There are a lot of places that have clean water and enough food, but lack ways of getting ahead, lack good educations, etc. The internet and computers can change that and help train people to actually use technology and get ahead.
What good is surviving based on food and water without any progress?
The one thing with multi-touch is the possibility of patents interfering with the ability to use it. While this might not be a problem for some OSS projects or large companies with the ability to add in a few dollars to the price to pay for patent fees, I can see this being an issue for something as cost-conscious as the OLPC's laptop because even an extra $5 could make a huge difference.
This isn't the free market working, this is what happens when you create regulations to try to tax people in order to recycle. The vast majority of people really don't care where it goes, so long as they get their money back. Rather than keeping it around and selling it at garage sales, they can make more money getting their money back at a "recycling" center, so when people are so eager to "recycle" to get their money back, it ends up in the hands of the corrupt because the average person doesn't care.
Taxes and regulations don't make people care, it makes people want to game the system. This is a fine example of the government fucking with the free market where the electronics would probably just be traded via garage sales and thrift stores for a few decades until technology improves to easily recycle them.
When you force people to "recycle" their computer equipment, no longer do people really care where it goes so long as they don't have to pay that tax, because of this it opens up a new market for cheap "recyclers" that people will flock to because they are cheap and convenient.
As has so often been pointed out, let's say we yanked all the Civil Rights legislation, and then let's say a black man is ejected from a restaurant which is now fully free to discriminate based on race. If the black man refuses to leave, and the police are called, the state is now not only tacitly accepting racism, it is in fact being used to actively support it.
No, first off it is being used to enforce property rights, the same thing would happen if it was a violent person, or simply a person who refused to leave. Its no difference if someone is white/black/asian/etc. if they won't respect basic property rights, it is one of the state's proper jobs to remove them.
Secondly, what benefit would it do to shop where you weren't wanted? Racism is by nature illogical and is punished by the free market. If you look at the state of blacks in the south, it was caused because of government laws, segregation was opposed by many businesses such as railroad companies because it forced them to operate more cars thus cutting into their bottom lines.
No society in history, save perhaps in advanced stages of breakdown, has ever functioned the way Libertarians seem to think a society should function.
Mostly because the population was uneducated and delusional and didn't stand up for their rights. You only need to look at the US where we think that fiat currency, worthless metallic coinage and fractional-reserve banking are facts of life.
Secondly, look at -power-, everyone wants to abuse power if that is given to them. If you were an emperor and everyone thought you were a god, a son of a god or god-appointed, why bother caring about your people? When unlimited power is allowed, people will always abuse it, that is why a limited government is very important and why government needs to be checked by the people, hence why things like the second amendment are needed.
Even Rome gave out bread, the alternative being food riots
Um, yeah, and Rome also implemented price controls and a lot of other things that were non-libertarian. Rome basically served as the model for an "idealized" big-government state. I don't admire Rome in hindsight, granted, Rome did do a lot of things right over the years when compared to the rest of the world, but it was hardly perfect and hardly a good model for how a government should be run in an enlightened age.
Even enlightened self-interest suggests that the state better do something about the underclasses.
In a truly free society, how did the poor get poor? Yes, some people have bad luck, but the majority of the cases they did something and need to take responsibility. Why should I feel sorry for you that you decided you needed an HDTV and couldn't make the payments? Why should I feel sorry for you because you got a mortgage on a house you couldn't afford?
In medieval times, the Church was effectively a branch of government, with forms of taxation powers and incomes from large land holdings to underwrite charitable works.
...Yes? And? The church before the enlightenment was essentially a corrupt government and not a religious institution. When the enlightenment happened and people started using reason, they could see that what the church did was very oftentimes contrary to the teachings of the bible and that the church consistently overstepped its bounds and used blatant lies to defend its wrong position on many things, especially science.
Comparing the corrupt "church" to the religious institutions of today is an unfair comparison, people are now literate, they can read the bible for themselves, they have communication via the internet, no longer can the Pope declare a "justified" war because the people know that generally that is contrary to both reason and scripture. Without a large government, the chances of a corrupt church like that of pre-enlightenment Europe is slim to none.
