Actually, I'd say that they took perfect revenge. "Fuck you, you took away my options because you're pissy about piracy? Well, suck on this, I'mma making piracy goddamn trivial, you assholes."
You are aware that console-based shooters do in fact make heavy use of "aim assist," right? I mean, I hate to interrupt a well-deserved smackdown, but seriously, come on. Just do some searching, you'll find plenty of shooters through the years that tossed in aim assist on console.
Sure they can. What makes you think Sony would give a fuck about small claims courts in any way? The only way to get your money from them would be to sue them for it.
No, though I applaud you for trying. You got a lot closer than I did to justifying this, but since the point of the story was simply to bring up the attempt to get non-dial phones back in Congress, and was misrepresented at that, the story has no point. It's merely an attempt to inflame people against congress, rather than actually discussing the present issue they're linking to the past issue. It's an appeal to ridicule, as phrased in TFS. "Congress tried to ban dial phones, what a bunch of morons! Congress is so stupid!" Thus, by showing that congress was stupid in the past, well, they must be stupid now, too, so it's ad hominem as well.
A better story wouldn't have mentioned something that happened 80 years ago, and instead would have presented the current issue, said which politicians were involved, and provided contact information so as to allow affected constituents to contact their representatives and tell them in an intelligent manner how they would rather the government operate.
So, in closing, this was a shit-ass story, serving as nothing but flamebait.
Canadian, but as I understand from some US friends, it's because gasoline is a hazardous substance, and so it's some attempt to minimize accidents, moreso than protecting jobs.
There's a massive difference between banning a technology and censoring websites. The reasoning behind each is different, the methodology, and the possible reactions and methods of circumvention. About the only parallel is "government doing thing that it really shouldn't be."
They're not even talking about banning a technology this time. It's not like they're saying "ban the Internet." This is a really weak excuse to bash the government and bring up something ridiculous and idiotic from the past. Do people really need an excuse to bash the government? Aren't there enough legitimate reasons to complain? Do we really need a story going "Look, you think censorship on the web is bad? 80 years ago, they were too lazy to dial their own damn phones! Isn't government so damn wacky?"
Since when does ignorance of the law excuse you from it?
Copyright is a contract between a copyright holder and the public, ignorance of a contract DOES excuse you from it, but only to a certain degree. That's why it's lessened penalties under the law, rather than a gigantic civil award. It's the court's way of saying "Look, you fucked up. Realistically, you should have done some research or something to figure out what you were doing was wrong. We can't let you off completely, since you did do something against the law, but we're not going to hang you for it. Consider this your warning and don't do it again." It's like a police officer pulling you over because your tail light is burnt out, and instead of giving you a ticket straight off, gives you the ability to go get it fixed promptly to avoid the fine. Yeah, you fucked up, you broke a law, and you should have noticed your tail light was out, but rather than be a dick, they want the behaviour corrected.
Also, when was it determined that this was absolutely and irrefutably illegal (and it's certainly not _criminal), since it's a civil issue).
Eh, under most jurisdictions, copyrights etc. are backed by force of law, which means it is actually illegal, rather than purely civil breach, but yeah, the actual, moral criminality of it? Not really. But legality and criminality are often divorced from each other.
Legitimate question: How many of those free apps have ads? And how many more of those are going to use Apple's specific iAd platform? That'd be a significant change in profit between free app store offerings, and web apps.
. I want it to be a down-loadable app or perhaps a flash-enabled browser I'll have to download. I want to be the one to at the end decide if the thing goes into MY iPhone (hint, it wont be going into my iPhone if I have a choice.)
This is the best I've heard. Flash should be like any other feature-enabling application on a mobile device. Downloadable by users who want it, and selectively enabled by the users who do want it when they want it. Even if it's not up to Jobs' "standards," people should have the choice on their own. I'll save my personal rant about iOS app standards for another thread.
