Stock price isn't anything. Say I told you that my Macintosh apple was worth $200 a slice and you paid it. Would that make a slice of apple worth $200 a slice or does that mean that you just got cheated? I'm wagering that it's the latter. It's really easy to make loads of money when you're dealing with idiots.
You're confusing the point. There's a lot of investors out there that assume that Apple is worth whatever it's listing for at the given moment and that it will be worth even more in the future. You're not betting against Steve so much as you're betting that the investment community will realize how little Apple is worth comparatively speaking in the near future.
The issue is that it's mostly ego. Look through Apple's catalog and there's very little there that's actually innovative the vast majority of it is a rehash or continuation of what somebody else was doing rebranded in white with an i prepended to it. iPods and Macintosh, those were pretty blatant rip offs of preexisting technology, dressed up with some improvements, definitely not anything that would warrant the kind of enthusiasm that Steve seems to think.
Taking the next logical step in a product area really isn't sufficient to pretend like you're revolutionizing the world. And quite frankly, the stuff that's missing from the products is as informative as what's included. Remember those iPods that mysteriously didn't have a user replaceable battery or those iPhones that weren't ever tested under real world conditions?
Keep in mind that it was formed during the great depression to take on Bonny and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly and John Dillinger. The focus from the get go was on results over process. It's a lot better now than it was under J. Edgar Hoover, but that's not really saying much. The first crop of agents were trained very quickly to shoot first and ask questions later if ever.
That's non sequitor, there's nothing wrong with First-past-the-post system. The problem is that the voters reward people for behaving poorly in office. There is no system I've ever heard of where the voters get the decision and where there's protection from voters making poor decisions. In the vast majority of races every election there's at most 3 people running and often times there's only 2 or 1 candidate.
You're not going to solve the problem with a change of voting system as long as corporations are allowed to make donations. Just look at what's happening in other countries with different systems of election.
The local Republicans got our county executive position changed to non-partisan under the assumption that the voters wouldn't be smart enough to know what the party affiliations would be or that they were voting party line on it. 2008 was the first try for them under that system, and their candidate got crushed. Turns out that the voters were voting candidates down on policy not on party affiliation and that they'd basically just rearranged the deck chairs a bit without putting forward a less offensive candidate.
Sigh, repeating that often enough does not make it true. Here in WA we've got a top two primary system, the top two vote getters in the primary advance regardless of political affiliation. We haven't seen any increase in 3rd party candidates because quite frankly we haven't had any 3rd party candidates that could get enough voter interest to be competitive. Blaming it on the system is just plain silly. Under no reasonably constructed system will a party that's composed of less than 10% of the voters ever have a strong showing.
Changes like this to increase the likelihood of 3rd party candidates winning really ignores the fact that in the US the 3rd party comes in the form of moderates and those that don't properly fit the party platform, you've got the choice, it's just that people have decided not to use it.
You can have change, pretending like it's going to take that is just silly. If you really want change, switch to a top 2 primary and change the districting to be either done by either bipartisan or nonpartisan committee.
wrong! Sony makes loses on the sale of PS3 hardware
That's no longer true, starting with the PS3 Slim they make at least some money on each console they sell. It was prior to them yanking out most of the electronics that that was the case.
It's not. Sony or their attorneys perjured themselves. Either that or their wilfully ignorant. I'm a bit fuzzy where the line is. In order to file the take down notice they have to certify that there is no legal use for the software. It's pretty clear that there are legal uses for the software so they're likely guilty of perjury and if the developers opt to round up funds and sue they'd likely win.
Sony like a lot of corporations files these sorts of notices without any real consideration for the legality and unfortunately because the corporation would be held responsible there's little to no accountability.
Doesn't work that way, they'd still be liable for not removing it, and if they've got a legal presence in the US, they could still be held responsible no matter where it is that they keep their servers.
The developers would, or more likely they'd get the EFF involved. It's not selective enforcement the law leaves it up to the party that's been wronged to enforce it.
Yes, but they don't have a leg to stand on otherwise. It's been settled since all that DeCSS stuff that code is protected by the 1st amendment. So the only way that they could file a takedown notice here would be if they owned the copyright to it.
Sony can't legally file the takedown as they have to state under penalty of perjury that there is no legal use for the software that they want taken down.
Basically what's going on is that Sony had their attorneys file a fraudulent take down request. Github will look at it and probably put the materials back online in the near future. Right now they're pretty clearly commiting perjury Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?
Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?
Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:
The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.
Doesn't matter whether it does or not, precedence indicates that this is protected speech. Or at least that's what the courts said about DeCSS, and this even less ambiguously speech. Not to mention that Sony doesn't get to file a DMCA take down notice on this as the code they're requesting be taken down doesn't belong to them. The key itself isn't subject to copyright.
