You're totally missing the point. Police go after people possessing part of a dead plant to combat the production of said plant. Police go after possession of child pornography to combat the production of child pornography. Theoretically, by making the possession of child pornography more dangerous, they are reducing the value of it. Which in turn reduces the demand for production and thus the value inherent in producing it.
Sure and the devices were niche devices. App devs had to distribute and advertise totally on their own. There was little common infrastructure for getting software. I had a Palm Zire 71 and I remember having such a hard time finding good apps to run on the damn thing. If it had a "root" account or custom ROM capability, I didn't notice because I don't care about those things. My goal then (as it is now with my iPod Touch) was to consume music and video and occasionally browse the internet and play a few games. The Zire wasn't very good at any of those things. On the other hand I love my iPod, it does exactly what I want it to!
It doesn't matter how much you think it *should* cost to run a software repository. It doesn't matter how much the App Store *actually* costs to run. It's Apple's store and they can charge what they want. You (and anyone else) are legally free to circumvent their trusted computing model and install software without using the App Store. Or you can not purchase an iOS device in the first place. I know it may be hard to believe, but there are actually many competing brands of tablets and smartphones, most of which run a gem of open source software known as Android.
I don't believe that's enough. This tactic is obviously designed to make new game buyers feel like value has been added to the games they buy. Language like "FREE BONUS MISSIONS DLC" make the (new copy) buyer feel like they got lucky or they're getting a good deal. Personally I'd say the typical game buyer is pretty dumb, definitely not the typical slashdot reader.
F2P game companies like free players because they significantly increase the player base (which of course increases the value of the game in general). They just like paying players a helluva lot more.
You could look at it like that. But then you can't ignore that what many publishers are doing is taking content that would traditionally be part of the initial release (e.g. the single player) and turning it into "bonus DLC". Whatever the hell they want to call it, it was part of the initial sale and pretending that the game publisher was being nice by giving you free shit along with your purchase is disingenuous. There have been a few publicized cases where the "day-1 bonus DLC" was developed alongside the original game and even included on the game disk. This is simply yet another method that game publishers are trying to use to (sneakily) increase game prices and get more money per original sale. They're using this bonus content code method as opposed to just making new games cost $80 because [1] it pisses off the original new copy purchaser less (at least in the short term - eventually people will realize that the trade-in value of these hobbled games is severely reduced) and [2] the publisher gets to pretend that they've added value to the new copies (in the form of FREE BONUS DLC!!!) when in fact they've reduced it.
I have not argued that Mr Kauser broke UK law. Someone else in this thread posted a link to a relevant section of published UK law that seems to define the possession of information that could be used to make things like bombs as a crime. My point has been that such a prejudgement, with what both I and the US legal system (generally) seems to consider to be an insufficient body of evidence to prove intent, goes beyond justice into the realm of thoughtcrime. Were I a citizen of the UK I would contact my representatives to voice protest both for this verdict and the existence of the relevant law. I do not believe it is morally right and just to send an individual to prison simply because of the information they have sought out or possess.
Furthermore, the 4S has a higher resolution camera than previous phones, and the launch of the iCloud service means people are probably uploading things like photos to their cloud storage accounts. +1 TFA is a troll.
I've responded to the possession of information elsewhere, so I'll sum up here.
No I don't think possession of that information is anything close to provable intent. I once downloaded something along the lines of the Anarchist Cookbook simply out of morbid curiosity. I've certainly never intended on blowing anyone up. As I recall it also described places to buy assault rifles and how to defend against a police raid. Hell whatever I read also had some bits about dismembering your neighbor's pets that I found quite sickening. I promptly deleted it and I doubt I'll ever go looking for something like that again. Possessing information like that, easily obtainable or otherwise, in no way (and in no sane legal system) amounts to proof of intent.
