Rich Wrote: ...If I use it as a credit card, the merchant pays the fee. If I use it as a debit card, I pay the fee...
That is completely incorrect. The merchant pays a fee either way. The fees for Credit card purchases are usually a small flat fee plus a percentage of the charge, for Debit card purchases the flat fee is higher, but the percentage charge is lower. This means that, for most merchants, it is more beneficial to use Debit for large purchases and credit for small ones. The merchant pays a fee either way though.
On a side note: Your bank charges you additional fees for Debit purchases? Sounds like you need a new bank.
So, I keep thinking about these back scatter imaging machines. If you could print a t-shirt with some metallic ink, would it show up on the image? You could have some special message just for the person looking at the images.
Test banks are not study guides or sample questions, they're used to generate unique electronic tests for each test taker. So the exam may only be 50 questions, but the bank has 500 questions...
...Of course this is cheating. It is available to instructors. This is why Ebay prevents selling of instructor manuals, they're intended for instructors.
That is ridiculous logic. First off, if a student who was preparing for a 50 question test studied enough to have a mastery of all 500 questions, then that student obviously deserves to do well on the test, and I can't think of how that would be cheating (unless he used a crib sheet or something). Second, security by obscurity (saying that the materials are only available to instructors) is the poorest security possible.
The fact of the matter is that the professor was lazy and chose to make his test without modification from a source that was easily accessible. He then decided to blame the students for his own poor judgment.
It's funny that they would use the "cost of a latte" for comparison. Starbucks added up the "cost of a latte" to the tune of $10 billion in Gross sales, and $317 million in profit in 2008. Someone needs to show these folks that you can take something that sells for a small amount, sell it a bunch of times, and suddenly make a large amount of money.
American leagues are very good about this - MLB, NBA and NFL offer live games through the internet at very reasonable prices and the feeds are good too, except perhaps for the NFL.
Really? You consider paying $100 per season for access to only the non-televised NBA games, and no chance of watching the playoffs or finals to be a good option? I think I'll keep using my free streams with none of those silly limits.
Well, if you had an ounce of reading comprehension you might have noticed that he framed the whole thing in the context of the fact that many people compare electronic voting systems with ATMs under the idea that ATMs are the pinnacle of security.
it has to be friday, that is the only time vapid shit like this appears on techdirt.
This is the fourth time today you've mentioned that it's Friday, then made some asinine comment about how "this type" of article is only posted on Fridays. Nothing that has been posted today seems different from what is normally posted on Techdirt.
Are you really so much of a blowhard that you can't even come up with something meaningful to say?
they are back to dancing on the head of a pin, trying to find a way to avoid paying for their bad acts.
Sounds to me like US Copyright Group is dancing on the head of a pin, trying to find a way to abuse the legal system so they can file against 5,000 people while only paying for one filing fee. They also seem to be dancing around the need for actual proof.
doesn't the technology only have to show enough probably cause to allow for a seizure of computer?
You should try reading the article before asking questions that have already been answered. As clearly stated in the article, a technology that fits under the "Not Certified" classification is not usable even for discovery purposes, and therefore could not be used to justify probable cause.
Also, the fact that hundreds of computers can simultaneously connect to the internet through the same IP address means that knowing what IP address was used does not mean that you know what computer was used.
So I was at a local grocery store yesterday, and I noticed a $1 DVD rental kiosk. At first I thought it was a Redbox kiosk, but the colors weren't right. I took a closer look, and it was actually a Blockbuster Video rental Kiosk renting DVDs for $1, just like Redbox.
Of course, I think the 28 day delay that the studios have on Redbox is ridiculous, but if they are imposing the delay on Redbox, shouldn't they also be imposing the delay on Blockbuster now too?
what we do know is that a significant amount of the population enjoys movies without paying. if the movies were not available for free, would they still want to see them? if the answer is yes, then it is clear that there is a negative effect from piracy.
Very interesting jump you made there. I am very curious how wanting to see a movie turns into revenue. Last I checked I can want to see a movie a whole bunch, but unless I plunk down some cash then there is no revenue. There have been lots of movies that I may have wanted to see but never did.
There is also a big flip side to your argument: If the movies were not available for free, would less people know about the movie and paid to see it? If the answer is yes, then it is clear that there is a positive impact from piracy.
so you say that viacom should be able to perfectly control it's thousands of employees and contractors exactly at the same level that youtube and its 10 or so employees at the time could not be controlled?
No, that's not what is being said at all, and you know it. What is being said is that there is no way for YouTube to identify and remove infringing content automatically. Even if you hired a huge team of people to watch every uploaded video, there would be no way for that team of people to know "this video is infringing, this one isn't".
They would use a technique called "Pacing". They drive behind or in front of you at or above the speed limit. If you are behind them and you catch up to them, then they know you were going faster than the limit. If they are behind you and your distance from them increases then they know you were over the limit. It was an unreliable technique in that it was still difficult to ascertain the exact vehicle speed, and also allowed for the possibility of abuse by the officer, which is why better techniques (i.e. radar) were developed.
doc, i was around long before the first rss feed hit the net. heck, i was around before html hit the net.
Okay. So you are old. What difference does that make?
all the nyt wants is to not be part of a paid app. the seller of the app may be using the presence of these news feeds in the app to sell the app.
Except that in actuality there are not advertising the ability to read the NYT to sell their app. They are advertising their ability to read RSS feeds to sell the app. Even if they were saying things like "use our RSS reader to view the NYT RSS feed" it shouldn't matter. It would be like a TV maker saying "Use our TV's to watch NBC".
if the app was free, i am sure they would not care.
What difference does that make? Free apps still make money one way or another. If there was a paid internet browser, would it be forbidden from the NYT website?
basically, they dont want to be bookmarked when someone else is getting paid for the bookmark list.
They aren't getting paid for a bookmark list. They are being paid for an RSS reader. Any user can add any RSS feed they want to the their list of feeds.
Lower Case Coward: You once again show your complete inability to grasp the concept. RSS and RSS readers are akin to HTML and internet browsers. It is a way of putting info online, and end-users can use the reader/browser they choose to access it. By your non-logic if there were an internet browser that was not free, then NYT would not allow you to browse their website with that non-free browser.
You can read an RSS feed with any of a hundred different RSS reader apps, but for some reason if it is a paid-for app NYT says that is not acceptable. This makes no sense. If NYT doesn't want people to access their RSS feed with their reader of choice then they shouldn't put an RSS feed out there.
And don't kid yourself. It's not the NYT content that is selling the RSS reader. The fact that it is a useful RSS reader is what sells it.
what i find really odd is that people are (according to the post above this one) reading and consuming more, yet the companies and individuals who produce the content are suppose to do it for free. i am amazed that you cannot see a basic supply and demand issue that says free isnt the answer.
He has never said that the companies and individuals who produce the content need to do it for free. You pulled that out of nowhere. He has said that the companies and individuals are best off finding better ways to monetize the content, and that most of their current ideas of monetizing their content are shortsighted. Radio and Broadcast Television never charged the end user. Newspapers and Cable TV made most of their money from advertising, not from subscription fees. Why should it be different for internet distribution?