Ultimately, if a company lands a ship on earth with a cargo bay full of something valuable that they mined from space, someone will buy it. You can't make a treaty that suspends international capitalism, it simply won't work.
Half of the trouble we face today with the internet doesn't require a new *physical* network. We need instead to prefer standard protocols, and stop centralizing information with big companies. That means run your email address from your own domain instead of using gmail for everything. Don't use Facebook to login to everything. Share pictures with friends over email. Put your public thoughts on your own blog instead of tweeting them. If people are interested in following you, they will use your RSS or Atom feed.
Everything these big companies are doing to mine your data and overwhelm you with useless information are inferior (but more convenient!) replacements for the standard decentralized protocols we already had.
Unfortunately, having a few monopolies control the wires is the cheapest most efficient way to build a network. Mesh networks are just not enough to span planet earth. We are only going to address the neutrality issue with appropriate regulation. As-is, the regulation stifles competition rather than promoting it.
Crazy theory here: What if Tesla is working on an autonomous car because they got a military contract to develop an autonomous military vehicle? He might have a *very* keen insight into this problem because maybe his company has already created it.
There are two problems here. The first is your question about the license cost.
How much is a license for the software?
What if the license is based on royalty payments? You can't let the infringer get around the royalty payment just because they pirated it. Then you would have companies going "$1 per copy, no way! I can pirate it, then just pay a fixed $500 to avoid the royalty, yay!"
The second problem is that, if Disney did indeed know that they had "pirated" the software, then there can be punitive damages. That means that if the license said "$50 + a 6-pack of beer" the company can get triple damages, or a royalty, or some other such thing. The courts have to decide what is legal and fair according to the law.
The company is not claiming they have rights on those works. They are asking for a temporary injunction until the case is resolved. Their claim is that Disney should have known that the software was not legally purchased, which makes us have less sympathy for Disney here. If it was a simple licensing dispute, an injunction might seem like overkill. But if Disney knew of it, the injunction is a way of saying "You can't continue to profit from this until you resolve the dispute, since you knew you were violating copyright here."
...The author of a word processor does not get royalties on the book you wrote...
They do if that is what the contract says. This product is more like an SDK. Often times stuff like this involves specialty hardware that is leased or software and techniques that are paid for by royalties. The company is likely willing to tweak and make adjustments and provide support, in the hopes that they can profit from a blockbuster movie. They probably lose money if the film doesn't make enough revenue.
Stocks are not equatable to cryptocurrencies at all.
Cryptocurrencies have nothing backing them. Stocks are backed by assets. Owning a share of stock means you own a percentage of the corporation's assets. This means cryptocurrencies are more like fiat cash and less like owning stock.
When one says that the stock market may "crash" that means the value of the corporations may lose significant value. But as long as the corporation exists, the stock will have some intrinsic value. If the company owns 50,000 computers and a 50 story office building, then the stock will always have some value because the owner of the stock owns some computers and a piece of real estate. That can be negotiated or sold. Courts have laws for negotiating them. Even if the company was in in bankruptcy the stock holders have some ability to redeem their stock.
When one says that a cryptocurrency may "crash" that means that the currency is no longer used, or the exchange falls, or it loses favor because some new cryptocurrency is cooler. In that case, the owner of the cryptocurrency has nothing at all but a number. They have no asset: no computers, no real estate; no legal recourse, nothing. This is actually worse than cash, because at least with cash there are laws requiring companies to accept that cash. There are international treaties requiring some assets to be exchanged in that currency. So unless all the governments and companies that use that currency crash, even a fiat currency will still have some value.
Crazy alternative theory: What if they built a strong AI already, and they are keeping it under wraps because they found it is too dangerous? Or what if built it and want to release it, but will not do so until law prevents people from abusing it?
What jobs and fields are employers seeking non-compete clauses? I signed a non-compete on my first programming job. Thereafter, I have not done so. In one case I was already working there and new contract paperwork came through and I refused. My boss sided with me and it was fine.
My hope is that people can simply just refuse to sign them and they will go away. But my experience may be an exception, not the norm. I'd like to hear other people's experiences.
Then that is another AI goalpost moved. Eventually, it won't be AI until it walks into the room, discusses philosophy, and declares its eternal love or hate for you.
One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted.