The typical reasons for pleading guilty (at least in US courts) are that you have either struck a deal with the prosecution and will receive a reduced sentence or you do not believe you have any hope of defending yourself and receiving a not guilty verdict. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Kauser received a reduced sentence in exchange for the guilty plea, especially considering how far the case seems to have been stacked against him.
(This has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread) The word "Jihad" does not by any means refer solely to violence or attacks [wikipedia.org]. As typically happens when one culture has come to fear aspects of another culture, the concept of Jihad has been twisted by western culture to mean terrorist attacks and violence. There is no evidence in the aforementioned letter that the writer (who may not have even been Asim) was intending to commit illegal acts, violent or otherwise. His use of the word Jihad is not different than a devote Catholic stating that he intends to Crusade for the purity of faith. The word Crusade has historical context to mean violent holy wars, but it can indicate a struggle in the abstract sense. Taking either statement as a sign of violent intent is a level of reactionary fear that frankly I find quite disturbing.
Knowing and possession of information are the same thing. There is no way you can argue a difference between having knowledge and possessing knowledge. Some people have photographic memories, and will remember everything they read. Some people have awful memories, and must have absolutely everything written down. Having information in written form is functionally no different than having it totally memorized.
If you really to force some awful car analogy then I believe it would be more accurate to compare having the Anarchist's Cookbook to owning a car that can exceed the speed limit. Even if I possess information that could be used to kill people, I'm not a danger to anyone unless I am actually trying to kill people. If I am using my knowledge of bombs to build bombs then I am breaking the law. Sure I could say that I never intended to set them off. If I was caught speeding I could say that I was being extra careful not to crash into anyway. In both cases, I crossed a line that is set forth in law. I went beyond a level of capability into committing an action that is forbidden by the law.
Have you ever read something like the Anarchist's Cookbook? Google it. I personally read something that I downloaded ages ago simply out of morbid curiosity. In addition to instructions for assembling basic homemade bombs it also had suggestions on where to buy assault rifles, what kinds of weapons you should have in case the police come knocking on your door, how to stab people with a knife to kill them as quickly as possible... When I found this pdf online was I fully prepared for what it might contain? God no, the parts about how to kill and skin you neighbor's pets made me sick to my stomach. Have I ever planned to shoot, stab, blow up, or otherwise maim anyone around me based on information I obtained in that pdf? Hell no! In fact, it occurred to me while I was reading it that if someone else saw it on my computer they might get freaked out and call the cops, so I deleted it. Needless to say my curiosity was more than satisfied and I have no plans ever to download that sort of thing again.
Furthermore (and this has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread), the word "Jihad" does not by any means refer solely to violence or attacks. As typically happens when one culture has come to fear aspects of another culture, the concept of Jihad has been twisted by western culture to mean terrorist attacks and violence. There is no evidence in the aforementioned letter that the writer (who may not have even been Asim) was intending to commit illegal acts, violent or otherwise. His use of the word Jihad is not different than a devote Catholic stating that he intends to Crusade for the purity of faith. The word Crusade has historical context to mean violent holy wars, but it can indicate a struggle in the abstract sense. Taking either statement as a sign of violent intent is a level of reactionary fear that frankly I find quite disturbing.
Sure, steam *can* be cracked, but most people don't want to risk their steam account for one game they could buy for 5 dollars. They'll take that risk for portal2 for 60 bucks, but not for a game you're selling for 5 or 10.
In no way is there any evidence that you will be Steam banned for playing games cracked with a Steam emulator. If you're actually running some modified version of the Steam client, that is a totally different matter since that probably involves fraud with the Steam system itself. Also, Portal 2's launch price was $50 and I preordered it for $45. In October I gifted a copy to someone for $15.
This is the truth. To date I own nearly a hundred games on Steam. I'm still an occasional pirate, primarily of games that are not on Steam. I pirated Gears of War because it's not on Steam. I originally pirated Bioshock and Mass Effect, yet now I own them on Steam because I saw they were on sale one day and I liked them a lot so I figured they deserved money. I bought Dragon Age yet I pirated all the DLC because I didn't feel like dealing with EA's shitty DLC purchasing system. Fuck them and their "Bioware Points" horseshit, that's a great way to get me to not pay for something.
