You know, you almost come to expect this kind of behavior from scummy web based companies, but really, Pizza Hut? I had to check out their Privacy Policy once I found out they were involved in this action and sure enough it says:
Should you choose to accept an offer from a third party, We will pass your relevant Personal Information, which may include your name, address, and credit/debit card number, to that third party.
Taking offense or not, you are actually not required to use Microsoft products on your personal computing device to access Google services. Or many other services, for that matter
After reading your post, I'm at a loss to discern whether it is you, or I, who has consumed the most spirits tonight.
We can, in fact, kiss Microsoft goodbye for our personal computing needs. Your corporate mileage may vary.
And you may have to get creative. Some of your fave apps might not be so easy to work with, might be different, etc. You could get used to it.
Another reason for me to show my wife how Ubuntu is really pretty easy to use. Now, does Firefox on Ubuntu play Farmville?
Oh, the irony...
But as far as Farmville goes I can assure you to my great displeasure that the women in my life have no problems playing it under Ubuntu, Debian, or even my personal Gentoo machine.
For the most part that is because Google doesn't require using Google software on your personal computing device to access Google services. Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to take offense if you are not using their platform.
Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.
Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all. How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?
The problem Google and others had was that they were not using "the latest and fully patched version of IE", but instead outdated but fully supported version from Microsoft, full of security holes. Even the UK governmaneprobably isn't using the "lastest and fully patched version of IE" [guardian.co.uk]
The obvious answer to the problem then would make it a crime to use anything but the "latest and fully patched version of IE". Got to protect the people from themselves, right?
For me it was totally irritating and distracting, but I don't much like the way completion is implemented in editors either. Now bash, which only completes a line when requested, gets it right.
I never even considered actually "buying" a cellphone. I basically only carried one for emergencies and was satisfied with whatever came with the service. That was until I heard about the N900. I've had mine for over a month now and I got to say, the thing just rocks and was worth every penny.
Not only does it all the features you would expect from a smartphone such as web browsing, playing media, shooting pictures and video etc., but it also can receive and transmit FM radio and has TV out.
As far as software goes, besides what's available in the standard, extras, and testing repos, after installing an "EasyDebian" chroot you can run just about anything on it. I haven't carried my laptop since I bought the thing.
Well, as you just pointed out, she really has nothing to lose. Getting somebody who appears to be obviously guilty is possibly the ideal case to get the Supreme Court when the goal is to challenge the absurdity of the damages.
She was sharing thousands. Only 24 were involved in the trial. However, since their initial offer was made before they sued, the correct number to use in determining the per song offer is the number of songs actually shared, not the number later used at trial.
Do you often pay for things just because somebody says you owe them money? The correct number was the number they could prove at trial, not the one they pulled out of their ass.
It's compared to feudalism because wealth is concentrated through the entitlement of inheritance. Take copyright for example and stay on topic. Originally the protection was granted to the author for fourteen years, and after that period expired anyone could build upon that work. Today though, only the author's beneficiaries are entitled to profit long after the his demise.
His family can still benefit from his work by collecting royalties. That's also part of the intent of copyrights as well--for creators and their beneficiaries to be rewarded for their work.
How does..."To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"...lead to the above conclusion? Particularly considering originally protection was limited to 14 years.
What about when they upload the song? As far as I know, the cost of a license from any major label to make and distribute an arbitrary number of copies of a song goes for considerably more then $0.99. The cost of that kind of license would be much more sensible.
The industry could state the cost of that kind of license is a godzillian trillion dollars, so no, it is not sensible at all. Actual cost per song plus treble damages for willful distribution is the more than enough.
Given a chance to settle for a reasonable amount (about $1/song for the number of songs she actually pirated), she refused.
If she refused to settle for a $1 for each song that was actually proven to be distributed, then yes, she is a moron. Could you please provide a citation here? Every story I've seen on this case states the RIAA asked for amounts in the thousands.
Well, figuring it at 24 songs at $1 each and adding treble damages to punish, the total award should be about $96. I think that is the victory I would like to see the RIAA be able to claim.
Trouble is, the way phones are typically sold - free or heavily subsidised as part of a service contract - is closer to leasing than buying. Since this is the dominant business model, it has a splash back on the way manufacturers design their product, even if you buy it "naked" (I have a nasty suspicion that it also means that "naked" phones are sold at artificially inflated prices to make the subsidies more attractive...)
Couldn't agree more, but still even if the cost is inflated one would think that freedom and paying ~$500 upfront would beat slavery and spreading out the cost over a x number of years.
