I was coming to post exactly this. It seems like once or twice a year we see a story here about some new tech that is right around the corner and will store petabytes of data on the head of a pin. NONE of it has come to pass other than HD and Blu-ray and just now SSD. All these polymer based, molecule level stories are VAPOR.
You don't need "media files" to test the dvd burner and we all know it. They could just as easily have put a file of their own on there or used any number of known large files on any windows machine. These guys being tech repair guys we all know they had their pick from thousands of existing files without going rifling through this guys picture collection.
I hate child predators as much as the next guy, but you have to separate your emotion on that from the real issue here. Besides, like ISPs, if it becomes known that they DO rifle though
I have karma to burn so feel free to send this to offtopic land, but can we just get a sitewide ban on these lame spam links please? 3 or 4 in this thread alone!
That's an easy fix though, electric company incents drivers with a timer they plug into when they get home, but doesn't start drawing power til 12am, etc.
Sounds like you got your ass kicked a little too much back in grade school. MMA is turning into quite a technical sport, despite your short-sighted stereotypical knee-jerk reaction to it. It's ok though, the world needs people who watch Oprah too..
What's even worse is that the UFC tied in with the VGA for some lame announcement. Please UFC, do not get any more associated with the ridiculousness that is the VGA. You're better than that.
Yep, I bet you couldn't come with anything in your lifetime that some congressperson wasn't able to tie to interstate commerce somehow...
There are 16 enumerated powers granted to the legislative branch by the constitution. ALL other laws flow from one of two things, 1) interstate commerce, and 2) the clause at the end of the enumeration (article 1, section 8) that says "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
If you ever stop and really think about it, the system we have in place begins to look really really ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, it works fairly well most of the time, but it is a far cry from what the founders could have imagined.
Hey look at you, you know how to link. Unfortunately overwhelming your post with links != t3h w1n. The link below clearly explains that employees in California are considered to be "at will"
Despite that fact, what I'm arguing is the reality that people can and do file tons of wrongful termination suits. Sure they might be trivial, sure they might not stick. But that will be determined after the company spends a lot of time and effort fighting it. So as a result, very common HR policy is to force employers to follow procedures as if we were not an "at will" or "right to work" state in order to head off the suits before they start. It is a giant burden, believe me.
You can feel free to link to whatever you want, but that's the reality. I've laid off enough people in the last two years, at multiple companies, to know exactly how things work.
Well since I live in California, an "at will" state, and I have laid off probably over 50 people in the last two years (hello mortgage industry!), I can unequivocally state that they DO apply.
"At will" and "right to work" definitely mean you can tell them to walk at a moments notice. It is however in NO WAY a blanket immunity from the wrongful termination suit that they serve you with the next day.
Please don't confuse your ideal view of how it should be with the reality of how it is.
Yes but we have things like "wrongful termination", the WARN Act, and LAWYERS. So laying off is not as easy as just handing someone a pink slip, despite what you see in the movies.
But this would be true whether the FSF were there or not. Like I said before, I don't think FSF is fighting for these people's innocence or guilt, I think they're fighting for fair representation on both sides with regard to technical issues. Letting the RIAA run rough shod over non-technical juries starts setting precedents that could seep out to other areas, namely open source programming vs. IP vultures.
You mean without equivalent experts on your side to appropriately and properly point out, to a non-technical jury, the giant holes in their evidence.
That's the way I interpret FSF's involvement. They're not arguing innocence or guilt, they're just making sure both sides have appropriate technical representation vs. the ridiculously one-sided "Grandma Jones and her AOL account vs. RIAA's team of electrical engineering PhDs".
While on the surface it may seem odd for FSF to come to the aid of P2P defendants, I think what they're really trying to guard against are future frivolous claims that could be made against open source software and the like.
If the RIAA is able to effectively take advantage of non-tech savvy courts, it's not too much of a stretch for other IP related companies to start filing claims, infringement suits, etc. against open source applications that compete with theirs.
Maybe I'm off base, but that's a possible reason for the FSF to be taking this course. It's more of a message to the business community at large that you're not going to have it that easy strong arming the technology world.
Personally I liked when he started going the offbeat stuff like Rushmore. Agree on the disappointment that was Lost in Translation. Nude SJ could have saved it, but alas it was not to be.
I didn't say P2P, I said traffic. They sold me 5MBs of bandwidth. Not 5MBs of bandwidth except for bittorrent. They're trying to change the contract after the fact by adding the asterisk and trying to use the smokescreen of "bittorrent is bad because pirates use it" to cover up the fact that they oversold their goods, AGAIN (remember this problem when cable modem first came out and they oversold in many neighborhoods, causing it to be slower than dial up during peak hours?).
How about the telcos not worry about being an arbiter of what traffic is ok and what traffic isn't. The latency argument is a red herring. Internet providers, let the law worry about copyright infringement and quit using it to cover the fact that you've oversold your bandwidth now that more than a minority of your customers want to use everything you guaranteed.
I think the general reasons for desiring government intervention are twofold. One, no one wants to wait around for all the telcos to get sued and dragged through ten years of civil litigation before a decision is reached. Two, and IANAL or a telco buy, but I think the government has these guys on a leash somewhat because we the taxpayers essentially paid for the creation of the network they're now charging for you, and that money was given based on them being common carriers. The reference to ATT trying to exclude calls to Montgomery county illustrates this perfectly. They are common carrier internet access providers. Deciding what content you're going to provide vs. not provide takes you out of common carrier, or so it's being alleged by many.
That's my understanding anyway, could be completely off base...
Coming in here talking about a magazine with both boobies and game info without providing a direct link to the subscription page brands you a troll in my book.
Dish with the name of the magazine or prepare for the rantings of hundreds of angry geeks!
As a long time PC Gamer subscriber I have to admit the 20-30 page cellphone section, which is really a big advertisement, is really irking me. I put up with it for the toilet time reading factor, but I'm guessing we're going to see a further eroding of the number of magazines and an increase in ads so they can continue to function. Why PC Gamer hasn't developed a concurrent subscription model for online and started putting content there I have no idea. Maybe they have and I haven't visited the site in a while..
But why SHOULDN'T the RIAA have the right to restrict fair use? IANAL, but I thought the law simply said you can't outlaw or prosecute fair use. I wasn't aware that it mandated that companies SUPPORT it. The market should determine what restrictions on fair use are bearable.
Slashdot Mirror
So me on top of a pyramid in sun-god robes with thousands of naked women screaming and throwing pickles at me is a REAL THREAT?
awesome.
I was coming to post exactly this. It seems like once or twice a year we see a story here about some new tech that is right around the corner and will store petabytes of data on the head of a pin. NONE of it has come to pass other than HD and Blu-ray and just now SSD. All these polymer based, molecule level stories are VAPOR.
I hate it when I fat finger the submit button. Please disregard the last partial sentence.
You don't need "media files" to test the dvd burner and we all know it. They could just as easily have put a file of their own on there or used any number of known large files on any windows machine. These guys being tech repair guys we all know they had their pick from thousands of existing files without going rifling through this guys picture collection.
I hate child predators as much as the next guy, but you have to separate your emotion on that from the real issue here. Besides, like ISPs, if it becomes known that they DO rifle though
I have karma to burn so feel free to send this to offtopic land, but can we just get a sitewide ban on these lame spam links please? 3 or 4 in this thread alone!
That's an easy fix though, electric company incents drivers with a timer they plug into when they get home, but doesn't start drawing power til 12am, etc.
Sounds like you got your ass kicked a little too much back in grade school. MMA is turning into quite a technical sport, despite your short-sighted stereotypical knee-jerk reaction to it. It's ok though, the world needs people who watch Oprah too..
What's even worse is that the UFC tied in with the VGA for some lame announcement. Please UFC, do not get any more associated with the ridiculousness that is the VGA. You're better than that.
Yep, I bet you couldn't come with anything in your lifetime that some congressperson wasn't able to tie to interstate commerce somehow...
There are 16 enumerated powers granted to the legislative branch by the constitution. ALL other laws flow from one of two things, 1) interstate commerce, and 2) the clause at the end of the enumeration (article 1, section 8) that says "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
If you ever stop and really think about it, the system we have in place begins to look really really ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, it works fairly well most of the time, but it is a far cry from what the founders could have imagined.
god damn son, that is some hard core own.
Excuse me while I go check my gmail and upload last weekend's pictures to Picasa...
Lost profit as a result of theft does not equal the expense of creating and distributing a song.
The court asked for th expense of creating and distributing a song, not a detailed analysis of their "loss".
Hey look at you, you know how to link. Unfortunately overwhelming your post with links != t3h w1n. The link below clearly explains that employees in California are considered to be "at will"
http://research.lawyers.com/California/Employment-Law-in-California.html
Despite that fact, what I'm arguing is the reality that people can and do file tons of wrongful termination suits. Sure they might be trivial, sure they might not stick. But that will be determined after the company spends a lot of time and effort fighting it. So as a result, very common HR policy is to force employers to follow procedures as if we were not an "at will" or "right to work" state in order to head off the suits before they start. It is a giant burden, believe me.
