Oprah doesn't. She gets paid for ancillary services that are enhanced by her book recommendations. Similarly, book and movie reviewers provide the same function and are paid for their work outright, in fact the value of their work is reduced when a direct financial connection is created between them and the works they review.
In fact, I can't think of anyone doing that sort of work today who does have a trust fund. Can you?
But intermediaries are never going to go away. A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just isn't going to work; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck (even worse than it is in the current system).
And other than bare assertion, why do you think that to be true? Why must there be an intermediary to perform editorial duties? Why can't an editor/reviwer who picks and chooses high quality works from the pool of available works do so without having a financial interest in the chosen works? That's kind of like saying that there will never be financial advisors who don't own shares in the companies that they promote. IIRC, Oprah does that sort of thing already and to the best of my knowledge she does not benefit from the sales of the works she recommends.
Here's the problem: how do you keep the unwanted callers from calling your private numbers?
You can configure the service to use your google-voice number as caller-id whenever forwarding a call. Thus if the caller-id is not google, you don't even bother answering it. Most cell phones can be configured with custom ring-tones, just set the default ringtone to silent and then give your google-voice number a real ring-tone. Then you will never be bothered by anyone calling you direct.
Now telemarketers, religious freaks, and campaign-donation guys will be able to find me no matter where I am.
I am a Google voice user. Zero automated telemarketing calls get through to me. The system defaults to requiring callers with previously unseen caller-id's to state their name before it will even ring my real phone(s). No automated system knows how to do that so far.
Even if a real person calls and does get past the name prompt, I can "answer" the phone by sending the call to voice-mail and listening in, the way you can with a real physical answering machine.
I am also able to blacklist specific caller-id numbers to either go directly to voice-mail or to play the "this number has been disconnected" recording and tone pattern.
Worst case, I can also configure all unknown caller-id numbers to go directly to voice-mail too.
Since signing up with GrandCentral a year or two ago (the predecessor company that google purchased) my annoying call rate has gone to zero.
Well, if you're right, I suppose Thomas has nothing to worry about, as it's an open-and-shut case, and appellate court judges aren't exactly in the pocket of Big Media.
Or maybe there is more to the case than simply subpoenaing a hard disk.
There are clerks, judges, bailiffs, stenographers, electricity bills, etc. to pay.
Which are paid by your taxes. They are not "legal fees." You disagree? Prove it. I've shown what the courts charge. Do you really think that the loser of a court case receives a bill, itemized or otherwise, for the electricity used to light the courtroom during the proceedings?
Employers have been able to get random drug tests an accepted and even expected part of every job;
No they have not. The laws in the US are that pre-employment (but post-offer) mandatory testing is legal if it is consistently required. However once you are employed then drug testing is generally only legal for people working in safety-critical jobs with a few exceptions like pro athletes. The definition of safety-critical is routinely being expanded, for example some states include any job that involves working with children as "safety-critical." But for the most part, we are not anywhere near the situation where random drug tests are accepted or even legal for every job.
I know all this because I recently refused a so-called "pre-employment/post-offer" drug test for a contract - I own my own company, but these nitwits thought they could impose the requirement on anyone employed by my company that worked on their contract. I considered taking them to court where I had a good chance of losing considering the pro-drug testing mentality of the judicial system, but ultimately chose not to do business with the chumps and leave it at that.
With the really low lumens I'm less interested in these pico-projectors for large washed-out displays, instead I'd like to see them reviewed as portable monitors - bigger than a netbook's LCD but not too much bigger - say 19 or 20 inches in diagonal. Can they focus down that small? What is the throw range for such a small image, and of course, how is the brightness when it is all concentrated over such a small surface area - good enough for daylight viewing?
Also, anyone try using a pico-projector for a home-made HUD in their car? Is 100 lumens enough for a 5" display on glass?
My guess is that this is a very simplistic solution to a very complex problem, that is all
Define 'this' - seriously, that is ambiguous grammar. Do you refer to revolution or do you refer to providing uncensored internet access? If you mean revolution, then your beef has nothing to do with "bandwidth" it has to with the OP's assumption that revolution is what they need. If you mean uncensored internet access then I ask you to specify how providing it does not help? Not solve, just help.
All I'm saying is that it is naive from the media and many posters out there to think that the main issue is censorship and media control, Iran has major problems that are totally unrelated to media and censorship.
