I've had a number of months in the past year estimated gas use so high that they mark it as 0 use the next month when they read the meter (which means I'm still paying for gas I don't use because I really doubt it comes to exactly even every time). However, even on months where they bill me for 0 gas use, I still get a nice plump "delivery charge". Isn't this like FedEx sending you a bill because they could have delivered a package even though they didn't?
So have I.
A. If your gas use varies a lot month to month, because your gas usage is not driven by your primary home heating unit, then you will have months where your usage is far lower than estimated. The utility company is basically applying a smoothing algorithm based on based usage and heating degree days. It can be wrong. I'm don't feel particularly aggrieved since the gas company is permitting me a one month float (normal billing) more often than I'm giving them a one month float (overestimate). When I switch to gas heat, I expect that situation will occur a lot less.
B. In many states the gas commodity charge and the gas delivery infrastructure charge are separate. Whether you choose to use gas is irrelevant. You're tapped into the delivery system pipes, and those cost a substantial amount of money to install and maintain. If you don't want to pay the delivery charge, have your gas service disconnected. It's not like FedEx in your example -- FedEx isn't placing permanent underground infrastructure up to your property (and in some states, to up to your meter or black iron) which you may draw from at will.
Having lived in the Midwest for quite a long time, I'm rather comfortable in saying that places that are 500-700ft AMSL are in no danger of inundation by the sea. Although an increase in rainfall can cause river flooding, "much of the mid-west [sic]" would not likely again be underwater. Frankly, current Midwest flooding issues have to do with poor flood control measures (levies crammed right up against the rivers instead of back within the flood plain) and poor infrastructure development (residential developments crammed right up against the rivers).
Rank hyperbole only serves to make all the other information you've provided highly suspect. Congratulate yourself for poisoning you're own argument.
While Kodu might be good, what ticks me (and that AC) off is the fact that this comment has unfair advantage - with subscriber hidden in shadows and probably others with mod points on the ready. Some just prefer ads marked as ads.
"Unfair advantage?" Whatever gave you the idea that third party comments posted under a Slashdot article should be expected to be fair? What is your definition of fair?
Anyways, there's surely better tools not locked to MS platform, like Unity or Stencyl.
Oh. I see your definition of fair. Nobody should suggest a Microsoft product, because you're disqualifying them as "the evil." Meanwhile...
Are the other linked posts shill posts with unfair advantages? I mean, why should two minutes be the cut-off and not five? Or is it solely the content of the post that defines its shill-y-ness? Since mere timing indicates a conspiracy of Microsoft supporters (paid or unpaid), that same timing and up-rating phenomenon must indicate a conspiracy of Unity supporters... Javascript supporters... and Scratch supporters. Arcane, shadowy societies with mod points at the ready.
Excuse me now while I barricade my door and prepare to defend myself from four different wetwork cleanup squads. Lucky you, you only have to deal with one...
The SI unit that equals 1000kg is a tonne. But the United States, in a fit of parochialism, has decided to rename it a "metric ton".
The SI unit that equals 1000 Kg is a megagram (Mg, or 10^6 grams). The tonne is not an SI unit, but, in a fit of nostalgia, has been metricized and accepted for use with the SI system.
For some reason, having the homonyms ton/tonne variously refer to a short ton (907.18474 kg), a tonne (1000 kg), or long ton (1,016.0469088 kg a.k.a. English ton) vexes some people. They prefer to specify a "metric ton" rather than so overemphasize "tonne" that they sound as if they have a speech impediment.
The unit of measure exists by virtue of its pervasive use. The fact that you prefer an alternate equivalent does nothing to change that fact.
The issue is assholes entering the intersection to turn left when it isn't clear, people refusing to stop when the light does turn yellow, etc.
Former civil engineer here. The italicized "asshole behavior" is legal many places in the US and is an intended result of traffic engineering. In congested intersections without a left hand turn signal, your preference would result in no traffic clearing the left hand turn lane during a traffic control cycle.
In common practice and design, a driver may enter the intersection on green when the intersection is not clear, and complete the left turn on yellow (or red) so that at least one car clears the left-turning lane each traffic control cycle. In practice, where you're typically turning between 3+ lane arterial roads, two cars can turn per cycle (roughly one car per lane the cars are crossing). That doesn't solve the problem of cars charging the yellow the make the left, or entering the intersection on red to make the left, but it does tend to prevent cars from stacking past the center apron and into the travel lanes.
I'd actually want to see a very clear causal link between longer yellows and safety increases, because my gut tells me longer yellows would make people ignore them even more.
