In America, the only thing we know about Canada and Europe is that you have free health-care and subsidized prescription coverage, and that gas is twice as expensive. What most don't know is that with things like salary caps, enforced work schedules and holidays, 40-60% income tax, etc... there are lots of things that are sacrificed for that free healthcare. There are good and bad things about socialist societies. I suppose unregulated telecoms is just another bad.
Exactly. The No Fly List is useless because it contains an estimated 1,000,000+ names (really, 1 million terrorists we can't track down?). It's useless because it contains generic entries such as T. Kennedy, which doesn't refer to a person but an alias once used in a crime (Tater Salad might be in there too). It's useless because even once they bomb a terrorist into tiny pieces his name is still on the list (sry, can't rememer who). Not only that, but the list is used for political dissidents too, not just terrorists or dangerous criminals. Apparently Nelson Mandela was on the list, until the fact was embarrasingly publicized and he was finally removed.
Someone made a satirical comment elsewhere to this effect, but what good is free software if it mostly only supports Linux? I think using something like OpenBSD (is FreeBSD more open or is OpenBSD more free?) with only software that compiles natively on BSD is a true test of one's open and free nature.
I don't think GNewSense makes enough of an effort. Not only should we be pushing for more open-source software, we should push for open-source software that is well written and documented allowing for easy porting across all platforms (at least all free and open platforms, like hell if minGW is ever going to get Windows there).
I assume he was referring to something like HDMI or BluRay, where the content is encrypted and only licensed hardware can decode it. I suppose if you banded together with AMD and Intel, you could create something similar for video game content. HOWEVER, there is currently NOTHING in place that would allow your current computer hardware to prevent pirating.
I think the particular CEO that stated hardware manufacturers should be responsible would like to see a reversal of all the progress we've seen in the last 25+ years. Instead of universal architecture that any OS or program can utilize, we should have one CPU manufacturer and one OS. All so that no one can copy the next piece of shit iD releases.
"To catch an incompetent wire-fraud artist" just doesn't have the same ring to it. But really, since the Nigerian scams aren't being backed by a government entity running a sting operation, there's no claim to entrapment or anything like that. Whether the deal is legit or not, attempting to commit wire fraud in these cases should be punishable. Remember, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If these people wanted to cover themselves, they should have consulted a financial expert, as with any financial transaction of that magnitude. Of course, common sense would tell some of us not to do it in the first place.
Nothing says realiable and fully-functioning OS like paying 10mil to Jerry Seinfeld. It's a sort of "Look, the operating system is so perfect, we can just throw our money away."
Oh sure, let them trademark something as common-place as Cleartracks, and next thing you know they'll be trademarking letters of the alphabet.
Seriously though, MS does have a bad habit of trademarking words they find in a See Dick Run story-book, but if they want to trademark crap like Cleartracks and Inprivate, I suppose we can let them have those. Now, if they had tried to trademark Microsoft Browser, that would have been a different story.
Tried with Opera 9.51 on gOs/Ubuntu 7.10 and it did copy the url to my clipboard which I was unable to replace (with ctrl+c) until I closed the tab. After closure, I regained control of my clipboard.
I tried using a user javascript file that would block all flash content and allow me to individually activate the various flash files, but I had problems with things like YouTube, and eventually I abandoned it when certain websites I frequented used Flash for the most obsurd reasons (don't remember which, this was over a year ago). Might be worthwhile to bring it back.
Obviously not as severe, but I bought a real cheap machine with Vista Home Premium OEM Edition. The machine kept complaining that my network connetion was unplugged. Oddly enough it was refering to my wireless connection, and even more oddly, there was no wireless NIC installed in the machine. Nothing better than an OS that will complain about nothing. It also comsumed 15% of my processing power running Aero with no windows or anything open. Yay!
The USPTO has a fantastic trackrecord. When Microsoft wanted to trademark their word processor with the name Word, did the USPTO let them? When Microsoft wanted to trademark their new graphical OS that dispays applications in windows (a concept created by another company) Windows, did the USPTO let them? When Microsoft wanted to trademark their suite of office applicatons as Office, did the USPTO let them?
Okay, ignore those examples, but at least they didn't let Trump trademark You're Fired.
