richdm

Lives in Belize Belize
Joined on Oct 26, 2017

Comments

Total: 224, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

At one time, trade was viewed as something a country engaged in when it couldn't produce something itself. Of course, that was before there was such a thing as the "developing world", which is the euphemism for "places that have modern factories but medieval wage levels."

And so, the idea that a country should produce everything it can for itself, and trade only for those things it can't produce itself, became political heresy.

And those who created the current system will doubtless argue - with a twisted logic that remains to be seen - that the current crisis is "more proof than ever" that nations "cannot go it alone" and must "depend on each other in this interconnected world."

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2020 at 16:04 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

richdm: Unfortunately, we live in a world where there is a not-irrelevant number of people who have decided to pursue terroristic tactics to fulfill their agenda. Governments are naturally going to react to this fact in a way that many will call overreaching. IMO, there's not much that can be done about this.

I imagine that from the regulators' point of view, if they do NOT act and than an incident occurs, they will be rightfully blamed for "doing nothing." There's an old saying that "the law is a blunt object", and this is a situation that exemplifies that saying.

I was just making sure I was getting what you said straight!

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2020 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

richdm: Unfortunately, we live in a world where there is a not-irrelevant number of people who have decided to pursue terroristic tactics to fulfill their agenda. Governments are naturally going to react to this fact in a way that many will call overreaching. IMO, there's not much that can be done about this.

I imagine that from the regulators' point of view, if they do NOT act and than an incident occurs, they will be rightfully blamed for "doing nothing." There's an old saying that "the law is a blunt object", and this is a situation that exemplifies that saying.

Yeah, I agree. Isn't that another way of saying that the law is a blunt object?

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2020 at 22:32 UTC

Unfortunately, we live in a world where there is a not-irrelevant number of people who have decided to pursue terroristic tactics to fulfill their agenda. Governments are naturally going to react to this fact in a way that many will call overreaching. IMO, there's not much that can be done about this.

I imagine that from the regulators' point of view, if they do NOT act and than an incident occurs, they will be rightfully blamed for "doing nothing." There's an old saying that "the law is a blunt object", and this is a situation that exemplifies that saying.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2020 at 21:54 UTC as 55th comment | 10 replies

That has to be the absolute most ignorant "announcer" I've ever had the misfortune to listen to. Doesn't know what's going on although his colleague seems to. And what's worse, when he's told, he thinks it's hilarious! Where do they find these people?

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2019 at 18:52 UTC as 43rd comment
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: I am not guilty. I don't have Payboo, does anybody here? Pay up ! Peek-a-Boo !

But this case has nothing to do with Payboo!

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2019 at 22:12 UTC

Interesting. I've trademarked the word "Slobbies." I think it's gonna be big!

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2019 at 12:27 UTC as 19th comment

I hope that dog retained the copyright to his image!

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2019 at 08:16 UTC as 54th comment
On article Sony a7R IV: What you need to know (760 comments in total)
In reply to:

richdm: What does "Bayer canceling" mean?

Is it full color data at every pixel, but at a lower resolution than the 16-image mode?

Thanks!

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2019 at 00:16 UTC
On article Sony a7R IV: What you need to know (760 comments in total)

What does "Bayer canceling" mean?

Is it full color data at every pixel, but at a lower resolution than the 16-image mode?

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2019 at 19:04 UTC as 31st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

richdm: Anybody know if that's the same effect - i.e., slight "ripples" in the glass appearing as changes in color - one sees when viewing, say, auto windshields through polarized sunglasses?

Thanks.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2019 at 16:51 UTC

Anybody know if that's the same effect - i.e., slight "ripples" in the glass appearing as changes in color - one sees when viewing, say, auto windshields through polarized sunglasses?

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2019 at 09:24 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon D3500 vs. Canon T7: Which is better? (275 comments in total)
In reply to:

richdm: $399 for the D3500's two-lens kit is a great price. And for $100 more, the Canon has some additional features that the Nikon lacks. The only drawback, common to both, is that the telephoto doesn't have VR.

But really, someone who doesn't currently own a DSLR and wants to get their feet wet couldn't go wrong with either one!

Yeah, sorry, by "telephoto" I meant the 70-300. Should have been more specific!