I'm a member of the Libertarian party of the US ( http://www.lp.org/ ) and the few candidates that are elected have done an excellent job of following the party's platform, and yes, they actually do have a platform that is united and coherent when compared to the Republican/Democrat parties. No one can accurately describe the platform for the Republican or Democrat parties in one sentence and have it be true for the majority of candidates. With the Libertarian party it is easy. "Maximize economic and personal freedom and reduce the role of the government in everyday society"
The party does not have any policies or an official stance, and promises to conduct online votes on major issues and act in Parliament accordingly.
Ok, so we suddenly now have a way to make really reliable online polls? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust a party with no real platform and outsourcing all policy decisions to whoever has the best poll-spamming software.
It used to be that Science Fiction authors and movie makers used to -like- the fact that their predictions came true because it showed that they made good predictions... Imagine how much H.G. Wells would be thrilled if someone made a working time machine based on his book, something tells me that he wouldn't send a C&D letter because they "stole" his idea, instead he'd be happy that he could be the inspiration for such a great idea.
The pleasant surprise for me is that it was so simple to set up a thirty year old video terminal on a modern light weight host system. MeeGo has not forgotten its Unix heritage.
Um, doesn't -every- Linux distro include this? I don't know of a single Linux distro with the exception of perhaps DSL and some embedded distros that wouldn't include basic command line tools. What do you expect with a Linux distro? That because your running Ubuntu all it does is boot a version of Windows XP in emulation via the Linux kernel?
Well, of course its not a 1:1 switch, but how many schools really teach things like the command prompt and the like anymore? I remember back when I was in high school teachers would get mad at students just trying to change the background! I have no doubt that if they used something as simple as a command line mail client the teachers would think they were hacking or something!
While it is true that a lot of the benefits of Linux get lost if you try to emulate Windows, the main features of Windows also get lost on the same people. How many people -really- do more than Word, Firefox, Photo Editing and the like on a daily basis?
The problem is that it doesn't really work anymore. Computers aren't just used for business anymore, -everyone- has a computer and knows how to use it. Back in the day, there were large differences between platforms, there were few cross-platform apps and computers weren't as user-friendly as they are today. Set someone who has never used Linux but has used Windows in front of a desktop made to look like Windows and they will have no problems navigating it because the majority of the apps used on Windows also have Linux ports with the exception of some Adobe/MS programs.
The learning curve is nearly non-existent now with GUIs.
All that this and related rules like the no-fly zone is damage control for the federal government who failed to either regulate BP efficiently or let the free market work and instead screwed up this entire situation. Of course Obama doesn't want anyone looking at it because if they did and analyzed it enough, they would realize that the real ass Obama needed to kick was... his own.
Um, not in the way that Apple does. If I e-mailed a CEO or support member of just about any other phone manufacturer other than Apple, I wouldn't get a reply like "Stop holding it that way", yes, I doubt I'd get a $5,000 check and free phones for life and instead get something like "Other people are having this issue, our tech team is working on a solution check back at XXX forum thread for the latest details". No other phone maker would insist that -their- way of doing things was so vastly superior than any other way and that they only had one way. Lets say I want a physical keyboard and want to stick with HTC Android phones, I could go with the MyTouch 3G Slide or the HTC Dream, I'm not going to get some stupid answer that keyboards are "obsolete" and software keyboards are so much better. Not every company has every single piece of hardware exactly how someone wants it, but they aren't going to limit themselves by thinking that its their way or nothing.
If I want a phone a certain way and know what I like, many companies are willing to cater to me and a few other like minded people, with Apple they don't even care because you don't want to do it the way that their CEO, who has been proven wrong many times, thinks you must do.
People only get into "OMIGODSCANDAL" mode when it's Apple for some reason.
Because its only Apple who seems to think that their products are flawless. Its only Apple who takes design over practicality. Only Apple would have designed the Apple III the way it was, and it was probably only Apple (well, cheap Chinese counterfeits aside...) who would design a product like the iPhone 4 and then say to your customers you are holding it wrong.