But seriously, why do companies think they can trademark phrases they didn't create? Q-Tips, Kleenex, Xerox, these are creative trademarks that people easily associate with their respective products. Who the hell is gonna hear Cloud Computing and think Dell? Now, when I hear the word Dell my mind is flooded with a whole cocaphony of phrases I would rather forget (Dude, you're Getting a Dell!)
Exactly. They aren't concerned with killing internet radio, they're trying to kill the "mom and pop" internet radio companies. They need their music played on radio stations they control, so they can properly maintain who gets played how often. I'll often listen to a local rock radio station in my car until I hear a song I don't like, and switch to the other rock radio station. I listen to the new rock radio station until I HEAR THE SAME FUCKING SONG that caused me to switch in the first place, then turn the damn radio off or switch to my CD player. The record labels influence the radio stations to play the same songs over and over (same with watching MTV, if anyone still does that). The songs become so engrained, that to not listen to them causes people great pain. The only way to quell that pain is to buy the CD or download the music (legitamately).
If your mom-and-pop just plays the song once, there's no revenue to the record label from that. No great public interest is created in the song or the artist. The CRB and record labels are driving the current internet radio stations out of business to open the market up for major companies like ClearChannel to spring up their own crop of internet radio sites. Only since they'll be run by a corporate giant, they'll be more controlled and regulated to the labels' liking.
It all depends on what you see as valid use of bandwidth. You ever watch tv on your Verizon phone? I don't even see commercials for that any more. I guess T-Mobile is waiting to see where the trends go before it devotes a lot of their resources into technology 90% of their customers WON'T use. I have a base plan with added text messages. I never felt the need to browse the internet on my phone. As far as needing directions or finding a place of business, that's what texting to GOOGL and my GPS are for.
Besides, the original iPhone came out a little over a year ago, and I don't recall it using only the edge network being that big of a deal. If the iPhone didn't need to support 3G a year ago, why are you complaining that T-Mobile has yet to support it (and I'm not saying you are a fan of the iPhone, just making a point).
The next office will support ODF (since so many people are already moving there) but not OOXML.
The problem here is the fact that there exists an OOXML specification and that MS effectively owns that spec. Therefore, they can simply say that Office uses OOXML, but underneath it uses a hacked, unsupported version. The future of OOXML will simply be whatever features of OOXML MS has decided to implement, and HOW MS has implemented them. ISO isn't a governing body, they can't punish MS for not following the spec and still calling it OOXML.
Look at CSS for webpages. If you have done any webpage development (even for simple personal web pages) you know that if you don't test how it looks in IE, there's a big chance IE is rendering something incorrectly. The same will go for OOXML if Microsoft releases Office and CLAIMS it supports OOXML. Someone will try to open an OOXML document created by OOo (if they decide to support it), and it won't look the same. People will blame OOo, surely Office is rendering the document correctly, because hell, MS did create the spec.
MS has consistently forced change across many standards over the years (WinSock, IE JavaScript, CSS, etc...) simply because they inject their product into so many areas and half-ass their support of the standard spec. MS certainly isn't going to bother getting their Office suite ISO-certified, because hell, it's still proprietary so it's no ones business but MS's in how they implement OOXML.
If I buy a $10k Toyota Yaris and the tires fall off, I pretty much figured that was bound to happen.
I buy a $600k Ferrari Enzo and there's a fingerprint on my rear-view mirror, you're damn right I'm driving that thing back to the dealer and demanding he fix it.
Apple has forced this upon themselves by being so proprietary (it's supposed to work better because you can't repair/replace it's parts) and so expensive ($600 phone? no thanks).
If they were just a normal company, these flaws are expected/common-place. It's the fact that Apple has to be so pretentious, self-righteous, and all-mighty that makes even small flaws across a small portion of their products so damned important. Most companies that demand so much loyalty do so because they've earned it (every Rolls-Royce is hand-assembled, only the finest components make-up the interior, etc...). Apple, on the other hand, uses inferior chips and batteries, slaps their logo and a big price-tag on it, and ships it out the door. They then ignore/deny any problems with their product, which apparently means the problems don't exist in their opinion, so they can keep pretending they're different from other companies.
