I'm wondering why the Microsoft Xbox or Xbox 360 fares so poorly in Japan. Is it because they have loyalty to the other Japanese console manufacturers?
I think it's clear that Apple has to keep their products secret more so than any other competitor because they are cloned and copied [ilounge.com] so much more than any other competitor.
Nah, the number one reason they're so secretive is because of Steve Jobs' ego. He lives for those MacWorld shows.
Prerelease buzz can serve a purpose. Nintendo used it every game console generation for years to hurt competitors' sales while they milked all they could out of their current system, until people finally got sick of it.
I don't recall off the top of my head where I read it (it was just within the last week or so, possibly Scientific American?), but it is predicted that a warmer earth will trade 5,000 more heat-related deaths for 20,000 fewer cold-related deaths.
Did it factor in the millions of death due to increased flooding?
Are not Daryl McBride and his brother lawyers? It seems to me they are prolonging the suit in order to drain SCO's coffers (and those of anyone with an anti-Linux interest willing to fund them) into their own pockets.
That would be assuming they were acting as SCO's lawyers and pocketing the money as legal fees. I don't think they are.
The US is currently suffering from less then 5% unemployment. When you have under 5% unemployment it means that you have a labor shortage.
The "unemployment rate" is misleading, it includes people who are underemployed. An engineer who's flipping burgers for 20 hours a week counts as "employed".
I know plenty of techie types--engineers, programmers, etc. who have had a tremendous amount of trouble finding jobs. The idea that the US isn't producing enough engineers when the ones it does produce end up either unemployed or working in non-engineering fields, is ridiculous.
I'm a little puzzled by the anti-net-neutrality stance on slashdot. So many of you are libertarian "marketplace will solve anything" types, so I'd think that you'd be philosophically against the government stepping in to prevent what companies do with their own infrastructure.
I mean, I'm against net neutrality, but I'm pretty liberal so that viewpoint meshes with my beliefs. But why are you all against it?
About the billion or so spent by George Soros to fight every traditional or conservative cause out there. There is plenty of FUD from both sides. You just need to be smart enough to sift the BS for the few grains of truth.
Ok that's just completely untrue. I mean come on, YOU'RE CONTRADICTING THE STATEMENT AS YOU MAKE IT. "Nobody complains" about George Soros? Just about every rightwing nutjob complains about the man.
The UCS no more wants open debate over issues than any other special interest - they want to frame all discussion so their viewpoint prevails; since only +they+ have the right answer.
Alright, so ExxonMobil does this because they think they will gain financially from it. What exactly do you contend the UCS gains from adopting the opposite viewpoint?
It was made by a 24 year old film school graduate, a class of people that are not known for their subtlety or artistic refinement, but are known for their healthy opinions of their own abilities. I'm sure he meant it to be social commentary, but he wasn't experienced enough to pull it off.
...back in 79. Skylab, the first US space station. The whole darn thing was dropped on us aussies with nary a 'sorry' from our northern hemisphere overlords.
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The thing is the Supreme Court has argued this point back and forth for a while. See, grammatically you can read it as two separate clauses: 1) searches must be reasonable, and 2) warrants shall not issue, etc. It doesn't say "searches must be reasonable AND SUPPORTED BY A WARRANT".
Now common sense would dictate that one clause follows the other, and read that a warrant is required in the first one. But you can't look at it in such black and white because there situations when you just can't issue a warrant in time, like if a police officer hears someone screaming inside a house. So once you get that foot in the door, the question becomes when do you need a warrant and when do you not. That's what the courts tend to argue about. And following that it seems that in times of emergency a hypothetical President could make the legitimate claim that they don't need a warrant to open someone's mail. The problem now is compounded by the supremely incompetent, immoral, and ignorant person who currently serves in that position.
A good combo is low-calorie foods and low-calorie, but very flavorful, flavoring stuff. Mustard, hot sauce, salsa, vinegar, spices, etc. A mixture of mustard and curry powder is a good combo.
(i) Because the RIAA lawyers stay within the letter of the law, and as long as the letter of the law is respected, other lawyers couldn't give a toss about the ethics of their activities. In other words, lawyers have no independent moral standing of their own, and hence see no reason to complain about the unprofessional antics of their colleagues because "professionalism" is equated with the letter of the law and nothing else. Institutionalized professional myopia, you could call it. Or, alternatively,...
