I was reading the wikipedia article which said that she has strong libertarian views, but from reading her fiscal policy it seems like she would not even pass basic macroeconomics. Check this out:
In response to high oil and gas prices, and the resulting state government budget surplus, Palin proposed giving Alaskans $100-a-month energy debit cards. She also proposed providing grants to electrical utilities so that they would reduce customers' rates.[58] She subsequently dropped the debit card proposal, and in its place she proposed to send each Alaskan $1,200 from the windfall surplus resulting from high oil prices.[59]
Each of these plans taxes people, then gives them back their tax money in the form of credits. That is not libertarian.
Her thing with wrangling money for the state with the infamous brudge debacle also doesn't make her look fiscally smart. The only thing that seems libertarian is the note about how she lowered taxes by 40% as mayor. But out of context I can't tell what to make of that.
If you ship to an address that is outside of your home state. Tennessee isn't very big - Maybe you have some relatives an hour away who you have been meaning to visit?
There is one good part of the DMCA: The Safe Harbor stuff that makes ISPs not liable for content their users upload. Now, it just plain seems obvious to me that ISPs aren't responsible for policing their users, so I'm not sure if a law stating that is really necessary. But what is obvious and common sense isn't always what the law interprets. So it might be a good thing to have.
The civic and the fit are not nearly the size of a Prius, and the Prius is a higher-end car. Plus it gets better gas mileage. The reason you buy a Civic or a Fit instead of a Prius is because they are cheaper. But they definitely aren't better cars.
As for reliability - my research found that the Prius is a very reliable car, and has lower maintenance than a traditional gas car.
Why are the obvious, easy to implement, perfectly legal solutions not implemented? What you propose is the perfect solution as far as I can tell, and instead they did something complicated and illegal that doesn't actually solve the problem anyway. I just don't get it.
This is yet another reason that we need to fix this monopoly issue. If I go over my cell phone cap, I get charged. If I do too many bank transactions in a month, I get charged. If I go over my credit limit, I get charged. But I go over my bandwidth limit and I am black listed for a year?!
That's silly - Comcast is acting with the authority of a police department. No private company should have the ability to ban me from the internet. It takes a judge and a writ to do something like that. But we grant them these absurd powers and nobody has an alternative to switch to, so they effectively can do whatever they want.
As a programmer, I've been on calls that were supposed to be technical, but due to miscommunications or management concerns managers and even the CEO was on the call. Having legal council there to hear the proposal from the Discovery team seems possible to me.
I believe that these data protection laws are intended to apply to companies who are charged with keeping private data. Ex: credit card companies, are not supposed to distribute cc #s, and banks are not supposed to distribute financial information. This is not meant to apply to a publisher of public information. The publisher does not know if the data they are publishing is somehow violating some unknown 3rd-party's rights.
I surely hope that the EU doesn't have a law that says if Joe puts personal data about Bob onto a public forum, that the owner of the forum is liable for the distribution of the personal data, rather than the person who performed the illegal act. That would be absurd.
Google is not the one providing the data, Joe is. You can't sue Google any more than you can sue BT for providing the wires or Western Digital for providing the hard drives. If Joe publishes information about Bob, illegally, then Bob needs to sue Joe, not every middleman involved.
If Google's service has legal problems like this, then so does every other internet forum on the planet. Google, Yahoo, MSN, ICQ, Flickr, YouTube,... every one of them would be sued out of oblivion, and that isn't fair.
Let me again go back to the example. In the case I provided, where Joe put information about Bob online -- should Bob sue Joe? Or the web site?
If Joe spray painted information about Bob onto the side of a building - should Bob sue Joe? Or the building owner?
It sounds like the blame has shifted, but the point is still the same: they would like to do a show on RFID, but they were politically motivated not to.
If someone sends information to Google, Google is not legally responsible for it. One such law that states this is the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA, which exempts service providers from liability for the data they store and transmit, if it is user-provided content.
(I love it when people tell me "Do you even know what you are talking about" and yet don't cite any references to indicate that they do, or any arguments indicating that I was wrong.)
