IANAL (obviously) but what laws are being broken here besides copyright infringement?
Theft. The episode had not aired and thus could only have been obtained through theft. If the uploader worked in the studio and had access to it, I'm sure his contract stated clearly that, without explicit permission, distribution of materials would constitute theft, and in this case, a court would probably agree.
Did they have to call it Tor? I don't want Ed Wood flicks jumping into my head when I hear about it.
Freakishly enough, Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space is in the public domain, and can legally be uploaded to Google Video. The Google brand YouTube limits videos to 10 minutes.
Then again, no sane person wants to watch Plan 9. It has resided in the psychotically horrible domain since its inception.
There were 2 requests made to him. The first is not objectionable, the second is highly objectionable.
First: please stop using Tor on our network. Not very objectionable, they do own it and can request that sort of thing. Kind of like saying "please don't seed torrents of 20 Linux CD images on our network."
Second: please do not tell your class about Tor even though you believe it is relevant to what they are learning about. This is highly objectionable, and undermines the purpose of the university as a place for free exchange of ideas. Even assuming the university is private and can tell him to do this, they shouldn't tell him to do this. It makes them a worse university. Can do and should do are different questions.
Microsoft seems to able to do it just fine. Plus, the RIAA doesn't seem to care (or maybe they don't know) that some music download services are still using crackable DRM.
And I was under the impression that myfairtunes still worked.
Also, I am under the impression that all music sold on the iTunes store is required to have DRM. I'm sure some artists want to sell their without DRM on iTunes.
First one, probably because Apple is bigger and more prominent, and might have had to make more concessions in negotiations with the RIAA etc to get the 5 computers/unlimited ipods clause.
second, I really don't know.
third, again probably a concession Apple had to make when negotiating with the record companies. They don't want to see any music available for legitimate paid download without DRM. It would undermine their whole PR case.
Maybe not. If only 2 servers (ICANN and DDS) were successfully targeted, it was probably because of one of 2 reasons.
A. (more likely) The botnet wasn't large enough to attack all 13, and would have managed to cause a slight, but manageable spike for all 13 servers. In focusing the attack on a few, you get a more public result, namely ZOMG DoD got pwned. There are actually 2 DoD DNS servers, #6 and 7 on the chart from TFA. #6 got blasted, #7 was fine.
B. (much less likely) The attacker realized there would be serious political repercussions to taking down all the DNS servers and essentially crashing the internet. Namely, this would result in a big and public push for new security measures (like port blocking etc) from ISPs, which would be bad for botnet owners.
Supermarket loyalty cards give me a discount TiVo does not. If they had "save $2 per month by allowing us to sell your viewing habits" the example would be comparable. As it is, the two are very different. The TiVo data is aggregate, loyalty cards aren't. TiVo offers no discount, loyalty cards do.
For a market to truly be free, there must be perfect information for everyone.
You are confusing the perfect competition model with freedom. In economics, the perfect competition model, among other assumptions perfect information. There are however many economic models, particularly game theoretic ones, in which perfect information is NOT required.
A small example. Say I market sunscreen, and I find that advertising in surfer magazines is far more effective per dollar than advertising in Cosmopolitan (the cosmo readers apparently want tans and cancer). I have used my own staff to conduct this research and now am able to advertise more effectively. I now have an information advantage over my competitors, who place ads in Cosmo every month. Everyone is acting completely freely in this situation and it is a "free market." It isn't perfectly competitive (no real market is), but it is free.
Sugar is artificially more expensive. The US government uses tarriffs and subsidies to prop up Florida sugar farmers. In real production costs, sugar is very cheap. Corn syrup is a bit more expensive to make, but the US has huge amounts of corn, but relatively small tropical areas to grow sugar.
I know about producer surplus, I am an econ major after all. I was more driving home the point that among the tools used to maximize producer surplus, in this case at the cost of consumer surplus, fraud is not an acceptable one.
On the point of why this fraud is more profitable than a reserve price, is that you can prompt bidding on an item with limited interest far beyond what the market clearing price would be. If my reservation price is $500, and your reserve is $300, and no other buyers are interested, I get it for $300. If other (fake) buyers bid against me, you might fraudulently raise the price above and beyond your reserve, pushing me close to $500. Fake bidding allows you to act as a discriminating monopolist, charging up to the reserve price of the highest buyer on each unit. Monopolist is key here though, as if your good is fungible, people can just move on to the next auction and leave you to buy your own stuff. And of course, you end up with the unhappy deadweight loss associated with monopoly. The guy in the Times article is at least partly a monopolist in that he is dealing in antiquities, which are, well, rare. Though his might be fake. You own the only remaining print of that Van Gogh? Congratulations, you're a monopolist!
