If there's a reasonable expectation that every copy of the game includes this coupon and Gamestop are removing it, are they committing fraud or theft or something?
Is GameStop advertising that those coupons are in the package but then not having them present when sold? No, they don't. Thus, what fraud is being committed?
Either from the consumer or from Square-Enix? I mean, surely Square-Enix must have a civil case here - and it's almost at the kind of level where it starts to sound criminal (if it happened in the UK at least).
Why would Square-Enix have a case? Was GameStop contractually obligated to have the coupons present in the package? That's highly doubtful.
So to "succeed" they need to either make no money or lose money while Apple, even with lower market share, will still command strong sales and great profit margins. That sounds familiar. Oh right, it's just like how Apple has maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the world smart phone market share yet pulls in 2/3 of the profit. Will these people never learn that a race to the bottom and razor thin margins is not the way to run business? Meanwhile, Apple will have strong profits and will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Huh? I ran the exact same program in Ubuntu and the same behavior happened. The file I opened was not able to be renamed, replaced or moved until I unlocked it. What the hell are you talking about?
No, actually it has nothing to do with Windows at all. The part you glossed over points out that I wrote a simple trivial program in C that opened a file and put a lock on it. It was not over a network or anything else, yet it was unable to be renamed, moved or replaced. There are plenty of other OS X and Linux apps that I have used that have exactly the same behavior with files they are working on. Basically this has jack and shit to do with Windows despite what you and h4rr4r will continue to claim.
Try renaming/moving a file while it's still being downloaded, or a movie while it's being played.
Okay, I tried it both on Windows and Ubuntu. Behavior was the exact same. It couldn't be moved or renamed since Firefox hold a lock on the file. So, once again. Why is this Windows fault?
Because absolute no fuel is used in the production of the paper nor the shipping of those manuals now? Right... Oh and let's ignore the duplicated cost of shipping those new manuals every time there is a reprint whereas there is no subsequent fuel cost to push out new electronic versions.
Then again I do live in Texas so reality might be effecting my perceptions.
Apparently you must also be blind then. Houston, Dallas and San Antonio are always in either the top 10 or at least within the top 15 of any "Fattest cities" lists.
But...but...it has to be a Windows problem despite the fact that what they complain about can also happen in Linux and Unix and Mac OS X. Hell even the complaints about not being able to rename or move open files in Windows is wrong. These people basically have no clue what they are talking about.
This behavior doesn't exist on OS X, nor did it in Mac OS (as far back as I can remember).
Really? Because I wrote a trivial C program and ran it on OS X where I opened a file with an exclusive write lock and the file couldn't be replaced.
As a user, your logic makes no sense to me. There are plenty of good reasons (behind the scenes technical reasons?) why the OS should make it harder for me to accomplish work?
Why does it not make sense? Do you as a user not want consistent data? Do you never work in an environment where files are shared and you don't want others overwriting your changes? These are not uncommon situations in the least bit. And yet, to handle all these you *gasp* have to put exclusive write locks on files. Apps for both OS X and Linux do this as well. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything that Windows does.
So to test, I was able to do this in Windows. Created a txt file, opened it twice, once in Notepad another time in Notepad++, was able to rename it and move it. So what's your issue?
Really? It's a short coming of Windows yet I created a txt file, opened it in Notepad and Notepad++ and I was able to both rename and move it. I guess I once again have a magical version of Windows.
And exactly which OS(es) allows you to rename or move files that have write exclusive locks on them? Because, from what I can see this has, again, nothing to do with Windows.
There are plenty of retarded reasons but I can't think of any good ones
And that means something why? Because you're the sole arbiter of what is good and what is not? Oh wait, your opinion means jack and shit.
All I've ever seen file locking achieve is annoying users and fscking up the system when it fails so you have to reboot to clear the stuck locks.
You do realize that any time you open a file for writing you are almost always given an exclusive write lock on it, correct? Behavior that pretty much all OSes have had for 30+ years?
Then so sad that damn near every program uses them I guess.
Why would it be sad? Do you care nothing about consistency of your data or do you never deal with synchronization? Since plenty of apps for Linux, Unix, Mac OS X, etc also have the exact same behavior I'm still failing to see why this is lumped in as some sort of Windows issue. It's trivially easy to write a C program to do this on any OS. Just open a file with exclusive write access and you won't be able to overwrite the file unless your OS is buggy or stupidly written.
Because you say so? There are plenty of good reasons that a piece of software would want a write lock on a file so that someone else can't replace the file. Synchronization is a prime example. Secondly, exactly what does this have to do with Windows when the same behavior exists on virtually every other OS.
