be secure in their person or papers against warrent-less intrusions and the fifth is a violation of a persons right of due process. All these have been circumvented by the immunity. I for one do hope it is being challenged but don't hold my breath that the SCOTUS will hear it much less rule on it.
Nice attempt but overall FAIL! If you really believed in 3rd party politics, this statement is the most ridiculous in the lot...
3rd Party candidates do more for public discourse than you are giving credit for. A vote for a third party is a vote for the ideals and message of that party and can sway the big two into discussing it at the very least especially if it looks like votes will be taken from them by the 3rd party candidate. 3rd party candidates do pretty well where they matter. Local elections effect people far more than national ones. That is where 3rd party candidates need to concentrate. Lastly, calling 3rd party candidates names is a sure way to get those that support them to switch off everything you say after the insults. Consider that on your next AstroTurf adventure.
All well and good but that doesn't sway this 3rd party supporter especially since both parties are receptors of the industrial complex's money. The same industrial complex that is profitting so heavily off the wars and corporate welfare system we have come to love....