Video is nicely sequential and eminently suitable for spinning disk service.
What's really confusing me is the 10G lan configuration because it's leaving little headroom above uncompressed 4K 4:4:4 10bit (12bit is broadcast and where source permits archive standard). What about multiple streams for a/b'ing a grade or first/ second camera edit roll?
Equally it's a sorry indictment of our economic times that the meaning of unlawful has been hammered into a understanding that non prohibition is permission. This aggressive and putative new use is refuted by every founding principle of the common law in Anglo Saxon countries and most of the western world. See the argument of letter vs. spirit for a effect.
Ed. cleared up phrasing around new use, replaced meaning with use for .. meaning.
> This aggressive and putative new use is refuted by every founding principle of the common law in Anglo Saxon countries
Which founding principles, exactly? Your comment seems to imply you think we should live in a world where we are only allowed to pick our actions from an enumerated list of approved actions. That world is extremely contrary to the kind of world I would like to live in, but also seems to contradict most of what I know about the history of the western world. Is that really what you mean?
What OP is getting at is that the common law tradition isn't to explicitly spell out all the nuances of when that action is actually disallowed, but rather to set out the general principles, and let case law define the precise limits of that boundary. In contrast, the civil law tradition is very much based on statutory law explicitly setting the boundaries, and case law serving only to disambiguate.
The "aggressive and putative new use" they're referring to is basically taking common law's fuzzy boundaries and pushing a civil law interpretation on top where all the grey areas are assumed to be allowed.
That is exactly how things work. Unless the government goes through the effort of passing a law to prohibit something (and getting approval of the people's elected representatives, and the courts), then the thing is legal. How else do you propose things should work?
Those "pushing the boundaries" always end up using a similar logic. However, there's always going to be a large segment of society whose rules are based around non financially oriented methodologies, such as: "morals", or directly from spiritual texts which disallow certain practices, or historical "customs". Such things are not "illegal" per se, but it's largely held as being reprehensible by a large number of people nevertheless & causes a large amount of friction within society.
Then there's the issue of marketing/propaganda (which the parent mentions as "hammered") whose sole purpose it's to change people's minds in an emotional way. I wish people would learn about Edward Bernays, nephew of Freud, who instituted this. In and of itself, propaganda has never been illegal, but no one likes to admit to being emotionally manipulated. (But when you begin to pay attention to your emotions, you can spot this stuff from a mile away).
I think, what you are addressing is social convention and social norms, which are enforced by social sanctions only. However, while these are soft norms, laws are hard norms and enforced by the legal system, which is an important difference. Therefor (however we may feel about this) something may be intuitively and morally wrong, but still perfectly legal. Still, this may subject to social action, which may be what you are aiming at. This is, what civil society is about.
Not sure what the stance being argued is. Should we require companies run morality polls and submit a pre-rollout court to determine the legality of new products that push the limits of human innovation?
Also, it's important to note that humans are actually quite bad at this sort of judgement. I'm sure if you showed everyone in Germany in 1980 a computer, and how it can instantly store and retrieve files and documents, and asked them 'is this moral?' they would be against it on the grounds that it would put hundreds of office workers out of a job.
That's not exactly how things work, though. Laws aren't deterministic like a computer program. They can be drafted broadly, poorly, incompletely, or simply not take into account things that didn't exist when the law was written.
It's the job of the judiciary to interpret the laws in these situations, and part of that is looking at the spirit of the law and create case law which may alter the powers of government.
This is very much part of the Western tradition of common law, as is a vigorous discussion over how far the judiciary should be able to go. It's fair to say popular sentiment has drifted in a libertine direction over the last 50 years, but the debate is far from settled.
(In fact we can speculate with some reliability about what the future may hold: via one mechanism or another, including the judiciary, governments usually trend more libertine in times of peace and more authoritarian in times of crisis.)
Sadly I think that the value of Wikipedia in this lamentable example of judicial laziness and professional under funding is the web just happens to be more easily searched than LEXIS. Easily != competently.
Hang on, doesn't deliberate manipulation of the consumption of counterfactual legal precedent by a sitting judiciary (withholding with measurable effect the countering case references is the study method) only result in a spate of mistrials?
Ed. legal precedent replaced sources for clarity of this significance
Forget the internet for a second and imagine there was a collection of cases in a book compiled by a group of law professors and legal students, summarized for easy reference. That book omits some cases that are relevant to the subject of the book for one reason or another. A judge/clerk reads that book to gain insight to some of the cases in a particular area. Is that grounds for a mistrial? Clearly not, IMO.
I think you misread the article (or I’m misreading you). There were no counterfactual legal precedents published. They took a set of cases and for half of them published Wikipedia articles on them for half, did not publish them (the non-publication was the counterfactual case, not the contents of the articles).
