Well that's your problem right there, you're a moron. No one learns anything on slashdot, people just come here to make stupid arguments and pretend this is a source of information instead of a chance to pretend you know more than someone else.
The reality TV executives showed up and everyone went "wow look at how cheap that content is". Although they failed to really grasp that whole cheap thing in the proper context.
TV is 99% junk (repeats, realityTV, etc) now because it was more profitable. All the specialty channels are now just repeating junk rather than trying to be channels serving that actual niche. Hell the weather channel didn't show weather, SciFi shows wrestling, etc. Those channels long ago lost their real audiences.
Derivative in what way? Did he take a video of a video or did he take a video of the actual game? I fail to see how anyone could claim video you shot yourself of live action belongs to them in the form of copyright because you are the one that took the video, they don't have a copyright on the live action and it's absurd to claim they do.
Now as someone else said, there may have been contract language on the ticket that you agreed to by attending the game that gave them copyright on all your recordings of the game. I would suggest not attending such games in the future. This could in fact not even be tied to copyright law, this could be some special exception in UK law that gives soccer clubs rights to all video shot of their club. It would be absurd but that's never stopped the UK before.
Yea but it looks like pot and if you allow any Joe, Dick and Jane to grow it the feds would have to genetically test every plant in the crop and that's just unworkable so it should be banned to save the government effort in proving that you are growing illegal plants.
[/sarcasm]
Communism is a great idea as long as every actor is altruistic and interested in the welfare of the society above themselves. Because of that base assumption about human behavior it's a terrible system.
Libertarianism is a great idea as long as every actor is altruistic and interested in the welfare of the society above themselves.
Laissez-fair capitalism is a great idea as long as every actor is altruistic and interested in the welfare of the society above themselves.
Etc...
All these "improvements" on the system we have only work if you assume people aren't self-interested greedy pricks that will screw over their own mothers for $5. As soon as you insert the real world into these system it collapses from the sociopaths gaming the system for themselves. As you said you need checks and balances, capitalism with regulation to prevent the abuse of the system that is common appears to be the most functional system, that is as long as you don't get people that are so stupid they think the regulation is the problem.
It doesn't mean it's irrelevant, it means impacts won't be prevented (which isn't the purpose of an impact study anyway) but they can still be mitigated later. You might not understand this difference but it's significant. We have a serious problem with environmental groups abusing the process not to prevent environmental damage, but to prevent development at all. Even when developers or state agencies go out of their way to protect sensitive sites/species groups like Greenpeace will still sue, not to get additional protections or to protect anything but simply to raise the costs in the hope the agency/company will abandon the project because in Greenpeace's view all new development is bad. They aren't alone, there are dozens of groups who are abusing the courts and our environmental laws as some campaign to end all new development.
This is not the purpose these environmental rules were created to satisfy. The laws are being heavily abused and if it's not reigned in it's going to get so bad people will support abolishing the protections all together, which is a far worse outcome.
Of course there are other circuit board connectors, but lets be honest, the reference design is the one you will see the most and the previous reference designs have a serious fatigue failure problem.
Considering the smallest recommended handout is a
So they are finally getting the connector right. After 5 different connectors and almost 20 years they are finally going to fix the USB connector problem (at least most of them). Not only that but they designed with a future awareness that will hopefully prevent the Micro-USB3 nightmare (two connectors in one) in the future.
It's Smaller than every previous USB connection.
It's reversible so you can plug it only one time.
They designed it with the ability to add additional wires in the future as the standard evolves.
The C connector supports USB 3.1 which allows up to 100watts of power transfer (enough to power smaller laptops).
IIRC it's also designed to put less strain on the connection to the circuit board so you won't get the solder flex failure so common with USB.
What they got wrong is it's almost indistinguishable from Micro without close examination. They didn't put in a color or other requirement that would have made the port obvious without close examination, even though it's smaller a LOT of people are going to be trying to plug USB micro connectors into these ports.
All in all I'd say the USB working group finally fixed a few major problems with USB and it's a good standard that will probably eventually replace all A,B,Mini and Micro ports over the next few years. The beauty is finally incorporating 100watt capability, it should be possible to have standard power adapters on laptops that use 1 or 2 USB ports for power eliminating the need to replace your power brick all the time.
