Why would you pick the myth of jesus as your basis for morality? There are much older holy texts out there that that provide moral guidance, and much newer. Is it simply because that's what mommy and daddy taught you to believe? If so, your entire moral system is nothing but an appeal to authority.
I actually like the Sense interface they made it feels more intuitive than default Android, but it does noticably slow down the phone. I've got an HTC Evo 4G, and I rooted it for free wi-fi tether. I didn't realize how much faster the stock android UI is until I installed CyanogenMod7, probably because the phone as pretty good hardware specs compared to most smart phones. CM7 made the UI seem much more responsive, and apps don't stutter at all like they'd occasionally do with Sense.
Or you could just look at the source code for the GPS module on your cell phone and re-compile, thus verifying that it is, indeed providing you with the correct information using the method described.
You really really are ignorant if you think that science has anything to do with faith.
Yeah, you could do it, but it'd be WAY more expensive because each tower would need it's own generator, and it takes a lot more towers to cover to cover the same area that one POTS CO can cover. Each of those towers also consumes orders of magnitude more power to provide coverage a unit area than the POTS network takes due to the inefficient nature of omni-directional radio broadcast. Basically, in addition to backup generators, you'd need either a massive amount of on-site fuel storage if you wanted the generators to be able to run for more than a few hours, or a significant fuel distribution network (natural gas would be great, but the infrastructure just is'nt available everywhere you need it) and during Frances, you couldn't get diesel or gasoline any easier than you could get electricity.
It's a technically simple problem, but a logistical nightmare during an emergency situation.
It would take either a massive government subsidy to get it done, or your cell phone bill would skyrocket to cover the additional infrastructure costs.
It's not the case yet though, and good luck getting any kind of "make big businesses worry about the consumer" legislation passed in the current US political climate.
When my town was hit by hurricane Frances in 2004, power was out for a week and a half, and the only way to communicate was using an old corded telephone on a POTS line. The cell towers were all unpowered, as were the cablemodems.
I haven't done the math, but I have a feeling that it takes a lot more power to cover a given area with cell signal than to keep the POTS system running over the same coverage area, just because broadcasting omni-directional radio signals is inherently less efficient than direct-line communication.
PSTN is useful during power outages. When hurricane Frances hit Florida in 2004, power was out in my town for about a week and a half. No power means the Cell towers were't working and the cable modem gets shut off. Since PSTN provides it's own power, most people that I know of keep a simple, dumb old corded telephone somewhere in their house for emergency communication during hurricanes.
First of all, please stop suggesting that you understand what I want or what I think, you've been wrong both times and I've already corrected you on it once. I don't really care which side would win such a case because I have no interest in playing the game, it's just raised a legal question that I found interesting. I don't think that the company should be forced to fund the service until they go bankrupt. Believe it or not, there are other possible remedies to the solution. They could refund part of the purchase price, or simply fine the company to discourage them from doing it again. Your arguments seem to suggest that you think this is a very black and white issue, but I believe that there is some gray space in between "they can put whatever they want on the box, who cares if it's not true or if the claim is only true for a short period of time, fuck the consumer" and "you have to support the features of your product until the earth is eventually consumed by our expanding sun". The question that I am actually interested in is whether supporting multiplayer for three years has fulfilled their obligation to provide the service that they said they would.
I've clearly stated why I believe that a "we can break your game whenever you feel like it" disclaimer on the box satisfies all three requirements of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations Act of 1999, and is potentially invalid.
I've explained why I think it applies, now please explain to me why you think it doesn't apply. You haven't given any reasons beyond "nuh-uh" and "look at all these websites that shut down at some point without getting sued".
RE: estoppel: The only game that I can find that has shut down it's servers faster is EA's Madden/NCAA series games, but they specifically say on the box that multiplayer will be avilable for 12 months only, which I do not believe would be covered by the Act because it clearly states the duration they are obligated to provide service rather than a nebulous "shit might get shut down at some point" that leaves the consumer completely in the dark about how long they actually have to play the game that they are purchasing. There isn't much case law covering this subject, which is specifically why it is interesting to me.
1. Yes, that's what I'm getting at. Does three years satisfy their end of the bargain on multiplayer?
2. Codemasters, the company that developed the game is a UK company and this is taking place worldwide.
3. That's not what I'm suggesting they should do.
Kibu.com: Did they charge money for their service? If not, of course no one sued them for stopping service because there would literally be $0.00 in damages.