If someone like Apple did develop a good 3D API, it might do well.
Sure, you may get lucky and Apple might release their API for other platforms, but you know you'll have to download iTunes, register for MobileMe, and use one of 3 apple-branded video cards. Yeah, that's really gonna help out the 3D application sector.
When I saw this product on newegg I had to wonder why anyone would buy a console that has so many heat issues. You're supposed to be able to put the thing in your media center and forget about it. Even better are the comments by people about how this product sucks cause their 360 still gets too hot (just ignore the comments about the fires). Hello? Did you ever think that the 360 getting too hot had nothing to do with the aftermarket cooler you bought and instead was a result of the crappy hardware inside the 360?
The cost saving measures were probably a response to Microsoft eating $150 every time they sold an original X-Box. nVidia is probably suffering the same fate. ATI kept beating them to the lower nanometer process, which are cheaper. The radeon 2900 was first to 65nm, while the 8800 was originally built on a 90nm process. Even the newer 8X00 series are still 65nm (while the 9X00 and radeon 3k and 4k series are 55nm). I wouldn't be surprised if the substrate issues were one of numerous desperate attempts to keep their already ridiculous price down (wasn't it $600+ at release?).
You're right, in that discrimination probably wasn't the word I was looking for. But think about what someone might post online that would cause an employer not to hire you, and then think about how many of those things are classified as diseases these days (addiction of any kind for example), or otherwise fall under protected areas (say someone posts of your sexual exploits, protected in that your sexuality cannot be used, or is only the military on a don't ask don't tell policy?). If anonymously posted content exposes any protected area, and such an excuse is used to not hire you, that's definately grounds for a civil suit in that they discriminated against your disability. Yeah, not every company falls under the same restrictions, but how many Ma and Pa stores use background research these days compared to large corporations that must comply with federal regulations.
Your argument for at-will employment would go for anybody. It's extermely hard to prove discrimination in any case, but if there's an inflammatory post online about you, it's a lot easier to prove that the employer viewed that post (check the weblogs), than is is to prove that the employer doesn't like the fact you're in a wheelchair (unless they're stupid enough to write it down).
I created a typing tutorial game similar to Typing of the Dead called ThePenIsMightier, but for some reason, whenever I contact people about investing in my idea they never get my emails.
Dosen't matter if the incendiary posts were written by people called "HitlerHitlerHitler" and "GoatseFan1" -- the hiring manager may think, "Hmm, he/she sure does have a lot of enemies" or "I'd rather not have all that controversy attached to somebody who works for me." Same applies to potential romantic interests.
I think that's grounds for a lawsuit against the employer. They can't discriminate against you for something they found posted on the internet that may or may not have anything to do with you. How can they prove that a post on the internet is about you in the first place.
"I searched the internet for John Smith, and when I read about your affair with some native american woman by the name of Pocahontas, I simply had to decline you a position at our fair company. We are a family business and simply couldn't tolerate such a widely-known scandal reflecting back upon our company."
Why do we listen to anything on the internet. I remember back in school we weren't allowed to use the internet for references. All our references had to come from printed literature. If it's on the web, who knows where it came from? There aren't fact checkers such as those at major publishers, there aren't societies like those that review books and magazines before they're placed into school libraries, and there aren't editors names attached to these articles so that someone is responsible for their content.
I re-iterate, if you were denied a job, or worse, lost a job due to something posted online, contact a lawyer about suing the company as well. There is no way an unsubstantiated claim that may or may not even be about you would stand up in court as anything other than wrongful termination or discrimination.
I like the idea, but there is a problem with the reasoning. Copyright is an implied right. I don't have to put copyright notices on my works nor register them with some central governing agency. If i write a book or record a song, the copyright is implied. It is understood that I own the work. At the same time, it is my responsibility to police my work, and to seek legal compensation from people who violate my copyright. As such, DRM is not an extension of the copyright, it is the mechanism these companies use to protect the copyright. A song in MP3 format isn't copyright-free, the producer just realized they're causing more problems than they're solving by using DRM.
