Comment Re:Why? (Score 5, Insightful) 578
As far as I'm aware, you can still get it by antenna. So, there you have your ad supported NBC version for free.
I don't know what that has to do with making the same content available online.
As far as I'm aware, you can still get it by antenna. So, there you have your ad supported NBC version for free.
I don't know what that has to do with making the same content available online.
Diabetic here. I would wear the contact lens in a heartbeat. The idea is that this device would replace the finger pricks, otherwise known as holes in skin. And when you repeatedly test on your fingers (6-10/day), that's a lot of holes and a lot of blood. There is risk for infections, scabs and blisters. And long time diabetics develop callouses on their fingers from testing which means that they need to poke deeper to get blood.
Plus the checking isn't really "constant." You have to periodically check during the day. That means that you can go high or go low between checks and perhaps not realize it until you have symptoms.
There are constant glucose monitors. Essentially a large pager you carry around that is connected to the body via an injection site. They're great. They measure changes in BS very well, but they're very limited in duration, insertions are painful, and the disposable bits are really expensive. You also need the finger sticks because (as far as I'm aware) few are accurate enough to give you the same level of accuracy.
The per capita statistic is right in the summary:
Tesla suffers an average of one fire per 6,333 cars, versus a rate of one fire per 1,350 gasoline-powered cars.
Here are my questions: why do they always talk about "authorization" when making denials? And why don't reporters call them out on it? This story is a classic example:
“NSA does collect information on terrorists and our national intelligence priorities but we are not authorized to go into a U.S. company’s servers and take data,” Alexander said.
That's great and all. But it's like a shoplifter saying, "sure I went into the store and looked around, but I wasn't authorized to take anything."
Why the fuck would you use a mobile app to control an IV pump?
The point is really two-fold. First, we already regulate medical devices like infusion pumps and radiology information systems. Under the proposed regime, one does not simply avoid regulatory scrutiny and obligations by offloading them to an app.
Second, if a app makes claims to do things things that would ordinarily be regulated, you don't escape the regulatory regime simply by saying, I'm just an iPhone app.
Both prongs make some sense if you accept the basic assumption that FDA regulation of devices makes sense at all.
Good thing that Tesla warrants it on unlimited mileage out to 8 years. (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-to-offer-eight-year-warranty-on-battery-pack/). Also, you can acquire the Tesla replacement battery packs for circa $12,000 (http://www.teslamotors.com/it_CH/forum/forums/battery-replacement-cost) today. Factor in that by the end of the 8 year warranty period, the cost will likely be lower, your argument holds no water.
As a T1D, I'll note that the GP didn't really comment on what it means to be a T2D. The characterization, however, is mostly true for an overwhelming majority of t2d, but completely false for t1d. T2D is controllable with diet and exercise alone in something like 80-90% of the T2D population. Weight and lifestyle factors make up an overwhelming percentage of the risk factors. And while there is clearly a genetic (usually associated with the likelihood that weight/lifestyle will give way to t2d, not that the genetics alone cause t2d) and medical condition component too, this is the clear minority.
I was about to say, saying "no license" doesn't make it freely available to anyone. It's quite exactly the opposite -- it's not usable by anyone. And it puts a taker in jeopardy since the materials contributed will (or may depending on the contribution) be copyright of the contributor automatically. Github's position for license-less contributions is the default rule.
Of course, someone making code available online may have zero desire to enforce that copyright. However, a subsequent user of that code cannot say that they own or have all rights necessary to distribute the code.
Agreed. First-to-file is a bit of a misnomer. It's more like a first-inventor-to-file regime. If anything, the first-inventor-regime is actually more protective because it has an absolute novelty requirement. If someone else publishes before you file, you get nothing. You get no grace period over someone else publishing, using or marketing an invention -- you do get a grace period with respect to your own publication.
There is not going to be a rush to the patent office to file a patent on sex.
Because he read some place that African trolls are starving?
My post was written mostly with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
That said, the Republican party is hell-bent on running part of this race on the idea that individuals, not government, creates things. That the government does almost nothing -- other than defense -- right. Heck the whole theme of this convention goes directly to this: "We built this" (which gets singulars and plurals mixed up and makes Obama right, but that's irrelevant) by turning a truism about modern society on its head: nobody builds anything by themselves. Maybe Ted Kaczynski-types, but otherwise, every private endeavor is supported by millions of publicly financed goods.
Not to mention I'm sure they're tracking this approaching storm using the national weather service, relying on local emergency response services, using publicly-funded roads, hosting the event in a taxpayer-funded stadium, etc.
Let the spin, begin.
Having now read the opinion, here's how the judge came out:
1. The jury found this guy guilty of infringement.
2. The guy had 8 years of known infringing activities
3. The guy destroyed evidence
4. The guy lied repeatedly
5. It wasn't just a matter of him downloading songs, he was uploading them too
6. The jury got to see all the evidence
7. Congress set the bounds for copyright infringement's statutory damages
8. The jury pick something on the arguably low end of the range
9. When looking at the common law rules the judge did not feel the case was inequitable under the circumstances.
I would wager good money that had 2-5 been different, the judge WOULD have found the award inequitable.
That said, I have some questions about why 2 and 5 were even in evidence at all. They seem irrelevant to copyright infringement of the songs at issue here. I haven't kept pace with this case, but I should think those are irrelevant unless they were themselves proved to be infringements.
Also, it helps not to destroy evidence or lie.
This distinction is actually quite blurry for most municipal fines and citations. A number of states, for example, allow you to pay your speeding ticket fines directly at the time of the citation via credit card. How you'd distinguish this case from that case, I'm not sure.
Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek