If you had read the article, you'd have seen that they were matching up the email contents with what they were seeing with good old fashioned surveillance.
Yeah, well, that's a lot more likely to work for a 40-year-old who wants to be 31 than it is for a 17-year-old who wants to be 21. If she obviously wasn't underaged, there was no reason to keep her out, because that's the only reason they check IDs anyway.
The point is that she was able to force the decision from the computer to the person at which point the decision was susceptible to other factors. As long as the systems are set up to let the human make the final decision, no amount of "interstate standards for the content of mag stripes and 2-D barcodes" will make a difference.
Maybe middle managers have that mindset, but good business men are always looking for their next big upside.
No, that's pretty much how all of hollywood works. The town runs on pure fear. Occasionally you'll get a maverick with cojones and he'll be the wunderkind until one of his bets goes south and then he's fired or bankrupted. Look at Ari Emanuel for the current incarnation of that role. I'd say he's got about 5 more years until he loses it.
And they would not make movies at all if they were risk adverse.
Well, that's kind of my point here, they almost didn't make this movie and literally thousands of other movies never get greenlit for similar reasons. Even when they do make a movie, they sometimes decide to skip distrbution - look at fan-favorite Equilibrium as an example, it opened on 10 or 20 screens tops and then went straight to video with zero advertising. The reason? The movie cost ~$20M to make, but the studio was able to sell foreign distribution rights for nearly $30M before the movie even started shooting. The studio decided that $10M in hand was better than the costs of distribution (promotion, cutting a bunch of prints and transporting them to the theaters) and the risk of not making those costs back.
Instead of letting Jackson and the Hobbit make them a new pile of money, New Line tried to keep it all themselves. Have to wonder why the management of New Line still has a job making business decisions like that.
Because a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Hollywood is exceptionally risk-averse. New Line has frequently been on the verge of bankruptcy, where their future hung on a single movie being a flop or a blockbuster (in fact many bygone studios have been in similar situations and been taken out by a flop). That guaranteed $220M (or whatever) starts to look awful nice compared to all the risk involved in making and marketing a new movie. For one thing, while del Toro hasn't had an outright flop, some of his stuff has just barely scraped by (Mimic, Hellboy 2), and he's not a household name like Scorsese or even Bruckheimer and his favorite actors aren't really household names either (the closest being Ron Perlman). So the typical draws of a hollywood movie (star power of lead actor and director) aren't likely to be there for the Hobbit. Who knows if the tide will change by the time the Hobbit makes it to theaters and Tolkienesque stories will be out of favor with the public?
Etc, etc.
The point being that The Hobbit is by no means a slam-dunk.
Depends on what your definition of "inside the reactor" is - if you mean simply on-site but still feasibly accessible by humans, than yes and you have not contradicted what I wrote originally. If you mean literally inside the reactor itself and not accessible by humans without shutting down the reactor, then no you are wrong.
Auto manufacturers do have explicit policies against you re-wiring your car.
No, they really don't. And part of the reason they don't is because of a law called the magnuson-moss warranty act - which in practice says that if your car breaks, they can't deny warranty just because you've got an unapproved modification unless they can show that the modification itself is the cause of the failure.
Also, many auto manufacturers actively design their cars specifically to prevent modification and repair by unauthorized persons. You may be able to change the oil in your expensive European luxury car, but if you want the light on the dashboard that says it's time for an oil change to go out, you'll need to either visit the dealer, or reverse-engineer the computer the dealer uses to reset those lights
Failing to publish documentation is not the same as actively stopping modifications - they don't require digital signatures for what runs on the engine management computer nor do they release new software versions that deliberately block previously reverse-engineered protocols for talking to the car's computer.
and I can "rewire" my iPhone if I wanted, like I stated. It can be easily unlocked, and doesn't have the same "brick" risk as it initially did.
The difference is that no car manufacturer has an explicit policy against you re-wiring your car, nor do they actively design their cars to prevent such re-wiring. Apple does.
If we build a modern generation of feeder-breeder reactors that are something close the 97-99 times more efficient than the old breed and can consume previously generated nuclear waste as fuel.
Unfortunately, it seems that we are not, and will not, be building any breeder reactors because people in the government are still freaked out about the fact that they temporarily produce weapons-grade waste. So, while everything you said is true and how I wish the fuck heads in the DoD would stop screwing us over, it doesn't look like that solution is going to happen any time soon, making the anti-nuke position a lot more reasonable.
