Getting a dye to dye a bubble a solid color - without it pooling at the bottom and eventually popping the bubble - is actually a fantastically complex problem, and solving it involved some major advances in materials science and thin film physics. It's actually really interesting.
Or, I'm sure your mom just tossed some food coloring in there and it worked. Makes sense, right?
Does anyone know of a consortium or clearinghouse or some other type of group where someone can donate legal services to this type of case? I can't think of a much better use for a law license.
just some guy named "Vichy". But, I'm an American, so I'm not really sure who he was. Have you ever heard the name?
And that whole France - England - USA thing is kind of silly now. Let's put it this way:
"Allow me to remind you, my dear Afghani friend, that if not for the US, you would be a Russian citizen today! Think about that before you criticize America and its wartime actions."
Now, that sounds ridiculous NOW, and these events AREN'T hundreds of years stale.
Re: Re: Efficiency isn't always the most valuable thing in the world
I am truly, truly happy for you, Gwiz, that for you finding a new job is such a trivial thing that losing a job isn't an idea that bothers you. That is not the experience of the majority of Americans, however.
And you are absolutely right that employment is not a zero-sum game, but I don't think you really thought through your statement while you were making it. Right now, employment is a negative sum game, in the United States and - it seems - around the world. When I say jobs are going away and not being replaced, what did you think that means? It means that the people displaced DON'T find jobs doing other things, because there are no jobs to find.
If the answer to this is that I need to pay more for shipping, and the FAA disallows Amazon from using drones - but tens of thousands of UPS drivers keep their livings - well, it's worth talking about the value proposition there.
Efficiency isn't always the most valuable thing in the world
I find it profoundly weird that not a single comment here even considers that there might be a value to anything other than lowest cost.
Look, don't get me wrong - my household gets about three Prime packages a week, on average. I'm not anti-Amazon. But I am, more and more, becoming suspicious of the viewpoint that sees economic efficiency and lowest cost as the single overriding factor in every decision.
It's at least worth asking the question, "do bookstores provide something beyond lowest-price value that deserves protectionism." The answer is hardly a forgone conclusion on either side.
The more I think about it, though, the more I am starting to think that the answer is "yes - jobs." That's the thing about efficiency - the money that it saves is saved through eliminating jobs. Jobs that aren't replaced anywhere else in the economy and will never come back. Should the government move to eliminate the business model that destroys those jobs?
Dear god, I don't know, that's an insanely complicated question. But you've got to at least admit that it's a question. It's possible that we're efficienting ourselves back into a feudal system, and we should at least have a discussion about it before we get there.
We're not talking about parents not watching their kids here.
We are talking about corporations preying on children in order to get at their parents' wallets. The FCC stopped (rightly although not successfully so, IMO) toy companies from bombarding kids with ads, and none of those ads asked the kids to go to their parents' safe, take out the money, and mail it to Mattel.
Stopping things like this is literally the central function of government.
Really? You don't understand why companies do this kind of thing?
Maybe you shouldn't be reporting on this kind of issue then :-) I think most of us understand it just fine, even if we don't agree and think it's stupid...
Let's assume that google peeked into the account to look at its last accessed date. It hadn't been accessed since June 23; that means it probably hadn't been accessed for far longer than that.
If Google sees that this is a dead account, and GS has already gone to court, there's no real harm done here. Yes, we'd prefer that Google fought to the last ounce of blood; yes, this worries us about what google might do if it were a LIVE account. However, at its heart there's nothing wrong with Google looking at the situation and acting reasonably about it; it's what I'd recommend were I advising them.
and I've gotta say, I generally love it - it hits right in my wheelhouse, the intersection of law and tech. But there are all too many "sky is falling" articles like this one. Aereo is a bad decision, no disagreement there - but in the long run it's going to be a decision quickly forgotten. This isn't the first bad Supreme Court decision. It's not the first one that has seemed to open a novel line of legal attack ("looks like cable.") Despite the Court getting it wrong frequently, the sky has not fallen, creators continue to create.
