genericuser

I like part of Ruth Goldstein's, one of the park conservancy founders, response in that article. While I am fairly confident that asking and trying to go through legitimate channels to get the bust put up would not of worked, what she said makes me think there are at least people who would consider it, although probably not high enough in power structures to actually get it done.

“The park is such a symbol of American liberty; that’s what it’s all about, the founding principals of it,” she said. “It (the bust) is almost appropriate but inappropriate to do it (put up illegally).”

I think the speed graffiti, bust, or other such expression is removed is going to be more or less relative to the amount of attention something draws / is expected to draw. Or at least I heard that is how wheels go about getting oil.

Its usually a large duffel which sits on the seat jammed between the seat back and the glove box, but point taken.

Personally I bought an OBDII cable and disabled my passenger seat belt chime. I got so sick of putting heavy objects in the passenger seat where they would be convenient to grab when I got out of the car, and having to strap them in to stop that horrible chime.

Certifying and proving such a system was actually fool proof would be quite costly though, as in house certification would probably not satisfy safety regulations.

Side note: most lights use inductive loops not weight sensors for vehicle detection.

Title is missing a word which makes it a bit cryptic.

Is A Must-Read Of

I consider the purpose of competitions like this to be as much about finding bugs as the purpose of running a marathon is to get people from point A to point B. That is competitions like this are mainly about public relations in the form of what is intended to be enjoyable community involvement, finding bugs is a pleasant side effect, like the transportation aspect of a marathon.

The old method mailed them how many times a song was played and total revenue for that song. Therefore it was easy to see the rates. With what you are describing they would only see average rate if you mail them the same sheet. It is not the same.

I agree those barriers should be removed in the majority of cases, as in the majority they seem to be purely protection for already existing businesses.

However it is important to note that some of the areas with the least competition, most regulations, and highest compliance costs exist in such a state due at least in large part to honest safety concern. Aerospace and Medical are the two broad areas that have many facets that immediately come to my mind as falling into this category.

Just saying it is important to remember our goal is safely bettering the world, not simply being able to stand atop a burning pile of rubble and yell Anarchy. Although I believe that sounds like a lot of fun too.

Adoption is directly effected by the implementation and design you choose. If your app is nothing more than a table and some aggregate statistics, because you just made the simple implementation with absolutely no design, then good luck getting musicians especially older ones who probably still rely on paper copies of their monthly records being gasp mailed to them to adopt the app.

It is not moving goal posts its considering whether the 'solution' will actually work given circumstances outside the technical feasibility.

Implementation and adoption are part of the complexity of a solution, in my book at least. I assume those who do not consider implementation and adoption part of the complexity have either come up with genuinely simple solutions to problems or never had to complete those portions of the task when they were not simple.

And gets every artist to happily learn how to use that app to examine 90000 entries in it? My whole argument is that his solution is not simple, while I agree designing, making, and getting artists to use this app which could be made, is indeed possible, would you not acknowledge it makes his solution just a tad more complicated than 'simple' to accomplish that design, creation, and acceptance?

Wow great catch on the the fact that any system that results in necessary artists being payed less, simply won't happen if Spotify wants to continue existing. Really applies to the entire scope of the article and not just the comment you replied to.

Pretty sure Spotify would have no problem with people who are paying for Premium choosing to not listen to music. Saves bandwith and doesn't reduce revenue, what is to not want?

Another thing to note (although it represents a pretty useless edge case) is that given a user who spends $10 a month on Premium if they were to listen to 1400 songs in a single month (10/(.005/.7)) bands who he is the only person who listens to and he only listens to once would receive nothing, due to accounting (and the ieee) using round to even, and 0 being the closest even penny.

I realize this the amount they are paying now per song is not too far above the $0.005 amount which rounds to 0, and therefore given changes in the market could potentially drop to an amount which would round to 0 for single play also. I also get that a single penny isn't what anyone is going to be upset about. Also that few artists will have a single play. I just find the low number of plays (1400 in a month isn't really that many) required by a person for an artist to potentially not get paid interesting.

And this whole time I was precisely talking about what would need to be sent to the artist...

Guess I am just missing your point, if you had one.

Edit due to reply since its getting nested way too deep: Thanks for clarifying. I never meant to say it was a reason to switch, complexity should never be a reason not to improve. I am just trying to say it isn't what I would call a 'simple' solution as the author asserts. I am also questioning just how much individual artists would actually want to receive all that information, which I believe would become necessary for them.

I never said it was a reason to. I simply said this method is anything but simple, as the author called it. Your method would require even more potential lines on the monthly report than the nearly identical method I described above. As yours would require a per user line, even though many of them would have duplicate rates.

