Hey folks! Just to clarify: I said that the UK would renegotiate its relationship to the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive) and Iain (reasonably enough, given the noisy room) heard OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). Just a minor clarification, but I'd appreciate an upvote so confused people see it.
This excellent blog article describes a technique developed by Judea Pearl decades ago to do exactly this. Would be interested to understand how this is different/better.
"Banking is protected by law, any lost money will be reimbursed."
The controlling federal laws are the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA)( (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.). If you report an ATM or debit card missing before someone uses it, the EFTA says you are not responsible for any unauthorized transactions.
However, unlike credit cards, if someone makes unauthorized use of your debit or ATM card and if you do not learn of the transactions and report them after 2 business days but less than 60 calendar days after your statement is sent to you, you are liable for $500. After 60 days, “All the money taken from your ATM/debit card account, and possibly more; for example, money in accounts linked to your debit account.”
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/ar...
"Cars and houses have insurance."
Yes, but there are deductibles to pay, hundreds if not thousands of dollars before the insurance company begins to reimburse the insured.
Civilians do not understand what
Civilians have been told the internet is a safe place to buy things, send images by email and store payment data and the like. They believe it. Those people did what are in retrospect foolish things, merely because believed what they were told.
The only way to never see yourself naked on the internet is to never take nude photos. Period. After that, it's just a matter of percentage of chance. Not fair or right, but true.
It's easy to say things like this when you are 40 or 50 or 60. I'm 50 and this sounds quite logical to me.
Of course, at age 21 I never thought I'd see 30.
When you are still alive at 74 and feeling ok, the instinct to survive doesn't allow for anything other than "keep going." No higher level thinking kicks in and says "Right. It's all down hill from here. Fuck it."
You will want to see one more sunset, see your great-grandchildren, smile at one more memory.
Ezekiel J. Emanuel is 63, he has 12 years left. Talk to me in 11, Doc.
The Fourth Amendment only applies to the Federal government, and no state statute can reduce or increase those rights. Of course, the state itself may be limited by the Fourth (through the Fourteenth), and in that case, no state statute can reduce those rights. California may try to pass laws that provide additional protection not governed by the Fourth, provided it does not violate the Supremacy clause, and that's fine, but its unlikely to limit federal activities expressly provided for by federal statute.
There is no real dispute over the right to wiretap without a warrant (although some claim to the contrary, its not the Federal government doing the claiming), at least not since the Bush administration got into hot water over that issue.
As to the applicability of the Fourth to metadata acquisition, the Supreme Court addressed that point more than thirty years ago in Smith v. Maryland. Cases claiming that Smith is somehow inapplicable to the NSA issues are working their way through the courts, and time will tell. But it is still a legal reach to assert
that metadata acquisition somehow violates the Fourth Amendment, without qualification, given the clear Supreme Court law on the subject.
The question whether copyright existed to protect the "look and feel" of an application was open until the Supreme Court affirmed (4-4 en banc without opinion) the First Circuit decision in Lotus v. Borland. That case took decades to litigate, but addressed whether Borland was permitted in Quattro to execute Lotus 1-2-3 macros (the damned "/" tree of letter commands), even though the macro language was not aptentable. The mere "embodiment" of the "/" tree was deemed by Lotus to be protectible copyright. (In my view, Kapor should have been made a pariah for this assertion, but hey, its just me.)
The First Circuit held that when expression (if you can call the letter tree expression) equates to funtionality, it has merged with the unprotectible functionality. That has been the basis of almost all Copyright law since that time regarding reverse engineering and competition in the software industry. Any other rule would yield considerable chill to adopting new technologies, and in implementing imrpovements. The Internet itself might not have evolved as it did.
The most significant example was the Phoenix BIOS, a reverse-engineered implementation of the BIOS for the IBM PC that made clones possible. Under the Federal Circuit rule in Oracle, the Phoenix (and its progeny) would have been infringing, and we would live in a very different world than we do today.
