Actually it very well could have been if it's deemed to have been mislaid property. In high school I knew someone who ended up doing two weeks community service for stealing from a shop. I would assume he probably did anywhere between 3 to 6 hours a day which would put his total around 40 hours. He didn't get a year of probation but he was also a minor and in another state with its own laws.
Believe it or not you don't automatically get to help yourself to everything you find. Of course in most cases you won't get caught because no one will know but if you take a prototype phone and sell it to a blog who will announce to the world you found it then you're going to get caught.
It depends entirely on the situation. If you find money that was stolen in a bank robbery, even if you're completely unaware of the fact you are in possession of stolen property. At least in some areas if you find buried treasure it's not necessarily yours either.
I guess he probably did get punished a bit harder because he knew it was a prototype phone that belonged to Apple and sold it because, let's face it, you wouldn't take an old Android G1 to gozmodo.
Not all property is abandoned and if it is considered mislaid then you have a duty to give it back.
Anyone who thinks this won't be used to either bully the little guy into giving up his domain for corporations or just milk more money from customers is being very naive.
So it's a waste land yet there are people that live there and want to work? Perhaps they should get a job in a field that isn't dying.
If you think it will lower gas prices you're living in the land of make believe.
So you delay the people losing their jobs for a year? Unless they're all like a year from retirement that's pretty freaking useless. The volume is too low because there isn't that much oil up there. When that happens you have to shut it down. Delaying it for a year or if we're lucky a few years doesn't fix the problem and they still run in to the same problems.
Yet amazingly oil subsidies have zero effect on your bank balance or the kid's future. At least you're honest and showing that your bias is down to how you're banking your retirement.
So you've been there? Look up the definition of wasteland in the oxford dictionary. Calling something a wasteland doesn't mean it's some sort of hell hole and you could really call about any area untouched by humans a wasteland.
Assuming they stick to the initial tiny bit of (they won't - they'll always want more) they will make a mess of it as they've already spilled 1.9 million gallons of in other sites around the area and we'd be lucky to get a years worth of oil and not for years.
What then? It's not a solution at all unless you're in capable of thinking about the long term.
Sure if you skip all the way to the bottom you miss the bits where it points out other times they've claimed they only need a tiny bit of land it increases dramatically (2,100 acres to 12,000 spread over 640,000 acres) and that existing drilling spills toxic waste constantly totally more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances.
Regarding calling it a wasteland it only says the people that want to drill call it that which of course they would.
And again it's only at best a years worth of oil that we won't see for years. It's useless. They may even find out most of the oil is useless. There is no need to ruin the whole of the planet so fat people can drive to wal-mart for more cakes.
The definition of wasteland is "An unused area of land that has become barren or overgrown." according to the OED so it's not like it's some sort of toxic dump and if anything just proves it's been untouched by humans.
They certainly wouldn't be the first or last company to that. But until they give all the numbers it will be hard to say. They've only sid AT&T has sold 200,000 in the first 12 hours which isn't too bad especially considering that if you listened to the internet as it made it out the 4S was the worst thing ever and was the end of the iphone.
So we completely fuck up a lovely piece of nature for about a year's worth of oil? This of course assume they don't cock it up and spill half of it all over the countryside.
The DOE reported that annual United States consumption of crude oil and petroleum products was 7.55 billion barrels (1.200×109 m3) in 2006 and again in 2007, totaling 15.1 billion barrels (2.40×109 m3).[38] In comparison, the USGS estimated that the ANWR reserve contains 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3). Although, only 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) were thought to be within the proposed drilling region.[17]
It's true green sources aren't quite ready yet but it would make more sense to pour money into improving those rather than dicking about and ruining our countryside to delay the inevitable by a year.
I'm not saying you should pay more for an ebook or that it should even have DRM. I think it's highly unlikely you will get rid of DRM if people want $1 books.
And yes I would say $3.00 less for an ebook is reasonable. In my mind O'Reilly get it right. The ebook is typically $10 less, you get it in a number of formats and at least the PDF is 100% DRM free (I've not used the other formats so I can't say if they're DRM free), you get free updates to the next edition and if you buy the physical book you get the ebook for $5.00.
I personally think more publishers should follow that model and forget the $1 a book model. I think the article quite rightly points out the $0.99 price is so attractive now because it's not the norm. But when it's the norm you no longer stand out and no one will value your product. As it also points out it can be cheaper than a candy bar. No one values anything at that price and I think it will actually increase piracy because people won't value the product and in their mind the author only loses out on $0.99 not $20.00 so it's easier not to feel guilty.
I paid that much for an ebook. If something is quality and DRM free (if it's an ebook) then why isn't it worth £13? Amazing how so many people bitch about the lack of jobs or rate of pay and then feel paying more than a £1 for anything is fucking scandalous.
So basically you get to pay for content you could have gotten for free in most cases if MS included a browser. If they require a gold membership for the BBC I seriously hope people complain about that. People shouldn't have to pay for the damn TV licence and then MS to watch BBC programmes.
It was sarcasm and it was more to the point that people think that Android is better because it's open source but imo it's not that open because of things like Sense so it's slowly losing any sort of benefit to being open source.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it very well could have been if it's deemed to have been mislaid property. In high school I knew someone who ended up doing two weeks community service for stealing from a shop. I would assume he probably did anywhere between 3 to 6 hours a day which would put his total around 40 hours. He didn't get a year of probation but he was also a minor and in another state with its own laws.
Believe it or not you don't automatically get to help yourself to everything you find. Of course in most cases you won't get caught because no one will know but if you take a prototype phone and sell it to a blog who will announce to the world you found it then you're going to get caught.
