I'm as much against the stupid War on Some Drugs, ACTA, ridiculous IP laws, etc. as the next Slashdotter, but as an American, I think you citizens of other countries need to take responsibility for your own governments' actions and stop blaming ours....
I can blame my crappy government for passing stupid laws, and I can blame the U.S. government/lobbyists for strong-arming our jackasses to do so. I pester my friends, sign petitions, send mail, and vote for/against my government, and find plenty of room in my heart left to blame the U.S. government/lobbyists for pressuring my government as if we were a branch office of theirs. I'm an idiot for drinking the Kool-Aid, but Bob's an asshole for pouring it down everyone's throat.
Electing new officials, however, makes little difference. Kow-towing to American interests seems to be a matter of permanent policy. And with the economics involved, that's not likely to change.
The trouble is, with Apple, that sort of thing wouldn't happen. That's what makes them more dangerous than their competitors.
People only care about DRM when it stops them doing something that they want.
Yup, you won't see an enforced ad pop up while using the phone "normally", while running iTunes, or sending an e-mail, or making a call or whatever else is basic on the iPhone. If you see them, they'll be embedded into apps and content you download from other sources. This is a patent that lets Apple say "Here's an easy way to generate revenue from our customer base with your content, and without charging it all directly for the download. They won't mind clicking on an use your stuff. Better than DRM, because even if they send it on to our other customers, the ads go with it." It's similar to the tactic they took when they rolled out iTunes, with inoffensive DRM replacing non-ownership of files by subscription.
And now that streaming services are becoming viable and popular, thanks to increased bandwidth, customer familiarity, and other factors, there's an application for the ad model. Hulu on the iPhone, or similar. Not only will people not mind - they will approve. The feeling, for many, will be that putting up with this will give them what they want rather than not having it at all. To my mind, smart compromise is the best thing to hope for. The realistic alternative isn't no DRM or other restrictions, the alternative is heinous and insidious DRM. That's the industry recognizing, eventually, what the business models and customer bases are becoming. I'm not sure that I'd agree with "dangerous", but I do agree that Apple could pull this off in a way palatable to enough customers that other companies think they'll be able to get away with worse.
An option would be to provide the customer with 3 figures at the pay point: Retail price ($20); Recommended price (say $10); Average price so far ($X)...
After playing MMO's for months on end, a guy gets a little tired of staring at his avatar's rippling, chisled ass, and might like to have some "softer" scenery waving in his face for a while.
Absolutely. I had a friend who only played Dark Elf female characters on EQ. Best butt, was the reason. He knew that was inane, but as long as he had to stare at a cartoon butt, it was going to be one he liked the curves of. Plus the whole "play a female character, get free stuff" thing.
For Maxwell, this has been emblematic of everything that's wrong with the music industry. "[We are] aware of who the biggest bootleggers are," she said. "It's not the filesharers." While Collins has worked to make A Girl Like You freely available to his fans, she alleges that the same track is sold illegally "all over the internet". "Not by Edwyn, [but] by all sorts of respectable major labels whose licence to sell it ran out years ago and who do not account to him."
Dire Straits wanted money for nothing. Also, chicks for free. Lemme tell you, them guys ain't dumb. Sure beats moving and installing home appliances and electronics.
As Wendy Seltzer from the Chilling Effects project said, "Sounds like a pretty solid fair use case to me. If criticism diminishes its effectiveness, that's different from the market substitution copyright protects against. And I've rarely seen a thinner DMCA form-letter."
I use iTunes for my iPhone - and I never buy anything there, I buy it all on Amazon because I prefer the more portable MP3 format. You seem to think that purchasing from Amazon and importing into your collection is difficult. Nothing could be further from the truth!! Well, not if you are running Windows anyway. You see Amazon has an MP3 download application that will place the downloads in an area you designate AND it will import them into iTunes automatically.
Easy on a Mac too, but the one-step of the Amazon application is a deft touch.
Christ, you play it for hours every day and more on the weekends, and think this isn't hideously excessive?!?