You aparently don't, because such links have have already been shown and reported by the NHTSA. Page 9 and cited reference 6, for example. The fact that someone has not shoved the studies down your throat does not excuse your reliance on your gut.
Why wouldn't Google have the right to take down content on it's websites at will? What law says they can't do this? I'm not saying Google or UMG is in the right ethically speaking, but everyone screaming, "ZOMG LAWSUIT!!!!!111oneoneone" is rather pointless.
Google could do almost anything that it wanted to with respect to its own service by itself. Google is somewhat limited in what it can do with its own service through contracts with others. Moreso when one content provider seeks by contract to obtain the power to exlude other content providers from participating in Google's generally "open" service. The law -- section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, among others, limits how and to what extend you can do that.
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
Partnering with "all" content providers to generate money from content, and then permitting certain privileged content providers to have content from other content providers removed for private reasons strikes people as sketchy. I'd love to see the "rule of reason" analysis that prevents this from being an antitrust violation.
Just because something is legal does not mean it is socially desirable behavior. I wouldn't choose to legally prevent them from changing the code in this way, but that isn't the question. The question is, is it polite to do so? Are they being rude?
Answer #1. No. Answer #2. No.
Here's another question: Is it socially desirable behavior to impose 'social obligations' which directly contradict the terms and conditions of the license selected by an author of the program?
Bertrand Lorentz : That being said, my position on this subject hasn't changed, and the following text from the code comments is still valid : We ask that no one change this redirect URL. ALL (100%) revenue generated by this Banshee Amazon integration is sent directly to the non-profit GNOME Foundation.
MIT license:Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Pick a different license. Don't hide the ball. Don't explicity grant permission to do something and then complain when someone does it. That is socially undesireable behavior. If you can write complex computer code but can't figure out how to create a custom license rather than burying a contradictory comment within the source, that verges upon being rude.
The issue for me is that these scientists are, making decisions that should be evaluated well before they act, and not just by them, but by a larger audience.
* * * -- Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The irony when I contast your sig and your sudden approval of mass consensus has literally blown my mind. Fortunately, my muscles remained able to type this in the absence of centralized motor control.
I never really understood the purpose of shredding documents. If your documents are that sensitive, why not just burn them, leaving no trace of legible text? It seems like it would be cheaper, easier and faster too. Just throw them in a barrel outside, put a little lighter fluid in, and drop a match. Why is this not common?
1. Burning is inconvenient for small volumes of paper. 2. Burning is essentially illegal for large volumes of paper (business scale; Clean Air Act permits). 3. Fireplaces are not as common as they used to be; outdoor burning is illegal in most cities. 4. People can be idiots when using fire outside of a fireplace or permanent fire pit. 5. DIOXIN!
Shredding is like a residential door lock -- good enough to discourage a casual person who is too curious for their own good. Secure commercial shredders rely upon sheer volume and decent mixing (300 "particles" per page x 3 tons of paper dumped at a recycler is a decent level of obscurity) or "hydro-pulping" for the demanding (shred then pulp at paper mill -- good luck reassembling the fibers even if you get to them before bleaching).
Our health care system was a lot better when all hospitals were non-profit and doctors were part of the middle class.
Doctors are not part of the middle class?
My wife started college at 16, didn't fool around, and managed to graduate from medical school at 24 with around $130K in student loan debt. She then worked 80+ hours per week in an internal medicine residency for 3 years earning 45-50K/yr. She then took a fellowship for 2 years working 70+ hours per week earning $50K/yr. At age 29, she began a split fellowship/academic instructor position that finally began to pay a salary approaching reality for the level of training involved - $100K. Student loan debt is still around $120K due to deferments.
If you ignore all the investment to get there, she's "rich" in the eyes of left wing extremists like yourself. However, considering that she's had to accumulate more debt, dive into a hardcore and extensive higher education, work far longer hours for a merely median wage, and do that for 9 years longer than the typical BA, you're not going to get any sympathy from me.
Doctor's income is not wealth until sometime in their mid 40s. Doctor's income is DEBT SERVICE in their 30s, starting a family in their late 30s or early 40s, and only then becomes something that puts them above middle class.
It's also stupid to argue that some of the most highly trained people in our society (0.3%) ought to be compensated as "the middle class." If you want more family practitioners, pay them for God's sake. Otherwise, there's simply not enough altruists to go around, and you cannot command for there to be more...
There's no reason to be so confrontational in your post, you could have merely pointed out the relevant law in a friendly manner instead of coming across as a pompous ass.
There certainly is. You quite declaratively stated something that any informed person would know to be false, and even worse were moderated highly for it (and still are). If you announce that the moon is made of cheese, you're going to be confronted.
Which looks even worse since you're correction has only a minor impact on my analysis, they still have to prove that the list should be protected, you've merely shown that the bar is a little lower than I first supposed.
The minor impact being "the case seems flimsy" since "they're going to have to prove that the list should be considered 'a work' as opposed to just data" and "lists are generally not protected," as actually opposed to the case not being flimsy since the data doesn't have to qualify as a copyrightable work and "lists are generally protected" so long as they "by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation." It's not a little lower bar, it's a very low bar.
But thanks for being a miserable bastard about it.
I'm not the one resorting to personal attacks and profanity while glossing over the magnitude of how wrong I was. Res ipsa loquitur.
Data isn't protected unless it has some merit of it's own. Lists are generally not protected.
The European Union disagrees with you, since directive Directive 96/9/EC created a sui generis database protection in the mid 90s.
FYI the United Kingdom is, in fact, a member of the EU which has enacted enabling legistlation effective as of 1998.
Why do you feel qualified to evaluate the strength of the case, when you apparently have no actual knowledge of the law in the UK? The European database protection right is neither new nor particularly obscure. There's no excuse for being unaware of it yet presenting yourself as someone qualified to analyze the matter....
Re:Corporations aren't evil. They're not anything.
on
IRS Auditing Google
·
· Score: 1
Corporations shouldn't be taxed, period. Money that comes OUT of that corporation through stock dividends and wages and bonuses and perks should be taxed. And that should all be taxed as plain old income, not special kinds of income like "capital gains" that has lower rates to compensate for corporate taxes already taken out.
Which more or less ignores the fact that the old-timey notion of paying a stock dividend which even approaches net corporate profits gave its death rattle in the 1990s and has not come back despite record corporate profits.
Yet you propose to eliminate taxes on corporate profits while increasing taxes on corporate dividends and long term capital gaings (note: capital gains are irrelevant unless attributable to a stock buy-back, since other stock appreciation is merely an increase in the price that another buyer is willing to pay a seller). That would tend to silo even more wealth into the de facto treasuries that have grown up in the 90s and 00s, as opposed to directing wealth into the hands of individuals (the beneficiaries of the funds typically holding stock) and, partially, the government.
I'm reasonably certain that corporations benefit from and directly use government services. There is no philosophical reason why a corporation that is earning a long term average profit should not be subject to taxation in order to pay for those benefits and services, yet natural persons earning non-trivial incomes should. The "fair share" argument has very little to do with anthropomorphisis, and quite a bit more to do with a sense that the seemingly accelerating trend of externalizing the corporate share of the costs of running our society cannot continue.
What you're advocating is that "everything" (yes, not literally everything) be paid for by personal income taxes or consumption taxes as opposed to personal income taxes, corporate taxes, and sales taxes. What you're failing to consider is the effect on investment and wealth distribution. Point to a non-trivial nation that has implemented anything close to what you're advocating and look at the effects on that society. Note that the tax havens that spring to my mind, like Bermuda, are trivial nations in the sense that the corporate revenue that is being complained of is more or less disconnected from acutal corporate economic activity in that nation.
You don't seriously imagine that a blu-ray player, or SoC media streamer, has the same general purpose computing capability as a P4 running on an i8xx series chipset (PCI/AGP), do you? I still have two Dell 4550s that are perfectly usable by the kids. Years ago I upgraded them to AGP ATI 3650s because those were rumored to be the last AGP-interface DX9 cards (ATI partners later came out with AGP 4650s). They run Windows 7 in 2GB of RAM with full eye candy quite well despite being nigh 9 years old. Those were $80 cards. These are probably $40 cards.
Which is of a 1770s vintage French steamer that is not run and itself a frankenbuilt reconstruction of the vehicle?
Yet the boiler of the Conservatoireâ(TM)s fardier today is clearly under-specified, too small, and without any means to top it up with water. The cylinders are uncharacteristically poorly made and thereâ(TM)s no safety valve fitted to the boiler, even though a valve was known to be a necessity even back in 1770. And there are also discrepancies between descriptions and drawings made around 1770, and those made once the fardier was installed in the museum.
Alain was baffled but intrigued. He went back to his research and found a comment from the 18th century relating how looters (after scrap metal) were chased from the arsenal. It seems the bronze cylinders and distributor were stolen and almost certainly remade by the museum many years later.
But what of the clearly inefficient boiler and the apparently redundant leaf spring? Alain suggests that, following the infamous accident, the original â" and now damaged â" boiler might have been swapped for the smaller experimental boiler from the 1769 fardier, and reassembled incorrectly with the chimneys back to front. It seems feasible, as does his theory that the accident was caused by someone inadvertently operating the regulator lever while the fardier was steaming up.