Its only Apple who thinks that one product can be perfect for everyone, from the serious developer and power user to Joe Six-Pack. Other companies diversify to give each niche their own product at cheap price points.
Yes, occasionally Apple just -gets- something right, a lot of the ideas from the iPhone were great, the implementation wasn't as good, but the idea of a great browser, captive touch-screen, and multi-touch gestures were a great idea and truly helped make the smartphones of today what they are today. But other times their implementation is just dead wrong and Apple has to "backtrack" from earlier statements to get ahead you know things like there will be no SDK for the iPhone, no copy/paste, no multi-tasking, etc.
Of course Apple is going to be scrutinized more than any other popular company because they limit their models to one or two. For example, lets say I want a Motorola phone with Android, I don't -have- to get a Droid, I can choose to get a Droid, Droid X, Backflip, Cliq, Devour or i1. A flaw that the Backflip has will probably not be shared with the Droid and a problem with the Droid might be addressed on the Droid X. Apple seems to think that their one phone is the phone for everyone and when it is not, people are going to attack them. Motorola isn't saying that all of their phones are for everyone, they make their own niches, someone who needs a high-end phone is not going to get a Cliq but rather get a Droid (X), someone who wants to get a smartphone on a budget also isn't going to buy the Droid X but instead might go for the i1.
If Apple offered multiple products, they could escape scrutiny because there would be other products to fall back to if one product ended up being terrible and Apple would suffer minimal losses, but since they have a unified phone program, the flaws are much more pronounced.
Actually, if you are fine with the slowdown apparently there is a way to enable iPhone OS 4 features restricted for the 3Gs on a 3G (see http://lifehacker.com/5574507/how-to-enable-multitasking-and-background-wallpaper-on-your-iphone-3g-and-2nd-gen-ipod-touch ) now I haven't used them so I can't vouch for if they work or not so your results may vary, but if you are looking for a way to enable them while waiting for a new phone, that might be a way. I think on that same site there is a link that tells how to downgrade to 3.X also if you want to go that route.
'Through our systems and analytics, we focus on the greatest and most active threats in an effort to avoid negatively impacting customer experience.'"
If you look at identity theft there are 3 "greatest" threats, stupidity on the part of the cardholder, stupidity on the part of the bank, or stupidity on the part of a third party. Even the best individual practices can't protect against stupidity from the bank or stupidity from a third party that has your card info for a legitimate reason.
For some reason banks seem to think that they aren't a threat to someone's security of their identity, they are a -huge- threat because they have all the information identity thieves need to make fraudulent purchases. Such things like this will undoubtedly have pressure put on the post office and mail handlers rather than the main culprit, the bank.
For a main TV no doubt a LCD HDTV, for a secondary kid's TV, a used one from a thrift shop. No one wants to spend ~$300 for their kids on a TV when you can get one for $10 at a local thrift shop or garage sale.
There are very few developers who are enough of hardware geeks to want to push the envelope beyond what consoles can manage -- iD's Doom 3 and Crytek's Crysis are the only ones I can think of offhand, although both companies have sold out to consoles in recent years.
Because there are very few people who own that kind of hardware. Look, the average person's computer doesn't even have a dedicated video card, there are few people who are willing to shell out $1000+ for a PC (unless of course it has a shiny Apple logo on it....) that will be obsolete in a year or so anyways and they will need to put in another $300 video card if they want it to be top-of-the-line again.
A $200 Xbox bought today is going to get me at least 2 more years of gaming, probably 3. The $250 Wii bought at launch day has already had a 4 year lifespan and probably won't stop anytime soon. I don't think that you can buy a decent PC for $200 and have it play any real game today, let alone play a new game 4 years from now.
