A big part of the problem is that we have a society that seems to value getting the lowest possible price above all other considerations.
That leads to problems like Wal-Mart. It's a form of eating your own seed corn: paying lower prices means earning lower wages. That means the in the longer run, those low prices are no longer so low compared to median wages. Which means that what was once a great deal is now a trap: you can no longer afford to shop at a place that would actually help to lift the standard of living for your community.
"They are programmed to not copy money, at least U.S. money, don't know about other countries' currency."
This is not actually true (at least in the case of most printers).
What is true is that some printers include a hard-to-notice pseudo-watermark to allow tracing a print back to the specific machine that produced it. Also, money includes features that don't copy accurately with readily available scanners and copiers.
But the vast majority of machines will certainly allow you to make a traceable, poor quality copy of your money.
"if you think that will work I have a bridge to sell."
Precisely. On reading the patent, it's pretty clear to me that they're describing something that simply won't work outside of some fairly narrow use cases in business environments.
I see nothing in there that looks to be a serious problem for home users or business users who don't want to use the functionality.
I've started a few businesses in my time, and each time I've done a trademark search on the name I wanted to use -- to minimize the chances of exactly this sort of thing happening.
It always irks me. A proper trademark search is not a cheap thing to do, and it feels like wasted money. But changing a company name is very costly, so if the search lets me avoid accidentally treading on someone's trademark then I have saved a lot of money.
It sounds like such a search would have avoided this brewery's problem twice, and so I assume that they didn't do it.
If not, then while I'm sympathetic to their position, the fact is that they rolled the dice and lady luck was not smiling.
I'm am often surprised by the weird fact that when politicians discover "unexpected backlash" to some piece of legislation, they never seem to ask themselves how they got so out of touch with the people they theoretically represent and come up with some way to fix it.
I know that I shouldn't be surprised by this, but there we are.
The direction that the feds have taken on these topics has convinced me that even the finest constitutional amendment ever written would fail to have the intended results.
We have deviated too far from the idea of "rule of law" for it to work. Other things need to be addressed first.
It's hard to maintain a belief such as "the government respects the rights of the people" in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.
I assume that the issue is the posts that the facebook account holder made, not the posts others made that appear on his timeline. Is that not the case?
“The government’s move to counter extremism must not end up silencing us all,” said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. “We should resist any attempts to make it a crime for people of faith to talk publicly about their beliefs, for political parties to voice unpopular views, and for venues from universities to village halls to host anyone whose opinions challenge the status quo. We urge the government to use its consultation to ensure this does not happen.”
I agree with this. The problem is that literally every domestic program equates "countering extremism" with "not allowing extremists to advocate their views".
Which is precisely the same as "making it a crime to talk about unpopular views".
It's also counterproductive: censoring unpopular views leads directly to the implication that those views aren't really so unpopular. If there wasn't a fear that people would find them persuasive, nobody would bother with trying to censor them.
There is no law against a school doing this. Any school can certainly turn their own internet connection on or off as they wish, or just disable WiFi if they prefer.
What they couldn't do, of course, is to jam radio signals, so cell phone connectivity will remain. That's not a stupid law, that's a very good law.
It's not ridiculous at all, particularly if you've submitted them as evidence. Once it's evidence, you don't alter it in any way. It's a very fundamental rule that has been around for longer than the US because without it, determining truth can become the next best thing to impossible.
On the post: Cable Lobbying Group Claims More Competition Would Hurt Consumers
Re: Re:
That leads to problems like Wal-Mart. It's a form of eating your own seed corn: paying lower prices means earning lower wages. That means the in the longer run, those low prices are no longer so low compared to median wages. Which means that what was once a great deal is now a trap: you can no longer afford to shop at a place that would actually help to lift the standard of living for your community.
On the post: Judge In Child Porn Case Reverses Course, Says FBI Will Not Have To Turn Over Details On Its Hacking Tool
Re: Re: Pissing on due process
On the post: Russia Provides Glimpse Of A Future Where Powerful Facial Recognition Technology Has Abolished Public Anonymity
Re: Re: No, we are not ready to do so
On the post: IBM Wants To Patent A Printer That Won't Let You Output Unauthorized Copies
Re:
On the post: IBM Wants To Patent A Printer That Won't Let You Output Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: uhm, how?
This is not actually true (at least in the case of most printers).
What is true is that some printers include a hard-to-notice pseudo-watermark to allow tracing a print back to the specific machine that produced it. Also, money includes features that don't copy accurately with readily available scanners and copiers.
But the vast majority of machines will certainly allow you to make a traceable, poor quality copy of your money.
On the post: IBM Wants To Patent A Printer That Won't Let You Output Unauthorized Copies
Re: Re: Good.
Precisely. On reading the patent, it's pretty clear to me that they're describing something that simply won't work outside of some fairly narrow use cases in business environments.
I see nothing in there that looks to be a serious problem for home users or business users who don't want to use the functionality.
On the post: Brewery Changes Name For Second Time In Two Years Because Trademark
Of all the expenses
It always irks me. A proper trademark search is not a cheap thing to do, and it feels like wasted money. But changing a company name is very costly, so if the search lets me avoid accidentally treading on someone's trademark then I have saved a lot of money.
It sounds like such a search would have avoided this brewery's problem twice, and so I assume that they didn't do it.
If not, then while I'm sympathetic to their position, the fact is that they rolled the dice and lady luck was not smiling.
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
Re:
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
Re: Re:
Don't think that you have to choose between Brand A and Brand B.
On the post: Homeland Security Has Not Sent Us A Subpoena
Re: Re: For canary purposes...
On the post: Senators Wyden And Paul Introduce SMH Bill To Stop Massive Expansion Of Gov't Computer Hacking
Re: Wide bitartisan support in congress IS possible
On the post: Public Outcry Leads Minnesota Politician To Drop Terrible Idea For The PRINCE Act
Step outside
I'm am often surprised by the weird fact that when politicians discover "unexpected backlash" to some piece of legislation, they never seem to ask themselves how they got so out of touch with the people they theoretically represent and come up with some way to fix it.
I know that I shouldn't be surprised by this, but there we are.
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
Re: There's an app for that too:
The direction that the feds have taken on these topics has convinced me that even the finest constitutional amendment ever written would fail to have the intended results.
We have deviated too far from the idea of "rule of law" for it to work. Other things need to be addressed first.
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
Re: Encrypt Everything
On the post: Senators Wyden And Paul Introduce SMH Bill To Stop Massive Expansion Of Gov't Computer Hacking
Re:
On the post: Judge: Taking Your Facebook Account Private During Litigation Isn't Exactly 'Preserving Evidence'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Queen's Speech: More, Faster Broadband... But It Will Be Censored And Spied On
I agree with this. The problem is that literally every domestic program equates "countering extremism" with "not allowing extremists to advocate their views".
Which is precisely the same as "making it a crime to talk about unpopular views".
It's also counterproductive: censoring unpopular views leads directly to the implication that those views aren't really so unpopular. If there wasn't a fear that people would find them persuasive, nobody would bother with trying to censor them.
On the post: Subtle: Iraq Flips The Internet Switch For 3 Hours To Combat Cheating Students And Corrupted Teachers
Re: A Common Sense Solid Solution.
What they couldn't do, of course, is to jam radio signals, so cell phone connectivity will remain. That's not a stupid law, that's a very good law.
On the post: Government Argues That Indefinite Solitary Confinement Perfectly Acceptable Punishment For Failing To Decrypt Devices
Re: Re:
On the post: Judge: Taking Your Facebook Account Private During Litigation Isn't Exactly 'Preserving Evidence'
Re:
Next >>