Corporate America does that from time to time, rather than having to pay out for unemployment, they make the job so hellishly miserable that the employee quits and the has the human trash at the unemployment insurance department cover their asses for it.
It boggles my mind as to why the adjudicators aren't prevented from being paid by the employers. The money should be coming from the state. But then again the money to pay for the USPTO should be coming from the Federal Government rather than from fees, so nothing new there.
Indeed, given the severity of the vulnerabilities, it's hard for me to believe that this wasn't something that Sony's executive board knew about. If they're like many other businesses, they didn't feel like paying the cost of securing the service and got bitten on the ass. Whether it was an inside job or not, the exploit wasn't particularly sophisticated and should have long since been patched.
Given that most ISPs in the US are part of a duopoly, I'm wondering how exactly this isn't an antitrust violation. Around here I've basically got Qwest and Comcast with the other ISPs being way too light weight to take seriously, and that includes Hughes and Clear.
This sounds an awful lot like abusing ones market position to ensure that one makes the "right" decision when it comes to purchasing music, and all without the pesky business of courts. Probably racketeering as well, as I doubt very much that the RIAA or MPAA will bother to use this for cases where they have the goods, because they'd make a lot more money on a ridiculous trial.
10-12 inches would make it an ultraportable laptop, rather than a netbook. It's a bit greyish in that area, but by the time you get above about 11" you've got a fullsized, albeit diminutive, laptop. My current laptop has an 11.6" screen and the keys are completely full size if sans 10 key.
I've got pretty large hands, and I had very little trouble typing on a netbook with 8.9" screen. For folks with smaller hands, a 7" screen isn't unreasonable. It's the trade off for those that want the portability.
No, there really aren't. Believe me, I've looked, and there are very, very few options available for those wanting netbooks. "Very expensive small laptops with expensive SSDs" are not netbooks, netbooks are by definition cheap, we've had ultramobiles for a lot longer than we've had netbooks, and redefining the term netbook so that you can say that they're not dead is really missing the point.
Netbooks were geared towards people who weren't particularly tech savvy or were just wanting to browse the web, the Eee PC I have is damn near idiot proof, and a hell of a lot easier to use than Windows. Apart from ASUS fucking up the repository on it, it was precisely the sort of computer that a lot of people wanted to use.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. Unless you're living somewhere other than the US, the chances are that you're not seeing genuine netbooks on sale. The term has been redefined lately to refer to ultramobiles, but genuine netbooks are getting really hard to find.
In fact it's gotten nearly impossible to find a new netbook for under $200, which is really the point. Netbooks are entry level ultramobile computers which handle pretty much just web apps and very little else. And those have gotten very hard to find in the US.
I don't see any problem with that. Tolerating that sort of abuse in the US hardly does anything for anybody living elsewhere. The jobs ultimately need to be filled, and rationalizing it based upon people using the jobs to move themselves from complete destitution to near complete destitution does nothing for the well being of workers.
If anything, our willingness to race to the bottom is making things even worse as folks in developing countries have to keep their wages even lower or allow them to rise more slowly so as to keep getting jobs produced.
No, what explains that is that wages and work conditions are even worse where they come from. If you want them to stop coming, then you fine the crap out of businesses that fail to properly identify that their employees have their documentation and those that fail to obey the legal requirements regarding workplace safety.
It's not a bold statement to make, you can't buy out your next largest competitor to create a concern which makes up the vast majority of an industry. Hence, why I pointed out the Clayton Antitrust Act. It's not really a question of whether or not it's a violation, it's a question of why it is that nobody bothered to prosecute it.
The only thing I can think of is that the DoJ under Bush wasn't particularly into antitrust enforcement.
You're right it's not an argument it's a statement that it's been pretty clear that they've been violating antitrust laws for some time.
If you're going to be that obtuse, the relevant violation that pretty much led to the rest of this was when they illegally bought out doubleclick. You can't buy out your nearest competitor to give yourself a dominating share of the market, that's a very clear violation of Clayton. Even without doing anything else.
It's harder to obsolete a library when people can just fork it and keep on as they always were. Unfortunately, they're free to do so whether or not the new option is worse than the older one.
Google violated Clayton to get the dominant market position they have in the online ad space, they are now being accused of bumping their ads for their own products ahead of buyers of ad space. If that's the case, then they're definitely in violation, whereas with net neutrality there isn't yet any evidence that there has been an antitrust violation that would trigger any antitrust investigations.
Doesn't matter whether there are more egregious violations around or not. It's been pretty clear for some time that Google has been violating antitrust laws for a while now and that the online advertising space has gotten distinctively less competitive as a result. I'm just surprised that it took this long for an investigation to begin.