And really, does better hardware mean more fun? I mean, I suppose it is nice to see every little hair on the person who you are shooting's beard, but is it really needed? I mean, really, Pac Man or Tetris is as fun in its NES iterations as it is playing it in HD. If a developer makes a game that is crap, it will be unplayable at any level. If a developer makes a game that is really fun, it won't matter if you are playing it on the Wii, 360, PS3 or an 8 core CPU, it will still be fun.
Mostly because you can get good graphics on any console. Yes, the Wii can't do HD, but quite honestly the Wii is aimed as the main console for kids these days, how many kids do you know that have anything other than a SDTV bulky CRT TV in their rooms?
If you want to do something you can do it on any console these days, when developers stop whining about how they don't have a Core i7 built into every single console these days and actually get to coding, they can make some pretty good games. I mean, look at the stuff older computers could do, particularly the Amiga, yet its specs would be considered completely ancient by todays standards.
In all honesty, devs need to start making games that are -fun- and I think this generation should have woke them up to it. I don't need a screen resolution of 3242342342 X 234234234234234 to enjoy a game, nor do I need an 8 core CPU. Graphics are nice when they enhance the game, but in a lot of cases devs focus far too much on graphics and not enough on making the game fun.
Yes, but my point was that he seem to think that fair use extends to everything, which it doesn't and he tries to make it seem like everything is comparable to CDs.
And IANAL but it seems to me like ATARI, INC., Plaintiff, v. JS & A GROUP, INC., Defendant. would make it illegal to really copy the games even though you are technically allowed to have the backups...
...In almost every orchestra I've seen, the players usually have sheet music in front of them or used it to learn the piece. About the only things that don't use sheet music is pop music and the like.
There are very few inalienable rights. I do not see why this is relevant
Because you have the right to thought, speech, life, liberty, etc. those are inalienable, the right to have a monopoly on your work is not natural in the least. It is artificial, in short, it is propped up not by nature but by government.
For someone trying to cite history in your argument, you sure know little about it. All of the inalienable rights as we know them today derived from the Enlightenment which was centuries after the Renaissance. The term "inalienable right" was coined in the 1600s.
...Mostly because of two major things.
A) Before the enlightenment, the majority of the world had to keep on working just to eat. The rest of the world that had time to think and experiment would be better off if they didn't think about the legitimacy of tyranny because if they proved that it was contrary to nature/religion they would be out of a job.
B) Communication, literacy and science increased, people could actually question the need for their current form of government because they could see past the lies of the sovereign.
Yes, and the playwrights were dirt-poor.
Not if they were good at what they did, look at Shakespeare
Yes, the Catholic Church wanted censorship. But copyright has nothing to do with censorship. The Catholic Church was trying to stop the spread of new ideas, ideas that might threaten them. Copyright law allows the spread of new ideas, but does not allow the unauthorized replication of old ideas.
...No. Copyright doesn't allow the spread of new ideas. One needs only to look at all of the information cut off to students and professionals locked away in scientific journals because of copyright and their -expensive- fees.
Also, look at all the "treaties" the third world has signed with wealthier nations, provisions usually include "respect" of those nations copyrights, meaning that valuable information, especially up-to-date medical information could be locked away from doctors.
It is true that no one can own ideas like they can own a screwdriver. That is why copyright law was invented. The idea is to give incentive to create. If no one paid for ideas, then no one could make a living off coming up with those ideas. The only composers would be rich people who could live off of their savings. The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
Right. Because I forgot about how before copyright law no literature was written, no artists painted, no composers composed, no singers sung and no one played any instruments. Because of the lack of financial incentives nothing ever got done before humanity came up with copyright law. No philosophy, no science, nothing. Right?
Yes, you are right. And that is why copyrights expire, just like children grow up.
Copyrights don't really expire anymore. It used to be when we had sane copyright that it expired in 20 years, something that was sane. But now we have copyright laws that are longer than some people's lives! Copyright no longer really expires.
Your friend put so much work into making that design for the house. He spent hours and hours. Time that he could have spent building houses and making more money. Now you come along and take his design without compensation. You didn't have to spend all of those hours creating the design. It doesn't cost you a penny, but it cost him a lot (remember, time is money). Now is that fair?
