Unfortunately, I'd guess News Corp knows that any strategy that depends on regular people being informed or showing some kind of conviction is a lost cause.
Which explains why News Corp target the totally uninformed and easily swayed demographic...
Would a corporation sacrifice profit to screw with Joss? No. It was an incompetent TV exec that wanted to give priority to shows appealing to the female tween market. Just look at the line up now from all the networks except for CBS and NBC. How many vampire or metro-sexual 90210 wannabes do we have to have?
However he is not buying books in bulk and moving them to a high-volume market. Instead he is poaching the higher-value books and only moving them to the high-volume market.
While you focused on the technical difference between analogies, you completely ignore the general similarities. The book speculator has no real interest in his market of choice. He's still inflating the local price of the books, and because of his selective poaching the quality/marketability of the books left behind diminishes and makes it less attractive to actual book readers.
Since we are guessing on the motivations of thrift stores and libraries:
Libraries are community centers that use the community's money (taxes) to operate. Every year they need to make room for new books, so they sell the older books at a "friends of the library" sale. Since, the community purchased the books in the first place, then the community should take priority over book speculators.
The reason Savitz feels shameful is because deep down he knows he's being a douche bag.
Coincidently, the same argument could be made for the concept of "flipping" a house which contributed to the real estate bubble.
People saw a profit in purchasing old homes, fixing them up, and selling them at a nice profit. There wasn't anything obviously wrong with the concept, just people taking advantage of a free market to make a little extra income.
What we didn't see was young couples who could no longer buy a traditional "starter home". Before "flipping homes" became the rage, young and lower income families were able to purchase an older home that needed repairs at below traditional market prices. Banks made money off the trend buy offering sub-prime loans and every "flipper's dream" the interest only loan. This off course made "flipping" easier for real estate speculators and created a "bubble" in the real estate market. The average price of a small home sky rocketed upward which not only made it where the first time home buyer was tempted to mortgage more than they can afford, it also tempted current homeowners into using their new found equity to take out a 2nd mortgage. When the bubble burst, it became all too apparent what was wrong with "flipping" or market speculation.
Luckily, we are talking about books here, some which may have been destroyed if he hadn't found a buyer. Of course, we said the same thing about flipping homes...
At a minimum any rules mandating analog cable (such as rules requiring OTA stations to be made available over analog cable) should ALL be removed.
I don't think such a rule exists. Comcast is removing analog TV in two of their markets where I live (I travel). They offered me up to two free digital converter boxes to keep my old TVs working.
The thing I want to see from the FCC is the elimination of any rules regarding analog cable programming and a new rule pushing cable companies to completly end analog cable programming (which frees up spectrum/bandwidth for more TV channels or higher broadband speeds)
I think it is appropriate for the government to mandating consumer protection in the form of consumer purchasable equipment in exchange for wired monopoly status. However, I think it's totally inappropriate for the government to dictate how a business should operate their cable system.
Something regarding over-the-air channels that says cable companies can carry over-the-air channels (including ant digital channels, high-definition or otherwise) and that the over-the-air channel providers like ABC can not prevent the cable companies from carrying their content or charge "unreasonable" fees for doing so would be nice.
Again I think it's not appropriate for the government to get involved with the internal operations of a private business. People say they want small government, but then when you ask them what they expect from their government, you'll find out that they really want a much bigger government.
As for the OTA stations like the local ABC affiliate trying to play hardball and ask for larger fees to be included in the cable lineup, they will always pull this stunt when they have a highly anticipated sporting event or television show that they can threaten to keep cable viewers from watching. A local affiliate who happens to be ABC, pulled that stunt with the cable system and advertised that their shows would still be available on satellite and outside antenna. They even ran an extra number of DirectTV ads during their news hour. Eventually they settled on the cable companies counter offer which was a slightly higher fee when they realized they were losing advertisers to the cable system. The local cable company started to approach the advertisers directly and pitched "Why only have your commercial on a single channel, when we can place your ad on multiple channels?"
Um... What about the Google Apps? They are not included in the Android distribution, and probably licensed by the manufacturers for distribution with their handsets.
Actually no. I don't think so. But the summary gave the appearance, so I just gave it some latitude.
Either way, making a deal with another company to ensure that all their developers stop working on a project is going farther than to "discontinue supporting" it.
Except that IBM has said that they have no plans to stop supporting Harmony. Of course the exact words were " IBM will continue working on Harmony, but its main efforts will be directed toward OpenJDK, Smith said.".
This make sense because it gives more credence to the JCP and IBM's invitation can be seen as the JCP slowing turning into a independent body governing Java.
Also, I think you did mean to spoil a good conspiracy. Shame on you.
Whoops. Hit submit without clarifying "Smith v. Consalvo".
Text from the ruling:
Ms. Quinlan calculated her contingent fee by deducting from the $253,600 the amount attributable to legal fees, $41,319.78, and multiplying the remainder, $212,280.22, by one-third, a product of $70,760.07, to which was ultimately added $3,922.23 on account of disbursements, a total of $74,682.30. The calculation takes into account that Smith has already received and holds in his account the $41,319.78 awarded for his legal expenses. Consequently, the net contribution which Smith will be making to those expenses out of his own pocket will come to $33,362.52 ($74,682.30 minus $41,319.78). Smith's position is that under the contingent fee agreement, one-third of the recovery represented the upper limit of what would be a reasonable fee, but that when Ms. Quinlan certified to $41,319 as her reasonable fees under Section 1988, on the basis of time and customary hourly charges, she was bound by that figure and could not charge the contingent fee based on a percentage. Acting on a summary judgment motion, a judge of the Superior Court determined that Ms. Quinlan was entitled to her percentage fee and ordered entry of a judgment in the amount of $74,682.30, plus interest from August 2, 1991.
Within that same ruling:
The contingent fee agreement made by the parties adhered to the text which S.J.C. Rule 3:05(7) provides "shall be sufficient." In pertinent part it said:
"(4) Reasonable compensation on the foregoing contingency is to be paid by the client to the attorney, but such compensation (including that of any associated counsel) is not to exceed the following maximum percentages of the gross amount collected. (Here insert the maximum percentages to be charged in the event of collection. These may be on a flat basis or in a descending scale in relation to the amount collected.) 33 1/3%.
This portion was used as an argument that a cap of 33-1/3% for attorney fees were deemed fair when the state of Massachusetts argued for relief from one of the attorneys associated with the state's suit against the tobacco companies.
Ignorance? Just because you don't agree with my assertion, doesn't make it a product of ignorance.
Do you have any support for your assertion?
I'm not alone with my assertion. Just look at the debacle over attorney fees arising from the multibillion tobacco lawsuit settlement.
Anyway caps on the amount of contingency fee not only exist in some cases but have been ruled on one occasion as reasonable (33 1/3% ruled reasonable in Mass appeals "Smith vs. Consalvo" 1994).
California has had a cap on contingency fees for medical liability cases since 1975. I haven't seen any evidence that the quality of medical care or a patient's ability to seek reparations for damages has suffered.
Do you know what the lawyer's expenses were?
Do you? How much was spent on court reporters used for depositions, paralegals to research the particulars of the case, travel expenses, courier costs, etc.? How much was done in house by the law firm? How much of the third-party expenses were paid by the law firm and not by the plaintiffs? See I can ask questions too.
Keep in mind the case was settled out of court.
If you are a plaintiff with a legitimate lawsuit, what would you do if no lawyer agreed to take your case, because of a cap on his payments? In that case, would you be better off without caps?
Wow scare tactics. Funny there is no middle road - it's either all or none. Never mind that the cap could be a limit on the percentage of the award with a downward sliding scale like CA's MICRA.
There is nothing wrong with putting a cap on the percentage allowed to be charged.
In 2006, there were 1 licensed lawyer for every 264 people in the United States (source ABA for the number of licensed attorneys in 2006, and US census for the estimated population in 2006). There appears to be no shortage in the number of lawyers available to take a case. (In 2006 there were 1,128,729).
As much as I believe lawyers need some constraint on their contingency based fees, I would not say that lawyers are "non-value-producing citizens".