Disruptive technology, by its nature, routes around decisions like this. Aereo on its face - its ridiculous Rube Goldberg tech solution - was such an attempt. Unfortunately, despite being a cool hack, I would bet that - to many members of the Court - what Aereo was doing looked awfully like a bad actor attempting to get around legal requirements through technology that didn't exist at the time. I may not agree with the court's decision, but it's definitely one where I can at least see what animates it.
In the end, nobody - except maybe a few district court judges, let's not underestimate people :-) - will interpret this case in such a way as to bring about the end of technical innovation in America. And Techdirt is less valuable to me for this kind of sky is falling rhetoric.
I mean, have you never heard of Darrell Issa before today? "Rep Issa manipulates hearing to suit his political goals" is a dog bites man story. Tell me about a hearing he DOESN'T manipulate and I'll be impressed. Yes, he's occasionally wound up on the right side of things, but 99% of the time he's exactly what people despise when they think of Congress.
For the people who think that it is trivial for Ubi to add female models, and that cost was not an issue... What do you think their reason actually was?
Ugh, I hate feeling like I'm defending people I don't like for doing things I think are silly...
I think people are being a little too quick to dismiss Ubi's defense...
There was an article on the defunct PA News site about how much money it costs to add new characters into games. The game in question was an indie fighting game, so I assume the costs were lower than they are in a AAA powerhouse like Assassin's Creed. If I remember correctly, they were pretty significant - something like $150k to add one character.
I'm not trying to defend Ubi here, but I am try to defend their defense :-) I think people are blowing off their "costs too much" rationale a bit too easily.
Of course, "Costs too much" really means "We don't think having female models in the game will make us as much money as the art and voice assets will cost us," which isn't the world's best defense but, hey, capitalism.
People from Naughty Dog and Bioware have weighed in and they know way more about this stuff than me, of course... but if they're right, I have to admit I don't get it. I'm straining my mind for an explanation other than "costs too much" or "we hate women in our games," and without one I'm likely to settle on "costs too much."
On the post: DailyDirt: Making Good Toys
Re: Yes, it's not as easy as that...
Getting a dye to dye a bubble a solid color - without it pooling at the bottom and eventually popping the bubble - is actually a fantastically complex problem, and solving it involved some major advances in materials science and thin film physics. It's actually really interesting.
Or, I'm sure your mom just tossed some food coloring in there and it worked. Makes sense, right?
On the post: Florida State Attorney's Office Demands $180,000 To Release Records Pertaining To A Questionable Suicide
Pro bono?
On the post: Court Fines French Blogger $3,400 For Her Negative Review Of Local Italian Restaurant, Il Giardino
I hadn't heard of the resistance...
And that whole France - England - USA thing is kind of silly now. Let's put it this way:
"Allow me to remind you, my dear Afghani friend, that if not for the US, you would be a Russian citizen today! Think about that before you criticize America and its wartime actions."
Now, that sounds ridiculous NOW, and these events AREN'T hundreds of years stale.
On the post: France Passes Anti-Amazon Law Eliminating Free Shipping; Amazon Responds With 0.01 Euro Shipping Fees
Re: Re: Efficiency isn't always the most valuable thing in the world
And you are absolutely right that employment is not a zero-sum game, but I don't think you really thought through your statement while you were making it. Right now, employment is a negative sum game, in the United States and - it seems - around the world. When I say jobs are going away and not being replaced, what did you think that means? It means that the people displaced DON'T find jobs doing other things, because there are no jobs to find.
If the answer to this is that I need to pay more for shipping, and the FAA disallows Amazon from using drones - but tens of thousands of UPS drivers keep their livings - well, it's worth talking about the value proposition there.
On the post: France Passes Anti-Amazon Law Eliminating Free Shipping; Amazon Responds With 0.01 Euro Shipping Fees
Efficiency isn't always the most valuable thing in the world
Look, don't get me wrong - my household gets about three Prime packages a week, on average. I'm not anti-Amazon. But I am, more and more, becoming suspicious of the viewpoint that sees economic efficiency and lowest cost as the single overriding factor in every decision.
