Agree. I have 6 watches. One is a dirt cheap analog Casio which is strapped to a motorcycle. One is a dirt cheap digital Timex which is also strapped to a different motorcycle. The other four are fancier, various colors (gold & leather, aluminum, steel, copper). I might wear a watch once a week, and I pick it to match what I'm wearing.
All the fancy ones were gifts. The next watch I buy will probably be another cheap Casio to strap on my bicycle. I think a smart watch is going to be a tough sell when everyone already has what will likely be a more capable smart phone on them already.
I'm surprised you even find garages that let you in. Most garages around me (and even just lots) specifically say no motorcycles. I think it's liability fears about the gate coming down on your head or something.
Theft/burglary is extremely common in South Africa. Also, the Metrorail is well-known to be a prime location for crime. I visited a few months ago, and the advice was that the train was fine with more than a few people, but sometimes the cars will be nearly empty, and that is bad news. At the flat where I was staying, a tourist had had her baggage rifled through when she accidentally left a window open (virtually all properties are fenced in, so the burglar had to climb the fence to get in through the window).
I went to a private high school. It was small and didn't have many resources. Still, I was fortunate to have a very supportive environment for my exploration and learning related to computing.
The teacher who taught programming had actually managed IT/network stuff in Micronesia, so she was not in the habit of throwing old tech out. We received a lot of donated equipment from various businesses, and she saved most of it in a storage room. When she found out how interested I was in technology, she basically gave me the run of the place - allowed me to take home equipment to play with, just hang out in there during lunch and after school, put together new machines for the lab, etc. This was where I first learned about other architectures - got my hands on an old DEC Alpha.
When she saw that I had already self-taught some programming, she allowed me to skip directly to an advanced programming course, and teach myself as an independent study.
Later, she let me set up an NT server with roving profiles and network home directories for the lab, so that students in the general office suite classes could save their work on the network, keep it backed up, and their teacher would have centralized access to it. Prior to this, they were all using floppy disks.
Without that environment I'd still have been interested and involved with tech, but it sure made it easier and more interesting, and I learned a lot. I suspect that many teachers might not have been willing to allow a student so much freedom, or that policies might have forbidden it.
The racing position is favoured by people who race bikes. Those people wouldn't want an electric bike.
The upright position is preferred by most people going to work, school etc by bicycle -- there's a better view, and it's more comfortable.
That really depends on how far you have to go. In my experience, upright seating might be more comfortable for short distances, and it's probably easier to get on and off. But I bicycle to my office most days, about 4.5 miles one way (which is not long) on a road bike outfitted with a rack and panniers. It is not a "racing" position, but I do lean forward and have drop handlebars. The seat is level with the handlebars.
That position removes a lot of weight from your crotch area, and transfers it to your arms. I find sharing the weight between two areas to be more comfortable, although it requires proper positioning of the handlebars, wearing gloves, and switching grip positions to keep hands and wrists comfortable.
The view is fine, and is amplified by a rear view mirror. Also wearing a high-visibility vest will do much more for your visibility than the difference between the two positions.
Then, the nice thing is I can remove the panniers and easily ride 30 miles or more on a weekend in a reasonable amount of time without needing a second bicycle.
Important differences: Classic shows me the text of 7 comments. Beta shows me the text of 2.
Classic uses about 85% of the horizontal width of the screen for comments. Beta uses about 50% or less.
Those are probably the most relevant differences for me. We all come here for the comments, since the stories are by definition published elsewhere first. If a redesign makes it harder to read comments, that's a problem.
Unless there is an explicit exemption in copyright law
Nope. Easiest way out of this is to claim that torturing detainees is not a public performance, so the use does not need to be licensed. And frankly, that argument is probably correct. Especially if they are blasting it with headphones, which is one of the things I've read. Maybe if they're piping it to a bunch of headphones simultaneously Skinny Puppy could have an argument...
But how do you think this lawsuit will go down? The government will simply say it can't describe interrogation techniques in detail because NATIONAL SECURITY. Also, suing the Feds for copyright infringement is harder than suing anyone else, and even if you win you can only collect minimum statutory damages.
Why would anyone believe what a low-level CSR tells them in a chat session? This is like when an eBay CSR claimed that eBay did not allow the sale of Bitcoin mining rigs a few weeks ago. The person didn't know what they were talking about.