While we're at it, let's ban those stupid calls where they use an unlisted number as well. The majority of the calls I get from telemarketers don't pop up with any meaningful information on my caller ID.
I'm pretty sure that if what you're intending to do is considered to be harmful, then you'd be considered to be intending to commit harm. Which is understandable. To say otherwise would be a bit like saying that you intended to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger, whereas any reasonable person would say that you intended to kill or at least cause grievous injury.
Do not want, the standard network jack was not designed to have the cable constantly being plugged and unplugged. When it comes to my laptops, I tend not to use the network jack very often, but the power cord has to be used at least once every several hours of computing.
If we want to move to a POE standard, the jack would have to be a lot more durable than what it presently is.
Ink cartridges and batteries have a much more reasonable justification for not being standard. Unlike the power lead which delivers the same thing in slightly different amperages and voltages, batteries and ink cartridges have other considerations which need to be made. For one thing, there isn't just one type of battery on the market, even as far as lithium based ones go, there's quite a few, and they have chips in them to determine how much to charge and track the health of the battery.
Or have you forgotten about those batteries which exploded because they were poorly manufactured? The same thing can happen if you don't use the appropriate power to charge them.
To be honest, this isn't like cell phones where standardizing around micro USB was enough. Laptops use different amounts of power and making it so that the same charger will work on a netbook as a desktop replacement is hardly a wise idea.
There are certain things that can relatively easily be standardized, such as the polarity of the connector, but when it comes down to voltage and amperage, you're better off setting it up so that there's a small assortment of connectors available, and one combination of voltage and amperage per connector. So that if it fits it's not going to damage the machine.
Also, WTF is up with manufacturers that don't bother to label their power supplies? I really appreciate that Epson and Creative bother to put their names directly on the transformer so that I have that many fewer I have to check to determine if it's the one I want. I just wish I had realized years ago that I need to label the power bricks before I waste a lot of time looking for the one with the correct output and connector.
"Kind of Screwed" would be protected under parody, assuming it needed protection as it's not subject to copyright protection and it isn't similar enough to "kind of blue" to have to worry about infringing upon any trademark that could exist.
The pixelated version of the image though, doesn't fall under any reasonable category of fair use, he might have gotten away with it had the venture not been taking donations, but as it is, they were using somebody elses work for donations. And the manipulations they made to it weren't significant enough to qualify it for protection. And really, I don't see why it should have received protection as it's something that you can script Gimp to do without too much thought.
I agree with that, I'd be pretty pissed myself if somebody did that to one of my photos asking permission. Especially since they were taking donations. It just looks way too much like the original and uses way too little creative thought to produce. All the compositional elements of the original are there, albeit in somewhat lower resolution.
Photography in particular is a sensitive one to do that to, as the only thing which qualifies most photos for copyright protection is the compositional element, or at least that's the case for photos like the original which are more documentary in nature. There are other types which are less bound to just that one element.
It's still infringement, I'm not sure why that wasn't obvious from the start. You can't use an image in this manner any more than you can use the music.
In this case, I don't see anything about the pixelated version which should qualify it under fair use. It just looks too much like what those old school pixelated photos looked like before computers gained the memory and capacity to store larger images. It's certainly less qualified than that poster made from the AP photo of President Obama that's been all over the place the last few years.
We should step in the way we did with the health insurance industry and require them to spend 80% of the money raised via caps on infrastructure and eliminating the need for caps. As well as for raising the connections speeds available. Caps wouldn't be so offensive if there was some basis in reality for believing that the money was going to something other than providing bonuses for executives.
I'd like to see that happen, considering how horrible a duopoly is because you get the morons and libertarians claiming that you can go elsewhere, with a monopoly they can't make that argument and so it's easier to get some regulation going to deal with it. The best case is to have somebody like Google running the infrastructure, because they've got a vested interest in having the fastest speed possible at the lowest cost. Municipal ISPs are also a great idea. We'd have one with the executives at Qwest weren't such lying, thieving bastards. It's been 6 years since my hometown considered building its own infrastructure and Qwest still hasn't delivered, nor has it given any indication that it ever will. Perhaps now that Centurylink owns Qwest we might see some improvements. The connections available here haven't changed at all in nearly a decade.
After all, people are much less likely to use ad blockers if they don't have to spend 10 minutes waiting for the ads to load, and more likely to see ads on many different pages if they get more or less instantaneous load times.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporate America does that from time to time, rather than having to pay out for unemployment, they make the job so hellishly miserable that the employee quits and the has the human trash at the unemployment insurance department cover their asses for it.