Yes. If you don't want people to use your ideas don't publish them, don't use them, etc. I'm not a complete dick, if I made something that I think is interesting, I have no problem with other people using it and making it better and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot of places that have clean water and enough food, but lack ways of getting ahead, lack good educations, etc. The internet and computers can change that and help train people to actually use technology and get ahead.
What good is surviving based on food and water without any progress?
The one thing with multi-touch is the possibility of patents interfering with the ability to use it. While this might not be a problem for some OSS projects or large companies with the ability to add in a few dollars to the price to pay for patent fees, I can see this being an issue for something as cost-conscious as the OLPC's laptop because even an extra $5 could make a huge difference.
This isn't the free market working, this is what happens when you create regulations to try to tax people in order to recycle. The vast majority of people really don't care where it goes, so long as they get their money back. Rather than keeping it around and selling it at garage sales, they can make more money getting their money back at a "recycling" center, so when people are so eager to "recycle" to get their money back, it ends up in the hands of the corrupt because the average person doesn't care.
Taxes and regulations don't make people care, it makes people want to game the system. This is a fine example of the government fucking with the free market where the electronics would probably just be traded via garage sales and thrift stores for a few decades until technology improves to easily recycle them.
Not when the government is involved...
When you force people to "recycle" their computer equipment, no longer do people really care where it goes so long as they don't have to pay that tax, because of this it opens up a new market for cheap "recyclers" that people will flock to because they are cheap and convenient.
As has so often been pointed out, let's say we yanked all the Civil Rights legislation, and then let's say a black man is ejected from a restaurant which is now fully free to discriminate based on race. If the black man refuses to leave, and the police are called, the state is now not only tacitly accepting racism, it is in fact being used to actively support it.
No, first off it is being used to enforce property rights, the same thing would happen if it was a violent person, or simply a person who refused to leave. Its no difference if someone is white/black/asian/etc. if they won't respect basic property rights, it is one of the state's proper jobs to remove them.
Secondly, what benefit would it do to shop where you weren't wanted? Racism is by nature illogical and is punished by the free market. If you look at the state of blacks in the south, it was caused because of government laws, segregation was opposed by many businesses such as railroad companies because it forced them to operate more cars thus cutting into their bottom lines.
No society in history, save perhaps in advanced stages of breakdown, has ever functioned the way Libertarians seem to think a society should function.
Mostly because the population was uneducated and delusional and didn't stand up for their rights. You only need to look at the US where we think that fiat currency, worthless metallic coinage and fractional-reserve banking are facts of life.
Secondly, look at -power-, everyone wants to abuse power if that is given to them. If you were an emperor and everyone thought you were a god, a son of a god or god-appointed, why bother caring about your people? When unlimited power is allowed, people will always abuse it, that is why a limited government is very important and why government needs to be checked by the people, hence why things like the second amendment are needed.
Even Rome gave out bread, the alternative being food riots
Um, yeah, and Rome also implemented price controls and a lot of other things that were non-libertarian. Rome basically served as the model for an "idealized" big-government state. I don't admire Rome in hindsight, granted, Rome did do a lot of things right over the years when compared to the rest of the world, but it was hardly perfect and hardly a good model for how a government should be run in an enlightened age.
Even enlightened self-interest suggests that the state better do something about the underclasses.
In a truly free society, how did the poor get poor? Yes, some people have bad luck, but the majority of the cases they did something and need to take responsibility. Why should I feel sorry for you that you decided you needed an HDTV and couldn't make the payments? Why should I feel sorry for you because you got a mortgage on a house you couldn't afford?
In medieval times, the Church was effectively a branch of government, with forms of taxation powers and incomes from large land holdings to underwrite charitable works.
Comparing the corrupt "church" to the religious institutions of today is an unfair comparison, people are now literate, they can read the bible for themselves, they have communication via the internet, no longer can the Pope declare a "justified" war because the people know that generally that is contrary to both reason and scripture. Without a large government, the chances of a corrupt church like that of pre-enlightenment Europe is slim to none.