It's not FUD it's true. The Credit Card company might not give you your money back if they determine that it was an acquaintance that stole the information. Sure you might not have given them permission, but by virtue of them being an acquaintance the bank might decide that you gave permission. And yes, that does happen.
You're confusing insured with secured, those are quite different concepts. Cash is secure as long as it's in your wallet. RFID is not secure but it is frequently insured. That's an important distinction to make, so long as the party insuring it agrees to give it back to you you're safe. However if they choose not to or don't believe you you're screwed. Likewise if it takes them several weeks to conclude that you are indeed entitled to the money back.
With cash you know when somebody is taking it and can take precautions, good luck knowing if somebody in the crowd has a reader and knows about a bug in your phone.
You're confusing insured with secure. Cash is secure so long as it is in your pocket. But anything RFID isn't secure in your pocket unless you go to specific measures to secure it.
As for that last point, the British passports were cracked within the initial 12 hours of being released, that's hardly what I would call secure. What was brilliant about it was that they didn't even have to open the envelopes. Sure you can enable the security mechanisms, but if the phone gets cracked you're pretty much screwed, likewise if there's a programming error. Again, secure is not the same thing as insured.
Except that things that can hurt people are. For reasons I can't comprehend there's an awful lot of stuff that's connected to the internet which could result in casualties if it was attacked.
Less secure? Neither cash nor credit cards can be scanned without removing them from my pocket. And neither of them can be hacked into without my knowledge. Sure I still have to look out for skimmers and be mindful who I allow to handle them, but all in all they're a lot more secure than NFC is. Remember NFC is just an extension to RFID which is known to be riddled with security problems.
Depends where you are. We're going to be getting a new tunnel downtown which will be funded in part via tolls. We're also replacing a bridge which is partially paid via tolls. It's a way of charging for use rather than making everybody in the state pay the full price. It's an avoidable tax and the tolls will go away once they've been paid off.
Yes, but how do they prove that the owner was responsible for the toll? I think that's a very important point seeing as the owner isn't the one that's necessarily driving and it's the driver that's responsible for paying. Beyond that there's always going to be issues with lost mail.
And as long as the other phone manufacturers don't you're fine. But if it ends up being like other advancements such as those stupid soft keyboards on smart phones it gets harder and harder to find something decent that doesn't have one.
Slashdot Mirror
Stock price isn't anything. Say I told you that my Macintosh apple was worth $200 a slice and you paid it. Would that make a slice of apple worth $200 a slice or does that mean that you just got cheated? I'm wagering that it's the latter. It's really easy to make loads of money when you're dealing with idiots.
You're confusing the point. There's a lot of investors out there that assume that Apple is worth whatever it's listing for at the given moment and that it will be worth even more in the future. You're not betting against Steve so much as you're betting that the investment community will realize how little Apple is worth comparatively speaking in the near future.
The issue is that it's mostly ego. Look through Apple's catalog and there's very little there that's actually innovative the vast majority of it is a rehash or continuation of what somebody else was doing rebranded in white with an i prepended to it. iPods and Macintosh, those were pretty blatant rip offs of preexisting technology, dressed up with some improvements, definitely not anything that would warrant the kind of enthusiasm that Steve seems to think.
Taking the next logical step in a product area really isn't sufficient to pretend like you're revolutionizing the world. And quite frankly, the stuff that's missing from the products is as informative as what's included. Remember those iPods that mysteriously didn't have a user replaceable battery or those iPhones that weren't ever tested under real world conditions?
Keep in mind that it was formed during the great depression to take on Bonny and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly and John Dillinger. The focus from the get go was on results over process. It's a lot better now than it was under J. Edgar Hoover, but that's not really saying much. The first crop of agents were trained very quickly to shoot first and ask questions later if ever.
That's non sequitor, there's nothing wrong with First-past-the-post system. The problem is that the voters reward people for behaving poorly in office. There is no system I've ever heard of where the voters get the decision and where there's protection from voters making poor decisions. In the vast majority of races every election there's at most 3 people running and often times there's only 2 or 1 candidate.
You're not going to solve the problem with a change of voting system as long as corporations are allowed to make donations. Just look at what's happening in other countries with different systems of election.
The local Republicans got our county executive position changed to non-partisan under the assumption that the voters wouldn't be smart enough to know what the party affiliations would be or that they were voting party line on it. 2008 was the first try for them under that system, and their candidate got crushed. Turns out that the voters were voting candidates down on policy not on party affiliation and that they'd basically just rearranged the deck chairs a bit without putting forward a less offensive candidate.
Sigh, repeating that often enough does not make it true. Here in WA we've got a top two primary system, the top two vote getters in the primary advance regardless of political affiliation. We haven't seen any increase in 3rd party candidates because quite frankly we haven't had any 3rd party candidates that could get enough voter interest to be competitive. Blaming it on the system is just plain silly. Under no reasonably constructed system will a party that's composed of less than 10% of the voters ever have a strong showing.