There is nothing of greater threat to national security than a HOMELESS hacker. Though I guess it is good as any excuse to get such riff-raft off the curbs. Why just the other day I saw this homeless person and immediately thought; you know, that person is probably a real threat to my countries security and needs FBI involvement to justify their jailing.
Yes. This was all about the homelessness. The hacking part had nothing to do with it.
I can't begin to imagine why this has been moderated as "Insightful." If you attack a government website, even a county government website, and someone is likely to take notice and do something about it. The homeles guy is not going to get a pass simply because he's homeless. Another homeless guy who didn't attack the county government website isn't going to be changed in Federal Court with violating the CFAA (a Federal statute, violation of which is investigated by a Federal entity - shock).
Nevermind that the article said (it has since been revised), that the groups were threats to national security, which they quite clearly have proven themselves to be.
Lying to public officials, especially federal officers, is in and of itself a crime.
False. If a cop asks you where you were last night, and you say down at the corner bar when you were actually sleeping with your mistress, the act of lying to the cop isn't a crime. In rare cases, it might be obstruction of justice, but that's it.
Likely false. For example, ask Casey Anthony. Then read the statute under which she was convicted. Don't imagine that it's theonlyone. Are they questioning you concerning a felony? *DING*... you've committed a crime. Are you willing to bet that you're only being questioned concerning a misdemeanor? Because the police are not going to tell you that.
but even then mere lying isn't sufficient, it must be a material lie.
Materiality is a low bar. And if you read the linked statutes, you'll note that materiality is not necessarily required. If you're taking a lie detector examination, you're answering questions under oath. Public officials are not fools.
You can study the entire criminal code of the jurisdiction that you happen to be in, as well as looking for specific provisions pertaining to taxation, permitting, and other topics where intentional inaccuracy is highly frowned upon, or you can assume that lying to a public official is generally a bad idea. ACs are big on giving weasel advice where it's not their butts on the line, but as the rest of us can see, taking your advice is a demonstrably bad idea.
... all you have to do is memorize and rehearse lies in advance and imagine them and recall them as if they were memories. People get caught in lies because it's cognitively demanding to make it up on the spot unprepared.
From what I've read, you're supposed to randomly lie or tell the truth on the easy questions they ask at the start to gauge your response.
From what I've read, you're supposed to shut the hell up and invoke your right to be silent if you're being questioned about things you have done.
Lying to public officials, especially federal officers, is in and of itself a crime. Lying gives officials facts which they can cross-check. Lying is something that ordinary people are generally bad at, and interrogators know how to get a suspect to move outside their pre-rehearsed alibis.
Staying silent is not a crime. Staying silent does not allay an official's suspiscion, but cannot be used to convict you of a crime. Staying silent is something that oridinary people are generally bad at, but it's a hell of a lot easier to practice.
Identify yourself, produce whatever ID you normally carry, and decline to speak about anything else unless you have carefully thought out what you are about to say, know that it is does not tend to indicate that you've committed some sort of crime, and know that it is the truth.
The rules are quite different if you are being questioned about someone else or what they have done. But that's another story.
Because the Bayh-Dole Act was enacted by a Congress (which funds the NSF) that does not agree with you in the the same sense.
Research money has to come from somewhere. It can come from your taxes, it can come from university money, or it can (and does) come from a combination of the two. Universities can make money by charging students fees or by licensing patents to inventions developed by their staff (and student employees). Money made by licensing patents has the advantage of coming from commercial partners and/or customers using the technology, rather than students working part time jobs and taking out gigantic student loans.
To rip of the AC who also replied to your post, but will never get modded up, "[t]he system becomes self funding and if they do their job right the pool of cash involved should grow exponentially." The AC was referring to the NSF and being wildly optimistic, but institutions like WARF show that the concept is sound -- successful research universities can reduce their reliance on the NSF for funding and/or fund areas that are not NSF priorities by seeking patents related to their research.
Shouldn't research paid for "by the people" be available "to the people"?
It is -- in the same way that a public ampitheater paid for by the people is available "to the people." Not every person has the right to use the stage at any given time, management of the ampitheater may be contracted out to a private operator, and "the people" are more often than not only the consumer of a product embodying the IP rather than a producer attempting implement the IP. Your concern for the needs "of the people" is a touch too abstract.
In addition, the research is available -- that's the very purpose of encouraging patent disclosures -- it is merely the commercialization of the research that is temporarily restricted. Don' like it? Design around it. Or come up with an improvement that is good enough to but you a seat at the table. Both alternate technologies and cross-licensed improvements help, not hurt, technological development.