Ok, if those are the only 3 reasons you can come up with you have a catastrophic failure of imagination. Just because you don't have the legal grounds to bring a complaint, suddenly by not filing a complaint means you "don't give a toss"? When you
(ii) Because lawyers really are scum that want to play both side like arms dealers, just as long as there is lots of work and profit involved. In which case, filing a complaint with the Bar would obviously be counterproductive for their own wallets. Or possibly,...
If all lawyers wanted was work and profit then filing Bar complaints would be a great idea. Knock out your opponents lawyer and you have an easier job.
(iii) Because they cannot grasp the concept that actively facilitating a course of action implies endorsement of that action. Consequently, they also believe that the destruction of thousands of people's lives by the RIAA has absolutely nothing to do with them despite the fact that the entirely of the action is being performed by lawyers. Well, I'm not sure what to call this third alternative, but I wouldn't expect too many lawyers to be the clinical morons that holding it would imply. In any event, holding this view would be a reason not to file a complaint since the holder can see cause and can see effect, but does not recognize that lawyers are the medium that links the two.
Alright, cut the melodrama. What you're talking about here is the OPPOSITE of "actively facilitating", so this paragraph makes no sense. And whose lives have been "destroyed" by RIAA lawsuits? I mean, come on, if the worst thing that's ever happened to you is you lose a few thousand dollars in a lawsuit you're living a charmed life, my friend.
The fact that nobody has filed a complaint with the Bar despite the very well documented edge-of-the-law legal shenanigans involved speaks louder than words. One of those three alternatives applies, and none of them is complimentary.
Put your money where your mouth is. Go file a complaint.
I'm not a committee of the Bar. I can't disbar anyone. The best I can do is file a complaint with the Bar. Which I would do if I knew a lawyer was engaging in activities that were illegal or in violation of the rules of the Bar of which he or she were a member. But you know what, you can too. Anyone can file a complaint with the Bar.
So you have no moral standing of your own at all? You can never say No when $$$ are flashed before your eyes?
Of course we can say no. We say no all the time.
You would be happy to assist the mafia or terrorist organizations, as long as it's by legal means?
If they needed criminal defense, damn straight I'd be willing to help them. Facilitating their activities? Of course not, that's immoral, unethical, and against both the law and the rules governing lawyers.
Your work as a lawyer FACILITATES those abhorrent activities funded by the music industry, and without the lawyers they would not be happening. So, you are DIRECTLY implicated in these RIAA actions. Wash your hands you cannot.
They pull them out of their ass. $150k/song is complete BS. I just don't understand how a judge would look at that and be like, "Hmmm yeah that seems perfectly logical. Go with it!"
It's statutory damages. It's in the law.
How come everyone on slashdot complains when judges "make their own laws", but then they complain when they actually follow the law? They can't win.
Humanity just doesn't deserve the shit that those lawyers have in their heads.
The CEO of the RIAA isn't a lawyer. Neither, I presume, are a lot of the members and officers. The tendency to assume that the driving force behind every lawsuit is a lawyer is erroneous. The way it happens in 99% of the cases is this: Someone has a problem. They think there may be a legal solution. They come to us. We tell them what can be done on the legal front.
If you have a problem with the law (and this lawsuit really is based on the law), you have to petition your representatives in Congress to do something about that.
And to any lawyers who may be reading this... why are you not stopping these "colleagues" of yours from their unrestrained rape of not just the afluent west but the world at large?
First of all, assuming for the sake of argument your premise that they're practicing "unrestrained rape" what exactly do you expect us to do? It would be exactly like me saying "all you programmers, why aren't you stopping those "colleagues" of yours from writing viruses?"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wondering why the Microsoft Xbox or Xbox 360 fares so poorly in Japan. Is it because they have loyalty to the other Japanese console manufacturers?
I think some of it is cultural xenophobia.
Now how are we going to officially recognize games with lousy graphics and heavyhanded political and social commentary?
I think it's clear that Apple has to keep their products secret more so than any other competitor because they are cloned and copied [ilounge.com] so much more than any other competitor.
Nah, the number one reason they're so secretive is because of Steve Jobs' ego. He lives for those MacWorld shows.
Prerelease buzz can serve a purpose. Nintendo used it every game console generation for years to hurt competitors' sales while they milked all they could out of their current system, until people finally got sick of it.