The only question becomes one of consumer protection (and unless you live in California you're screwed). Was their agreement with you worded such that you were right to assume that the song would be available to use at your discretion (i.e. without dependance on their DRM servers), or did they leave enough loopholes in to make it known that the song will only work in the presence of their DRM servers, and that those servers were not guaranteed to work past a certain point?
If they didn't properly cover their ass, and implied that the copy they sold you would work forever, then yes, I completely agree with your statement.
IANAL, so when I read the 15 common-sense suggestions a lot of them seemed to me to be things the Judge should be doing anyway (hence the common-sense part). It sounds like because the defendant isn't able to hire a fully-competant lawyer who would be able to request these things automatically, the judges are allowing the over-paid RIAA lawyers to subvert basic court procedure, at the cost of justice for the defendant. I assume that when Ray is defending someone against the RIAA, he is following his own suggestions.
This is the problem with the court systems in America. We use things like precident instead of common sense. Judges are too scared to make decisions that aren't supported by the actions of other judges (though someone had the balls to set the precident in the first place). Common lawyers are too inept or lack proper experience to understand the rights that their clients have as defendants in a civil suit (the old movie cliche of a worthless public defender comes to mind here).
I understand common-sense is something most people don't have anymore, but when my life or livelyhood is at stake, I would hope the person defending me has a little.
This should classify as an ultra-light, meaning there's no pilot's license necessary, and you aren't tied-down by most of the traditional FAA regulations. Second, try taking off or landing a Cessna in your driveway.
If you want to talk impractical, look at the Segway. The thing costs over $5000 (USD), and for what, cause you're too lazy to walk somewhere, or too uncoordinated to ride a bicycle? Why not buy a moped for a hell of a lot cheaper?
This will fall into the same niche market as the Segway. People with too much money and nothing better to spend it or their time on.
Yeah, but they worked in TV time, which meant they had a week before the producer got bored and told them to do something else. This guy has been working 27 years, so I wouldn't doubt he put a little more effort in over that time.
Besides, the mythbusters fail to reproduce a lot of things, even when they know before hand it's not really a myth but actual fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I think I got a little too much of France in my post. Didn't mean to offend (unless you're French).
In America, the only thing we know about Canada and Europe is that you have free health-care and subsidized prescription coverage, and that gas is twice as expensive. What most don't know is that with things like salary caps, enforced work schedules and holidays, 40-60% income tax, etc... there are lots of things that are sacrificed for that free healthcare. There are good and bad things about socialist societies. I suppose unregulated telecoms is just another bad.
Exactly. The No Fly List is useless because it contains an estimated 1,000,000+ names (really, 1 million terrorists we can't track down?). It's useless because it contains generic entries such as T. Kennedy, which doesn't refer to a person but an alias once used in a crime (Tater Salad might be in there too). It's useless because even once they bomb a terrorist into tiny pieces his name is still on the list (sry, can't rememer who). Not only that, but the list is used for political dissidents too, not just terrorists or dangerous criminals. Apparently Nelson Mandela was on the list, until the fact was embarrasingly publicized and he was finally removed.
Someone made a satirical comment elsewhere to this effect, but what good is free software if it mostly only supports Linux? I think using something like OpenBSD (is FreeBSD more open or is OpenBSD more free?) with only software that compiles natively on BSD is a true test of one's open and free nature.
I don't think GNewSense makes enough of an effort. Not only should we be pushing for more open-source software, we should push for open-source software that is well written and documented allowing for easy porting across all platforms (at least all free and open platforms, like hell if minGW is ever going to get Windows there).
I assume he was referring to something like HDMI or BluRay, where the content is encrypted and only licensed hardware can decode it. I suppose if you banded together with AMD and Intel, you could create something similar for video game content. HOWEVER, there is currently NOTHING in place that would allow your current computer hardware to prevent pirating.
I think the particular CEO that stated hardware manufacturers should be responsible would like to see a reversal of all the progress we've seen in the last 25+ years. Instead of universal architecture that any OS or program can utilize, we should have one CPU manufacturer and one OS. All so that no one can copy the next piece of shit iD releases.
