you cannot take rights away from Americans. Prohibition taught us that.
Counterexamples:
The right to own slaves.
The right not to have your income taxed.
The draft, I believe, has been phased in and out several times.
Of course, the first item we (arguably) fought a war over, which likely no one wants in the case of gun control (let's shoot poeple until they give up their guns!)
Recent policy decisions have also alarmingly shown that people are willing to give up liberties for a percieved gain of safety. Privacy is being compromised, and by and large the American population is all for it.
Uh, no other company would be stupid enough to try to use the name "TiVO" without paying for it, just like no company is going to market facial tissues as Kleenex(tm), even though most people use it as a generic term for that product. It's a no-brainer of a court case for the infringed company's lawyers to win. Companies just aren't that dumb.
What TiVO *can* do is use the patents it has to strong arm other companies that try to enter the PVR market. Between them and Sonic Blue, I think they basically own the concept of PVRs patent-wise (oblig. rant against patents omitted).
My guess? TiVO will get bought out by some big player... Sony, Philips, or perhaps even Microsoft once its business position slips enough and the shareholders of the comp[any want to cash out.
Yeah... but turning on any electronic device that was smoking without having fixed what caused it to smoke in the first place is never a good idea.
My experiences with a VAR
on
When Users Attack
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I worked in the early 90's for a VAR in western MA... man, that was an experience, even aside from the customers. But there were a few memorable repair calls we had.
We came in one night from a repair call and dinner to find the following message on the answering machine:
"Um.... hi... this is Jane Doe. My Commodore 64 started smoking earlier, and I shot it with a fire estinguisher. Um... do you think it's safe to turn it back on?"
Another call we got was:
"Hi... I was wondering if I could buy a Q, L, and C key from you... my parrot ate those keys off the keyboard."
While sort of not a supid mistake by users, I did see one specatular mess made by a power supply that flamed out. As we did the autopsy, we realized that the thing had gone up because the airflow was blocked because of some buildup. We realized, when we visited their site, what this was. THey were in a small auto-insurance office packed with five or six chain smokers. I couldn't stand it in the office more than a minute or so. I suspect that the PSU had gotten a fair amount of ash from a nearby ashtray in addition to just general gunk from the smoke.
On the other hand, our purpose is to decoherently organize and synchronize the various battery processes and currents,
Decherently. Organize. Um, yeah. Is that like an orderly scramble?
The other end of that overpotential can be connected (switched onto) the load to deliver a surge of power (sorry for the normal terminology!)
Translation: I wish to apologize to my fellow crank inventors for making a statement someone might almost understand... it was late, and my bullshit generator had run low (damn thing was supposed to work perpetually!)
And, of course, no crank science screed would be complete without the paranoid ranting:
Still, big financial empires don't give up their empires without a real fight -- by fair means or foul. And that fight includes the ruthless suppression of true negative resistors. Such as the really excellent battery poppers.
Are battery poppers anything like jalapeno poppers? Man, I bet they would pack quite a kick...
One thing I haven't heard much of is that fact that while kids these days can hone their videogame skills at home (often with versions as good as those in the arcades), there's no easy way to do that with pinball games, save actually playing them in the arcade.
Now, at the arcade, what are you going to put your quarters down on. when you're playing your freinds... one that you know pretty well, and are cokpetitive at, or one you don't really know?
I would hate to think of the that anytime you purchase a good or service, that your personal information will be sold to spam houses.
Basically, that's the case for anythin these days. I subscribed to the Consumer Reports website a few months ago. I actualyl bothered to check the privacy policy, and they stated they wouldn;t reveal any personal information. While subscribing they said "Hey, special offer, get our magazine at a reduced rate." I figured, which not, and checked that off as well.
Well, it turns out that Consumer Reports decided, privacy policy or no privacy policy, that subscribing to their print magazine meant I had opted in to getting all sorts of junk mail. I know it's from them, since I always use a different middle initial when subscribing to anything, to track who is selling what. Just a few weeks after signing up, the junk mail started flowing in. I called them on the fact that they are violating their own prvacy policy by handing out information I gave to their web site to third parties. They haven't bothered getting back to me on it.