A few hours a day - not every day, even, he takes a few off here and there - and a little longer on the weekends isn't excessive. Online gaming actually cut down my "lazy" activity time and cut costs. I wasn't plonked in front of the TV (cancelled a few cable packages, rented fewer DVDs), I decided to spend more non-game time away from the computer and/or TV (read a bit more, got out of the house), and on top of all that spent more time with the better half (playing the game together, chatting while we did, etc).
Yeah, sometimes you don't get to play or TV or whatever for a while, something more important is happening. We stopped playing for a few months last time we sold the house, we had work to do when we got home. Online gaming is only excessive when you fail to keep up with life's priorities (job, home, health, family, friends). Ditto any other gaming, TV time, internet surfing, hardware hacking, wood duck carving, drinking, drugs, food, jogging, etc etc etc. It's usually easy to keep it all in balance, and part of what WoW does well is deliver a game that you CAN walk away from, to focus on the important things, and still keep up with the game.
It's not so much that "Casual" gaming is influencing MMO's, as it is that game publishers recognize that a lot of gamers are all adult-like now, and if we can't integrate the game into our real lives, we're not giving them our money. And money - the market - is what influences MMO's.
Reputation capital. Such a great concept. If only we could survive on reputation capital, the world would be a much better place.
Well it's hard to survive without capital if your business can't sell it's service or product, and don't you think a little "reputation capital" can be a benefit?
Maybe I'm inferring sarcasm where you don't mean it. But business don't survive solely on reputation capital, obviously, but poor or no reputation capitial is a hindrance. How much so varies greatly by business type. Personally, I get almost as much work for my ethics as I do my abilities - I certainly get more references because of my character than I would if I was an asshole. That scales upwards for business in the public eye as well. Some businesses don't survive without it. Some thrive because of it. Some are completely unaffected. And it's exactly the kind of move that shows a "do no evil" aspect to the whole Google/book scanning/copyright hub-bub. Public relations is a thriving market sector because it has reputation capital has value. Most days, reputation capital is front page news for somebody.
I would hazard a guess that it would be illegal to sell a home in the US with empty bulb sockets, just for the safety reason. But I've never looked at it from that direction.
Not that I'd ever consider it, either, and of course I'm no expert. But if I really felt the need, I'd be comfortable taking out expensive light bulbs and replacing them with cheaper ones. That sort of thing wouldn't be an issue for us - both times we've put our house up for sale, we've swapped out bulbs for bright incandescents anyway. And most of our home lighting is freestanding, neither of us enjoying the light from ceiling fixtures. But frankly, we've just sold the house. A few lightbulbs aren't going to make a difference, no matter what they cost.
All that said, this is why the inclusions and exclusions list is important. One example I tripped over is that while it is assumed that a wall mounted mirror is a fixture, a wall mounted TV is not. But if the notion of "attached to the property" is taken literally, a case might be made for the TV being a fixture. If you want it with the house, include it and if you're taking it with you - exclude it. Caveat emptor, and caveat venditor, too. Not that any of it is my expertise, except that I like to live without being sued.
Flamebait? I'd rather sit in a dark living room than one lit by CFL's, (and I do). I use them selectively, too, and for pretty much the same reasons. As well, the last town I lived in had horribly inconsistent power levels, the house was 80+ years old with some knob and tube wiring - CFL bulbs died fast and expensively.
In the US (well, the parts I've paid attention to) "real property" is the land and anything attached to it. If you can lift it and carry it out (with or without help) with nothing more than disconnecting it from utilities (or something like a dryer vent) then it not part of the real property.....
I looked up chattel and real estate in Ontario, where I'm from. It's pretty much as you've found - if it's a "built in", it's real estate, but if it's stand-alone, it's chattels and you can take it.
A chattel is a moveable object that has not been "annexed" to the property in a legal sense.
A stand-up dishwasher is a chattel. A built-in dishwasher is not. Built-in appliances are part of the real estate. Independent stand-alone appliances are chattels.
