Name the improvement that removing the headphone jack will enable. Because there are very significant disadvantages:
1. The iPhone 6s is already too thin, as evidenced by "bendgate." At this point the fetish for thinness has turned destructive. You do not need to remove a headphone jack to achieve yet more thinness. 2. People do not favor bluetooth headsets. They've been out on the market since the original Motorola Razr and before. What are the relative sales of bluetooth headsets to wired headphones? For God's sake, Apple packages wired headphones with each and every phone to date! 3. No audible improvement between wired headphones and bluetooth devices. Wired headphones will also work in saturated 2.4GHz environments -- e.g., anywhere in proximity to a microwave. 4. No audible improvement between analog headphones and 'digital' (USB or lightning) headphones. People already can't successfully A/B test iTunes files and CDs or SACDs. 5. Inherently more expensive that wired analog headphones due to requirement for external ICs. 6. If wireless, yet another device with batteries to maintain. Using yet another charge adapter.
It's not comparable to the removal of floppies (replaced with USB sticks), it's not comparable to the removal of optical media (replaced with broadband, in part -- it's still faster to load from optical media and there's no data caps), and it's got noting to do with power efficiency.
You can't "steal" an unpatented idea concerning a micro-environment running open-sourced code.
From your linked article:
2005, Massimo Banzi, along with David Mellis (an IDII student at the time) and David Cuartielles, added support for the cheaper ATmega8 microcontroller to Wiring. Then they forked (or copied) the Wiring source code and started running it as a separate project, called Arduino.
There was no need to create a separate project, as I would have gladly helped them and developed support for the ATmega8 and any other microcontrollers. I had planned to do this all along.
So now you need permission to fork open-sourced code? Based on "need"?
Next from the article:
Why Hasn't Arduino Acknowledged Wiring Better? I don't know.
The reference to Wiring on the Arduino.cc website, although it has improved slightly over time, is misleading as it tries to attribute Wiring to Programma2003.
Arduino was initially developed at the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea, in northern Italy. It derives from Wiring, a platform built by Hernando Barragan as his master's thesis at Interaction-Ivrea. Hernando was advised by Massimo and Casey Reas. Wiring and, in turn, Arduino build on previous work by both Massimo and Casey -- Massimo's Programma2003 electronics prototyping platform and the Processing platform by Casey and Ben Fry. Early versions of both Wiring and Arduino also relied upon Pascal Stang's avrlib libraries.
So they do credit his student, but his student believes that they should do it better. Hypocritically, the student is up in arms against any reference to Programma2003 despite acknowledging in his own piece that he wrote "a small and simple environment for Mac OS X so students with a Mac could use it as well" and that Programma2003 boards preceded his own.
just read the student's post about how HE came up with the concepts and had it stolen from him.
Which concept again? The open source tool chain or the power LED?
From your linked article:
In my thesis document, I characterized Programma2003 as a non-viable model to follow, since other more comprehensive tools were already available in the market. The main problems were:
*the language is far from useful in any other context (e.g. you canâ(TM)t program your computer using JAL) *itâ(TM)s arcane syntax and the hardware design made it highly unlikely to go somewhere in the future for teaching and learning *the board didnâ(TM)t have a power LED (a design flaw) It was impossible to know if it was powered or not
The student comes across as whiny, seeking not merely credit but fame, and then you take it to a whole different level by treating the situation as if everything sprung from the mind of the student and was stolen. Because, apparently, Programma2003 had nothing to do with anything.
The reference to the article is informative, but your conclusions are anything but.
Even on the limited number of tests designed to work with this new method, they stopped using that prototype a while ago.
And just when would that be? Because the FDA reports that they were using Edison devices in June 2015, and those limited number of tests were the ones whos results were invalidated for all of 2014 and 2015.
So please, provide a source for when they "stopped using that prototype." Because I'm thinking they stopped when CMS told them to in 2016, and Theranos went into deperate survival mode.
I'm sorry, but you need actually specify your point first - what part of "debunking claims that Theranos never made" concerns a claim that Theranos never made, exact quote and how the WSJ article was incorrect?
That TEDMED talk is chock full of claims. Appears pretty relevant to the rest of us.
But that's not what is being disputed! Are you unaware that Theranos is a private lab that does all kinds of tests, and this whole finger prick thing is taken out of context and spinned as if that's actual core business?
Oh, but it is what is being disputed. Nobody valued Theranos at $9 billion dollars because they were copying Labcorp's business model. Walgreens did not enter into a partnership with Theranos because Theranos would provide a phebotomist on site to draw multiple 5mL samples and ship them to Theranos.
They are researching ways to get more tests per blood sample, and they invented procedures and equipment for that.
But the WSJ made it look like they claim to do all their tests with that experimental technology, then ridicule them when they try to explain why they do tests with "normal" equipment.
Yet again, nobody is interested in a startup that performs tests with "normal" equipment. Theranos touted this very capability in 2014 as something the could already do, not as a multi-year research project.
So if I got a blood test and my doctor saw the results and wanted other tests done, I wouldn't have to have more blood drawn?
"Exactly. And on their lab form, the physician can write, "If a given result is out of range, run this follow-up test." And it can all be done immediately, using that same sample."
Keep 'em coming. Theranos provided lots of PR material that contradicts you... you just have to specify what they supposedly didn't claim and I can search for more documentation saying otherwise.
The original article was essentially bullshit, using people who worked at Theranos for 2 weeks 5 years ago as "internal sources", and debunking claims that Theranos never made.
Or was the New Yorker conspiring with the WSJ 10 months beforehand, with both of them drugging Holmes into publicly stating gems like:
Since then, she told the audience, the company has developed blood tests that can help detect dozens of medical conditions, from high cholesterol to cancer, based on a drop or two of blood drawn with a pinprick from your finger.... From that one sample, Holmes said, several tests can be runâ"all less expensive than standard blood tests, sometimes as much as ninety per cent below the rates that Medicare sets.
Do us a favor and specify what you think they never claimed, and I suspect that we can document that they did.
But let's be honest: none of this is actually something that'll ever affect you since you have no interest in this product. You just wanted to complain about a product from a company other than the one you support so that you could feel better about your purchasing decisions, which explains why you conveniently chose to ignore the obvious.
No, let's be honest: you don't want to hear it. I agree with him, and I've purchased the iphone 5, 5s, 6, and 6se (not all for myself, mind you).
I use a 6 and a 6se. I prefer the 6se. And it's going to take serious feature improvement to get me to move to a headphone jack-less successor to the 6se.
Specify what you'll take as proof, because removing the headphone jack is one of the more idiotic decisions that I think Apple can make, and by God it does affect me.
Yes, you only require 2.3% of the votes in a 20% participation quorum to be "yes" votes to have a majority of the quorum.
No, in the sense that non-participation in the quorum is, in effect, an implied "no" vote which means that the proper strategy for "no" voters is not to participate in voting on a proposal at all unless the "yes" side can achieve at least a 20% participation rate by itself.
The analysis assumes that the "conspirator" side acts ultra-strategically and the "non-conspirator" side not only acts non-strategically, but can be counted upon to participate just enough to meet the quorum requirement without being a majority no. That's essentially impossible. The "conspirator" side thus has to recruit most if not all of a 20% quorum to vote yes while minimizing the publicity of the issue, or else achieve a majority of the probable -- not minimum -- quorum.
Among the current DAO investors, there is already a whale who invested 888,888 Ether. This investor currently commands 7.7% of all outstanding votes in The DAO. For a proposal that requires only a 20% quorum, this investor already has 77% of the required YES votes to pass the proposal, and just needs to conspire with 2.3% of the token holders, in return for paying the conspirators out from the stolen funds.
I completely trust "researchers" who fail to catch that the difference between 7.7% and 20% is not 2.3%, but 12.3%, resulting in that investor having only ~33% of the required votes. These are the sort of detail oriented, fully considered citicisms I expect when millions of dollars are potentially involved.
Strawman. I never claimed Earth's climate changes were the result of the same orbital variations as those affecting Mars' climate.
Strawman. I never claimed that you did. You instead claimed that the warming that has occured over the last, let's be generous, 200 years, was due to the same phenomenon.