Without lawyers, we wouldn't have someone trained to give a sufficient defense in court from our accuser. We wouldn't have adequate representation when we have been injured because some corporation chose costs over safety. Let's not forget contracts, wills, deeds, and setting up a corporation. Most of these are boilerplate, but they are still the products of lawyers. Lawyers are value-producing citizens.
However like ALL professions, there are lawyers that do more harm than good.
Good. The number of frivolous lawsuits will go down.
While hiring a lawyer on contingency allows someone to sue for wrongdoing when they otherwise couldn't pay the attorney fees (but may still owe other expenses related to the court case), I'm not aware of anyway to get a similar deal for a defense attorney if you are the one being sued. Well other than keeping my insurance payment current.
I should also note that a six-figure education doesn't help lawyer costs, either...the price payed for a lawyer's education is just as ludicrous as the price they charge their clients.
Those costs have a ROI that earns them income every year they practice law. It's absurd to believe that they must make up the cost of their education as quickly as possible, just ask the many non-lawyer professionals that must pay back student loans too.
Usually the agreement is for the lawyer to get a healthy cut on a spec case, since the only payment they get is if they win.
If there was a cap on the amount that a law firm could collect, they would be more selective on the number of cases they will represent. Instead of the current legal lottery they have now which translates into quantity versus quality and having to take a big cut out of the wins in order to make up for the expenses accrued by all the cases lost.
I'm not against lawyers making money, but the current system benefits them more than the people they are representing. Also costs associated with the insane number of frivolous lawsuits filed by "ambulance chasers" are ultimately passed to consumers.
the movie with Jodie Foster. Nell 2: Rise of the machine
In this version, Nell becomes a computer program to continue learning from the internet. Eventually her and her computer host comes learn about the true meaning of life on the web...
It's unfortunate because the big wigs Samsung, LG, RIM, Motorola, and Apple sue each other to discourage any more potential HTC like companies from entering their market.
You're absolutely right about the potential for misuse.
However with the "Citzens United v. F.E.C" ruling, we are pretty much at the mercy of wealthy corporations and individuals.
After further thought, I withdraw my assertion about defamation laws being a form of protection of our democratic process since the PACTS are short lived, the courts are too slow, the corporations could fund a strong team of defense lawyers, and the plaintiffs would have to prove that "actual malice" was involved.
So basically journalists are our only line of defense... o wait. We're screwed.
Being falsely accused in a conversation is different from being falsely accused by a court of law.
Not when the party being defamed takes the offending party to court.
Fortunately the U.S. is governed by the U.S. Constitution not by the U.N..
No one is directly governed by the UN. The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was created as a standard for which a country's government could be measured against and as far as I know does not take away any country's sovereignty.
We still have some freedom here,
I think you have completely misunderstood my comment. Anyway, you do not have the freedom to defame by either libel or slander. You can be sued in civil court.
You could also be prosecuted in criminal court when certain conditions are met:
At the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. However, on the state level, 17 states and 2 territories as of 2005 had criminal defamation laws on the books: Colorado (Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-13-105), Florida (Florida Statutes, 836.01-836.11), Idaho (Idaho Code, 18-4801-18-4809), Kansas (Kansas Statute Annotated, 21-4004), Louisiana (Louisiana R.S., 14:47), Michigan (Michigan Compiled Laws, 750.370), Minnesota (Minnesota Statutes. 609.765), Montana (Montana Code Annotated, 13-35-234), New Hampshire (New Hampshire Revised Statute Annotated, 644:11), New Mexico (New Mexico Statute Annotated, 30-11-1), North Carolina (North Carolina General Statutes, 14-47), North Dakota (North Dakota Century Code, 12.1-15-01), Oklahoma (Oklahoma Statutes, tit. 27 771-781), Utah (Utah Code Annotated, 76-9-404), Virginia (Virginia Code Annotated, 18.2-417), Washington (Washington Revised Code, 9.58.010), Wisconsin (Wisconsin Statutes, 942.01), Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico Laws, tit. 33, 4101-4104) and Virgin Islands (Virgin Islands Code, Title 14, 1172). - from
Wikipedia
This is becoming even more relevant as the issue of "cyber-bullying" is being looked at.
and some semblance of democracy too.
We're a republic. Since you mentioned democracy, I would like to point out :
Defamation laws are becoming increasingly important to protect our democratic process.