By "how voters voted" you mean - like paper ballot -vs- electronic -vs- mail-in? I didn't see that in any of the linked articles, or really any articles linked from there. If you mean "who they voted for" that also wasn't in the articles, and in theory it isn't supposed to be kept. If they did, that would violate several treaties and some state constitutions (West Virginia, not sure what others?)
I work for a company that is in the heavily-regulated medical industry. 3 years ago we would have jumped on the idea of "local cloud" but now it might be too late.
3 years ago Microsoft offered to replace many of our servers (physical and VMWare) with Azure and the company basically said "No way, we can't have FDA regulated PHI and corporate secrets in the cloud." Fast forward to today, where the company is moving to all Azure. Our corporate Outlook servers are now Outlook 365, our local "FTP" site has been replaced with OneDrive. Yearly upgrades of Office are now replaced with Office 365.
Corporate America is slashing IT departments because they overcharged and underdelivered. They charged a fortune for basic email servers and could barely get Microsoft Office installed and working. Azure just made more corporate sense - gut the IT staff and move to the cloud. The theoretical security concerns melted away in the face of saving money and getting better service.
Where it might still make sense is for companies selling informatics software to other companies in regulated fields. You could offer your software in the cloud, or tell the company they can install their own local Azure and run the software on that. We wanted that 3 years ago and instead basically made our own.
Nothing other than my switching to XFinity or someone else available in my area, you mean?
The good old competition argument. That would be great if there was actually someone else available. Most areas only have 1 or 2 ISPs. Both ISPs are probably content providers too, so they will both be violating neutrality. We won't have real competition on ISPs so long as they are tied to telecoms, which are natural and regulatory monopolies.
Point is, they are not "little".
No, you've taken the statement out of context and twisting words. The term "little guy" means customer and startup web sites. Yes, neutrality protects "big guys" too, but that doesn't invalidate the point or make the statement wrong.
Are you saying, YouTube became a thing after 2015? Seriously?.. Really?..
No. Smidge204 did not say that. Seriously, really. He didn't.
Now tell me, WHY do you think we should ask the sales guy for the "cost benefit analysis vs. other solutions"?
Because typically vendors do this anyway for their own benefit before they invest in the R&D for a product. The CEO says "We have $30 million to invest over the next 3 years, convince me I should invest in your project rather than the one down the hall." And someone has to prove to the CEO that the product will be economically viable, that the market will buy it, that it can be released in a timely fashion, that the regulatory and legal hurdles won't kill it, etc.
With that said, we understand the publicly released version will be the most optimistic versions of that analysis, to make it look good. But it is still a viable place to start. And sometimes, companies actually really make good products and they can prove it.
As the script that shows the button is loaded from Facebook website, your browser SENDS to Facebook your IP and other information (e.g. Facecbook-domain related cookies containing your user id) while merely displaying the button.
If you logged-out of facebook, how is it sending facebook domain-related cookies containing your user id? Logging out should eliminated those cookies. That's the entire point of logging out!
I am not sure which of Zuckerber'gs two ideas is more ridiculous: 1. A state-owned corporation sharing it's money equally among its citizens is a bi-partisan capitalist conservative idea. 2. A state with <1 million people but a single enormous natural resource is a good stable economic model for the rest of the world.
Zuckerberg should take a look at Venezuela, Russia, much of Africa, and the Middle East. They too subscribe to the idea that state-run oil companies should share their wealth and create a wonderful paradise for everyone. Except that most of those nations are either in decline, starving, or embroiled in war. This is not a good model for a stable economy.
In truth, I fear Zuckerberg. In addition to trying to label communism as capitalism, he believes that privacy is an obsolete concept. Combined, this presents an extreme version of communism that has repeatedly failed throughout the world. He is trying to sell that this is a bipartisan capitalistic idea, when it is about the furthest thing from it. But in today's political climate, someone with a lot of money seems to be able to sell anything to about 48% of the US population. I fear this is Trump 2.0 in the making.
By loading their "like" buttons, you ARE using their site.
Why did the "like" button work if the person logged-out of the site?
It sounds like the log out button just pretends to log you out by making the login prompt appear next time, but it still leaves a cookie saying who you are. If someone else used my browser, and clicked the "like" button, then that person just did something that affected my account, even though I am logged out.