An out-of-state fake ID will not necessarily work. There are interstate standards for the content of mag stripes and 2-D barcodes, for example.
But no where near all states follow those standards. All you gotta do is make a fake-id for one of those states. Even if the state does follow those standards, if you pick a state far enough way you can make up pretty much anything, call it an id card (rather than a driver's license) and the person using the machine will have to make the human decision to accept the id anyway or not. As someone who made such a fake-id for a girl who wanted to appear younger than she was (got tired of the bouncers at the clubs loudly exclaiming "you lookin gooooood for XX years old" and thus informing everyone she was with of her true age) I can say that the card always failed to scan because it was 100% bogus, but the people running the machines always accepted it anyway.
As long as they're only data mining the information on what the kids are interested in, and not saving which child was interested in what, they're apparently not violating the COPPA law.
However, what qualifies as 'individually identifiable' may be a lot broader than it first appears. Remember the recent case of correlating imdb ratings with presumably anonymous netflix rental data used for their recommendation contest to figure out what other movies the imdb users had rented but had not rated? There could easily be "in the bigger picture" privacy leaks like that going on here too.
There has to be some sort of way to safeguard the buyer from undue taxation by private companies given the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense (in terms of time) that goes into making a decent salary.
If he were serious about that argument he would accept this proposal:
Instead of dividing up the copy fee proportionally by marketshare as they do now, they would do it inversely. It takes roughly the same amount of work to make a best-selling album as it does to make one that languishes in obscurity. So, the best-sellers are ALREADY being compensated for their work (not that Milman's argument wasn't about rewarding people for talent, it was compensating people for work). Thus the people who should get the lion's share of any media fee are those who have the least number of recorded sales - they clearly aren't being compensated for their work under the current system.
But for the love of god can we please stop with the "bending over" and "lubing up" talk when discussing what are really very trivial matters such as retailer dishonesty?
Nope we can not. It's called an analogy not an identification.
retail electronic sales::5000% mark-ups as prison life::sodomy
This has nothing to do with "scaling back" high-def or not, its all about giving the retailers a freebie and saving a buck at the same time.
Retailers like Best Buy make huge bank on HDMI cables. They are always pushing $100+ Monster-brand cables on unsuspecting customers who buy DVD and BD players. But even if they can't sell a monster cable for a 5000% markup, they can still usually sell a "premium store brand" cable for 1000% mark-up. By leaving the cable out of the box, the console vendors are just bending their customers over so they are lubed, ready and eager to pay for an over-priced cable. Kind of a "you scratch my back, I'll open the guy's wallet for you" between the console maker and the retailer.
Do yourself and your friends a favor - buy 10 $3 HDMI cables from monoprice.com the next time you need just one cable. Then, whenever you hear about a friend or coworker buying anything HDTV related, offer them one of your monoprice cables for $6 - you'll double your money and your friend will save $20.
I don't see flash being valuable as a WRITE cache for a server-grade raid controller because of the wear issues.
However, I do see it being useful for replacing the battery part of the BBU controller. All you need is a capacitor to store just enough charge to dump the ram to the flash in case of power loss. No battery needed anymore which means no more replacing batteries and cheaper board designs since they don't need to worry about including a battery socket either.
Your entire argument appears to boil down to "this is a dispute between big companies, so don't get involved."
That's hardly a strong rebuttal of jdavidb's egalitarian argument that principles should apply equally to all.
Its even more surreal that you go way off on that crazy tangent about "name calling" when all he did was parody your own use of that phrase. Its kinda like half your response was one big self-parody, Filled with righteous furor no doubt, but that just makes it even more ironic.
Result: some 50% of Apple users are new to the product line, happy to put up with Jobs as a benevolent dictator
Which, given the reverse merger of pixar into disney is quite ironic, since Jobs now effectively controls the largest DRM-luvin media conglomerate in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
I read this as "they want their titty back". Oh my. The net has effectively turned me into a female body addict.
I have news for you - unless you're gay or have a hormone deficiency you were born to be a female body addict.
If you had read the article, you'd have seen that they were matching up the email contents with what they were seeing with good old fashioned surveillance.
And how much of that was cherry-picking?
Yeah, well, that's a lot more likely to work for a 40-year-old who wants to be 31 than it is for a 17-year-old who wants to be 21. If she obviously wasn't underaged, there was no reason to keep her out, because that's the only reason they check IDs anyway.