Who are these "centrists" you keep talking about? Your argument appears to be the same one tea party people use with RINO and Liberal which is you define those categories as slur you use against people who think differently than you.
Your argument is silly. Republicans had filibuster proof control of Congress and the presidents office for 6 years, the policy at the time was tax cut and spend. The democrats had similar control though less sure (2 independents) during the first two years of Obama's term, their policy was mostly tax and spend though the republicans wouldn't let them do the tax part so it became just spend. The last time real negotiating took place and centrist views dominated was during the Clinton administration when Republicans controlled congress (during Gingrich's term) when neither party got what they wanted but they managed to balance the budget, eliminate welfare and reduce military spending to workable levels.
My impression of the tea party is that originally it was a group of people that were mad about out of control spending. Almost immediately it was taken over by fringe Republicans like the Koch organizations and it turned away from balanced budget toward tax cuts and no compromise government shut down. Around the same time the anti-Obama language (birthers, etc) drew in all the stormfront and other racists and rather than turn them away as kooks the tea party embraced them but works aggressively to keep them out of sight on TV (but are very apparent if you go to any actual rallies). I'd be a tea partier if they were actually interested in a balanced budget and doing whatever it took to get there (including raising taxes) but the whole idea of responsible governance isn't what the tea party is about, nor has it been since about 6 months after it's founding.
You don't honestly think that contract was totally preplanned for years and that the government always purchases rockets in blocks that large do you?
IMO that contract originated because ULA went to their government handlers and cajoled them into releasing the RFP before SpaceX could qualify. It is my understanding that the government does buy rockets in groups, but a 2 year 20 rocket group is unheard of and that this was the largest rocket purchase the government has ever made. ULA's salespeople will have personal relationships with all the contracting people in government. My bet is that ULA hoped by locking SpaceX out of the market for 2 years they would go bankrupt before they could go after another contract.
There should be a massive investigation going on for how that contract originated, why it's so large and what the relationships are between the ULA people and the government contracting officers.
I thought ULA convincing the government to advance purchase 2 years of launches (2billion dollars) a month before SpaceX qualified their rockets was an accurate picture of how Lockheed and Boeing intend to compete which is they intend to use government to prevent SpaceX from competing.
I see this as very similar to the parallel construction method. The DEA likely has controls on the information and logs requests to see it, by paying the Amtrak employee separately they can argue they never looked at the passenger information because it's not logged in the request. The defense can't say they used improper search methods because the log shows they never accessed it.
I'd be willing to be someone is in jail right now because of this information being accessed outside normal channels and had the defense known about it they would have been able to get the evidence thrown out.
Only if you are Sara Palin. (I'm not sure you understand the distance involved)
Seriously though, it's actually probably cheaper to lay it across the equator than try to put a cable across the bearing straight. The ocean is pretty turbulent in the straight, it's pretty turbulent any time you get closer to the poles. There were articles the other day that global warming has opened up so much water this summer north of canada that they've had 15' (3m) waves. You need calm water (including underwater currents of which there is a big one in the straight) when dropping miles of cable to the bottom of the ocean.
Consider for a moment you're in water a mile deep laying cable. The total suspended amount of cable from the boat to the bottom of the ocean is more than 2 miles, and with the armoring and other features may weigh several thousand pounds and have enough cross-sectional area that a couple mile per hour current passing over the cable could capsize your ship, drag the ship under or shear the cable in half. The forces they deal with when laying the cables is HUGE without waves and strong ocean currents. They need massive boats, calm waters and very careful monitoring to put these cables down. If you tear the cable in half while laying it you've got to find the end, drag it and several miles of cable off the bottom, cut the end and resplice everything including the power and armoring, water proof the splices and then relay the whole thing along with continuing to lay new cable.
Where possible they run the cable over islands to make the runs through the ocean shorter. But trying to lay the cable across the bearing straight would be a major challenge. It would be an even bigger challenge once you got it across the bearing straight to get it anywhere because it's about 2000 miles from anything on either end and it would come ashore in some of the most hostile territory on earth (such as all the ground being permafrost which means you can't really bury the cable).
Non-custodial kidnapping is the most common kind of kidnapping. Something like 99.99999% of all the kids on milk boxes are custodial kidnappings. But Christ, you're his Dad and he's 15, they could have asked him.
The world's gotten a bit insane.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