Electric lights fixtures are part of the real estate, but the light bulbs are not.
Of course, that plot could have been turned into a film that was only about half the length...
It could have. It would have been different, and not necessarily better. I've watched 2001 a few times, and only all the way through twice. I'm not always in the mood, but when I am it's slow pace and quiet are perfect. The pacing is an important part of the narrative. It's one of my favourite films, and like most of my favourite films, albums, games and such, I'm not always in the mood for it.
Well off topic and far too pedantic, but what the hell. A blog at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html references Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (MWCDEU) to point out that "less" has been used before plural, countable nouns since the time of King Alfred. It was the opinion of Robert Baker, written in "Remarks on the English Language" in 1770, that "fewer" was preferable. It is unknown how this became the rule, but usage then and now do not conform to the rule.
From the MWCDEU:
If you are a native speaker, your use of less and fewer can reliably be guided by your ear. If you are not a native speaker, you will find that the simple rule with which we started is a safe guide, except for the constructions for which we have shown less to be preferred.
There's a scan of the MWCEDU available from the blog post. Make of it what you will, I found it interesting.
Yeah, I know, but "nothing more attractive"? Really?
For me, it wouldn't be the online avatar dance, but it is definitely and "Really" be that overlap of interests and perspectives, the feeling of being understood and accepted that is attractive about the lady of the house. That's not the same as tickling my sexual fancy, that's making me want her to be the one tickling it. And why can't that come from online avatar dancing? She said once that the first time she knew she loved me was when I got out of the car to clear shopping carts left out of parking spots away and put them in that shed (so that other drivers could park without dinging their car). The "moment" can come at the damndest times, you never know when.
FWIW... I'm not sure that fits the definition of in moderation....
YMMV, of course -- I have no idea what your life is like, etc. But for me, just the thought of spending more than one night a week playing games makes my skin crawl with the thought of all the chores that wouldn't be getting done.
The missus and I would play games between 3 or 5 nights a week - not always online, mind you. That doesn't mean that we spend all the time between 6:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m playing games. We may only play for a couple of hours. One or two nights are weekend nights, and if those nights are available we have more time then. We also keep up with the chores, take walks once or twice a week along the river, keep up our jobs... you get the point. As you hint, the trick is not exactly in what you do 4 nights a week or so (TV, games, whatever...), it's balancing that with what needs to be done. That defines near enough to moderation for me - as distinct from excess, when the chores don't get done and the crawling of skin sets in.
World of Warcraft: Destroying relationships with girls since...
We did eventually give up WoW, for loss of interest. It's not the game that ruins relationships. It's the devotion to time-sinks at the exclusion of your relationship, and yar, you betcha WoW facilitates that. So do sports teams, knitting, music, internet surfing... many things will do it. Online games are more encouraging, however, with that danged carrot in front of your nose all the time. But WoW or not, the relationships that died because of WoW would have found another death in the game's absence. If any online game is more appealing than your partner, you should be looking for another partner.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm as much against the stupid War on Some Drugs, ACTA, ridiculous IP laws, etc. as the next Slashdotter, but as an American, I think you citizens of other countries need to take responsibility for your own governments' actions and stop blaming ours....
I can blame my crappy government for passing stupid laws, and I can blame the U.S. government/lobbyists for strong-arming our jackasses to do so. I pester my friends, sign petitions, send mail, and vote for/against my government, and find plenty of room in my heart left to blame the U.S. government/lobbyists for pressuring my government as if we were a branch office of theirs. I'm an idiot for drinking the Kool-Aid, but Bob's an asshole for pouring it down everyone's throat.
Electing new officials, however, makes little difference. Kow-towing to American interests seems to be a matter of permanent policy. And with the economics involved, that's not likely to change.
Or who say they have never seen it before...
Ask when their wives or girlfriends are in the room.
Flamebait? Someone's clearly not had their first coffee of the day yet...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158983/
And ... flaming who, exactly? Did someone actually think that we Canadians were going to take umbrage?