The point is that she was able to force the decision from the computer to the person at which point the decision was susceptible to other factors. As long as the systems are set up to let the human make the final decision, no amount of "interstate standards for the content of mag stripes and 2-D barcodes" will make a difference.
FYI, she was a 30 year old who looked 20.
Maybe middle managers have that mindset, but good business men are always looking for their next big upside.
No, that's pretty much how all of hollywood works. The town runs on pure fear. Occasionally you'll get a maverick with cojones and he'll be the wunderkind until one of his bets goes south and then he's fired or bankrupted. Look at Ari Emanuel for the current incarnation of that role. I'd say he's got about 5 more years until he loses it.
And they would not make movies at all if they were risk adverse.
Well, that's kind of my point here, they almost didn't make this movie and literally thousands of other movies never get greenlit for similar reasons. Even when they do make a movie, they sometimes decide to skip distrbution - look at fan-favorite Equilibrium as an example, it opened on 10 or 20 screens tops and then went straight to video with zero advertising. The reason? The movie cost ~$20M to make, but the studio was able to sell foreign distribution rights for nearly $30M before the movie even started shooting. The studio decided that $10M in hand was better than the costs of distribution (promotion, cutting a bunch of prints and transporting them to the theaters) and the risk of not making those costs back.
Use that beer belly to save your life, or just grow your penis.
See?! The american lifestyle is truly the best!
Instead of letting Jackson and the Hobbit make them a new pile of money, New Line tried to keep it all themselves. Have to wonder why the management of New Line still has a job making business decisions like that.
Because a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Hollywood is exceptionally risk-averse. New Line has frequently been on the verge of bankruptcy, where their future hung on a single movie being a flop or a blockbuster (in fact many bygone studios have been in similar situations and been taken out by a flop). That guaranteed $220M (or whatever) starts to look awful nice compared to all the risk involved in making and marketing a new movie. For one thing, while del Toro hasn't had an outright flop, some of his stuff has just barely scraped by (Mimic, Hellboy 2), and he's not a household name like Scorsese or even Bruckheimer and his favorite actors aren't really household names either (the closest being Ron Perlman). So the typical draws of a hollywood movie (star power of lead actor and director) aren't likely to be there for the Hobbit. Who knows if the tide will change by the time the Hobbit makes it to theaters and Tolkienesque stories will be out of favor with the public?
Etc, etc.
The point being that The Hobbit is by no means a slam-dunk.
Depends on what your definition of "inside the reactor" is - if you mean simply on-site but still feasibly accessible by humans, than yes and you have not contradicted what I wrote originally. If you mean literally inside the reactor itself and not accessible by humans without shutting down the reactor, then no you are wrong.
Auto manufacturers do have explicit policies against you re-wiring your car.
No, they really don't. And part of the reason they don't is because of a law called the magnuson-moss warranty act - which in practice says that if your car breaks, they can't deny warranty just because you've got an unapproved modification unless they can show that the modification itself is the cause of the failure.
Also, many auto manufacturers actively design their cars specifically to prevent modification and repair by unauthorized persons. You may be able to change the oil in your expensive European luxury car, but if you want the light on the dashboard that says it's time for an oil change to go out, you'll need to either visit the dealer, or reverse-engineer the computer the dealer uses to reset those lights
Failing to publish documentation is not the same as actively stopping modifications - they don't require digital signatures for what runs on the engine management computer nor do they release new software versions that deliberately block previously reverse-engineered protocols for talking to the car's computer.
and I can "rewire" my iPhone if I wanted, like I stated. It can be easily unlocked, and doesn't have the same "brick" risk as it initially did.
The difference is that no car manufacturer has an explicit policy against you re-wiring your car, nor do they actively design their cars to prevent such re-wiring. Apple does.
If we build a modern generation of feeder-breeder reactors that are something close the 97-99 times more efficient than the old breed and can consume previously generated nuclear waste as fuel.
Unfortunately, it seems that we are not, and will not, be building any breeder reactors because people in the government are still freaked out about the fact that they temporarily produce weapons-grade waste. So, while everything you said is true and how I wish the fuck heads in the DoD would stop screwing us over, it doesn't look like that solution is going to happen any time soon, making the anti-nuke position a lot more reasonable.
An out-of-state fake ID will not necessarily work. There are interstate standards for the content of mag stripes and 2-D barcodes, for example.