No, you still got it 3$ to cheap, because you were willing to pay 20$. Your argument is a logical fallacy.
No.
In economics, there is a long established and useful concept called consumer surplus. It is based on the fact that some consumers value an item at much higher than the going rate, but that their number is small enough that it would not be in the seller's interest to sell a smaller quantity at a higher price.
For example, say that I am extremely hungry and have a class in 10 minutes. I might be willing to pay $5 for a slice of pizza at the cafeteria nearest to my classroom, due to reasons of both timing and hunger. However, since the cafeteria can't read people's minds, and because of various local trade laws and issues of practicality, they must charge the same price to everyone. Say that the optimal price based on average demand and the cost of supplying pizza, both in labor and materials, is $1.50. So I buy a slice for $1.50 and I am left with a consumer surplus of $3.50.
This example is to say that people often value an item above the market clearing price (or below it, in which case they don't buy), and that the fraud being committed is fraud, because it artificially inflates the market price with bids of buyers who do not intend to pay, and who are in collusion with the seller.
In our pizza example, if a store employee out of uniform had stood next to me and tried to outbid me on pizza, until my reservation price ($5) was reached, that would be fraud. When someone misrepresents themself in a commercial transaction, it is fraud. All the bidders are transactors in an auction, not just the winner.
Quite the opposite, when a star (namely the Sun) is shining on you, it's really quite hot, and full of EM waves, both light and some less friendly ones. The atmosphere keeps things warm at night and cool in the day. Swinging 300 degrees C when the Sun sets isn't fun.
A good bot will install a root kit that will disable and/or lie to anti-virus software.
Well, I tend to notice when my anti-virus won't run. I also do scans from my Linux partition of my Windows side...then again, I HAVE a Linux partition, so I guess I'm an atypical user.
You can't be sure that your quote will be there when it gets checked, it lacks the accountability.
That isn't a problem of citing Wikipedia. It's a problem of citing Wikipedia poorly. You should cite a static version of the article, which is set in stone and won't change. It may not be the current article, but it provides consistency. Look in "history" for any article and you can see every prior version of the article. Cite one of those. They don't change.
A much better trick I found while stuck in Houston for a few hours was finding the nearest chair and plug to one of the airline "clubs" that offer free wireless. Sit outside and bask in the electromagnetic waves of free internet.
The interesting part about constitutional interpretation back then was that the framers were alive. You could have actually asked them what they meant. Though that only matters if you care about original intent.
Congress has to pass a budget every year, confirm or reject nominations and treaties, declare war if needed, and investigate corruption in the other branches, impeaching and trying officials when appropriate. So yes, constitutionally, they do have a job to do every year. They could choose to do much less though.
As an American living in Canada (going to McGill), I'll take the disparate and fighting networks over the Canadian GSM system. Why? I pay twice as much here. My American phone costs around ~$40 USD/month, my Canadian, ~$80 USD/month. Same services, no ringtones or music.
What? Going out to dinner in San Jose can cost $200 for how many people?
Four. Family of 4 is not an unreasonable example group. (4/6)($300) = $200. So yes, $200 to take your family of four out to dinner, at exactly the same per-person cost you cited. As a point of comparison, I sometimes go out for sushi to Kotobuki on Long Island (which is the #1 restaurant for food on Long Island according to Zagat...and me) and a dinner for 4 goes for about $150. No Lamborghinis out front though. (No parking in the front)
Sometimes those barriers are regulatory and legal in nature, which causes libertarians and "anarcho captialists" to howl and whine about the evils of government.
But more often then not they are based on other factors, such as technological, geographic, geo-politicial and the like.
There is a big difference between legal barriers to entry and financial ones. There is good competition in the auto industry at the moment, an industry with much higher barriers to entry than the search engine market. Financial barriers to entry can be overcome, and lack of market share can be resolved through advertising (assuming the product is decent...well even not them sometimes). Legal barriers to entry cannot be gotten around. If you don't do what they tell you men with guns can come and take you away. Men with guns, that's the difference between a legal barrier to entry and a financial one.