What I fail to understand is why you'd want to deprive someone of the choice of iOS WITH Flash, if they so desired. If, knowing the potential issues, they still decide that they want iOS, but they want Flash as well, why can't they have that choice? You say "Then go buy a device that supports Flash," but seriously, why shouldn't there be an option? "Flash or iOS" is an artificial dichotomy, imposed purely through hearsay and posturing by both parties.
Nice strawman that completely misrepresents the situation. iTunes is a completely artificial limitation placed upon the hardware. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from being able to use the iPod like a mass storage device that then just reads the tags on the files. Nothing except Apple said "We want everyone to use our shitty software."
X Box 360s, Playstation 3s, Windows computers, and OS X computers all have fundamental hardware/software differences and instruction sets that mean they require different code-sets to function. In this case, it would require extra effort to make compatibility. In the case of the iPod, it would take *less* effort to make it compatible, since it'd just need to be a generic USB interface.
If it requires things specific to OS X, yeah, there IS stuff nefarious about that. The things about standards are they're supposed to be a set of specs anyone can use and be compliant, so that anyone's able to access it. If, all of a sudden, that standard mandates technology that must, due to patents, be obtained from Apple, and only Apple, that gives them an unfair advantage far beyond even Microsoft's IE stranglehold, since Apple would actually be able to say "No, you're not allowed access to our stuff" and shut people out of the market completely.
Actually, no, I don't think the US government is using the MPAA as a mouthpiece. What I DO think is that the MPAA came up with the idea, and the US government is going "Fuck, why didn't WE think of that? Give them another couple hundred million."
You know, stories like this used to interest me. Then I noticed that: a) they kept reoccurring, and b) had a common theme.
Yeah, it's always "We're approaching a wall with what can be done with current technology, so it's going to either be more expensive, or need a new technique, yadda yadda." Tell you what. Lemme know when we *actually* hit the wall in ANY of these that they keep threatening us with a wall in making, SSD, HDD, CPU size, etc.
Except you can't say that each start-up represents a project. Some may represent more than one. Back during the.com boom, many represented none. And what about projects that were transferred to a new company as part of the selling off of a start-up's assets?
So, while yes, one could assume a similar failure rate of start-up companies in software as other areas, that failure rate has absolutely fuck-all to do with the current conversation of comparing open source project abandonment with commercial.
Personally, I think there's more open-source abandoned projects by a huge amount, but mostly for one reason: amateur coder starts a project on own time, realizes it goes beyond current skills, abandons, starts new project later. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either. It's a great way to learn and push yourself.
My only problem with projects like that is that often it's never clearly established that it's abandoned, or who is in current stewardship, or anything like that, and so these half-done projects remain around, lowering the average quality of OSS, and making it incredibly hard to find something current and/or decent. That's at least one decent thing about commercial software: it's easy to tell who is in charge of a piece of software, and if they're bothering to maintain it any more.
The problem is that it's believed to be a *fixed point*, which is blatantly untrue due to simple observed motion of celestial bodies. If they simply believed that the earth was at the centre, that's fine, but when you start positing that everything revolves around the earth, issues crop up.
The problem with relegating the government to simple protectorate role however is that some tasks simply will not be taken care of, or not taken care of to the degree necessary, without a significant financial incentive. Without government, roads would only travel to large population centres, for example. Towns of thousands and under simply would not be able to offer enough compensation to road construction companies to build the sometimes hundreds of miles of roads necessary to connect them to the rest of the country. Same with utilities such as power. The infrastructure necessary simply wouldn't be justified by the returns the companies would get. So while self-governance would be good for individual freedoms, you simply cannot run a large society that way, because there's a finite amount of funds available, and someone needs to decide how to apportion it.
My stance on that, however, does not mean I think the government does everything well, nor that I'm happy with a large government. I just think it has a larger role than simple law enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, extreme card tricks can pick up chicks. After all, girls love a guy good with his hands.
Actually, I'd say that they took perfect revenge. "Fuck you, you took away my options because you're pissy about piracy? Well, suck on this, I'mma making piracy goddamn trivial, you assholes."