Yeah, I can agree with that.
I was more thinking about VC from individual investors because those are the only kind I have any experiencing dealing with.
Yes, I've read the fine print, but I don't believe that it's binding because of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations Act of 1999.
That particular "we don't actually have to uphold our end of the bargain on multiplayer" seems like exactly the type of unfair contract it was intended to prevent.
It's not individually negotiated, it unbalances the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved, and it seems to violate good faith.
It's good to see some courageous Anonymous Coward finally standing up for the rights of those unfortunate, wealthy, international corporations when consumers attempt to get them to uphold their end of the bargain.
They definitley have some obligation to support it. There is most certainly some duration of time greater than 1 second but less than "eternity" that they need to back up that claim, I was attempting to ask if anyone knew of prior case law that could suggest what that duration is.
Can someonen go after them for false advertising? It says it's a multiplayer game right there on the box. How long does that obligate them to back up that claim?
At least VC's are taking risks and stand to actually lose money if they screw up and invest in a crappy company. Executives are obscenely overpaid if they don't screw up and eve if they do screw up and drive the company into the ground, their "punishment" for doing their job so poorly is generally a multi-million dollar golden parachute.
This is completely untrue, I don't know where you go that information. I regularly fire ammunition manufactured during the cold war through rifles manufactured prior to world war 2, and have never had a misfire. I've have more problems with low-quality recently manufactured.22LR rounds than I've ever had with old military surplus. As long as the casing doesn't corrode, ammunition will last indefinitely in storage.
VHF omnidirectional radio range radio's are used for navigation by basically every aircraft in the sky, and the signal sent out by each airport is just it's IATA Identification code, broadcasted as Morse code.
Copyright law only applies to people who are too poor to defend themselves in court. Amazon has more than enough money to cover that felony, and I doubt any publishers with a large enough war-chest to actually push the case would intentionally shit on the revenue stream they get selling through amazon.
The caviar and luxury-yacht part is said tongue-in-cheek, but the rest is true. Why would I lose karma for pointing out the absurdities of the world around us?
Don't worry, the government is most of the way done implementing this solution. The problem is that the prisons are full, and they can't build any more prisons because the government is broke. The only realistic solution to the problem would be to increase tax rates on the rich back to what they were pre-1980, but that could send the luxury yacht and caviar market into a tailspin.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you pick the myth of jesus as your basis for morality? There are much older holy texts out there that that provide moral guidance, and much newer. Is it simply because that's what mommy and daddy taught you to believe? If so, your entire moral system is nothing but an appeal to authority.
Is AMD hoping this impractical PR stunt will distract us from the fact that their chips have been lagging behind Intel's for the past two years?
I actually like the Sense interface they made it feels more intuitive than default Android, but it does noticably slow down the phone. I've got an HTC Evo 4G, and I rooted it for free wi-fi tether. I didn't realize how much faster the stock android UI is until I installed CyanogenMod7, probably because the phone as pretty good hardware specs compared to most smart phones. CM7 made the UI seem much more responsive, and apps don't stutter at all like they'd occasionally do with Sense.
Or you could just look at the source code for the GPS module on your cell phone and re-compile, thus verifying that it is, indeed providing you with the correct information using the method described. You really really are ignorant if you think that science has anything to do with faith.
Sounds like a wet-saw for tile or masonry would do the job.
Yeah you can, just combine fiber optics with a photo-voltaic cell. It'd be inefficent and a stupid waste of fiber, but it could be done :)
It's a technically simple problem, but a logistical nightmare during an emergency situation.
It would take either a massive government subsidy to get it done, or your cell phone bill would skyrocket to cover the additional infrastructure costs.
It's not the case yet though, and good luck getting any kind of "make big businesses worry about the consumer" legislation passed in the current US political climate. When my town was hit by hurricane Frances in 2004, power was out for a week and a half, and the only way to communicate was using an old corded telephone on a POTS line. The cell towers were all unpowered, as were the cablemodems. I haven't done the math, but I have a feeling that it takes a lot more power to cover a given area with cell signal than to keep the POTS system running over the same coverage area, just because broadcasting omni-directional radio signals is inherently less efficient than direct-line communication.
PSTN is useful during power outages. When hurricane Frances hit Florida in 2004, power was out in my town for about a week and a half. No power means the Cell towers were't working and the cable modem gets shut off. Since PSTN provides it's own power, most people that I know of keep a simple, dumb old corded telephone somewhere in their house for emergency communication during hurricanes.
