Indeed, the same extends to most markets. Even for digital-only distribution items. It's not uncommon to see software in Aus/NZ priced at 3-4x the American cost, taking into account currency differences. Take the EA Origin store for example. Almost any software on it costs 3x as much to buy "down under", on the equivalent store (eg, EA Origin NZ store vs EA Origin US store).
The common hillbilly reply to this situation is "well if you don't like it then make your own software!" Really? A company whose entire population is less than an average sized US city should be producing AAA software titles as well as taking care of all other sectors? Actually, NZ (and Aus) does produce software - they just don't charge Americans more to use it.;) I understand completely that, in the example above, EA has every right to charge whatever they want to. But pricing gamers out of the store only discourages purchasing and encourages piracy.
If Dead Space 2 costs NZD$23 on the US store, and NZD$89 on the NZ store, for digital-only copies, it's price gouging. No (sane) person would pay $89 for that game, so they now have three choices - buy a physical retail copy (cheaper), buy it from a competing online service (eg, Direct2Drive, Steam, etc, which sell EAs own games cheaper), or pirating it. By the actions taken, EA has guaranteed the one choice people won't make, is to actually buy it directly from EA, the method by which EA would make the most profit even if priced at the same level as competing online services.
Anyhow, I'm getting off-topic. This behaviour is fairly common. Apple used to charge approx 4x as much for songs on the Aus iTunes store to the US version, even when the AUS$ was at parity or even worth more. Songs which cost 99c on the US store cost $3.99 on the Aus store. Thankfully they've largely brought this under control (because most folks took option 3 - just continue pirating songs rather than buying single songs at exorbitant prices). The sooner producers realise the more in-line prices are internationally, the more people will buy them. If Origin set its store prices the same for overseas customers as domestic customers, more overseas customers would use it. Apple saw the logic in this (although hasn't yet in their hardware department). More manufacturers need to follow suit.
Because they actually have the evidence. The issue is that it can't be released because they agreed the contents of his computers was confidential. They're now asking for that finding to be overturned so they can release the documents.
Because I prefer the Windows 7 interface and usability to Lion. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti Apple. I have and iPhone and a MacBook, but I still use Win7 for my daily personal use because I greatly prefer it. Consider, maybe, that different folks are.. different?:) What you prefer in an OS might not sit right with me at all, and vice versa. Life is only better "on the other side" if it's actually preferential to use.
I don't understand what you're getting at. He only made two real statements, neither of which yours seems to counter.
He said that developers need to create value that people are willing to pay for. Doom 3 sold well, despite it not living up to some's expectations, it certainly fulfilled this statement.
Then he said that indie developers take a snooty attitude about this approach (implying in context that, rather, indie developers believe every game DOES have to be something that's never been done before). This has no relation to Doom 3 at all.
It sounds like you're just taking the opportunity to bash Doom 3. Understand, Carmack is arguing here FOR on-rails shooters. He's saying that games don't need to be incredibly creative and new every time they get released, they just have to do their job - provide entertainment that people are willing to pay for. And you're arguing against that by marching out a game which... provides entertatinment that people were willing to pay for...
No, I don't think I did present that. What I presented was all the collateral damage that causes at no cost to the MPAA but at huge cost to the infrastructure of the internet.
How can that be a good thing by any means? "Deemed to be infringing" is extremely broad. I've had cease and desists sent to my own website for MP3s of my own music which I own entirely. With this law, they don't even need to attempt to prosecute me. They just file notice with the court that my domain is "infringing" and suddenly my hits go to 0. I have no right of reply as I've never been served.
I intend no personal insult, but you seem to forget that what the US courts deem as "infringing" draws no parallels to actual international copyright law. For example, a site which contains no pirated material but contains links to it, is considered as infringing under US copyright laws (see DMCA). If you haven't noticed, the MPAA and RIAA will stop at nothing and have no qualms about how many people they inconvenience. Baidu.cn contains an MP3 section. Does it host MP3s? No. Does that matter to a court which orders all ISPs to block access to Baidu as a result? Of course not.
This law like this gives the MPAA the legal right to have Google.com blocked until it removes all links to pirated material. I don't believe they'd hesitate for a second. Although TBH, they probably need it, in order to search for more meta sites which may or may not link to "deemed infringing" material. Like my personal music.
