Why do I keep my landline? My young kids. If there's an emergency, they dial 911 and 911 can find my house. They don't have to try and find my cell phone and remember their address. Also, if a sitter is over, she or he can 1) find the phone and 2) not have to worry about remembering the address (which is posted by the phone, but your brain can turn to mush when things are rough).
Other considerations: The phone will also work (most of the time), when the power is down. I also have DSL, so I need a line for that as well.
A few years ago I worked at a company that was heavy into machine learning. One of the problems in that space is getting a big enough training sets to train the various algorithms. You need enough examples to train the classifier and test it (i.e. several hundred). The company had a bunch of part time workers assigned to do that.
Now you had a small budget and clear guidelines, you could have other people do it for you.
The advantage this seems to have is that you don't need any commitment to make a little extra cash. Great advantage if you don't want to work regular hours and just occasionally need a little spending money.
"As the period of silence increases, the likelihood that the message was directed at us (and we should respond and haven't) increases (hence the common pattern of someone saying something, stopping, and two seconds later someone looking up and saying 'uh, did you say something to me' -- the 'request for attention' sequence was sent)."
I agree. Plus, people who are talking on cell phones are usually looking at something, quite possibly you. I've gotten fooled when someone has a headset for their cell, starts a conversation, and is looking directly at me.
Maybe people need glasses that tint when their cell phone is in use, so they don't appear to be looking at anyone.
I am writing to protest a portion of the bill Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003 mentioned here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34191.html.
I do not believe the RIAA requires protection from antitrust suits. I request that you introduce an ammendment to remove that provision in the bill or to ammend it to allow independent government oversight.
I understand the need of the entertainment industry to protect its copyrights. They created or own the rights to the works, so if the works are being used, for a period of time they deserve to profit from them. However, it is dangerous to allow any organization or industry freedom from antitrust lawsuits unless the government is planning to regulate that industry itself. The lawsuits are checks preventing organizations from trampling the rights of others. If organizations form a trust they have a tendency to start acting if not illegally, then unfairly. If the RIAA has done nothing wrong, then the lawsuit will fail and I'd assume the losing side would have to pay for the legal costs. Realistically, no one is going to sue the RIAA unless they are sure they have a good case because the RIAA has more money and lawyers than the average person.
Another reason the RIAA does not deserve antitrust protection is that it does not provide a vital service. I can understand extending it, with caution, to vital industries such as power companies in times of crisis, but the function the RIAA performs is not vital to the national interest. Of course copyrighted material must be protected, but let the RIAA be open to court challenges. I'd be hesitant to extend such important protection to an industry that recently had to refund money to consumers because of price fixing.
Again, I urge you to amend this bill. Thank you for your time.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do I keep my landline? My young kids. If there's an emergency, they dial 911 and 911 can find my house. They don't have to try and find my cell phone and remember their address. Also, if a sitter is over, she or he can 1) find the phone and 2) not have to worry about remembering the address (which is posted by the phone, but your brain can turn to mush when things are rough). Other considerations: The phone will also work (most of the time), when the power is down. I also have DSL, so I need a line for that as well.
A few years ago I worked at a company that was heavy into machine learning. One of the problems in that space is getting a big enough training sets to train the various algorithms. You need enough examples to train the classifier and test it (i.e. several hundred). The company had a bunch of part time workers assigned to do that.
Now you had a small budget and clear guidelines, you could have other people do it for you.
The advantage this seems to have is that you don't need any commitment to make a little extra cash. Great advantage if you don't want to work regular hours and just occasionally need a little spending money.
"As the period of silence increases, the likelihood that the message was directed at us (and we should respond and haven't) increases (hence the common pattern of someone saying something, stopping, and two seconds later someone looking up and saying 'uh, did you say something to me' -- the 'request for attention' sequence was sent)."
I agree. Plus, people who are talking on cell phones are usually looking at something, quite possibly you. I've gotten fooled when someone has a headset for their cell, starts a conversation, and is looking directly at me.
Maybe people need glasses that tint when their cell phone is in use, so they don't appear to be looking at anyone.
In the orginal fairy tale, I believe the boy gets eaten. Tragic, but at least the wolf is happy. McBride burger anyone?
I am writing to protest a portion of the bill Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003 mentioned here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34191.html.
I do not believe the RIAA requires protection from antitrust suits. I request that you introduce an ammendment to remove that provision in the bill or to ammend it to allow independent government oversight.
I understand the need of the entertainment industry to protect its copyrights. They created or own the rights to the works, so if the works are being used, for a period of time they deserve to profit from them. However, it is dangerous to allow any organization or industry freedom from antitrust lawsuits unless the government is planning to regulate that industry itself. The lawsuits are checks preventing organizations from trampling the rights of others. If organizations form a trust they have a tendency to start acting if not illegally, then unfairly. If the RIAA has done nothing wrong, then the lawsuit will fail and I'd assume the losing side would have to pay for the legal costs. Realistically, no one is going to sue the RIAA unless they are sure they have a good case because the RIAA has more money and lawyers than the average person.
Another reason the RIAA does not deserve antitrust protection is that it does not provide a vital service. I can understand extending it, with caution, to vital industries such as power companies in times of crisis, but the function the RIAA performs is not vital to the national interest. Of course copyrighted material must be protected, but let the RIAA be open to court challenges. I'd be hesitant to extend such important protection to an industry that recently had to refund money to consumers because of price fixing.
Again, I urge you to amend this bill. Thank you for your time.