So you are seriously claiming no one has ever decided to not buy a calculator because they bought a computer? Or vice versa?
I own both a smart phone and a dumb phone. They aren't the same market. They serve different purposes - sure a smart phone happens to be able to make phone calls, but it does that poorly due to the design focus being on everything else. Just like a computer can stand in for calculator.
No, they must follow the DMCA process when the receive a DMCA notice (and before that by providing contact information, etc) if they want to be covered under the safe harbor provisions.
That doesn't mean they can't also suspend an account because the user went over their bandwidth allowance, because the sysadmin was having a bad day, because someone asked them to nicely, or whatever. That part is covered by the agreement between them and the hostee. And it most likely includes a "we can suspend your account for any reason we feel like" clause if it's cheap.
Such action could make them liable for copyyright infriging activity of their clients (i.e. they could lose the safe harbor protections), but it does not change anything with respect the the hostee
Having something that is a felony to possess delivered to your house is a little bit more newsworthy than the usual shipping error, especially for local news. For slashdot it's just a funny mixup story rather than news.
That statement seems true, unless you are claiming he never lost his health benefits or lost them prior to the steel plant closing. Last I checked 2003 is after 2001. So true in the literal sense.
Also true in the impression it is trying to leave, if the plant hadn't closed he would still have health benefits after his wife left her job. So the lack of health benefits is due to two factors, of which the ad only cares about one.
Not that I've seen the ad or care in the slightest of course.
That would depend on the agreement between the hosting provider and the hostee. Most likely it says "we can take down your stuff whenever we feel like it".
Why did microsoft miss this obvious defense. After all a computer possesses a superset of the features demonstracted by a calculator, and there were lots of non-Windows calculators available.
You completely ignore the sale side of the used car. I know people who buy a new car every few years, when doing so they sell their old car. They couldn't afford to do that if they couldn't sell their old car and so would have to buy a new car less often if selling a used car was made illegal. Hence demand (from them) would fall.
Sure there would be an increase in demand for new cars from the people who currently buy used cars, but they usually have less money to spend and so many will do without (keep the existing car running longer or whatever) rather than buy new instead of used.
Are we talking about filling the gas tanks with coffee, or would the 747s be specially outfitted as tankers to carry coffee in the cabin sections too? (you know, like those airplanes that dump the mind control chemtrials)
The Blu-Ray of How to train your dragon isn't the only product made with that $165 million. There was also the cinema release, the sales of play rights to various cable/broadcast entities, the sales of streaming rights, and probably a few more I can't be bothered thinking of. Whereas a video game just has the video game - there's no cinema release, there's no selling broadcast rights to Fox.
When you gross $495 million at the box office the "film production costs" for the Blu-Ray release are effectively $-330 million if you want to compare it with a video game production cost and game sales.
But yes games are stupidly expensive and I'm amazed people actually buy them. Though that might be part of the reason for the current large supply of "indie" games which is a good thing (in my opinion anyway). Luckily PC games go down in price pretty quick, so people like me who play single player games can just wait for the inevitable "game of the year" with all the DLC bundled for half the price (and then buy that on sale itself).
Banning used car sales sets the supply of used cars to 0, at which point supply and demand are irrelevant as there is no market, assuming we are ignoring illegal markets. If we aren't ignoring illegal markets, then it would depend on the details of the law and whether selling or buying was "worse"
It would not affect the supply for new cars. It would affect the demand for new cars though. For many people if they can't sell their old car they won't be buying a new car as often, so the demand for new cars will go down. So the price of new cars will fall, or the supply will then fall (or both of course - which or the relative amounts will depend on how much profit magin and cost cutting potential there is).
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what Peak Oil means.
Surely it was obvious that I was making a subjective claim about a preference and not a universal claim about anything?
More obviously my tastes are correct, they are my tastes after all. That they might change doesn't make them less correct.
Bush mispoke just as many times, and surprise surprise they aren't front page headlines less than a decade later let along for the next century.
Just like week I called someoe "Anna" when their name was actually "Anne" - you would have been amazed.
So you are seriously claiming no one has ever decided to not buy a calculator because they bought a computer? Or vice versa?
