For the first, let's go with a car analogy. Used cars make money for manufacturers in two ways. First, a car with a higher resale value has more value new, since it can be resold. People are less likely to buy cars that they can not resell. Second, many people buy new cars because they can sell their old ones -- reselling or trading in a car provides funds for the next new car.
For the second, there have been a number of arguments that are basically word of mouth and try before you buy arguments. I don't know how true this is, but it is still something to consider.
Solution: Games should use the Software-As-A-Service Model.
I got the impression that things like Steam are already similar to this. I don't actually know from first-hand knowledge, though, since I am not into the game scene.
That's why RMS doesn't like the term "Intellectual Property", by the way. It's a vague concept that combines three very different bodies of law: Trademarks, Patents, and Copyrights.
But it was a public place. Private property does not equate to "in private". A toilet stall in a government park restroom is "in private" on public property, and a parking lot of a mall is "in public" on private property.
And that is legal. If a Target security guard asks you to leave, then you must comply, since he represents Target. If you do not leave, then that is trespassing. However, I do not think that he has the right to remove you, but simply to call the cops, who will remove you.
This is over simplified. It is, "If police ask and you are being detained, or if police order you to identify yourself, you must give your name" or "If police order, you must give your name". Someone is only required to reveal a name if being detained, as Hiibel was. You can not be ordered to reveal your name unless the cop has the authority to detain you. And please note that requesting your name and ordering you to reveal you name are different -- responding to a request is voluntary, but responding to an order is not. The only problem is that it is often not clear whether something is an order or a request.
No one is required to accept any particular form of money in any particular amount for things that are not debts. Thus, retailers are not required to do anything.
There is [...] no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. [...] unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
However, for debts:
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
In other words, an offer to pay in any form of legal tender is considered a valid attempt to pay the debt, whether the payment was actually accepted. The reason that this does not apply to retailers etc. is that no debt occurs.
You didn't mention the reason behind the no leading 0 or 1 in area codes. This was because dialing 1-ccc-xxx-nnnn only happened if it was a long distance number; otherwise you dialed ccc-xxx-nnnn. Similarly, you dialed 1-xxx-nnnn if it was long distance but in the same area code. Thus, you couldn't have the area code starting with 0 or 1 since then it would be confused with dialing the operator or making a long distance call. This rule had to be changed to the current "dial 1 before all 10 digit numbers, long distance or not, and never at any other time" before the new area codes could be put into place. This is also why exchanges never had 0 or 1 as a second digit for so long -- they would be confused with area codes.
... among people who understand what is happening, who are a small minority. The average person does not get it. All he knows is that "it doesn't work", and pay someone to "fix it", or simply buy a new computer. These people also are only vaguely aware that there is any other option than Windows (I actually originally wrote "any other option for an OS than Windows", but remembered that the average person does not really know what an OS is) and therefore a difficult time will not push people to other OSs.
Earlier this week (May 5) Microsoft Windows 7 Release Candidate was released to the general public and like many technology enthusiasts I downloaded a copy early in the morning hours on Tuesday, shortly after Microsoft made it available on its website.
The RC build of Windows 7 (build 7100) has many tweaks over the previous beta build I have (build 7000) and I have not yet played with it long enough to come up with any meaningful conclusions. However, this is not the point of this article. As you might have noticed from the title of this article, I was not about to talk about my experience with Windows 7 (maybe I will write about it later). What I noticed the first thing in Windows 7 is that the DEBUG command is nowhere to be found.
I was just old enough to remember the very early days of DEBUG under MS-DOS. In fact, I was fascinated with such a small and yet powerful tool that came with every version of MS-DOS distribution. the DEBUG command was so powerful that you could do almost anything with your machine with sometimes just a few key strokes.
For a long time, I used DEBUG to learn x86 assembly language and to learn about disk (both floppy disks and harddrives) structures and file systems. And occasionally, I would use DEBUG to edit binary files.
I remembered that I could use commands like
-l 100 0 0 1
-d
to load the boot sector from floppy A and inspect whether the boot sector was infected with any virus and if so, I would find a clean floppy disk and using DEBUG to write its boot sector to the disk that was infected.