It's at least worth asking the question, "do bookstores provide something beyond lowest-price value that deserves protectionism." The answer is hardly a forgone conclusion on either side.
The more I think about it, though, the more I am starting to think that the answer is "yes - jobs." That's the thing about efficiency - the money that it saves is saved through eliminating jobs. Jobs that aren't replaced anywhere else in the economy and will never come back. Should the government move to eliminate the business model that destroys those jobs?
Dear god, I don't know, that's an insanely complicated question. But you've got to at least admit that it's a question. It's possible that we're efficienting ourselves back into a feudal system, and we should at least have a discussion about it before we get there.
On the post: FTC Goes After Amazon For Kids' In App Purchases As Apple Begs FTC To Go After Google As Well
We're not talking about parents not watching their kids here.
Stopping things like this is literally the central function of government.
On the post: Judge Not Impressed By Ross Ulbricht's 'But Bitcoin Isn't Money' Defense
Re: Money
So can beans. And sex. So I guess beans and sex are money too."
That's fascinating - where is there a bean exchange?
Especially, where is there a sex exchange? I'd really like to visit THAT place. What are the market prices like?
On the post: Tilted Kilt Files Trademark Suit Against Golf Course With Kilted Employees
One nitpick...
That is totally unnecessary. Aside from that, good analysis.
On the post: Keurig Begins Demonstrating Its Coffee DRM System; As Expected, It Has Nothing To Do With 'Safety'
Really? You don't understand why companies do this kind of thing?
On the post: Goldman Sachs Asks Court To Have Google Delete An Email With Client Info; Google Blocks Access To The Email
Think about it for a minute...
If Google sees that this is a dead account, and GS has already gone to court, there's no real harm done here. Yes, we'd prefer that Google fought to the last ounce of blood; yes, this worries us about what google might do if it were a LIVE account. However, at its heart there's nothing wrong with Google looking at the situation and acting reasonably about it; it's what I'd recommend were I advising them.
On the post: The Aereo Ruling Is A Disaster For Tech, Because The 'Looks Like Cable' Test Provides No Guidance
I just found this site about a month ago...
Disruptive technology, by its nature, routes around decisions like this. Aereo on its face - its ridiculous Rube Goldberg tech solution - was such an attempt. Unfortunately, despite being a cool hack, I would bet that - to many members of the Court - what Aereo was doing looked awfully like a bad actor attempting to get around legal requirements through technology that didn't exist at the time. I may not agree with the court's decision, but it's definitely one where I can at least see what animates it.
In the end, nobody - except maybe a few district court judges, let's not underestimate people :-) - will interpret this case in such a way as to bring about the end of technical innovation in America. And Techdirt is less valuable to me for this kind of sky is falling rhetoric.
On the post: Rep. Issa Pretends Net Neutrality Means The End Of Porn Online
Why are you so surprised?
On the post: Fans Mad At Ubisoft For Nixing Female Characters In 2 Games; Ubisoft Mumbles Something About Cost
So again, I ask...
Ugh, I hate feeling like I'm defending people I don't like for doing things I think are silly...
On the post: Fans Mad At Ubisoft For Nixing Female Characters In 2 Games; Ubisoft Mumbles Something About Cost
I think people are being a little too quick to dismiss Ubi's defense...
I'm not trying to defend Ubi here, but I am try to defend their defense :-) I think people are blowing off their "costs too much" rationale a bit too easily.
Of course, "Costs too much" really means "We don't think having female models in the game will make us as much money as the art and voice assets will cost us," which isn't the world's best defense but, hey, capitalism.
People from Naughty Dog and Bioware have weighed in and they know way more about this stuff than me, of course... but if they're right, I have to admit I don't get it. I'm straining my mind for an explanation other than "costs too much" or "we hate women in our games," and without one I'm likely to settle on "costs too much."
Next >>