The problem being, the scientists already thought of that. Duh.
Consumers can expect to find decreasing options to own anything for themselves...
Like commercial software, which you do not own but merely use under license...
...decreasing options to control their data...
Like commercial services, which grant themselves increadibly broad licenses to everything that you post, store, and transmit, usually for far longer than merely the duration that you use the service...
... [and] decreasing options to protect their privacy.
Like commercial software and servicves, which report back telemetry data, raid amazing quantities of your PII for the services' own benefit (well I'll just be uploading that contacts list for you...), and generally function as your own personal stalker for the benefit of the service and many other third parties (dear advertising partner, our user is a 18-34 year old female who is 4 months pregnant and just about to walk past your storefront).
Yeah. Having someone reimplement a GPL-licensed software product by mirroring the APIs is certainly going to lead to things worse than that.
Except in Earth's case, Earthlings and their civilization are somehow to blame for the temperature rising and not the natural cycles the planet has gone through in the past, long before humans were a gleam in Darwin's eye.
TFA:
The climate cycles are triggered by changes in Mars' orbit and tilt, which affect how much sunlight reaches the planet's surface.
The shifts are particularly dramatic on Mars because theplanet's tilt changes by as much as 60 degrees, compared to variations in Earth's tilt of about 2 degrees.
Since we've already accounted for the effect of Earth's orbit and tilt (which run on 100,000 and 20,000 year cycles), unless you have a bitchin' theory for how Mars' orbit and tilt afffect the climate of the Earth, we're still pretty damn confident that it's the humans.
But if Hulu is recommending to me to watch Daniel Tiger, then clearly my kids viewing data is being saved.
Actually, if you don't tell Hulu that a viewer is under 13 (e.g., Netflix allows separate viewer profiles, and I think allows you to specify profiles specifically for children, but does not ask for age), then your viewing data is being saved, or potentially that of a 13-17 year old kid. Neither are covered by COPPA.
Hulu has no idea whether you're a child or a furry fetishist, and there is no legal requirement to ask. Services for general audiences must have "actual knowledge" that someone is under 13, and actual knowledge is not implied knowledge, probabilities, or guesswork.
Saying it's the parents choice, is like saying its the parents choice to let kids use the Internet. My 9 year old daughter doesn't have a choice, her homework from school requires her to go to certain websites.
When Hulu is required for shoolwork, get back to us. Otherwise it is definitely a parent's choice.
Do not take the Guardian and the Center for Digital Democracy at their word.
Read the guidance contained in the second link of the summary. Specifically, read: "Who is covered by COPPA" here.
The Rule applies to operators of commercial websites and online services directed to children under the age of 13 that collect personal information. In addition, it applies to operators of sites and online services geared toward general audiences when they have "actual knowledge" they are collecting information from children under 13. * * * The Rule doesn't require operators of sites or services directed to general audiences to investigate the ages of its users. However, asking for or otherwise collecting information that establishes that a visitor is under 13 triggers COPPA compliance.
This is a general audience device and service, full stop. I don't have one, so I cannot say whether they even permit the associated account to be set up by a child 13 or under, or allow multiple user accounts with accounts for children 13 or under, but if I were to purchase one, set it up with my Amazon (or Google, for their device) account, and allow everyone in the house to use the device under that account, there would be no violation of COPPA.
The targeting and "actual knowledge" requirements cannot be deemed fulfilled simply because an advertisement shows a child and the service knows that children might be using the service.
FTA:
"Khaliah Barnes, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), believes that by showing pre-teenage children using voice-activated AI devices, Amazon, Google and Apple are admitting their services are aimed at youngsters."
No, that is a general audience that happens to include children. Targeting children requires a service aspect specifically directed to children.
Notice that the one thing the article does not say is that the FTC has opened an investigation. Merely that the CDD "[is] going to recommend to the FTC that they give industry guidance of how the internet of things and COPPA should work together."
These are the facts behind the argument that corporations should not pay taxes. When they do, they just build it into the product, and YOU pay the taxes. You don't get any more product. You just pay a higher price.
And when I pay taxes, I just build it into the fees that I charge clients, so clearly I should not pay taxes either. After all, the clients won't get any more service.
The funniest thing about complaints concerning corporate taxes is that you believe that corporations would charge proportionally less if they were not taxed as much. Because corporate pricing is all done on a cost plus basis, without regard to supply and demand.
I said that more than 2x as much of your income goes to taxes.
You don't get to count taxes on other people's income as taxes against your income. Taxes on your income only acctue at 1.0x. Always. Any insistence that taxes are "more than 2x" is simply claiming someone else's taxes as yours, which means that theirs are effectively 0. But they're not.
I'm sorry that that is clearly over your head.
And you should learn to recognize example numbers used to demonstrate a point when you see them. Cheers.
Example numbers can't save a point that's idiotic to begin with. US tax rate as a precentage of GDP is 27%, not a near perfect vacuum no matter how you slice it. You can't add transfer taxes together like that.
You tell me: the plumber has to pay his $21 (or whatever. It's just a reference number so you can follow the money.) So exactly HOW is he going to give you $70 worth of service when he only has $49 income from it???
He's not, he's going to give you ~$49 worth of service while paying ~$21 for his military defense, surface water protection, the public road network, his parent's social security and medicare coverage, etc.
Because those things are not free, but instead cost about 26.9% of GDP.
Again... shocking that public services and benefits actually cost something. Total news flash to the rest of us.
So far (and this keeps going) $66 of your $100 has gone for taxes.
No. 30% of your money has gone for taxes, 30% of the plumber's money has gone for taxes, and 30% of the electrician's money has gone for taxes.
Once your money has gone to the plumber, it's the plumber's money, not yours. You' don't get to double-count the taxes paid so that everyone magically has a 66+% tax rate instead of a 30% tax rate.
In effect, your scenario has a GDP of 100 + 70 + 49 = $219 dollars of income and tax revenue of 30 + 21 + 15 = 66 dollars of taxes, which is still 66/219= 30%. *SHOCK*
semantics
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
focus
transitive verb
1
a : to bring into focus
b : to adjust the focus of (as the eye or a lens)
2
: to cause to be concentrated
3
: to bring (as light rays) to a focus : concentrate
intransitive verb
1
: to come to a focus : converge
2
: to adjust one's eye or a camera to a particular range
3
: to concentrate attention or effort
First, it's "semtantics." Second, there's no definition of focus that has that meaning. Third, show me a prism that creates any focal point, must less multiple focal points, rather than an essentially continuous spreading of light across a range. And fourth, you're simply utterly wrong. Now shoo...
Giving a 10 year old unlimited access to the Internet at 10 is beyond stupid, most kids can't handle it and it won't end well....
Just remember that you're the Dad, not society, so do what you think is right for your kids, everyone else be dammed.
Congratulations. I don't consider it beyond stupid, my 10 year old can handle it, and you're damned.
Google is the one actively enabling the distribution of copyrighted material without a license, for profit.
You need to explain this in far greater detail than you have. Google Inc. is a search engine that, until the recent reorganization into Alphabet and its subsidiaries, owned an interest in YouTube LLC.
The two are otherwise distinct legal and operational entities. In fact, the entire point of an LLC is that the members are not liable for the actions of the LLC above and beyond the value of the members' interest in it, whether the members are natural person investors or conglomerate entity investors. In order to pierce the veil, so to speak, you'd need to show that YouTube was not merely owned by Google but, for example, an alter ego for Google itself.
They are the ones who have to get a license, on their nickel, and pay damages for infringement.
Since YouTube existed well before the Google acquisition, and YouTube LLC continues to run as a separate service/business, you'll forgive me if I don't blithely accept that conclusory opinion.
They have a system for detecting infringement, they should use it for all uploads and most of the problems go away.
Either you ignored the section of the DMCA in the post that you're responding to, or you've decided to make a moral argument that DMCA should be changed. Subjective moral arguments do not supersede unambiguous aspects of existing laws. Show that ContentID satisfies every element of the definition of a "standard technological measure," show that Google Inc. (or Alphabet) is legally responsible for YouTube LLC's practices, and then you can begin to argue that Google must pay damages for infringement.