It also depends on how you perceive phones: if you buy a general-purpose computer, you expect it to be a universal tool that you can freely program or install software on and still enjoy the manufacturer's support. If, however, you buy a washing mashine and try and convert it to use dry-cleaning solvent you accept that, if it blows up, that's your fault. When phones were just phones, they clearly fitted into the latter category. Smartphones are in a bit of a limbo: people want to run arbitrary software on them but they also expect them to perform reliably as a phone.
Well this is slashdot after all, doesn't everyone here prefer something they can hack over something they can't?
When I went to my nearest T-Mobile store to sign up for service for my N900 they seemed to have no qualms over activating my device despite the fact that it allowed me the freedom to install whatever software I felt like it on it.
Now, from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android, I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.
In fact it appears in many cases that owners of those devices are subject not only to the whims of carriers, but the device manufacturers themselves.
So really, what is the problem here? You buy it, you do want you want with it. You lease it, you do want they want with it. Seems to me that somebody wants to muddy the waters between ownership and rental.
But if they have less total sales, it must be because of "pirates". So they'll do more DRM, not less.
They can't do more DRM if they no longer exist, and the other publishers would learn that there is a line their customers will not cross. There are some really angry people out there already, they don't need more.
Here is a NSFW rant by one I ran across in another article.
Studios keep making bad business decisions based on Nielsen ratings. They cancel shows with low ratings even when the DVD sales alone are enough to make a profit on the show. Rather than make the next season straight-to-DVD, they don't make it at all.
That's because they haven't yet learned that their current advertising methods are actually hurting viewership. I've bought quite a few DVD sets just so I don't have to suffer the bottom of the screen "popups" that seem to be the current fad nowadays. And you know, it wasn't long ago that an hour long episode provided you with 50 minutes of entertainment. Today it is more like 35.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand. Why? Please enlighten us.
Very insightful question, it's a shame the GP didn't respond. High def content actually plays back better without encryption.
You know, you almost come to expect this kind of behavior from scummy web based companies, but really, Pizza Hut? I had to check out their Privacy Policy once I found out they were involved in this action and sure enough it says:
Should you choose to accept an offer from a third party, We will pass your relevant Personal Information, which may include your name, address, and credit/debit card number, to that third party.
Okay Pizza Hut, like, WTF?
Taking offense or not, you are actually not required to use Microsoft products on your personal computing device to access Google services. Or many other services, for that matter
After reading your post, I'm at a loss to discern whether it is you, or I, who has consumed the most spirits tonight.
We can, in fact, kiss Microsoft goodbye for our personal computing needs. Your corporate mileage may vary.
And you may have to get creative. Some of your fave apps might not be so easy to work with, might be different, etc. You could get used to it.
Another reason for me to show my wife how Ubuntu is really pretty easy to use. Now, does Firefox on Ubuntu play Farmville?
Oh, the irony...
But as far as Farmville goes I can assure you to my great displeasure that the women in my life have no problems playing it under Ubuntu, Debian, or even my personal Gentoo machine.
For the most part that is because Google doesn't require using Google software on your personal computing device to access Google services. Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to take offense if you are not using their platform.
Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.
Okay, maybe if jurors were required to pass some type of basic test that indicates they have a reasonable understanding of basic terms this would make sense, but denying the use of dictionaries makes no sense at all. How in the world is a "normal" person supposed to know when the judge or attorney is trying to pull a fast one when they aren't even allowed to research what is being said?
The problem Google and others had was that they were not using "the latest and fully patched version of IE", but instead outdated but fully supported version from Microsoft, full of security holes. Even the UK governmaneprobably isn't using the "lastest and fully patched version of IE" [guardian.co.uk]
The obvious answer to the problem then would make it a crime to use anything but the "latest and fully patched version of IE". Got to protect the people from themselves, right?
Poverty is a social problem, not a technological one.
Social problem: Famine
Technological Solution: Irrigation
Result: Civilization (Just ask Sid)
Solving social problems with technology is what separates men from animals.
For me it was totally irritating and distracting, but I don't much like the way completion is implemented in editors either. Now bash, which only completes a line when requested, gets it right.
I never even considered actually "buying" a cellphone. I basically only carried one for emergencies and was satisfied with whatever came with the service. That was until I heard about the N900. I've had mine for over a month now and I got to say, the thing just rocks and was worth every penny.
Not only does it all the features you would expect from a smartphone such as web browsing, playing media, shooting pictures and video etc., but it also can receive and transmit FM radio and has TV out.
As far as software goes, besides what's available in the standard, extras, and testing repos, after installing an "EasyDebian" chroot you can run just about anything on it. I haven't carried my laptop since I bought the thing.
Well, as you just pointed out, she really has nothing to lose. Getting somebody who appears to be obviously guilty is possibly the ideal case to get the Supreme Court when the goal is to challenge the absurdity of the damages.