And routinely, I would use the following commands to inspect the partition table of my harddrive to make sure that it was free from any infections:
mov ax, 0201
mov bx, 1000
mov cx, 0001
mov dx, 0080
int 13
int 3
-g 100
-d 1000
Remember this one?
jmp ffff:0000
I remembered that someone at my high school used to play the pranks by changing the very first few bytes on floppy disks to EA:00:00:FF and placed the disks in computers in the lab so that whenever someone turned on the computer, it would enter an infinite reboot cycle.
And when CIH stroke in the late nineties, my friends and I would use DEBUG to inspect the virus's code to see how the instructions could actually be used to cause real physical damage to the hardware.
After Windows came along, I still used DEBUG often. After all, deep inside Windows (up till Windows ME), there was MS-DOS and for years, user were allowed to operate in real mode if they so inclined to. With the advent of Windows 2000 and then later Windows XP people started to forget about DEBUG since the operating system became true 32bit and the DOS prompt became just an emulator. You could still view files and write assembly code within DEBUG, but it was in a protected environment and everything you do was pretty safe and you couldn't really do anything harmful to the hardware (of course, you could still overwrite sectors in floppy disks if you wanted to).
Ah, those were the good old days. Just like QBasic disappeared from later versions MS-DOS, DEBUG has gradually become obsolete. It remained in Windows Vista, but it is no where to be found in Windows 7. At last, Windows has shed one of its last vintage applications from the MS-DOS era.
Mod parent up. This is a trivial way to blast away low level data that is bad, but good enough to fool disk utilities. I figured this one out on my own after fighting with a disk for a while.
Going across species as you are, you should consider the brain size to body mass ratio, as opposed to the brain size. You get a much stronger correlation that way.
Wikipedia's innaccuracies are intentional, it is part of the design.
No, they aren't. Wikipedia's "innaccuracies"[sic] are publicly acknowledged as unavoidable, and there are a number of policies in place in an attempt to minimize them. Wikipedia's ability to be changed to say anything by anyone is intentional, but the belief is that (as a side benefit to being more complete) it reduces inaccuracies rather than adds to them.
(Are people not aware of how many falsehoods are published by the media, and later corrected? Countless times I've seen an obvious blooper on a website, even on places like the BBC. It's later corrected, often after a few hours. Because there's no edit history, all trace of it is lost, but continued editing of articles on media websites is commonplace. Then there's the newspapers where a major story contains an error, which is later apologised for in small column of a later edition...)
Or not corrected at all. I have personal knowledge of a drive-by shooting that wasn't, and was never corrected by the papers (I watched that corrections column for weeks).
The diamond industry comes to mind. DeBeers has been trying desperately to convince everyone that "diamonds are valuable", and now that we're getting good at making copies, they're changing their tune to be, "natural diamonds are valuable".
This has already arisen for other gems. As things like synthetic rubies became indistinguishable from natural gems, people started getting certifications of non-synthetic origins of their gems, and tried to convince others of the value. It didn't stop the prices from falling.
It's a lot less cost-effective to go tomb raiding than to make your own fakes, especially since selling fake artifacts isn't really illegal.
May not be illegal but certainly misrepresentation is a thorn in eBay's side.
It's illegal if you say it is a real artifact when it isn't. The given auction borders on fraud, and which side of the fraud line it falls determines its legality. Generally, people who make livings at this are good at keeping things on the non-fraud side, and if someone actually threatens a suit, they can buy it back, "with a little extra for you time and trouble", which is simply a cost of doing business.
Slashdot Mirror
Used games don't make Publishers any money.
Pirated games don't make Publishers any money.
I'm not sure you are correct.
For the first, let's go with a car analogy. Used cars make money for manufacturers in two ways. First, a car with a higher resale value has more value new, since it can be resold. People are less likely to buy cars that they can not resell. Second, many people buy new cars because they can sell their old ones -- reselling or trading in a car provides funds for the next new car.
For the second, there have been a number of arguments that are basically word of mouth and try before you buy arguments. I don't know how true this is, but it is still something to consider.