Gmail is hosted at https://mail.google.com/ since it is under the Google domain name, I would be very surprised if they didn't include Gmail. In fact, were they not to, the statistic could safely be dismissed as meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
-------- Joke o o \/ ---- Your head /--\
Theft. The episode had not aired and thus could only have been obtained through theft. If the uploader worked in the studio and had access to it, I'm sure his contract stated clearly that, without explicit permission, distribution of materials would constitute theft, and in this case, a court would probably agree.
Freakishly enough, Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space is in the public domain, and can legally be uploaded to Google Video. The Google brand YouTube limits videos to 10 minutes.
Then again, no sane person wants to watch Plan 9. It has resided in the psychotically horrible domain since its inception.
The video, for those brave enough to bear watching it: Did they have to call it Tor? I don't want Ed Wood flicks jumping into my head when I hear about it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-703865610 9656489183&q=plan+9+from+outer+space
First: please stop using Tor on our network. Not very objectionable, they do own it and can request that sort of thing. Kind of like saying "please don't seed torrents of 20 Linux CD images on our network."
Second: please do not tell your class about Tor even though you believe it is relevant to what they are learning about. This is highly objectionable, and undermines the purpose of the university as a place for free exchange of ideas. Even assuming the university is private and can tell him to do this, they shouldn't tell him to do this. It makes them a worse university. Can do and should do are different questions.
First one, probably because Apple is bigger and more prominent, and might have had to make more concessions in negotiations with the RIAA etc to get the 5 computers/unlimited ipods clause.
second, I really don't know.
third, again probably a concession Apple had to make when negotiating with the record companies. They don't want to see any music available for legitimate paid download without DRM. It would undermine their whole PR case.
A. (more likely) The botnet wasn't large enough to attack all 13, and would have managed to cause a slight, but manageable spike for all 13 servers. In focusing the attack on a few, you get a more public result, namely ZOMG DoD got pwned. There are actually 2 DoD DNS servers, #6 and 7 on the chart from TFA. #6 got blasted, #7 was fine. B. (much less likely) The attacker realized there would be serious political repercussions to taking down all the DNS servers and essentially crashing the internet. Namely, this would result in a big and public push for new security measures (like port blocking etc) from ISPs, which would be bad for botnet owners.
From grandparent when i ran dapper though i found it easy to download and install firefox 2 off the official site
Bullshit apparently now means "I agree with you."
Supermarket loyalty cards give me a discount TiVo does not. If they had "save $2 per month by allowing us to sell your viewing habits" the example would be comparable. As it is, the two are very different. The TiVo data is aggregate, loyalty cards aren't. TiVo offers no discount, loyalty cards do.
You are confusing the perfect competition model with freedom. In economics, the perfect competition model, among other assumptions perfect information. There are however many economic models, particularly game theoretic ones, in which perfect information is NOT required.
A small example. Say I market sunscreen, and I find that advertising in surfer magazines is far more effective per dollar than advertising in Cosmopolitan (the cosmo readers apparently want tans and cancer). I have used my own staff to conduct this research and now am able to advertise more effectively. I now have an information advantage over my competitors, who place ads in Cosmo every month. Everyone is acting completely freely in this situation and it is a "free market." It isn't perfectly competitive (no real market is), but it is free.
Sugar is artificially more expensive. The US government uses tarriffs and subsidies to prop up Florida sugar farmers. In real production costs, sugar is very cheap. Corn syrup is a bit more expensive to make, but the US has huge amounts of corn, but relatively small tropical areas to grow sugar.
On the point of why this fraud is more profitable than a reserve price, is that you can prompt bidding on an item with limited interest far beyond what the market clearing price would be. If my reservation price is $500, and your reserve is $300, and no other buyers are interested, I get it for $300. If other (fake) buyers bid against me, you might fraudulently raise the price above and beyond your reserve, pushing me close to $500. Fake bidding allows you to act as a discriminating monopolist, charging up to the reserve price of the highest buyer on each unit. Monopolist is key here though, as if your good is fungible, people can just move on to the next auction and leave you to buy your own stuff. And of course, you end up with the unhappy deadweight loss associated with monopoly. The guy in the Times article is at least partly a monopolist in that he is dealing in antiquities, which are, well, rare. Though his might be fake. You own the only remaining print of that Van Gogh? Congratulations, you're a monopolist!