I'm a member of the Libertarian party of the US ( http://www.lp.org/ ) and the few candidates that are elected have done an excellent job of following the party's platform, and yes, they actually do have a platform that is united and coherent when compared to the Republican/Democrat parties. No one can accurately describe the platform for the Republican or Democrat parties in one sentence and have it be true for the majority of candidates. With the Libertarian party it is easy. "Maximize economic and personal freedom and reduce the role of the government in everyday society"
The party does not have any policies or an official stance, and promises to conduct online votes on major issues and act in Parliament accordingly.
Ok, so we suddenly now have a way to make really reliable online polls? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust a party with no real platform and outsourcing all policy decisions to whoever has the best poll-spamming software.
It used to be that Science Fiction authors and movie makers used to -like- the fact that their predictions came true because it showed that they made good predictions... Imagine how much H.G. Wells would be thrilled if someone made a working time machine based on his book, something tells me that he wouldn't send a C&D letter because they "stole" his idea, instead he'd be happy that he could be the inspiration for such a great idea.
The pleasant surprise for me is that it was so simple to set up a thirty year old video terminal on a modern light weight host system. MeeGo has not forgotten its Unix heritage.
Um, doesn't -every- Linux distro include this? I don't know of a single Linux distro with the exception of perhaps DSL and some embedded distros that wouldn't include basic command line tools. What do you expect with a Linux distro? That because your running Ubuntu all it does is boot a version of Windows XP in emulation via the Linux kernel?
Well, of course its not a 1:1 switch, but how many schools really teach things like the command prompt and the like anymore? I remember back when I was in high school teachers would get mad at students just trying to change the background! I have no doubt that if they used something as simple as a command line mail client the teachers would think they were hacking or something!
While it is true that a lot of the benefits of Linux get lost if you try to emulate Windows, the main features of Windows also get lost on the same people. How many people -really- do more than Word, Firefox, Photo Editing and the like on a daily basis?
The problem is that it doesn't really work anymore. Computers aren't just used for business anymore, -everyone- has a computer and knows how to use it. Back in the day, there were large differences between platforms, there were few cross-platform apps and computers weren't as user-friendly as they are today. Set someone who has never used Linux but has used Windows in front of a desktop made to look like Windows and they will have no problems navigating it because the majority of the apps used on Windows also have Linux ports with the exception of some Adobe/MS programs.
The learning curve is nearly non-existent now with GUIs.
Not idiots, just trolls who want a few lulz.
All that this and related rules like the no-fly zone is damage control for the federal government who failed to either regulate BP efficiently or let the free market work and instead screwed up this entire situation. Of course Obama doesn't want anyone looking at it because if they did and analyzed it enough, they would realize that the real ass Obama needed to kick was... his own.
Um, not in the way that Apple does. If I e-mailed a CEO or support member of just about any other phone manufacturer other than Apple, I wouldn't get a reply like "Stop holding it that way", yes, I doubt I'd get a $5,000 check and free phones for life and instead get something like "Other people are having this issue, our tech team is working on a solution check back at XXX forum thread for the latest details". No other phone maker would insist that -their- way of doing things was so vastly superior than any other way and that they only had one way. Lets say I want a physical keyboard and want to stick with HTC Android phones, I could go with the MyTouch 3G Slide or the HTC Dream, I'm not going to get some stupid answer that keyboards are "obsolete" and software keyboards are so much better. Not every company has every single piece of hardware exactly how someone wants it, but they aren't going to limit themselves by thinking that its their way or nothing.
If I want a phone a certain way and know what I like, many companies are willing to cater to me and a few other like minded people, with Apple they don't even care because you don't want to do it the way that their CEO, who has been proven wrong many times, thinks you must do.
People only get into "OMIGODSCANDAL" mode when it's Apple for some reason.
Because its only Apple who seems to think that their products are flawless. Its only Apple who takes design over practicality. Only Apple would have designed the Apple III the way it was, and it was probably only Apple (well, cheap Chinese counterfeits aside...) who would design a product like the iPhone 4 and then say to your customers you are holding it wrong.