"To catch an incompetent wire-fraud artist" just doesn't have the same ring to it. But really, since the Nigerian scams aren't being backed by a government entity running a sting operation, there's no claim to entrapment or anything like that. Whether the deal is legit or not, attempting to commit wire fraud in these cases should be punishable. Remember, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If these people wanted to cover themselves, they should have consulted a financial expert, as with any financial transaction of that magnitude. Of course, common sense would tell some of us not to do it in the first place.
Nothing says realiable and fully-functioning OS like paying 10mil to Jerry Seinfeld. It's a sort of "Look, the operating system is so perfect, we can just throw our money away."
Oh sure, let them trademark something as common-place as Cleartracks, and next thing you know they'll be trademarking letters of the alphabet.
Seriously though, MS does have a bad habit of trademarking words they find in a See Dick Run story-book, but if they want to trademark crap like Cleartracks and Inprivate, I suppose we can let them have those. Now, if they had tried to trademark Microsoft Browser, that would have been a different story.
Tried with Opera 9.51 on gOs/Ubuntu 7.10 and it did copy the url to my clipboard which I was unable to replace (with ctrl+c) until I closed the tab. After closure, I regained control of my clipboard.
I tried using a user javascript file that would block all flash content and allow me to individually activate the various flash files, but I had problems with things like YouTube, and eventually I abandoned it when certain websites I frequented used Flash for the most obsurd reasons (don't remember which, this was over a year ago). Might be worthwhile to bring it back.
Obviously not as severe, but I bought a real cheap machine with Vista Home Premium OEM Edition. The machine kept complaining that my network connetion was unplugged. Oddly enough it was refering to my wireless connection, and even more oddly, there was no wireless NIC installed in the machine. Nothing better than an OS that will complain about nothing. It also comsumed 15% of my processing power running Aero with no windows or anything open. Yay!
The USPTO has a fantastic trackrecord. When Microsoft wanted to trademark their word processor with the name Word, did the USPTO let them? When Microsoft wanted to trademark their new graphical OS that dispays applications in windows (a concept created by another company) Windows, did the USPTO let them? When Microsoft wanted to trademark their suite of office applicatons as Office, did the USPTO let them?
Okay, ignore those examples, but at least they didn't let Trump trademark You're Fired.
But seriously, why do companies think they can trademark phrases they didn't create? Q-Tips, Kleenex, Xerox, these are creative trademarks that people easily associate with their respective products. Who the hell is gonna hear Cloud Computing and think Dell? Now, when I hear the word Dell my mind is flooded with a whole cocaphony of phrases I would rather forget (Dude, you're Getting a Dell!)
Exactly. They aren't concerned with killing internet radio, they're trying to kill the "mom and pop" internet radio companies. They need their music played on radio stations they control, so they can properly maintain who gets played how often. I'll often listen to a local rock radio station in my car until I hear a song I don't like, and switch to the other rock radio station. I listen to the new rock radio station until I HEAR THE SAME FUCKING SONG that caused me to switch in the first place, then turn the damn radio off or switch to my CD player. The record labels influence the radio stations to play the same songs over and over (same with watching MTV, if anyone still does that). The songs become so engrained, that to not listen to them causes people great pain. The only way to quell that pain is to buy the CD or download the music (legitamately).
If your mom-and-pop just plays the song once, there's no revenue to the record label from that. No great public interest is created in the song or the artist. The CRB and record labels are driving the current internet radio stations out of business to open the market up for major companies like ClearChannel to spring up their own crop of internet radio sites. Only since they'll be run by a corporate giant, they'll be more controlled and regulated to the labels' liking.
It all depends on what you see as valid use of bandwidth. You ever watch tv on your Verizon phone? I don't even see commercials for that any more. I guess T-Mobile is waiting to see where the trends go before it devotes a lot of their resources into technology 90% of their customers WON'T use. I have a base plan with added text messages. I never felt the need to browse the internet on my phone. As far as needing directions or finding a place of business, that's what texting to GOOGL and my GPS are for.
Besides, the original iPhone came out a little over a year ago, and I don't recall it using only the edge network being that big of a deal. If the iPhone didn't need to support 3G a year ago, why are you complaining that T-Mobile has yet to support it (and I'm not saying you are a fan of the iPhone, just making a point).
The next office will support ODF (since so many people are already moving there) but not OOXML.