[H]e is acting like the fact that this guy's IP address appeared in somebody's log is not probable cause for search and seizure..
But it is. If the IP address is in the chain of addresses in an unlawful act, *bingo*, there is reasonable suspiscion to search it in order to determine if it was the source, or to further locate the source.
He is acting like running a Tor node is not probable cause for search and seizure.
GP didn't claim that.
He is acting like common carriage of Tor traffic does not imply responsibility for the content of the packets -- something that was found to be critical to the protection of First Amendment rights when the telephone companies were treading this very ground.
Tor exit nodes are not common carriers. End of story. Common carrier immunity is a privilege granted to defined entities which, *bingo*, still need to cooperate with investigations of individuals who are abusing the communications system. What are the odds that AT&T is going to destroy logs that show that one of its employees was the responsible party, versus a Tor exit node operator destroying logs that would show that he or she was the responsible party? Exactly.
Yeah, no worries here, either. I live in central Ohio (close enough to the Mississippi/St.Lawrence continental divide that I've actually crossed it while walking the dog really -- yes, really), and I estimate that for a hurricane to get this far inland, this far north, and this far above sea level, not to mention crossing the entire Appalachian mountain system, with any significant punch left, the storm in question would have to be at least a category twelve, probably more like fifteen, on the scale where Katrina was a mere five.
Recently moved there, did you? Hurricane Ike did a pretty good number on central Ohio despite only being a category 4 storm. 2008 wasn't that long ago either.
About the only accurate part of your post is the crossing the Appalachian limitation... Hurricanes that reach Ohio tend to dodge the Appalachians by way of that pesky Gulf of Mexico.
I would like to do the same thing, but be sure that not some Monsanto makes a shitload of money from it by patenting the shit out of my dead body.
I would realy like it to be some sort of GPL where findings are actually intended for the general public.
Does anybody have any experience with such a thing?
Yes.
Don't have a surgical procedure. Request cremation upon death. Those are your options.
The surgical consent forms will specify that tissue removed during surgery is medical waste that becomes the property of the hospital. The hospital will not negotiate with you. If you're at all notable, after death your DNA can be collected with the consent of your next of kin. You'd better hope that they agree with you -- for several generations afterwards. That's assuming that the trait doesn't have a stong genetic link that can be determined merely by looking at the genetic code of your willing-to-participate descendants.
A political movement may change these practices. You yourself cannot. Not everything can be GPLed.
Slashdot Mirror
So have I.
A. If your gas use varies a lot month to month, because your gas usage is not driven by your primary home heating unit, then you will have months where your usage is far lower than estimated. The utility company is basically applying a smoothing algorithm based on based usage and heating degree days. It can be wrong. I'm don't feel particularly aggrieved since the gas company is permitting me a one month float (normal billing) more often than I'm giving them a one month float (overestimate). When I switch to gas heat, I expect that situation will occur a lot less.
B. In many states the gas commodity charge and the gas delivery infrastructure charge are separate. Whether you choose to use gas is irrelevant. You're tapped into the delivery system pipes, and those cost a substantial amount of money to install and maintain. If you don't want to pay the delivery charge, have your gas service disconnected. It's not like FedEx in your example -- FedEx isn't placing permanent underground infrastructure up to your property (and in some states, to up to your meter or black iron) which you may draw from at will.
Having lived in the Midwest for quite a long time, I'm rather comfortable in saying that places that are 500-700ft AMSL are in no danger of inundation by the sea. Although an increase in rainfall can cause river flooding, "much of the mid-west [sic]" would not likely again be underwater. Frankly, current Midwest flooding issues have to do with poor flood control measures (levies crammed right up against the rivers instead of back within the flood plain) and poor infrastructure development (residential developments crammed right up against the rivers).
Rank hyperbole only serves to make all the other information you've provided highly suspect. Congratulate yourself for poisoning you're own argument.
"Unfair advantage?" Whatever gave you the idea that third party comments posted under a Slashdot article should be expected to be fair? What is your definition of fair?
Oh. I see your definition of fair. Nobody should suggest a Microsoft product, because you're disqualifying them as "the evil." Meanwhile...
Article posted at 11:32, Kodu post up at 11:34, Unity post up at 11:36, Javascript post up at 11:36, Scratch post up at 11:37...
AC shill accusation up at 12:12... more than a half hour later.
