I fail to see how this service is actually useful, though. We've widespread POS interac terminals. We don't really have a NEED for this. Even for transfers between individuals, this service pales in comparison to other methods.
You'll find that regularly, something that's commonplace elsewhere is reported as new on/. when it gets to North America, the United States in particular. Trust me, this is new in Canada.
Not that I'm going to use this service in any way, shape, or form.
$14/month, unlimited interac transactions, only time I get fees is when I use an out-of-network ATM. It's at the point where I use my debit card for anything and everything, as long as the business takes Interac. Cash is for the one Chinese place near work that only takes cash.
I would assume that if I went to buy a cup of soup from you, and you punched me in the head, that I probably would not buy soup from you any more. Therefor, if people are getting punched in the head, they don't care.
But what if the punch is delivered 3 days later, by someone not affiliated with me at all? In fact, the only thing I did was tell them that you bought soup from me. And then they come up and punch you in the head. It's directly because you bought soup from me, but you've no way of knowing without a lot of effort, even if you have a clue on where to start on figuring it out.
That's how corporate privacy invasion works. You give data to a few people in some manner, then they give it to someone else, who then uses it in some way to screw you over in some fashion.
I think it is you who are ignorant of non-profits. They have tons of bookkeeping information that they have to keep to ensure they're not distributing that money outside the mandate of "A nonprofit organization is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals." So they could raise their salaries a bit, but the rest has to go back in to the company. I dunno about your country, but here in Canada, NPOs get shut down if they're diverting too much money to the salaries of the upper echelons without justification (more work, inflation, or similar). So unless the ESRB's looking to make a huge expansion, it doesn't seem like charging excessive amounts would help much.
Why not? Florida has one. I know, since I have a bartender friend there, and he gets all kinds of arguments about his inability to take out of state ID.
Ding! Someone with a clue. That was my entire point!
Except that you fell victim to the same groupthink when you made an issue of keeping the details of your special revelation a secret.
I would submit that not, he didn't. While real smugglers/terrorists might know 10 ways, some random asshole thinking of being a dick might not know, or even someone who thinks he's above the rules and just really wants to bring that knife with him so he has it after his flight right away. So while nothing's keeping the real "bad guys" from doing anything, it might make an idiot or two have trouble.
The ESRB is non-profit. You can't exactly make a cash-grab if you're a non-profit entity. Anyone who says this is a cash grab is obviously just knee-jerk anti-regulatory.
Would you rather crappy ratings system comes with force of legislation? Government BAD for regulating industries. Self-regulation still bad, but not as.
Easily. The government will get pissed off, and step in. I can't believe how many people forget all the times the government's tried to pass video game laws that didn't go simply because the ESRB is doing a good job.
Actually, probably the best reason is this: Why should Apple get a free ride on its games? The PSP and DS need their games rated, and the iPhone is being pushed as a viable gaming platform, with an install base reaching the PSP's. If Apple's platform is outside the established ratings, and becomes very much popular, the voluntary ratings system falls apart. The ESRB is administered by the industry, which is preferable to a governmental agency doing so, and remember, the government over the years has said that if movies or video games didn't handle it themselves, they would.
I'm here in Aus too mate, and the last prepaid phone I bought...from the grocery store...didn't require any ID what so ever.
And why the hell would it?
First, "I'm in Aus too"? He's in the United States, how does being in Australia rate an "as well"? Sorry, just confused me.
Secondly, to actually address the question: The standard response is "because prepaid mobile phones are used by criminals and terrorists to organize their illegal activities, and that cannot be allowed to go unmonitored." Doesn't make it a good idea, or a useful one, or an enforceable one. Just means that the rationale.
This is exactly why pirating digital art doesn't hurt anyone. Period. Software is a completely different story...
Why? Should be a similar story, at least, shouldn't it? The value of the software is in what it does for me. If my business saves 2 minutes a week because of your software, then based on the salary of the employee whose time is being saved, we'd end up with a licencing fee of about $17/year based on an hourly wage of $10. That's the value I've assigned your software. What value it has to you could be very different. Your software doesn't have an intrinsic value either.
There's a thing called "acting in good faith" in cases like that. The police believe they have the right to do something, based on the information they have. If someone else then proves that information to be incorrect, the police shouldn't be the ones personally punished. Unless of course they're the ones that lied to get the warrant.
And yes, I agree, it'd be nice if judges got arrested for issuing invalid warrants, when it's blatant abuse of power. They do eventually face reviews that will dump them off the bench if they're reversed on too many decisions. That's not good enough, imo, but it's a starting place. The problem is, most politicians are former lawyers and judges. There's a saying I heard once: It's a lawyer's job to become a judge. It's a judge's job to become a congressman. It's a congressman's job to become president.
