As this is an Australian story, you should be using the correct terminology. Tax evasion and tax avoidance are the same thing. It's tax minimisation that's the legal one.
Disclaimer: I'm an Australian that worked in the Australian finance industry for ten years, and have qualifications in financial planning. Tax avoidance will get you in trouble here.
Why all the stories I hear about mass-lawsuits over piracy seem to be for crappy films like Dallas Buyers Club and that Hurt Locker thing.
While I haven't actually been sued over pirating (I'm Australian), I've received plenty of copyright infringement notices.
The last one I received was for "48Hrs", a 1982 Eddie Murphy/Nick Nolte movie. (I was feeling nostalgic.) This was about 2 weeks ago.
They're not just going after downloaders of new or recent movies, or limiting the list to movies that failed at the box office (48Hrs did well enough to get a sequel).
I can understand having to pay extra for MPEG-2 support in a piece of software or hardware, as there are licensing issues with a third party, but you're Intel. This is your chip.
Not quite. Since AMD's 64 bit extensions to x86 became the de facto standard (over Intel's IA64 Itanium), Intel has had to licence x86-64 from AMD and is required to pay royalties. Yes, AMD has to pay royalties to Intel for x86 (and more) and they probably do some royalty-swap deals, but it's not quite as clear cut as "this is your chip".
But yeah, I agree this is a money-hungry cash grab and a dick move by Intel.
I'm paying $49.95 per month with TPG, which gives me 120GB per month, and they don't pretend that's "unlimited" (they actually have an unlimited plan).
I'm having trouble getting my head around a cap as low as 12GB being called unlimited. From memory, Optus counts uploads toward your cap, too.
So whilst it's great that we will have these kinds of speeds, how are we going to get data services fast enough to take advantage of them?
If you build it he will come.
At the moment, everything is overseas because it's not practical to have them here. As soon as we have the infrastructure in place, not only does it become more practical to mirror a lot of content and as well as provide additional services here, but it provides an underlying platform for new services to be created/invented.
While I agree that it's stupid that they made Greedo fire first, it was pretty obvious that if Han hadn't shot him, Greedo would have pulled his trigger
Wat.
Greedo wanted to take Han to Jabba for the bounty, there was absolutely no chance he would have fired without Han forcing his hand. He even offered to let Han go if he bribed Greedo with Jabba's money. Han briefly tried talking his way out of it, but got visibly pissed when Greedo brought the Falcon into the conversation.
Greedo would NOT have fired unprovoked, not a chance.
For a Slashdotter, you really don't know your Star Wars very well.
Catholics ALWAYS think of the bible as the Word of God.
Luckily, they weren't allowed to read the bible for one and a half thousand years. Unluckily, they had scary bigoted old men telling them what god really meant.
It seemed to me to at least have a better plot then many many other movies, not that that is saying all that much.
My farts smell better than many other peoples farts. Doesn't mean you want a lung full.
Personally I really enjoyed Avatar and thought it should of been longer, but then I was more interested in learning more about Pandora the world then the story.
Good luck. Gargamel has been trying to get info on that place for decades, but keeps getting foiled at the last minute. Azriel has had no luck, either.
It might not be original, and maybe people can say "Oh pocahontas did it first!" but that doesn't change that it was a suspenseful, well-made film with some good points that people could think about.
How can it be suspenseful when you've seen it a dozen times before? I wasn't even thinking of Pocahontas, I was think of Dances with Wolves (the South Park guys agree - the mocked it with "Dances with Smurfs"). It's a very old and rehashed plot.
This is Slashdot. Of course popular movies (with their comfortable, predictable, paint-by-numbers plot) are going to be panned. The movies that don't follow a formula are never mainstream-popular, and the ones I like might not be the ones you like, so there'll never be consensus there.
Get over yourself. If you want to turn your brain off and follow the herd (hurd?) don't be surprised when thinkers look down on you.
My microwave compiles NetBSD , you insensitive clod!
Get over it, dude. Go take something apart.
Easier said than done. These unwashed masses are diminishing my options, and are dumbing down my devices. I can tune out most of the world-I-don't-care-about, but once that world starts impacting on my world, it's overly simplistic to dismiss my concerns with a "get over it" throwaway line.
Why is it that all Opera users assume they've discovered some grand secret, some golden app that trumps everything else and only they know about - and they must proselytise!
Look, this is Slashdot, we all know about Opera, we've all tried it, yet we don't use it. Get over it. Opera isn't "the shit", it's just shit.
The iTunes lockin was necessary to keep the record labels from suing the living crap out of Apple
I hear this from Apple apologists a lot. And no matter how often you repeat it, it doesn't make it true
Apple loves lock-in. It had nothing to do with the labels. Apple could have licenced Fairplay to anybody, but they didn't, because they love lock-in. The labels wanted Apple to licence Fairplay to thirds parties, because it would have increased their revenue and increased marketshare, but apple loves lock-in, so they didn't.
Apple is a walled garden. They've never claimed otherwise (well, their fans do).
I don't pay for DRM, so I don't have any crippled, encrypted, or closed formats. My audio collection is about 70% vorbis, 25% MP3, and the rest a mixture of wav, unencrypted wma, au, asf, etc.
Seriously. I'm a tech person. I use Linux. I'm not trendy, and I don't have any interest in being trendy. But if I'm going to own an MP3 player, I want one that doesn't have a terrible design, and for some reason Apple seems to be the only tech company interested in solving their customer's problems.
Now, seriously. I'm a tech person. I use FreeBSD (linux is for trendy try-hards). I'm not trendy, and I don't have any interest in being trendy. But if I'm going to own a media player, I want one that doesn't limit itself to MP3s and Apple's proprietary format, requiring shitware like iTunes to make it functional, and for some reason Apple seems to be the only tech company interested in lock-in and a "walled garden".
The OS X UI however, makes sense to someone who's never sat in front of a computer.
I know this isn't what you meant, but everytime I hear an Apple apologist say that, I think "The OS X UI makes sense to somebody that doesn't know what they're doing".
If you know what you're doing, and you want to get real work done, OS X isn't for you.
Also, it's 2010, who hasn't sat in front of a computer?
as you open an application you are back were you started with a desktop orientated application with menu's etc that are not tablet friendly
Something to think about: While you're correct that Win7 isn't a tablet OS, and for the most part Windows apps aren't tablet friendly, Microsoft saw your complaint coming. For all the whinging that people did over the ribbon interface, MS have tweaked the ribbon to work extremely well with touchscreens and tablet style interfaces (even if tablets aren't where you want to type shit into MS Office).
For years people predicted the demise of x86, but it's now a permanent fixture for the foreseeable future. It's history pushed it forward until it's now the default ISO for virtually all creative computing platforms. ARM is superior in many ways, but will never unseat x86. MS Windows is the same. It's not suited to tablet computing now, but it's not going anywhere.
I think this'll be another situation where MS are very slow to start, but they'll have a lot of inertia once they get going. People continually underestimate MS's resilience in the computing world.
You're also part of a self-selected group which is not only more skilled at technology, but which has a higher degree of interest in it in general.
I completely disagree with this assertion. I have never seen any evidence that the younger generation is more skilled at technology or has a higher degree of interest in it. Quite the opposite. When tech is new, only the enthusiasts are involved in it, be it automobiles, flight, communications, computers, whatever. Once established and accessible to the masses, the general skill and interest in a tech falls to a minimum. Only the sort of people that read "news for nerds, stuff that matters" maintain an ongoing interest.
I'm 35, I grew up on C64s and DOS. I first used Linux before it hit version 1 (but have since moved on to FreeBSD). People today are no different than they were in the 80's - they're not skilled at much, but they're comfortable with what they grew up with. They have no real interest in any form of technology, just what the technology can do for them.
Is someone that grew up with television more skilled at fixing or tinkering with televisions? Are they more interested in how they work? What about cars? More people drive cars now than any time previously, but are they skilled at motoring and mechanics, and do they have a higher degree of interest in cars in general? Or are they just interested in what cars can do for them?