Are the other linked posts shill posts with unfair advantages? I mean, why should two minutes be the cut-off and not five? Or is it solely the content of the post that defines its shill-y-ness? Since mere timing indicates a conspiracy of Microsoft supporters (paid or unpaid), that same timing and up-rating phenomenon must indicate a conspiracy of Unity supporters... Javascript supporters... and Scratch supporters. Arcane, shadowy societies with mod points at the ready.
Excuse me now while I barricade my door and prepare to defend myself from four different wetwork cleanup squads. Lucky you, you only have to deal with one...
The SI unit that equals 1000 Kg is a megagram (Mg, or 10^6 grams). The tonne is not an SI unit, but, in a fit of nostalgia, has been metricized and accepted for use with the SI system.
Authorities who disagree with you include:
The Encyclopedia Britannica
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus
The US National Institute of Standards and Technology
and about 16.5 million other hits on Google.
For some reason, having the homonyms ton/tonne variously refer to a short ton (907.18474 kg), a tonne (1000 kg), or long ton (1,016.0469088 kg a.k.a. English ton) vexes some people. They prefer to specify a "metric ton" rather than so overemphasize "tonne" that they sound as if they have a speech impediment.
The unit of measure exists by virtue of its pervasive use. The fact that you prefer an alternate equivalent does nothing to change that fact.
The issue is assholes entering the intersection to turn left when it isn't clear, people refusing to stop when the light does turn yellow, etc.
Former civil engineer here. The italicized "asshole behavior" is legal many places in the US and is an intended result of traffic engineering. In congested intersections without a left hand turn signal, your preference would result in no traffic clearing the left hand turn lane during a traffic control cycle.
In common practice and design, a driver may enter the intersection on green when the intersection is not clear, and complete the left turn on yellow (or red) so that at least one car clears the left-turning lane each traffic control cycle. In practice, where you're typically turning between 3+ lane arterial roads, two cars can turn per cycle (roughly one car per lane the cars are crossing). That doesn't solve the problem of cars charging the yellow the make the left, or entering the intersection on red to make the left, but it does tend to prevent cars from stacking past the center apron and into the travel lanes.
You aparently don't, because such links have have already been shown and reported by the NHTSA. Page 9 and cited reference 6, for example. The fact that someone has not shoved the studies down your throat does not excuse your reliance on your gut.
Google could do almost anything that it wanted to with respect to its own service by itself. Google is somewhat limited in what it can do with its own service through contracts with others. Moreso when one content provider seeks by contract to obtain the power to exlude other content providers from participating in Google's generally "open" service. The law -- section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, among others, limits how and to what extend you can do that.
Partnering with "all" content providers to generate money from content, and then permitting certain privileged content providers to have content from other content providers removed for private reasons strikes people as sketchy. I'd love to see the "rule of reason" analysis that prevents this from being an antitrust violation.
Answer #1. No. Answer #2. No.
Here's another question: Is it socially desirable behavior to impose 'social obligations' which directly contradict the terms and conditions of the license selected by an author of the program?
Pick a different license. Don't hide the ball. Don't explicity grant permission to do something and then complain when someone does it. That is socially undesireable behavior. If you can write complex computer code but can't figure out how to create a custom license rather than burying a contradictory comment within the source, that verges upon being rude.
The irony when I contast your sig and your sudden approval of mass consensus has literally blown my mind. Fortunately, my muscles remained able to type this in the absence of centralized motor control.
1. Burning is inconvenient for small volumes of paper.
2. Burning is essentially illegal for large volumes of paper (business scale; Clean Air Act permits).
3. Fireplaces are not as common as they used to be; outdoor burning is illegal in most cities.
4. People can be idiots when using fire outside of a fireplace or permanent fire pit.
5. DIOXIN!
Shredding is like a residential door lock -- good enough to discourage a casual person who is too curious for their own good. Secure commercial shredders rely upon sheer volume and decent mixing (300 "particles" per page x 3 tons of paper dumped at a recycler is a decent level of obscurity) or "hydro-pulping" for the demanding (shred then pulp at paper mill -- good luck reassembling the fibers even if you get to them before bleaching).
Doctors are not part of the middle class?
My wife started college at 16, didn't fool around, and managed to graduate from medical school at 24 with around $130K in student loan debt. She then worked 80+ hours per week in an internal medicine residency for 3 years earning 45-50K/yr. She then took a fellowship for 2 years working 70+ hours per week earning $50K/yr. At age 29, she began a split fellowship/academic instructor position that finally began to pay a salary approaching reality for the level of training involved - $100K. Student loan debt is still around $120K due to deferments.
If you ignore all the investment to get there, she's "rich" in the eyes of left wing extremists like yourself. However, considering that she's had to accumulate more debt, dive into a hardcore and extensive higher education, work far longer hours for a merely median wage, and do that for 9 years longer than the typical BA, you're not going to get any sympathy from me.