Let's put a fine point on this, so I know we are talking about the same scenario:
Joe has a camera. Bob is walking around in the real world somewhere. Joe takes a picture of Bob, uploads it to Google's service, and tags it with a tag of "Bob." That's what Picasa does. Now we add the facial recognition part:
Joe takes another picture of Bob. Joe uploads it and tags it as "Bob." Picasa then offers "Would you like me to try to recognize Bob in the other pictures you have taken?" Joe says yes, and Picasa saves Joe the time of tagging the pictures. Joe continues to upload pictures of Bob with the tag "Bob" just the same as when the facial recognition was not involved.
Now, legally speaking: - Google is not liable for any copyright violations because of the DMCA safe harbor. - Google did not take a picture of Bob, not that taking pictures is illegal anyway. Unless they violate copyrights, or were on a military base or something like that. - Google did not provide personal information about Bob. Joe may have done that, and Joe may be legally liable for it. A judge may decide to put an injunction against the content Joe put up, and either he or Google may need to remove it. Google is not liable here either, because Joe is the defendant in the case, not Google. - This is all very similar to how phone companies are not liable for people who give away illegal information over the phone lines.
So... now that I've covered that. How is Google breaking any laws? And does this have anything to do with the facial recognition feature? (Maybe it doesn't - that was the headline of the story, but not necessarily what your original point is. That's fine, I just want to clarify)
I think the problem with "real" -vs- "theoretical" is that we are talking about the things that make-up matter. So even the idea of "real" doesn't apply. People want something they can see and touch and interact with, and if that is what it means to be real, then quarks are not real. But scientifically, they exist and they can be seen and measured indirectly.
(Although, thanks to the magic of the internet, there is no way to know that I exist either)
How is it without their knowledge or consent? You have to specifically enter the information in and go through all the steps I outlined in order to send it to Google!
Picasa's facial recognition technology will ask you to identify people in your pictures that you haven't tagged yet. Once you do and start uploading more pictures, Picasa starts suggesting tags for people based on the similarity between their face in the picture and the
So you register for an online PicasaWeb account, download a program, copy your pictures to it, tell it whose face is in each picture, add tags for them, share the pictures, and tell Picasa to go ahead and tag the other images for you... and this is somehow Google's fault that you chose to expose this information?
There was a recent Slashdot article where a judge ruled that the sender of the takedown notice must consider fair use rights. I think that will minimize the number of frivolous cases where someone just wants to suppress free speech.
Ironically, I thought this guy was trolling by just making that up. I had to check Wikipedia to be sure. Troll (angling) Or wait... maybe he just made that article right now! Oh no!
I play(ed) Eve online: I paid for 3 months, played it for a few hours a week and found it boring. I logged-on now and then to see what was up, download the latest patch etc. 3 months later, a friend of mine had me join his corp and so I renewed for another 3 months. I logged on to join the corp, and haven't played since.
So I've been playing a game for 6 months that I find boring. That's how it happens.
I write SOAP web services in C# for a living. Those services use SQL servers. But I would never want to combine the two. What the heck...? Was Microsoft trying to make SQL Server be this uber thing that did web services, parsed XML, and served data? What a horrible idea.
Why would it require federal tax credits? This seems to be a simple matter of supply and demand.
I produce 1000 bushels of apples at point Z. The best price for them is half way across the country and point X. No infrastucture exists for moving the apples, so if I want to maximize my profits, I make it. It is in the best interests of those building and maintaining the power lines to increase the capabilities so they can keep my business.
I see only one thing that could impede this: In many states, the producers of power are also the companies that build the power infrastructure. So it might be in their best interests to NOT expand the grid since it would increase competition. But this doesn't require any federal funding or federal oversight. It just requires us to do what some states have already realized is necessary, which is to grant the monopoly only to the power line company, not the power producers. (It was a mistake to do it this way in the first place, they are two completely separate businesses. Just like how today some states have telephone lines + telephone service under one monopoly).
You are right! What about all those blind people who don't know about the cancer risks all over the place? We need to make those signs talk. They should have a little speaker than constantly reads the sign every 30 seconds.