Not to mention this is Verizon, who can't tell $0.002 from 0.002 cents. Engaging them on a topic of any complexity is sure to lead to hilarity and/or frustration.
So the idea of having copyrights as a substitute for pensions is as bad as having lottery tickets mailed out periodically instead of social security checks. A few lucky people will strike it rich, but it's no good for the vast majority.
To be clear, this is not something I'm actually advocating. It just struck me that perhaps some copyright promoters are trying to accomplish for artists what pensions do for police. And as you point out, copyright is a terrible way of doing that.
I think copyright promoters need to figure out what they actually want. Do they want to "own" their "property", even if it has no value in the marketplace for most artists? Is that what is most important? Or is providing a reasonable income by some means more important than control?
And anyway, if you want financial support, surely a system that is applicable to everyone, rather than just highly successful and lucky artists would be more fair.
Totally agree. Spreading income out over a lifetime is something that is relevant to everyone, yet copyright provides only a (bad) solution for a small segment of the population.
While attribution and copyright are lumped together they should not be. You should have the right for your work to carry your name indefinitely, others shouldn't be allowed to claim your work as theirs.
In many non-US countries attribution and copyright are not in fact lumped together. The concept of moral rights allows for perpetual claims to attribution, while copyright's economic aspects are dealt with separately.
The U.S. does not really have moral rights (except, technically, a bastardized form in the VARA), which unfortunately forces us to rely more on copyright for issues of attribution, thereby confusing the issue.
I love his comparison of a policeman to a song writer.
Thing is, one could argue that policeman actually do get paid for arrests made 35 years ago. They get pensions.
Of course, pensions are technically supposed to be deferred compensation. But practically speaking, isn't the "artists' rights" lobby (which is not the same as the copyright lobby) really arguing for a pension? Albeit one that varies by popularity of the work, and extends to dependents.
In both cases the goal is to stretch out income over the lifetime of a person. Maybe copyright could benefit from thinking about that goal. Of course, pensions seem to be a passing fad now, so maybe not.
thief, for example, might have dated visuals, but there's nothing lacking in terms of gameplay or experience, and if given some fresh visuals, could stand against some other things I've played lately.
Totally agree with you with respect to Thief. I've actually been playing Thief II recently. The gameplay is so good, and the concept and missions so interesting that I still enjoy playing it 14 years later.
The graphics are of course abysmal by today's standards. But, I think it's worth noting that if Thief or Thief II was "given some fresh visuals" as you say, it would qualify for a new copyright. Besides, if someone went through the trouble of updating visuals, they'd probably release new missions as well, at which point you simply have a sequel.
BTW, there is a multiplayer mod for Thief II floating around, and it does work... it can be great fun if you have another Thief lover!
Due to a law passed after Hurricane Katrina, when trademark holders got upset that poor and displaced people were wearing counterfeit clothing, the feds have to destroy all the seized clothing rather than donate it to charity.
China tends to donate seized counterfeit goods to charity. The US actually sued China at the WTO over this practice, and eventually lost.
You can bet the NSA collects this exact same information.
This. I'm glad someone else pointed it out.
The critical difference that this bloviating idiot of a Representative purposely fails to highlight is that we're having an open debate about whether and what the CFPB should collect.
Whereas the NSA has been "collecting" (if by collecting, we mean sending NSLs forcing companies to turn over their entire databases, or provide access to the NSA on an ongoing basis without telling anyone, or if they don't comply, simply stealing the information) credit records, bank records, cell phone records complete with geolocation information, etc. for years.
These two things are nothing alike. This sounds like a Republican attempt to induce some guilt by association for the CFPB, which they hate so much.
First, there's the fact that we're hearing about this in a Congressional hearing directly from agency personnel, with numerous details. As opposed to having agency personnel lie directly to Congress, and that only after a leak.
Second, why do we think the CFPB is collecting this information? Um, probably to see if credit card and mortgage companies are engaging in predatory lending practices, or abiding by regulations, or to better understand consumer financial behavior in the U.S. You know, things within their mandate. As opposed to the NSA, which has no business dealing with domestic intelligence.