Doctor's income is not wealth until sometime in their mid 40s. Doctor's income is DEBT SERVICE in their 30s, starting a family in their late 30s or early 40s, and only then becomes something that puts them above middle class.
It's also stupid to argue that some of the most highly trained people in our society (0.3%) ought to be compensated as "the middle class." If you want more family practitioners, pay them for God's sake. Otherwise, there's simply not enough altruists to go around, and you cannot command for there to be more...
Citation needed. Desperately.
There certainly is. You quite declaratively stated something that any informed person would know to be false, and even worse were moderated highly for it (and still are). If you announce that the moon is made of cheese, you're going to be confronted.
The minor impact being "the case seems flimsy" since "they're going to have to prove that the list should be considered 'a work' as opposed to just data" and "lists are generally not protected," as actually opposed to the case not being flimsy since the data doesn't have to qualify as a copyrightable work and "lists are generally protected" so long as they "by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation." It's not a little lower bar, it's a very low bar.
I'm not the one resorting to personal attacks and profanity while glossing over the magnitude of how wrong I was. Res ipsa loquitur.
The European Union disagrees with you, since directive Directive 96/9/EC created a sui generis database protection in the mid 90s.
FYI the United Kingdom is, in fact, a member of the EU which has enacted enabling legistlation effective as of 1998.
Why do you feel qualified to evaluate the strength of the case, when you apparently have no actual knowledge of the law in the UK? The European database protection right is neither new nor particularly obscure. There's no excuse for being unaware of it yet presenting yourself as someone qualified to analyze the matter....
Which more or less ignores the fact that the old-timey notion of paying a stock dividend which even approaches net corporate profits gave its death rattle in the 1990s and has not come back despite record corporate profits.
Instead, corporations choose to amass extremely large liquid asset positions for purposes that are questionable even by modern business standards.
Yet you propose to eliminate taxes on corporate profits while increasing taxes on corporate dividends and long term capital gaings (note: capital gains are irrelevant unless attributable to a stock buy-back, since other stock appreciation is merely an increase in the price that another buyer is willing to pay a seller). That would tend to silo even more wealth into the de facto treasuries that have grown up in the 90s and 00s, as opposed to directing wealth into the hands of individuals (the beneficiaries of the funds typically holding stock) and, partially, the government.
I'm reasonably certain that corporations benefit from and directly use government services. There is no philosophical reason why a corporation that is earning a long term average profit should not be subject to taxation in order to pay for those benefits and services, yet natural persons earning non-trivial incomes should. The "fair share" argument has very little to do with anthropomorphisis, and quite a bit more to do with a sense that the seemingly accelerating trend of externalizing the corporate share of the costs of running our society cannot continue.
What you're advocating is that "everything" (yes, not literally everything) be paid for by personal income taxes or consumption taxes as opposed to personal income taxes, corporate taxes, and sales taxes. What you're failing to consider is the effect on investment and wealth distribution. Point to a non-trivial nation that has implemented anything close to what you're advocating and look at the effects on that society. Note that the tax havens that spring to my mind, like Bermuda, are trivial nations in the sense that the corporate revenue that is being complained of is more or less disconnected from acutal corporate economic activity in that nation.
DVXA interfacable hardware H.262 (MPEG2)/H.264 acceleration?
You don't seriously imagine that a blu-ray player, or SoC media streamer, has the same general purpose computing capability as a P4 running on an i8xx series chipset (PCI/AGP), do you? I still have two Dell 4550s that are perfectly usable by the kids. Years ago I upgraded them to AGP ATI 3650s because those were rumored to be the last AGP-interface DX9 cards (ATI partners later came out with AGP 4650s). They run Windows 7 in 2GB of RAM with full eye candy quite well despite being nigh 9 years old. Those were $80 cards. These are probably $40 cards.
The admitted replica?
Which is of a 1770s vintage French steamer that is not run and itself a frankenbuilt reconstruction of the vehicle?
Running car my hiney.
Yes. This was all about the homelessness. The hacking part had nothing to do with it.
I can't begin to imagine why this has been moderated as "Insightful." If you attack a government website, even a county government website, and someone is likely to take notice and do something about it. The homeles guy is not going to get a pass simply because he's homeless. Another homeless guy who didn't attack the county government website isn't going to be changed in Federal Court with violating the CFAA (a Federal statute, violation of which is investigated by a Federal entity - shock).
Nevermind that the article said (it has since been revised), that the groups were threats to national security, which they quite clearly have proven themselves to be.