Of course that will mean uploaders supplying real contact info, but this is the same as any other commercial contract.
Non sequitur. Nothing in the DMCA requires that uploaders supply real contact info, whether standard technological measures are involved or not. You don't get to create that requirement yourself, with or without the assistance of the courts. Legislating is a Congressional power.
Yes, that's one of the main points of her open letter. Youtube has a system in place, Content ID, to stop piracy and it works quite well. The crux is that they only allow it's use to musicians who have agreed to license their content to them or at least that's assumed, as they don't publish any rules. Everybody else gets left in the dust and isn't allowed into Content ID and thus their content can be shared on Youtube without permission. Which according to her argument violates the requirements for "Safe Harbor" protection and makes Youtube guilty of mass copyright infringement, as that "Safe Harbor" law requires technical measures to be made available to everybody.
(2) Definition. -- As used in this subsection, the term "standard technical measures" means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and -- (A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process; (B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and (C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.
Is ContentID offered by multiple service providers? Is ContentID described in any standards document?
Are the costs associated with operating ContentID insubstantial is terms of not only money, but CPU time and storage?
If you cannot answer those questions with a yes, then the fact that ContentID is not being offered to "everybody" -- meaning everybody who wishes to agree to "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms," not merely terms of their own choosing -- is not relevant.
I've read the open letter, and it's self-serving mush. For example, in her analysis of whether YouTube is a racketeer:
A. ContentID is not a "standard technical measure" as defined in the DMCA. B. Stephen Carlisle should be sued for malpractice. You send a certified letter containing the items listed in 512(c)(3) to the designated agent specified here according to 512(c)(2). Done. C. Doesn't like 512(h) Subpoena To Identify Infringer, which clearly exists and assumes that subscriber identities are confidential, but wants to conceal the identity of the copyright owner, a right that does not and almost cannot exist. D. WTF? Seems to be the love child of a complaint concerning broken-link error message one gets after content has been taken down and a variation of the complaint in item C. Copyright owner authorizes the takedown of content allegedly owned by the copyright owner is pretty darn difficult to hide since we can pretty much infer that yes, the complaint was essentially made by the copyright owner. E, part 1. But those questions are in the DMCA. 512(c)(3) requires them, so yes, you get to answer questions when making a notification. 512(f) also has some laughably weak language concerning misrepresentations, so yes, you should probably be aware of that. 512(g)(3) requires lots of similar questions for counternotifications and a statement made under penalty of perjury. Seems fair enough. E, part 2. It's called a counternotification, not a pre-certification. Requiring pre-certification would be a fairly substantial violation of the first amendment. You're welcome to practice what you preach and pre-certify everything you post, including your own open letter, as a means of educating yourself as to why. F. The possibility that YouTube might support a user in a wrongful takedown situation is unfair. It's just little old me (get back behind the curtain, RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, BMI, RightsHaven, Guardlex, and the rest of you guys, they're buying it!). G. Enforce my copyrights for me for free. Now. H.
Slashdot Mirror
Name the improvement that removing the headphone jack will enable. Because there are very significant disadvantages:
1. The iPhone 6s is already too thin, as evidenced by "bendgate." At this point the fetish for thinness has turned destructive. You do not need to remove a headphone jack to achieve yet more thinness.
2. People do not favor bluetooth headsets. They've been out on the market since the original Motorola Razr and before. What are the relative sales of bluetooth headsets to wired headphones? For God's sake, Apple packages wired headphones with each and every phone to date!
3. No audible improvement between wired headphones and bluetooth devices. Wired headphones will also work in saturated 2.4GHz environments -- e.g., anywhere in proximity to a microwave.
4. No audible improvement between analog headphones and 'digital' (USB or lightning) headphones. People already can't successfully A/B test iTunes files and CDs or SACDs.
5. Inherently more expensive that wired analog headphones due to requirement for external ICs.
6. If wireless, yet another device with batteries to maintain. Using yet another charge adapter.
It's not comparable to the removal of floppies (replaced with USB sticks), it's not comparable to the removal of optical media (replaced with broadband, in part -- it's still faster to load from optical media and there's no data caps), and it's got noting to do with power efficiency.