The trouble is, with Apple, that sort of thing wouldn't happen. That's what makes them more dangerous than their competitors.
People only care about DRM when it stops them doing something that they want.
Yup, you won't see an enforced ad pop up while using the phone "normally", while running iTunes, or sending an e-mail, or making a call or whatever else is basic on the iPhone. If you see them, they'll be embedded into apps and content you download from other sources. This is a patent that lets Apple say "Here's an easy way to generate revenue from our customer base with your content, and without charging it all directly for the download. They won't mind clicking on an use your stuff. Better than DRM, because even if they send it on to our other customers, the ads go with it." It's similar to the tactic they took when they rolled out iTunes, with inoffensive DRM replacing non-ownership of files by subscription.
And now that streaming services are becoming viable and popular, thanks to increased bandwidth, customer familiarity, and other factors, there's an application for the ad model. Hulu on the iPhone, or similar. Not only will people not mind - they will approve. The feeling, for many, will be that putting up with this will give them what they want rather than not having it at all. To my mind, smart compromise is the best thing to hope for. The realistic alternative isn't no DRM or other restrictions, the alternative is heinous and insidious DRM. That's the industry recognizing, eventually, what the business models and customer bases are becoming. I'm not sure that I'd agree with "dangerous", but I do agree that Apple could pull this off in a way palatable to enough customers that other companies think they'll be able to get away with worse.
How much does LIVE cost on xbox?
$0.00
This is misleading. These lists are pulled from the XBox Live site. XBox Silver, for free, gets you:
XBox Live Gold, for $60 a year, adds:
How much it costs depends on how much you want to do.
An option would be to provide the customer with 3 figures at the pay point: Retail price ($20); Recommended price (say $10); Average price so far ($X)...
Sounds like something Jane Siberry did with her music - first link I found: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/419-jane-siberrys-you-decide-what-feels-right-pricing
After playing MMO's for months on end, a guy gets a little tired of staring at his avatar's rippling, chisled ass, and might like to have some "softer" scenery waving in his face for a while.
Absolutely. I had a friend who only played Dark Elf female characters on EQ. Best butt, was the reason. He knew that was inane, but as long as he had to stare at a cartoon butt, it was going to be one he liked the curves of. Plus the whole "play a female character, get free stuff" thing.
Thanks for writing that, I was discussing this with the gal pal tonight.
It reminded me - the last paragraph in particular - of this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/06/edwyn-collins-sharing-music
For Maxwell, this has been emblematic of everything that's wrong with the music industry. "[We are] aware of who the biggest bootleggers are," she said. "It's not the filesharers." While Collins has worked to make A Girl Like You freely available to his fans, she alleges that the same track is sold illegally "all over the internet". "Not by Edwyn, [but] by all sorts of respectable major labels whose licence to sell it ran out years ago and who do not account to him."
Dire Straits wanted money for nothing. Also, chicks for free. Lemme tell you, them guys ain't dumb. Sure beats moving and installing home appliances and electronics.
Ralph Lauren's Legal Case is kinda thin.
From the Boing Boing article:
As Wendy Seltzer from the Chilling Effects project said, "Sounds like a pretty solid fair use case to me. If criticism diminishes its effectiveness, that's different from the market substitution copyright protects against. And I've rarely seen a thinner DMCA form-letter."
No-one can resist the pun, it seems.
Canadian's
Somebody shoot me.
Somebody shoot me, eh?
IWhat the hell does "privacy hind end" mean, anyway?
Cover Your Ass.
I use iTunes for my iPhone - and I never buy anything there, I buy it all on Amazon because I prefer the more portable MP3 format. You seem to think that purchasing from Amazon and importing into your collection is difficult. Nothing could be further from the truth!! Well, not if you are running Windows anyway. You see Amazon has an MP3 download application that will place the downloads in an area you designate AND it will import them into iTunes automatically.
Easy on a Mac too, but the one-step of the Amazon application is a deft touch.