While of course, this horrific scenario may not occur, the point is, this will allow the MPAA to go nuts. They don't care if they knock out 10,000 sites like my own. They don't have to serve me, so there's no case to win. And when they get it wrong, I can't sue the MPAA, because the MPAA didn't make the "ruling", the court did.
They'll happily have Metacafe block because some video has a soundtrack they own, or have any NNTP Usenet provider closed because, despite all their legal offerings, they can be deemed to be serving infringing material. A Safe-Harbour doesn't apply here as they're not actually filing a DMCA takedown. They're just having the court look at all the pirated material and say "this means ISPs have to block them." Goodbye Giganews. I'm sure such sites can go through and remove all material deemed infringing, but exactly how do you go about doing this? MPAA doesn't care - they only have to prove one instance of pirated material. Yet before, say, Giganews can file an appeal, they have to go about removing all potentially infringing material from their usenet mirror? For that matter, how does Google go about removing all links to "potentially infringing" material from their servers?
Sorry yes, you're right I should have worded my original post differently. Something along the lines of "signed up for a service which says that you will be targetted with specific advertising in a multitude of forms and locations", and the priority inbox falls into the umbrella of services.
I agree that it's an unintentional side-effect. All Google mails being treated as priority messages. I was just trying to point out that he can't complain about receiving targetted advertising messages when he signed up for a service that says he'll receive targetted advertising messages.:)
17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other information.
17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.
17.3 In consideration for Google granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Google may place such advertising on the Services.
17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other information.
17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.
17.3 In consideration for Google granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Google may place such advertising on the Services.
For prosperity's sake, posted to his Blog.. wonder how long this will last:
---------
Interesting.. I point out that you signed up for a Google service which says you'll get priority Google emails by default when activated, and you complain when exactly that happens... And you delete my comment.
Perhaps think through your article again, taking this into account rather than just deleting comments pointing out the obvious. Or perhaps learn to read service agreements when signing up for services. For instance, this Google-owned blogger service which says they can delete any blog for any reason at any time.
You can't even claim they'd be silencing you, as when you signed up, you agreed to those very Terms of Service which say you have no right to an account and it can be removed for no purpose whatsoever.
You'll get a lot further with anti-Google bashing if you first of all actually read their Terms of Service before writing a blog post complaining that they supplied you with exactly what you asked for.
Interesting.. I posted a comment pointing out that the service agreement says he'll get Google mails as priority messages and that he can opt-out of them, and after it was up for a few minutes, he deleted the comment.
So pretty much, it is as above. He signed up for a service which says he'll get priority Google emails by default when activated, and then starts complaining that exactly that is happening. What a douche.
The service description says that Google mails will be prioritized by default. He VOLUNTARILY signed up for a service which says he'll receive priority mails from Google, and then complains that he receives priority mails from Google. Alas, most people are stupid and he'll probably get some air-time for his theory (and already has).
Google marks their own mails as important by default. Mark them as unimportant if you don't want them showing up. Whether it's a notice about daily deals, account changes, service notifications, whatever - their own mailing are marked as important to begin with. (Hey, it's their free service, after all). It even says this in the service details for priority inbox. This is a bunch of noise about nothing.
Coming up next: Blogger discovers Microsoft advertises their own services in ads on their sites more than other peoples ads...
While this is a large flare (from our perspective), it's fairly small historically. It just looks great because now we have hi-def video of such events that we didn't have 10 years ago. There have been far larger events on the sun. As the article says - "A good flare can release up to 10% of the Sun’s total energy" and this wasn't one of those.
and PS. When you have any evidence that Stuxnet was a US government operation, feel free to present it. It's amazing how so many conspiracy theorys gain so much credence without any evidence. Ever. Stupid, gullible people just like to feel like they "know" something.
Being an informat doesn't mean "working for". A Mafia informant still goes about their daily business, doing their Mafia business. It's not the Government's business. However, then they may use information they glean in their dealings to "inform" authorities of certain happenings they're interested in. Thats what informing is. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term.
And btw, the actual report doesn't relate to a quarter of "all hackers". Its a quarter of those tried and prosecuted or plea bargained. This represents a very small proportion of hackers 'out there'. So, in reality, they're talking about a quarter of less than 1%. Are informants. And of those, a very small handful FRONT criminal enterprise websites. That doesn't mean they're committing the criminal enterprise, but giving criminals a place to commit their enterprise so they can then be ensnared.