What makes you think consumers are being tricked? The fact that they are googling "cheap uggs" in the first place is an indication that some (or many) people don't want to pay the high price of the "official" footwear. From what I've read, the majority of counterfeit clothing comes from the same assembly line as the brand name stuff. Why should a consumer care if the designer sanctioned a pair of shoes or not? Especially if the designer-sanctioned shoes cost five times as much as the alternatives. This is not a problem for the consumer.
I've often wondered why people put so much confidence in online product reviews. I don't personally known anyone who regularly reviews things that they buy online and personally the only time I review is if I had a notably poor experience. I would have to imagine that the majority of the good reviews on anything would likely be a combination of paid astroturfers and people who review for a perks. Likewise I would imagine that the majority of the bad reviews were only posted because the reviewer had a notably bad experience (and either wanted revenge on the product or felt a need to caution others). Thus it is my habit to totally ignore positive reviews and look at bad reviews for widespread issues.
No really, I googled Windows Phone 7 Requires Carrier Updates and got a mess of results describing how the carriers are not compelled to release updates in a timely manner (or at all, really). Regardless of what MS said they were going to require, it would appear they've caved to pressure from the carriers and changed their official position on the matter.
Did you miss that this memo is supposed to have come from the Indian government? Though I do have to wonder why internal government communication in India is written in English...
Slashdot Mirror
You're totally missing the point. Police go after people possessing part of a dead plant to combat the production of said plant. Police go after possession of child pornography to combat the production of child pornography. Theoretically, by making the possession of child pornography more dangerous, they are reducing the value of it. Which in turn reduces the demand for production and thus the value inherent in producing it.
I'm also going to suggest that a NES chipset produces a great deal less heat (and thus undergoes significantly less thermal stress) than a PS3 GPU.
Sure and the devices were niche devices. App devs had to distribute and advertise totally on their own. There was little common infrastructure for getting software. I had a Palm Zire 71 and I remember having such a hard time finding good apps to run on the damn thing. If it had a "root" account or custom ROM capability, I didn't notice because I don't care about those things. My goal then (as it is now with my iPod Touch) was to consume music and video and occasionally browse the internet and play a few games. The Zire wasn't very good at any of those things. On the other hand I love my iPod, it does exactly what I want it to!
It doesn't matter how much you think it *should* cost to run a software repository. It doesn't matter how much the App Store *actually* costs to run. It's Apple's store and they can charge what they want. You (and anyone else) are legally free to circumvent their trusted computing model and install software without using the App Store. Or you can not purchase an iOS device in the first place. I know it may be hard to believe, but there are actually many competing brands of tablets and smartphones, most of which run a gem of open source software known as Android.
I don't believe that's enough. This tactic is obviously designed to make new game buyers feel like value has been added to the games they buy. Language like "FREE BONUS MISSIONS DLC" make the (new copy) buyer feel like they got lucky or they're getting a good deal. Personally I'd say the typical game buyer is pretty dumb, definitely not the typical slashdot reader.
F2P game companies like free players because they significantly increase the player base (which of course increases the value of the game in general). They just like paying players a helluva lot more.
You could look at it like that. But then you can't ignore that what many publishers are doing is taking content that would traditionally be part of the initial release (e.g. the single player) and turning it into "bonus DLC". Whatever the hell they want to call it, it was part of the initial sale and pretending that the game publisher was being nice by giving you free shit along with your purchase is disingenuous. There have been a few publicized cases where the "day-1 bonus DLC" was developed alongside the original game and even included on the game disk. This is simply yet another method that game publishers are trying to use to (sneakily) increase game prices and get more money per original sale. They're using this bonus content code method as opposed to just making new games cost $80 because [1] it pisses off the original new copy purchaser less (at least in the short term - eventually people will realize that the trade-in value of these hobbled games is severely reduced) and [2] the publisher gets to pretend that they've added value to the new copies (in the form of FREE BONUS DLC!!!) when in fact they've reduced it.