I am cautiously optimistic that the Federal Circuit will take this matter up en banc and reverse, or perhaps SCOTUS will set it right. Until then, the conflict between Oracle and Borland cases will create a chilling uncertainty in the industry that will educate my granchildren's education, but serve little other good purpose.
In my view, an API merges with its functionality and should be unprotectable. That was the law everywhere in the United States, until today.
... and balls. Guys like him reached for a slide rule, locked themselves in a room with only the materials known to be on the mission and not only came up with the solution, but instructed some nervous, heat-stroked astronauts to build it.
Which they don't follow. http://www.investopedia.com/te... There's ALL sorts of games you can play with revenue recognition alone.
Anyone here want to rely on Chinese accounting practices? http://www.chinaaccountingblog...
There are no securities laws in China similar to those in the US that require transparency so investors know what they are buying.
Hell, this will be a great IPO, just flip it on the first day. Make your profit and watch it crash.
And now to illustrate: the classic accountant's joke.
There once was a business owner who was interviewing people for a division manager position. He decided to select the individual that could answer the question "how much is 2+2?"
The engineer pulled out his slide rule and shuffled it back and forth, and finally announced, "It lies between 3.98 and 4.02".
The mathematician said, "In two hours I can demonstrate it equals 4 with the following short proof."
The physicist declared, "It's in the magnitude of 1x101."
The logician paused for a long while and then said, "This problem is solvable."
The social worker said, "I don't know the answer, but I a glad that we discussed this important question.
The attorney stated, "In the case of Svenson vs. the State, 2+2 was declared to be 4."
The trader asked, "Are you buying or selling?"
The accountant looked at the business owner, then got out of his chair, went to see if anyone was listening at the door and pulled the drapes. Then he returned to the business owner, leaned across the desk and said in a low voice, "What would you like it to be?"
I mentioned my faith as a thing that guided me and there was a maelstrom of haters. WTF? If you don't have a religion, you don't hear me trying to convert you. I don't give a Parson's fart if you do. And I don't really care what you think about me. It's just amazing that atheists want to spend so much energy to mock other people.
Kinda fucked up, really.
New York University is now $42,000 a year tuition for liberal arts 4 year undergrad. Add $13,000 for housing, $4,000 for meal plan and food, and $1,000 for books and supplies and you are at around $60,000 per year undergrad at NYU, or $240,000 for a 4 year liberal arts degree. This is for a school that ranks 32d nationwide in universities. (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/new-york-university-2785)
Tuition: (http://www.nyu.edu/bursar/tuition.fees/rate13/ugcas.html)
Housing: (http://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/resLifeHousServ/documents/AY20132014_Rates.pdf)
Meal plan: (http://www.campusdish.com/en-US/CSE/NYU/MealPlans/)
Books: (http://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/financialAid/documents/financialfacts.pdf)
US News and World (http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2008/10/30/how-much-is-that-college-degree-really-worth) reports over a graduates lifetime, that degree really only adds $300,000 extra salary as a direct result of a degree. Why would you give up the opportunity cost of earning for 4 years at a job as well as $240,000 to get $300,000?
Because the jobs you get for the rest of your life are not the ones where you ask "Paper or plastic?" Not the back breaking, "working for the Man" bullshit jobs that you get without a degree. Instead of jobs, graduates get careers: with health insurance, vacation and promotions. Quality of life is better.
I am quite happy with what I got. I still talk with people from school. It was hard, but I feel I got my money's worth.
Is it that people do better because they went to college or that people who are willing to delay gratification, work hard, broaden themselves intellectually, converse with smart people who also become successful and build a network of successful people?
The kind of person willing to shoulder debt and phone it in will never win. Just because you attended a college and got a degree doesn't mean it did anything for you.
College is an opportunity to intern, find mentors, meet peer groups and try things you might want to do for a living. It's also a place to expand beyond the modalities of your earlier life. A Liberal Arts degree requires subjects that allow a person to appreciate the world in a better perspective.
So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand
