|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2013 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
| Finally, I comprehend the meaning of chutzpah. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, June 22 2013 @ 05:58 PM EDT |
They should look into what was happening in ham radio 20-30 years ago. Back
then, we could use packet radio, in a hop by hop fashion, to cover great
distances. The protocol used was a modified version of X.25 called AX.25.
Packet radio, on the amateur bands started in the early '70s. It was preceded
by the University of Hawaii Aloha Net, which was also the forerunner of
Ethernet.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2013 @ 11:30 PM EDT |
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130621/13450523560/patent-court-says-
adding-internet-can-make-abstract-idea-patentable.shtml
This is for ultramercials idea of forcing the viewing of advertisements before
viewing content....over the internet...same issue as TV stations on the
airwaves!
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2013 @ 05:30 AM EDT |
First a little caveat here. I don't intend to discuss other aspects of the
Zimmerman case. Only this technical aspect: whether the voice experts
testimony. Oh and one piece of expert lawyering by Don West.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-tri
al-experts-ruling-20130622,0,7655747.story
Today the Judge in the George Zimmerman case decided to exclude testimony from
the voice "experts" on the 911 calls. In one sense this is not
surprising.
Dr. Reich testified that his technique worked because his samples were 16 bit.
When defense experts looked at his data however they found that the actual data
was only 8 bits, it was simply stored as 16 bits. The cause of this is that a
phone call is generally transmitted in an 8bit format by the phone company.
While this does seem like an honest mistake it bothers me a bit that a voice
expert wouldn't know this.
More problematic was Mr. Owen who testified that he took all the screams,
appended them and fed them into a program to compare against Zimmerman's voice
-- despite the fact that no one could say they were all the same person
screaming. When this didn't give him enough a big enough sample, he then decided
to copy the sample and appended the copy to the original to get a sample twice
as long. I would hope that anyone with even a little bit of technical training
sees what a stupid thing that was.
Frankly I'm stunned that such a person is ever allowed to testify. ( Keep in
mind that at this point the judge has ruled and I don't think the prosecution
has much of a chance at appealing the decision and probably won't even try. So
at this point Owen's qualifictions are not relevant to the case. )
I'm reminded back in the 80's when Roland Cruz was convicted of the murder of
Jenine Nicarico. A large part of his conviction was due to a footprint
"expert" that claimed that one of the accuseds shoe print match that
on the door. Since then the expert has been discredited, Roland Cruz who was on
death row was released, another person Brian Dugan confessed to the crime. The
whole situation was a major factor in Illinois abolishing the death penalty. I'm
grateful that we don't once again have bad science preside over another
verdict.
As for the bit of good lawyering. As is usual in trials one side says the judge
is biased for the other side, one side denies a judge has bias. In this case the
side claiming a bias is the defense. While trying to stick to the general
principle of not impugning on a judge a general bias, one thing was clear in
this trial: when it came time to give someone the benefit of the doubt, the
judge would more often then not give it to the prosecution. Moreover in a chat
room of tea leave readers, there was general consensus among both the
proprosecution and prodefense sides that Judge Nelson was going to rule for the
prosecution on this.
The court day was ending and they were on the last topic for the day, which was
the Frye hearing. West first inquires of her if she had already made her ruling
on the Frye hearing. ( She had previously said they would get an answer that
day. ) To which he got back a testy reply. He then asked that something be
admitted as evidence for the Frye hearing. To which the judge blew up that he
was asking for a ruling but still giving her evidence. It turned out that what
he wanted to admit a composite of all the documents referred to in the Frye
hearing, which she then promptly went through.
I immediately thought that such a composite would have helped the judge earlier,
but it was late to be much help. Such a composite however would help the appeals
court get up to speed. Then I realized that the Judge would be thinking the same
thing. In effect what West was doing was telling the judge ( who was already
overruled once in the case in favor of the defense ) that if she ruled against
them they were ready to go immediately and get the ruling appealed. Which made
her make sure that she crossed all the t's in her ruling and may have caused her
to rule differently.
Mouse the Lucky Dog
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, June 23 2013 @ 06:33 PM EDT |
N.C. lawyers listen as Justice Scalia bemoans ‘moral
arbiter’ on eve of gay marriage ruling
I'm sorry, Mr. Scalia, but the
authors of the constitution already wrote the moral standards into the
Constitution. You can like it or not, but that doesn't change the language in
that document. The question before the court isn't the moral question of whether
homosexuality is right or wrong, but the legal question of "Does refusing to
extend rights and prerogatives to this particular group that the government
extends to other groups violate the rules laid down in the Constitution?". In my
book, Mr. Scalia, it's you who's setting himself up as the 'moral
arbiter'. You're the one who's saying we should look away from the text of the
14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which in
section 1 says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.", and apply the law unequally to one group because you don't
agree with the gender of their chosen partner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 23 2013 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
The difference is that if a non-US citizen puts their data with a US cloud
provider, the cloud provider may be legally required to grant the NSA access to
that data.