You can feel free to link to whatever you want, but that's the reality. I've laid off enough people in the last two years, at multiple companies, to know exactly how things work.
Well since I live in California, an "at will" state, and I have laid off probably over 50 people in the last two years (hello mortgage industry!), I can unequivocally state that they DO apply.
"At will" and "right to work" definitely mean you can tell them to walk at a moments notice. It is however in NO WAY a blanket immunity from the wrongful termination suit that they serve you with the next day.
Please don't confuse your ideal view of how it should be with the reality of how it is.
Yes but we have things like "wrongful termination", the WARN Act, and LAWYERS. So laying off is not as easy as just handing someone a pink slip, despite what you see in the movies.
But this would be true whether the FSF were there or not. Like I said before, I don't think FSF is fighting for these people's innocence or guilt, I think they're fighting for fair representation on both sides with regard to technical issues. Letting the RIAA run rough shod over non-technical juries starts setting precedents that could seep out to other areas, namely open source programming vs. IP vultures.
You mean without equivalent experts on your side to appropriately and properly point out, to a non-technical jury, the giant holes in their evidence.
That's the way I interpret FSF's involvement. They're not arguing innocence or guilt, they're just making sure both sides have appropriate technical representation vs. the ridiculously one-sided "Grandma Jones and her AOL account vs. RIAA's team of electrical engineering PhDs".
While on the surface it may seem odd for FSF to come to the aid of P2P defendants, I think what they're really trying to guard against are future frivolous claims that could be made against open source software and the like.
If the RIAA is able to effectively take advantage of non-tech savvy courts, it's not too much of a stretch for other IP related companies to start filing claims, infringement suits, etc. against open source applications that compete with theirs.
Maybe I'm off base, but that's a possible reason for the FSF to be taking this course. It's more of a message to the business community at large that you're not going to have it that easy strong arming the technology world.
What do I know though, I was a history major..
Personally I liked when he started going the offbeat stuff like Rushmore. Agree on the disappointment that was Lost in Translation. Nude SJ could have saved it, but alas it was not to be.
I didn't say P2P, I said traffic. They sold me 5MBs of bandwidth. Not 5MBs of bandwidth except for bittorrent. They're trying to change the contract after the fact by adding the asterisk and trying to use the smokescreen of "bittorrent is bad because pirates use it" to cover up the fact that they oversold their goods, AGAIN (remember this problem when cable modem first came out and they oversold in many neighborhoods, causing it to be slower than dial up during peak hours?).
How about the telcos not worry about being an arbiter of what traffic is ok and what traffic isn't. The latency argument is a red herring. Internet providers, let the law worry about copyright infringement and quit using it to cover the fact that you've oversold your bandwidth now that more than a minority of your customers want to use everything you guaranteed.
I think the general reasons for desiring government intervention are twofold. One, no one wants to wait around for all the telcos to get sued and dragged through ten years of civil litigation before a decision is reached. Two, and IANAL or a telco buy, but I think the government has these guys on a leash somewhat because we the taxpayers essentially paid for the creation of the network they're now charging for you, and that money was given based on them being common carriers. The reference to ATT trying to exclude calls to Montgomery county illustrates this perfectly. They are common carrier internet access providers. Deciding what content you're going to provide vs. not provide takes you out of common carrier, or so it's being alleged by many.
That's my understanding anyway, could be completely off base...
But it is what should determine appropriate restrictions.
Yes its an idealistic statement, but one that is correct.
Coming in here talking about a magazine with both boobies and game info without providing a direct link to the subscription page brands you a troll in my book.
Dish with the name of the magazine or prepare for the rantings of hundreds of angry geeks!
As a long time PC Gamer subscriber I have to admit the 20-30 page cellphone section, which is really a big advertisement, is really irking me. I put up with it for the toilet time reading factor, but I'm guessing we're going to see a further eroding of the number of magazines and an increase in ads so they can continue to function. Why PC Gamer hasn't developed a concurrent subscription model for online and started putting content there I have no idea. Maybe they have and I haven't visited the site in a while..
But why SHOULDN'T the RIAA have the right to restrict fair use? IANAL, but I thought the law simply said you can't outlaw or prosecute fair use. I wasn't aware that it mandated that companies SUPPORT it. The market should determine what restrictions on fair use are bearable.