It depends entirely on the situation. If you find money that was stolen in a bank robbery, even if you're completely unaware of the fact you are in possession of stolen property. At least in some areas if you find buried treasure it's not necessarily yours either.
I guess he probably did get punished a bit harder because he knew it was a prototype phone that belonged to Apple and sold it because, let's face it, you wouldn't take an old Android G1 to gozmodo.
Not all property is abandoned and if it is considered mislaid then you have a duty to give it back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_property#Mislaid_property
It's was obviously deemed to be mislaid property (as it should have been) and in effect he stole it and sold it.
Anyone who thinks this won't be used to either bully the little guy into giving up his domain for corporations or just milk more money from customers is being very naive.
Seems pretty simple. They do poorly they fail and repeat the year.
I rather pay sales tax than live in a frozen graveyard run by jack-offs like Sarah Palin.
So it's a waste land yet there are people that live there and want to work? Perhaps they should get a job in a field that isn't dying.
If you think it will lower gas prices you're living in the land of make believe.
So you delay the people losing their jobs for a year? Unless they're all like a year from retirement that's pretty freaking useless. The volume is too low because there isn't that much oil up there. When that happens you have to shut it down. Delaying it for a year or if we're lucky a few years doesn't fix the problem and they still run in to the same problems.
Yet amazingly oil subsidies have zero effect on your bank balance or the kid's future. At least you're honest and showing that your bias is down to how you're banking your retirement.
So you've been there? Look up the definition of wasteland in the oxford dictionary. Calling something a wasteland doesn't mean it's some sort of hell hole and you could really call about any area untouched by humans a wasteland.
Assuming they stick to the initial tiny bit of (they won't - they'll always want more) they will make a mess of it as they've already spilled 1.9 million gallons of in other sites around the area and we'd be lucky to get a years worth of oil and not for years.
What then? It's not a solution at all unless you're in capable of thinking about the long term.
I'm not sure I'd call 1.9 million gallons a tiny amount of toxic substances.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/anwr.asp (near the bottom)
Sure if you skip all the way to the bottom you miss the bits where it points out other times they've claimed they only need a tiny bit of land it increases dramatically (2,100 acres to 12,000 spread over 640,000 acres) and that existing drilling spills toxic waste constantly totally more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances.
Regarding calling it a wasteland it only says the people that want to drill call it that which of course they would.
And again it's only at best a years worth of oil that we won't see for years. It's useless. They may even find out most of the oil is useless. There is no need to ruin the whole of the planet so fat people can drive to wal-mart for more cakes.
The definition of wasteland is "An unused area of land that has become barren or overgrown." according to the OED so it's not like it's some sort of toxic dump and if anything just proves it's been untouched by humans.
They certainly wouldn't be the first or last company to that. But until they give all the numbers it will be hard to say. They've only sid AT&T has sold 200,000 in the first 12 hours which isn't too bad especially considering that if you listened to the internet as it made it out the 4S was the worst thing ever and was the end of the iphone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy#Opposing_views
The DOE reported that annual United States consumption of crude oil and petroleum products was 7.55 billion barrels (1.200×109 m3) in 2006 and again in 2007, totaling 15.1 billion barrels (2.40×109 m3).[38] In comparison, the USGS estimated that the ANWR reserve contains 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3). Although, only 7.7 billion barrels (1.22×109 m3) were thought to be within the proposed drilling region.[17]
It's true green sources aren't quite ready yet but it would make more sense to pour money into improving those rather than dicking about and ruining our countryside to delay the inevitable by a year.
I'm not saying you should pay more for an ebook or that it should even have DRM. I think it's highly unlikely you will get rid of DRM if people want $1 books.
And yes I would say $3.00 less for an ebook is reasonable. In my mind O'Reilly get it right. The ebook is typically $10 less, you get it in a number of formats and at least the PDF is 100% DRM free (I've not used the other formats so I can't say if they're DRM free), you get free updates to the next edition and if you buy the physical book you get the ebook for $5.00.
I personally think more publishers should follow that model and forget the $1 a book model. I think the article quite rightly points out the $0.99 price is so attractive now because it's not the norm. But when it's the norm you no longer stand out and no one will value your product. As it also points out it can be cheaper than a candy bar. No one values anything at that price and I think it will actually increase piracy because people won't value the product and in their mind the author only loses out on $0.99 not $20.00 so it's easier not to feel guilty.
Amazon may be nice for the author but then the customer gets DRM and is limited on where they can view the file.
I know Justin Bieber exists but that certainly doesn't mean I like him or have paid for any of his works.
I paid that much for an ebook. If something is quality and DRM free (if it's an ebook) then why isn't it worth £13? Amazing how so many people bitch about the lack of jobs or rate of pay and then feel paying more than a £1 for anything is fucking scandalous.
Sure if you only want to see books like Harry Potter and twilight books. A lot of quality books don't sell near 1 million copies.
It makes it less likely that you need to be tied to a shitty windows machine to play games.
That would be my mistake then as I read the story on Edge and they didn't make that clear at all, imo
So basically you get to pay for content you could have gotten for free in most cases if MS included a browser. If they require a gold membership for the BBC I seriously hope people complain about that. People shouldn't have to pay for the damn TV licence and then MS to watch BBC programmes.
It it's just half of London I don't think that really count.
I'm surprised it made it this long.
It was sarcasm and it was more to the point that people think that Android is better because it's open source but imo it's not that open because of things like Sense so it's slowly losing any sort of benefit to being open source.
But the transaction is for the CD. The Apple transaction is for a licence.