Remember, most of them have their eye on the next rung of the ladder, so they're not going to piss off anyone who can help get them there, which includes people further down on that ladder.
But it's too late to incorporate the install dialogue in to Win 7 without slipping the release date. MS took the option that lets them still release on time and not violate every contract with every vendor in the EU. If that was the option the EU wanted, they should have pushed it forward months ago, back before the RC release. Better luck next development cycle.
Lastly, if you'd read the article, you'd see that they're punishing Microsoft for 10 years of "bad behaviour."
No they're not. MS was fined once for that. If they didn't pay the fine, then get them for that. But you can't punish them twice for the same thing when they've made moves to correct it. It's not like they could just go out and remove IE from every install of XP, and most people didn't move to Vista, which you could remove IE from.
Except at the "IE only" site point in history, you could still get IE for Macs, for free. No licence needed. What's more, you then go on to explicitly say this is purely about company size. The laws don't change based purely on how large a company is. Anti-competitive is anti-competitive. If MS has to include others, so should everyone else.
Lastly, your little "first boot wizard." It's about 5 months until the latest version of Windows is available for sale. That means the code has to be finalized, discs pressed, packaged, and shipped to distributors, and computers assembled with Win 7 installed. Including a new splash screen with choices at this late juncture just isn't going to happen, and MS has a *lot* of contracts that are going to be in jeopardy if they are forced to push back the release, just because the EU says "No, we want OUR solution."
Average user couldn't do it, and what's more, without being able to look it up, how many advanced users are going to recall the ftp address? I'm pretty sure you don't just point your ftp client at "www.firefox.com"
It looks like the EU wants to dictate that MS include some competing browsers and make sure they get thrown in front of users.
That is what it looks like. Which imo, is insane. What gives any organization the right to force a company to promote its competition? Going after MS to include others is not the right way to handle this. The only reasonable solution I can come up with is forcing MS to continue to de-integrate IE, since it's still not completely untied, and then have OEMs pick browsers to install. It shouldn't be an OS level decision at all.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't a final release of Opera 10 yet. The summary is just wrong. Unite is a "Labs" release. Think Google Labs, just from Opera.
I fail to see how this service is actually useful, though. We've widespread POS interac terminals. We don't really have a NEED for this. Even for transfers between individuals, this service pales in comparison to other methods.
You'll find that regularly, something that's commonplace elsewhere is reported as new on /. when it gets to North America, the United States in particular. Trust me, this is new in Canada.
Not that I'm going to use this service in any way, shape, or form.
Wow, you're getting screwed.
$14/month, unlimited interac transactions, only time I get fees is when I use an out-of-network ATM. It's at the point where I use my debit card for anything and everything, as long as the business takes Interac. Cash is for the one Chinese place near work that only takes cash.
I wish I could forget it. Unfortunately, I've got a stack of mediocre games in my closet that won't let me.
The only Nintendo equivalent I know of is broken windows/TVs. I don't think a new system is likely to change that.
I would assume that if I went to buy a cup of soup from you, and you punched me in the head, that I probably would not buy soup from you any more.
Therefor, if people are getting punched in the head, they don't care.
But what if the punch is delivered 3 days later, by someone not affiliated with me at all? In fact, the only thing I did was tell them that you bought soup from me. And then they come up and punch you in the head. It's directly because you bought soup from me, but you've no way of knowing without a lot of effort, even if you have a clue on where to start on figuring it out.
That's how corporate privacy invasion works. You give data to a few people in some manner, then they give it to someone else, who then uses it in some way to screw you over in some fashion.
I think it is you who are ignorant of non-profits. They have tons of bookkeeping information that they have to keep to ensure they're not distributing that money outside the mandate of "A nonprofit organization is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals." So they could raise their salaries a bit, but the rest has to go back in to the company. I dunno about your country, but here in Canada, NPOs get shut down if they're diverting too much money to the salaries of the upper echelons without justification (more work, inflation, or similar). So unless the ESRB's looking to make a huge expansion, it doesn't seem like charging excessive amounts would help much.
While the state of Texas can't have a law,
Why not? Florida has one. I know, since I have a bartender friend there, and he gets all kinds of arguments about his inability to take out of state ID.
Ding! Someone with a clue. That was my entire point!
Except that you fell victim to the same groupthink when you made an issue of keeping the details of your special revelation a secret.
I would submit that not, he didn't. While real smugglers/terrorists might know 10 ways, some random asshole thinking of being a dick might not know, or even someone who thinks he's above the rules and just really wants to bring that knife with him so he has it after his flight right away. So while nothing's keeping the real "bad guys" from doing anything, it might make an idiot or two have trouble.
The ESRB is non-profit. You can't exactly make a cash-grab if you're a non-profit entity. Anyone who says this is a cash grab is obviously just knee-jerk anti-regulatory.