You know what's naive? Thinking that anyone here thinks the main issue is censorship and media control. I mean big fat homer doh to you for making up that strawman. However, the one problem that a lot of people here can do something about is the censorship that is hampering revolution right now. Not the normal everyday censorship, but the censorship of their ability to coordinate and to unite. Of course, if you think Iran should not have a revolution, well then I can see how you would think that their helping to help themselves isn't really helping that at all.
If you think Iran's problems will be solved via bandwidth, twitter or facebook, you are being misled.
Who said solve? The OP was asking how to help. And it isn't bandwidth, its uncensored access to information to assist in the revolution, not to start it.
Can you please post what we can do in order to help the Iranians throw over their dictatorship?
If you have the bandwidth (with a verizon fios account for example), run a proxy server that gives unlimited access to IP addresses from within Iran. Here's How.
But why does the author of that blog "old holborn" think that post explains why that judge would rule against Nightjack? He says "It explains fully why..." I don't seen anything, much less a full explanation.
While I'm a huge fan of free stuff, I would like to point out that they still have to pay the authors and publishers for use of the copyrighted material.
That doesn't stop Amazon from negotiating with publishers of e-books for a discount. I'm pretty sure that the contract between the publishers and most authors includes a bunch of freebies for promotional use. As it is in the interest of the e-book publishers as much, if not more, than the interest of Amazon for kindle to take off, it's quite plausible that publishers would participate in such a promotion.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everybody has a trust fund.
Oprah doesn't. She gets paid for ancillary services that are enhanced by her book recommendations. Similarly, book and movie reviewers provide the same function and are paid for their work outright, in fact the value of their work is reduced when a direct financial connection is created between them and the works they review.
In fact, I can't think of anyone doing that sort of work today who does have a trust fund. Can you?
Hates the Internet, Hates Librarites: MPAA
Even more so the AAP - Association of American Publishers:
"We, have a very serious issue with librarians."
--Pat Schroeder, President Association of American Publishers.
To make an obvious point: You can ban books, you can burn books, but try to remove a literary work from the Internet and see how far you get.
Do it surreptitiously so as to avoid the Streisand effect and you may actually succeed, depending on the specific literary work in question.
But intermediaries are never going to go away. A model where millions of creators market directly to hundreds of millions of customers just isn't going to work; the good stuff will be buried in the dreck (even worse than it is in the current system).
And other than bare assertion, why do you think that to be true? Why must there be an intermediary to perform editorial duties? Why can't an editor/reviwer who picks and chooses high quality works from the pool of available works do so without having a financial interest in the chosen works? That's kind of like saying that there will never be financial advisors who don't own shares in the companies that they promote. IIRC, Oprah does that sort of thing already and to the best of my knowledge she does not benefit from the sales of the works she recommends.
I vote "dense" given his "Oh please" subject line.
Do you normally carry around your entire life savings? Or do you normally only carry around what you're comfortable with losing?
False dichotomy for the FAIL. RTFA.
pity that some callers spoof their ID
Unless they are psychic, they aren't going to be spoofing the caller-id of anyone that is on my whitelist.
Here's the problem: how do you keep the unwanted callers from calling your private numbers?
You can configure the service to use your google-voice number as caller-id whenever forwarding a call.
Thus if the caller-id is not google, you don't even bother answering it.
Most cell phones can be configured with custom ring-tones, just set the default ringtone to silent and then give your google-voice number a real ring-tone. Then you will never be bothered by anyone calling you direct.
The only person in this thread who has said anything about "new" or "innovative" is yourself.
Joust at windmills much?
Oh, it had to happen to someone important and/or with money.
Yeah, because $4300 makes you rich and powerful! And it wasn't even his money.
Now telemarketers, religious freaks, and campaign-donation guys will be able to find me no matter where I am.
I am a Google voice user.
Zero automated telemarketing calls get through to me. The system defaults to requiring callers with previously unseen caller-id's to state their name before it will even ring my real phone(s). No automated system knows how to do that so far.
Even if a real person calls and does get past the name prompt, I can "answer" the phone by sending the call to voice-mail and listening in, the way you can with a real physical answering machine.
I am also able to blacklist specific caller-id numbers to either go directly to voice-mail or to play the "this number has been disconnected" recording and tone pattern.
Worst case, I can also configure all unknown caller-id numbers to go directly to voice-mail too.
Since signing up with GrandCentral a year or two ago (the predecessor company that google purchased) my annoying call rate has gone to zero.