After the Supreme Court gave corporations unfettered access to the american media to produce attack ads or what most people would call negative campaign ads, we need some legal relief to protect the US elections from unscrupulous corporations and PACTs.
Slashdot Mirror
Which explains why News Corp target the totally uninformed and easily swayed demographic...
Would a corporation sacrifice profit to screw with Joss? No. It was an incompetent TV exec that wanted to give priority to shows appealing to the female tween market. Just look at the line up now from all the networks except for CBS and NBC. How many vampire or metro-sexual 90210 wannabes do we have to have?
Tweens rule the broadcast market...
You have a point.
However he is not buying books in bulk and moving them to a high-volume market. Instead he is poaching the higher-value books and only moving them to the high-volume market.
While you focused on the technical difference between analogies, you completely ignore the general similarities. The book speculator has no real interest in his market of choice. He's still inflating the local price of the books, and because of his selective poaching the quality/marketability of the books left behind diminishes and makes it less attractive to actual book readers.
Since we are guessing on the motivations of thrift stores and libraries:
Libraries are community centers that use the community's money (taxes) to operate. Every year they need to make room for new books, so they sell the older books at a "friends of the library" sale. Since, the community purchased the books in the first place, then the community should take priority over book speculators.
The reason Savitz feels shameful is because deep down he knows he's being a douche bag.
Exactly!
Coincidently, the same argument could be made for the concept of "flipping" a house which contributed to the real estate bubble.
People saw a profit in purchasing old homes, fixing them up, and selling them at a nice profit. There wasn't anything obviously wrong with the concept, just people taking advantage of a free market to make a little extra income.
What we didn't see was young couples who could no longer buy a traditional "starter home". Before "flipping homes" became the rage, young and lower income families were able to purchase an older home that needed repairs at below traditional market prices. Banks made money off the trend buy offering sub-prime loans and every "flipper's dream" the interest only loan. This off course made "flipping" easier for real estate speculators and created a "bubble" in the real estate market. The average price of a small home sky rocketed upward which not only made it where the first time home buyer was tempted to mortgage more than they can afford, it also tempted current homeowners into using their new found equity to take out a 2nd mortgage. When the bubble burst, it became all too apparent what was wrong with "flipping" or market speculation.
Luckily, we are talking about books here, some which may have been destroyed if he hadn't found a buyer. Of course, we said the same thing about flipping homes...
I don't think such a rule exists. Comcast is removing analog TV in two of their markets where I live (I travel). They offered me up to two free digital converter boxes to keep my old TVs working.
I think it is appropriate for the government to mandating consumer protection in the form of consumer purchasable equipment in exchange for wired monopoly status. However, I think it's totally inappropriate for the government to dictate how a business should operate their cable system.
Again I think it's not appropriate for the government to get involved with the internal operations of a private business. People say they want small government, but then when you ask them what they expect from their government, you'll find out that they really want a much bigger government.
As for the OTA stations like the local ABC affiliate trying to play hardball and ask for larger fees to be included in the cable lineup, they will always pull this stunt when they have a highly anticipated sporting event or television show that they can threaten to keep cable viewers from watching. A local affiliate who happens to be ABC, pulled that stunt with the cable system and advertised that their shows would still be available on satellite and outside antenna. They even ran an extra number of DirectTV ads during their news hour. Eventually they settled on the cable companies counter offer which was a slightly higher fee when they realized they were losing advertisers to the cable system. The local cable company started to approach the advertisers directly and pitched "Why only have your commercial on a single channel, when we can place your ad on multiple channels?"
Sometime market forces prevail...
Um... What about the Google Apps? They are not included in the Android distribution, and probably licensed by the manufacturers for distribution with their handsets.
As if Eric Schmidt isn't coffee drinking buddies with Steve Jobs. Your point?
Actually no. I don't think so. But the summary gave the appearance, so I just gave it some latitude.
Except that IBM has said that they have no plans to stop supporting Harmony. Of course the exact words were " IBM will continue working on Harmony, but its main efforts will be directed toward OpenJDK, Smith said.".
This make sense because it gives more credence to the JCP and IBM's invitation can be seen as the JCP slowing turning into a independent body governing Java.