I don't recall off the top of my head where I read it (it was just within the last week or so, possibly Scientific American?), but it is predicted that a warmer earth will trade 5,000 more heat-related deaths for 20,000 fewer cold-related deaths.
Did it factor in the millions of death due to increased flooding?
The arrogance of man is to presume that the current climate is one which would remain stable were it not for our interference.
Who has made that presumption? Name a single climatologist who has ever said the climate would remain stable if it weren't for our interference.
Why should we presume that the climate that we currently have is the natural balance for the Earth?
You, and people like you, just don't get it. There is no natural balance for the Earth. What we're talking about is the natural balance for US.
I couldn't agree more. - Metric: 1 km = 1000 m = 1000000 mm - US system: 1 ml = 1760 yd = 5280 ft = 63360 in
The metric system is for people who are bad at math I guess. I prefer the extra effort it takes to translate US measurements, keeps the brain limber.
Are not Daryl McBride and his brother lawyers? It seems to me they are prolonging the suit in order to drain SCO's coffers (and those of anyone with an anti-Linux interest willing to fund them) into their own pockets.
That would be assuming they were acting as SCO's lawyers and pocketing the money as legal fees. I don't think they are.
If you are lucky enough to live in LA
That's a novel definition of the word "lucky"...
The US is currently suffering from less then 5% unemployment. When you have under 5% unemployment it means that you have a labor shortage.
The "unemployment rate" is misleading, it includes people who are underemployed. An engineer who's flipping burgers for 20 hours a week counts as "employed".
I know plenty of techie types--engineers, programmers, etc. who have had a tremendous amount of trouble finding jobs. The idea that the US isn't producing enough engineers when the ones it does produce end up either unemployed or working in non-engineering fields, is ridiculous.
No, I misspoke, I meant I'm for net neutrality. Hmmm. That would explain all the confused replies.
I'm a little puzzled by the anti-net-neutrality stance on slashdot. So many of you are libertarian "marketplace will solve anything" types, so I'd think that you'd be philosophically against the government stepping in to prevent what companies do with their own infrastructure.
I mean, I'm against net neutrality, but I'm pretty liberal so that viewpoint meshes with my beliefs. But why are you all against it?
About the billion or so spent by George Soros to fight every traditional or conservative cause out there. There is plenty of FUD from both sides. You just need to be smart enough to sift the BS for the few grains of truth.
Ok that's just completely untrue. I mean come on, YOU'RE CONTRADICTING THE STATEMENT AS YOU MAKE IT. "Nobody complains" about George Soros? Just about every rightwing nutjob complains about the man.
If it was about money their members could make so much more shilling for the oil companies.
The UCS no more wants open debate over issues than any other special interest - they want to frame all discussion so their viewpoint prevails; since only +they+ have the right answer.
Alright, so ExxonMobil does this because they think they will gain financially from it. What exactly do you contend the UCS gains from adopting the opposite viewpoint?
The Achievements are definitely a great way to get people to keep playing a game they may otherwise have put down after awhile
And this is a positive thing because...
It was made by a 24 year old film school graduate, a class of people that are not known for their subtlety or artistic refinement, but are known for their healthy opinions of their own abilities. I'm sure he meant it to be social commentary, but he wasn't experienced enough to pull it off.
it says it's 65% cheaper. how's that?
The point is still valid. An old system having cost more than a new one isn't exactly news.
...back in 79. Skylab, the first US space station. The whole darn thing was dropped on us aussies with nary a 'sorry' from our northern hemisphere overlords.
Ah, who cares about a bunch of convicts.
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The thing is the Supreme Court has argued this point back and forth for a while. See, grammatically you can read it as two separate clauses: 1) searches must be reasonable, and 2) warrants shall not issue, etc. It doesn't say "searches must be reasonable AND SUPPORTED BY A WARRANT".
Now common sense would dictate that one clause follows the other, and read that a warrant is required in the first one. But you can't look at it in such black and white because there situations when you just can't issue a warrant in time, like if a police officer hears someone screaming inside a house. So once you get that foot in the door, the question becomes when do you need a warrant and when do you not. That's what the courts tend to argue about. And following that it seems that in times of emergency a hypothetical President could make the legitimate claim that they don't need a warrant to open someone's mail. The problem now is compounded by the supremely incompetent, immoral, and ignorant person who currently serves in that position.