It's already been done.
First of all, please stop suggesting that you understand what I want or what I think, you've been wrong both times and I've already corrected you on it once. I don't really care which side would win such a case because I have no interest in playing the game, it's just raised a legal question that I found interesting. I don't think that the company should be forced to fund the service until they go bankrupt. Believe it or not, there are other possible remedies to the solution. They could refund part of the purchase price, or simply fine the company to discourage them from doing it again. Your arguments seem to suggest that you think this is a very black and white issue, but I believe that there is some gray space in between "they can put whatever they want on the box, who cares if it's not true or if the claim is only true for a short period of time, fuck the consumer" and "you have to support the features of your product until the earth is eventually consumed by our expanding sun". The question that I am actually interested in is whether supporting multiplayer for three years has fulfilled their obligation to provide the service that they said they would. I've clearly stated why I believe that a "we can break your game whenever you feel like it" disclaimer on the box satisfies all three requirements of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations Act of 1999, and is potentially invalid.
I've explained why I think it applies, now please explain to me why you think it doesn't apply. You haven't given any reasons beyond "nuh-uh" and "look at all these websites that shut down at some point without getting sued".
RE: estoppel: The only game that I can find that has shut down it's servers faster is EA's Madden/NCAA series games, but they specifically say on the box that multiplayer will be avilable for 12 months only, which I do not believe would be covered by the Act because it clearly states the duration they are obligated to provide service rather than a nebulous "shit might get shut down at some point" that leaves the consumer completely in the dark about how long they actually have to play the game that they are purchasing. There isn't much case law covering this subject, which is specifically why it is interesting to me.
Ok, If you're going to deny the existence of all this legislation I guess we're done.
About $60.
2. Codemasters, the company that developed the game is a UK company and this is taking place worldwide.
3. That's not what I'm suggesting they should do.
Kibu.com: Did they charge money for their service? If not, of course no one sued them for stopping service because there would literally be $0.00 in damages.
Yeah, I can agree with that. I was more thinking about VC from individual investors because those are the only kind I have any experiencing dealing with.
Yes, I've read the fine print, but I don't believe that it's binding because of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations Act of 1999. That particular "we don't actually have to uphold our end of the bargain on multiplayer" seems like exactly the type of unfair contract it was intended to prevent. It's not individually negotiated, it unbalances the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved, and it seems to violate good faith.
It's good to see some courageous Anonymous Coward finally standing up for the rights of those unfortunate, wealthy, international corporations when consumers attempt to get them to uphold their end of the bargain.
They definitley have some obligation to support it. There is most certainly some duration of time greater than 1 second but less than "eternity" that they need to back up that claim, I was attempting to ask if anyone knew of prior case law that could suggest what that duration is.
Can someonen go after them for false advertising? It says it's a multiplayer game right there on the box. How long does that obligate them to back up that claim?
At least VC's are taking risks and stand to actually lose money if they screw up and invest in a crappy company. Executives are obscenely overpaid if they don't screw up and eve if they do screw up and drive the company into the ground, their "punishment" for doing their job so poorly is generally a multi-million dollar golden parachute.
This is completely untrue, I don't know where you go that information. I regularly fire ammunition manufactured during the cold war through rifles manufactured prior to world war 2, and have never had a misfire. I've have more problems with low-quality recently manufactured .22LR rounds than I've ever had with old military surplus. As long as the casing doesn't corrode, ammunition will last indefinitely in storage.
VHF omnidirectional radio range radio's are used for navigation by basically every aircraft in the sky, and the signal sent out by each airport is just it's IATA Identification code, broadcasted as Morse code.
Copyright law only applies to people who are too poor to defend themselves in court. Amazon has more than enough money to cover that felony, and I doubt any publishers with a large enough war-chest to actually push the case would intentionally shit on the revenue stream they get selling through amazon.
The caviar and luxury-yacht part is said tongue-in-cheek, but the rest is true. Why would I lose karma for pointing out the absurdities of the world around us?
Don't worry, the government is most of the way done implementing this solution. The problem is that the prisons are full, and they can't build any more prisons because the government is broke. The only realistic solution to the problem would be to increase tax rates on the rich back to what they were pre-1980, but that could send the luxury yacht and caviar market into a tailspin.