I have to wonder... In an average collision, are you safer in the vehicle that is causing the crash, or in the one being collided with? I would tend to think the former, but don't have any evidence.
Since when do you need your own country to start a war? That hasn't been true since at least the invention of the printing press, and hasn't been technically true since the first rebellion.
Obama has called on people to actually track and rate the honesty of his platform. That's a first amongst presidents (to my knowledge).... That's a truthfulness rating of about 80%. I don't know about you, but in my book (for a politician) that's incredibly high.
You haven't said that you're actually comparing data to data here; it sounds a lot like you are comparing data to anecdote/personal opinion. IE what you THINK a 'normal' politician's "platform honesty" is. I would be more comfortable with such statements if you were to point to other platform honesty ratings for comparison.
I would also be interested in knowing what percent of the line items are "impossible dreams" due to realpolitik or just plain "reality sets in". You can WANT "no child (to be) left behind" and not have a realistic or workable way to get from here to there.... and then when you implement some half-assed measure cooked up by committee (congress and the stew of lobbyists) because you promised to do *something*, well, you get "No Child Left Behind".
Are you saying that the government monopoly will claim sovereign immunity to avoid liability? Or that they put not-to-sue clauses in their (monopoly) contracts?
In the same way that a software patent construes a program as "a device", wouldn't the distinction depend on "the device"? That is, I think a linux dvd player (currently disallowed because of CSS restrictions) would fall under this ruling, but a CSS-stripper or DvD-to-MP3 converter *might* not.
Elsewhere, researchers are also investigating the threat from would-be chip-plant saboteurs, who poison the chip-making processes to introduce a "kill switch" that makes the chip fail unexpectedly.
I wonder if these are the researchers trying to work around the Droid X kill switch?
So, perhaps you can't reasonably opt out of society....This is a fact of life, and fair.
In what particular way is the inability to opt out of society 'fair'? Fair to whom? Was it unfair that people left England for the New World, when they wanted to opt out of English society? Would it be unfair for people to leave for Alpha Centauri and opt out of Terran society?
It may not currently be reasonably possible to opt out of society, but never mistake something being inevitable for it being 'fair'.
Energy taken out of the system has to come from somewhere. Some energy, sure, can be "harvested" without effort on part of the human host - temperature differences, compression energy while walking, the sort of thing that can't be avoided.
Any power generation on a significant scale, though, will cause the person generating it effort. Like, say, a bicycle generator, or winding up an alarm clock. Even something passive, like putting an induction generator (think: "shake powered flashlight") on your belt will add to the weight you carry, the inertia you have to overcome. More effort on your part.
Agreed. If the game that comes in the box isn't up to snuff, I'm not going to buy it. Put as many fancy bells and whistles on DLC as you want, I'm not going to see it. Particularly not at first.
You only have one chance to make a first impression.
That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.
Another way of saying it is: $87,500 per person before taxes. Which isn't really as shabby as the $45k number sounds. Probably self-employment taxes apply, but those were (presumably) accounted for in the article. I believe that is considerably above the minimum wage they imply....
The article illustrates the accounting, but doesn't point strongly at the "unfair" portion. My own take-away on the unfairness is that the performers are taking on 100% of the production and promotion costs, the label 100% of the distribution costs, and they split the video production costs. The distribution costs amount to only 50% of the total costs, but the label takes 80% of the gross. AND they (typically) take the copyrights on the song, limiting what further use the performers can make of it.
Boo hoo, performers are getting shafted by the labels. Yeah, we get it. And techdirt's source article explains those points in more detail. So how about an article or advice for artists about which contract terms are most rapacious? Or about labels that operate in a different fashion? I'm sure some of the smaller labels out there have to have more friendly terms, with at least some artists.
Love to be a nit-picker, but I think what you are saying is, "selling the service is more important than the accessory". Someone coming in to buy a new phone to replace the one the dog dumped in the wood chipper probably doesn't rate as highly as someone coming in to buy a new 3-year contract.
To post on the Blizzard forums, you currently must log in using your battle.net account. So Blizzard already has all the information they need to bad a blatant troll from their forums.
No, the RealID issue was specifically about a) preventing sockpuppetry via alts, b) shaming trolls into behaving, and possibly c) recasting the forums as a social networking site.
Sockpuppetry, because a user of the blizzard forums is represented by one or another of the characters on an account. We readers of the forums do not have the information required to tie one user to another.
They could have done this as well by allowing users to define an account sobriquet distinct from any other account information. But they got lazy: "Hey, we've already got a name associated with the account, let's use that!" Todd Knarr mentioned this in a post below.
The choice to avoid an "account nickname" may have been influenced by the recent change of WoW accounts from "account name + password" to "real/credit card name + password + optional 'authenticator'). Having removed one non-identifying account name, they may not have been eager to attach another.
Pardon me, but I'm having just a little bit of cognitive dissonance over matching "life-sized" to something that not only was never alive in its original context, but was actually fictional. "One to one scale with the original prop", that I have no problem with.
On the other hand, it's not copyright abuse, given that these papers are created as works-for-hire, with the express intent that they be plagiarized...
> First, if it's really open source someone else could have fixed it...
It's a small step to say "We have the technology, we can fix it". It's a much bigger leap to actually fix it. Not many mom-and-pop stores have the resources to fix their POS (point of sale) software, for instance.
The amazing, awesome, fantastic thing, though, is that yes, you have the *right* to fix free/open source software without involvement of the source company.
Note that "Open Source" by itself is not a panacea; there exist licenses that let you view the source code - but that's all. I recall Microsoft coming up with a "look but don't touch" license for their libraries, some time back.
> If all they were going to do is what you propose, then there would be no need for them to be more than one page.
From the bills I have read the text of, I submit that a statement "of principle" would probably take two pages. A bill that might actually include penalties for breaking the principle would probably run at least 5. But I have not myself had a part in authoring a bill yet.
> If a bill was proposed that said only what you proposed, I would be fine with that, but such a bill will never be proposed.
Then write it.
Find guidelines for writing bill proposals. Look at the drafts for those other bills. Find what language is necessary to implement the bill we want. Write it. Send it to your state senators, each of your congressmen.
Ask the staffers who receive it to send you comments on it. Re-draft it based on those comments and resubmit it.
How do YOU think legislation gets made? Magically comes out of the typewriters of Law Gnomes?
Why is someone's assumed paranoid that someone will see that they're reading about cars or home theater equipment on a forum worth requiring a service owner to scale his hardware to the next level to maintain acceptable performance (assuming this phenomenon is multiplied hundred-fold)?
A curious question, that. You're asking what it is worth to the user of a site to justify the demands placed upon the operator of the site. You pose it as "demands upon the server", yet simply visiting a site creates demands upon the server. More people, more demands.
How is asking for HTTPS different from asking for "reasonable page load times", or "video feeds without compression artifacts"? On the user's side, one has little to no influence over (or even knowledge of) OTHER traffic to the site. The answer for the user is, "MY demand on the server is small, what's the problem?".
The only answers on the operator's side are "I want your traffic", or "I don't want your traffic".
In an age where stocks are traded in millisecond timescales, I expect that some MITM attack that has "only" 60 seconds to take advantage of a number will indeed find a way to do so. Particularly if the MITM takes place on the internet. The information is already in a computer. There's even traffic going out *almost* concurrently with the attack, to cover the tracks.
What is also usually missing from at least the summaries of these articles is that most of these things are based on already implemented existing laws in either Europe, the UK, Canada or the USA
Slashdot Mirror
This has been talked about recently.
I have to wonder... In an average collision, are you safer in the vehicle that is causing the crash, or in the one being collided with? I would tend to think the former, but don't have any evidence.
Since when do you need your own country to start a war? That hasn't been true since at least the invention of the printing press, and hasn't been technically true since the first rebellion.
