One thing that Patreon do not make clear is whether Patreon will still take the same amount from the patron and deduct the 2.9% + $0.35 from the existing pledge amount or, as they do with VAT for European patrons, add the 2.9% + $0.35 to the amount charged to the patron. So, for a $10 pledge will the creator receive $9.50 (and the patron charged $11.64) or $8.89 (and the patron still charged $10, plus VAT if appropriate)?
To take an example from the article, just because you saw an ad for a coffee and then buy one the next day at somewhere near your work does not necessarily mean that the ad has influenced you. It could, for example, be that you always (or frequently) buy that coffee from that location on your way to work or during your lunch break. Nor can they tell if an ad has a negative effect. You intend to buy an X and there is a choice of brands/models, you might see an ad and that ad make you not consider the particular brand/model being advertised.
I would have expected the publishers to prefer e-book sales over paperback. A paperback book can be sold second hand, lent to family or friends etc. An e-book with DRM (which I think includes the vast majority of these from large publishers) is tied to the e-reader and to lend the book you would have to lend the whole e-reader and they cannot be sold second hand.
Mine was an Amstrad CPC464 with green monitor and integral tape drive. It did not take long for me to upgrade it with an external 256Kb RAM extention and a disk drive.
Goog;le already know a lot about the people viewing videos, and presumably each advertiser has a desired demographic for the ad. So why do Google not match the two? Put adverts against the videos which are being viewed by the particular target audience of the advert. This should satisfy both the advertiser, whose ads are being seen by the target demographic, and viewers who will be seeing a greater proportion of relevant ads.
While they are at it, why not ban nearly all online video, because it discriminates against the blind; streaming music services and CDs because they are not accessible to the deaf; live music gigs and clubs because the strobing lights affect those with epilepsy etc.
Are the previous owners not breaking the law by retaining such control? When you sell something then you are supposed to give up all interest and rights to it, to do otherwise is an act of conversion
As the payments to marketplace sellers are made via Amazon, could Amazon not "follow the money"? Thus forcing a banned seller to use a new (bank) account to receive payments from Amazon as well as registering with a new name and email.
As iPlayer is a BBC product, why do they need detector vans to determine who is streaming it? It is coming from their servers, so the they know (or could know) the IP addresses to which iPlayer is streaming. In most cases this will be the router address of the ADSL, Cable or Fibre subscriber, from which the address could be determined. Even with a detector van, if someone is streaming via a WiFi hotspot, there will be no way they could tell if the users of the smartphones, tablets and laptops have licences at their home address (and the licence covers use outside the home by equipment powered by internal batteries). Similarly with anyone streaming via 3G/4G.
The adverts (and their web site) for Sky Fibre Broadband claim that it is "Totally Unlimited". If they limit access to porn then they will have to remove the claim to be totally unlimited.
There is a very large amount of French TV and movies. All they have to do is have the desire to show them and to negotiate with the rights holders to do so.
The article states that a certain proportion of the streaming output should be in the European languages. This can be done without the streaming services making programmes in these languages. All they have to do is stream sufficient (already existing) 'native' TV programmes and movies to meet the quota.
Not only can robots not detect fair use, nor they cannot detect when the work is used with the permission of the copyright owner neither where the company running the robot does not own the copyright but is using it with permission nor where the work is being used with the permission of the robot's owners.
Are you saying... the jury is not "of your peers"?
In this case yes. The definition of peer (From Oxford Dictionaries Online) - "A Person of the same age, status or ability as another specified person" As those involved in this trial are legal not natural persons, the 'age' part does not apply, for the 'status' to apply the jury would have to be legal, not natural persons and as to whether individuals people can have the same abilities as a corporation...
That brings up my questions: 1) Which facility are people with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) supposed to use? 2) Which facility are people born as hermaphrodites supposed to use?
According to the new law, the one appropriate to the gender which the Doctor assigned them to when they were born and which is written on their birth certificate.
Yet if her condition means that she has more then the permitted blood alcohol then her driving license should be revoked. If (at least in the UK) if you suffer from certain medical conditions, such as epilepsy, then you are automatically disqualified from driving. While, as she did know that she had this condition, she should not be charged with drunk driving, she should be banned from driving on medical grounds.
The law should treat hyperlinks as being equivalent to bibliographical references and citations in printed works. After all, that is all a hyperlink is. That browsers automate the retrieval and display of the referenced work, rather than having to search the stacks or ask the librarian to fetch the book/journal, should not affect the status of the hyperlink. As for banning them, I personally think that most web pages do not take enough advantage of hyperlinks within the body of the pages.
How does people accessing from outside the UK have any affect on how much the BBC is paid? They receive the same income from the TV licence payers whether or not people access iPlayer via a VPN.
Imagine a company were to set up a roadwarrior style VPN in their UK office (which for the sake of argument assume a TV licence) for their UK staff who are visiting abroad to access IPlayer from their hotels in the evening. How would the BBC be able to tell that those staff were accessing it via the VPN and not from computers directly connected to the office LAN?
Most JPEGs are created by ordinary people, with their digital cameras and phones. So will Joe Public who has taken a photo be able to define the rights on the image? Will he be able change the rights depending on where he sends or stores the image? Or will it only be the media conglomerates who are able to manage the rights to their images?
And I wish that updates to he build-in apps (not just those from Google) would be installed into the same partition as the built-in ones rather than taking up space (and why does almost every update have to be more memory hungry than the last?) in the user-installable app partition.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the 2% (actually 2.9 iirc, call it 3), it's the 35 cents per. If it was just 3% and nothing else, I doubt anyone would be stressed.
Or even if each patron was only charged $0.35 on top of the 102.9% of the total of their pledges each month.
