We Only Use 100% NATURAL Logarithms

[Joerg]

[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[...]


It's rogue copyright "agency"
behavior. For example, a lot of links I send to Germans they end up not
being able to see because their "agency" (GEMA) deemed some jingle or
whatever on there to be violating copyright (as in their profit turf).
Since they are "the law" they can stop whatever they please.
We have a similar thing here. It's called the "IT Department". They
banned kyocera.com because it was a porn site, or something. It took
*months* to get that fixed. They kept arguing that I had no need to
go there since obviously there was some reason it was blacklisted.

Then I'd be in the CEO's office that same day, he is normally their top
level boss. That can turn months into same-day service, plus more polite
treatment in the future.
I doubt the CEO would see me. I never had a meeting with IBM's CEO,
either. He did send me a card, once, though. ;-)

Sorry, I meant CTO. They are usually the top of the command chain for IT.
Also across the big pond.

That has never stopped me.

8K miles is enough to stop me from saving them money. Well, it costs
me a few cents, too (I use my laptop).

There is something called a telefax machine if he won't take email

No joke, I found that a fax often triggered an instant response while
emails didn't.

Do you really think it's your job to decide how someone else decides
to use/control their property?

If they go as far as literally forbidding people to hum a tune, then
yes, it is my job.

No, it certainly is *not* minor. You can change companies and they
cannot throw you in prison.

Once their lawyers have you in their fangs you cannot "change
companies". And yes, they can have people put in prison. Clayton Baxter
got six years. AFAIK he really pirated software but those lines can blur
quickly.

Then there's lots of this stuff and here the lines can really blur:

http://coloradoindependent.com/9132...m-copyrighted-performances-if-new-bill-passes

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[...]


It's rogue copyright "agency"
behavior. For example, a lot of links I send to Germans they end up not
being able to see because their "agency" (GEMA) deemed some jingle or
whatever on there to be violating copyright (as in their profit turf).
Since they are "the law" they can stop whatever they please.
We have a similar thing here. It's called the "IT Department". They
banned kyocera.com because it was a porn site, or something. It took
*months* to get that fixed. They kept arguing that I had no need to
go there since obviously there was some reason it was blacklisted.

Then I'd be in the CEO's office that same day, he is normally their top
level boss. That can turn months into same-day service, plus more polite
treatment in the future.
I doubt the CEO would see me. I never had a meeting with IBM's CEO,
either. He did send me a card, once, though. ;-)

Sorry, I meant CTO. They are usually the top of the command chain for IT.
Also across the big pond.

That has never stopped me.

8K miles is enough to stop me from saving them money. Well, it costs
me a few cents, too (I use my laptop).

There is something called a telefax machine if he won't take email

No joke, I found that a fax often triggered an instant response while
emails didn't.

What's a fax? I don't know Japanese anyway. ;-)

If they go as far as literally forbidding people to hum a tune, then
yes, it is my job.

Citation needed.

Once their lawyers have you in their fangs you cannot "change
companies". And yes, they can have people put in prison. Clayton Baxter
got six years. AFAIK he really pirated software but those lines can blur
quickly.

If one company is "censoring" you, illegally, use another. ...or you
could even pay for the rights to use someone else's property (like I'm
sure you expect, for yourself).

Then there's lots of this stuff and here the lines can really blur:

http://coloradoindependent.com/9132...m-copyrighted-performances-if-new-bill-passes

The fact is that a corporation cannot put you in prison. ...and you
are *not* forced to deal with them.

 

[Joerg]

[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[...]

[...]

If they go as far as literally forbidding people to hum a tune, then
yes, it is my job.

Citation needed.

I don't have that anymore. It was a Youtube clip when someone sang a
tune, with lots of other noise around. A few days later one of the big
labels had it shut down.

If one company is "censoring" you, illegally, use another. ...or you
could even pay for the rights to use someone else's property (like I'm
sure you expect, for yourself).

It's not about using a company, it's about being attacked by one.
Happens all the time, it all depends how well "connected" they are and
how much money they have.

The fact is that a corporation cannot put you in prison. ...and you
are *not* forced to deal with them.

Once they have dragged you into court that is not true. There, they'll
have the bigger guns. I've seen that in IP tussles (patents) where
sometimes one has to wonder why the judge didn't toss out the lawsuit
brought by the big guns, because it was so flimsy.

 

[Joerg]

[snip]

There is something called a telefax machine if he won't take email

No joke, I found that a fax often triggered an instant response while
emails didn't.

[snip]

Yep. I dumped my fax landline, but I still maintain MyFax service
($3.95/month) for dealing with companies that live in the past ;-)

Why that? I have a Brother multi-function machine. It lives on the same
phone line as I do. Through the miracles of DSPs and all this good stuff
it can sense whether what's coming in is a fax, and then take over. If
it makes a mistake I can override it but it never made one in all the
years I had it.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[...]

[...]

It is plain old censorship, happening in the western world. Then of
course there are the various not-so-free countries where it's even worse.
Certainly countries like China and Iran (most of the ME) are big into
censorship. I don't see it here. There's no limit on the crap that's
out there.
I just had it happen this morning: "This video contains content from EMI
Music Publishing and EMI, one or more of whom have blocked it in your
country on copyright grounds". I still think I am in the US, although in
the last four years ... well, let's not go there ...
*WHO* blocked it?
I have no idea, I guess EMI got a court order and did it. Or maybe they
sent a threat letter. Lots of those companies effectively control what
you can and what you can't see on the Internet.
That's a little different than government censorship. I'm not an
anti-IP type, either. Are you?

No, of course not. But it goes too far when a little jingle in some
video is used as grounds to censor it. In some cases people used a
certain music just as background, with tons of noise on there. So
clearly unusable to bootleg a CD or whatnot. They were shut down.
Do you really think it's your job to decide how someone else decides
to use/control their property?

If they go as far as literally forbidding people to hum a tune, then
yes, it is my job.

Citation needed.

I don't have that anymore. It was a Youtube clip when someone sang a
tune, with lots of other noise around. A few days later one of the big
labels had it shut down.

If they're getting paid, they gotta pay. If they're walking down the
street, not so much.

It's not about using a company, it's about being attacked by one.
Happens all the time, it all depends how well "connected" they are and
how much money they have.

Attacked? Do you consider it "attacking" someone when you defend your
property?

Once they have dragged you into court that is not true.

Of course it is.

There, they'll
have the bigger guns. I've seen that in IP tussles (patents) where
sometimes one has to wonder why the judge didn't toss out the lawsuit
brought by the big guns, because it was so flimsy.

Show me *one* case where someone has been thrown in prison because of
a civil trial.

 

[Joerg]

[...]

It's not about using a company, it's about being attacked by one.
Happens all the time, it all depends how well "connected" they are and
how much money they have.

Attacked? Do you consider it "attacking" someone when you defend your
property?

If I am of the opinion that it's not their property or their right, yes,
then I consider that an attack. BT. Usually some agency or company
trying to strongarm and then they learned a hard lesson.

But let's leave it at that, we will never agree in this matter.

[...]

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:

[...]

In the end it doesn't matter whether censorship happens via government,
law or corporations. The effect is the same.
Oh, it matters. A lot!

The difference is quite minor. Think about why banks have nearly all the
power in the world nowadays.
No, it certainly is *not* minor. You can change companies and they
cannot throw you in prison.
Once their lawyers have you in their fangs you cannot "change
companies". And yes, they can have people put in prison. Clayton Baxter
got six years. AFAIK he really pirated software but those lines can blur
quickly.
If one company is "censoring" you, illegally, use another. ...or you
could even pay for the rights to use someone else's property (like I'm
sure you expect, for yourself).

It's not about using a company, it's about being attacked by one.
Happens all the time, it all depends how well "connected" they are and
how much money they have.

Attacked? Do you consider it "attacking" someone when you defend your
property?

If I am of the opinion that it's not their property or their right, yes,
then I consider that an attack. BT. Usually some agency or company
trying to strongarm and then they learned a hard lesson.

The law disagrees. So, you think a thug has the right to your wallet
because *he* thinks he does?

But let's leave it at that, we will never agree in this matter.

I guess not. I believe in property rights, even though I may be
inconvenienced by them once in a while. You *can't* have it both
ways.

 

[Joerg]

[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
[...]


In the end it doesn't matter whether censorship happens via government,
law or corporations. The effect is the same.
Oh, it matters. A lot!

The difference is quite minor. Think about why banks have nearly all the
power in the world nowadays.
No, it certainly is *not* minor. You can change companies and they
cannot throw you in prison.
Once their lawyers have you in their fangs you cannot "change
companies". And yes, they can have people put in prison. Clayton Baxter
got six years. AFAIK he really pirated software but those lines can blur
quickly.
If one company is "censoring" you, illegally, use another. ...or you
could even pay for the rights to use someone else's property (like I'm
sure you expect, for yourself).

It's not about using a company, it's about being attacked by one.
Happens all the time, it all depends how well "connected" they are and
how much money they have.
Attacked? Do you consider it "attacking" someone when you defend your
property?

If I am of the opinion that it's not their property or their right, yes,
then I consider that an attack. BT. Usually some agency or company
trying to strongarm and then they learned a hard lesson.

The law disagrees. So, you think a thug has the right to your wallet
because *he* thinks he does?

You digress. This side discussion was not about who actually has the
rights but who tends to get them if it comes down to the mat.

One example is playing out right now, not far from here. Don't have the
paper anymore but a 94-year old farmer was just told that they want to
start a rock quarry 50 yards behind his property line. Then his property
value and quality of life will become zilch. It also violates all kinds
of rules but ... the big corp dangled a three-digit number of potential
jobs in front of body politicus ...

AFAICT this guy has the rights squarely on his side yet he may lose this
battle. But he's going to put up a fight, he is a marine.

[...]

 

[rickman]

Show me *one* case where someone has been thrown in prison because of
a civil trial.

Obviously you aren't aware that copyright violation is a criminal matter!

 

[rickman]

You digress. This side discussion was not about who actually has the
rights but who tends to get them if it comes down to the mat.

One example is playing out right now, not far from here. Don't have the
paper anymore but a 94-year old farmer was just told that they want to
start a rock quarry 50 yards behind his property line. Then his property
value and quality of life will become zilch. It also violates all kinds
of rules but ... the big corp dangled a three-digit number of potential
jobs in front of body politicus ...

AFAICT this guy has the rights squarely on his side yet he may lose this
battle. But he's going to put up a fight, he is a marine.

Exactly what rights does the guy have? If zoning was changed to allow
the quarry, then he has options for compensation from both the
government and the quarry. If the zoning was already there, then he may
have no options because he has lost nothing. The possibility to build
the quarry was always there. It *is* true that you have rights to the
government not "taking" your property without compensation and this
includes factors that reduce your property value. But it can be a hard
case to show in court or otherwise.

In my home town there was a building in the historical "old town" that
was a Jacobs coat of many colors" in that it was oddball construction of
different types and none of them fancy. But it had been there from
before my childhood and was part of my memories. At some point the town
politicos wanted to use that part of town for development and tried to
get the owner to sell. They started harrassing him and tried to drive
him out of business with parking tickets on his own property (he had a
auto body shop). They finally just used condemnation to take the
property. They tore the building down in less than 30 days before the
historic commission could tell them not to and then let the lot sit
vacant for the next 8 years until it was turned over to a developer.

The owner was compensated, but at a value as judged by the city. He
lost a lot of free advertising because there was no location with the
same high visibility. There is no doubt in my mind that he was taken
with no options other than an expensive, protracted court fight. In
fact, I think he did fight for a while until he realized there was no
way he would win against taxpayer moneys.

 

[Joerg]

Exactly what rights does the guy have? ...

In particular, these:

http://www.takepart.com/article/201...rip-mine?cmpid=tpenviro-eml-2012-10-10-houses

Quote "Several state agencies, including the California Department of
Transportation, the Department of Conservation’s Office of Mine
Reclamation, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board,
and the California Department of Fish and Game, have expressed concerns
with the EIR.

Chief among the problems are cancer-causing toxins that would be
unleashed into the air over Ione Valley.

End quote.

... If zoning was changed to allow
the quarry, then he has options for compensation from both the
government and the quarry. If the zoning was already there, then he may
have no options because he has lost nothing. The possibility to build
the quarry was always there. It *is* true that you have rights to the
government not "taking" your property without compensation and this
includes factors that reduce your property value. But it can be a hard
case to show in court or otherwise.

This one would probably be fairly easy in court. But the major problem
is that the folks living there don't have a whole lot of money. The less
money, the more chances to be run over.