Would you rather crappy ratings system comes with force of legislation? Government BAD for regulating industries. Self-regulation still bad, but not as.
Easily. The government will get pissed off, and step in. I can't believe how many people forget all the times the government's tried to pass video game laws that didn't go simply because the ESRB is doing a good job.
Actually, probably the best reason is this: Why should Apple get a free ride on its games? The PSP and DS need their games rated, and the iPhone is being pushed as a viable gaming platform, with an install base reaching the PSP's. If Apple's platform is outside the established ratings, and becomes very much popular, the voluntary ratings system falls apart. The ESRB is administered by the industry, which is preferable to a governmental agency doing so, and remember, the government over the years has said that if movies or video games didn't handle it themselves, they would.
It's a voluntary ratings board. Remember, it's the only thing that's kept the government from stepping in with a ratings system of its own.
*cough Hot coffee mod cough cough*
>
I'm here in Aus too mate, and the last prepaid phone I bought...from the grocery store...didn't require any ID what so ever.
And why the hell would it?
First, "I'm in Aus too"? He's in the United States, how does being in Australia rate an "as well"? Sorry, just confused me.
Secondly, to actually address the question: The standard response is "because prepaid mobile phones are used by criminals and terrorists to organize their illegal activities, and that cannot be allowed to go unmonitored." Doesn't make it a good idea, or a useful one, or an enforceable one. Just means that the rationale.
This is exactly why pirating digital art doesn't hurt anyone. Period. Software is a completely different story...
Why? Should be a similar story, at least, shouldn't it? The value of the software is in what it does for me. If my business saves 2 minutes a week because of your software, then based on the salary of the employee whose time is being saved, we'd end up with a licencing fee of about $17/year based on an hourly wage of $10. That's the value I've assigned your software. What value it has to you could be very different. Your software doesn't have an intrinsic value either.
There's a thing called "acting in good faith" in cases like that. The police believe they have the right to do something, based on the information they have. If someone else then proves that information to be incorrect, the police shouldn't be the ones personally punished. Unless of course they're the ones that lied to get the warrant.
And yes, I agree, it'd be nice if judges got arrested for issuing invalid warrants, when it's blatant abuse of power. They do eventually face reviews that will dump them off the bench if they're reversed on too many decisions. That's not good enough, imo, but it's a starting place. The problem is, most politicians are former lawyers and judges. There's a saying I heard once: It's a lawyer's job to become a judge. It's a judge's job to become a congressman. It's a congressman's job to become president.
Remember, most of them have their eye on the next rung of the ladder, so they're not going to piss off anyone who can help get them there, which includes people further down on that ladder.
But it's too late to incorporate the install dialogue in to Win 7 without slipping the release date. MS took the option that lets them still release on time and not violate every contract with every vendor in the EU. If that was the option the EU wanted, they should have pushed it forward months ago, back before the RC release. Better luck next development cycle.
Lastly, if you'd read the article, you'd see that they're punishing Microsoft for 10 years of "bad behaviour."
No they're not. MS was fined once for that. If they didn't pay the fine, then get them for that. But you can't punish them twice for the same thing when they've made moves to correct it. It's not like they could just go out and remove IE from every install of XP, and most people didn't move to Vista, which you could remove IE from.
Except at the "IE only" site point in history, you could still get IE for Macs, for free. No licence needed. What's more, you then go on to explicitly say this is purely about company size. The laws don't change based purely on how large a company is. Anti-competitive is anti-competitive. If MS has to include others, so should everyone else.
Lastly, your little "first boot wizard." It's about 5 months until the latest version of Windows is available for sale. That means the code has to be finalized, discs pressed, packaged, and shipped to distributors, and computers assembled with Win 7 installed. Including a new splash screen with choices at this late juncture just isn't going to happen, and MS has a *lot* of contracts that are going to be in jeopardy if they are forced to push back the release, just because the EU says "No, we want OUR solution."
Average user couldn't do it, and what's more, without being able to look it up, how many advanced users are going to recall the ftp address? I'm pretty sure you don't just point your ftp client at "www.firefox.com"
FTP!?
Okay. What's Firefox's FTP site's address? No looking it up. Tell me off the top of your head.
Okay, now what's Chrome's? Opera's? Remember, no IE means no way to look it up at a new computer.
So, with no browser, you either need to go find a computer that's already set up with a browser, or you need to find a disc with one.
It looks like the EU wants to dictate that MS include some competing browsers and make sure they get thrown in front of users.
That is what it looks like. Which imo, is insane. What gives any organization the right to force a company to promote its competition? Going after MS to include others is not the right way to handle this. The only reasonable solution I can come up with is forcing MS to continue to de-integrate IE, since it's still not completely untied, and then have OEMs pick browsers to install. It shouldn't be an OS level decision at all.