If the supposedly pro-consumer Consumer Reports can't be trusted with personal data these days, who can? I don't subscribe to any magazines now, since they'll sell your name off in a split second. My college is selling my name to every educational insitution under the sun (even beauty schools for christ's sake!). My long distance company has sold my name to a bunch of other organizations. I just hand out the bare minimum of information these days, and lie when I feel they do not have the right to demand certain information. Up until recently, I've managed to avoid most junk mail and telemarketer lists, but I have a sinking feeling that once information leaks out, it's just going to spread like oil on water.
I'm tired of being marketed to. I'm not a good little consumer. I'm not a demographic. Leave me the fuck alone.
I hope that they aren't putting in all sorts of Digital Rights Management crap, such as DataPlay has done. Hint to anyone in charge of this stuff: people don't want to pay money so that will be RIAA happy. People want unencumbered technologies that treat them like adults, and give them the flexibility to do as they see fit.
Yeah. It's not unheard of, though. I remember hearing that the main eccentric guy in "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" got severely pissed about some network filming a civil war miniseries down south had all of the roads covered with dirt and other stuff... apparently, he took pains to piss movie people off. Something I'd be all for.
I remember when they were filming some movie about the Brinks robbery in Boston, they forced people to take down TV antennas from their houses, so it would look more authentically 1930's (this was back in the 70's, before cable). Apparently strong-arm tatcics were used.
Finally, I was watching a TV show about a famous local chef, who was contacted by movie people, who wanted to use his restuaunt as a setting in a movie. Great, he thought. The people came in, and completely changed over his place, making it look nothing like the original. He asked "uh, so why did you want to film here if you wanted to change everything about the place?" "Oh, because the *light* was just *perfect*."
One wonders why they need to actually fly an helicopter over an actual city, resulting in the shutting down of said city. Even if computer graphics can't give them what they want as far as flying over the city, surely they could use one of those light-weight robotic camaeras on a radio-controlled helicopter to film the scene. That would be a lot less dangerous to the general populace, meaning it would be a lot less disruptive.
Geez. It's all just freakin' entertainment. I'll be glad when it all goes virtual, and we won't have to deal with these people who think movies are more important than real life.
Except this isn't what the case is about. What it's about is the ability to put an organization onto a black hole list. An individual's right to block a sender isn't in question. If you read the complaint, the plaintiff claims that the defendant made an "unfounded complaint" (i.e. he lied).
In essence, it's basically just a libel case. Party X says party Y is bad, and no one should have anything to do with them. Party Y suffers because of this. Party Y wants to be compensated for their losses.
There are more and more of these cases on the net these days... companies are suing people who post on various forums, usually with respect to the company's performance and stock evaluation. Oftentimes just the lawsuit is enough to get people to back down... post retractions, and whatnot.
In these cases, the ultimate defense is the truth. Here, it looks entirely probable that what the defendent said ("these guys are spammers") is true. In which case, the company really has no case. It would just be a question of proving the company sent spam. Spamming doesn't even have to be against the law in order for the defendant to win. As long as what he said was well-founded, he'll win.
Of course, what does suck is that he's hauled into court, and made to defend himself. One can only hope the judge will not only find for the defendant, but also award court costs.
Another thng that sucks is... these suits will not go away, even if spam is outlawed. The only way to make these suits go away is legislation against and vigorous prosecution of "anti-SLAPP" lawsuits, which are aimed at stifling the free speech of individuals via lawsuits. If you make it too risky for a company to launch an unfounded lawsuit against an individual or organization, the lawsuits will stop.
Now if it's a debit / check card, you're SOL. Of course that's if you actually keep a sizable amount of money in your checking account.
Nope, the law in the U.S. (last time I checked) was a $50 liability if you contact the bank and tell them your card was stolen within 2 days. Beyond this 2 day limit, you're liable for $500.
Of course, the huge drawback of debit card fraud is that until all of the machinations of the bank go through and they are satisfied you were defrauded, they do not credit your account. Which can mean you won't have cash to live off of, cover outstanding checks, etc.
Congress is spending more and more of its time considering legislation that requires technological enforcement of copyright laws.
It occurs to me, that if they are keen on using technology to actually enforce laws, rather than relying on the people's own good judgement and respect for the law, then they have much bigger fish to fry.
Why is it than we've not seen a legislative mandate that requires car manufacutrers to prevent drunk driving? How about limiters that prevent aggressive driving or speeding? Why have we not seen legislative mandates that require gun manufacturers to make guns that can't kill innocent people (or, at the very least, cannot be accidentally fired i.e. by a child)?
After all, these are issues that *kill* people. And human lives are more important than money, aren't they? Aren't they?
It's not that the technology in either of those cases is beyond the state of the art. It's that there's no money in it for them. The money in those two cases are in the hands of the automobile and gun manufacturers.
In the case for building copyright protection into the simplest A to D converters, the money is on the side of the MPAA. The electronics industry's position is unclear for now... they could stand to benefit by this legislation ('oh gosh, Mr & Mrs. Consumer! All of your electronics are now incompatible with the current releases from Hollywood! Tsk. You'll have to buy a totally new set of consumer electronics.'). They can also count on hackers breaking encryption scemes every few years, leading to another change in standards... forcing yet more upgrades.
I just have an image of all the senators manning a fast food joint "...that's the super legislative combo... would you like fries with that? OK... it'll be $5 Million in campaign donations, please pull up to the window."
Hmmm.... what about THX1138? Another early 70's disutopian movie. I liked the look and the feel of it. Computers and robots have basically taken over. I can;t quite recall the point of the whole thing... it was more an exercise in examining what could be, rather than being a traditional story. It's been a while since I have een it, though.
Oh, I heard the director of the film went on to make a few other movies that seem to be a bit more popular.
Re:Try cancelling a cell phone
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 2
Finally, they refused to cancel the service for three months. They'd just stop billing us and if we didn't use the service, it would expire...
What a brilliant tactic! I mean, imagine how many people would make the mistake of using the wrong cell phone, or in an ISP's case, have their system dial up the old ISP and log in before they knew what was happening? And that would trigger a whole new round of "we won't cancel your service..." etc. Of course, after they bill you for the service you accidentally used.
Except, of course, that you need to give a contact address to get a domain, which ends up being available to anyone who knows how to use whois. And you have to give out personal information to a registrar, who might turn right around and sell that info to any number of lists (i.e. what Network Solutions decided to do).
Ah, I see the wrath of the Apple Zealotry (tm, Pat. Pending) has already smitten you.
Funny, all I see is people calling him on his incomplete grasp of Sun's product line. That's Apple zealotry?
Geez... if you wanna post someone else's opinion of Apple, at least have the balls to just say it without making up the excuse that you're riding to the rescue of someone beset zelots.
And actually giving a shit about your account being "smited," is pretty damn sad. Just say what you will out in the open. Whining about conserving your precious karma just makes me think you've not got much to say that people find interesting in the first place.
Kids today are obsessed with visuals. If the game doesn't look kick-ass, they don't want to play it. If the game doesn't involve fragging and dying every 30 seconds, they don't want to play it. Most of today's kids want the immediate gratification that games like Q3, UT, HL, etc. offer.
That's exactly the opposite of what I think. The games these days require so much investment of time in order to master. Take a look at most FPS games, or most of the console fighting games these days. You need to learn a half-dozen to a dozen different commands, dodges, weapon combos, and advanced strategies. It's hard to get into these games unless you're a kid who has a load of time to kill.
Me, I'd like to get a quick gaming fix now and again, but I simply don't have the time to invest in the average game these days. Bring back more of the games with simpler, easily accessable gameplay. Stop equating "more complex" with "more fun." You can still create a game that can hold long-term interest while being accessable. It's just harder.
They offer just the hardware without requiring subscription (or huge up front fee) and the unit is mostly functional without it.
Um, last time I checked, you are not obligated to buy the service. Without the service, your TiVo will just let you pause live TV or record at sepcific times. This only makes sense. Why should they provide ongoing services to you (the programming guide) if you're not going to pay them?
It becomes a general purpose multimedia machine which I can do what ever the heck I want to with.
Uh... see, there are these things called PCs... you might have heard of them... get yourself a video capture card with PVR software, a big honkin' hard disk, and a good sound system, and you are good to go.
Asking for this is like saying "I won't buy a car until they can fly through the air." In reality, what you're really looking for is an airplane...
Hmm... imagine what could be done with this technique given:
A reserved phone extension someplace.
A phone sound card connection for this phone.
A PC with voice recognition/voice synthesis software. Voice synthesis would have to be very convincing... perhaps just using canned voice samples. For voice recognition, you might only have to catch a phrase here or there, or maybe just detect silence.