So then, why?
You can't "steal" an unpatented idea concerning a micro-environment running open-sourced code.
From your linked article:
So now you need permission to fork open-sourced code? Based on "need"?
Next from the article:
So they do credit his student, but his student believes that they should do it better. Hypocritically, the student is up in arms against any reference to Programma2003 despite acknowledging in his own piece that he wrote "a small and simple environment for Mac OS X so students with a Mac could use it as well" and that Programma2003 boards preceded his own.
Which concept again? The open source tool chain or the power LED?
From your linked article:
The student comes across as whiny, seeking not merely credit but fame, and then you take it to a whole different level by treating the situation as if everything sprung from the mind of the student and was stolen. Because, apparently, Programma2003 had nothing to do with anything.
The reference to the article is informative, but your conclusions are anything but.
And just when would that be? Because the FDA reports that they were using Edison devices in June 2015, and those limited number of tests were the ones whos results were invalidated for all of 2014 and 2015.
So please, provide a source for when they "stopped using that prototype." Because I'm thinking they stopped when CMS told them to in 2016, and Theranos went into deperate survival mode.
I'm sorry, but you need actually specify your point first - what part of "debunking claims that Theranos never made" concerns a claim that Theranos never made, exact quote and how the WSJ article was incorrect?
That TEDMED talk is chock full of claims. Appears pretty relevant to the rest of us.
Oh, but it is what is being disputed. Nobody valued Theranos at $9 billion dollars because they were copying Labcorp's business model. Walgreens did not enter into a partnership with Theranos because Theranos would provide a phebotomist on site to draw multiple 5mL samples and ship them to Theranos.
Yes. Researching using commerical samples resulting in the invalidation of two years of sample results in one fell swoop.
Yet again, nobody is interested in a startup that performs tests with "normal" equipment. Theranos touted this very capability in 2014 as something the could already do, not as a multi-year research project.
"And we're able to do all the testing using just a single microsample, rather than having to draw a dedicated tube for each type of test."
So if I got a blood test and my doctor saw the results and wanted other tests done, I wouldn't have to have more blood drawn?
"Exactly. And on their lab form, the physician can write, "If a given result is out of range, run this follow-up test." And it can all be done immediately, using that same sample."
Keep 'em coming. Theranos provided lots of PR material that contradicts you... you just have to specify what they supposedly didn't claim and I can search for more documentation saying otherwise.
Never made?
If only they recorded TEDMED talks and wrote articles concerning them prior to the WSJ article.
Or was the New Yorker conspiring with the WSJ 10 months beforehand, with both of them drugging Holmes into publicly stating gems like:
Do us a favor and specify what you think they never claimed, and I suspect that we can document that they did.
No, let's be honest: you don't want to hear it. I agree with him, and I've purchased the iphone 5, 5s, 6, and 6se (not all for myself, mind you).
I use a 6 and a 6se. I prefer the 6se. And it's going to take serious feature improvement to get me to move to a headphone jack-less successor to the 6se.
Specify what you'll take as proof, because removing the headphone jack is one of the more idiotic decisions that I think Apple can make, and by God it does affect me.
Yes and no.
Yes, you only require 2.3% of the votes in a 20% participation quorum to be "yes" votes to have a majority of the quorum.
No, in the sense that non-participation in the quorum is, in effect, an implied "no" vote which means that the proper strategy for "no" voters is not to participate in voting on a proposal at all unless the "yes" side can achieve at least a 20% participation rate by itself.
The analysis assumes that the "conspirator" side acts ultra-strategically and the "non-conspirator" side not only acts non-strategically, but can be counted upon to participate just enough to meet the quorum requirement without being a majority no. That's essentially impossible. The "conspirator" side thus has to recruit most if not all of a 20% quorum to vote yes while minimizing the publicity of the issue, or else achieve a majority of the probable -- not minimum -- quorum.