When the Dutch authorities recently embedded themselves in the Boylover forums in order to gather information on its members for prosecution, the Dutch authorities weren't actually raping little boys. Being present, as these hackers are, in a community doesn't infer any criminal involvement thereof.
So, to recap: - Informing doesn't mean working for the government. - Even those who are working for the government, aren't necessarily committing any crimes. - The Chinese government is still hacking foreign networks. - There's no denial of the report. You've misinterpreted the report, and what every subsequent detail of it actually means. There is no equivalency between the US Government having hacker informants, and a government which actually employees hackers to commit crimes. - I'm not American. I'm not even Western. Try again.
Deny what? Nobodys "denying" there are hackers in the US. Western Hypocrisy? You've injected a comment which has nothing to do with the conversation.
If you're trying to connect the two by claiming that the US government keeping informants, is somehow remotely equivalent to the Chinese government attacking other countries network infrastructure, you are crazy.
That's because context largely determines interpretation. I presume you're speaking of, for instance, a painting or photograph of a nude underage female.
In the context of the museum, it's likely a study of form, or a treatise on innocence, or another theme in the context of the rest of the picture, etc. People are naked in default mode, so aside from the cries of some "think of the children" ignoramii, acknowledgement and examinaton of different aspects of this for studial purposes isn't socially morally objectionable.
Men's entertainment magazines, eg Playboy as you mentioned, are almost exclusively designed for erotic titillation - at least the segments involving semi-clothed or naked females. As such, images of a nude underage female for the purpose of arousement IS socially morally objectionable. By today's standards, anyhow.
"Vauge [sic] crap" like that is how almost every country words their determination. Laws don't go through and explicitely list every act that is prohibited, in detail, so as to make an ultimate, initial determination. They instead list broad categories that are excluded (eg, bestiality) and always leave a clause for morally objectionable material - a determination of which can be made on a case by case basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, the same extends to most markets. Even for digital-only distribution items. It's not uncommon to see software in Aus/NZ priced at 3-4x the American cost, taking into account currency differences. Take the EA Origin store for example. Almost any software on it costs 3x as much to buy "down under", on the equivalent store (eg, EA Origin NZ store vs EA Origin US store).
The common hillbilly reply to this situation is "well if you don't like it then make your own software!" Really? A company whose entire population is less than an average sized US city should be producing AAA software titles as well as taking care of all other sectors? Actually, NZ (and Aus) does produce software - they just don't charge Americans more to use it. ;) I understand completely that, in the example above, EA has every right to charge whatever they want to. But pricing gamers out of the store only discourages purchasing and encourages piracy.
If Dead Space 2 costs NZD$23 on the US store, and NZD$89 on the NZ store, for digital-only copies, it's price gouging. No (sane) person would pay $89 for that game, so they now have three choices - buy a physical retail copy (cheaper), buy it from a competing online service (eg, Direct2Drive, Steam, etc, which sell EAs own games cheaper), or pirating it. By the actions taken, EA has guaranteed the one choice people won't make, is to actually buy it directly from EA, the method by which EA would make the most profit even if priced at the same level as competing online services.
Anyhow, I'm getting off-topic. This behaviour is fairly common. Apple used to charge approx 4x as much for songs on the Aus iTunes store to the US version, even when the AUS$ was at parity or even worth more. Songs which cost 99c on the US store cost $3.99 on the Aus store. Thankfully they've largely brought this under control (because most folks took option 3 - just continue pirating songs rather than buying single songs at exorbitant prices). The sooner producers realise the more in-line prices are internationally, the more people will buy them. If Origin set its store prices the same for overseas customers as domestic customers, more overseas customers would use it. Apple saw the logic in this (although hasn't yet in their hardware department). More manufacturers need to follow suit.
Quite the opposite, Jack-ass is about as far left and freedom-loving as you could possibly get.
Because they actually have the evidence. The issue is that it can't be released because they agreed the contents of his computers was confidential. They're now asking for that finding to be overturned so they can release the documents.
Because I prefer the Windows 7 interface and usability to Lion. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti Apple. I have and iPhone and a MacBook, but I still use Win7 for my daily personal use because I greatly prefer it. Consider, maybe, that different folks are.. different? :) What you prefer in an OS might not sit right with me at all, and vice versa. Life is only better "on the other side" if it's actually preferential to use.