Now there are legitimate concerns about the quality of anonymization, why they can't use a sampling technique, who the contractor is, and what federal agencies should have access to the data. Note that these are everyday issues that the U.S. Census Bureau and the IRS deal with all the time.
Not surprising to see this coming from the Washington Examiner, which if you don't know, is DC's right-leaning daily.
What we could see happen is that users abandon the service to connect to real people, and only use it to connect to brands, because the brands are demanding it. Over time (several more years) the brands will likely deprioritize their presence on the network, because people don't engage with them the way they used to.
This is nearly the point I'm at with Facebook. The News Feed (if it's still called that anymore) has gotten less and less interesting, causing me to check it less and less frequently. I'm seeing more ads, more sponsored content (even with AdBlock), and it makes me less of an active user. I actually starting using my Google+ account again about a week ago to see if it was any better.
I think some of the other posters are right... the kids will kill it. Something new and interesting will come along and attract them, and they'll stop using it - or like AIM, never even start. Years ago, everyone had an AIM or ICQ or Yahoo Messenger account. Now I don't know anyone who still uses it. AIM had huge network effects working in its favor, yet it was displaced.
I don't have a problem with inspections. I do have a problem with massive agricultural subsidies to wheat, cotton, and sugar industries, including subsidies that have been ruled illegal by the WTO.
It is a bit buggy. I usually have to open Netflix twice in order to get it to start. Occasionally it will lose my login information for Netflix or Pandora, forcing me to retype it with the remote control, which is annoying. Over DLNA, there are some files that it cannot fast forward/rewind through. And I do hate the automatic firmware updates, which of course happen when you turn it on and want to watch something.
It's why I keep the AppleTV with XBMC around to watch local media or listen to music. But for Netflix... I guess that's the price we have to pay.
Other countries are free to not accept US positions on trade and treaties, just as the US is in return.
This is true in the same way that you are free to not accept your ISP's terms of services, just as the ISP is free to not accept you as a customer. In other word, it completely ignores the fact that some parties are far more powerful than others, and some parties need the relationship more than others.
It also ignores the fact that frequently trade relationships are driven by other political interests. If your country wants to strike up or maintain a defense relationship with the U.S., it is going to look for other areas in which to develop partnerships with the U.S. This may mean signing on to a trade deal that is worthless or actually harmful, in the hope that it makes a defense relationship more likely.
I have no problem with trade negotiations when they are actually negotiations. But to me it seems disingenuous to claim that negotiations are superior to industrial espionage when the "negotiations" are more akin to bullying. By the way, the U.S. has spied on negotiating partners during negotiations in order to give itself an upper hand. Is that better than directly stealing trade secrets? I'm not sure.
The NSA claims that it doesn't steal trade secrets from foreign companies in order to give US businesses a competitive edge. I suspect they are lying, given that it seems like they lie about everything, and that we already have reason to suspect they are lying about this in particular.
However, the implication is that it would be wrong or immoral for them to do so (unlike the French or Chinese who have no such qualms). E.g., in the article, we read:
At that session, Mr. Obama tried to differentiate between conducting surveillance for national security — which the United States argues is legitimate — and conducting it to steal intellectual property.
It goes on to quote Peter Singer saying that for the Chinese, economic advantage is part of national security.
Maybe the Chinese are right. And here's the thing - the U.S. already behaves as if securing economic advantages for our domestic industry is a critical interest. In trade negotiations, we ram our IP laws down the throats of every other country while dangling our domestic market in front of them, all the while never actually liberalizing agriculture at home. I don't understand why it's acceptable for us to promote our domestic businesses through trade diplomacy, but somehow it becomes unacceptable to do so through spying.
In my mind, we are trying to accomplish the same thing as the Chinese, just via a different means (or probably, via both means). Yet we criticize them as if we are somehow morally superior in the way we do it.
I run XBMC on an Apple TV first generation, upgraded to include a 1080p hardware decoder card. Everything streams from my server, using simple file sharing mechanisms like NFS or Samba. Occasionally I copy a file to its hard drive so that I can take the AppleTV with me to a friend's house. It's small, the UI is polished, and it handle almost everything.