I completely trust "researchers" who fail to catch that the difference between 7.7% and 20% is not 2.3%, but 12.3%, resulting in that investor having only ~33% of the required votes. These are the sort of detail oriented, fully considered citicisms I expect when millions of dollars are potentially involved.
Strawman. I never claimed that you did. You instead claimed that the warming that has occured over the last, let's be generous, 200 years, was due to the same phenomenon.
The problem being, the scientists already thought of that. Duh.
Like commercial software, which you do not own but merely use under license...
Like commercial services, which grant themselves increadibly broad licenses to everything that you post, store, and transmit, usually for far longer than merely the duration that you use the service...
Like commercial software and servicves, which report back telemetry data, raid amazing quantities of your PII for the services' own benefit (well I'll just be uploading that contacts list for you...), and generally function as your own personal stalker for the benefit of the service and many other third parties (dear advertising partner, our user is a 18-34 year old female who is 4 months pregnant and just about to walk past your storefront).
Yeah. Having someone reimplement a GPL-licensed software product by mirroring the APIs is certainly going to lead to things worse than that.
TFA:
Since we've already accounted for the effect of Earth's orbit and tilt (which run on 100,000 and 20,000 year cycles), unless you have a bitchin' theory for how Mars' orbit and tilt afffect the climate of the Earth, we're still pretty damn confident that it's the humans.
Actually, if you don't tell Hulu that a viewer is under 13 (e.g., Netflix allows separate viewer profiles, and I think allows you to specify profiles specifically for children, but does not ask for age), then your viewing data is being saved, or potentially that of a 13-17 year old kid. Neither are covered by COPPA.
Hulu has no idea whether you're a child or a furry fetishist, and there is no legal requirement to ask. Services for general audiences must have "actual knowledge" that someone is under 13, and actual knowledge is not implied knowledge, probabilities, or guesswork.
When Hulu is required for shoolwork, get back to us. Otherwise it is definitely a parent's choice.
Do not take the Guardian and the Center for Digital Democracy at their word.
Read the guidance contained in the second link of the summary. Specifically, read: "Who is covered by COPPA" here.
This is a general audience device and service, full stop. I don't have one, so I cannot say whether they even permit the associated account to be set up by a child 13 or under, or allow multiple user accounts with accounts for children 13 or under, but if I were to purchase one, set it up with my Amazon (or Google, for their device) account, and allow everyone in the house to use the device under that account, there would be no violation of COPPA.
The targeting and "actual knowledge" requirements cannot be deemed fulfilled simply because an advertisement shows a child and the service knows that children might be using the service.
FTA:
No, that is a general audience that happens to include children. Targeting children requires a service aspect specifically directed to children.
Notice that the one thing the article does not say is that the FTC has opened an investigation. Merely that the CDD "[is] going to recommend to the FTC that they give industry guidance of how the internet of things and COPPA should work together."
Very little to see here, then...
And when I pay taxes, I just build it into the fees that I charge clients, so clearly I should not pay taxes either. After all, the clients won't get any more service.
The funniest thing about complaints concerning corporate taxes is that you believe that corporations would charge proportionally less if they were not taxed as much. Because corporate pricing is all done on a cost plus basis, without regard to supply and demand.
You don't get to count taxes on other people's income as taxes against your income. Taxes on your income only acctue at 1.0x. Always. Any insistence that taxes are "more than 2x" is simply claiming someone else's taxes as yours, which means that theirs are effectively 0. But they're not. I'm sorry that that is clearly over your head.
Example numbers can't save a point that's idiotic to begin with. US tax rate as a precentage of GDP is 27%, not a near perfect vacuum no matter how you slice it. You can't add transfer taxes together like that.
He's not, he's going to give you ~$49 worth of service while paying ~$21 for his military defense, surface water protection, the public road network, his parent's social security and medicare coverage, etc.
Because those things are not free, but instead cost about 26.9% of GDP.
Again... shocking that public services and benefits actually cost something. Total news flash to the rest of us.
No. 30% of your money has gone for taxes, 30% of the plumber's money has gone for taxes, and 30% of the electrician's money has gone for taxes.
Once your money has gone to the plumber, it's the plumber's money, not yours. You' don't get to double-count the taxes paid so that everyone magically has a 66+% tax rate instead of a 30% tax rate.