Faux "AI" software, such as Eliza or Racter. Perhaps seeded with marketspeak phrases ("yes, but what's the ROI?", "How do you address the currently shifting business paradigms?") The longer the conversation gets, the more surreal and random the AI should get ("Is it effective on monkeys? Our server room is full of monkeys. Flying ones. They glow blue. And they are tiny.")
The AI should also throw out bones form time to time, to keep the marketeer on the hook ("Excellent!" "I can see a need for this in our organization, RIGHT NOW!").
An MP3 server to let everyone else listen to the precious sounds of a telemarketer slowly going insane.
I recieved spam the other day from them hawking some travel special. I never recieved anything in the past, and I had opted out of any and all e-mail offers that had in the past.
I've not had any "60-day" notice of them changing my preferences. Unless they consider their spam as being "notification" that they have changed their policy.
I've wiped all user data from their system. They want to play games? They can do it with someone else.
The sites are using advertising as revenue to provide the service that we as a user request. Now enter pop-up stopper software. Is it legal for you to effectively block there only source income that most of these sites have?
Think of this analogy. Is it legal for me to tape a show, then go back and edit out the commercials? IANAL, but I believe this is allowable for private use (i.e. as long as I don't redistribute). In any event, it's certainly legal for me to fast forward over commercials.
At the same time, I'm dubious about the argument that "I did not give these ad companies permission to use my RAM/CPU/whatnot which I pay for in order to do their advertising." Well, I pay for my telephone, but it is legal (with certain restrictions) for bottom-feeding scumwads -- err telemarketers -- to use my phone which I paid for to advertise to me. By the same token, I'm paying for the TV, electricity, and cable that brings TV ads into my house.
So, where's the difference with spy/adware? Here, the advertisers are making alterations to my system in order to present their ads. If they have ad-supported software (say a banner ad) I think most people will agree that while it stays "winthin the box" then it's not crossing the line. Some people get upset with popup ads, but the fact remains that browser popup windows are a function inherit in the browser. The ads are just making use of them.
Now, when you alter something beyond the bounds of your own software by changing how the underlying system works, I think there should be a legal requirement that the software must gain explcite permission to do this.
Even this may not be enough. Last week, I downloaded some game off of the net which was touted as a demo of this piece of game design software. The installer popped up a generic-looking license agreement, but just before I clicked OK, I noticed that there was something fishy. Scrolling down, I noticed that at the bottom of the window, it mentioned that it would change my browser's homepage to something else, and also subvert the search mechanism of the browser. It's easy to slip those sorts of things past people.
At the very least, companies that install crap without any warning should be hit hard for deception.
A long term solution, however, would be the creation of operating system where you don't have an all-or-nothing security model. Users need to have the ability to install software on their system, but at the same time be sure that the software cannot muck with the system software. Right now, you give the software vendors an inch, and they'll take a whole mile.
One thing I've wondered: When a company cannot make payroll, and does not do so for some time, but refuses to lay you off, is there a way you can claim that you are unemployed?
In a reasonable company, you'd imagine the management would realize that they need to lay people off, enabling those unemployed employees to collect unemployment insurance, at least. But it seems to me that there's a danger of sleazy mangament refusing to lay people off, and refusing to pa them (or simply hand out IOU's). You'd be faced with a dilemma: continue to work for them, hoping they will be able to make good at some point in the near future, or stop working for them, get fired, and be unable to collect unemployment.
I suppose someone leaving because you haven't paid them is probably considered insufficient reason for firing them or something, but resolving that would take time and lawyers. I wonder if people at Loki got caught in a catch-22 like this. If you are living from paycheck to paycheck already, it seems to me you'd have to make a few hard decisions on when to cut your losses.
Ah, another one, eh? Maybe we can boost the literacy rate of slashdot. Heh.
You tend to lose most or all of your rights to your work with a typical contract for a technical book.
Same deal here. Basically, the stuff I have written is a work for hire, the same as the stuff I have written for my company. The contract is sort of strange, for reasons I can't get into.
And really, I'm not too worried about this. For the vast majority of technical books, the lifetime of the work is far, far shorter than what copyright allows. Unless you happen to write a classic (such as Knuth's works) your book will be out there a year, perhaps two. If you are lucky, you'll be asked to do a revised edition or two. But ultimately, the "long term" rights for these sorts of books are moot.
Also, from talking to people, technical book publishers seem to treat their writers with a bit more repsect than general publishers. This probably comes from the fact that these publishers do have to have a high turnover in their publishing cycle, and thus value the relationship with he author a bit more. You'd figure it would be the same for the general publishers, though.
