It's not "how" it's "where". Copyright holders of movies want to sell at different prices in different countries.
Oh, I get that they want to do that. I want you to buy ten of my widgets instead of one of them. I want you to tell your friends that my widget is the awesomest. I want you to parade my widget around a bunch of rich people so they'll want a widget too.
But if you don't give a crap what I want, and simply hand me the money for a single widget and then you don't tell your friends or show it off to rich people, I'm just going to have to live with that damn money that you put into my hand. I might angrily stare at the wad of cash, resenting that we did business because life as a bum was just fine since I never had my unrealistic expectations crushed. I might talk shit about you, "danbob999 bought my widget! Waaaah!" But I'm the one people are going to be laughing at.
She owns the exclusive rights to a basket of content in Canada.
I think maybe what's going on here, is that she thought she was buying the exclusive rights to sell baskets, not realizing that the seller had made the exact same with an American.
Bell needs to contact the seller and ask for their money back. Exclusivity was promised but not provided. If the seller doesn't issue refund, take 'em to court. Netflix would make a good witness for their case.
The problem: I work at K-Mart and some of the people who I thought would become my customers, are shopping smart. They're going to my competitor, S-Mart, who sells similar things for less money.
My solution: yell at the would-be customers, call them thieves. "It's not socially acceptable to drive over there."
There are two ways the public might react. One is "Cajun Hell is right, and so I am going to shop at K-Mart instead of stealing by buying from S-Mart." Unfortunately, the other one is "Cajun Hell is an entitled loon."
Which way do you think the public is going to take my announcement? Will it work, or should I try something slightly less fuckwitted?
I thought the definition of drone was that it is a remote-controlled aircraft. An autonomous missile isn't a drone and is therefore outside the scope of the problem.
..the possibility of malware infection of voters' computers.
You need to either be ok with that (i.e. botnet owners should have more votes than normal people, because the whole reason that people give their computers over to botnets, is that they want to personally have less power) or else you need to give up on the idea of online voting.
And since nobody sane is going to be ok with that (I think people will disagree with my above parenthesized assertion), then: give up on the idea online voting. By the time you "solve" the compromised-user-agent problem, you'll have lost 100% of the reason for online voting, as we see with the amusing idea of making people use multiple computers which are hopefully on competing botnets and therefore unable to reach enough consensus to vote the same way.
Just keep having people go to polling locations. Really, it's ok to do that.
Intel is lucky that Apple appears to have a barely concealed desire to kill the mac mini,
You could just as easily say "Gigabyte is lucky that Intel appears to have a barely concealed desire to kill the NUC."
I guess this is progress. People used to argue about which vendors offer the best values, but now they argue about which vendors hate themselves and their users to the least suicidal degree. Instead of "Apple sucks," it's now "Apple hates itself, second only to how much they hate you, the customer." Instead of "Intel's machines are a bit expensive compared to the OEMs who use the same Intel CPUs," it's "Intel sure is lucky that they aren't the most self-loathing computer builder out there," and so on.
I always knew psychology played a big role in branding, but now we're admitting it even to ourselves, while we buy their stuff. It just goes to show that whoever said "knowing is half the battle," was wrong.
Yes, there are too many market forces keeping the prices down. It's a race to the bottom. People, stop all this miserly shopping for the cheapest medical care! Sure, your tiny Wal-Care bills look attractive but have you considered that if you keep doing this, you're going to cut more mom'n'pop providers out unless they are also able to viciously cut costs?
We need to put Wal-Care (and other super-slim-margin health care providers) out of business, in order to protect the health care profession!
..who doesn't even know the difference between power and energy. And you want to sell me batteries? Don't go bragging about how ignorant and incompetent you are, or at least don't let potential customers hear it.
It's a shame the pilot was so far away from the aircraft when the warhead was released.
Had this happened in 1945 and involved people on board a B-29, I don't think anyone would be very concerned, though some of the more sensitive might have muttered, "war is hell."
Had it been fired by an F-16 or A-10 in 1995, there would be more concern but I really don't think anyone would feel "shit happens" fails to adequately address the issue. Because shit does happen, after all.
But it's 2015 and, to our horror, we learn that the pilot wasn't on board the aircraft. It was a "drone." So this is very, very serious indeed.
The fact that they use the word "punishment" shows lack of understanding about what happened and is happening.