Christ, you play it for hours every day and more on the weekends, and think this isn't hideously excessive?!?
A few hours a day - not every day, even, he takes a few off here and there - and a little longer on the weekends isn't excessive. Online gaming actually cut down my "lazy" activity time and cut costs. I wasn't plonked in front of the TV (cancelled a few cable packages, rented fewer DVDs), I decided to spend more non-game time away from the computer and/or TV (read a bit more, got out of the house), and on top of all that spent more time with the better half (playing the game together, chatting while we did, etc).
Yeah, sometimes you don't get to play or TV or whatever for a while, something more important is happening. We stopped playing for a few months last time we sold the house, we had work to do when we got home. Online gaming is only excessive when you fail to keep up with life's priorities (job, home, health, family, friends). Ditto any other gaming, TV time, internet surfing, hardware hacking, wood duck carving, drinking, drugs, food, jogging, etc etc etc. It's usually easy to keep it all in balance, and part of what WoW does well is deliver a game that you CAN walk away from, to focus on the important things, and still keep up with the game.
It's not so much that "Casual" gaming is influencing MMO's, as it is that game publishers recognize that a lot of gamers are all adult-like now, and if we can't integrate the game into our real lives, we're not giving them our money. And money - the market - is what influences MMO's.
Some episodes of the great 80's TV show "ALF" were directed by Peter Bonerz. LUL, Bonerz! Peter! PETER BONERZ!!!11! Strange but true.
Great?
Reputation capital. Such a great concept. If only we could survive on reputation capital, the world would be a much better place.
Well it's hard to survive without capital if your business can't sell it's service or product, and don't you think a little "reputation capital" can be a benefit?
Maybe I'm inferring sarcasm where you don't mean it. But business don't survive solely on reputation capital, obviously, but poor or no reputation capitial is a hindrance. How much so varies greatly by business type. Personally, I get almost as much work for my ethics as I do my abilities - I certainly get more references because of my character than I would if I was an asshole. That scales upwards for business in the public eye as well. Some businesses don't survive without it. Some thrive because of it. Some are completely unaffected. And it's exactly the kind of move that shows a "do no evil" aspect to the whole Google/book scanning/copyright hub-bub. Public relations is a thriving market sector because it has reputation capital has value. Most days, reputation capital is front page news for somebody.
I would hazard a guess that it would be illegal to sell a home in the US with empty bulb sockets, just for the safety reason. But I've never looked at it from that direction.
Not that I'd ever consider it, either, and of course I'm no expert. But if I really felt the need, I'd be comfortable taking out expensive light bulbs and replacing them with cheaper ones. That sort of thing wouldn't be an issue for us - both times we've put our house up for sale, we've swapped out bulbs for bright incandescents anyway. And most of our home lighting is freestanding, neither of us enjoying the light from ceiling fixtures. But frankly, we've just sold the house. A few lightbulbs aren't going to make a difference, no matter what they cost.
All that said, this is why the inclusions and exclusions list is important. One example I tripped over is that while it is assumed that a wall mounted mirror is a fixture, a wall mounted TV is not. But if the notion of "attached to the property" is taken literally, a case might be made for the TV being a fixture. If you want it with the house, include it and if you're taking it with you - exclude it. Caveat emptor, and caveat venditor, too. Not that any of it is my expertise, except that I like to live without being sued.
Another blog post, from a lawyer in Australia this time, that seems to say the same thing as everything else I found (but more clearly): http://www.propertyupdate.com.au/articles/104/1/Fixture-Fixation/Page1.html
Flamebait? I'd rather sit in a dark living room than one lit by CFL's, (and I do). I use them selectively, too, and for pretty much the same reasons. As well, the last town I lived in had horribly inconsistent power levels, the house was 80+ years old with some knob and tube wiring - CFL bulbs died fast and expensively.
In the US (well, the parts I've paid attention to) "real property" is the land and anything attached to it. If you can lift it and carry it out (with or without help) with nothing more than disconnecting it from utilities (or something like a dryer vent) then it not part of the real property. ....