Obama has called on people to actually track and rate the honesty of his platform. That's a first amongst presidents (to my knowledge). ... That's a truthfulness rating of about 80%. I don't know about you, but in my book (for a politician) that's incredibly high.
You haven't said that you're actually comparing data to data here; it sounds a lot like you are comparing data to anecdote/personal opinion. IE what you THINK a 'normal' politician's "platform honesty" is. I would be more comfortable with such statements if you were to point to other platform honesty ratings for comparison.
I would also be interested in knowing what percent of the line items are "impossible dreams" due to realpolitik or just plain "reality sets in". You can WANT "no child (to be) left behind" and not have a realistic or workable way to get from here to there. ... and then when you implement some half-assed measure cooked up by committee (congress and the stew of lobbyists) because you promised to do *something*, well, you get "No Child Left Behind".
Would not apply, unless the taxpayer money came with the neutrality restrictions or other strings attached.
If I hand you a brick of money and say "do as you will", I can't later come back and say "just kidding".
Unless there's a surge of outrage from my constituents...
Are you saying that the government monopoly will claim sovereign immunity to avoid liability? Or that they put not-to-sue clauses in their (monopoly) contracts?
In the same way that a software patent construes a program as "a device", wouldn't the distinction depend on "the device"? That is, I think a linux dvd player (currently disallowed because of CSS restrictions) would fall under this ruling, but a CSS-stripper or DvD-to-MP3 converter *might* not.
Elsewhere, researchers are also investigating the threat from would-be chip-plant saboteurs, who poison the chip-making processes to introduce a "kill switch" that makes the chip fail unexpectedly.
I wonder if these are the researchers trying to work around the Droid X kill switch?
So, perhaps you can't reasonably opt out of society. ...This is a fact of life, and fair.
In what particular way is the inability to opt out of society 'fair'? Fair to whom? Was it unfair that people left England for the New World, when they wanted to opt out of English society? Would it be unfair for people to leave for Alpha Centauri and opt out of Terran society?
It may not currently be reasonably possible to opt out of society, but never mistake something being inevitable for it being 'fair'.
...There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Energy taken out of the system has to come from somewhere. Some energy, sure, can be "harvested" without effort on part of the human host - temperature differences, compression energy while walking, the sort of thing that can't be avoided.
Any power generation on a significant scale, though, will cause the person generating it effort. Like, say, a bicycle generator, or winding up an alarm clock. Even something passive, like putting an induction generator (think: "shake powered flashlight") on your belt will add to the weight you carry, the inertia you have to overcome. More effort on your part.
I'd think it obvious that that shit is bad for you...
Agreed. If the game that comes in the box isn't up to snuff, I'm not going to buy it. Put as many fancy bells and whistles on DLC as you want, I'm not going to see it. Particularly not at first.
You only have one chance to make a first impression.
That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.
Another way of saying it is: $87,500 per person before taxes. Which isn't really as shabby as the $45k number sounds. Probably self-employment taxes apply, but those were (presumably) accounted for in the article. I believe that is considerably above the minimum wage they imply....
The article illustrates the accounting, but doesn't point strongly at the "unfair" portion. My own take-away on the unfairness is that the performers are taking on 100% of the production and promotion costs, the label 100% of the distribution costs, and they split the video production costs. The distribution costs amount to only 50% of the total costs, but the label takes 80% of the gross. AND they (typically) take the copyrights on the song, limiting what further use the performers can make of it.
Boo hoo, performers are getting shafted by the labels. Yeah, we get it. And techdirt's source article explains those points in more detail. So how about an article or advice for artists about which contract terms are most rapacious? Or about labels that operate in a different fashion? I'm sure some of the smaller labels out there have to have more friendly terms, with at least some artists.
Love to be a nit-picker, but I think what you are saying is, "selling the service is more important than the accessory". Someone coming in to buy a new phone to replace the one the dog dumped in the wood chipper probably doesn't rate as highly as someone coming in to buy a new 3-year contract.