Of course, there's still that risk of them making "Using Foo: the Motion Picture", and we'll be screwed out of royalties!
Linking to an emulator site in and of itself isn't grounds for considering this thing to be a piracy device. You could point to other emulators used in the development of software for handhelds for an example. The POSE emulator, which emulates the Palm platform, was actually embraced by Palm and promoted as a way to easily develop software for the platform without having to go through the trouble of downloading to a deveice. Considering, from a description of this device, that it takes several minutes to download a ROM to the Gameboy, it seems logical that a developer would want ot use the quick turnaround of using an emulator instead. I expect that Nintendo's (and whoever else makes games for the platform) engineers use emulators extensively while developing new products.
That being said, the people selling this thing are probably still screwed, since it's likely Nintendo can claim that somewhere in their product is some obfuscation (like an undocumented pinout on the cartridges) that qualifies as a copy protection method that this unit circumvents. As you say, the law sucks, but it's still a law until struck down or repealed.
Slashdot Mirror
Counterexamples:
Of course, the first item we (arguably) fought a war over, which likely no one wants in the case of gun control (let's shoot poeple until they give up their guns!)
Recent policy decisions have also alarmingly shown that people are willing to give up liberties for a percieved gain of safety. Privacy is being compromised, and by and large the American population is all for it.
I'm Bill Wyman, and so's my wife!
Uh, no other company would be stupid enough to try to use the name "TiVO" without paying for it, just like no company is going to market facial tissues as Kleenex(tm), even though most people use it as a generic term for that product. It's a no-brainer of a court case for the infringed company's lawyers to win. Companies just aren't that dumb.
What TiVO *can* do is use the patents it has to strong arm other companies that try to enter the PVR market. Between them and Sonic Blue, I think they basically own the concept of PVRs patent-wise (oblig. rant against patents omitted).
My guess? TiVO will get bought out by some big player... Sony, Philips, or perhaps even Microsoft once its business position slips enough and the shareholders of the comp[any want to cash out.
Yeah... but turning on any electronic device that was smoking without having fixed what caused it to smoke in the first place is never a good idea.
I worked in the early 90's for a VAR in western MA... man, that was an experience, even aside from the customers. But there were a few memorable repair calls we had.
We came in one night from a repair call and dinner to find the following message on the answering machine:
"Um.... hi... this is Jane Doe. My Commodore 64 started smoking earlier, and I shot it with a fire estinguisher. Um... do you think it's safe to turn it back on?"
Another call we got was:
"Hi... I was wondering if I could buy a Q, L, and C key from you... my parrot ate those keys off the keyboard."
While sort of not a supid mistake by users, I did see one specatular mess made by a power supply that flamed out. As we did the autopsy, we realized that the thing had gone up because the airflow was blocked because of some buildup. We realized, when we visited their site, what this was. THey were in a small auto-insurance office packed with five or six chain smokers. I couldn't stand it in the office more than a minute or so. I suspect that the PSU had gotten a fair amount of ash from a nearby ashtray in addition to just general gunk from the smoke.
My favorite exerpts:
On the other hand, our purpose is to decoherently organize and synchronize the various battery processes and currents,Decherently. Organize. Um, yeah. Is that like an orderly scramble?
The other end of that overpotential can be connected (switched onto) the load to deliver a surge of power (sorry for the normal terminology!)Translation: I wish to apologize to my fellow crank inventors for making a statement someone might almost understand... it was late, and my bullshit generator had run low (damn thing was supposed to work perpetually!)
And, of course, no crank science screed would be complete without the paranoid ranting:
Still, big financial empires don't give up their empires without a real fight -- by fair means or foul. And that fight includes the ruthless suppression of true negative resistors. Such as the really excellent battery poppers.Are battery poppers anything like jalapeno poppers? Man, I bet they would pack quite a kick...
One thing I haven't heard much of is that fact that while kids these days can hone their videogame skills at home (often with versions as good as those in the arcades), there's no easy way to do that with pinball games, save actually playing them in the arcade.
Now, at the arcade, what are you going to put your quarters down on. when you're playing your freinds... one that you know pretty well, and are cokpetitive at, or one you don't really know?
Basically, that's the case for anythin these days. I subscribed to the Consumer Reports website a few months ago. I actualyl bothered to check the privacy policy, and they stated they wouldn;t reveal any personal information. While subscribing they said "Hey, special offer, get our magazine at a reduced rate." I figured, which not, and checked that off as well.