Slashdot Mirror
I was reading the wikipedia article which said that she has strong libertarian views, but from reading her fiscal policy it seems like she would not even pass basic macroeconomics. Check this out:
From Wikipedia: Sarah Palin: Energy and Environment
In response to high oil and gas prices, and the resulting state government budget surplus, Palin proposed giving Alaskans $100-a-month energy debit cards. She also proposed providing grants to electrical utilities so that they would reduce customers' rates.[58] She subsequently dropped the debit card proposal, and in its place she proposed to send each Alaskan $1,200 from the windfall surplus resulting from high oil prices.[59]
Each of these plans taxes people, then gives them back their tax money in the form of credits. That is not libertarian.
Her thing with wrangling money for the state with the infamous brudge debacle also doesn't make her look fiscally smart. The only thing that seems libertarian is the note about how she lowered taxes by 40% as mayor. But out of context I can't tell what to make of that.
If you ship to an address that is outside of your home state. Tennessee isn't very big - Maybe you have some relatives an hour away who you have been meaning to visit?
There is one good part of the DMCA: The Safe Harbor stuff that makes ISPs not liable for content their users upload. Now, it just plain seems obvious to me that ISPs aren't responsible for policing their users, so I'm not sure if a law stating that is really necessary. But what is obvious and common sense isn't always what the law interprets. So it might be a good thing to have.
I had one. It was not even half the size of a Prius. That's like saying that a Prius's gas mileage is disturbing because my motorcycle gets 90mpg.
The civic and the fit are not nearly the size of a Prius, and the Prius is a higher-end car. Plus it gets better gas mileage. The reason you buy a Civic or a Fit instead of a Prius is because they are cheaper. But they definitely aren't better cars.
As for reliability - my research found that the Prius is a very reliable car, and has lower maintenance than a traditional gas car.
Why are the obvious, easy to implement, perfectly legal solutions not implemented? What you propose is the perfect solution as far as I can tell, and instead they did something complicated and illegal that doesn't actually solve the problem anyway. I just don't get it.
This is yet another reason that we need to fix this monopoly issue. If I go over my cell phone cap, I get charged. If I do too many bank transactions in a month, I get charged. If I go over my credit limit, I get charged. But I go over my bandwidth limit and I am black listed for a year?!
That's silly - Comcast is acting with the authority of a police department. No private company should have the ability to ban me from the internet. It takes a judge and a writ to do something like that. But we grant them these absurd powers and nobody has an alternative to switch to, so they effectively can do whatever they want.
As a programmer, I've been on calls that were supposed to be technical, but due to miscommunications or management concerns managers and even the CEO was on the call. Having legal council there to hear the proposal from the Discovery team seems possible to me.
I believe that these data protection laws are intended to apply to companies who are charged with keeping private data. Ex: credit card companies, are not supposed to distribute cc #s, and banks are not supposed to distribute financial information. This is not meant to apply to a publisher of public information. The publisher does not know if the data they are publishing is somehow violating some unknown 3rd-party's rights.
I surely hope that the EU doesn't have a law that says if Joe puts personal data about Bob onto a public forum, that the owner of the forum is liable for the distribution of the personal data, rather than the person who performed the illegal act. That would be absurd.
Google is not the one providing the data, Joe is. You can't sue Google any more than you can sue BT for providing the wires or Western Digital for providing the hard drives. If Joe publishes information about Bob, illegally, then Bob needs to sue Joe, not every middleman involved.
If Google's service has legal problems like this, then so does every other internet forum on the planet. Google, Yahoo, MSN, ICQ, Flickr, YouTube, ... every one of them would be sued out of oblivion, and that isn't fair.
Let me again go back to the example. In the case I provided, where Joe put information about Bob online -- should Bob sue Joe? Or the web site?
If Joe spray painted information about Bob onto the side of a building - should Bob sue Joe? Or the building owner?
It sounds like the blame has shifted, but the point is still the same: they would like to do a show on RFID, but they were politically motivated not to.
If someone sends information to Google, Google is not legally responsible for it. One such law that states this is the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA, which exempts service providers from liability for the data they store and transmit, if it is user-provided content.
(I love it when people tell me "Do you even know what you are talking about" and yet don't cite any references to indicate that they do, or any arguments indicating that I was wrong.)
Let's put a fine point on this, so I know we are talking about the same scenario:
Joe has a camera. Bob is walking around in the real world somewhere. Joe takes a picture of Bob, uploads it to Google's service, and tags it with a tag of "Bob." That's what Picasa does. Now we add the facial recognition part:
Joe takes another picture of Bob. Joe uploads it and tags it as "Bob." Picasa then offers "Would you like me to try to recognize Bob in the other pictures you have taken?" Joe says yes, and Picasa saves Joe the time of tagging the pictures. Joe continues to upload pictures of Bob with the tag "Bob" just the same as when the facial recognition was not involved.