How about what? You've always been able to replace open files as long as their is no write lock on the file. In fact I just did so with a half dozen files. Apparently I have a magic version of Windows. Oh wait, I don't. And the behavior is no different than any other OS that will not allow you to replace a file that has a write lock on it.
This is not about safety it is about protecting profits for those companies. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Yeah, it must be. I mean it's not like it's fraudulent that many of these pharmacies were claiming to sell name-brand drugs but were instead selling people fakes. Oh wait, it is.
Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies.
Wrong, they were taking ads from unlicensed Canadian pharmacies as well which is why once the investigation found this out that Google put in a requirement that all Canadian pharmacies had to be certified by the Canadian International Pharmacy Association.
The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).
You might have a case for this if not for the fact that Google was already blocking Canadian pharmacies from US users some time before the investigation even happened. No, what they were not happy with was the fact that many of these unlicensed pharmacies were claiming to sell brand-name drugs but in fact were selling counterfeits. Which is *gasp* fraud and is illegal.
Second, if merely accepting ads from unkosher sources commits a crime, then why the hell haven't the major broadcast networks gotten the smack-down for showing a non-stop string of crapvertisements from the likes of such blatant frauds as Enzyte and Head On?
Oh. Right. "Online", the magic word that makes everything old new and illegal again.
The FTC has gone after people for this before. But, hey, don't do the two seconds of Google searching to find this out.
You do realize that the attraction of most sports bars is both the sports and scantily-clad women waiters, in some cases topless, right? Oh right, that would involve actually leaving the basement.
Wow, some loser must be bored to be modding me down as troll for something that isn't even remotely trolling. If you want to be so lame go ahead, I have plenty of reserve karma.
So the developers are bad because they give the users what they asked for?
No, they are bad because they've given the users a shitty version of what they asked for. Throwing a bunch of shit together is not what anyone asked for.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose it depends on whether the coupon is advertised anywhere.
GameStop does not advertise the coupon as being part of the sold package.
Actually, IANAL, but is there a legal issue here?
No, why would there be?
If there's a reasonable expectation that every copy of the game includes this coupon and Gamestop are removing it, are they committing fraud or theft or something?
Is GameStop advertising that those coupons are in the package but then not having them present when sold? No, they don't. Thus, what fraud is being committed?
Either from the consumer or from Square-Enix? I mean, surely Square-Enix must have a civil case here - and it's almost at the kind of level where it starts to sound criminal (if it happened in the UK at least).
Why would Square-Enix have a case? Was GameStop contractually obligated to have the coupons present in the package? That's highly doubtful.
at break-even or a loss to succeed
So to "succeed" they need to either make no money or lose money while Apple, even with lower market share, will still command strong sales and great profit margins. That sounds familiar. Oh right, it's just like how Apple has maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the world smart phone market share yet pulls in 2/3 of the profit. Will these people never learn that a race to the bottom and razor thin margins is not the way to run business? Meanwhile, Apple will have strong profits and will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Huh? I ran the exact same program in Ubuntu and the same behavior happened. The file I opened was not able to be renamed, replaced or moved until I unlocked it. What the hell are you talking about?
Windows sucks in this regard...period.
No, actually it has nothing to do with Windows at all. The part you glossed over points out that I wrote a simple trivial program in C that opened a file and put a lock on it. It was not over a network or anything else, yet it was unable to be renamed, moved or replaced. There are plenty of other OS X and Linux apps that I have used that have exactly the same behavior with files they are working on. Basically this has jack and shit to do with Windows despite what you and h4rr4r will continue to claim.
Try renaming/moving a file while it's still being downloaded, or a movie while it's being played.
Okay, I tried it both on Windows and Ubuntu. Behavior was the exact same. It couldn't be moved or renamed since Firefox hold a lock on the file. So, once again. Why is this Windows fault?
Except for the fact that these iPads are in no way connected to the plane's electronics? Are you a moron or what?
Because absolute no fuel is used in the production of the paper nor the shipping of those manuals now? Right... Oh and let's ignore the duplicated cost of shipping those new manuals every time there is a reprint whereas there is no subsequent fuel cost to push out new electronic versions.
Then again I do live in Texas so reality might be effecting my perceptions.
Apparently you must also be blind then. Houston, Dallas and San Antonio are always in either the top 10 or at least within the top 15 of any "Fattest cities" lists.
But...but...it has to be a Windows problem despite the fact that what they complain about can also happen in Linux and Unix and Mac OS X. Hell even the complaints about not being able to rename or move open files in Windows is wrong. These people basically have no clue what they are talking about.