If you lie to me and get caught, and then I punch you in the nose, that's a punishment. But if you lie to me and get caught, and then after that I don't believe you whenever you tell me things, that's not punishment.
If Google and Mozilla are being "harsh" then the only ways one can honestly describe it, is that they have a "harsh opinion" or a "harsh estimate" of CNNIC's trustworthiness.
It's amusing to think that maybe some day this way of speaking will infect other areas. "That's sure a harsh calculation" or "this is a severe regex match" or "what a brutally spiteful and vindictive tree traversal."
I think the problem is that he does have a sense of humor. If he didn't have one, then he would be politely laughing at the stupid posts, waiting for someone smarter than him to come along and let slip a clue that explains the joke. Little would such a humorless person realize, that there is no clue to give, because there isn't much of a joke to explain.
If you want to know whose ass that is, and why they're farting, then keep reading today's posts and maybe you'll get your answers amidst the day's deepening plot and theme. For the rest of us, though, Slashdot appears to be down today.
when that doesn't work (because the door is in "locked" state), the terrorist just threatens the (co)pilot inside to cabin to unlock or he'll kill the pilot and/or everyone else... At which point the pilot opens the door anyway.
He might open the door if he's armed (with the intent to come out blasting), but otherwise I don't think that's very likely.
Having a "Locked" position is idiotic to the extreme.
Unfortunately, not having a "Locked" position would be the same amount of idiotic.
Giving one pilot (in the cockpit) the means to basically lock himself in with no ability for the other pilot to enter is too great a danger.
But also failing to give one pilot the means to lock out the other pilot would be too great a danger.
Both scenarios presume one pilot who intends to destroy the aircraft and one pilot who intends to save it. That's the presumption either way, and however you approach the problem it's going to come down to whether the bad guy is locked into, or locked out of, the cockpit.
It's a coin toss, not 9/11-triggered-stupidity corruption.
It is unacceptable that Iceland need to take up large part of European legislation through a business agreement without getting representatives or audience.
This question really has jack shit to do with physics. You're looking for whatever laptop best fits a bunch of preferences that nobody else will ever guess (seriously, this is going to be the most important stuff) plus with the requirement that it also be good for editing and compiling C++. The latter can be done with damn near anything. So that leaves people to only debate.. all the usual stuff we have been talking about for the last 30 years. Your entire question is really just this: what's the best laptop?
Next, we shall Kirk vs Picard vs Sheridan. You might also want to Ask Slashdot which political party's candidates you should vote for.
In regards to your first point, the system would have to be based on the offender's net worth rather than their income in the US, due to all of the tricks that the rich have paid to create in the tax code.
He was talking about hiding it. When things are hidden, tax loopholes are irrelevant because tax law isn't applied to the money in question anyway. If you can hide income then you can probably also hide the accumulated assets.
And as for loopholes, was the idea really based on income, or was it just taxable net?
Speeder: "Your honor, I have dependents and pay mortgage interest, so my fine should have exemptions and a deductible applied before you calculate my fine."
Judge: "?!"
Speeder: "Furthermore, a lot of my income is from gains, so I should be fined at a lower rate than people who have jobs."
I thought Kim Stanley Robinson was dead. No really, I thought I read something a few years ago (maybe even here on Slashdot) that he had died and remember thinking "shit, he'll never get to see Mars."
Obviously, I'm remembering this wrong, and he's alive. Good. I'm glad. I really liked the Mars series, especially the first book.
So.. uh.. I wonder who that was, who died and I got mixed up with KSR. Whoever you are, you will be.. remembered? Oops.
If you're a shop owner, then presumably your goods are actually for sale, so you're willing to accept money in exchange for goods which don't suddenly explode and retroactively bind me to a previously-unknown contract after I step out of the store. Few people would be interested in stealing your goods, because they can simply hand you money for them.
I was talking about a very different scenario than anything you will ever face involving shopkeepers: DRM, i.e. a form of fraud. That situation presumes you intend harm to others, so yes, shooting all would-be-customers as they walk into your "store" (if I may use that term very loosely) just might blend into that context seamlessly.
There needs to be more-than-ten years of imprisonment for using DRM. One work sold with DRM makes multiple people need to pirate it in order to watch it. If you sell a DRMed work that results in six people pirating it, then you get 60 years.
That would probably deter the crime of DRM, and once you do that, you eliminate the chief motive for piracy.