Its only Apple who thinks that one product can be perfect for everyone, from the serious developer and power user to Joe Six-Pack. Other companies diversify to give each niche their own product at cheap price points.
Yes, occasionally Apple just -gets- something right, a lot of the ideas from the iPhone were great, the implementation wasn't as good, but the idea of a great browser, captive touch-screen, and multi-touch gestures were a great idea and truly helped make the smartphones of today what they are today. But other times their implementation is just dead wrong and Apple has to "backtrack" from earlier statements to get ahead you know things like there will be no SDK for the iPhone, no copy/paste, no multi-tasking, etc.
No, no, this is Apple it is the iPhone mobile Me.
Of course Apple is going to be scrutinized more than any other popular company because they limit their models to one or two. For example, lets say I want a Motorola phone with Android, I don't -have- to get a Droid, I can choose to get a Droid, Droid X, Backflip, Cliq, Devour or i1. A flaw that the Backflip has will probably not be shared with the Droid and a problem with the Droid might be addressed on the Droid X. Apple seems to think that their one phone is the phone for everyone and when it is not, people are going to attack them. Motorola isn't saying that all of their phones are for everyone, they make their own niches, someone who needs a high-end phone is not going to get a Cliq but rather get a Droid (X), someone who wants to get a smartphone on a budget also isn't going to buy the Droid X but instead might go for the i1.
If Apple offered multiple products, they could escape scrutiny because there would be other products to fall back to if one product ended up being terrible and Apple would suffer minimal losses, but since they have a unified phone program, the flaws are much more pronounced.
Actually, if you are fine with the slowdown apparently there is a way to enable iPhone OS 4 features restricted for the 3Gs on a 3G (see http://lifehacker.com/5574507/how-to-enable-multitasking-and-background-wallpaper-on-your-iphone-3g-and-2nd-gen-ipod-touch ) now I haven't used them so I can't vouch for if they work or not so your results may vary, but if you are looking for a way to enable them while waiting for a new phone, that might be a way. I think on that same site there is a link that tells how to downgrade to 3.X also if you want to go that route.
'Through our systems and analytics, we focus on the greatest and most active threats in an effort to avoid negatively impacting customer experience.'"
If you look at identity theft there are 3 "greatest" threats, stupidity on the part of the cardholder, stupidity on the part of the bank, or stupidity on the part of a third party. Even the best individual practices can't protect against stupidity from the bank or stupidity from a third party that has your card info for a legitimate reason.
For some reason banks seem to think that they aren't a threat to someone's security of their identity, they are a -huge- threat because they have all the information identity thieves need to make fraudulent purchases. Such things like this will undoubtedly have pressure put on the post office and mail handlers rather than the main culprit, the bank.
For a main TV no doubt a LCD HDTV, for a secondary kid's TV, a used one from a thrift shop. No one wants to spend ~$300 for their kids on a TV when you can get one for $10 at a local thrift shop or garage sale.
There are very few developers who are enough of hardware geeks to want to push the envelope beyond what consoles can manage -- iD's Doom 3 and Crytek's Crysis are the only ones I can think of offhand, although both companies have sold out to consoles in recent years.
Because there are very few people who own that kind of hardware. Look, the average person's computer doesn't even have a dedicated video card, there are few people who are willing to shell out $1000+ for a PC (unless of course it has a shiny Apple logo on it....) that will be obsolete in a year or so anyways and they will need to put in another $300 video card if they want it to be top-of-the-line again.
A $200 Xbox bought today is going to get me at least 2 more years of gaming, probably 3. The $250 Wii bought at launch day has already had a 4 year lifespan and probably won't stop anytime soon. I don't think that you can buy a decent PC for $200 and have it play any real game today, let alone play a new game 4 years from now.