I have not argued that Mr Kauser broke UK law. Someone else in this thread posted a link to a relevant section of published UK law that seems to define the possession of information that could be used to make things like bombs as a crime. My point has been that such a prejudgement, with what both I and the US legal system (generally) seems to consider to be an insufficient body of evidence to prove intent, goes beyond justice into the realm of thoughtcrime. Were I a citizen of the UK I would contact my representatives to voice protest both for this verdict and the existence of the relevant law. I do not believe it is morally right and just to send an individual to prison simply because of the information they have sought out or possess.
Furthermore, the 4S has a higher resolution camera than previous phones, and the launch of the iCloud service means people are probably uploading things like photos to their cloud storage accounts. +1 TFA is a troll.
I've responded to the possession of information elsewhere, so I'll sum up here.
No I don't think possession of that information is anything close to provable intent. I once downloaded something along the lines of the Anarchist Cookbook simply out of morbid curiosity. I've certainly never intended on blowing anyone up. As I recall it also described places to buy assault rifles and how to defend against a police raid. Hell whatever I read also had some bits about dismembering your neighbor's pets that I found quite sickening. I promptly deleted it and I doubt I'll ever go looking for something like that again. Possessing information like that, easily obtainable or otherwise, in no way (and in no sane legal system) amounts to proof of intent.
The typical reasons for pleading guilty (at least in US courts) are that you have either struck a deal with the prosecution and will receive a reduced sentence or you do not believe you have any hope of defending yourself and receiving a not guilty verdict. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Kauser received a reduced sentence in exchange for the guilty plea, especially considering how far the case seems to have been stacked against him.
(This has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread) The word "Jihad" does not by any means refer solely to violence or attacks [wikipedia.org]. As typically happens when one culture has come to fear aspects of another culture, the concept of Jihad has been twisted by western culture to mean terrorist attacks and violence. There is no evidence in the aforementioned letter that the writer (who may not have even been Asim) was intending to commit illegal acts, violent or otherwise. His use of the word Jihad is not different than a devote Catholic stating that he intends to Crusade for the purity of faith. The word Crusade has historical context to mean violent holy wars, but it can indicate a struggle in the abstract sense. Taking either statement as a sign of violent intent is a level of reactionary fear that frankly I find quite disturbing.
Knowing and possession of information are the same thing. There is no way you can argue a difference between having knowledge and possessing knowledge. Some people have photographic memories, and will remember everything they read. Some people have awful memories, and must have absolutely everything written down. Having information in written form is functionally no different than having it totally memorized.
If you really to force some awful car analogy then I believe it would be more accurate to compare having the Anarchist's Cookbook to owning a car that can exceed the speed limit. Even if I possess information that could be used to kill people, I'm not a danger to anyone unless I am actually trying to kill people. If I am using my knowledge of bombs to build bombs then I am breaking the law. Sure I could say that I never intended to set them off. If I was caught speeding I could say that I was being extra careful not to crash into anyway. In both cases, I crossed a line that is set forth in law. I went beyond a level of capability into committing an action that is forbidden by the law.
Have you ever read something like the Anarchist's Cookbook? Google it. I personally read something that I downloaded ages ago simply out of morbid curiosity. In addition to instructions for assembling basic homemade bombs it also had suggestions on where to buy assault rifles, what kinds of weapons you should have in case the police come knocking on your door, how to stab people with a knife to kill them as quickly as possible... When I found this pdf online was I fully prepared for what it might contain? God no, the parts about how to kill and skin you neighbor's pets made me sick to my stomach. Have I ever planned to shoot, stab, blow up, or otherwise maim anyone around me based on information I obtained in that pdf? Hell no! In fact, it occurred to me while I was reading it that if someone else saw it on my computer they might get freaked out and call the cops, so I deleted it. Needless to say my curiosity was more than satisfied and I have no plans ever to download that sort of thing again.