For Netflix, I have a Sony Bluray player with built in applications (Netflix, Pandora and Youtube are the only ones I regularly use. It also has Hulu Plus and Amazon Video). I bought this $100 player and a dumb TV instead of a smart TV. It also has DLNA support, and I run minidlna on the server, sharing the same media files as with the XBMC Apple TV client. Sony's interface is not nearly as polished as XBMC, but occasionally I will run across a file that doesn't cooperate with XBMC, at which point I can switch over to the Sony.
Bottom line - if your device doesn't support standard sharing mechanisms (either file sharing protocols or DLNA, etc.) it's probably not worth the trouble to mess with. Sell it and get something else.
I have a Chromecast that I use strictly for Netflix and Pandora. If I wanted to stream local media to it, I'd sell it and buy something else.
I had a kidney stone while travelling last month in South Africa. The pain developed over a day until I was doubled over on the floor, unable to concentrate on anything. At that point I realized I needed to go the hospital.
I went to the ER and was admitted within about 15 minutes. They did blood and urine tests, gave me morphine (I assume it was morphine, it took the pain away completely) and IV fluids, then did a CT scan. A doctor saw me, and I was discharged in about five hours with a filter cup and antibiotics. The stone had made it through the ureter and was small enough to pass without issue.
I paid for everything out of pocket. The total cost of ER admission, doctor's fee, CT scan + radiologist report, blood and urine tests, and IV fluids was USD $550. As far as I can tell, they did not charge me for the morphine, the antibiotics, or the filter cup. Also they gave me copies of my test results and a CD with my CT scan images, and I did not even have to ask for them.
From what I hear, a CT scan alone can cost thousands of dollars in the U.S. In some ways I am glad that this happened when I was travelling... my co-pays back in the U.S. might have exceeded the entire cost in South Africa. I probably could have flown there, gone to the hospital, and flown home while still spending less than what it would have cost in the U.S. I really see why people do medical tourism. It could make sense even if you have insurance.
I should note that this was a private hospital in Cape Town. The hospital was not fancy like we are used to seeing in the U.S., but the staff were professional and knowledgeable, and the quality of care was first rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree. I have 6 watches. One is a dirt cheap analog Casio which is strapped to a motorcycle. One is a dirt cheap digital Timex which is also strapped to a different motorcycle. The other four are fancier, various colors (gold & leather, aluminum, steel, copper). I might wear a watch once a week, and I pick it to match what I'm wearing.
All the fancy ones were gifts. The next watch I buy will probably be another cheap Casio to strap on my bicycle. I think a smart watch is going to be a tough sell when everyone already has what will likely be a more capable smart phone on them already.
I'm surprised you even find garages that let you in. Most garages around me (and even just lots) specifically say no motorcycles. I think it's liability fears about the gate coming down on your head or something.
Theft/burglary is extremely common in South Africa. Also, the Metrorail is well-known to be a prime location for crime. I visited a few months ago, and the advice was that the train was fine with more than a few people, but sometimes the cars will be nearly empty, and that is bad news. At the flat where I was staying, a tourist had had her baggage rifled through when she accidentally left a window open (virtually all properties are fenced in, so the burglar had to climb the fence to get in through the window).
I went to a private high school. It was small and didn't have many resources. Still, I was fortunate to have a very supportive environment for my exploration and learning related to computing.
The teacher who taught programming had actually managed IT/network stuff in Micronesia, so she was not in the habit of throwing old tech out. We received a lot of donated equipment from various businesses, and she saved most of it in a storage room. When she found out how interested I was in technology, she basically gave me the run of the place - allowed me to take home equipment to play with, just hang out in there during lunch and after school, put together new machines for the lab, etc. This was where I first learned about other architectures - got my hands on an old DEC Alpha.
When she saw that I had already self-taught some programming, she allowed me to skip directly to an advanced programming course, and teach myself as an independent study.
Later, she let me set up an NT server with roving profiles and network home directories for the lab, so that students in the general office suite classes could save their work on the network, keep it backed up, and their teacher would have centralized access to it. Prior to this, they were all using floppy disks.
Without that environment I'd still have been interested and involved with tech, but it sure made it easier and more interesting, and I learned a lot. I suspect that many teachers might not have been willing to allow a student so much freedom, or that policies might have forbidden it.
The racing position is favoured by people who race bikes. Those people wouldn't want an electric bike. The upright position is preferred by most people going to work, school etc by bicycle -- there's a better view, and it's more comfortable.