The problem here is the fact that there exists an OOXML specification and that MS effectively owns that spec. Therefore, they can simply say that Office uses OOXML, but underneath it uses a hacked, unsupported version. The future of OOXML will simply be whatever features of OOXML MS has decided to implement, and HOW MS has implemented them. ISO isn't a governing body, they can't punish MS for not following the spec and still calling it OOXML.
Look at CSS for webpages. If you have done any webpage development (even for simple personal web pages) you know that if you don't test how it looks in IE, there's a big chance IE is rendering something incorrectly. The same will go for OOXML if Microsoft releases Office and CLAIMS it supports OOXML. Someone will try to open an OOXML document created by OOo (if they decide to support it), and it won't look the same. People will blame OOo, surely Office is rendering the document correctly, because hell, MS did create the spec.
MS has consistently forced change across many standards over the years (WinSock, IE JavaScript, CSS, etc...) simply because they inject their product into so many areas and half-ass their support of the standard spec. MS certainly isn't going to bother getting their Office suite ISO-certified, because hell, it's still proprietary so it's no ones business but MS's in how they implement OOXML.
If I buy a $10k Toyota Yaris and the tires fall off, I pretty much figured that was bound to happen.
I buy a $600k Ferrari Enzo and there's a fingerprint on my rear-view mirror, you're damn right I'm driving that thing back to the dealer and demanding he fix it.
Apple has forced this upon themselves by being so proprietary (it's supposed to work better because you can't repair/replace it's parts) and so expensive ($600 phone? no thanks).
If they were just a normal company, these flaws are expected/common-place. It's the fact that Apple has to be so pretentious, self-righteous, and all-mighty that makes even small flaws across a small portion of their products so damned important. Most companies that demand so much loyalty do so because they've earned it (every Rolls-Royce is hand-assembled, only the finest components make-up the interior, etc...). Apple, on the other hand, uses inferior chips and batteries, slaps their logo and a big price-tag on it, and ships it out the door. They then ignore/deny any problems with their product, which apparently means the problems don't exist in their opinion, so they can keep pretending they're different from other companies.
If someone like Apple did develop a good 3D API, it might do well.
Sure, you may get lucky and Apple might release their API for other platforms, but you know you'll have to download iTunes, register for MobileMe, and use one of 3 apple-branded video cards. Yeah, that's really gonna help out the 3D application sector.
When I saw this product on newegg I had to wonder why anyone would buy a console that has so many heat issues. You're supposed to be able to put the thing in your media center and forget about it. Even better are the comments by people about how this product sucks cause their 360 still gets too hot (just ignore the comments about the fires). Hello? Did you ever think that the 360 getting too hot had nothing to do with the aftermarket cooler you bought and instead was a result of the crappy hardware inside the 360?
The cost saving measures were probably a response to Microsoft eating $150 every time they sold an original X-Box. nVidia is probably suffering the same fate. ATI kept beating them to the lower nanometer process, which are cheaper. The radeon 2900 was first to 65nm, while the 8800 was originally built on a 90nm process. Even the newer 8X00 series are still 65nm (while the 9X00 and radeon 3k and 4k series are 55nm). I wouldn't be surprised if the substrate issues were one of numerous desperate attempts to keep their already ridiculous price down (wasn't it $600+ at release?).
You're right, in that discrimination probably wasn't the word I was looking for. But think about what someone might post online that would cause an employer not to hire you, and then think about how many of those things are classified as diseases these days (addiction of any kind for example), or otherwise fall under protected areas (say someone posts of your sexual exploits, protected in that your sexuality cannot be used, or is only the military on a don't ask don't tell policy?). If anonymously posted content exposes any protected area, and such an excuse is used to not hire you, that's definately grounds for a civil suit in that they discriminated against your disability. Yeah, not every company falls under the same restrictions, but how many Ma and Pa stores use background research these days compared to large corporations that must comply with federal regulations.
Your argument for at-will employment would go for anybody. It's extermely hard to prove discrimination in any case, but if there's an inflammatory post online about you, it's a lot easier to prove that the employer viewed that post (check the weblogs), than is is to prove that the employer doesn't like the fact you're in a wheelchair (unless they're stupid enough to write it down).