You are aware that console-based shooters do in fact make heavy use of "aim assist," right? I mean, I hate to interrupt a well-deserved smackdown, but seriously, come on. Just do some searching, you'll find plenty of shooters through the years that tossed in aim assist on console.
Sure they can. What makes you think Sony would give a fuck about small claims courts in any way? The only way to get your money from them would be to sue them for it.
Pop culture references, motherfucker, do you understand them?
Apparently not.
No, though I applaud you for trying. You got a lot closer than I did to justifying this, but since the point of the story was simply to bring up the attempt to get non-dial phones back in Congress, and was misrepresented at that, the story has no point. It's merely an attempt to inflame people against congress, rather than actually discussing the present issue they're linking to the past issue. It's an appeal to ridicule, as phrased in TFS. "Congress tried to ban dial phones, what a bunch of morons! Congress is so stupid!" Thus, by showing that congress was stupid in the past, well, they must be stupid now, too, so it's ad hominem as well.
A better story wouldn't have mentioned something that happened 80 years ago, and instead would have presented the current issue, said which politicians were involved, and provided contact information so as to allow affected constituents to contact their representatives and tell them in an intelligent manner how they would rather the government operate.
So, in closing, this was a shit-ass story, serving as nothing but flamebait.
Oh, fuck. Right... off topic.
How's about that local sports team?
Canadian, but as I understand from some US friends, it's because gasoline is a hazardous substance, and so it's some attempt to minimize accidents, moreso than protecting jobs.
There's a massive difference between banning a technology and censoring websites. The reasoning behind each is different, the methodology, and the possible reactions and methods of circumvention. About the only parallel is "government doing thing that it really shouldn't be."
They're not even talking about banning a technology this time. It's not like they're saying "ban the Internet." This is a really weak excuse to bash the government and bring up something ridiculous and idiotic from the past. Do people really need an excuse to bash the government? Aren't there enough legitimate reasons to complain? Do we really need a story going "Look, you think censorship on the web is bad? 80 years ago, they were too lazy to dial their own damn phones! Isn't government so damn wacky?"
Because there was willful intent here,
Hey hey hey. The entire point is she was an *unknowing* infringer. That should earn her a break, you monster! $2.97 a song. Geez.
Except that she never had the CDs. Ever. At any point. It was merely the fact that CDs have the copyright notice on them was sufficient.
Since when does ignorance of the law excuse you from it?
Copyright is a contract between a copyright holder and the public, ignorance of a contract DOES excuse you from it, but only to a certain degree. That's why it's lessened penalties under the law, rather than a gigantic civil award. It's the court's way of saying "Look, you fucked up. Realistically, you should have done some research or something to figure out what you were doing was wrong. We can't let you off completely, since you did do something against the law, but we're not going to hang you for it. Consider this your warning and don't do it again." It's like a police officer pulling you over because your tail light is burnt out, and instead of giving you a ticket straight off, gives you the ability to go get it fixed promptly to avoid the fine. Yeah, you fucked up, you broke a law, and you should have noticed your tail light was out, but rather than be a dick, they want the behaviour corrected.
Also, when was it determined that this was absolutely and irrefutably illegal (and it's certainly not _criminal), since it's a civil issue).
Eh, under most jurisdictions, copyrights etc. are backed by force of law, which means it is actually illegal, rather than purely civil breach, but yeah, the actual, moral criminality of it? Not really. But legality and criminality are often divorced from each other.
Legitimate question: How many of those free apps have ads? And how many more of those are going to use Apple's specific iAd platform? That'd be a significant change in profit between free app store offerings, and web apps.
. I want it to be a down-loadable app or perhaps a flash-enabled browser I'll have to download. I want to be the one to at the end decide if the thing goes into MY iPhone (hint, it wont be going into my iPhone if I have a choice.)
This is the best I've heard. Flash should be like any other feature-enabling application on a mobile device. Downloadable by users who want it, and selectively enabled by the users who do want it when they want it. Even if it's not up to Jobs' "standards," people should have the choice on their own. I'll save my personal rant about iOS app standards for another thread.