I looked up chattel and real estate in Ontario, where I'm from. It's pretty much as you've found - if it's a "built in", it's real estate, but if it's stand-alone, it's chattels and you can take it.
A chattel is a moveable object that has not been "annexed" to the property in a legal sense. A stand-up dishwasher is a chattel. A built-in dishwasher is not. Built-in appliances are part of the real estate. Independent stand-alone appliances are chattels. Electric lights fixtures are part of the real estate, but the light bulbs are not.
From a real estate agent's blog, not a legal document. http://ontariorealestatesource.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-are-chattels.html
2001 seemed clean and plot-driven to me.
Of course, that plot could have been turned into a film that was only about half the length...
It could have. It would have been different, and not necessarily better. I've watched 2001 a few times, and only all the way through twice. I'm not always in the mood, but when I am it's slow pace and quiet are perfect. The pacing is an important part of the narrative. It's one of my favourite films, and like most of my favourite films, albums, games and such, I'm not always in the mood for it.
"fewer" not "less". Bits are discrete.
Well off topic and far too pedantic, but what the hell. A blog at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html references Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (MWCDEU) to point out that "less" has been used before plural, countable nouns since the time of King Alfred. It was the opinion of Robert Baker, written in "Remarks on the English Language" in 1770, that "fewer" was preferable. It is unknown how this became the rule, but usage then and now do not conform to the rule.
From the MWCDEU:
If you are a native speaker, your use of less and fewer can reliably be guided by your ear. If you are not a native speaker, you will find that the simple rule with which we started is a safe guide, except for the constructions for which we have shown less to be preferred.
There's a scan of the MWCEDU available from the blog post. Make of it what you will, I found it interesting.
No, no, it looks like the next item on the list is maple syrup.
We wouldn't take credit away from Benjamin Franklin. Nor for introducing the French to potatoes. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/food/2009/07/03/ben-franklin-patriot-foodie/ - I think lacrosse is the next thing on the national "to-do".
Yeah, I know, but "nothing more attractive"? Really?
For me, it wouldn't be the online avatar dance, but it is definitely and "Really" be that overlap of interests and perspectives, the feeling of being understood and accepted that is attractive about the lady of the house. That's not the same as tickling my sexual fancy, that's making me want her to be the one tickling it. And why can't that come from online avatar dancing? She said once that the first time she knew she loved me was when I got out of the car to clear shopping carts left out of parking spots away and put them in that shed (so that other drivers could park without dinging their car). The "moment" can come at the damndest times, you never know when.
FWIW... I'm not sure that fits the definition of in moderation. ...
YMMV, of course -- I have no idea what your life is like, etc. But for me, just the thought of spending more than one night a week playing games makes my skin crawl with the thought of all the chores that wouldn't be getting done.
The missus and I would play games between 3 or 5 nights a week - not always online, mind you. That doesn't mean that we spend all the time between 6:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m playing games. We may only play for a couple of hours. One or two nights are weekend nights, and if those nights are available we have more time then. We also keep up with the chores, take walks once or twice a week along the river, keep up our jobs ... you get the point. As you hint, the trick is not exactly in what you do 4 nights a week or so (TV, games, whatever...), it's balancing that with what needs to be done. That defines near enough to moderation for me - as distinct from excess, when the chores don't get done and the crawling of skin sets in.
World of Warcraft: Destroying relationships with girls since...
We did eventually give up WoW, for loss of interest. It's not the game that ruins relationships. It's the devotion to time-sinks at the exclusion of your relationship, and yar, you betcha WoW facilitates that. So do sports teams, knitting, music, internet surfing ... many things will do it. Online games are more encouraging, however, with that danged carrot in front of your nose all the time. But WoW or not, the relationships that died because of WoW would have found another death in the game's absence. If any online game is more appealing than your partner, you should be looking for another partner.
Mod parent up for actually reading FTA. :)
+1 Informed? ;)