If the data is placed with an EU host, the NSA doesn't have that easy back door.
In fact rather the reverse, as EU privacy legislation mandates certain
protections.
I would rather put my data somewhere where NSA access is illegal rather than
where a swinging backdoor has been installed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kjs on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
" [PJ: Look at page 13 of the PDF, where you'll find this:
"Open Source Software - These organizations are requesting either 501(c)(3)
or 501(c)(6) exemption in order to collaboratively develop new software. The
members of these organizations are usually the for-profit business or for-profit
support technicians of the software. - There is no specific guidance at this
point. If you see a case, elevate it to your manager."] "
May be the reason why more and more Open Source projects form their official
"headquarter" in better countries like TDF aka LibreOffice in
Germany......
---
not f'd, you won't find me on farcebook[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 09:47 AM EDT |
PJ had commented on the article, stating, "PJ: What I'd want
to know is how much he gets from being played on the radio,
the regular radio, if his song is played a million times."
The data attached to the article actually states that
answer.
For the musician's song, "Low", terrestrial radio played the
song 18797 times, for a total royalty to that musician of
$1373.78. That comes out to a royalty of $0.073 per play
for that song on terrestrial radio. SiriusXM paid $181.94
for playing the song 179 times, for a royalty rate of $1.016
per song.
Pandora paid $16.89 for playing it 1.159 million times, at a
rate of $0.0000146 per song.
Now, this isn't exactly a fair question, though. Of course
the terrestrial radio and SiriusXM royalty rates are
significantly higher - when it is played on the radio, tens
of thousands of people hear it all at once. On SiriusXM,
again, tens of thousands of people hear it all at once.
When Pandora plays it, one person hears it.
That is why it is unacceptable to purchase "home"
cable/satellite TV service, and play it at a sports pub.
You are paying a licensing fee to the cable/satellite TV
service for a family of (on average) 4 people to watch, and
making it available to hundreds. Not how that works.
a better apples-to-apples comparison would be the rates paid
by Spotify, YouTube, and other "on demand" services (iTunes,
Amazon, etc don't even match up, because you are paying for
the right to play the song privately, over and over as
opposed to playing the song once on Pandora and YouTube).
According to the receipt, Spotify paid $12.05 for 116,260
plays ($0.000104 per play, one order of magnitude higher),
and YouTube paid $1.95 for 152,900 plays ($0.0000128 per
play, slightly lower than Pandora).
Is it a fair royalty rate? Who knows. Unfortunately, as
most of us are not in the industry, we don't know how many
people are assumed to be listening to the radio when a song
is played, so we don't know what the per person per song
rate is assumed to be. However, at a rough calculation, it
looks as if it's close.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
PJ, to be fair he posts his revenue from real radio, $1373.78 for 18,797
broadcasts.
What we don't know is where those 18,797 broadcasts happened, ergo we can't
determine the number of people who potentially would have heard the song.
For example if 10 of those plays happen per month in LA, Chicago, NYC, Houston,
Philadelphia, and Dallas/Ft.Worth
that's 10*3*20,000,000+ or 600,000,000+ plays. I'm counting total population
(very rounded), and not actual audience. While that number may be knowable, I
haven't the time to research all that. It's probably doable, but very likely
very time-consuming. I'm not going to even try, because the fact is, that is the
population that COULD listen to his valuable song, if they wanted to, without
him making another penny.
So, just using 180 of those 18,797 radio broadcasts yields a rate of
$1373.78/600,000,000+ compared to $16.89/1,000,000+.
Now let's adjust the fractions a bit to give us:
$13.7378/6,000,000+ to $16.89/1,000,000+
or
$2.29/1,000,000+ for radio versus $16.89/1,000,000+ for Pandora.
Hmmmm...
But, it's really an Apples/Oranges comparison. Radio, by it's very nature plays
to an unknowable, uncountable multitude at unpublished, non-selectable play
times. Conversely, the Internet plays to a countable, trackable multitude, on
demand.
Still, he has a point. The traditional model of artist reward for creative
output is DEAD, and artists better find a new means of income from their
creative works SOON. Because those nice big royalty checks will begin drying
up.
Now of course, I'm curious, the artist gets $16.89, but how much does the Studio
and Producer get? How much would he get from Pandora for an original work, that
he produced himself through his own "studio"? I'll bet it's a lot
more.
So the moral of this story seems to be dump the Studios, produce your work and
get paid a fair income.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 25 2013 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
newspick link
PJ said: What I'd want to know is how much he
gets from being played on the radio, the regular radio, if his song is played a
million times.
Would a closer parallel be the payment for one play
on a radio station with a million listeners? Not that I know what that amount
would be - and a quick google fails to find an answer. In the course of my
'search', I found this
link which suggests US radio
stations pay nothing. That isn't the case in the UK, AFAIK.
mng
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