Yeah, but it does help when someone who isn't seeking to do harm or make trouble in fact does do harm or make trouble. Might stop kids from doing something dumb. But in general, yeah, it's not going to do much.
I have a similar story where I mixed up int 0x13h function 02 and 03. I ran my program, which was to scan all the sectors on the drive. I was a kid, so I couldn't afford a second hard drive to test it with. I was testing it with the drive I wrote the program on of course. I ran it. It took longer than I thought. I said "hmm, that's weird" and hit ctrl+c. Then I tried some commands and they didn't work. Then a "dir" didn't work. Then I had this horrible sinking feeling that I will never forget. That slow 3 second dawning as to what just happened... my... entire... hard drive... my hands and arms became numb.
The directors/writers/etc don't put language, nudity and violence just for the fun of annoying special snowflakes like yourself.
Somtimes they do. Directors may insert something into the movie just to get a particular rating. This was most egregious back in the '80s, when a PG rating meant lower movie sales than "R". So they often inserted foul language just to get the coveted "R" rating. That is part of why PG-13 was added.
Open standards have the power to break monopolies and make a lot of people a lot of money. For 25 years, open languages, protocols, and specifications caused the PC industry to grow exponentially. IBM lost their hold, DEC died. Apple maintained their hold, but was a small player until they created the iPod. Why won't the same thing work now? Why can't we have, instead of one FaceBook, dozens of FaceBooks all using the same protocol. In the past, whoever invented the protocol received the first mover benefit of defining new versions of the protocol, and charging royalties for it. See VHS and MP3 for examples. Even committee standards like DVD and Blu-Ray created entire industries. It brought us ISA, EISA, VESA, PCI, and x86. It brought us Android which disrupted Apple's hold on the smartphone industry. Blackberry and Windows proprietary OSs fell down and the industry just grew.
The lesson here is that interoperability is more profitable, for the economy as a whole, and better for the consumers. So why is there a perception otherwise?
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately, if a company lands a ship on earth with a cargo bay full of something valuable that they mined from space, someone will buy it. You can't make a treaty that suspends international capitalism, it simply won't work.
Half of the trouble we face today with the internet doesn't require a new *physical* network. We need instead to prefer standard protocols, and stop centralizing information with big companies. That means run your email address from your own domain instead of using gmail for everything. Don't use Facebook to login to everything. Share pictures with friends over email. Put your public thoughts on your own blog instead of tweeting them. If people are interested in following you, they will use your RSS or Atom feed.
Everything these big companies are doing to mine your data and overwhelm you with useless information are inferior (but more convenient!) replacements for the standard decentralized protocols we already had.
Unfortunately, having a few monopolies control the wires is the cheapest most efficient way to build a network. Mesh networks are just not enough to span planet earth. We are only going to address the neutrality issue with appropriate regulation. As-is, the regulation stifles competition rather than promoting it.
Did they have a keylogger on the CEOs computer? That could be a can of worms.
Crazy theory here: What if Tesla is working on an autonomous car because they got a military contract to develop an autonomous military vehicle? He might have a *very* keen insight into this problem because maybe his company has already created it.
Slashdot needs to stop the ads with self-playing audio.
There are two problems here. The first is your question about the license cost.
How much is a license for the software?
What if the license is based on royalty payments? You can't let the infringer get around the royalty payment just because they pirated it. Then you would have companies going "$1 per copy, no way! I can pirate it, then just pay a fixed $500 to avoid the royalty, yay!"
The second problem is that, if Disney did indeed know that they had "pirated" the software, then there can be punitive damages. That means that if the license said "$50 + a 6-pack of beer" the company can get triple damages, or a royalty, or some other such thing. The courts have to decide what is legal and fair according to the law.
The company is not claiming they have rights on those works. They are asking for a temporary injunction until the case is resolved. Their claim is that Disney should have known that the software was not legally purchased, which makes us have less sympathy for Disney here. If it was a simple licensing dispute, an injunction might seem like overkill. But if Disney knew of it, the injunction is a way of saying "You can't continue to profit from this until you resolve the dispute, since you knew you were violating copyright here."
...The author of a word processor does not get royalties on the book you wrote...