A good combo is low-calorie foods and low-calorie, but very flavorful, flavoring stuff. Mustard, hot sauce, salsa, vinegar, spices, etc. A mixture of mustard and curry powder is a good combo.
(i) Because the RIAA lawyers stay within the letter of the law, and as long as the letter of the law is respected, other lawyers couldn't give a toss about the ethics of their activities. In other words, lawyers have no independent moral standing of their own, and hence see no reason to complain about the unprofessional antics of their colleagues because "professionalism" is equated with the letter of the law and nothing else. Institutionalized professional myopia, you could call it. Or, alternatively, ...
...
Ok, if those are the only 3 reasons you can come up with you have a catastrophic failure of imagination. Just because you don't have the legal grounds to bring a complaint, suddenly by not filing a complaint means you "don't give a toss"? When you
(ii) Because lawyers really are scum that want to play both side like arms dealers, just as long as there is lots of work and profit involved. In which case, filing a complaint with the Bar would obviously be counterproductive for their own wallets. Or possibly,
If all lawyers wanted was work and profit then filing Bar complaints would be a great idea. Knock out your opponents lawyer and you have an easier job.
(iii) Because they cannot grasp the concept that actively facilitating a course of action implies endorsement of that action. Consequently, they also believe that the destruction of thousands of people's lives by the RIAA has absolutely nothing to do with them despite the fact that the entirely of the action is being performed by lawyers. Well, I'm not sure what to call this third alternative, but I wouldn't expect too many lawyers to be the clinical morons that holding it would imply. In any event, holding this view would be a reason not to file a complaint since the holder can see cause and can see effect, but does not recognize that lawyers are the medium that links the two.
Alright, cut the melodrama. What you're talking about here is the OPPOSITE of "actively facilitating", so this paragraph makes no sense. And whose lives have been "destroyed" by RIAA lawsuits? I mean, come on, if the worst thing that's ever happened to you is you lose a few thousand dollars in a lawsuit you're living a charmed life, my friend.
The fact that nobody has filed a complaint with the Bar despite the very well documented edge-of-the-law legal shenanigans involved speaks louder than words. One of those three alternatives applies, and none of them is complimentary.
Put your money where your mouth is. Go file a complaint.
DISBAR THEM
I'm not a committee of the Bar. I can't disbar anyone. The best I can do is file a complaint with the Bar. Which I would do if I knew a lawyer was engaging in activities that were illegal or in violation of the rules of the Bar of which he or she were a member. But you know what, you can too. Anyone can file a complaint with the Bar.
So you have no moral standing of your own at all? You can never say No when $$$ are flashed before your eyes?
Of course we can say no. We say no all the time.
You would be happy to assist the mafia or terrorist organizations, as long as it's by legal means?
If they needed criminal defense, damn straight I'd be willing to help them. Facilitating their activities? Of course not, that's immoral, unethical, and against both the law and the rules governing lawyers.
Your work as a lawyer FACILITATES those abhorrent activities funded by the music industry, and without the lawyers they would not be happening. So, you are DIRECTLY implicated in these RIAA actions. Wash your hands you cannot.
Nope, never represented the RIAA.
They pull them out of their ass. $150k/song is complete BS. I just don't understand how a judge would look at that and be like, "Hmmm yeah that seems perfectly logical. Go with it!"
It's statutory damages. It's in the law.
How come everyone on slashdot complains when judges "make their own laws", but then they complain when they actually follow the law? They can't win.
Humanity just doesn't deserve the shit that those lawyers have in their heads.
... why are you not stopping these "colleagues" of yours from their unrestrained rape of not just the afluent west but the world at large?
The CEO of the RIAA isn't a lawyer. Neither, I presume, are a lot of the members and officers. The tendency to assume that the driving force behind every lawsuit is a lawyer is erroneous. The way it happens in 99% of the cases is this: Someone has a problem. They think there may be a legal solution. They come to us. We tell them what can be done on the legal front.
If you have a problem with the law (and this lawsuit really is based on the law), you have to petition your representatives in Congress to do something about that.
And to any lawyers who may be reading this
First of all, assuming for the sake of argument your premise that they're practicing "unrestrained rape" what exactly do you expect us to do? It would be exactly like me saying "all you programmers, why aren't you stopping those "colleagues" of yours from writing viruses?"