The issue is sort of moot for MMOs. Because of the game's basic nature it's unplayable without an internet connection, whether or not there's a persistent connection to a DRM server as well as the game server doesn't really matter at that point (assuming the DRM servers, separate or not, don't have uptime problems).
It may not affect a reader's ability to understand the post, but it does reflect poorly on you, your ability to communicate, and the point you're making. Whether it should or not is debatable I suppose, but generally (especially on the internet) poor grammar and spelling is indicative of someone who isn't worth listening to.
I'm sorry, but from the point of "4 vs 5 makes something Constitutional as opposed to unconstitutional?" you lose all credibility.
You can dislike the holding all you like, and there are a number of legal arguments that can be made about it, but when your route of attack is a whine about how five people can decide what the constitution means you've just undermined all of your remaining points.
That is how the judiciary in this country has worked for a little more than 200 years (Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803), to complain about it now, because of a holding you disagree with, is facile in the extreme.
IANAL, but, the issue doesn't seem to be quite that simple. ISPs argue strenuously that they're not actually common carriers (the legal term of art for basically being "dumb pipes") because there is a feeling that it would bring them under FCC Title 2 regulation instead of Title 1 regulation. Whether or not that's correct is still an open question.
But the other way that being a "dumb pipe" comes into play is with the DMCA safe harbor exception (which is 17 U.S.C. Section 512). There, an ISP isn't liable for infringing material passed through its network if (among other things) "the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider".
So the bit-torrent throttling Comcast was trying a couple years ago might have put it outside of the DMCA safe harbor, but simple monitoring like this probably wouldn't.
The only part of the safe harbor where knowledge comes into play is when an ISP stores files on its servers at the request of users (so, a webhost, or dropbox). In that case the ISP is only protected from liability if they have no actual knowledge of the presence of infringing material.
Would you also say that the ACLU doesn't back important rights because it advocates for the speech rights of groups you disagree with? Privacy doesn't mean being left alone to do just what _you_ think everyone else should.
The EFF is still fighting for internet privacy. That some people their privacy so they may violate IP laws is immaterial.
You'll need a google account if you want to use the Google Play Store (the app market from google) but you can install the Amazon Appstore (which uses an amazon account) instead if you prefer. Otherwise no, you don't have to have a google account to use the phone.
Because it's a Nexus device you should be able to unlock the bootloader in a simple process (usually as simple as checking a box in settings and rebooting) then you can flash it with any custom ROM you want. So if you don't trust the default ROM not to phone home you can use a community created one instead (and also since it's a Nexus device a community for producing these custom ROMs should grow quite fast once it's in people's hands).
Probably. I heard about it the morning they came out and went looking right then, but apparently nowhere I looked got one (or the employees had already set the one(s) they got aside for themselves).
Yes, but only 1000 of the magazines contain the electronic ad, and unfortunately they seem to be hard to come by. I've looked everywhere and have yet to find one.
Yes, of course. Except the few exceptions to the rule (judges who are actually on a power trip) prove nothing... except that in any group of people who achieve power some of them will misuse it. Have fun with that paranoid lifestyle, though. The tin-foil hats are in aisle 5.
It's a symptom of the slow progression in our society from a weird but long-held belief that "ignorance isn't bad" to "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" to "your knowledge is bad and therefore my ignorance is superior".
...and yes, a lot of it goes back to evangelicals and the fact that it's far harder to fleece someone who will rationally evaluate the things they are told.
Yep. Gomorrah is where the REALLY kinky stuff went down. You really didn't want to visit there after dark... at least until internet porn had suitably desensitized you.
Except that, of your examples, two of the three (acid rain and the ozone hole) are provably real things and didn't become the doomsday scenarios thrown around when they were new news because the reporting on them spurred large scale action removing the major contributing factors. Nice try, though, with the false equivalencies.
There are worthless communities of comments (ala youtube, engadget, most general blog sites) and then communities where real discussions and interactions and even friend-like relationships develop almost like a true forum (slashdot, to a certain extent, wonkette, and - formerly - gizmodo).
Gizmodo had one of the most tightly knit but still open, responsive, and interesting commenter communities of any blog I had ever seen. It even rivaled some forums.
And then the entire Gawker family of blogs got their now infamous redesign, and the comment system was broken. You could no longer get notices of replies, conversations died before they even started, and most of the "starred" commenters left the site (and many of those who didn't immediately, and who spoke out against the changes and the brokenness of the new design, had their star removed and/or their accounts banned).
So yes, Mr. Denton, there ARE online communities whose comment sections are worthless (like yours). But there are those whose comment sections are not, and for a man whose single minded drive to "better and newer" when in fact you were only achieving one of those (and only by virtue of it being later in time) to claim that all comment sections are worthless (because yours are) is just as disingenuous as what you did to your commenters.