I don't understand what you're getting at. He only made two real statements, neither of which yours seems to counter.
He said that developers need to create value that people are willing to pay for. Doom 3 sold well, despite it not living up to some's expectations, it certainly fulfilled this statement.
Then he said that indie developers take a snooty attitude about this approach (implying in context that, rather, indie developers believe every game DOES have to be something that's never been done before). This has no relation to Doom 3 at all.
It sounds like you're just taking the opportunity to bash Doom 3. Understand, Carmack is arguing here FOR on-rails shooters. He's saying that games don't need to be incredibly creative and new every time they get released, they just have to do their job - provide entertainment that people are willing to pay for. And you're arguing against that by marching out a game which... provides entertatinment that people were willing to pay for. ..
No, I don't think I did present that. What I presented was all the collateral damage that causes at no cost to the MPAA but at huge cost to the infrastructure of the internet.
How can that be a good thing by any means? "Deemed to be infringing" is extremely broad. I've had cease and desists sent to my own website for MP3s of my own music which I own entirely. With this law, they don't even need to attempt to prosecute me. They just file notice with the court that my domain is "infringing" and suddenly my hits go to 0. I have no right of reply as I've never been served.
I intend no personal insult, but you seem to forget that what the US courts deem as "infringing" draws no parallels to actual international copyright law. For example, a site which contains no pirated material but contains links to it, is considered as infringing under US copyright laws (see DMCA). If you haven't noticed, the MPAA and RIAA will stop at nothing and have no qualms about how many people they inconvenience. Baidu.cn contains an MP3 section. Does it host MP3s? No. Does that matter to a court which orders all ISPs to block access to Baidu as a result? Of course not.
This law like this gives the MPAA the legal right to have Google.com blocked until it removes all links to pirated material. I don't believe they'd hesitate for a second. Although TBH, they probably need it, in order to search for more meta sites which may or may not link to "deemed infringing" material. Like my personal music.
While of course, this horrific scenario may not occur, the point is, this will allow the MPAA to go nuts. They don't care if they knock out 10,000 sites like my own. They don't have to serve me, so there's no case to win. And when they get it wrong, I can't sue the MPAA, because the MPAA didn't make the "ruling", the court did.
They'll happily have Metacafe block because some video has a soundtrack they own, or have any NNTP Usenet provider closed because, despite all their legal offerings, they can be deemed to be serving infringing material. A Safe-Harbour doesn't apply here as they're not actually filing a DMCA takedown. They're just having the court look at all the pirated material and say "this means ISPs have to block them." Goodbye Giganews. I'm sure such sites can go through and remove all material deemed infringing, but exactly how do you go about doing this? MPAA doesn't care - they only have to prove one instance of pirated material. Yet before, say, Giganews can file an appeal, they have to go about removing all potentially infringing material from their usenet mirror? For that matter, how does Google go about removing all links to "potentially infringing" material from their servers?
Its a service you sign up for. Hence, not junk mail.
Sorry yes, you're right I should have worded my original post differently. Something along the lines of "signed up for a service which says that you will be targetted with specific advertising in a multitude of forms and locations", and the priority inbox falls into the umbrella of services.
I agree that it's an unintentional side-effect. All Google mails being treated as priority messages. I was just trying to point out that he can't complain about receiving targetted advertising messages when he signed up for a service that says he'll receive targetted advertising messages. :)
They even say they will when you sign up..
17. Advertisements
17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other information.
17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.
17.3 In consideration for Google granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Google may place such advertising on the Services.
17. Advertisements
17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other information.
17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.
17.3 In consideration for Google granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Google may place such advertising on the Services.
Yep.. he deleted that one too. Obviously he knows he's in the wrong if he has to take to deleting comments.
For prosperity's sake, posted to his Blog.. wonder how long this will last:
---------
Interesting.. I point out that you signed up for a Google service which says you'll get priority Google emails by default when activated, and you complain when exactly that happens. .. And you delete my comment.
Perhaps think through your article again, taking this into account rather than just deleting comments pointing out the obvious. Or perhaps learn to read service agreements when signing up for services. For instance, this Google-owned blogger service which says they can delete any blog for any reason at any time.
You can't even claim they'd be silencing you, as when you signed up, you agreed to those very Terms of Service which say you have no right to an account and it can be removed for no purpose whatsoever.