They do if that is what the contract says. This product is more like an SDK. Often times stuff like this involves specialty hardware that is leased or software and techniques that are paid for by royalties. The company is likely willing to tweak and make adjustments and provide support, in the hopes that they can profit from a
blockbuster movie. They probably lose money if the film doesn't make enough revenue.
Stocks are not equatable to cryptocurrencies at all.
Cryptocurrencies have nothing backing them. Stocks are backed by assets. Owning a share of stock means you own a percentage of the corporation's assets. This means cryptocurrencies are more like fiat cash and less like owning stock.
When one says that the stock market may "crash" that means the value of the corporations may lose significant value. But as long as the corporation exists, the stock will have some intrinsic value. If the company owns 50,000 computers and a 50 story office building, then the stock will always have some value because the owner of the stock owns some computers and a piece of real estate. That can be negotiated or sold. Courts have laws for negotiating them. Even if the company was in in bankruptcy the stock holders have some ability to redeem their stock.
When one says that a cryptocurrency may "crash" that means that the currency is no longer used, or the exchange falls, or it loses favor because some new cryptocurrency is cooler. In that case, the owner of the cryptocurrency has nothing at all but a number. They have no asset: no computers, no real estate; no legal recourse, nothing. This is actually worse than cash, because at least with cash there are laws requiring companies to accept that cash. There are international treaties requiring some assets to be exchanged in that currency. So unless all the governments and companies that use that currency crash, even a fiat currency will still have some value.
Crazy alternative theory: What if they built a strong AI already, and they are keeping it under wraps because they found it is too dangerous? Or what if built it and want to release it, but will not do so until law prevents people from abusing it?
What jobs and fields are employers seeking non-compete clauses? I signed a non-compete on my first programming job. Thereafter, I have not done so. In one case I was already working there and new contract paperwork came through and I refused. My boss sided with me and it was fine.
My hope is that people can simply just refuse to sign them and they will go away. But my experience may be an exception, not the norm. I'd like to hear other people's experiences.
Then that is another AI goalpost moved. Eventually, it won't be AI until it walks into the room, discusses philosophy, and declares its eternal love or hate for you.
One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted.
By "how voters voted" you mean - like paper ballot -vs- electronic -vs- mail-in? I didn't see that in any of the linked articles, or really any articles linked from there. If you mean "who they voted for" that also wasn't in the articles, and in theory it isn't supposed to be kept. If they did, that would violate several treaties and some state constitutions (West Virginia, not sure what others?)
I work for a company that is in the heavily-regulated medical industry. 3 years ago we would have jumped on the idea of "local cloud" but now it might be too late.
3 years ago Microsoft offered to replace many of our servers (physical and VMWare) with Azure and the company basically said "No way, we can't have FDA regulated PHI and corporate secrets in the cloud." Fast forward to today, where the company is moving to all Azure. Our corporate Outlook servers are now Outlook 365, our local "FTP" site has been replaced with OneDrive. Yearly upgrades of Office are now replaced with Office 365.
Corporate America is slashing IT departments because they overcharged and underdelivered. They charged a fortune for basic email servers and could barely get Microsoft Office installed and working. Azure just made more corporate sense - gut the IT staff and move to the cloud. The theoretical security concerns melted away in the face of saving money and getting better service.
Where it might still make sense is for companies selling informatics software to other companies in regulated fields. You could offer your software in the cloud, or tell the company they can install their own local Azure and run the software on that. We wanted that 3 years ago and instead basically made our own.
Azure is a cloud storage service
That's about 2% of what Azure is. I'd just say start with Wikipedia, I can't summarize it any better than they do.
Sounds like this guy is running for president. He's made a lot of public political comments, and now this. Hmmm....
Nothing other than my switching to XFinity or someone else available in my area, you mean?
The good old competition argument. That would be great if there was actually someone else available. Most areas only have 1 or 2 ISPs. Both ISPs are probably content providers too, so they will both be violating neutrality. We won't have real competition on ISPs so long as they are tied to telecoms, which are natural and regulatory monopolies.
Point is, they are not "little".
No, you've taken the statement out of context and twisting words. The term "little guy" means customer and startup web sites. Yes, neutrality protects "big guys" too, but that doesn't invalidate the point or make the statement wrong.
Are you saying, YouTube became a thing after 2015? Seriously?.. Really?..
No. Smidge204 did not say that. Seriously, really. He didn't.