That really depends on how far you have to go. In my experience, upright seating might be more comfortable for short distances, and it's probably easier to get on and off. But I bicycle to my office most days, about 4.5 miles one way (which is not long) on a road bike outfitted with a rack and panniers. It is not a "racing" position, but I do lean forward and have drop handlebars. The seat is level with the handlebars.
That position removes a lot of weight from your crotch area, and transfers it to your arms. I find sharing the weight between two areas to be more comfortable, although it requires proper positioning of the handlebars, wearing gloves, and switching grip positions to keep hands and wrists comfortable.
The view is fine, and is amplified by a rear view mirror. Also wearing a high-visibility vest will do much more for your visibility than the difference between the two positions.
Then, the nice thing is I can remove the panniers and easily ride 30 miles or more on a weekend in a reasonable amount of time without needing a second bicycle.
Trashing some mod points to post this, but here's a side-by-side comparison.
Important differences: Classic shows me the text of 7 comments. Beta shows me the text of 2.
Classic uses about 85% of the horizontal width of the screen for comments. Beta uses about 50% or less.
Those are probably the most relevant differences for me. We all come here for the comments, since the stories are by definition published elsewhere first. If a redesign makes it harder to read comments, that's a problem.
It's different because Gitmo is not a bar.
Unless there is an explicit exemption in copyright law
Nope. Easiest way out of this is to claim that torturing detainees is not a public performance, so the use does not need to be licensed. And frankly, that argument is probably correct. Especially if they are blasting it with headphones, which is one of the things I've read. Maybe if they're piping it to a bunch of headphones simultaneously Skinny Puppy could have an argument...
But how do you think this lawsuit will go down? The government will simply say it can't describe interrogation techniques in detail because NATIONAL SECURITY. Also, suing the Feds for copyright infringement is harder than suing anyone else, and even if you win you can only collect minimum statutory damages.
Why would anyone believe what a low-level CSR tells them in a chat session? This is like when an eBay CSR claimed that eBay did not allow the sale of Bitcoin mining rigs a few weeks ago. The person didn't know what they were talking about.
Not to mention this is Verizon, who can't tell $0.002 from 0.002 cents. Engaging them on a topic of any complexity is sure to lead to hilarity and/or frustration.
So the idea of having copyrights as a substitute for pensions is as bad as having lottery tickets mailed out periodically instead of social security checks. A few lucky people will strike it rich, but it's no good for the vast majority.
To be clear, this is not something I'm actually advocating. It just struck me that perhaps some copyright promoters are trying to accomplish for artists what pensions do for police. And as you point out, copyright is a terrible way of doing that.
I think copyright promoters need to figure out what they actually want. Do they want to "own" their "property", even if it has no value in the marketplace for most artists? Is that what is most important? Or is providing a reasonable income by some means more important than control?
And anyway, if you want financial support, surely a system that is applicable to everyone, rather than just highly successful and lucky artists would be more fair.
Totally agree. Spreading income out over a lifetime is something that is relevant to everyone, yet copyright provides only a (bad) solution for a small segment of the population.
Wow. Looks great. I'm actually not sure my system will run it :-)
While attribution and copyright are lumped together they should not be. You should have the right for your work to carry your name indefinitely, others shouldn't be allowed to claim your work as theirs.
In many non-US countries attribution and copyright are not in fact lumped together. The concept of moral rights allows for perpetual claims to attribution, while copyright's economic aspects are dealt with separately.
The U.S. does not really have moral rights (except, technically, a bastardized form in the VARA), which unfortunately forces us to rely more on copyright for issues of attribution, thereby confusing the issue.
I love his comparison of a policeman to a song writer.
Thing is, one could argue that policeman actually do get paid for arrests made 35 years ago. They get pensions.
Of course, pensions are technically supposed to be deferred compensation. But practically speaking, isn't the "artists' rights" lobby (which is not the same as the copyright lobby) really arguing for a pension? Albeit one that varies by popularity of the work, and extends to dependents.
In both cases the goal is to stretch out income over the lifetime of a person. Maybe copyright could benefit from thinking about that goal. Of course, pensions seem to be a passing fad now, so maybe not.
thief, for example, might have dated visuals, but there's nothing lacking in terms of gameplay or experience, and if given some fresh visuals, could stand against some other things I've played lately.
