Why are you for decriminalization, but not legalization? Terms of employment have nothing to do with it. It is legal to drink, but most places will fire you if you come to work drunk.
It is not the patent holders responsibility to publicize their patents.
It just occurred to me: might this be the very thing which is needed in order to repair the patent system? What if patent enforcement did require that the patent holder could demonstrate that they put great effort/expense into publicity?
What is the upside? And what does it mean to publicize it? Have it printed in the local newspaper?
Patents are publicly available. So I'm not sure if having them publicized all over the place is going to help someone over the current method where they are published in one place.
Christopher worked pretty hard.
But what is this jealousy over the children getting a free ride? Are parents not allowed to try to leave their children with money?
You don't really know what you are talking about do you?
Video and slot machines typically have a payout of 98-99% Of course you have to play a lot to hit these numbers, but how long? If you play $10,000 you'll theoretically lose $200. But how much entertainment did you get for that $200? More than 20 movies? Or a dozen concerts? How many liquor would that buy? People spend money on a lot of things. And some choose to spend it entertaining themselves playing video poker. Doesn't mean it is morally disgusting.
Apparently this is the MAIN thing he is being charged with:
Weev and a fellow hacker who originally uncovered AT&T’s mistake and collected the e-mails didn’t ask the company for permission to access the Web addresses that shared iPad users’ private information. But those Web addresses weren’t hidden behind password prompts or any kind of protection – they were publicly accessible.
Which looks like the equivalent of "trespassing". Kind of like entering an empty lot, that has no fences or signs, that is next to a public park.
It means if you click on a random link you find, you could be arrested.
I'll point out that the notebook I have sitting on my desk is just as secure in transit as a postcard... EXCEPT the COPS have no RIGHT to read it, unless they get a search warrant.
Just because it is easy to do, doesn't mean the federal government has a right to do it.
She sells a product, TO THE RADIOSTATION, who then sells it to us. I am quite sure that say, Hostess, would like to have the demographic data from each supermarket, but they can't have it because it is NOT their data.
To a certain degree you are correct. But Hostess COULD ask for that data, just like she is asking.
I'd be willing to bet though, that Hostess KNOWS how many units it sold to various distributors. She doesn't know that (and she should, her royalties are based on it) Hostess can also figure out the geographic distribution of its units. She can't do that either.
So by that same logic, it benefits me when Company X learns everything about me so they can create a better Widget for me to buy?
In some sense yes. Except they won't know ANYTHING about you, other than you bought a widget. And when the next widget comes out, that makes your job easier, there is a chance you might want it.The benefit because they make more money, you benefit because you have a better widget. Or in an artist case more good stuff from an artist you enjoy.
No it does not help the customer who are in the majority..
How does it not help the customer? Maybe she is trying to decide on where to tour next? Maybe she is trying to decide on what songs to write/sing next? Both of these can help the customer.
Keep in mind, she didn't sell 300 items. She gave one to Pandora to play, and now she doesn't know how many she "sold"
Yeah, bullshit HER data. I'm sure the data she gets on streams is much more accurate
According to the article, it IS NOT more accurate. And that is her point. It doesn't sound like she wants to invade anyones privacy. She just wants to get the data that the local broadcast radio station got for her... you know like before the internet.
Just age? Or my full birthday? How about my IP address? Or my real address? Or my credit card number? Does she get to say which information and where the line is drawn? Which "HALF" of MY data does she get exactly?
She is asking for (at least per the article)
How many times her song played. This isn't about YOU, this is more about an agreement with Pandora. Radio stations have this data.
How many people heard it. Again, not about YOU, but more an agreement with Pandora. Radio stations can guess this data.
Where is it most popular. While she didn't explicitly say she wants an ip address I'm sure she would be happy with geographic locations (such as city, state, country). Maybe it will help her plan her next tour.
Nothing she asks is about YOU. Some of it is already required by other companies (like the # of plays)
Does she want some info on you? I bet, I bet she'd like to have some demographic info. What is the average age of her listeners, age brackets and so on. But that would only happen if Pandora collects that data.
She didn't get this kind of detailed information when her song was delivered over radio waves, why should she she demand my information now that it is over IP?
Yes she did. Or something close to it. You don't think marketers have an understanding of the demographic of a particular radio station? Data from Pandora would be a bit more accurate though.
And it isn't YOUR data, it is data Pandora collected. She is asking how many times her music played, how many people listened to it, where is it more popular. These are all things you can get from broadcast industry today.
But you did. Any time you trade money with someone, a relationship exists.
What she doesn't get is that it isn't her "right" to know who I am without my explicite agreement. She doesn't have to sell to me, and I don't have to buy from her. We BOTH have the right to demand terms bilaterally.
She doesn't know who YOU are. You don't have to buy from her, but you did. And she would like to know that, or at least as much info as Pandora can give her. Does that mean Pandora will ask for fewer royalties, perhaps.
Information like this ALREADY exists for radio stations. But a station like pandora can do an even better job.