Now, legally speaking:
- Google is not liable for any copyright violations because of the DMCA safe harbor.
- Google did not take a picture of Bob, not that taking pictures is illegal anyway. Unless they violate copyrights, or were on a military base or something like that.
- Google did not provide personal information about Bob. Joe may have done that, and Joe may be legally liable for it. A judge may decide to put an injunction against the content Joe put up, and either he or Google may need to remove it. Google is not liable here either, because Joe is the defendant in the case, not Google.
- This is all very similar to how phone companies are not liable for people who give away illegal information over the phone lines.
So... now that I've covered that. How is Google breaking any laws? And does this have anything to do with the facial recognition feature? (Maybe it doesn't - that was the headline of the story, but not necessarily what your original point is. That's fine, I just want to clarify)
It still has nothing to do with Google.
IANAP
In nature, quarks are always found bound together in groups like this, and never in isolation, because of a phenomenon known as confinement.
I think the problem with "real" -vs- "theoretical" is that we are talking about the things that make-up matter. So even the idea of "real" doesn't apply. People want something they can see and touch and interact with, and if that is what it means to be real, then quarks are not real. But scientifically, they exist and they can be seen and measured indirectly.
(Although, thanks to the magic of the internet, there is no way to know that I exist either)
How is it without their knowledge or consent? You have to specifically enter the information in and go through all the steps I outlined in order to send it to Google!
Picasa's facial recognition technology will ask you to identify people in your pictures that you haven't tagged yet. Once you do and start uploading more pictures, Picasa starts suggesting tags for people based on the similarity between their face in the picture and the
So you register for an online PicasaWeb account, download a program, copy your pictures to it, tell it whose face is in each picture, add tags for them, share the pictures, and tell Picasa to go ahead and tag the other images for you... and this is somehow Google's fault that you chose to expose this information?
That's half the language. If you study the Klingon learning tapes, that is the first thing they teach you.
There was a recent Slashdot article where a judge ruled that the sender of the takedown notice must consider fair use rights. I think that will minimize the number of frivolous cases where someone just wants to suppress free speech.
Ironically, I thought this guy was trolling by just making that up. I had to check Wikipedia to be sure. Troll (angling) Or wait... maybe he just made that article right now! Oh no!
In that case, they would have released it in Klingon. Everyone who I know who speaks even a small amount of Klingon, uses Firefox.
Does Oracle do this too?
I play(ed) Eve online: I paid for 3 months, played it for a few hours a week and found it boring. I logged-on now and then to see what was up, download the latest patch etc. 3 months later, a friend of mine had me join his corp and so I renewed for another 3 months. I logged on to join the corp, and haven't played since.
So I've been playing a game for 6 months that I find boring. That's how it happens.
I write SOAP web services in C# for a living. Those services use SQL servers. But I would never want to combine the two. What the heck...? Was Microsoft trying to make SQL Server be this uber thing that did web services, parsed XML, and served data? What a horrible idea.
Why would it require federal tax credits? This seems to be a simple matter of supply and demand.
I produce 1000 bushels of apples at point Z. The best price for them is half way across the country and point X. No infrastucture exists for moving the apples, so if I want to maximize my profits, I make it. It is in the best interests of those building and maintaining the power lines to increase the capabilities so they can keep my business.
I see only one thing that could impede this: In many states, the producers of power are also the companies that build the power infrastructure. So it might be in their best interests to NOT expand the grid since it would increase competition. But this doesn't require any federal funding or federal oversight. It just requires us to do what some states have already realized is necessary, which is to grant the monopoly only to the power line company, not the power producers. (It was a mistake to do it this way in the first place, they are two completely separate businesses. Just like how today some states have telephone lines + telephone service under one monopoly).
Sign blindness is more of a real problem
You are right! What about all those blind people who don't know about the cancer risks all over the place? We need to make those signs talk. They should have a little speaker than constantly reads the sign every 30 seconds.
I asked. They said it is the cleaning fluids.