A mistrial because the judge did a google search and found the article a hired law student wrote carefully and accurately and added to a publicly available source?
I'd like to recommend a shelf of great to read erudite and intelligible financial history and financial social history and technicality, from which you'd recognize the simulacra, but it wouldn't help very much because this crypto game strips out everything fundamental economic and human from their imaginary systems and leaves solely a caricature of a carcass.
I'm despondent about the overall crypto situation, please forgive me for my cynicism, because I'm genuinely concerned about how many times people can exclaim the king is naked the cupboard is bare the promises aren't merely empty but never had meaning, and yet the socialized penny just won't drop.
This FT article [0] goes some way to describing how vulnerable young and low income people are to false investment scheming. What's needed (very rapidly) is to reveal the full extent of behavioural and technical engineering used in exploitation, instead of blaming the phenomenon on concocted reductio ad infortunium.
Edit,: added for clarity, "...from which...the simulacra.."; corrected "onto" as "on" and thereafter revised with clearer unchanged meaning the rest of final sentence. (and Ed2 sp ip.); E3 people instead of folk ,(mobile sorry) E4 added, "scheming" after "false investment" for clarity.
I'm guessing that the VC premium pays for privileges like lock up and preferred terms.
VC buying - aka VC selling to greater fool LPs, with purported guarantees trails a wake of retail that fuels their vig.
I know nothing concrete about crypto n.b. but I think I can recognize the structured avarice. If my precis is all that's happening I'd convict this kind of VC instantly.
District councils (so the second 'lowest' of the possible tiers) but yes. In practice, they've all deferred to the judgement of the British Board of Film Classification (née ...Film Censorship) for nearly every film since it was set up.
Sorry for the snark but I'm nursing a hangover created in the company of a important friend who's promising to quit drinking after moving state next month, so this is a rather timely paper. However if my friend were to merely substitute another intoxicant I'd lose my mind and probably my wonderful friend. So I personally wouldn't suggest alternative habits at least.
Replacement could imply more than habitual use of substances. I've found the hardest part of not drinking to be the loss of the sociable activities I engage with while drinking. I've certainly used marijuana as an "intermediary" between drinking and not drinking as it seemed like a way to engage with inebriation without drinking and later would stop using marijuana when I realized I was enjoying my activities more or less the same with or without its use.
Maybe one day we will have the scientific studies, but your comparison is not a great correlation.
Where Oxycontin, heroin, and alcohol are all easy to overdose on, have highly physically addictive properties. Thc does not have the characteristics. Oxy is sold that it reduces physical addiction, when used for short periods and per instructions, but it does not eliminate physical addiction.
I think that all the analysis I've found with a quick search isn't very helpful.
The seller had to sue to either obtain payment or void the contract or else spend energies and time pursuing payment by persuasion whilst the entire time granting the ostensible buyers a free call option on FOB Liverpool cotton. My cynical guess is that regardless of evidence of foreknowledge about the duplicate ship names, Lloyds Register [0] most certainly did exist and importantly was considerably more accessible from Liverpool than India. Seller's imperative wasn't recompense but prior to marketing the cargo and taking profit, obtaining title and clean hands. Why go to so much effort? Letters of credit access and costs issues that could have been affected by a impossible distance impedance to necessary restorative PR.
>There's no form of marketing that I "like" or actively reward, at most there's marketing that I fell for.
For very high value software licensing agreements there's huge financial rewards for performing the marketing dance with the vendor. Paying list for enterprise software doesn't happen. Customers who even know what Oracle RAS is , or SQL SERVER Parallel, are numbered in the hundreds. The expenditure on manpower to design and commission a new major database installation is two to three orders of magnitude greater than the license costs. That's per database not enterprise wide. You embark upon a courtship from the outset.
This isn't what the article nor what most everyone's discussing, but I thought it worthwhile to offer a real illustration of a very viable means of sales and marketing that can be made to work if you have a high value application or service and can identify a small finite number of customers.
Edit: I probably should have said the number of customers who know what they're doing with the most sophisticated databases is very likely in the hundreds. Arguably the market is rather larger but if the behaviour F500 generally is any indication, there's a lot of nameplate and marquee buying driven by C suite egos. If you're selling a unique and expensive application this is where your margins are. And where tales of sales excess and bad reputation / hubris attaching to your product originate.
What's really confusing me is the 10G lan configuration because it's leaving little headroom above uncompressed 4K 4:4:4 10bit (12bit is broadcast and where source permits archive standard). What about multiple streams for a/b'ing a grade or first/ second camera edit roll?
Ed. added "really" replaced "for" with "above"