Totally agree with you with respect to Thief. I've actually been playing Thief II recently. The gameplay is so good, and the concept and missions so interesting that I still enjoy playing it 14 years later.
The graphics are of course abysmal by today's standards. But, I think it's worth noting that if Thief or Thief II was "given some fresh visuals" as you say, it would qualify for a new copyright. Besides, if someone went through the trouble of updating visuals, they'd probably release new missions as well, at which point you simply have a sequel.
BTW, there is a multiplayer mod for Thief II floating around, and it does work... it can be great fun if you have another Thief lover!
Accidentally moderated redundant, meant to give you an insightful... posting to remove!
China tends to donate seized counterfeit goods to charity. The US actually sued China at the WTO over this practice, and eventually lost.
You can bet the NSA collects this exact same information.
This. I'm glad someone else pointed it out.
The critical difference that this bloviating idiot of a Representative purposely fails to highlight is that we're having an open debate about whether and what the CFPB should collect.
Whereas the NSA has been "collecting" (if by collecting, we mean sending NSLs forcing companies to turn over their entire databases, or provide access to the NSA on an ongoing basis without telling anyone, or if they don't comply, simply stealing the information) credit records, bank records, cell phone records complete with geolocation information, etc. for years.
These two things are nothing alike. This sounds like a Republican attempt to induce some guilt by association for the CFPB, which they hate so much.
First, there's the fact that we're hearing about this in a Congressional hearing directly from agency personnel, with numerous details. As opposed to having agency personnel lie directly to Congress, and that only after a leak.
Second, why do we think the CFPB is collecting this information? Um, probably to see if credit card and mortgage companies are engaging in predatory lending practices, or abiding by regulations, or to better understand consumer financial behavior in the U.S. You know, things within their mandate. As opposed to the NSA, which has no business dealing with domestic intelligence.
Now there are legitimate concerns about the quality of anonymization, why they can't use a sampling technique, who the contractor is, and what federal agencies should have access to the data. Note that these are everyday issues that the U.S. Census Bureau and the IRS deal with all the time.
Not surprising to see this coming from the Washington Examiner, which if you don't know, is DC's right-leaning daily.
What we could see happen is that users abandon the service to connect to real people, and only use it to connect to brands, because the brands are demanding it. Over time (several more years) the brands will likely deprioritize their presence on the network, because people don't engage with them the way they used to.
This is nearly the point I'm at with Facebook. The News Feed (if it's still called that anymore) has gotten less and less interesting, causing me to check it less and less frequently. I'm seeing more ads, more sponsored content (even with AdBlock), and it makes me less of an active user. I actually starting using my Google+ account again about a week ago to see if it was any better.
I think some of the other posters are right... the kids will kill it. Something new and interesting will come along and attract them, and they'll stop using it - or like AIM, never even start. Years ago, everyone had an AIM or ICQ or Yahoo Messenger account. Now I don't know anyone who still uses it. AIM had huge network effects working in its favor, yet it was displaced.
Not to mention it should be "whom do you blame" rather than "who."
I don't have a problem with inspections. I do have a problem with massive agricultural subsidies to wheat, cotton, and sugar industries, including subsidies that have been ruled illegal by the WTO.
Note that when our cotton subsidies were found to violate the international laws that we agreed to, the U.S. decided that instead of changing our policy, we'd simply pay off the Brazilian cotton farmers who sued us in the first place.
It is a bit buggy. I usually have to open Netflix twice in order to get it to start. Occasionally it will lose my login information for Netflix or Pandora, forcing me to retype it with the remote control, which is annoying. Over DLNA, there are some files that it cannot fast forward/rewind through. And I do hate the automatic firmware updates, which of course happen when you turn it on and want to watch something.
It's why I keep the AppleTV with XBMC around to watch local media or listen to music. But for Netflix... I guess that's the price we have to pay.
Other countries are free to not accept US positions on trade and treaties, just as the US is in return.
This is true in the same way that you are free to not accept your ISP's terms of services, just as the ISP is free to not accept you as a customer. In other word, it completely ignores the fact that some parties are far more powerful than others, and some parties need the relationship more than others.