Well, it turns out that Consumer Reports decided, privacy policy or no privacy policy, that subscribing to their print magazine meant I had opted in to getting all sorts of junk mail. I know it's from them, since I always use a different middle initial when subscribing to anything, to track who is selling what. Just a few weeks after signing up, the junk mail started flowing in. I called them on the fact that they are violating their own prvacy policy by handing out information I gave to their web site to third parties. They haven't bothered getting back to me on it.
If the supposedly pro-consumer Consumer Reports can't be trusted with personal data these days, who can? I don't subscribe to any magazines now, since they'll sell your name off in a split second. My college is selling my name to every educational insitution under the sun (even beauty schools for christ's sake!). My long distance company has sold my name to a bunch of other organizations. I just hand out the bare minimum of information these days, and lie when I feel they do not have the right to demand certain information. Up until recently, I've managed to avoid most junk mail and telemarketer lists, but I have a sinking feeling that once information leaks out, it's just going to spread like oil on water.
I'm tired of being marketed to. I'm not a good little consumer. I'm not a demographic. Leave me the fuck alone.
I hope that they aren't putting in all sorts of Digital Rights Management crap, such as DataPlay has done. Hint to anyone in charge of this stuff: people don't want to pay money so that will be RIAA happy. People want unencumbered technologies that treat them like adults, and give them the flexibility to do as they see fit.
Yeah. It's not unheard of, though. I remember hearing that the main eccentric guy in "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" got severely pissed about some network filming a civil war miniseries down south had all of the roads covered with dirt and other stuff... apparently, he took pains to piss movie people off. Something I'd be all for.
I remember when they were filming some movie about the Brinks robbery in Boston, they forced people to take down TV antennas from their houses, so it would look more authentically 1930's (this was back in the 70's, before cable). Apparently strong-arm tatcics were used.
Finally, I was watching a TV show about a famous local chef, who was contacted by movie people, who wanted to use his restuaunt as a setting in a movie. Great, he thought. The people came in, and completely changed over his place, making it look nothing like the original. He asked "uh, so why did you want to film here if you wanted to change everything about the place?" "Oh, because the *light* was just *perfect*."
One wonders why they need to actually fly an helicopter over an actual city, resulting in the shutting down of said city. Even if computer graphics can't give them what they want as far as flying over the city, surely they could use one of those light-weight robotic camaeras on a radio-controlled helicopter to film the scene. That would be a lot less dangerous to the general populace, meaning it would be a lot less disruptive.
Geez. It's all just freakin' entertainment. I'll be glad when it all goes virtual, and we won't have to deal with these people who think movies are more important than real life.
Except this isn't what the case is about. What it's about is the ability to put an organization onto a black hole list. An individual's right to block a sender isn't in question. If you read the complaint, the plaintiff claims that the defendant made an "unfounded complaint" (i.e. he lied).
In essence, it's basically just a libel case. Party X says party Y is bad, and no one should have anything to do with them. Party Y suffers because of this. Party Y wants to be compensated for their losses.
There are more and more of these cases on the net these days... companies are suing people who post on various forums, usually with respect to the company's performance and stock evaluation. Oftentimes just the lawsuit is enough to get people to back down... post retractions, and whatnot.
In these cases, the ultimate defense is the truth. Here, it looks entirely probable that what the defendent said ("these guys are spammers") is true. In which case, the company really has no case. It would just be a question of proving the company sent spam. Spamming doesn't even have to be against the law in order for the defendant to win. As long as what he said was well-founded, he'll win.
Of course, what does suck is that he's hauled into court, and made to defend himself. One can only hope the judge will not only find for the defendant, but also award court costs.
Another thng that sucks is... these suits will not go away, even if spam is outlawed. The only way to make these suits go away is legislation against and vigorous prosecution of "anti-SLAPP" lawsuits, which are aimed at stifling the free speech of individuals via lawsuits. If you make it too risky for a company to launch an unfounded lawsuit against an individual or organization, the lawsuits will stop.
#include "Obligatory IANAL"
Nope, the law in the U.S. (last time I checked) was a $50 liability if you contact the bank and tell them your card was stolen within 2 days. Beyond this 2 day limit, you're liable for $500.