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2019 at 10:12 UTC
On article Nikon D3500 vs. Canon T7: Which is better? (275 comments in total)

$399 for the D3500's two-lens kit is a great price. And for $100 more, the Canon has some additional features that the Nikon lacks. The only drawback, common to both, is that the telephoto doesn't have VR.

But really, someone who doesn't currently own a DSLR and wants to get their feet wet couldn't go wrong with either one!

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2019 at 23:17 UTC as 26th comment | 2 replies

Hello folks at DPR:

It would be a great service to add information to this article, outlining the background of why the court decided the way it did.

People think it's only a "Texas" problem - but it's not. It's the "way things are" re: any state in the US!

The case came about due to current statute and case law. And the court simply rejected the plaintiff's untested legal argument applying "takings" law to copyright.

So *please* have a look at these references, and update the article with additional information.

After all, this can't be fixed going forward if we don't know the true nature of the problem!

Houston Chronicle articles from 2016 & current:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/UH-can-sue-but-can-avoid-getting-sued-10189553.php

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Texas-court-says-photographer-has-no-recourse-13973674.php

US Copyright Office from 2000 - excellent background information:
https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat72700.html

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2019 at 13:40 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

Nevenp: Well, this may stand in Texas, but I suggest he goes international and sue the last penny/cent out of UoH and maybe even State of Texas!

if he can't afford it, he should crowdfund! I know I'd support him and I'm sure many other would too!

Not just Texas. It applies Any state in the US. The Texas court was simply applying current statute and case law.

Look here for the detailed information and the entire picture:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/UH-can-sue-but-can-avoid-getting-sued-10189553.php

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Texas-court-says-photographer-has-no-recourse-13973674.php

https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat72700.html

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2019 at 13:32 UTC
In reply to:

Holografix: Guess I’ll start blocking Texans from accessing my website, lest they steal my IP and show me the finger (or a gun) when I complain.

This is theft.

If you're concerned, you'll have to block anyone who works for any agency of any state in the US, because this has nothing to do with "Texas" per se.

Have a look at this information:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/UH-can-sue-but-can-avoid-getting-sued-10189553.php

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Texas-court-says-photographer-has-no-recourse-13973674.php

https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat72700.html

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2019 at 13:31 UTC

Another good article from the Houston Chronicle, from 2016, detailing the background of this particular case.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/UH-can-sue-but-can-avoid-getting-sued-10189553.php

This is yet another article that makes it clear that this decision had nothing to do with Texas law.

Instead, it had to do with a) the doctrine of "sovereign immunity", which the University of Houston used as its defense in the lawsuit, and b) Olive's failure to get the court to accept the novel and untested "takings" theory as the basis on which to force the University to pay up.

Interestingly, this 2016 article describes that theory as "a possible opening" for suing the University. However, the article also indicated that Olive had no plans to sue the university, stating:

"With little chance of winning his sovereign immunity claim, Olive doesn't see much reason to pay lawyers to litigate a case he seems likely to lose."

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2019 at 10:10 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: State theft is socialism. Good luck with that at the Supreme Court.

Ha! Take a look at this testimony to Congress from back in 2000, by the US Copyright Office. Very good brief explanation of how things got to this point. And SCOTUS was one of the major causes!

https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat72700.html

Here's a relevant excerpt:

"For most of our history, it has been assumed that the States enjoyed no special immunity from suits for infringement of intellectual property rights, but in the past fifteen years those assumptions have been called into question as the Supreme Court has breathed new life into the doctrine of sovereign immunity."

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2019 at 09:50 UTC
In reply to:

Dan Monroe: local/state/federal governments are like royalty... they cannot be sued unless you can demonstrate clear criminal intent.

in my jurisdiction, when a police cruiser or the city trash truck crashes into you car or home, they cannot be sued. it has been clearly established by the state's supreme court.... although I"m not sure why nobody has tried to take it up a notch all the way to the U.S. supreme court.

@Dan They have. It seems SCOTUS is in large part responsible for the situation as it currently exists!

Here's a worthwhile reference - Congressional testimony from the US Copyright Office back in 2000, briefly detailing the issue and how things got to this point:

https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat72700.html

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2019 at 09:47 UTC
Total: 224, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »