Profit is money you didn't have before, What you described is not profit it is less cost. The only person possibly making profit in the transaction you describe is the person selling the car and only if it cost him less that $18000. The definition of profit deal with the seller and not the buyer. It is a simple equation profit = revenue - expenses.
This is irrelevant to the main conversation anyway. The premise of the suit is that Blizzard if profiting from the sale of authenticators and not that the plaintiff is profiting. Is Blizzard profiting directly from giving away authenticators?
Close but not quite. Positive net income is profit. Negative net income is loss. Income is the amount of money coming into the company regardless of how much money is going out of the company (expenses) and is synonymous with revenue. When one qualifies it with "net" then it changes meaning. The terms "negative profit" and "negative loss" are useless as there are much matter terms available.
To me using the term income implies gross income. It is like asking someone how much their wages are. We assume they will talk about before tax wages and not after tax wages.
Ever heard of an Income and expense report the balance of which is either profit or loss? In a number of dictionary entries income and revenue are synonymous.
No,what I am saying is that Blizzard decided decrease their losses by spending $6.50 + S&H instead of spending much more every time he was hacked.
The only way it would have been pure profit is if the got $6.50 out of him without sending the device. If the device was sent the profit would be $0 ($6.50 income - $6.50 cost of goods sold).
People really need to understand the terms income, expense, cost of goods sold, and profit. It is a simple equation profit = income - (expenses+cost of goods sold).
There are three way to run authenticator; $6.50 hardware device App on a smart phone App on an android simulator on your computer. There are three ways to run it; two of which are free. The only reason to buy the dongle is for convenience.
Income is not the same as profit. They sold for $6.50 but it cost Blizzard much more to purchase and ship them. From a financial statement point of view making no profit from a sale is bad for the company yet Blizzard is still doing it to support their customers.
A friend of mine got hacked three times. Blizzard sent him an authenticator for free. It costs them less to send the free authenticator that keep fixing his account.
This is just someone trying to make money on a frivolous law suit.
Sure one can come up with a highly unlikely convoluted scenario that may cause issues. In fact this "issue" has a simple solution; Toshiba sends the PC person the real manual and tells them to print a retraction as that is not what Toshiba published.
A convoluted highly unlikely scenario that has never occurred is not a reason to cause issues for thousands of people who own older equipment.
Copyright laws protect creative and artistic works. To me the collection of facts on how a printer operates is no more creative than the collection of phone numbers in a phone book.
That would seem simple for you who is familiar with computers and selection keys. There are people who would be confused by that process. It is much simpler to be able to touch the name,select it and press another button to confirm it.
By the way you example is way off as everyone knows words are made up of letters and votes are not. One does not vote for down, down right, down, up, confirm; one votes for Mr Brown.
It is a problem but much less of one. Say there is space on the screen for 25 buttons on each side. That would limit the number of possibilities to 50. With a soft button one could have four columns of 25 lines so a maximum of 100 possibilities. There is a maximum but the maximum for soft buttons is much higher.
How many candidates do you design for? 2? 10? 20? Voting machines are used in many different elections. In municipal and county election there can be many candidates for things like school boards.
And when there are 20 different aldermen or 7 different presidential candidates to vote for it is possible to run out of buttons. A long as there is room on the screen another soft button can be added. One should not have to go to a second page as anyone on that second page would have a valid argument they their name was less visible than the others. There is no way to ensure that the number of hard buttons will not run out.
You have one inalienable right with any merchant, online or brick and mortar; Don't shop there. If the terms of service are not to your liking just walk away. Enough people do that and the terms will change. It is not a defense to say "I didn't read the TOS" just as it is not a defense to say "I didn't know it was illegal".
They needed a check box on their signup page to deal with TOS acceptance but it is not up to the site to attempt to force people to read. If consumers do not read the TOSit is their choice and they bear the consequences.
I looked at the registration page for Zappos. It doesn't even have a "I have read and agreed to the terms of service" check box. It would seem to me that any personal info would only be related to the people registered so the registration page should have had this box.
And you even have less potential damage from wave motion or humidity compared to container ships.
That is true but the issues are just different. Takeoff and landing during significant winds. Storms and the difficulty in getting around them. Wind shears and hail that can destroy a dirigible in flight. The US Navy lost a couple of their blimps due to storms. It is possible to avoid storms but then that makes blimp reliability a lot lower. The humidity issue is just false. There is a lot of humidity in the clouds.
On one hand there are some people who only read the summary and do not go to the site so the site loses some revenue. On the other hand there are articles that would never be found without Google indexing them and displaying the summary so when the person clicks the site it gains some revenue.
Again, you are not a trained police or security officer. Many have been injured or killed because they assumed that a mild altercation was safe and that a suspect who did not have a visible weapon was not going to harm them.
and they certainly didn't need to search his belongings after he was handcuffed and completely dominated,
So the keys in his back pocket or the pocket on his backpack which can not be searched properly because it is attached to him. Handcuff keys are universal so the officer putting them on does not need to be there to take them off. The reason they searched his belongings is unknown to you as you are not a psychic. If you had been a peace officer you would know that anyone in custody must be searched. This is another example of your lack of understanding of arrest procedures.
No, it is not fact, but it is more likely than not an accurate analysis
Is "likely" enough for one to pass judgement on the actions of another? I look at it as if I was on a criminal jury and "likely" certainly does not pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
Here is a quote about the Supreme Court and First Sale Doctrine:
The doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 109. In the Bobbs-Merrill case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy's department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill's consent. The Supreme Court held that the exclusive statutory right to "vend" applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work.
All that needs to be decided is if First Sale Doctrine applies to sales made outside the US. If it is, any EUlA restricting sales after the first sale would be invalid.
I take anything said by anyone with a grain of salt especially when there is no supporting evidence. There is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". To put it succinctly, without evidence statements from anyone, even an expert in the field, may be false. All I am saying is that a statement from anyone, even a lawyer needs to be questioned. without evidence I must rely on the reputation of the lawyer. The fact he is a lawyer does not impress me and I do not know him personally so I do not take his opinion as fact.People need to think for themselves and not allow titles to turn opinion into fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Profit is money you didn't have before, What you described is not profit it is less cost. The only person possibly making profit in the transaction you describe is the person selling the car and only if it cost him less that $18000. The definition of profit deal with the seller and not the buyer. It is a simple equation profit = revenue - expenses.
This is irrelevant to the main conversation anyway. The premise of the suit is that Blizzard if profiting from the sale of authenticators and not that the plaintiff is profiting. Is Blizzard profiting directly from giving away authenticators?
Fine, I will rephrase;
"Revenue is not the same a profit".
Net Income (Profit).
Close but not quite. Positive net income is profit. Negative net income is loss. Income is the amount of money coming into the company regardless of how much money is going out of the company (expenses) and is synonymous with revenue. When one qualifies it with "net" then it changes meaning. The terms "negative profit" and "negative loss" are useless as there are much matter terms available.
To me using the term income implies gross income. It is like asking someone how much their wages are. We assume they will talk about before tax wages and not after tax wages.
Ever heard of an Income and expense report the balance of which is either profit or loss? In a number of dictionary entries income and revenue are synonymous.
No,what I am saying is that Blizzard decided decrease their losses by spending $6.50 + S&H instead of spending much more every time he was hacked.
The only way it would have been pure profit is if the got $6.50 out of him without sending the device. If the device was sent the profit would be $0 ($6.50 income - $6.50 cost of goods sold).
People really need to understand the terms income, expense, cost of goods sold, and profit. It is a simple equation profit = income - (expenses+cost of goods sold).
There are three way to run authenticator;
$6.50 hardware device
App on a smart phone
App on an android simulator on your computer.
There are three ways to run it; two of which are free. The only reason to buy the dongle is for convenience.
Income is not the same as profit. They sold for $6.50 but it cost Blizzard much more to purchase and ship them. From a financial statement point of view making no profit from a sale is bad for the company yet Blizzard is still doing it to support their customers.
A friend of mine got hacked three times. Blizzard sent him an authenticator for free. It costs them less to send the free authenticator that keep fixing his account.
This is just someone trying to make money on a frivolous law suit.
Sure one can come up with a highly unlikely convoluted scenario that may cause issues. In fact this "issue" has a simple solution; Toshiba sends the PC person the real manual and tells them to print a retraction as that is not what Toshiba published.
A convoluted highly unlikely scenario that has never occurred is not a reason to cause issues for thousands of people who own older equipment.
Copyright laws protect creative and artistic works. To me the collection of facts on how a printer operates is no more creative than the collection of phone numbers in a phone book.
That would seem simple for you who is familiar with computers and selection keys. There are people who would be confused by that process. It is much simpler to be able to touch the name,select it and press another button to confirm it.
By the way you example is way off as everyone knows words are made up of letters and votes are not. One does not vote for down, down right, down, up, confirm; one votes for Mr Brown.
It is a problem but much less of one. Say there is space on the screen for 25 buttons on each side. That would limit the number of possibilities to 50. With a soft button one could have four columns of 25 lines so a maximum of 100 possibilities. There is a maximum but the maximum for soft buttons is much higher.
Sorry but this technology will not work in panels mounted flat to the roof as they require sun tracking to work.
How many candidates do you design for? 2? 10? 20? Voting machines are used in many different elections. In municipal and county election there can be many candidates for things like school boards.
And one could run out of buttons with enough candidates. The machines are used for elections other than national ones.
And when there are 20 different aldermen or 7 different presidential candidates to vote for it is possible to run out of buttons. A long as there is room on the screen another soft button can be added. One should not have to go to a second page as anyone on that second page would have a valid argument they their name was less visible than the others. There is no way to ensure that the number of hard buttons will not run out.
You have one inalienable right with any merchant, online or brick and mortar; Don't shop there. If the terms of service are not to your liking just walk away. Enough people do that and the terms will change. It is not a defense to say "I didn't read the TOS" just as it is not a defense to say "I didn't know it was illegal".
They needed a check box on their signup page to deal with TOS acceptance but it is not up to the site to attempt to force people to read. If consumers do not read the TOSit is their choice and they bear the consequences.
I looked at the registration page for Zappos. It doesn't even have a "I have read and agreed to the terms of service" check box. It would seem to me that any personal info would only be related to the people registered so the registration page should have had this box.
And you even have less potential damage from wave motion or humidity compared to container ships.
That is true but the issues are just different. Takeoff and landing during significant winds. Storms and the difficulty in getting around them. Wind shears and hail that can destroy a dirigible in flight. The US Navy lost a couple of their blimps due to storms. It is possible to avoid storms but then that makes blimp reliability a lot lower. The humidity issue is just false. There is a lot of humidity in the clouds.
On one hand there are some people who only read the summary and do not go to the site so the site loses some revenue.
On the other hand there are articles that would never be found without Google indexing them and displaying the summary so when the person clicks the site it gains some revenue.
It seems to balance pretty well to me
We could also be driving 1957 Volvo's which would be pretty save, though gas guzzling, today. Old does not necessarily mean unsafe.
I didn't say to accept my statement; I merely said not to accept the unsupported statement of an expert as experts have been wrong.
Again, you are not a trained police or security officer. Many have been injured or killed because they assumed that a mild altercation was safe and that a suspect who did not have a visible weapon was not going to harm them.
and they certainly didn't need to search his belongings after he was handcuffed and completely dominated,
So the keys in his back pocket or the pocket on his backpack which can not be searched properly because it is attached to him. Handcuff keys are universal so the officer putting them on does not need to be there to take them off. The reason they searched his belongings is unknown to you as you are not a psychic. If you had been a peace officer you would know that anyone in custody must be searched. This is another example of your lack of understanding of arrest procedures.
No, it is not fact, but it is more likely than not an accurate analysis
Is "likely" enough for one to pass judgement on the actions of another? I look at it as if I was on a criminal jury and "likely" certainly does not pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
Here is a quote about the Supreme Court and First Sale Doctrine:
The doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 109. In the Bobbs-Merrill case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy's department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill's consent. The Supreme Court held that the exclusive statutory right to "vend" applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work.
All that needs to be decided is if First Sale Doctrine applies to sales made outside the US. If it is, any EUlA restricting sales after the first sale would be invalid.
I take anything said by anyone with a grain of salt especially when there is no supporting evidence. There is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". To put it succinctly, without evidence statements from anyone, even an expert in the field, may be false. All I am saying is that a statement from anyone, even a lawyer needs to be questioned. without evidence I must rely on the reputation of the lawyer. The fact he is a lawyer does not impress me and I do not know him personally so I do not take his opinion as fact.People need to think for themselves and not allow titles to turn opinion into fact.