I created a typing tutorial game similar to Typing of the Dead called ThePenIsMightier, but for some reason, whenever I contact people about investing in my idea they never get my emails.
Dosen't matter if the incendiary posts were written by people called "HitlerHitlerHitler" and "GoatseFan1" -- the hiring manager may think, "Hmm, he/she sure does have a lot of enemies" or "I'd rather not have all that controversy attached to somebody who works for me." Same applies to potential romantic interests.
I think that's grounds for a lawsuit against the employer. They can't discriminate against you for something they found posted on the internet that may or may not have anything to do with you. How can they prove that a post on the internet is about you in the first place.
"I searched the internet for John Smith, and when I read about your affair with some native american woman by the name of Pocahontas, I simply had to decline you a position at our fair company. We are a family business and simply couldn't tolerate such a widely-known scandal reflecting back upon our company."
Why do we listen to anything on the internet. I remember back in school we weren't allowed to use the internet for references. All our references had to come from printed literature. If it's on the web, who knows where it came from? There aren't fact checkers such as those at major publishers, there aren't societies like those that review books and magazines before they're placed into school libraries, and there aren't editors names attached to these articles so that someone is responsible for their content.
I re-iterate, if you were denied a job, or worse, lost a job due to something posted online, contact a lawyer about suing the company as well. There is no way an unsubstantiated claim that may or may not even be about you would stand up in court as anything other than wrongful termination or discrimination.
I like the idea, but there is a problem with the reasoning. Copyright is an implied right. I don't have to put copyright notices on my works nor register them with some central governing agency. If i write a book or record a song, the copyright is implied. It is understood that I own the work. At the same time, it is my responsibility to police my work, and to seek legal compensation from people who violate my copyright. As such, DRM is not an extension of the copyright, it is the mechanism these companies use to protect the copyright. A song in MP3 format isn't copyright-free, the producer just realized they're causing more problems than they're solving by using DRM.
The only question becomes one of consumer protection (and unless you live in California you're screwed). Was their agreement with you worded such that you were right to assume that the song would be available to use at your discretion (i.e. without dependance on their DRM servers), or did they leave enough loopholes in to make it known that the song will only work in the presence of their DRM servers, and that those servers were not guaranteed to work past a certain point?
If they didn't properly cover their ass, and implied that the copy they sold you would work forever, then yes, I completely agree with your statement.
IANAL, so when I read the 15 common-sense suggestions a lot of them seemed to me to be things the Judge should be doing anyway (hence the common-sense part). It sounds like because the defendant isn't able to hire a fully-competant lawyer who would be able to request these things automatically, the judges are allowing the over-paid RIAA lawyers to subvert basic court procedure, at the cost of justice for the defendant. I assume that when Ray is defending someone against the RIAA, he is following his own suggestions.
This is the problem with the court systems in America. We use things like precident instead of common sense. Judges are too scared to make decisions that aren't supported by the actions of other judges (though someone had the balls to set the precident in the first place). Common lawyers are too inept or lack proper experience to understand the rights that their clients have as defendants in a civil suit (the old movie cliche of a worthless public defender comes to mind here).
I understand common-sense is something most people don't have anymore, but when my life or livelyhood is at stake, I would hope the person defending me has a little.
This should classify as an ultra-light, meaning there's no pilot's license necessary, and you aren't tied-down by most of the traditional FAA regulations. Second, try taking off or landing a Cessna in your driveway.
If you want to talk impractical, look at the Segway. The thing costs over $5000 (USD), and for what, cause you're too lazy to walk somewhere, or too uncoordinated to ride a bicycle? Why not buy a moped for a hell of a lot cheaper?
This will fall into the same niche market as the Segway. People with too much money and nothing better to spend it or their time on.
Yeah, but they worked in TV time, which meant they had a week before the producer got bored and told them to do something else. This guy has been working 27 years, so I wouldn't doubt he put a little more effort in over that time.
Besides, the mythbusters fail to reproduce a lot of things, even when they know before hand it's not really a myth but actual fact.
Oh, and what did I find when I went back to my google homepage:
Atom's now available for the desktop.