Solution: Games should use the Software-As-A-Service Model.
I got the impression that things like Steam are already similar to this. I don't actually know from first-hand knowledge, though, since I am not into the game scene.
That's why RMS doesn't like the term "Intellectual Property", by the way. It's a vague concept that combines three very different bodies of law: Trademarks, Patents, and Copyrights.
And more, such as trade secrets. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intellectual_property-related_topics#Types_of_intellectual_property
[...] walking up to a private home, trying the front door, and if it opens, walking in [...]
This is breaking and entering.
This was on private property, though.
But it was a public place. Private property does not equate to "in private". A toilet stall in a government park restroom is "in private" on public property, and a parking lot of a mall is "in public" on private property.
Also read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
They can trespass you, but they can not take you away. They have to call the cops to do that.
And that is legal. If a Target security guard asks you to leave, then you must comply, since he represents Target. If you do not leave, then that is trespassing. However, I do not think that he has the right to remove you, but simply to call the cops, who will remove you.
or "If police order, you must give your name"
please.
If police ask, you must give your name
This is over simplified. It is, "If police ask and you are being detained, or if police order you to identify yourself, you must give your name" or "If police order, you must give your name". Someone is only required to reveal a name if being detained, as Hiibel was. You can not be ordered to reveal your name unless the cop has the authority to detain you. And please note that requesting your name and ordering you to reveal you name are different -- responding to a request is voluntary, but responding to an order is not. The only problem is that it is often not clear whether something is an order or a request.
No one is required to accept any particular form of money in any particular amount for things that are not debts. Thus, retailers are not required to do anything.
There is [...] no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. [...] unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
However, for debts:
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.
In other words, an offer to pay in any form of legal tender is considered a valid attempt to pay the debt, whether the payment was actually accepted. The reason that this does not apply to retailers etc. is that no debt occurs.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
You didn't mention the reason behind the no leading 0 or 1 in area codes. This was because dialing 1-ccc-xxx-nnnn only happened if it was a long distance number; otherwise you dialed ccc-xxx-nnnn. Similarly, you dialed 1-xxx-nnnn if it was long distance but in the same area code. Thus, you couldn't have the area code starting with 0 or 1 since then it would be confused with dialing the operator or making a long distance call. This rule had to be changed to the current "dial 1 before all 10 digit numbers, long distance or not, and never at any other time" before the new area codes could be put into place. This is also why exchanges never had 0 or 1 as a second digit for so long -- they would be confused with area codes.
18 trees make for nice tipi poles. You get yourself a permit, go to the area that the service points to, and cut the trees marked for removal.
So they can halve their user-share.
... among people who understand what is happening, who are a small minority. The average person does not get it. All he knows is that "it doesn't work", and pay someone to "fix it", or simply buy a new computer. These people also are only vaguely aware that there is any other option than Windows (I actually originally wrote "any other option for an OS than Windows", but remembered that the average person does not really know what an OS is) and therefore a difficult time will not push people to other OSs.
MS-DEBUG 1981 - 2009
May 8, 2009, 11:16 am
Earlier this week (May 5) Microsoft Windows 7 Release Candidate was released to the general public and like many technology enthusiasts I downloaded a copy early in the morning hours on Tuesday, shortly after Microsoft made it available on its website.
The RC build of Windows 7 (build 7100) has many tweaks over the previous beta build I have (build 7000) and I have not yet played with it long enough to come up with any meaningful conclusions. However, this is not the point of this article. As you might have noticed from the title of this article, I was not about to talk about my experience with Windows 7 (maybe I will write about it later). What I noticed the first thing in Windows 7 is that the DEBUG command is nowhere to be found.
I was just old enough to remember the very early days of DEBUG under MS-DOS. In fact, I was fascinated with such a small and yet powerful tool that came with every version of MS-DOS distribution. the DEBUG command was so powerful that you could do almost anything with your machine with sometimes just a few key strokes.
For a long time, I used DEBUG to learn x86 assembly language and to learn about disk (both floppy disks and harddrives) structures and file systems. And occasionally, I would use DEBUG to edit binary files.