It also ignores the fact that frequently trade relationships are driven by other political interests. If your country wants to strike up or maintain a defense relationship with the U.S., it is going to look for other areas in which to develop partnerships with the U.S. This may mean signing on to a trade deal that is worthless or actually harmful, in the hope that it makes a defense relationship more likely.
I have no problem with trade negotiations when they are actually negotiations. But to me it seems disingenuous to claim that negotiations are superior to industrial espionage when the "negotiations" are more akin to bullying. By the way, the U.S. has spied on negotiating partners during negotiations in order to give itself an upper hand. Is that better than directly stealing trade secrets? I'm not sure.
The NSA claims that it doesn't steal trade secrets from foreign companies in order to give US businesses a competitive edge. I suspect they are lying, given that it seems like they lie about everything, and that we already have reason to suspect they are lying about this in particular.
However, the implication is that it would be wrong or immoral for them to do so (unlike the French or Chinese who have no such qualms). E.g., in the article, we read:
At that session, Mr. Obama tried to differentiate between conducting surveillance for national security — which the United States argues is legitimate — and conducting it to steal intellectual property.
It goes on to quote Peter Singer saying that for the Chinese, economic advantage is part of national security.
Maybe the Chinese are right. And here's the thing - the U.S. already behaves as if securing economic advantages for our domestic industry is a critical interest. In trade negotiations, we ram our IP laws down the throats of every other country while dangling our domestic market in front of them, all the while never actually liberalizing agriculture at home. I don't understand why it's acceptable for us to promote our domestic businesses through trade diplomacy, but somehow it becomes unacceptable to do so through spying.
In my mind, we are trying to accomplish the same thing as the Chinese, just via a different means (or probably, via both means). Yet we criticize them as if we are somehow morally superior in the way we do it.
I run XBMC on an Apple TV first generation, upgraded to include a 1080p hardware decoder card. Everything streams from my server, using simple file sharing mechanisms like NFS or Samba. Occasionally I copy a file to its hard drive so that I can take the AppleTV with me to a friend's house. It's small, the UI is polished, and it handle almost everything.
For Netflix, I have a Sony Bluray player with built in applications (Netflix, Pandora and Youtube are the only ones I regularly use. It also has Hulu Plus and Amazon Video). I bought this $100 player and a dumb TV instead of a smart TV. It also has DLNA support, and I run minidlna on the server, sharing the same media files as with the XBMC Apple TV client. Sony's interface is not nearly as polished as XBMC, but occasionally I will run across a file that doesn't cooperate with XBMC, at which point I can switch over to the Sony.
Bottom line - if your device doesn't support standard sharing mechanisms (either file sharing protocols or DLNA, etc.) it's probably not worth the trouble to mess with. Sell it and get something else.
I have a Chromecast that I use strictly for Netflix and Pandora. If I wanted to stream local media to it, I'd sell it and buy something else.
I had a kidney stone while travelling last month in South Africa. The pain developed over a day until I was doubled over on the floor, unable to concentrate on anything. At that point I realized I needed to go the hospital.
I went to the ER and was admitted within about 15 minutes. They did blood and urine tests, gave me morphine (I assume it was morphine, it took the pain away completely) and IV fluids, then did a CT scan. A doctor saw me, and I was discharged in about five hours with a filter cup and antibiotics. The stone had made it through the ureter and was small enough to pass without issue.
I paid for everything out of pocket. The total cost of ER admission, doctor's fee, CT scan + radiologist report, blood and urine tests, and IV fluids was USD $550. As far as I can tell, they did not charge me for the morphine, the antibiotics, or the filter cup. Also they gave me copies of my test results and a CD with my CT scan images, and I did not even have to ask for them.
From what I hear, a CT scan alone can cost thousands of dollars in the U.S. In some ways I am glad that this happened when I was travelling... my co-pays back in the U.S. might have exceeded the entire cost in South Africa. I probably could have flown there, gone to the hospital, and flown home while still spending less than what it would have cost in the U.S. I really see why people do medical tourism. It could make sense even if you have insurance.
I should note that this was a private hospital in Cape Town. The hospital was not fancy like we are used to seeing in the U.S., but the staff were professional and knowledgeable, and the quality of care was first rate.