Well, if you're right, I suppose Thomas has nothing to worry about, as it's an open-and-shut case, and appellate court judges aren't exactly in the pocket of Big Media.
Or maybe there is more to the case than simply subpoenaing a hard disk.
You assume that circumstantial evidence is not permitted in court.
Not for awarding damages. They already tried the "making available theory" and that didn't work.
Hence why the hard drive was requested in discovery.
If they wanted to prove that the files were downloaded they would have to request the hard drive of the person whom received them, don't you think?
There are clerks, judges, bailiffs, stenographers, electricity bills, etc. to pay.
Which are paid by your taxes. They are not "legal fees." You disagree? Prove it.
I've shown what the courts charge. Do you really think that the loser of a court case receives a bill, itemized or otherwise, for the electricity used to light the courtroom during the proceedings?
Employers have been able to get random drug tests an accepted and even expected part of every job;
No they have not. The laws in the US are that pre-employment (but post-offer) mandatory testing is legal if it is consistently required. However once you are employed then drug testing is generally only legal for people working in safety-critical jobs with a few exceptions like pro athletes. The definition of safety-critical is routinely being expanded, for example some states include any job that involves working with children as "safety-critical." But for the most part, we are not anywhere near the situation where random drug tests are accepted or even legal for every job.
I know all this because I recently refused a so-called "pre-employment/post-offer" drug test for a contract - I own my own company, but these nitwits thought they could impose the requirement on anyone employed by my company that worked on their contract. I considered taking them to court where I had a good chance of losing considering the pro-drug testing mentality of the judicial system, but ultimately chose not to do business with the chumps and leave it at that.
With the really low lumens I'm less interested in these pico-projectors for large washed-out displays, instead I'd like to see them reviewed as portable monitors - bigger than a netbook's LCD but not too much bigger - say 19 or 20 inches in diagonal. Can they focus down that small? What is the throw range for such a small image, and of course, how is the brightness when it is all concentrated over such a small surface area - good enough for daylight viewing?
Also, anyone try using a pico-projector for a home-made HUD in their car? Is 100 lumens enough for a 5" display on glass?
My guess is that this is a very simplistic solution to a very complex problem, that is all
Define 'this' - seriously, that is ambiguous grammar. Do you refer to revolution or do you refer to providing uncensored internet access? If you mean revolution, then your beef has nothing to do with "bandwidth" it has to with the OP's assumption that revolution is what they need. If you mean uncensored internet access then I ask you to specify how providing it does not help? Not solve, just help.
All I'm saying is that it is naive from the media and many posters out there to think that the main issue is censorship and media control, Iran has major problems that are totally unrelated to media and censorship.
You know what's naive? Thinking that anyone here thinks the main issue is censorship and media control. I mean big fat homer doh to you for making up that strawman. However, the one problem that a lot of people here can do something about is the censorship that is hampering revolution right now. Not the normal everyday censorship, but the censorship of their ability to coordinate and to unite. Of course, if you think Iran should not have a revolution, well then I can see how you would think that their helping to help themselves isn't really helping that at all.
Not exactly ghandiesque is it?
You keep working that narrative dude, all your live long days.
If you think Iran's problems will be solved via bandwidth, twitter or facebook, you are being misled.
Who said solve? The OP was asking how to help. And it isn't bandwidth, its uncensored access to information to assist in the revolution, not to start it.
Can you please post what we can do in order to help the Iranians throw over their dictatorship?
If you have the bandwidth (with a verizon fios account for example), run a proxy server that gives unlimited access to IP addresses from within Iran.
Here's How.
But why does the author of that blog "old holborn" think that post explains why that judge would rule against Nightjack? He says "It explains fully why..." I don't seen anything, much less a full explanation.
While I'm a huge fan of free stuff, I would like to point out that they still have to pay the authors and publishers for use of the copyrighted material.
That doesn't stop Amazon from negotiating with publishers of e-books for a discount. I'm pretty sure that the contract between the publishers and most authors includes a bunch of freebies for promotional use. As it is in the interest of the e-book publishers as much, if not more, than the interest of Amazon for kindle to take off, it's quite plausible that publishers would participate in such a promotion.
First the court will have its expenses covered,
Which don't really amount to a hill of beans compared to what lawyers bill.
US Court Fees
I don't get it. It's a british version of "don't talk to the cops" but what does it have to do with "Sir David Eady?"