Keep in mind things would still need to be split per song also, as rights holders vary per song.

Do you really think giving every artist that many potential lines of accounting every month can be called simple?

No, but I believe humanity in general wants things to be beneficial to them AND simple. Hell most Americans (being one myself) don't just 'want' they feel entitled to. Because of that, I believe a huge number of artists would not bother to make sense of monthly records which could reach 1800 pages, and would complain even though they were presented with such records explaining why their 50000 plays this month were less valuable than their 3 plays the prior month.

I am not saying the Spotify method should not be changed just showing that the proposal at hand should not be called 'simple'.

Please provide an example. As the examples I have seen of artists showing their Spotify payments do not support this assertion.

Here is a link to one such example I have seen which has each song paid at the same amount per play. This has made the number of items on the payment record to simply be the number of different songs which were played by that artist. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/B...

His proposition may sound simple to him, but it really isn't.

It becomes very hard to ensure you are being paid properly in his proposed scenario, I would personally expect it would create even more controversy, or extremely long payment records every month for artists.

For instance say we have 500 paid users. Lets call them user1 through user500. Each user listens to the same number of songs a month as the value following the word user in their name. Then we have 500 different rates at which artists are paid for their song playing ranging from the entire monthly fee to 1/500th the monthly fee. Therefore providing a full accounting of each of those rates would be necessary for an artist to understand why they got paid more the month they had a single play than the month they had 400 plays.

To be fair assuming the minimum song length on Spotify is 30 seconds this record provided to artists would have a max length of (31 * 24 * 60 * 2)+1 = 89281 items for premium users plus items for add supported users if they did not overlap exactly in rate. Assuming all Premium users paid the same rate, which is not the case.

Edit: I ignored the 0 listen use case, as well as spotify's 30% cut to simplify an already complicated 'simple proposal'. I also forgot to account for daylight savings time in which a day can have 25 hours.

Different people value the features of premium differently, no different than the market for any other good or service.

For instance, it is probably true that to some people $5 dollars a month is nothing compared to the torture of listening to a single ad ever.

After a week or so for people to adopt it send out $1 gifts to 100,000 (or however many that will represent a rounding error in dollars) people with accounts meeting some set of activity requirements, who have not yet signed up. They then have to enter their info to claim it, once their info is entered they have no barrier to use it and may send money to others further spreading it.

Also publicize that you will be giving like $1,000 to 100 lucky fb pay users who have performed at least 5 transactions, after 2 months of fb pay.

I mean Facebook just needs to get a decent initial seed of people to add their info, and for it to be so painfully stupidly easy that every relative on Facebook can now send their nephews/nieces and grand children those $5 birthday gifts so that it spreads.

Exactly he wasn't willing to risk the penalty of being labeled a felon.

And since suicide itself is a felony in something like 20 states, maybe not the best way to go to avoid being labeled a felon.

>"actually guilty...however absurd..it's law", so the law is always right no mater how absurd? How grotesque.

You don't get laws changed by disobeying them, and not being willing to risk the penalties. You have to work to get the law changed if you feel it is absurd.

The new Macbook is not a Macbook Air. The post I was replying to was specifically talking about Macbook Air. All its comparisons were with the $899 existing Macbook Air not the new Macbook.

A 2560x1700 resolution screen instead of a 1440x900 resolution screen

That article does not seem to claim that point in it. Maybe I just missed it. But I checked all usages of high, population, city, and cities, so if the point is made in that article is is done so with different enough language to be difficult to find considering the article's length.

Edit: That all means I am calling bullshit on that being a citation for that fact (or 'fact' depending on your view of it).

Cool trivia piece I didn't know prior to this

> And then there were the unwitting firsts, like what may be the earliest known version of “This page left intentionally blank,” preserved in a 1513 edition of the Greek orators included in the show, along with instructions to the binder to remove the extra leaf.

“He printed the instructions in Latin and Greek,” Mr. Clemons said. “But of course bookbinders couldn’t read Latin or Greek.”

The employers that I know of who do government work require that all computers/phones work is performed on be of certain manufacturers which are US companies, an issue like this is the exact thing they cite as the reason for not using foreign companies as providers of such hardware. So the chance of government data being stolen is minimal, so the chance of the US government caring much is unlikely. So I doubt this will wind up under that bus.

Two things to note the Engadget post on the topic has a slightly 'better' headline as it states the implications, but as it was a secondary source and slightly fear mongering, presumably to get clicks, I chose the primary source.

Second thing to note is that the maneuvers were not executed automatically, both articles would of been correct had that word been omitted though.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/17/predator-drone-sense-and-...