This behavior doesn't exist on OS X, nor did it in Mac OS (as far back as I can remember).
Really? Because I wrote a trivial C program and ran it on OS X where I opened a file with an exclusive write lock and the file couldn't be replaced.
As a user, your logic makes no sense to me. There are plenty of good reasons (behind the scenes technical reasons?) why the OS should make it harder for me to accomplish work?
Why does it not make sense? Do you as a user not want consistent data? Do you never work in an environment where files are shared and you don't want others overwriting your changes? These are not uncommon situations in the least bit. And yet, to handle all these you *gasp* have to put exclusive write locks on files. Apps for both OS X and Linux do this as well. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything that Windows does.
So to test, I was able to do this in Windows. Created a txt file, opened it twice, once in Notepad another time in Notepad++, was able to rename it and move it. So what's your issue?
Really? It's a short coming of Windows yet I created a txt file, opened it in Notepad and Notepad++ and I was able to both rename and move it. I guess I once again have a magical version of Windows.
And exactly which OS(es) allows you to rename or move files that have write exclusive locks on them? Because, from what I can see this has, again, nothing to do with Windows.
There are plenty of retarded reasons but I can't think of any good ones
And that means something why? Because you're the sole arbiter of what is good and what is not? Oh wait, your opinion means jack and shit.
All I've ever seen file locking achieve is annoying users and fscking up the system when it fails so you have to reboot to clear the stuck locks.
You do realize that any time you open a file for writing you are almost always given an exclusive write lock on it, correct? Behavior that pretty much all OSes have had for 30+ years?
Then so sad that damn near every program uses them I guess.
Why would it be sad? Do you care nothing about consistency of your data or do you never deal with synchronization? Since plenty of apps for Linux, Unix, Mac OS X, etc also have the exact same behavior I'm still failing to see why this is lumped in as some sort of Windows issue. It's trivially easy to write a C program to do this on any OS. Just open a file with exclusive write access and you won't be able to overwrite the file unless your OS is buggy or stupidly written.
There's never a good reason for that,
Because you say so? There are plenty of good reasons that a piece of software would want a write lock on a file so that someone else can't replace the file. Synchronization is a prime example. Secondly, exactly what does this have to do with Windows when the same behavior exists on virtually every other OS.
How about replacing an open file?
How about what? You've always been able to replace open files as long as their is no write lock on the file. In fact I just did so with a half dozen files. Apparently I have a magic version of Windows. Oh wait, I don't. And the behavior is no different than any other OS that will not allow you to replace a file that has a write lock on it.
Sure except for the fact that your conspiracy theory is squashed by:
“We banned the advertising of prescription drugs in the U.S. by Canadian pharmacies some time ago,” Google said in a statement Wednesday.
From here. So, no, that really wasn't the issue.
This is not about safety it is about protecting profits for those companies. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
Yeah, it must be. I mean it's not like it's fraudulent that many of these pharmacies were claiming to sell name-brand drugs but were instead selling people fakes. Oh wait, it is.
Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies.
Wrong, they were taking ads from unlicensed Canadian pharmacies as well which is why once the investigation found this out that Google put in a requirement that all Canadian pharmacies had to be certified by the Canadian International Pharmacy Association.
The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).
You might have a case for this if not for the fact that Google was already blocking Canadian pharmacies from US users some time before the investigation even happened. No, what they were not happy with was the fact that many of these unlicensed pharmacies were claiming to sell brand-name drugs but in fact were selling counterfeits. Which is *gasp* fraud and is illegal.
Second, if merely accepting ads from unkosher sources commits a crime, then why the hell haven't the major broadcast networks gotten the smack-down for showing a non-stop string of crapvertisements from the likes of such blatant frauds as Enzyte and Head On?
Oh. Right. "Online", the magic word that makes everything old new and illegal again.
The FTC has gone after people for this before. But, hey, don't do the two seconds of Google searching to find this out.
Bring back PizzaAnalogyGuy! He had real promise as an up-and-coming troll, but sadly fizzled out too quickly.
You do realize that the attraction of most sports bars is both the sports and scantily-clad women waiters, in some cases topless, right? Oh right, that would involve actually leaving the basement.
Wow, some loser must be bored to be modding me down as troll for something that isn't even remotely trolling. If you want to be so lame go ahead, I have plenty of reserve karma.
So the developers are bad because they give the users what they asked for?
No, they are bad because they've given the users a shitty version of what they asked for. Throwing a bunch of shit together is not what anyone asked for.
What jailbreaking? The device mentioned in the summary is an Android device. What does Apple have to do with this?