Of course, the huge drawback of debit card fraud is that until all of the machinations of the bank go through and they are satisfied you were defrauded, they do not credit your account. Which can mean you won't have cash to live off of, cover outstanding checks, etc.
Congress is spending more and more of its time considering legislation that requires technological enforcement of copyright laws.
It occurs to me, that if they are keen on using technology to actually enforce laws, rather than relying on the people's own good judgement and respect for the law, then they have much bigger fish to fry.
Why is it than we've not seen a legislative mandate that requires car manufacutrers to prevent drunk driving? How about limiters that prevent aggressive driving or speeding? Why have we not seen legislative mandates that require gun manufacturers to make guns that can't kill innocent people (or, at the very least, cannot be accidentally fired i.e. by a child)?
After all, these are issues that *kill* people. And human lives are more important than money, aren't they? Aren't they?
It's not that the technology in either of those cases is beyond the state of the art. It's that there's no money in it for them. The money in those two cases are in the hands of the automobile and gun manufacturers.
In the case for building copyright protection into the simplest A to D converters, the money is on the side of the MPAA. The electronics industry's position is unclear for now... they could stand to benefit by this legislation ('oh gosh, Mr & Mrs. Consumer! All of your electronics are now incompatible with the current releases from Hollywood! Tsk. You'll have to buy a totally new set of consumer electronics.'). They can also count on hackers breaking encryption scemes every few years, leading to another change in standards... forcing yet more upgrades.
I just have an image of all the senators manning a fast food joint "...that's the super legislative combo... would you like fries with that? OK... it'll be $5 Million in campaign donations, please pull up to the window."
Hmmm.... what about THX1138? Another early 70's disutopian movie. I liked the look and the feel of it. Computers and robots have basically taken over. I can;t quite recall the point of the whole thing... it was more an exercise in examining what could be, rather than being a traditional story. It's been a while since I have een it, though.
Oh, I heard the director of the film went on to make a few other movies that seem to be a bit more popular.
What a brilliant tactic! I mean, imagine how many people would make the mistake of using the wrong cell phone, or in an ISP's case, have their system dial up the old ISP and log in before they knew what was happening? And that would trigger a whole new round of "we won't cancel your service..." etc. Of course, after they bill you for the service you accidentally used.
Except, of course, that you need to give a contact address to get a domain, which ends up being available to anyone who knows how to use whois. And you have to give out personal information to a registrar, who might turn right around and sell that info to any number of lists (i.e. what Network Solutions decided to do).
Funny, all I see is people calling him on his incomplete grasp of Sun's product line. That's Apple zealotry?
Geez... if you wanna post someone else's opinion of Apple, at least have the balls to just say it without making up the excuse that you're riding to the rescue of someone beset zelots.
And actually giving a shit about your account being "smited," is pretty damn sad. Just say what you will out in the open. Whining about conserving your precious karma just makes me think you've not got much to say that people find interesting in the first place.
That's exactly the opposite of what I think. The games these days require so much investment of time in order to master. Take a look at most FPS games, or most of the console fighting games these days. You need to learn a half-dozen to a dozen different commands, dodges, weapon combos, and advanced strategies. It's hard to get into these games unless you're a kid who has a load of time to kill.
Me, I'd like to get a quick gaming fix now and again, but I simply don't have the time to invest in the average game these days. Bring back more of the games with simpler, easily accessable gameplay. Stop equating "more complex" with "more fun." You can still create a game that can hold long-term interest while being accessable. It's just harder.
Um, last time I checked, you are not obligated to buy the service. Without the service, your TiVo will just let you pause live TV or record at sepcific times. This only makes sense. Why should they provide ongoing services to you (the programming guide) if you're not going to pay them?
Uh... see, there are these things called PCs... you might have heard of them... get yourself a video capture card with PVR software, a big honkin' hard disk, and a good sound system, and you are good to go.
Asking for this is like saying "I won't buy a car until they can fly through the air." In reality, what you're really looking for is an airplane...
Hmm... imagine what could be done with this technique given:
Except that this is bullshit.
I recieved spam the other day from them hawking some travel special. I never recieved anything in the past, and I had opted out of any and all e-mail offers that had in the past.
I've not had any "60-day" notice of them changing my preferences. Unless they consider their spam as being "notification" that they have changed their policy.
I've wiped all user data from their system. They want to play games? They can do it with someone else.