Furthermore (and this has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread), the word "Jihad" does not by any means refer solely to violence or attacks. As typically happens when one culture has come to fear aspects of another culture, the concept of Jihad has been twisted by western culture to mean terrorist attacks and violence. There is no evidence in the aforementioned letter that the writer (who may not have even been Asim) was intending to commit illegal acts, violent or otherwise. His use of the word Jihad is not different than a devote Catholic stating that he intends to Crusade for the purity of faith. The word Crusade has historical context to mean violent holy wars, but it can indicate a struggle in the abstract sense. Taking either statement as a sign of violent intent is a level of reactionary fear that frankly I find quite disturbing.
And as a bonus, you'll enjoy a great deal more reliability than the Ford!
Sure, steam *can* be cracked, but most people don't want to risk their steam account for one game they could buy for 5 dollars. They'll take that risk for portal2 for 60 bucks, but not for a game you're selling for 5 or 10.
In no way is there any evidence that you will be Steam banned for playing games cracked with a Steam emulator. If you're actually running some modified version of the Steam client, that is a totally different matter since that probably involves fraud with the Steam system itself. Also, Portal 2's launch price was $50 and I preordered it for $45. In October I gifted a copy to someone for $15.
This is the truth. To date I own nearly a hundred games on Steam. I'm still an occasional pirate, primarily of games that are not on Steam. I pirated Gears of War because it's not on Steam. I originally pirated Bioshock and Mass Effect, yet now I own them on Steam because I saw they were on sale one day and I liked them a lot so I figured they deserved money. I bought Dragon Age yet I pirated all the DLC because I didn't feel like dealing with EA's shitty DLC purchasing system. Fuck them and their "Bioware Points" horseshit, that's a great way to get me to not pay for something.
http://europeforvisitors.com/venice/articles/illegal-street-vendors.htm
http://www.q2hoo.com/2009/07/shanghai-fake-designer-bag-stores.htm
http://tightwadsurvivalguide.com/HowtoTellAuthenticDesignerClothingandPursesfromFakes.aspx
http://shops.st701.com/resources/index.php?c=article&aid=29992&title=$189-for-a-$1,000-dress?-Copy-that
What makes you think consumers are being tricked? The fact that they are googling "cheap uggs" in the first place is an indication that some (or many) people don't want to pay the high price of the "official" footwear. From what I've read, the majority of counterfeit clothing comes from the same assembly line as the brand name stuff. Why should a consumer care if the designer sanctioned a pair of shoes or not? Especially if the designer-sanctioned shoes cost five times as much as the alternatives. This is not a problem for the consumer.
Isn't PBS still controlled by the republicans?
+1 Insightfully Funny
I've often wondered why people put so much confidence in online product reviews. I don't personally known anyone who regularly reviews things that they buy online and personally the only time I review is if I had a notably poor experience. I would have to imagine that the majority of the good reviews on anything would likely be a combination of paid astroturfers and people who review for a perks. Likewise I would imagine that the majority of the bad reviews were only posted because the reviewer had a notably bad experience (and either wanted revenge on the product or felt a need to caution others). Thus it is my habit to totally ignore positive reviews and look at bad reviews for widespread issues.
[citation needed]
No really, I googled Windows Phone 7 Requires Carrier Updates and got a mess of results describing how the carriers are not compelled to release updates in a timely manner (or at all, really). Regardless of what MS said they were going to require, it would appear they've caved to pressure from the carriers and changed their official position on the matter.
Did you miss that this memo is supposed to have come from the Indian government? Though I do have to wonder why internal government communication in India is written in English...