It boggles my mind as to why the adjudicators aren't prevented from being paid by the employers. The money should be coming from the state. But then again the money to pay for the USPTO should be coming from the Federal Government rather than from fees, so nothing new there.
Indeed, given the severity of the vulnerabilities, it's hard for me to believe that this wasn't something that Sony's executive board knew about. If they're like many other businesses, they didn't feel like paying the cost of securing the service and got bitten on the ass. Whether it was an inside job or not, the exploit wasn't particularly sophisticated and should have long since been patched.
Given that most ISPs in the US are part of a duopoly, I'm wondering how exactly this isn't an antitrust violation. Around here I've basically got Qwest and Comcast with the other ISPs being way too light weight to take seriously, and that includes Hughes and Clear.
This sounds an awful lot like abusing ones market position to ensure that one makes the "right" decision when it comes to purchasing music, and all without the pesky business of courts. Probably racketeering as well, as I doubt very much that the RIAA or MPAA will bother to use this for cases where they have the goods, because they'd make a lot more money on a ridiculous trial.
10-12 inches would make it an ultraportable laptop, rather than a netbook. It's a bit greyish in that area, but by the time you get above about 11" you've got a fullsized, albeit diminutive, laptop. My current laptop has an 11.6" screen and the keys are completely full size if sans 10 key.
I've got pretty large hands, and I had very little trouble typing on a netbook with 8.9" screen. For folks with smaller hands, a 7" screen isn't unreasonable. It's the trade off for those that want the portability.
No, there really aren't. Believe me, I've looked, and there are very, very few options available for those wanting netbooks. "Very expensive small laptops with expensive SSDs" are not netbooks, netbooks are by definition cheap, we've had ultramobiles for a lot longer than we've had netbooks, and redefining the term netbook so that you can say that they're not dead is really missing the point.
Netbooks were geared towards people who weren't particularly tech savvy or were just wanting to browse the web, the Eee PC I have is damn near idiot proof, and a hell of a lot easier to use than Windows. Apart from ASUS fucking up the repository on it, it was precisely the sort of computer that a lot of people wanted to use.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. Unless you're living somewhere other than the US, the chances are that you're not seeing genuine netbooks on sale. The term has been redefined lately to refer to ultramobiles, but genuine netbooks are getting really hard to find.
In fact it's gotten nearly impossible to find a new netbook for under $200, which is really the point. Netbooks are entry level ultramobile computers which handle pretty much just web apps and very little else. And those have gotten very hard to find in the US.
On the bright side for MS, they can hardly do any worse than they did with the Kin.
I don't see any problem with that. Tolerating that sort of abuse in the US hardly does anything for anybody living elsewhere. The jobs ultimately need to be filled, and rationalizing it based upon people using the jobs to move themselves from complete destitution to near complete destitution does nothing for the well being of workers.
If anything, our willingness to race to the bottom is making things even worse as folks in developing countries have to keep their wages even lower or allow them to rise more slowly so as to keep getting jobs produced.
No, what explains that is that wages and work conditions are even worse where they come from. If you want them to stop coming, then you fine the crap out of businesses that fail to properly identify that their employees have their documentation and those that fail to obey the legal requirements regarding workplace safety.
It's not a bold statement to make, you can't buy out your next largest competitor to create a concern which makes up the vast majority of an industry. Hence, why I pointed out the Clayton Antitrust Act. It's not really a question of whether or not it's a violation, it's a question of why it is that nobody bothered to prosecute it.
The only thing I can think of is that the DoJ under Bush wasn't particularly into antitrust enforcement.
You're right it's not an argument it's a statement that it's been pretty clear that they've been violating antitrust laws for some time.
If you're going to be that obtuse, the relevant violation that pretty much led to the rest of this was when they illegally bought out doubleclick. You can't buy out your nearest competitor to give yourself a dominating share of the market, that's a very clear violation of Clayton. Even without doing anything else.
It's harder to obsolete a library when people can just fork it and keep on as they always were. Unfortunately, they're free to do so whether or not the new option is worse than the older one.
Google violated Clayton to get the dominant market position they have in the online ad space, they are now being accused of bumping their ads for their own products ahead of buyers of ad space. If that's the case, then they're definitely in violation, whereas with net neutrality there isn't yet any evidence that there has been an antitrust violation that would trigger any antitrust investigations.
Doesn't matter whether there are more egregious violations around or not. It's been pretty clear for some time that Google has been violating antitrust laws for a while now and that the online advertising space has gotten distinctively less competitive as a result. I'm just surprised that it took this long for an investigation to begin.