Now tell me, WHY do you think we should ask the sales guy for the "cost benefit analysis vs. other solutions"?
Because typically vendors do this anyway for their own benefit before they invest in the R&D for a product. The CEO says "We have $30 million to invest over the next 3 years, convince me I should invest in your project rather than the one down the hall." And someone has to prove to the CEO that the product will be economically viable, that the market will buy it, that it can be released in a timely fashion, that the regulatory and legal hurdles won't kill it, etc.
With that said, we understand the publicly released version will be the most optimistic versions of that analysis, to make it look good. But it is still a viable place to start. And sometimes, companies actually really make good products and they can prove it.
As the script that shows the button is loaded from Facebook website, your browser SENDS to Facebook your IP and other information (e.g. Facecbook-domain related cookies containing your user id) while merely displaying the button.
If you logged-out of facebook, how is it sending facebook domain-related cookies containing your user id? Logging out should eliminated those cookies. That's the entire point of logging out!
I am not sure which of Zuckerber'gs two ideas is more ridiculous:
1. A state-owned corporation sharing it's money equally among its citizens is a bi-partisan capitalist conservative idea.
2. A state with <1 million people but a single enormous natural resource is a good stable economic model for the rest of the world.
Zuckerberg should take a look at Venezuela, Russia, much of Africa, and the Middle East. They too subscribe to the idea that state-run oil companies should share their wealth and create a wonderful paradise for everyone. Except that most of those nations are either in decline, starving, or embroiled in war. This is not a good model for a stable economy.
In truth, I fear Zuckerberg. In addition to trying to label communism as capitalism, he believes that privacy is an obsolete concept. Combined, this presents an extreme version of communism that has repeatedly failed throughout the world. He is trying to sell that this is a bipartisan capitalistic idea, when it is about the furthest thing from it. But in today's political climate, someone with a lot of money seems to be able to sell anything to about 48% of the US population. I fear this is Trump 2.0 in the making.
Did the users type in their user name and password when they clicked the like button?
By loading their "like" buttons, you ARE using their site.
Why did the "like" button work if the person logged-out of the site?
It sounds like the log out button just pretends to log you out by making the login prompt appear next time, but it still leaves a cookie saying who you are. If someone else used my browser, and clicked the "like" button, then that person just did something that affected my account, even though I am logged out.
Yeah, but it does help when someone who isn't seeking to do harm or make trouble in fact does do harm or make trouble. Might stop kids from doing something dumb. But in general, yeah, it's not going to do much.
I have a similar story where I mixed up int 0x13h function 02 and 03. I ran my program, which was to scan all the sectors on the drive. I was a kid, so I couldn't afford a second hard drive to test it with. I was testing it with the drive I wrote the program on of course. I ran it. It took longer than I thought. I said "hmm, that's weird" and hit ctrl+c. Then I tried some commands and they didn't work. Then a "dir" didn't work. Then I had this horrible sinking feeling that I will never forget. That slow 3 second dawning as to what just happened... my... entire... hard drive... my hands and arms became numb.
Learning about backups indeed!
The directors/writers/etc don't put language, nudity and violence just for the fun of annoying special snowflakes like yourself.
Somtimes they do. Directors may insert something into the movie just to get a particular rating. This was most egregious back in the '80s, when a PG rating meant lower movie sales than "R". So they often inserted foul language just to get the coveted "R" rating. That is part of why PG-13 was added.
Open standards have the power to break monopolies and make a lot of people a lot of money. For 25 years, open languages, protocols, and specifications caused the PC industry to grow exponentially. IBM lost their hold, DEC died. Apple maintained their hold, but was a small player until they created the iPod. Why won't the same thing work now? Why can't we have, instead of one FaceBook, dozens of FaceBooks all using the same protocol. In the past, whoever invented the protocol received the first mover benefit of defining new versions of the protocol, and charging royalties for it. See VHS and MP3 for examples. Even committee standards like DVD and Blu-Ray created entire industries. It brought us ISA, EISA, VESA, PCI, and x86. It brought us Android which disrupted Apple's hold on the smartphone industry. Blackberry and Windows proprietary OSs fell down and the industry just grew.
The lesson here is that interoperability is more profitable, for the economy as a whole, and better for the consumers. So why is there a perception otherwise?