And really, does better hardware mean more fun? I mean, I suppose it is nice to see every little hair on the person who you are shooting's beard, but is it really needed? I mean, really, Pac Man or Tetris is as fun in its NES iterations as it is playing it in HD. If a developer makes a game that is crap, it will be unplayable at any level. If a developer makes a game that is really fun, it won't matter if you are playing it on the Wii, 360, PS3 or an 8 core CPU, it will still be fun.
Mostly because you can get good graphics on any console. Yes, the Wii can't do HD, but quite honestly the Wii is aimed as the main console for kids these days, how many kids do you know that have anything other than a SDTV bulky CRT TV in their rooms?
If you want to do something you can do it on any console these days, when developers stop whining about how they don't have a Core i7 built into every single console these days and actually get to coding, they can make some pretty good games. I mean, look at the stuff older computers could do, particularly the Amiga, yet its specs would be considered completely ancient by todays standards.
In all honesty, devs need to start making games that are -fun- and I think this generation should have woke them up to it. I don't need a screen resolution of 3242342342 X 234234234234234 to enjoy a game, nor do I need an 8 core CPU. Graphics are nice when they enhance the game, but in a lot of cases devs focus far too much on graphics and not enough on making the game fun.
Yes, but my point was that he seem to think that fair use extends to everything, which it doesn't and he tries to make it seem like everything is comparable to CDs.
And IANAL but it seems to me like ATARI, INC., Plaintiff, v. JS & A GROUP, INC., Defendant. would make it illegal to really copy the games even though you are technically allowed to have the backups...
...In almost every orchestra I've seen, the players usually have sheet music in front of them or used it to learn the piece. About the only things that don't use sheet music is pop music and the like.
There are very few inalienable rights. I do not see why this is relevant
Because you have the right to thought, speech, life, liberty, etc. those are inalienable, the right to have a monopoly on your work is not natural in the least. It is artificial, in short, it is propped up not by nature but by government.
For someone trying to cite history in your argument, you sure know little about it. All of the inalienable rights as we know them today derived from the Enlightenment which was centuries after the Renaissance. The term "inalienable right" was coined in the 1600s.
A) Before the enlightenment, the majority of the world had to keep on working just to eat. The rest of the world that had time to think and experiment would be better off if they didn't think about the legitimacy of tyranny because if they proved that it was contrary to nature/religion they would be out of a job.
B) Communication, literacy and science increased, people could actually question the need for their current form of government because they could see past the lies of the sovereign.
Yes, and the playwrights were dirt-poor.
Not if they were good at what they did, look at Shakespeare
Yes, the Catholic Church wanted censorship. But copyright has nothing to do with censorship. The Catholic Church was trying to stop the spread of new ideas, ideas that might threaten them. Copyright law allows the spread of new ideas, but does not allow the unauthorized replication of old ideas.
Also, look at all the "treaties" the third world has signed with wealthier nations, provisions usually include "respect" of those nations copyrights, meaning that valuable information, especially up-to-date medical information could be locked away from doctors.
It is true that no one can own ideas like they can own a screwdriver. That is why copyright law was invented. The idea is to give incentive to create. If no one paid for ideas, then no one could make a living off coming up with those ideas. The only composers would be rich people who could live off of their savings. The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
Right. Because I forgot about how before copyright law no literature was written, no artists painted, no composers composed, no singers sung and no one played any instruments. Because of the lack of financial incentives nothing ever got done before humanity came up with copyright law. No philosophy, no science, nothing. Right?
Yes, you are right. And that is why copyrights expire, just like children grow up.
Copyrights don't really expire anymore. It used to be when we had sane copyright that it expired in 20 years, something that was sane. But now we have copyright laws that are longer than some people's lives! Copyright no longer really expires.
Your friend put so much work into making that design for the house. He spent hours and hours. Time that he could have spent building houses and making more money. Now you come along and take his design without compensation. You didn't have to spend all of those hours creating the design. It doesn't cost you a penny, but it cost him a lot (remember, time is money). Now is that fair?
Yes. If you don't want people to use your ideas don't publish them, don't use them, etc. I'm not a complete dick, if I made something that I think is interesting, I have no problem with other people using it and making it better and the like.