To post on the Blizzard forums, you currently must log in using your battle.net account. So Blizzard already has all the information they need to bad a blatant troll from their forums.
No, the RealID issue was specifically about a) preventing sockpuppetry via alts, b) shaming trolls into behaving, and possibly c) recasting the forums as a social networking site.
Sockpuppetry, because a user of the blizzard forums is represented by one or another of the characters on an account. We readers of the forums do not have the information required to tie one user to another.
They could have done this as well by allowing users to define an account sobriquet distinct from any other account information. But they got lazy: "Hey, we've already got a name associated with the account, let's use that!" Todd Knarr mentioned this in a post below.
The choice to avoid an "account nickname" may have been influenced by the recent change of WoW accounts from "account name + password" to "real/credit card name + password + optional 'authenticator'). Having removed one non-identifying account name, they may not have been eager to attach another.
Ah, I see you have an iPhone 4...
> unlicensed life-size R2D2 statues
Pardon me, but I'm having just a little bit of cognitive dissonance over matching "life-sized" to something that not only was never alive in its original context, but was actually fictional. "One to one scale with the original prop", that I have no problem with.
On the other hand, it's not copyright abuse, given that these papers are created as works-for-hire, with the express intent that they be plagiarized...
I have to wonder... If they come to a settlement other than what the court dictated, does that mean that the RIAA avoids a precedent?
> First, if it's really open source someone else could have fixed it...
It's a small step to say "We have the technology, we can fix it".
It's a much bigger leap to actually fix it. Not many mom-and-pop stores have the resources to fix their POS (point of sale) software, for instance.
The amazing, awesome, fantastic thing, though, is that yes, you have the *right* to fix free/open source software without involvement of the source company.
Note that "Open Source" by itself is not a panacea; there exist licenses that let you view the source code - but that's all. I recall Microsoft coming up with a "look but don't touch" license for their libraries, some time back.
The "get out of jail free" cards were still flowing as late as 2008...
SDNY went 0-15. At that point, I became to disheartened to continue digging.
> If all they were going to do is what you propose, then there would be no need for them to be more than one page.
From the bills I have read the text of, I submit that a statement "of principle" would probably take two pages. A bill that might actually include penalties for breaking the principle would probably run at least 5. But I have not myself had a part in authoring a bill yet.
> If a bill was proposed that said only what you proposed, I would be fine with that, but such a bill will never be proposed.
Then write it.
Find guidelines for writing bill proposals. Look at the drafts for those other bills. Find what language is necessary to implement the bill we want. Write it. Send it to your state senators, each of your congressmen.
Ask the staffers who receive it to send you comments on it. Re-draft it based on those comments and resubmit it.
How do YOU think legislation gets made? Magically comes out of the typewriters of Law Gnomes?
Why is someone's assumed paranoid that someone will see that they're reading about cars or home theater equipment on a forum worth requiring a service owner to scale his hardware to the next level to maintain acceptable performance (assuming this phenomenon is multiplied hundred-fold)?
A curious question, that. You're asking what it is worth to the user of a site to justify the demands placed upon the operator of the site. You pose it as "demands upon the server", yet simply visiting a site creates demands upon the server. More people, more demands.
How is asking for HTTPS different from asking for "reasonable page load times", or "video feeds without compression artifacts"? On the user's side, one has little to no influence over (or even knowledge of) OTHER traffic to the site. The answer for the user is, "MY demand on the server is small, what's the problem?".
The only answers on the operator's side are "I want your traffic", or "I don't want your traffic".
In an age where stocks are traded in millisecond timescales, I expect that some MITM attack that has "only" 60 seconds to take advantage of a number will indeed find a way to do so. Particularly if the MITM takes place on the internet. The information is already in a computer. There's even traffic going out *almost* concurrently with the attack, to cover the tracks.
Today Australia, tomorrow the world!
Previously:
What is also usually missing from at least the summaries of these articles is that most of these things are based on already implemented existing laws in either Europe, the UK, Canada or the USA
May I borrow your time machine?