What I fail to understand is why you'd want to deprive someone of the choice of iOS WITH Flash, if they so desired. If, knowing the potential issues, they still decide that they want iOS, but they want Flash as well, why can't they have that choice? You say "Then go buy a device that supports Flash," but seriously, why shouldn't there be an option? "Flash or iOS" is an artificial dichotomy, imposed purely through hearsay and posturing by both parties.
Nice strawman that completely misrepresents the situation. iTunes is a completely artificial limitation placed upon the hardware. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from being able to use the iPod like a mass storage device that then just reads the tags on the files. Nothing except Apple said "We want everyone to use our shitty software."
X Box 360s, Playstation 3s, Windows computers, and OS X computers all have fundamental hardware/software differences and instruction sets that mean they require different code-sets to function. In this case, it would require extra effort to make compatibility. In the case of the iPod, it would take *less* effort to make it compatible, since it'd just need to be a generic USB interface.
If it requires things specific to OS X, yeah, there IS stuff nefarious about that. The things about standards are they're supposed to be a set of specs anyone can use and be compliant, so that anyone's able to access it. If, all of a sudden, that standard mandates technology that must, due to patents, be obtained from Apple, and only Apple, that gives them an unfair advantage far beyond even Microsoft's IE stranglehold, since Apple would actually be able to say "No, you're not allowed access to our stuff" and shut people out of the market completely.
Actually, no, I don't think the US government is using the MPAA as a mouthpiece. What I DO think is that the MPAA came up with the idea, and the US government is going "Fuck, why didn't WE think of that? Give them another couple hundred million."
You know, stories like this used to interest me. Then I noticed that:
a) they kept reoccurring, and
b) had a common theme.
Yeah, it's always "We're approaching a wall with what can be done with current technology, so it's going to either be more expensive, or need a new technique, yadda yadda." Tell you what. Lemme know when we *actually* hit the wall in ANY of these that they keep threatening us with a wall in making, SSD, HDD, CPU size, etc.
Except you can't say that each start-up represents a project. Some may represent more than one. Back during the .com boom, many represented none. And what about projects that were transferred to a new company as part of the selling off of a start-up's assets?
So, while yes, one could assume a similar failure rate of start-up companies in software as other areas, that failure rate has absolutely fuck-all to do with the current conversation of comparing open source project abandonment with commercial.
Personally, I think there's more open-source abandoned projects by a huge amount, but mostly for one reason: amateur coder starts a project on own time, realizes it goes beyond current skills, abandons, starts new project later. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either. It's a great way to learn and push yourself.
My only problem with projects like that is that often it's never clearly established that it's abandoned, or who is in current stewardship, or anything like that, and so these half-done projects remain around, lowering the average quality of OSS, and making it incredibly hard to find something current and/or decent. That's at least one decent thing about commercial software: it's easy to tell who is in charge of a piece of software, and if they're bothering to maintain it any more.
He was talking about the people who work at the RIAA et al.
No, magnets work on miracles. Geez.
The problem is that it's believed to be a *fixed point*, which is blatantly untrue due to simple observed motion of celestial bodies. If they simply believed that the earth was at the centre, that's fine, but when you start positing that everything revolves around the earth, issues crop up.
No, but I am familiar with General Protection. To a fault, one might say...
The problem with relegating the government to simple protectorate role however is that some tasks simply will not be taken care of, or not taken care of to the degree necessary, without a significant financial incentive. Without government, roads would only travel to large population centres, for example. Towns of thousands and under simply would not be able to offer enough compensation to road construction companies to build the sometimes hundreds of miles of roads necessary to connect them to the rest of the country. Same with utilities such as power. The infrastructure necessary simply wouldn't be justified by the returns the companies would get. So while self-governance would be good for individual freedoms, you simply cannot run a large society that way, because there's a finite amount of funds available, and someone needs to decide how to apportion it.
My stance on that, however, does not mean I think the government does everything well, nor that I'm happy with a large government. I just think it has a larger role than simple law enforcement.