You'll get a lot further with anti-Google bashing if you first of all actually read their Terms of Service before writing a blog post complaining that they supplied you with exactly what you asked for.
Interesting.. I posted a comment pointing out that the service agreement says he'll get Google mails as priority messages and that he can opt-out of them, and after it was up for a few minutes, he deleted the comment.
So pretty much, it is as above. He signed up for a service which says he'll get priority Google emails by default when activated, and then starts complaining that exactly that is happening. What a douche.
The service description says that Google mails will be prioritized by default. He VOLUNTARILY signed up for a service which says he'll receive priority mails from Google, and then complains that he receives priority mails from Google. Alas, most people are stupid and he'll probably get some air-time for his theory (and already has).
Google marks their own mails as important by default. Mark them as unimportant if you don't want them showing up. Whether it's a notice about daily deals, account changes, service notifications, whatever - their own mailing are marked as important to begin with. (Hey, it's their free service, after all). It even says this in the service details for priority inbox. This is a bunch of noise about nothing.
Coming up next: Blogger discovers Microsoft advertises their own services in ads on their sites more than other peoples ads...
As ACs post is a joke, +funny would be more appropriate.
Not sure if serious. :\
While this is a large flare (from our perspective), it's fairly small historically. It just looks great because now we have hi-def video of such events that we didn't have 10 years ago. There have been far larger events on the sun. As the article says - "A good flare can release up to 10% of the Sun’s total energy" and this wasn't one of those.
and PS. When you have any evidence that Stuxnet was a US government operation, feel free to present it. It's amazing how so many conspiracy theorys gain so much credence without any evidence. Ever. Stupid, gullible people just like to feel like they "know" something.
Being an informat doesn't mean "working for". A Mafia informant still goes about their daily business, doing their Mafia business. It's not the Government's business. However, then they may use information they glean in their dealings to "inform" authorities of certain happenings they're interested in. Thats what informing is. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the term.
And btw, the actual report doesn't relate to a quarter of "all hackers". Its a quarter of those tried and prosecuted or plea bargained. This represents a very small proportion of hackers 'out there'. So, in reality, they're talking about a quarter of less than 1%. Are informants. And of those, a very small handful FRONT criminal enterprise websites. That doesn't mean they're committing the criminal enterprise, but giving criminals a place to commit their enterprise so they can then be ensnared.
When the Dutch authorities recently embedded themselves in the Boylover forums in order to gather information on its members for prosecution, the Dutch authorities weren't actually raping little boys. Being present, as these hackers are, in a community doesn't infer any criminal involvement thereof.
So, to recap:
- Informing doesn't mean working for the government.
- Even those who are working for the government, aren't necessarily committing any crimes.
- The Chinese government is still hacking foreign networks.
- There's no denial of the report. You've misinterpreted the report, and what every subsequent detail of it actually means. There is no equivalency between the US Government having hacker informants, and a government which actually employees hackers to commit crimes.
- I'm not American. I'm not even Western. Try again.
Deny what? Nobodys "denying" there are hackers in the US. Western Hypocrisy? You've injected a comment which has nothing to do with the conversation.
If you're trying to connect the two by claiming that the US government keeping informants, is somehow remotely equivalent to the Chinese government attacking other countries network infrastructure, you are crazy.
If you gave every doorbell a number, and then you could just enter the number of the person you wanted to talk to.
I was going to say "they have.. it's called a..." but stopped myself before the Woosh! :)
That's because context largely determines interpretation. I presume you're speaking of, for instance, a painting or photograph of a nude underage female.
In the context of the museum, it's likely a study of form, or a treatise on innocence, or another theme in the context of the rest of the picture, etc. People are naked in default mode, so aside from the cries of some "think of the children" ignoramii, acknowledgement and examinaton of different aspects of this for studial purposes isn't socially morally objectionable.
Men's entertainment magazines, eg Playboy as you mentioned, are almost exclusively designed for erotic titillation - at least the segments involving semi-clothed or naked females. As such, images of a nude underage female for the purpose of arousement IS socially morally objectionable. By today's standards, anyhow.
"Vauge [sic] crap" like that is how almost every country words their determination. Laws don't go through and explicitely list every act that is prohibited, in detail, so as to make an ultimate, initial determination. They instead list broad categories that are excluded (eg, bestiality) and always leave a clause for morally objectionable material - a determination of which can be made on a case by case basis.
Not sure if serious, so can't mod funny. >