Guilty as charged ;)
Sun started OpenJDK as the project from which the GPL'ed version of Java would be created.
It stands to reason, that Sun had planned to discontinue supporting Harmony when OpenJDK was formed.
Don't mean to spoil a good conspiracy...
Whoops. Hit submit without clarifying "Smith v. Consalvo".
Text from the ruling:
Ms. Quinlan calculated her contingent fee by deducting from the $253,600 the amount attributable to legal fees, $41,319.78, and multiplying the remainder, $212,280.22, by one-third, a product of $70,760.07, to which was ultimately added $3,922.23 on account of disbursements, a total of $74,682.30. The calculation takes into account that Smith has already received and holds in his account the $41,319.78 awarded for his legal expenses. Consequently, the net contribution which Smith will be making to those expenses out of his own pocket will come to $33,362.52 ($74,682.30 minus $41,319.78). Smith's position is that under the contingent fee agreement, one-third of the recovery represented the upper limit of what would be a reasonable fee, but that when Ms. Quinlan certified to $41,319 as her reasonable fees under Section 1988, on the basis of time and customary hourly charges, she was bound by that figure and could not charge the contingent fee based on a percentage. Acting on a summary judgment motion, a judge of the Superior Court determined that Ms. Quinlan was entitled to her percentage fee and ordered entry of a judgment in the amount of $74,682.30, plus interest from August 2, 1991.
Within that same ruling:
The contingent fee agreement made by the parties adhered to the text which S.J.C. Rule 3:05(7) provides "shall be sufficient." In pertinent part it said:
"(4) Reasonable compensation on the foregoing contingency is to be paid by the client to the attorney, but such compensation (including that of any associated counsel) is not to exceed the following maximum percentages of the gross amount collected. (Here insert the maximum percentages to be charged in the event of collection. These may be on a flat basis or in a descending scale in relation to the amount collected.) 33 1/3%.
This portion was used as an argument that a cap of 33-1/3% for attorney fees were deemed fair when the state of Massachusetts argued for relief from one of the attorneys associated with the state's suit against the tobacco companies.
Ignorance? Just because you don't agree with my assertion, doesn't make it a product of ignorance.
I'm not alone with my assertion. Just look at the debacle over attorney fees arising from the multibillion tobacco lawsuit settlement.
Anyway caps on the amount of contingency fee not only exist in some cases but have been ruled on one occasion as reasonable (33 1/3% ruled reasonable in Mass appeals "Smith vs. Consalvo" 1994).
California has had a cap on contingency fees for medical liability cases since 1975. I haven't seen any evidence that the quality of medical care or a patient's ability to seek reparations for damages has suffered.
Do you? How much was spent on court reporters used for depositions, paralegals to research the particulars of the case, travel expenses, courier costs, etc.? How much was done in house by the law firm? How much of the third-party expenses were paid by the law firm and not by the plaintiffs? See I can ask questions too.
Keep in mind the case was settled out of court.
Wow scare tactics. Funny there is no middle road - it's either all or none. Never mind that the cap could be a limit on the percentage of the award with a downward sliding scale like CA's MICRA.
There is nothing wrong with putting a cap on the percentage allowed to be charged.
In 2006, there were 1 licensed lawyer for every 264 people in the United States (source ABA for the number of licensed attorneys in 2006, and US census for the estimated population in 2006). There appears to be no shortage in the number of lawyers available to take a case. (In 2006 there were 1,128,729).
As much as I believe lawyers need some constraint on their contingency based fees, I would not say that lawyers are "non-value-producing citizens".
Without lawyers, we wouldn't have someone trained to give a sufficient defense in court from our accuser. We wouldn't have adequate representation when we have been injured because some corporation chose costs over safety. Let's not forget contracts, wills, deeds, and setting up a corporation. Most of these are boilerplate, but they are still the products of lawyers. Lawyers are value-producing citizens.
However like ALL professions, there are lawyers that do more harm than good.
Good. The number of frivolous lawsuits will go down.
While hiring a lawyer on contingency allows someone to sue for wrongdoing when they otherwise couldn't pay the attorney fees (but may still owe other expenses related to the court case), I'm not aware of anyway to get a similar deal for a defense attorney if you are the one being sued. Well other than keeping my insurance payment current.