Think of this analogy. Is it legal for me to tape a show, then go back and edit out the commercials? IANAL, but I believe this is allowable for private use (i.e. as long as I don't redistribute). In any event, it's certainly legal for me to fast forward over commercials.
At the same time, I'm dubious about the argument that "I did not give these ad companies permission to use my RAM/CPU/whatnot which I pay for in order to do their advertising." Well, I pay for my telephone, but it is legal (with certain restrictions) for bottom-feeding scumwads -- err telemarketers -- to use my phone which I paid for to advertise to me. By the same token, I'm paying for the TV, electricity, and cable that brings TV ads into my house.
So, where's the difference with spy/adware? Here, the advertisers are making alterations to my system in order to present their ads. If they have ad-supported software (say a banner ad) I think most people will agree that while it stays "winthin the box" then it's not crossing the line. Some people get upset with popup ads, but the fact remains that browser popup windows are a function inherit in the browser. The ads are just making use of them.
Now, when you alter something beyond the bounds of your own software by changing how the underlying system works, I think there should be a legal requirement that the software must gain explcite permission to do this.
Even this may not be enough. Last week, I downloaded some game off of the net which was touted as a demo of this piece of game design software. The installer popped up a generic-looking license agreement, but just before I clicked OK, I noticed that there was something fishy. Scrolling down, I noticed that at the bottom of the window, it mentioned that it would change my browser's homepage to something else, and also subvert the search mechanism of the browser. It's easy to slip those sorts of things past people.
At the very least, companies that install crap without any warning should be hit hard for deception.
A long term solution, however, would be the creation of operating system where you don't have an all-or-nothing security model. Users need to have the ability to install software on their system, but at the same time be sure that the software cannot muck with the system software. Right now, you give the software vendors an inch, and they'll take a whole mile.
One thing I've wondered: When a company cannot make payroll, and does not do so for some time, but refuses to lay you off, is there a way you can claim that you are unemployed?
In a reasonable company, you'd imagine the management would realize that they need to lay people off, enabling those unemployed employees to collect unemployment insurance, at least. But it seems to me that there's a danger of sleazy mangament refusing to lay people off, and refusing to pa them (or simply hand out IOU's). You'd be faced with a dilemma: continue to work for them, hoping they will be able to make good at some point in the near future, or stop working for them, get fired, and be unable to collect unemployment.
I suppose someone leaving because you haven't paid them is probably considered insufficient reason for firing them or something, but resolving that would take time and lawyers. I wonder if people at Loki got caught in a catch-22 like this. If you are living from paycheck to paycheck already, it seems to me you'd have to make a few hard decisions on when to cut your losses.
Ah, another one, eh? Maybe we can boost the literacy rate of slashdot. Heh.
Same deal here. Basically, the stuff I have written is a work for hire, the same as the stuff I have written for my company. The contract is sort of strange, for reasons I can't get into.
And really, I'm not too worried about this. For the vast majority of technical books, the lifetime of the work is far, far shorter than what copyright allows. Unless you happen to write a classic (such as Knuth's works) your book will be out there a year, perhaps two. If you are lucky, you'll be asked to do a revised edition or two. But ultimately, the "long term" rights for these sorts of books are moot.
Also, from talking to people, technical book publishers seem to treat their writers with a bit more repsect than general publishers. This probably comes from the fact that these publishers do have to have a high turnover in their publishing cycle, and thus value the relationship with he author a bit more. You'd figure it would be the same for the general publishers, though.
Of course, there's still that risk of them making "Using Foo: the Motion Picture", and we'll be screwed out of royalties!
Linking to an emulator site in and of itself isn't grounds for considering this thing to be a piracy device. You could point to other emulators used in the development of software for handhelds for an example. The POSE emulator, which emulates the Palm platform, was actually embraced by Palm and promoted as a way to easily develop software for the platform without having to go through the trouble of downloading to a deveice. Considering, from a description of this device, that it takes several minutes to download a ROM to the Gameboy, it seems logical that a developer would want ot use the quick turnaround of using an emulator instead. I expect that Nintendo's (and whoever else makes games for the platform) engineers use emulators extensively while developing new products.
That being said, the people selling this thing are probably still screwed, since it's likely Nintendo can claim that somewhere in their product is some obfuscation (like an undocumented pinout on the cartridges) that qualifies as a copy protection method that this unit circumvents. As you say, the law sucks, but it's still a law until struck down or repealed.