Just deal with both sides of the problem, and you might have a pretty good solution. The only remaining problem is that the constants are messed up and have a clipping problem on one side. If a million people pirate Game of Thrones, you can't really imprison the responsible HBO exec for ten million years. So make his sentence, say, 50 years, and then imprison each pirate for 50/10M years.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I get that they want to do that. I want you to buy ten of my widgets instead of one of them. I want you to tell your friends that my widget is the awesomest. I want you to parade my widget around a bunch of rich people so they'll want a widget too.
But if you don't give a crap what I want, and simply hand me the money for a single widget and then you don't tell your friends or show it off to rich people, I'm just going to have to live with that damn money that you put into my hand. I might angrily stare at the wad of cash, resenting that we did business because life as a bum was just fine since I never had my unrealistic expectations crushed. I might talk shit about you, "danbob999 bought my widget! Waaaah!" But I'm the one people are going to be laughing at.
I think maybe what's going on here, is that she thought she was buying the exclusive rights to sell baskets, not realizing that the seller had made the exact same with an American.
Bell needs to contact the seller and ask for their money back. Exclusivity was promised but not provided. If the seller doesn't issue refund, take 'em to court. Netflix would make a good witness for their case.
The problem: I work at K-Mart and some of the people who I thought would become my customers, are shopping smart. They're going to my competitor, S-Mart, who sells similar things for less money.
My solution: yell at the would-be customers, call them thieves. "It's not socially acceptable to drive over there."
There are two ways the public might react. One is "Cajun Hell is right, and so I am going to shop at K-Mart instead of stealing by buying from S-Mart." Unfortunately, the other one is "Cajun Hell is an entitled loon."
Which way do you think the public is going to take my announcement? Will it work, or should I try something slightly less fuckwitted?
Next Ask Slashdot: how can I build bird detection and countermeasures into my drone?
You mean.. he's a remotely-controlled agent? The pilot is a drone? No problem! Just apply the solution recursively.
I thought the definition of drone was that it is a remote-controlled aircraft. An autonomous missile isn't a drone and is therefore outside the scope of the problem.
By paying their lawyers.
You need to either be ok with that (i.e. botnet owners should have more votes than normal people, because the whole reason that people give their computers over to botnets, is that they want to personally have less power) or else you need to give up on the idea of online voting.
And since nobody sane is going to be ok with that (I think people will disagree with my above parenthesized assertion), then: give up on the idea online voting. By the time you "solve" the compromised-user-agent problem, you'll have lost 100% of the reason for online voting, as we see with the amusing idea of making people use multiple computers which are hopefully on competing botnets and therefore unable to reach enough consensus to vote the same way.
Just keep having people go to polling locations. Really, it's ok to do that.
You could just as easily say "Gigabyte is lucky that Intel appears to have a barely concealed desire to kill the NUC."
I guess this is progress. People used to argue about which vendors offer the best values, but now they argue about which vendors hate themselves and their users to the least suicidal degree. Instead of "Apple sucks," it's now "Apple hates itself, second only to how much they hate you, the customer." Instead of "Intel's machines are a bit expensive compared to the OEMs who use the same Intel CPUs," it's "Intel sure is lucky that they aren't the most self-loathing computer builder out there," and so on.
I always knew psychology played a big role in branding, but now we're admitting it even to ourselves, while we buy their stuff. It just goes to show that whoever said "knowing is half the battle," was wrong.
Yes, there are too many market forces keeping the prices down. It's a race to the bottom. People, stop all this miserly shopping for the cheapest medical care! Sure, your tiny Wal-Care bills look attractive but have you considered that if you keep doing this, you're going to cut more mom'n'pop providers out unless they are also able to viciously cut costs?
We need to put Wal-Care (and other super-slim-margin health care providers) out of business, in order to protect the health care profession!
That's the type of federal government that most voters say they want. How is that not a country problem?
It's a shame the pilot was so far away from the aircraft when the warhead was released.
Had this happened in 1945 and involved people on board a B-29, I don't think anyone would be very concerned, though some of the more sensitive might have muttered, "war is hell."
Had it been fired by an F-16 or A-10 in 1995, there would be more concern but I really don't think anyone would feel "shit happens" fails to adequately address the issue. Because shit does happen, after all.
But it's 2015 and, to our horror, we learn that the pilot wasn't on board the aircraft. It was a "drone." So this is very, very serious indeed.