It probably will never go away, but it will never take over either.
While I agree it's a current fad (the glasses requiring kind), I do think 3D will eventually become the norm.
Once glasses-less 3D is practical and cost effective, and once 3D TVs can display 2D at the same high quality that they display 3D (current 3D TVs do 3D well, but aren't too good with 2D), then 3D will become ubiquitous. You'll sit in front of the TV and watch the old stuff in 2D, and new stuff in 2 or 3D, just like you can watch old black and white movies on your new HD TV.
It won't happen in the immediate future, but I'd guess within 10 years 3D TVs will be 90%+ of what's sold (the non-glasses kind). Buying an old style 2D TV will be like trying buy a VHS player now. They exist if you want one, but it's no longer the consumer norm.
They're following the bible, to the letter, how much more Christian can you get?
Apart from following the anti-gay teachings in both Deuteronomy and Leviticus, they also refuse to allow bastards and sons of bastards into church, "to the tenth generation he shall be banished" (Deuteronomy 23:2), they refuse medical support such as blood transfusions as taught in Deuteronomy 12:16, and they generally promote biblical law wherever possible.
The bible does not quite say "love thy neighbour". You're misquoting Leviticus, chapter 19 where it says "love one's neighbour as oneself". Since the WBC feel every human has fallen short of the glory of god, they do love their neighbour as they love themselves - which is not very much.
The WBC also "turns the other cheek". Jesus' sermon on the mount in Matthew chapter 5 states "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other so he may strike it also". It's about responding to violence without violence, and they certainly don't get violent at their protests. In fact, when they are attacked they literally do "turn the other cheek" to be struck again.
The WBC are about as Christian as you can possibly be without having a complete mental collapse.
Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?
Only agreed speech is safe. I thought pretty much everyone knew that.
Back in 2001 after the WTC was destroyed, an Australian boxer was denied entry to the US to compete in a match because he had been quoted as saying something along the lines of "Looks like US foreign policy came home to roost". Protecting things you want to hear is pointless - nobody is going to complain or stop you. The whole idea of "freedom of speech" is to protect people when they say things you don't want to hear. The US doesn't have that.
You have "free speech zones", for christ's sake, how blind can you be? The US is the least free of all the developed nations, no matter how often you chant the contrary.
Slashdot Mirror
As this is an Australian story, you should be using the correct terminology. Tax evasion and tax avoidance are the same thing. It's tax minimisation that's the legal one.
Disclaimer: I'm an Australian that worked in the Australian finance industry for ten years, and have qualifications in financial planning. Tax avoidance will get you in trouble here.
While I haven't actually been sued over pirating (I'm Australian), I've received plenty of copyright infringement notices.
The last one I received was for "48Hrs", a 1982 Eddie Murphy/Nick Nolte movie. (I was feeling nostalgic.) This was about 2 weeks ago.
They're not just going after downloaders of new or recent movies, or limiting the list to movies that failed at the box office (48Hrs did well enough to get a sequel).
I can understand having to pay extra for MPEG-2 support in a piece of software or hardware, as there are licensing issues with a third party, but you're Intel. This is your chip.
Not quite. Since AMD's 64 bit extensions to x86 became the de facto standard (over Intel's IA64 Itanium), Intel has had to licence x86-64 from AMD and is required to pay royalties. Yes, AMD has to pay royalties to Intel for x86 (and more) and they probably do some royalty-swap deals, but it's not quite as clear cut as "this is your chip".
But yeah, I agree this is a money-hungry cash grab and a dick move by Intel.
I could live with that - I'm so far from the exchange I only get 1.5Mbp - 2Mbps at best anyway. I can't wait for the NBN to reach me...
That's insane.
I'm paying $49.95 per month with TPG, which gives me 120GB per month, and they don't pretend that's "unlimited" (they actually have an unlimited plan).
I'm having trouble getting my head around a cap as low as 12GB being called unlimited. From memory, Optus counts uploads toward your cap, too.
Because it's not a Windows worm? It's an Outlook worm. MS Office is on more than just Windows.
So whilst it's great that we will have these kinds of speeds, how are we going to get data services fast enough to take advantage of them?
If you build it he will come.
At the moment, everything is overseas because it's not practical to have them here. As soon as we have the infrastructure in place, not only does it become more practical to mirror a lot of content and as well as provide additional services here, but it provides an underlying platform for new services to be created/invented.
You have to start somewhere :-)
First time is an accident,
Second time Coincidence,
Third time is Corporate Deregulation.
There, fixed that for you.
While I agree that it's stupid that they made Greedo fire first, it was pretty obvious that if Han hadn't shot him, Greedo would have pulled his trigger
Wat.
Greedo wanted to take Han to Jabba for the bounty, there was absolutely no chance he would have fired without Han forcing his hand. He even offered to let Han go if he bribed Greedo with Jabba's money. Han briefly tried talking his way out of it, but got visibly pissed when Greedo brought the Falcon into the conversation.
Greedo would NOT have fired unprovoked, not a chance.
For a Slashdotter, you really don't know your Star Wars very well.
Catholics ALWAYS think of the bible as the Word of God.
Luckily, they weren't allowed to read the bible for one and a half thousand years. Unluckily, they had scary bigoted old men telling them what god really meant.
My farts smell better than many other peoples farts. Doesn't mean you want a lung full.
Good luck. Gargamel has been trying to get info on that place for decades, but keeps getting foiled at the last minute. Azriel has had no luck, either.
How can it be suspenseful when you've seen it a dozen times before? I wasn't even thinking of Pocahontas, I was think of Dances with Wolves (the South Park guys agree - the mocked it with "Dances with Smurfs"). It's a very old and rehashed plot.
This is Slashdot. Of course popular movies (with their comfortable, predictable, paint-by-numbers plot) are going to be panned. The movies that don't follow a formula are never mainstream-popular, and the ones I like might not be the ones you like, so there'll never be consensus there.
Get over yourself. If you want to turn your brain off and follow the herd (hurd?) don't be surprised when thinkers look down on you.
My microwave compiles NetBSD , you insensitive clod!
Easier said than done. These unwashed masses are diminishing my options, and are dumbing down my devices. I can tune out most of the world-I-don't-care-about, but once that world starts impacting on my world, it's overly simplistic to dismiss my concerns with a "get over it" throwaway line.
Why is it that all Opera users assume they've discovered some grand secret, some golden app that trumps everything else and only they know about - and they must proselytise!
Look, this is Slashdot, we all know about Opera, we've all tried it, yet we don't use it. Get over it. Opera isn't "the shit", it's just shit.
I hear this from Apple apologists a lot. And no matter how often you repeat it, it doesn't make it true
Apple loves lock-in. It had nothing to do with the labels. Apple could have licenced Fairplay to anybody, but they didn't, because they love lock-in. The labels wanted Apple to licence Fairplay to thirds parties, because it would have increased their revenue and increased marketshare, but apple loves lock-in, so they didn't.
Apple is a walled garden. They've never claimed otherwise (well, their fans do).
Pardon? That's not a question.
I don't pay for DRM, so I don't have any crippled, encrypted, or closed formats. My audio collection is about 70% vorbis, 25% MP3, and the rest a mixture of wav, unencrypted wma, au, asf, etc.
My iRiver plays them all except asf.
Now, seriously. I'm a tech person. I use FreeBSD (linux is for trendy try-hards). I'm not trendy, and I don't have any interest in being trendy. But if I'm going to own a media player, I want one that doesn't limit itself to MP3s and Apple's proprietary format, requiring shitware like iTunes to make it functional, and for some reason Apple seems to be the only tech company interested in lock-in and a "walled garden".
I know this isn't what you meant, but everytime I hear an Apple apologist say that, I think "The OS X UI makes sense to somebody that doesn't know what they're doing".
If you know what you're doing, and you want to get real work done, OS X isn't for you.
Also, it's 2010, who hasn't sat in front of a computer?
Something to think about: While you're correct that Win7 isn't a tablet OS, and for the most part Windows apps aren't tablet friendly, Microsoft saw your complaint coming. For all the whinging that people did over the ribbon interface, MS have tweaked the ribbon to work extremely well with touchscreens and tablet style interfaces (even if tablets aren't where you want to type shit into MS Office).
For years people predicted the demise of x86, but it's now a permanent fixture for the foreseeable future. It's history pushed it forward until it's now the default ISO for virtually all creative computing platforms. ARM is superior in many ways, but will never unseat x86. MS Windows is the same. It's not suited to tablet computing now, but it's not going anywhere.
I think this'll be another situation where MS are very slow to start, but they'll have a lot of inertia once they get going. People continually underestimate MS's resilience in the computing world.
I completely disagree with this assertion. I have never seen any evidence that the younger generation is more skilled at technology or has a higher degree of interest in it. Quite the opposite. When tech is new, only the enthusiasts are involved in it, be it automobiles, flight, communications, computers, whatever. Once established and accessible to the masses, the general skill and interest in a tech falls to a minimum. Only the sort of people that read "news for nerds, stuff that matters" maintain an ongoing interest.
I'm 35, I grew up on C64s and DOS. I first used Linux before it hit version 1 (but have since moved on to FreeBSD). People today are no different than they were in the 80's - they're not skilled at much, but they're comfortable with what they grew up with. They have no real interest in any form of technology, just what the technology can do for them.
Is someone that grew up with television more skilled at fixing or tinkering with televisions? Are they more interested in how they work? What about cars? More people drive cars now than any time previously, but are they skilled at motoring and mechanics, and do they have a higher degree of interest in cars in general? Or are they just interested in what cars can do for them?
While I agree it's a current fad (the glasses requiring kind), I do think 3D will eventually become the norm.
Once glasses-less 3D is practical and cost effective, and once 3D TVs can display 2D at the same high quality that they display 3D (current 3D TVs do 3D well, but aren't too good with 2D), then 3D will become ubiquitous. You'll sit in front of the TV and watch the old stuff in 2D, and new stuff in 2 or 3D, just like you can watch old black and white movies on your new HD TV.
It won't happen in the immediate future, but I'd guess within 10 years 3D TVs will be 90%+ of what's sold (the non-glasses kind). Buying an old style 2D TV will be like trying buy a VHS player now. They exist if you want one, but it's no longer the consumer norm.
They're following the bible, to the letter, how much more Christian can you get?
Apart from following the anti-gay teachings in both Deuteronomy and Leviticus, they also refuse to allow bastards and sons of bastards into church, "to the tenth generation he shall be banished" (Deuteronomy 23:2), they refuse medical support such as blood transfusions as taught in Deuteronomy 12:16, and they generally promote biblical law wherever possible.
The bible does not quite say "love thy neighbour". You're misquoting Leviticus, chapter 19 where it says "love one's neighbour as oneself". Since the WBC feel every human has fallen short of the glory of god, they do love their neighbour as they love themselves - which is not very much.
The WBC also "turns the other cheek". Jesus' sermon on the mount in Matthew chapter 5 states "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other so he may strike it also". It's about responding to violence without violence, and they certainly don't get violent at their protests. In fact, when they are attacked they literally do "turn the other cheek" to be struck again.
The WBC are about as Christian as you can possibly be without having a complete mental collapse.
Why not? They sound and behave like Christians, and they claim to be Christians. Do you have evidence that they're not?
Only agreed speech is safe. I thought pretty much everyone knew that.
Back in 2001 after the WTC was destroyed, an Australian boxer was denied entry to the US to compete in a match because he had been quoted as saying something along the lines of "Looks like US foreign policy came home to roost". Protecting things you want to hear is pointless - nobody is going to complain or stop you. The whole idea of "freedom of speech" is to protect people when they say things you don't want to hear. The US doesn't have that.
You have "free speech zones", for christ's sake, how blind can you be? The US is the least free of all the developed nations, no matter how often you chant the contrary.
...but I thought GPLed software was "free" software. "Free" as in "freedom".
Orwell strikes again...