In my home town there was a building in the historical "old town" that
was a Jacobs coat of many colors" in that it was oddball construction of
different types and none of them fancy. But it had been there from
before my childhood and was part of my memories. At some point the town
politicos wanted to use that part of town for development and tried to
get the owner to sell. They started harrassing him and tried to drive
him out of business with parking tickets on his own property (he had a
auto body shop). They finally just used condemnation to take the
property. They tore the building down in less than 30 days before the
historic commission could tell them not to and then let the lot sit
vacant for the next 8 years until it was turned over to a developer.

IOW they acted like the Mafia and got away with it?

The owner was compensated, but at a value as judged by the city. He
lost a lot of free advertising because there was no location with the
same high visibility. There is no doubt in my mind that he was taken
with no options other than an expensive, protracted court fight. In
fact, I think he did fight for a while until he realized there was no
way he would win against taxpayer moneys.

Sad. It can be the same thing if instead of an unethical local
government you are facing a corporation. They simply have the bigger guns.

 

[[email protected]]

Obviously you aren't aware that copyright violation is a criminal matter!

Certainly you aren't aware that a criminal matter isn't handled in
civil court. Do go back to sleep.

 

[rickman]

Certainly you aren't aware that a criminal matter isn't handled in
civil court. Do go back to sleep.

Guess what, they also have criminal courts!

 

[Joerg]

What is the point of that quote? Of course people have "concerns". That
does not equal "harm". If the mining operation satisfies the various
government departments, which they have to do regardless of who the
neighbor is, the mine will go through.

Obviously the report did not satisfy various government departments. Yet
the local authorities went through with it anyhow.

Another local story is about some folks who bought new houses in the
county near a pig farm... so I need to tell you how that turned out? Pig
farms smell!!! The new owners didn't realize how bad it could be and
complained loudly. But as long as the farmer met regulations there
wasn't much to be done. Of course there was a lot of scrutiny by the
county, but they didn't exert undue pressure I believe. They just made
sure the farm was inspected regularly.

As long as the mine did not require changes to the county zoning, the
farmer in your case bought his farm knowing how the neighboring land was
zoned. He may have never expected a mine, but that was a possibility.
If the county made zoning changes to accommodate the mine then there
would be a clear case of loss of value to the farmer.

Very different story. The pig farm was already there. Same here, we have
a local GA airport. So people moving here should not complain about
noise. But then the airport board tried something rather nasty, wanting
to force a lot of us to pay for cutting of trees that had been there
much earlier. They learned never to try that again, and fast. At one
point they almost begged me to please stop the media barrage.

I don't know what you mean by "easy in court". If there were no zoning
changes then how would the neighbors have any cause?

When the environmental impact report is flawed they have cause.

Pretty much. I have a major beef with the city in the way they have
changed the entire downtown. They are pushing to make it attractive to
tourists and draw visitors to a new downtown core including much higher
density construction along with the attendant traffic congestion. When
I was a kid there was adequate parking on the street. Now there are
five parking decks. I was upset enough at one point that I created a
blog called "The Frederick Curmudgeon". Not that it has any impact.
This is one of those situations where it is all about the money it
brings to the town and how it raises property values.

Interestingly enough this was in full speed in the first half of the
last decade. They were even buying up some of the slummier part of
downtown to make it upscale housing. We all know how it ended. The
bubble burst and someone was left holding some very expensive condos in
what is still the "wrong side of the tracks". One place may well have
never sold a single condo!

I will be moving out as soon as I can get Obama care in states other
than Maryland.

Unless Obamacare implodes, which it very well might ;-)

The sad part is that no one seems to care. The people who watched it
happen are the old school locals who have always felt it is pointless to
try to intervene in politics. The new comers, who outnumber the old
schoolers now, don't realize what this place used to be like. They are
mostly from more urban areas and expect everything to change to be more
like what they came from.

Then it's indeed time to move out. Maybe into some more rural setting.
And then they open a quarry behind your house

 

[[email protected]]

Guess what, they also have criminal courts!

Guess what? You're illiterate. Not a shocker to anyone...

 

[Joerg]

By reforming medical liability laws.

Exactamente! That is a major reasion for cost explosion. Because not
just will patients in the end pay that $100k+ malpractice premium, they
will also be grossly over-medicated, over-examined, over-... just to
protect against lawsuits.

What was done about this in Obamacare? Zero, zilch, nada. Am I surprised
about that? No.

... By incentivizing true HMOs, like Kaiser. By
setting up cheap/free neighborhood clinics run mostly by nurses. By opening up
the insurance markets. By negotiating for generic drugs.

Fully agree.

Obamacare sold out to the big-money players.

What we have now works great as long as you can

And the reason is stated above. Also, there should be a law that the
chargemaster of any hospital must be open. Just like we expect to see
prices on supermarket shelves we ought to know prices for med procedures
_before_ going in, not as a nasty surprise afterwards.

It's designed to fail, and it will.

Yup :-(

 

[[email protected]]

Stop lying. The point isn't "universal" medical care, rather
"universal medical *insurance*, AKA a government takeover of the
medical industry.

By reforming medical liability laws. By incentivizing true HMOs, like Kaiser. By
setting up cheap/free neighborhood clinics run mostly by nurses. By opening up
the insurance markets. By negotiating for generic drugs.

That doesn't get us closer to "universal" health *insurance*, which is
what Obamacare, and all insurance legislation in the last forty years,
was designed to do. Obamacare was *designed* to fail, and take every
insurance company with it. There will be no choice but for the
government to step in and be everyone's nanny. See: Bloomberg.

Obamacare sold out to the big-money players.

They will, in turn, be sold out. There is no room for both business
and an unlimited government.

What we have now works great as long as you can

It's designed to fail, and it will.

Absolutely.

 

[rickman]

By reforming medical liability laws. By incentivizing true HMOs, like Kaiser. By
setting up cheap/free neighborhood clinics run mostly by nurses. By opening up
the insurance markets. By negotiating for generic drugs.

What does liability laws have to do with the price of medical care? In
Maryland some 10 years ago they capped medical liability to $250k. Did
any medical cost go down? No. They have continued to go up and up just
like everywhere else.

Changing the way medicine is delivered, yes, that will help reduce the
cost. But no one is pushing for that yet because those who pay their
own bills have little voice and most of the cost of insurance is paid
for by employers.

Opening insurance markets... huh? Insurance doesn't set the price of
medical care except to reduce it by negotiating fees. It is not
uncommon for the price under insurance to be a tiny fraction of what the
medical companies will charge individuals. A friend had a >$100 lab fee
which the insurance company knocked down to the negotiated rate of just $3.

Obamacare sold out to the big-money players.

That is just ranting. Why not stick to a rational discussion.

It's designed to fail, and it will.

Ok, more ranting. Do you have any facts you would like to discuss?

 

[rickman]

Exactamente! That is a major reasion for cost explosion. Because not
just will patients in the end pay that $100k+ malpractice premium, they
will also be grossly over-medicated, over-examined, over-... just to
protect against lawsuits.

What was done about this in Obamacare? Zero, zilch, nada. Am I surprised
about that? No.



Fully agree.




And the reason is stated above. Also, there should be a law that the
chargemaster of any hospital must be open. Just like we expect to see
prices on supermarket shelves we ought to know prices for med procedures
_before_ going in, not as a nasty surprise afterwards.

What reason? Liability?

Prices in hospitals are like prices in the auto parts store. They have
different columns for different customers. If you have no insurance,
you pay top dollar. That should be criminal! Don't rant at me about
liability causing it because there is no substantiation to that claim.
For a fairly rational person you seem to go off without facts over some
issues.

Yup :-(

Time will tell.

 

[Joerg]

What reason? Liability?

Our screwed up tort law.

Prices in hospitals are like prices in the auto parts store. They have
different columns for different customers. If you have no insurance,
you pay top dollar. That should be criminal! ...

That's why I say: Open the chargemaster to the public. Just like the
auto parts store shows its prices to the public before they buy (it's
the law), not after they have installed the parts and can't return them.
Because hospitals do the latter, you get treated and _then_ they tell
you what it costs.

... Don't rant at me about
liability causing it because there is no substantiation to that claim.
For a fairly rational person you seem to go off without facts over some
issues.

No, I happen to work in the medical device space and know this stuff. Do
you?

Who do you think ends up paying the $100k plus malpractice premium for a
cardiologist? Why do you think a doc who does simple diagnoses that
could be done with a $25k ultrasound system buys the $120k system? He
told me: "If I get dragged into court I can tell that I use the best
system on the patient that money can buy".

Time will tell.

But by then it's too late. Perfectly good health plans like ours will
have death-spiraled, and so on. Then we'll get a single payer socialixed
system because there won't be any other way out of the mess. And maybe
that's the real purpose behind all this?