Right, because it's a question of fact for a jury (not a question of law for a judge) if the case passes the threshold for viability in terms of whether or not the injury was the result of an open and obvious risk.
Oh wait, it's not? Your theory went up in smoke? Oh I'm sorry! How insensitive of me to poke holes in your well thought out completely baseless assertion!
These sorts of stories always blame our "litigious society" for these stupid labels, but the reality of the situation is none of them are necessary even in our "lawsuit prone" world. There is no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers (i.e. "Don't eat this iPod" or "Do not use electrical generator in the bath tub").
Companies slap them on there because it MAY make any eventual products liability cases easier to get dismissed more quickly, but honestly, most of the warnings are so dumb there's no reason for them, legal or otherwise. It is, at best, corporate paranoia imagining what sorts of things that seem "open and obvious" aren't. Except they are.
And in putting them on their products they only succeed in making themselves look bad and perpetuate stupid lawyer jokes. And stories like this, which seem to presuppose that these warnings ARE necessary for some lawsuit based reason, only make it worse.
Not to rain on your joke, but from the sounds of it it's an open mic pointed at a tone generator, so you'd still hear it even if it were broadcasting null characters. Or even if the tone generator were switched off. An open, dead, mic sounds different from an empty frequency.
The problem with that is in order to be killed by the UV light (and it doesn't actually kill the bacteria, just scrambles their DNA so badly that they can't successfully reproduce) the bacteria has to be exposed to it.
I'm assuming you got some nice fuzzy mounds in pretty colors, all very opaque. Exposing those mounds to UV light mutates the surface bacteria so badly that they can't reproduce, but you've still got millions upon millions living beneath that one layer in ignorant bliss because their brethren above them absorbed all the UV radiation, sparing them.
The reason UV exposure works better in water is because water is clear and any bacteria that is present is not masked by... well... anything. It even works in fairly turbid water, assuming the water is agitated while being exposed to the UV so all areas get equally exposed.
Sorry to poke holes in your 8th grade fun... but that's what you were observing, not the failure of UV light to kill things.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is sort of moot for MMOs. Because of the game's basic nature it's unplayable without an internet connection, whether or not there's a persistent connection to a DRM server as well as the game server doesn't really matter at that point (assuming the DRM servers, separate or not, don't have uptime problems).
It's such a great game that it has a one star rating on Amazon. Only the best of the best manage that!
There's an easy fix to this: Never, ever, ever buy a game that has always on DRM.
Eventually the game manufacturers will learn.
And your post on the subject doesn't help matters. It just brings into clearer relief that you do not, in fact, know what you're talking about.
It may not affect a reader's ability to understand the post, but it does reflect poorly on you, your ability to communicate, and the point you're making. Whether it should or not is debatable I suppose, but generally (especially on the internet) poor grammar and spelling is indicative of someone who isn't worth listening to.
I'm sorry, but from the point of "4 vs 5 makes something Constitutional as opposed to unconstitutional?" you lose all credibility.
You can dislike the holding all you like, and there are a number of legal arguments that can be made about it, but when your route of attack is a whine about how five people can decide what the constitution means you've just undermined all of your remaining points.
That is how the judiciary in this country has worked for a little more than 200 years (Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803), to complain about it now, because of a holding you disagree with, is facile in the extreme.
Were your errors intentional and making a point, or did you not actually look back over what you wrote?
IANAL, but, the issue doesn't seem to be quite that simple. ISPs argue strenuously that they're not actually common carriers (the legal term of art for basically being "dumb pipes") because there is a feeling that it would bring them under FCC Title 2 regulation instead of Title 1 regulation. Whether or not that's correct is still an open question.
But the other way that being a "dumb pipe" comes into play is with the DMCA safe harbor exception (which is 17 U.S.C. Section 512). There, an ISP isn't liable for infringing material passed through its network if (among other things) "the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider".
So the bit-torrent throttling Comcast was trying a couple years ago might have put it outside of the DMCA safe harbor, but simple monitoring like this probably wouldn't.
The only part of the safe harbor where knowledge comes into play is when an ISP stores files on its servers at the request of users (so, a webhost, or dropbox). In that case the ISP is only protected from liability if they have no actual knowledge of the presence of infringing material.
Would you also say that the ACLU doesn't back important rights because it advocates for the speech rights of groups you disagree with? Privacy doesn't mean being left alone to do just what _you_ think everyone else should.
The EFF is still fighting for internet privacy. That some people their privacy so they may violate IP laws is immaterial.
You'll need a google account if you want to use the Google Play Store (the app market from google) but you can install the Amazon Appstore (which uses an amazon account) instead if you prefer. Otherwise no, you don't have to have a google account to use the phone. Because it's a Nexus device you should be able to unlock the bootloader in a simple process (usually as simple as checking a box in settings and rebooting) then you can flash it with any custom ROM you want. So if you don't trust the default ROM not to phone home you can use a community created one instead (and also since it's a Nexus device a community for producing these custom ROMs should grow quite fast once it's in people's hands).