Those costs have a ROI that earns them income every year they practice law. It's absurd to believe that they must make up the cost of their education as quickly as possible, just ask the many non-lawyer professionals that must pay back student loans too.
If there was a cap on the amount that a law firm could collect, they would be more selective on the number of cases they will represent. Instead of the current legal lottery they have now which translates into quantity versus quality and having to take a big cut out of the wins in order to make up for the expenses accrued by all the cases lost.
I'm not against lawyers making money, but the current system benefits them more than the people they are representing. Also costs associated with the insane number of frivolous lawsuits filed by "ambulance chasers" are ultimately passed to consumers.
Lawyers do not have expenses that equate to an amount that justifies taking $425,000 out of a $610,000 settlement.
This is why we need tort reform that caps the largest amount that lawyers receive without capping the amount of damages to the plaintiffs.
damn old age...
..her computer host comes... should be:
Eventually her and her computer host comes to an understanding and learn about the true meaning of life on the web.
the movie with Jodie Foster. Nell 2: Rise of the machine In this version, Nell becomes a computer program to continue learning from the internet. Eventually her and her computer host comes learn about the true meaning of life on the web...
It's unfortunate because the big wigs Samsung, LG, RIM, Motorola, and Apple sue each other to discourage any more potential HTC like companies from entering their market.
LOL. I wish that was true, since I wouldn't have to wait for the contract that came with the phone to expire...
You're absolutely right about the potential for misuse.
However with the "Citzens United v. F.E.C" ruling, we are pretty much at the mercy of wealthy corporations and individuals.
After further thought, I withdraw my assertion about defamation laws being a form of protection of our democratic process since the PACTS are short lived, the courts are too slow, the corporations could fund a strong team of defense lawyers, and the plaintiffs would have to prove that "actual malice" was involved.
So basically journalists are our only line of defense... o wait. We're screwed.
"Oh I get it you made a funny because You don't have an iPhone!" - Fouad from Family Guy.
I could live with a few scratches, I just wish I could have a WiFi connection on my Android phone for more than sixty seconds.
Not when the party being defamed takes the offending party to court.
No one is directly governed by the UN. The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" was created as a standard for which a country's government could be measured against and as far as I know does not take away any country's sovereignty.
I think you have completely misunderstood my comment. Anyway, you do not have the freedom to defame by either libel or slander. You can be sued in civil court.
You could also be prosecuted in criminal court when certain conditions are met:
At the federal level, there are no criminal defamation or insult laws in the United States. However, on the state level, 17 states and 2 territories as of 2005 had criminal defamation laws on the books: Colorado (Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-13-105), Florida (Florida Statutes, 836.01-836.11), Idaho (Idaho Code, 18-4801-18-4809), Kansas (Kansas Statute Annotated, 21-4004), Louisiana (Louisiana R.S., 14:47), Michigan (Michigan Compiled Laws, 750.370), Minnesota (Minnesota Statutes. 609.765), Montana (Montana Code Annotated, 13-35-234), New Hampshire (New Hampshire Revised Statute Annotated, 644:11), New Mexico (New Mexico Statute Annotated, 30-11-1), North Carolina (North Carolina General Statutes, 14-47), North Dakota (North Dakota Century Code, 12.1-15-01), Oklahoma (Oklahoma Statutes, tit. 27 771-781), Utah (Utah Code Annotated, 76-9-404), Virginia (Virginia Code Annotated, 18.2-417), Washington (Washington Revised Code, 9.58.010), Wisconsin (Wisconsin Statutes, 942.01), Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico Laws, tit. 33, 4101-4104) and Virgin Islands (Virgin Islands Code, Title 14, 1172). - from Wikipedia
This is becoming even more relevant as the issue of "cyber-bullying" is being looked at.
We're a republic. Since you mentioned democracy, I would like to point out :
Defamation laws are becoming increasingly important to protect our democratic process.
After the Supreme Court gave corporations unfettered access to the american media to produce attack ads or what most people would call negative campaign ads, we need some legal relief to protect the US elections from unscrupulous corporations and PACTs.
IANAL