I remembered that I could use commands like
-l 100 0 0 1
-d
to load the boot sector from floppy A and inspect whether the boot sector was infected with any virus and if so, I would find a clean floppy disk and using DEBUG to write its boot sector to the disk that was infected.
And routinely, I would use the following commands to inspect the partition table of my harddrive to make sure that it was free from any infections:
mov ax, 0201
mov bx, 1000
mov cx, 0001
mov dx, 0080
int 13
int 3
-g 100
-d 1000
Remember this one?
jmp ffff:0000
I remembered that someone at my high school used to play the pranks by changing the very first few bytes on floppy disks to EA:00:00:FF and placed the disks in computers in the lab so that whenever someone turned on the computer, it would enter an infinite reboot cycle.
And when CIH stroke in the late nineties, my friends and I would use DEBUG to inspect the virus's code to see how the instructions could actually be used to cause real physical damage to the hardware.
After Windows came along, I still used DEBUG often. After all, deep inside Windows (up till Windows ME), there was MS-DOS and for years, user were allowed to operate in real mode if they so inclined to. With the advent of Windows 2000 and then later Windows XP people started to forget about DEBUG since the operating system became true 32bit and the DOS prompt became just an emulator. You could still view files and write assembly code within DEBUG, but it was in a protected environment and everything you do was pretty safe and you couldn't really do anything harmful to the hardware (of course, you could still overwrite sectors in floppy disks if you wanted to).
Ah, those were the good old days. Just like QBasic disappeared from later versions MS-DOS, DEBUG has gradually become obsolete. It remained in Windows Vista, but it is no where to be found in Windows 7. At last, Windows has shed one of its last vintage applications from the MS-DOS era.
Mod parent up. This is a trivial way to blast away low level data that is bad, but good enough to fool disk utilities. I figured this one out on my own after fighting with a disk for a while.
Under FCC regulations, the phone company cannot disconnect your regular local or long-distance service if you don't pay a 900 number charge. Though it did become law in only 1993.
Going across species as you are, you should consider the brain size to body mass ratio, as opposed to the brain size. You get a much stronger correlation that way.
Or he really hates milk....
In other words, [citation needed].
Wikipedia's innaccuracies are intentional, it is part of the design.
No, they aren't. Wikipedia's "innaccuracies"[sic] are publicly acknowledged as unavoidable, and there are a number of policies in place in an attempt to minimize them. Wikipedia's ability to be changed to say anything by anyone is intentional, but the belief is that (as a side benefit to being more complete) it reduces inaccuracies rather than adds to them.
(Are people not aware of how many falsehoods are published by the media, and later corrected? Countless times I've seen an obvious blooper on a website, even on places like the BBC. It's later corrected, often after a few hours. Because there's no edit history, all trace of it is lost, but continued editing of articles on media websites is commonplace. Then there's the newspapers where a major story contains an error, which is later apologised for in small column of a later edition...)
Or not corrected at all. I have personal knowledge of a drive-by shooting that wasn't, and was never corrected by the papers (I watched that corrections column for weeks).
The diamond industry comes to mind. DeBeers has been trying desperately to convince everyone that "diamonds are valuable", and now that we're getting good at making copies, they're changing their tune to be, "natural diamonds are valuable".
This has already arisen for other gems. As things like synthetic rubies became indistinguishable from natural gems, people started getting certifications of non-synthetic origins of their gems, and tried to convince others of the value. It didn't stop the prices from falling.
It's a lot less cost-effective to go tomb raiding than to make your own fakes, especially since selling fake artifacts isn't really illegal.
May not be illegal but certainly misrepresentation is a thorn in eBay's side.
It's illegal if you say it is a real artifact when it isn't. The given auction borders on fraud, and which side of the fraud line it falls determines its legality. Generally, people who make livings at this are good at keeping things on the non-fraud side, and if someone actually threatens a suit, they can buy it back, "with a little extra for you time and trouble", which is simply a cost of doing business.
About 11 m/s.
Snopes. It also mentioned the space shuttle that another responder mentioned.
That's not what addie macgruer or I meant, and you know it. Besides, if you think in binary, the same number still is a counter example.