While we're at it, let's ban those stupid calls where they use an unlisted number as well. The majority of the calls I get from telemarketers don't pop up with any meaningful information on my caller ID.
I'm pretty sure that if what you're intending to do is considered to be harmful, then you'd be considered to be intending to commit harm. Which is understandable. To say otherwise would be a bit like saying that you intended to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger, whereas any reasonable person would say that you intended to kill or at least cause grievous injury.
Do not want, the standard network jack was not designed to have the cable constantly being plugged and unplugged. When it comes to my laptops, I tend not to use the network jack very often, but the power cord has to be used at least once every several hours of computing.
If we want to move to a POE standard, the jack would have to be a lot more durable than what it presently is.
Ink cartridges and batteries have a much more reasonable justification for not being standard. Unlike the power lead which delivers the same thing in slightly different amperages and voltages, batteries and ink cartridges have other considerations which need to be made. For one thing, there isn't just one type of battery on the market, even as far as lithium based ones go, there's quite a few, and they have chips in them to determine how much to charge and track the health of the battery.
Or have you forgotten about those batteries which exploded because they were poorly manufactured? The same thing can happen if you don't use the appropriate power to charge them.
To be honest, this isn't like cell phones where standardizing around micro USB was enough. Laptops use different amounts of power and making it so that the same charger will work on a netbook as a desktop replacement is hardly a wise idea.
There are certain things that can relatively easily be standardized, such as the polarity of the connector, but when it comes down to voltage and amperage, you're better off setting it up so that there's a small assortment of connectors available, and one combination of voltage and amperage per connector. So that if it fits it's not going to damage the machine.
Also, WTF is up with manufacturers that don't bother to label their power supplies? I really appreciate that Epson and Creative bother to put their names directly on the transformer so that I have that many fewer I have to check to determine if it's the one I want. I just wish I had realized years ago that I need to label the power bricks before I waste a lot of time looking for the one with the correct output and connector.
"Kind of Screwed" would be protected under parody, assuming it needed protection as it's not subject to copyright protection and it isn't similar enough to "kind of blue" to have to worry about infringing upon any trademark that could exist.
The pixelated version of the image though, doesn't fall under any reasonable category of fair use, he might have gotten away with it had the venture not been taking donations, but as it is, they were using somebody elses work for donations. And the manipulations they made to it weren't significant enough to qualify it for protection. And really, I don't see why it should have received protection as it's something that you can script Gimp to do without too much thought.
I agree with that, I'd be pretty pissed myself if somebody did that to one of my photos asking permission. Especially since they were taking donations. It just looks way too much like the original and uses way too little creative thought to produce. All the compositional elements of the original are there, albeit in somewhat lower resolution.
Photography in particular is a sensitive one to do that to, as the only thing which qualifies most photos for copyright protection is the compositional element, or at least that's the case for photos like the original which are more documentary in nature. There are other types which are less bound to just that one element.
It's still infringement, I'm not sure why that wasn't obvious from the start. You can't use an image in this manner any more than you can use the music.
In this case, I don't see anything about the pixelated version which should qualify it under fair use. It just looks too much like what those old school pixelated photos looked like before computers gained the memory and capacity to store larger images. It's certainly less qualified than that poster made from the AP photo of President Obama that's been all over the place the last few years.
We should step in the way we did with the health insurance industry and require them to spend 80% of the money raised via caps on infrastructure and eliminating the need for caps. As well as for raising the connections speeds available. Caps wouldn't be so offensive if there was some basis in reality for believing that the money was going to something other than providing bonuses for executives.
700mb? They could just as easily have sent a 8gb file for the same time. Pigeons have high latency, but the bandwidth is phenomenal.
I'd like to see that happen, considering how horrible a duopoly is because you get the morons and libertarians claiming that you can go elsewhere, with a monopoly they can't make that argument and so it's easier to get some regulation going to deal with it. The best case is to have somebody like Google running the infrastructure, because they've got a vested interest in having the fastest speed possible at the lowest cost. Municipal ISPs are also a great idea. We'd have one with the executives at Qwest weren't such lying, thieving bastards. It's been 6 years since my hometown considered building its own infrastructure and Qwest still hasn't delivered, nor has it given any indication that it ever will. Perhaps now that Centurylink owns Qwest we might see some improvements. The connections available here haven't changed at all in nearly a decade.
After all, people are much less likely to use ad blockers if they don't have to spend 10 minutes waiting for the ads to load, and more likely to see ads on many different pages if they get more or less instantaneous load times.