No.
In economics, there is a long established and useful concept called consumer surplus. It is based on the fact that some consumers value an item at much higher than the going rate, but that their number is small enough that it would not be in the seller's interest to sell a smaller quantity at a higher price.
For example, say that I am extremely hungry and have a class in 10 minutes. I might be willing to pay $5 for a slice of pizza at the cafeteria nearest to my classroom, due to reasons of both timing and hunger. However, since the cafeteria can't read people's minds, and because of various local trade laws and issues of practicality, they must charge the same price to everyone. Say that the optimal price based on average demand and the cost of supplying pizza, both in labor and materials, is $1.50. So I buy a slice for $1.50 and I am left with a consumer surplus of $3.50.
This example is to say that people often value an item above the market clearing price (or below it, in which case they don't buy), and that the fraud being committed is fraud, because it artificially inflates the market price with bids of buyers who do not intend to pay, and who are in collusion with the seller.
In our pizza example, if a store employee out of uniform had stood next to me and tried to outbid me on pizza, until my reservation price ($5) was reached, that would be fraud. When someone misrepresents themself in a commercial transaction, it is fraud. All the bidders are transactors in an auction, not just the winner.
It's only not one of the results if you don't think Mt. Rainier National Park counts.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Mt+Rainier &sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=31.701751,82.265625&i e=UTF8&om=1&z=10&ll=46.80664,-121.573334&spn=0.427 681,1.2854&t=k&iwloc=D
Quite the opposite, when a star (namely the Sun) is shining on you, it's really quite hot, and full of EM waves, both light and some less friendly ones. The atmosphere keeps things warm at night and cool in the day. Swinging 300 degrees C when the Sun sets isn't fun.
Well, I tend to notice when my anti-virus won't run. I also do scans from my Linux partition of my Windows side...then again, I HAVE a Linux partition, so I guess I'm an atypical user.
That isn't a problem of citing Wikipedia. It's a problem of citing Wikipedia poorly. You should cite a static version of the article, which is set in stone and won't change. It may not be the current article, but it provides consistency. Look in "history" for any article and you can see every prior version of the article. Cite one of those. They don't change.
A much better trick I found while stuck in Houston for a few hours was finding the nearest chair and plug to one of the airline "clubs" that offer free wireless. Sit outside and bask in the electromagnetic waves of free internet.
The interesting part about constitutional interpretation back then was that the framers were alive. You could have actually asked them what they meant. Though that only matters if you care about original intent.
Congress has to pass a budget every year, confirm or reject nominations and treaties, declare war if needed, and investigate corruption in the other branches, impeaching and trying officials when appropriate. So yes, constitutionally, they do have a job to do every year. They could choose to do much less though.
As an American living in Canada (going to McGill), I'll take the disparate and fighting networks over the Canadian GSM system. Why? I pay twice as much here. My American phone costs around ~$40 USD/month, my Canadian, ~$80 USD/month. Same services, no ringtones or music.
Four. Family of 4 is not an unreasonable example group. (4/6)($300) = $200. So yes, $200 to take your family of four out to dinner, at exactly the same per-person cost you cited. As a point of comparison, I sometimes go out for sushi to Kotobuki on Long Island (which is the #1 restaurant for food on Long Island according to Zagat...and me) and a dinner for 4 goes for about $150. No Lamborghinis out front though. (No parking in the front)
In the macworld speech, Jobs shows the back. It has a normal digital camera, 2 megapixels.
There is a big difference between legal barriers to entry and financial ones. There is good competition in the auto industry at the moment, an industry with much higher barriers to entry than the search engine market. Financial barriers to entry can be overcome, and lack of market share can be resolved through advertising (assuming the product is decent...well even not them sometimes). Legal barriers to entry cannot be gotten around. If you don't do what they tell you men with guns can come and take you away. Men with guns, that's the difference between a legal barrier to entry and a financial one.
Gmail is hosted at https://mail.google.com/ since it is under the Google domain name, I would be very surprised if they didn't include Gmail. In fact, were they not to, the statistic could safely be dismissed as meaningless.
Did they charge you more than $3? The enforced monopoly is that it is illegal to undercut USPS, or even come close on pricing.