She was sharing thousands. Only 24 were involved in the trial. However, since their initial offer was made before they sued, the correct number to use in determining the per song offer is the number of songs actually shared, not the number later used at trial.
Do you often pay for things just because somebody says you owe them money? The correct number was the number they could prove at trial, not the one they pulled out of their ass.
It's compared to feudalism because wealth is concentrated through the entitlement of inheritance. Take copyright for example and stay on topic. Originally the protection was granted to the author for fourteen years, and after that period expired anyone could build upon that work. Today though, only the author's beneficiaries are entitled to profit long after the his demise.
His family can still benefit from his work by collecting royalties. That's also part of the intent of copyrights as well--for creators and their beneficiaries to be rewarded for their work.
How does..."To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"...lead to the above conclusion? Particularly considering originally protection was limited to 14 years.
I thought they had only proven 24 songs. At least that's what the article says.
"Last year, a federal jury ruled Thomas-Rasset, a mother of four from Brainerd, willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs."
What about when they upload the song? As far as I know, the cost of a license from any major label to make and distribute an arbitrary number of copies of a song goes for considerably more then $0.99. The cost of that kind of license would be much more sensible.
The industry could state the cost of that kind of license is a godzillian trillion dollars, so no, it is not sensible at all. Actual cost per song plus treble damages for willful distribution is the more than enough.
Given a chance to settle for a reasonable amount (about $1/song for the number of songs she actually pirated), she refused.
If she refused to settle for a $1 for each song that was actually proven to be distributed, then yes, she is a moron. Could you please provide a citation here? Every story I've seen on this case states the RIAA asked for amounts in the thousands.
Well, figuring it at 24 songs at $1 each and adding treble damages to punish, the total award should be about $96. I think that is the victory I would like to see the RIAA be able to claim.
In addition to what others have said, it's helpful for compiler programmers to have a little knowledge of assembler too.
Trouble is, the way phones are typically sold - free or heavily subsidised as part of a service contract - is closer to leasing than buying. Since this is the dominant business model, it has a splash back on the way manufacturers design their product, even if you buy it "naked" (I have a nasty suspicion that it also means that "naked" phones are sold at artificially inflated prices to make the subsidies more attractive...)
Couldn't agree more, but still even if the cost is inflated one would think that freedom and paying ~$500 upfront would beat slavery and spreading out the cost over a x number of years.
It also depends on how you perceive phones: if you buy a general-purpose computer, you expect it to be a universal tool that you can freely program or install software on and still enjoy the manufacturer's support. If, however, you buy a washing mashine and try and convert it to use dry-cleaning solvent you accept that, if it blows up, that's your fault. When phones were just phones, they clearly fitted into the latter category. Smartphones are in a bit of a limbo: people want to run arbitrary software on them but they also expect them to perform reliably as a phone.
Well this is slashdot after all, doesn't everyone here prefer something they can hack over something they can't?
When I went to my nearest T-Mobile store to sign up for service for my N900 they seemed to have no qualms over activating my device despite the fact that it allowed me the freedom to install whatever software I felt like it on it.
Now, from the very frequent stories I see posted here related to the iPhone and Android, I have been gathering that the same does not hold true for those devices.
In fact it appears in many cases that owners of those devices are subject not only to the whims of carriers, but the device manufacturers themselves.
So really, what is the problem here? You buy it, you do want you want with it. You lease it, you do want they want with it. Seems to me that somebody wants to muddy the waters between ownership and rental.
But if they have less total sales, it must be because of "pirates". So they'll do more DRM, not less.
They can't do more DRM if they no longer exist, and the other publishers would learn that there is a line their customers will not cross. There are some really angry people out there already, they don't need more.
Here is a NSFW rant by one I ran across in another article.
I hope they will put this requirement clearly on the boxes of any DVD/CD media, so I can avoid them.
If it says Ubisoft anywhere on the box, don't buy it. Simple.
Seriously, take a stand. If it works for them then all other publishers will do the same. Stop buying their games _now_.
The only downside is that I'd trade a remote for a wireless keyboard and mouse.
I found this wireless integrated combo quite handy for the task.
Studios keep making bad business decisions based on Nielsen ratings. They cancel shows with low ratings even when the DVD sales alone are enough to make a profit on the show. Rather than make the next season straight-to-DVD, they don't make it at all.
That's because they haven't yet learned that their current advertising methods are actually hurting viewership. I've bought quite a few DVD sets just so I don't have to suffer the bottom of the screen "popups" that seem to be the current fad nowadays. And you know, it wasn't long ago that an hour long episode provided you with 50 minutes of entertainment. Today it is more like 35.