One thing that Patreon do not make clear is whether Patreon will still take the same amount from the patron and deduct the 2.9% + $0.35 from the existing pledge amount or, as they do with VAT for European patrons, add the 2.9% + $0.35 to the amount charged to the patron. So, for a $10 pledge will the creator receive $9.50 (and the patron charged $11.64) or $8.89 (and the patron still charged $10, plus VAT if appropriate)?
Probably unhackable in the same way as the Titanic was unsinkable.
Get the Android version and it does offer a paid for ad-free version - AccuWeather Platinum.
To take an example from the article, just because you saw an ad for a coffee and then buy one the next day at somewhere near your work does not necessarily mean that the ad has influenced you. It could, for example, be that you always (or frequently) buy that coffee from that location on your way to work or during your lunch break. Nor can they tell if an ad has a negative effect. You intend to buy an X and there is a choice of brands/models, you might see an ad and that ad make you not consider the particular brand/model being advertised.
I would have expected the publishers to prefer e-book sales over paperback. A paperback book can be sold second hand, lent to family or friends etc. An e-book with DRM (which I think includes the vast majority of these from large publishers) is tied to the e-reader and to lend the book you would have to lend the whole e-reader and they cannot be sold second hand.
Mine was an Amstrad CPC464 with green monitor and integral tape drive. It did not take long for me to upgrade it with an external 256Kb RAM extention and a disk drive.
Goog;le already know a lot about the people viewing videos, and presumably each advertiser has a desired demographic for the ad. So why do Google not match the two? Put adverts against the videos which are being viewed by the particular target audience of the advert. This should satisfy both the advertiser, whose ads are being seen by the target demographic, and viewers who will be seeing a greater proportion of relevant ads.
While they are at it, why not ban nearly all online video, because it discriminates against the blind; streaming music services and CDs because they are not accessible to the deaf; live music gigs and clubs because the strobing lights affect those with epilepsy etc.
Are the previous owners not breaking the law by retaining such control? When you sell something then you are supposed to give up all interest and rights to it, to do otherwise is an act of conversion
As the payments to marketplace sellers are made via Amazon, could Amazon not "follow the money"? Thus forcing a banned seller to use a new (bank) account to receive payments from Amazon as well as registering with a new name and email.
As iPlayer is a BBC product, why do they need detector vans to determine who is streaming it? It is coming from their servers, so the they know (or could know) the IP addresses to which iPlayer is streaming. In most cases this will be the router address of the ADSL, Cable or Fibre subscriber, from which the address could be determined. Even with a detector van, if someone is streaming via a WiFi hotspot, there will be no way they could tell if the users of the smartphones, tablets and laptops have licences at their home address (and the licence covers use outside the home by equipment powered by internal batteries). Similarly with anyone streaming via 3G/4G.
The adverts (and their web site) for Sky Fibre Broadband claim that it is "Totally Unlimited". If they limit access to porn then they will have to remove the claim to be totally unlimited.
There is a very large amount of French TV and movies. All they have to do is have the desire to show them and to negotiate with the rights holders to do so.
The article states that a certain proportion of the streaming output should be in the European languages. This can be done without the streaming services making programmes in these languages. All they have to do is stream sufficient (already existing) 'native' TV programmes and movies to meet the quota.
Not only can robots not detect fair use, nor they cannot detect when the work is used with the permission of the copyright owner neither where the company running the robot does not own the copyright but is using it with permission nor where the work is being used with the permission of the robot's owners.
Are you saying... the jury is not "of your peers"?
In this case yes. The definition of peer (From Oxford Dictionaries Online) - "A Person of the same age, status or ability as another specified person" As those involved in this trial are legal not natural persons, the 'age' part does not apply, for the 'status' to apply the jury would have to be legal, not natural persons and as to whether individuals people can have the same abilities as a corporation ...
That brings up my questions: 1) Which facility are people with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) supposed to use? 2) Which facility are people born as hermaphrodites supposed to use?
According to the new law, the one appropriate to the gender which the Doctor assigned them to when they were born and which is written on their birth certificate.
Yet if her condition means that she has more then the permitted blood alcohol then her driving license should be revoked. If (at least in the UK) if you suffer from certain medical conditions, such as epilepsy, then you are automatically disqualified from driving. While, as she did know that she had this condition, she should not be charged with drunk driving, she should be banned from driving on medical grounds.
Why do they not mandate TLS1,2 with PFS?
The law should treat hyperlinks as being equivalent to bibliographical references and citations in printed works. After all, that is all a hyperlink is. That browsers automate the retrieval and display of the referenced work, rather than having to search the stacks or ask the librarian to fetch the book/journal, should not affect the status of the hyperlink. As for banning them, I personally think that most web pages do not take enough advantage of hyperlinks within the body of the pages.
How does people accessing from outside the UK have any affect on how much the BBC is paid? They receive the same income from the TV licence payers whether or not people access iPlayer via a VPN.
Imagine a company were to set up a roadwarrior style VPN in their UK office (which for the sake of argument assume a TV licence) for their UK staff who are visiting abroad to access IPlayer from their hotels in the evening. How would the BBC be able to tell that those staff were accessing it via the VPN and not from computers directly connected to the office LAN?
Most JPEGs are created by ordinary people, with their digital cameras and phones. So will Joe Public who has taken a photo be able to define the rights on the image? Will he be able change the rights depending on where he sends or stores the image? Or will it only be the media conglomerates who are able to manage the rights to their images?
And I wish that updates to he build-in apps (not just those from Google) would be installed into the same partition as the built-in ones rather than taking up space (and why does almost every update have to be more memory hungry than the last?) in the user-installable app partition.