ROFL? No, no, not now... not _yet_.
...which was exactly the line with Palm's WebOS. The fact that it COULD change doesn't mean it's LIKELY to, much as I wish it would have with WebOS.
Probably. I heard about it the morning they came out and went looking right then, but apparently nowhere I looked got one (or the employees had already set the one(s) they got aside for themselves).
Yes, but only 1000 of the magazines contain the electronic ad, and unfortunately they seem to be hard to come by. I've looked everywhere and have yet to find one.
Yes, of course. Except the few exceptions to the rule (judges who are actually on a power trip) prove nothing... except that in any group of people who achieve power some of them will misuse it. Have fun with that paranoid lifestyle, though. The tin-foil hats are in aisle 5.
It's a symptom of the slow progression in our society from a weird but long-held belief that "ignorance isn't bad" to "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" to "your knowledge is bad and therefore my ignorance is superior".
...and yes, a lot of it goes back to evangelicals and the fact that it's far harder to fleece someone who will rationally evaluate the things they are told.
Yep. Gomorrah is where the REALLY kinky stuff went down. You really didn't want to visit there after dark... at least until internet porn had suitably desensitized you.
Except that, of your examples, two of the three (acid rain and the ozone hole) are provably real things and didn't become the doomsday scenarios thrown around when they were new news because the reporting on them spurred large scale action removing the major contributing factors. Nice try, though, with the false equivalencies.
There are worthless communities of comments (ala youtube, engadget, most general blog sites) and then communities where real discussions and interactions and even friend-like relationships develop almost like a true forum (slashdot, to a certain extent, wonkette, and - formerly - gizmodo). Gizmodo had one of the most tightly knit but still open, responsive, and interesting commenter communities of any blog I had ever seen. It even rivaled some forums. And then the entire Gawker family of blogs got their now infamous redesign, and the comment system was broken. You could no longer get notices of replies, conversations died before they even started, and most of the "starred" commenters left the site (and many of those who didn't immediately, and who spoke out against the changes and the brokenness of the new design, had their star removed and/or their accounts banned). So yes, Mr. Denton, there ARE online communities whose comment sections are worthless (like yours). But there are those whose comment sections are not, and for a man whose single minded drive to "better and newer" when in fact you were only achieving one of those (and only by virtue of it being later in time) to claim that all comment sections are worthless (because yours are) is just as disingenuous as what you did to your commenters.
Maybe this will push them to finally fix it.
Right, because it's a question of fact for a jury (not a question of law for a judge) if the case passes the threshold for viability in terms of whether or not the injury was the result of an open and obvious risk. Oh wait, it's not? Your theory went up in smoke? Oh I'm sorry! How insensitive of me to poke holes in your well thought out completely baseless assertion!
These sorts of stories always blame our "litigious society" for these stupid labels, but the reality of the situation is none of them are necessary even in our "lawsuit prone" world. There is no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers (i.e. "Don't eat this iPod" or "Do not use electrical generator in the bath tub"). Companies slap them on there because it MAY make any eventual products liability cases easier to get dismissed more quickly, but honestly, most of the warnings are so dumb there's no reason for them, legal or otherwise. It is, at best, corporate paranoia imagining what sorts of things that seem "open and obvious" aren't. Except they are. And in putting them on their products they only succeed in making themselves look bad and perpetuate stupid lawyer jokes. And stories like this, which seem to presuppose that these warnings ARE necessary for some lawsuit based reason, only make it worse.
Not to rain on your joke, but from the sounds of it it's an open mic pointed at a tone generator, so you'd still hear it even if it were broadcasting null characters. Or even if the tone generator were switched off. An open, dead, mic sounds different from an empty frequency.
The problem with that is in order to be killed by the UV light (and it doesn't actually kill the bacteria, just scrambles their DNA so badly that they can't successfully reproduce) the bacteria has to be exposed to it.
I'm assuming you got some nice fuzzy mounds in pretty colors, all very opaque. Exposing those mounds to UV light mutates the surface bacteria so badly that they can't reproduce, but you've still got millions upon millions living beneath that one layer in ignorant bliss because their brethren above them absorbed all the UV radiation, sparing them.
The reason UV exposure works better in water is because water is clear and any bacteria that is present is not masked by... well... anything. It even works in fairly turbid water, assuming the water is agitated while being exposed to the UV so all areas get equally exposed.
Sorry to poke holes in your 8th grade fun... but that's what you were observing, not the failure of UV light to kill things.
Ding ding tssh? These words you keep using... I don't think they mean what you think they mean.