You should have been moderated "Troll."
Likely false. For example, ask Casey Anthony. Then read the statute under which she was convicted. Don't imagine that it's the only one. Are they questioning you concerning a felony? *DING*... you've committed a crime. Are you willing to bet that you're only being questioned concerning a misdemeanor? Because the police are not going to tell you that.
Materiality is a low bar. And if you read the linked statutes, you'll note that materiality is not necessarily required. If you're taking a lie detector examination, you're answering questions under oath. Public officials are not fools. You can study the entire criminal code of the jurisdiction that you happen to be in, as well as looking for specific provisions pertaining to taxation, permitting, and other topics where intentional inaccuracy is highly frowned upon, or you can assume that lying to a public official is generally a bad idea. ACs are big on giving weasel advice where it's not their butts on the line, but as the rest of us can see, taking your advice is a demonstrably bad idea.
[citation needed]
Congress argues differently. There's a legislative history of debate to support it.
Congress wins.
From what I've read, you're supposed to shut the hell up and invoke your right to be silent if you're being questioned about things you have done.
Lying to public officials, especially federal officers, is in and of itself a crime. Lying gives officials facts which they can cross-check. Lying is something that ordinary people are generally bad at, and interrogators know how to get a suspect to move outside their pre-rehearsed alibis.
Staying silent is not a crime. Staying silent does not allay an official's suspiscion, but cannot be used to convict you of a crime. Staying silent is something that oridinary people are generally bad at, but it's a hell of a lot easier to practice.
Identify yourself, produce whatever ID you normally carry, and decline to speak about anything else unless you have carefully thought out what you are about to say, know that it is does not tend to indicate that you've committed some sort of crime, and know that it is the truth.
The rules are quite different if you are being questioned about someone else or what they have done. But that's another story.
Because the Bayh-Dole Act was enacted by a Congress (which funds the NSF) that does not agree with you in the the same sense.
Research money has to come from somewhere. It can come from your taxes, it can come from university money, or it can (and does) come from a combination of the two. Universities can make money by charging students fees or by licensing patents to inventions developed by their staff (and student employees). Money made by licensing patents has the advantage of coming from commercial partners and/or customers using the technology, rather than students working part time jobs and taking out gigantic student loans.
To rip of the AC who also replied to your post, but will never get modded up, "[t]he system becomes self funding and if they do their job right the pool of cash involved should grow exponentially." The AC was referring to the NSF and being wildly optimistic, but institutions like WARF show that the concept is sound -- successful research universities can reduce their reliance on the NSF for funding and/or fund areas that are not NSF priorities by seeking patents related to their research.
It is -- in the same way that a public ampitheater paid for by the people is available "to the people." Not every person has the right to use the stage at any given time, management of the ampitheater may be contracted out to a private operator, and "the people" are more often than not only the consumer of a product embodying the IP rather than a producer attempting implement the IP. Your concern for the needs "of the people" is a touch too abstract.
In addition, the research is available -- that's the very purpose of encouraging patent disclosures -- it is merely the commercialization of the research that is temporarily restricted. Don' like it? Design around it. Or come up with an improvement that is good enough to but you a seat at the table. Both alternate technologies and cross-licensed improvements help, not hurt, technological development.
But it is. If the IP address is in the chain of addresses in an unlawful act, *bingo*, there is reasonable suspiscion to search it in order to determine if it was the source, or to further locate the source.
GP didn't claim that.
Tor exit nodes are not common carriers. End of story. Common carrier immunity is a privilege granted to defined entities which, *bingo*, still need to cooperate with investigations of individuals who are abusing the communications system. What are the odds that AT&T is going to destroy logs that show that one of its employees was the responsible party, versus a Tor exit node operator destroying logs that would show that he or she was the responsible party? Exactly.
Recently moved there, did you? Hurricane Ike did a pretty good number on central Ohio despite only being a category 4 storm. 2008 wasn't that long ago either.
About the only accurate part of your post is the crossing the Appalachian limitation... Hurricanes that reach Ohio tend to dodge the Appalachians by way of that pesky Gulf of Mexico.
Yes.
Don't have a surgical procedure. Request cremation upon death. Those are your options.
The surgical consent forms will specify that tissue removed during surgery is medical waste that becomes the property of the hospital. The hospital will not negotiate with you. If you're at all notable, after death your DNA can be collected with the consent of your next of kin. You'd better hope that they agree with you -- for several generations afterwards. That's assuming that the trait doesn't have a stong genetic link that can be determined merely by looking at the genetic code of your willing-to-participate descendants.
A political movement may change these practices. You yourself cannot. Not everything can be GPLed.