Changes like this to increase the likelihood of 3rd party candidates winning really ignores the fact that in the US the 3rd party comes in the form of moderates and those that don't properly fit the party platform, you've got the choice, it's just that people have decided not to use it.
You can have change, pretending like it's going to take that is just silly. If you really want change, switch to a top 2 primary and change the districting to be either done by either bipartisan or nonpartisan committee.
wrong!
Sony makes loses on the sale of PS3 hardware
That's no longer true, starting with the PS3 Slim they make at least some money on each console they sell. It was prior to them yanking out most of the electronics that that was the case.
It's not. Sony or their attorneys perjured themselves. Either that or their wilfully ignorant. I'm a bit fuzzy where the line is. In order to file the take down notice they have to certify that there is no legal use for the software. It's pretty clear that there are legal uses for the software so they're likely guilty of perjury and if the developers opt to round up funds and sue they'd likely win.
Sony like a lot of corporations files these sorts of notices without any real consideration for the legality and unfortunately because the corporation would be held responsible there's little to no accountability.
Doesn't work that way, they'd still be liable for not removing it, and if they've got a legal presence in the US, they could still be held responsible no matter where it is that they keep their servers.
The developers would, or more likely they'd get the EFF involved. It's not selective enforcement the law leaves it up to the party that's been wronged to enforce it.
Yes, but they don't have a leg to stand on otherwise. It's been settled since all that DeCSS stuff that code is protected by the 1st amendment. So the only way that they could file a takedown notice here would be if they owned the copyright to it.
Sony can't legally file the takedown as they have to state under penalty of perjury that there is no legal use for the software that they want taken down.
Basically what's going on is that Sony had their attorneys file a fraudulent take down request. Github will look at it and probably put the materials back online in the near future. Right now they're pretty clearly commiting perjury
Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?
Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?
Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:
The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.
Doesn't matter whether it does or not, precedence indicates that this is protected speech. Or at least that's what the courts said about DeCSS, and this even less ambiguously speech. Not to mention that Sony doesn't get to file a DMCA take down notice on this as the code they're requesting be taken down doesn't belong to them. The key itself isn't subject to copyright.
It's not FUD it's true. The Credit Card company might not give you your money back if they determine that it was an acquaintance that stole the information. Sure you might not have given them permission, but by virtue of them being an acquaintance the bank might decide that you gave permission. And yes, that does happen.
You're confusing insured with secured, those are quite different concepts. Cash is secure as long as it's in your wallet. RFID is not secure but it is frequently insured. That's an important distinction to make, so long as the party insuring it agrees to give it back to you you're safe. However if they choose not to or don't believe you you're screwed. Likewise if it takes them several weeks to conclude that you are indeed entitled to the money back.
With cash you know when somebody is taking it and can take precautions, good luck knowing if somebody in the crowd has a reader and knows about a bug in your phone.
You're confusing insured with secure. Cash is secure so long as it is in your pocket. But anything RFID isn't secure in your pocket unless you go to specific measures to secure it.
As for that last point, the British passports were cracked within the initial 12 hours of being released, that's hardly what I would call secure. What was brilliant about it was that they didn't even have to open the envelopes. Sure you can enable the security mechanisms, but if the phone gets cracked you're pretty much screwed, likewise if there's a programming error. Again, secure is not the same thing as insured.
Except that things that can hurt people are. For reasons I can't comprehend there's an awful lot of stuff that's connected to the internet which could result in casualties if it was attacked.
Less secure? Neither cash nor credit cards can be scanned without removing them from my pocket. And neither of them can be hacked into without my knowledge. Sure I still have to look out for skimmers and be mindful who I allow to handle them, but all in all they're a lot more secure than NFC is. Remember NFC is just an extension to RFID which is known to be riddled with security problems.
Depends where you are. We've had time limited tolls in WA state and they've all been retired when paid off.
Depends where you are. We're going to be getting a new tunnel downtown which will be funded in part via tolls. We're also replacing a bridge which is partially paid via tolls. It's a way of charging for use rather than making everybody in the state pay the full price. It's an avoidable tax and the tolls will go away once they've been paid off.
Yes, but how do they prove that the owner was responsible for the toll? I think that's a very important point seeing as the owner isn't the one that's necessarily driving and it's the driver that's responsible for paying. Beyond that there's always going to be issues with lost mail.
Because it's a different frequency and you don't want a programming error to result in the range increasing to several yards.
And as long as the other phone manufacturers don't you're fine. But if it ends up being like other advancements such as those stupid soft keyboards on smart phones it gets harder and harder to find something decent that doesn't have one.
Anybody who can get emacs running on a contemporary machine is clearly a hero.