You have to admit, though, those other guys really are idiots.
The fact that they use the word "punishment" shows lack of understanding about what happened and is happening.
If you lie to me and get caught, and then I punch you in the nose, that's a punishment. But if you lie to me and get caught, and then after that I don't believe you whenever you tell me things, that's not punishment.
If Google and Mozilla are being "harsh" then the only ways one can honestly describe it, is that they have a "harsh opinion" or a "harsh estimate" of CNNIC's trustworthiness.
It's amusing to think that maybe some day this way of speaking will infect other areas. "That's sure a harsh calculation" or "this is a severe regex match" or "what a brutally spiteful and vindictive tree traversal."
I think the problem is that he does have a sense of humor. If he didn't have one, then he would be politely laughing at the stupid posts, waiting for someone smarter than him to come along and let slip a clue that explains the joke. Little would such a humorless person realize, that there is no clue to give, because there isn't much of a joke to explain.
If you want to know whose ass that is, and why they're farting, then keep reading today's posts and maybe you'll get your answers amidst the day's deepening plot and theme. For the rest of us, though, Slashdot appears to be down today.
He might open the door if he's armed (with the intent to come out blasting), but otherwise I don't think that's very likely.
Unfortunately, not having a "Locked" position would be the same amount of idiotic.
But also failing to give one pilot the means to lock out the other pilot would be too great a danger.
Both scenarios presume one pilot who intends to destroy the aircraft and one pilot who intends to save it. That's the presumption either way, and however you approach the problem it's going to come down to whether the bad guy is locked into, or locked out of, the cockpit.
It's a coin toss, not 9/11-triggered-stupidity corruption.
If there's enough demand for violating that law, people will violate it.
Those crazy Icelandic nutcases!
This question really has jack shit to do with physics. You're looking for whatever laptop best fits a bunch of preferences that nobody else will ever guess (seriously, this is going to be the most important stuff) plus with the requirement that it also be good for editing and compiling C++. The latter can be done with damn near anything. So that leaves people to only debate .. all the usual stuff we have been talking about for the last 30 years. Your entire question is really just this: what's the best laptop?
Next, we shall Kirk vs Picard vs Sheridan. You might also want to Ask Slashdot which political party's candidates you should vote for.
He was talking about hiding it. When things are hidden, tax loopholes are irrelevant because tax law isn't applied to the money in question anyway. If you can hide income then you can probably also hide the accumulated assets.
And as for loopholes, was the idea really based on income, or was it just taxable net?
Speeder: "Your honor, I have dependents and pay mortgage interest, so my fine should have exemptions and a deductible applied before you calculate my fine."
Judge: "?!"
Speeder: "Furthermore, a lot of my income is from gains, so I should be fined at a lower rate than people who have jobs."
Judge: "Wow. You think I'm with the IRS."
I thought Kim Stanley Robinson was dead. No really, I thought I read something a few years ago (maybe even here on Slashdot) that he had died and remember thinking "shit, he'll never get to see Mars."
Obviously, I'm remembering this wrong, and he's alive. Good. I'm glad. I really liked the Mars series, especially the first book.
So.. uh.. I wonder who that was, who died and I got mixed up with KSR. Whoever you are, you will be .. remembered? Oops.
If you're a shop owner, then presumably your goods are actually for sale, so you're willing to accept money in exchange for goods which don't suddenly explode and retroactively bind me to a previously-unknown contract after I step out of the store. Few people would be interested in stealing your goods, because they can simply hand you money for them.
I was talking about a very different scenario than anything you will ever face involving shopkeepers: DRM, i.e. a form of fraud. That situation presumes you intend harm to others, so yes, shooting all would-be-customers as they walk into your "store" (if I may use that term very loosely) just might blend into that context seamlessly.
There needs to be more-than-ten years of imprisonment for using DRM. One work sold with DRM makes multiple people need to pirate it in order to watch it. If you sell a DRMed work that results in six people pirating it, then you get 60 years.
That would probably deter the crime of DRM, and once you do that, you eliminate the chief motive for piracy.
Just deal with both sides of the problem, and you might have a pretty good solution. The only remaining problem is that the constants are messed up and have a clipping problem on one side. If a million people pirate Game of Thrones, you can't really imprison the responsible HBO exec for ten million years. So make his sentence, say, 50 years, and then imprison each pirate for 50/10M years.