I own both a smart phone and a dumb phone. They aren't the same market. They serve different purposes - sure a smart phone happens to be able to make phone calls, but it does that poorly due to the design focus being on everything else. Just like a computer can stand in for calculator.
No, they must follow the DMCA process when the receive a DMCA notice (and before that by providing contact information, etc) if they want to be covered under the safe harbor provisions.
That doesn't mean they can't also suspend an account because the user went over their bandwidth allowance, because the sysadmin was having a bad day, because someone asked them to nicely, or whatever. That part is covered by the agreement between them and the hostee. And it most likely includes a "we can suspend your account for any reason we feel like" clause if it's cheap.
Such action could make them liable for copyyright infriging activity of their clients (i.e. they could lose the safe harbor protections), but it does not change anything with respect the the hostee
Oh no! Politicians who lie! That is entirely unexpected!
As I said I still don't care in the slightest.
I'm pretty sure I do.
But keep it at all, just generate a 50 character random string and discard it, never to be used again.
Having something that is a felony to possess delivered to your house is a little bit more newsworthy than the usual shipping error, especially for local news. For slashdot it's just a funny mixup story rather than news.
Making them completely pointless, since you'd only need them if you lost the password which would presumably also be in the password manager.
That statement seems true, unless you are claiming he never lost his health benefits or lost them prior to the steel plant closing. Last I checked 2003 is after 2001. So true in the literal sense.
Also true in the impression it is trying to leave, if the plant hadn't closed he would still have health benefits after his wife left her job. So the lack of health benefits is due to two factors, of which the ad only cares about one.
Not that I've seen the ad or care in the slightest of course.
I like the books, but inspiring D&Ds retarded magic system is unforgivable.
That would depend on the agreement between the hosting provider and the hostee. Most likely it says "we can take down your stuff whenever we feel like it".
Why did microsoft miss this obvious defense. After all a computer possesses a superset of the features demonstracted by a calculator, and there were lots of non-Windows calculators available.
it might look so, but it isn't.
It looks less so here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rWgmD2is91g#t=52s
Yes, the Commodore PET was 7 years earlier.
It was going so well, until you decided to kill it with milk.
You completely ignore the sale side of the used car. I know people who buy a new car every few years, when doing so they sell their old car. They couldn't afford to do that if they couldn't sell their old car and so would have to buy a new car less often if selling a used car was made illegal. Hence demand (from them) would fall.
Sure there would be an increase in demand for new cars from the people who currently buy used cars, but they usually have less money to spend and so many will do without (keep the existing car running longer or whatever) rather than buy new instead of used.
FTFY.
But downloading the app will use up some of my download quota for the month meaning I won't get to watch as many youtube videos.
The horror!!!
Because that doesn't happen in Vatican City.
If someone will pay $58 for it (without being deceived about what it is) then clearly it is in fact worth $58.
The Blu-Ray of How to train your dragon isn't the only product made with that $165 million. There was also the cinema release, the sales of play rights to various cable/broadcast entities, the sales of streaming rights, and probably a few more I can't be bothered thinking of. Whereas a video game just has the video game - there's no cinema release, there's no selling broadcast rights to Fox.
When you gross $495 million at the box office the "film production costs" for the Blu-Ray release are effectively $-330 million if you want to compare it with a video game production cost and game sales.
But yes games are stupidly expensive and I'm amazed people actually buy them. Though that might be part of the reason for the current large supply of "indie" games which is a good thing (in my opinion anyway). Luckily PC games go down in price pretty quick, so people like me who play single player games can just wait for the inevitable "game of the year" with all the DLC bundled for half the price (and then buy that on sale itself).
Banning used car sales sets the supply of used cars to 0, at which point supply and demand are irrelevant as there is no market, assuming we are ignoring illegal markets. If we aren't ignoring illegal markets, then it would depend on the details of the law and whether selling or buying was "worse"
It would not affect the supply for new cars. It would affect the demand for new cars though. For many people if they can't sell their old car they won't be buying a new car as often, so the demand for new cars will go down. So the price of new cars will fall, or the supply will then fall (or both of course - which or the relative amounts will depend on how much profit magin and cost cutting potential there is).
Surprise, surprise, actual scientists and engineers are better than you at this stuff.