You have a relationship with Pandora, much like you have a relationship with your local grocery store. Pandora has a relationship with the artist, just like the grocery store has a relationship with manufacturers. The manufacturers ask the store "what is the demographic of your buyers" just like she is asking Pandora "what is the demographic of the people who listen to my songs."
If you have a problem with it, don't listen to her songs (of course that means you can't listen to anyone's songs) or better yet don't listen to Pandora (or any other station) If you don't want people to know what you are listening to. Then go buy some CD's. And if you have a problem with that, buy them through a third party.
That is the exact opposite of what people said before Vista came out. Win 7 is three years old. Remember 95, 98, ME. Three years or less between releases. If it takes more than 3 years then people start clamoring for the next OS.
Or that you know how to click on links in the summery...
In the summaries defense, the article didn't really do a much better job of explaining who Meraki is.
As for google... sure I can do the job of the reporter, but that isn't what I am paying him for.
To me it sounds like, the police finally found a way to identify a murderer, but then this 5th amendment thingy comes in and it gets thrown out on a technicality. What's good about that?
Because they didn't actually find a way to identify the murder. That is what is wrong with that.
If you ask everyone if they did it, except for one person. And they all said "no". Does that mean the last person did it? Ignoring that someone might lie, you are assuming the murderer is one of those people.
If all the women wore burqas, rape might also drop through the floor.
If all men were castrated rape might drop through the floor.
I'm sure we can come up with many thinks that will make rape drop through the floor. But that isn't a reason to introduce them,
oppression of women and not because of it's link to Islam.
It isn't exactly about the oppression of women, but it is rather blaming women for men's sins. See, it is a sin to be tempted. So rather than blaming the man for being tempted, they blame the women for being a temptation, and make them cover up.
>Also, the OP is right: it is a crybaby Murdoch piece about people unhappy that they can't hate in peace.
Just for the sake of argument, let us assume you are right, and it is a crybaby piece. Is this a case where they can't hate in peace? If they can't hate in peace, there is something wrong with the system.
Tax payers pay for a large part of these universities, that's what makes them public universities.
The government cannot suppress free speech on public properties. And saying that people can't debate, or argue, or discuss at a university is the exact opposite of what a university stands for.
, that arguably violates the establishment clause.
If you want to promote your personal views, pay for your own website or attend and pay for a private university, don't do it with tax dollars.
What established clause? Are you saying the ONLY place you can offer your opinion is where you have paid for the entire infrastructure yourself? Seems a bit anti free speech to me.
Slashdot Mirror
How many terrorists have been caught due to airport security?
Why are you for decriminalization, but not legalization? Terms of employment have nothing to do with it. It is legal to drink, but most places will fire you if you come to work drunk.
It just occurred to me: might this be the very thing which is needed in order to repair the patent system? What if patent enforcement did require that the patent holder could demonstrate that they put great effort/expense into publicity?
What is the upside? And what does it mean to publicize it? Have it printed in the local newspaper?
Patents are publicly available. So I'm not sure if having them publicized all over the place is going to help someone over the current method where they are published in one place.
Christopher worked pretty hard.
But what is this jealousy over the children getting a free ride? Are parents not allowed to try to leave their children with money?
Poker machines are morally disgusting.
You don't really know what you are talking about do you?
Video and slot machines typically have a payout of 98-99% Of course you have to play a lot to hit these numbers, but how long? If you play $10,000 you'll theoretically lose $200. But how much entertainment did you get for that $200? More than 20 movies? Or a dozen concerts? How many liquor would that buy? People spend money on a lot of things. And some choose to spend it entertaining themselves playing video poker. Doesn't mean it is morally disgusting.
Weev and a fellow hacker who originally uncovered AT&T’s mistake and collected the e-mails didn’t ask the company for permission to access the Web addresses that shared iPad users’ private information. But those Web addresses weren’t hidden behind password prompts or any kind of protection – they were publicly accessible.
Which looks like the equivalent of "trespassing". Kind of like entering an empty lot, that has no fences or signs, that is next to a public park.
It means if you click on a random link you find, you could be arrested.
Most books are meant to be read in its entirety, yet they still have chapters...
Because it is non trivial to set up.
Uhm ok, then the question is "why isn't it easy to set up?"
I'll point out that the notebook I have sitting on my desk is just as secure in transit as a postcard... EXCEPT the COPS have no RIGHT to read it, unless they get a search warrant.
Just because it is easy to do, doesn't mean the federal government has a right to do it.
She sells a product, TO THE RADIOSTATION, who then sells it to us. I am quite sure that say, Hostess, would like to have the demographic data from each supermarket, but they can't have it because it is NOT their data.
To a certain degree you are correct. But Hostess COULD ask for that data, just like she is asking.
I'd be willing to bet though, that Hostess KNOWS how many units it sold to various distributors. She doesn't know that (and she should, her royalties are based on it) Hostess can also figure out the geographic distribution of its units. She can't do that either.
So by that same logic, it benefits me when Company X learns everything about me so they can create a better Widget for me to buy?
In some sense yes. Except they won't know ANYTHING about you, other than you bought a widget. And when the next widget comes out, that makes your job easier, there is a chance you might want it.The benefit because they make more money, you benefit because you have a better widget. Or in an artist case more good stuff from an artist you enjoy.
No it does not help the customer who are in the majority ..
How does it not help the customer? Maybe she is trying to decide on where to tour next? Maybe she is trying to decide on what songs to write/sing next? Both of these can help the customer.
Keep in mind, she didn't sell 300 items. She gave one to Pandora to play, and now she doesn't know how many she "sold"
Yeah, bullshit HER data. I'm sure the data she gets on streams is much more accurate
According to the article, it IS NOT more accurate. And that is her point. It doesn't sound like she wants to invade anyones privacy. She just wants to get the data that the local broadcast radio station got for her... you know like before the internet.
Just age? Or my full birthday? How about my IP address? Or my real address? Or my credit card number? Does she get to say which information and where the line is drawn? Which "HALF" of MY data does she get exactly?
She is asking for (at least per the article)
How many times her song played. This isn't about YOU, this is more about an agreement with Pandora. Radio stations have this data.
How many people heard it. Again, not about YOU, but more an agreement with Pandora. Radio stations can guess this data.
Where is it most popular. While she didn't explicitly say she wants an ip address I'm sure she would be happy with geographic locations (such as city, state, country). Maybe it will help her plan her next tour.
Nothing she asks is about YOU. Some of it is already required by other companies (like the # of plays)
Does she want some info on you? I bet, I bet she'd like to have some demographic info. What is the average age of her listeners, age brackets and so on. But that would only happen if Pandora collects that data.
She didn't get this kind of detailed information when her song was delivered over radio waves, why should she she demand my information now that it is over IP?
Yes she did. Or something close to it. You don't think marketers have an understanding of the demographic of a particular radio station? Data from Pandora would be a bit more accurate though.
And it isn't YOUR data, it is data Pandora collected. She is asking how many times her music played, how many people listened to it, where is it more popular. These are all things you can get from broadcast industry today.
What I did not pay for is a relationship.
But you did. Any time you trade money with someone, a relationship exists.
What she doesn't get is that it isn't her "right" to know who I am without my explicite agreement. She doesn't have to sell to me, and I don't have to buy from her. We BOTH have the right to demand terms bilaterally.
She doesn't know who YOU are. You don't have to buy from her, but you did. And she would like to know that, or at least as much info as Pandora can give her. Does that mean Pandora will ask for fewer royalties, perhaps.
Information like this ALREADY exists for radio stations. But a station like pandora can do an even better job.
You have a relationship with Pandora, much like you have a relationship with your local grocery store. Pandora has a relationship with the artist, just like the grocery store has a relationship with manufacturers. The manufacturers ask the store "what is the demographic of your buyers" just like she is asking Pandora "what is the demographic of the people who listen to my songs."
If you have a problem with it, don't listen to her songs (of course that means you can't listen to anyone's songs) or better yet don't listen to Pandora (or any other station) If you don't want people to know what you are listening to. Then go buy some CD's. And if you have a problem with that, buy them through a third party.
That is the exact opposite of what people said before Vista came out. Win 7 is three years old. Remember 95, 98, ME. Three years or less between releases. If it takes more than 3 years then people start clamoring for the next OS.
Or that you know how to click on links in the summery...
In the summaries defense, the article didn't really do a much better job of explaining who Meraki is.
As for google... sure I can do the job of the reporter, but that isn't what I am paying him for.
To me it sounds like, the police finally found a way to identify a murderer, but then this 5th amendment thingy comes in and it gets thrown out on a technicality. What's good about that?
Because they didn't actually find a way to identify the murder. That is what is wrong with that.
If you ask everyone if they did it, except for one person. And they all said "no". Does that mean the last person did it? Ignoring that someone might lie, you are assuming the murderer is one of those people.
If all the women wore burqas, rape might also drop through the floor.
If all men were castrated rape might drop through the floor.
I'm sure we can come up with many thinks that will make rape drop through the floor. But that isn't a reason to introduce them,
oppression of women and not because of it's link to Islam.
It isn't exactly about the oppression of women, but it is rather blaming women for men's sins. See, it is a sin to be tempted. So rather than blaming the man for being tempted, they blame the women for being a temptation, and make them cover up.
Here you go: . .
Ohh sorry did you some nipples?
>Also, the OP is right: it is a crybaby Murdoch piece about people unhappy that they can't hate in peace.
Just for the sake of argument, let us assume you are right, and it is a crybaby piece. Is this a case where they can't hate in peace? If they can't hate in peace, there is something wrong with the system.
Tax payers pay for a large part of these universities, that's what makes them public universities.
The government cannot suppress free speech on public properties. And saying that people can't debate, or argue, or discuss at a university is the exact opposite of what a university stands for.
, that arguably violates the establishment clause.
If you want to promote your personal views, pay for your own website or attend and pay for a private university, don't do it with tax dollars.
What established clause? Are you saying the ONLY place you can offer your opinion is where you have paid for the entire infrastructure yourself? Seems a bit anti free speech to me.