But no where near all states follow those standards. All you gotta do is make a fake-id for one of those states. Even if the state does follow those standards, if you pick a state far enough way you can make up pretty much anything, call it an id card (rather than a driver's license) and the person using the machine will have to make the human decision to accept the id anyway or not. As someone who made such a fake-id for a girl who wanted to appear younger than she was (got tired of the bouncers at the clubs loudly exclaiming "you lookin gooooood for XX years old" and thus informing everyone she was with of her true age) I can say that the card always failed to scan because it was 100% bogus, but the people running the machines always accepted it anyway.
Did Sony provide facilities for recording the disputed songs?
Irrelevant. Either it is explicitly a work for hire, or by default ownership rests with the creator.
As long as they're only data mining the information on what the kids are interested in, and not saving which child was interested in what, they're apparently not violating the COPPA law.
However, what qualifies as 'individually identifiable' may be a lot broader than it first appears. Remember the recent case of correlating imdb ratings with presumably anonymous netflix rental data used for their recommendation contest to figure out what other movies the imdb users had rented but had not rated? There could easily be "in the bigger picture" privacy leaks like that going on here too.
Congratulations, you found someone on the internet who was wrong and corrected them.
Could you be any more hypocritical?
Bought four more cables (different brands) and none of them worked, too much signal loss.
Finally bought a $150 cable and it (sixth cable) worked.
If the $3 cables from monoprice and four other brands weren't working for you, then the problem was with your equipment, not the cables.
There has to be some sort of way to safeguard the buyer from undue taxation by private companies given the hours and the sweat and the blood and the tears and the extreme, extreme expense (in terms of time) that goes into making a decent salary.
If he were serious about that argument he would accept this proposal:
Instead of dividing up the copy fee proportionally by marketshare as they do now, they would do it inversely. It takes roughly the same amount of work to make a best-selling album as it does to make one that languishes in obscurity. So, the best-sellers are ALREADY being compensated for their work (not that Milman's argument wasn't about rewarding people for talent, it was compensating people for work). Thus the people who should get the lion's share of any media fee are those who have the least number of recorded sales - they clearly aren't being compensated for their work under the current system.
But for the love of god can we please stop with the "bending over" and "lubing up" talk when discussing what are really very trivial matters such as retailer dishonesty?
Nope we can not.
It's called an analogy not an identification.
retail electronic sales::5000% mark-ups
as
prison life::sodomy
This has nothing to do with "scaling back" high-def or not, its all about giving the retailers a freebie and saving a buck at the same time.
Retailers like Best Buy make huge bank on HDMI cables. They are always pushing $100+ Monster-brand cables on unsuspecting customers who buy DVD and BD players. But even if they can't sell a monster cable for a 5000% markup, they can still usually sell a "premium store brand" cable for 1000% mark-up. By leaving the cable out of the box, the console vendors are just bending their customers over so they are lubed, ready and eager to pay for an over-priced cable. Kind of a "you scratch my back, I'll open the guy's wallet for you" between the console maker and the retailer.
Do yourself and your friends a favor - buy 10 $3 HDMI cables from monoprice.com the next time you need just one cable. Then, whenever you hear about a friend or coworker buying anything HDTV related, offer them one of your monoprice cables for $6 - you'll double your money and your friend will save $20.
I want to drive to Seattle and set fire to the ELF's office, plus any other ELF offices I pass along the way
I'm not sure why, but I really don't think ELF has an office.
Damn! I should have patented that idea!
I don't see flash being valuable as a WRITE cache for a server-grade raid controller because of the wear issues.
However, I do see it being useful for replacing the battery part of the BBU controller. All you need is a capacitor to store just enough charge to dump the ram to the flash in case of power loss. No battery needed anymore which means no more replacing batteries and cheaper board designs since they don't need to worry about including a battery socket either.
Your entire argument appears to boil down to "this is a dispute between big companies, so don't get involved."
That's hardly a strong rebuttal of jdavidb's egalitarian argument that principles should apply equally to all.
Its even more surreal that you go way off on that crazy tangent about "name calling" when all he did was parody your own use of that phrase. Its kinda like half your response was one big self-parody, Filled with righteous furor no doubt, but that just makes it even more ironic.
What about octomoms?
Result: some 50% of Apple users are new to the product line, happy to put up with Jobs as a benevolent dictator
Which, given the reverse merger of pixar into disney is quite ironic, since Jobs now effectively controls the largest DRM-luvin media conglomerate in the US.
That's a comment deserving of a +5 insightful.