In effect, your scenario has a GDP of 100 + 70 + 49 = $219 dollars of income and tax revenue of 30 + 21 + 15 = 66 dollars of taxes, which is still 66/219= 30%. *SHOCK*
First, it's "semtantics." Second, there's no definition of focus that has that meaning. Third, show me a prism that creates any focal point, must less multiple focal points, rather than an essentially continuous spreading of light across a range. And fourth, you're simply utterly wrong. Now shoo...
Congratulations. I don't consider it beyond stupid, my 10 year old can handle it, and you're damned.
Since focusing involves making light rays converge and prisms generally make light rays diverge, I'm going to answer no.
You need to explain this in far greater detail than you have. Google Inc. is a search engine that, until the recent reorganization into Alphabet and its subsidiaries, owned an interest in YouTube LLC.
The two are otherwise distinct legal and operational entities. In fact, the entire point of an LLC is that the members are not liable for the actions of the LLC above and beyond the value of the members' interest in it, whether the members are natural person investors or conglomerate entity investors. In order to pierce the veil, so to speak, you'd need to show that YouTube was not merely owned by Google but, for example, an alter ego for Google itself.
Since YouTube existed well before the Google acquisition, and YouTube LLC continues to run as a separate service/business, you'll forgive me if I don't blithely accept that conclusory opinion.
Either you ignored the section of the DMCA in the post that you're responding to, or you've decided to make a moral argument that DMCA should be changed. Subjective moral arguments do not supersede unambiguous aspects of existing laws. Show that ContentID satisfies every element of the definition of a "standard technological measure," show that Google Inc. (or Alphabet) is legally responsible for YouTube LLC's practices, and then you can begin to argue that Google must pay damages for infringement.
Non sequitur. Nothing in the DMCA requires that uploaders supply real contact info, whether standard technological measures are involved or not. You don't get to create that requirement yourself, with or without the assistance of the courts. Legislating is a Congressional power.
Let's look at the actual text of the safe harbor:
Is ContentID offered by multiple service providers? Is ContentID described in any standards document?
Are the costs associated with operating ContentID insubstantial is terms of not only money, but CPU time and storage?
If you cannot answer those questions with a yes, then the fact that ContentID is not being offered to "everybody" -- meaning everybody who wishes to agree to "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms," not merely terms of their own choosing -- is not relevant.
I've read the open letter, and it's self-serving mush. For example, in her analysis of whether YouTube is a racketeer:
A. ContentID is not a "standard technical measure" as defined in the DMCA.
B. Stephen Carlisle should be sued for malpractice. You send a certified letter containing the items listed in 512(c)(3) to the designated agent specified here according to 512(c)(2). Done.
C. Doesn't like 512(h) Subpoena To Identify Infringer, which clearly exists and assumes that subscriber identities are confidential, but wants to conceal the identity of the copyright owner, a right that does not and almost cannot exist.
D. WTF? Seems to be the love child of a complaint concerning broken-link error message one gets after content has been taken down and a variation of the complaint in item C. Copyright owner authorizes the takedown of content allegedly owned by the copyright owner is pretty darn difficult to hide since we can pretty much infer that yes, the complaint was essentially made by the copyright owner.
E, part 1. But those questions are in the DMCA. 512(c)(3) requires them, so yes, you get to answer questions when making a notification. 512(f) also has some laughably weak language concerning misrepresentations, so yes, you should probably be aware of that. 512(g)(3) requires lots of similar questions for counternotifications and a statement made under penalty of perjury. Seems fair enough.
E, part 2. It's called a counternotification, not a pre-certification. Requiring pre-certification would be a fairly substantial violation of the first amendment. You're welcome to practice what you preach and pre-certify everything you post, including your own open letter, as a means of educating yourself as to why.
F. The possibility that YouTube might support a user in a wrongful takedown situation is unfair. It's just little old me (get back behind the curtain, RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, BMI, RightsHaven, Guardlex, and the rest of you guys, they're buying it!).
G. Enforce my copyrights for me for free. Now.
H.