That's great, but how does that apply to this case? He was clearly inciting people to do this to be disruptive of the court. That's a pretty clear-cut and easily defended charge of contempt. Your abstract and vague claims have little bearing on the actual matter at hand.
Yep, the first person I'm going to choose to buy products from is someone who has a history of credit card fraud. It's rather sad how many idiots pay for the schlock he peddles.
In a free society, shouldn't people be allowed to buy snake oil if they choose to.
No, you shouldn't be free to defraud people out of their money. The only reason he is getting people to pay for whatever he is selling is through fraudulent claims.
"Terms are subject to change without notice" is commonplace in nearly every contract in the US, even though that doesn't hold up in court.
Case law citations, please. And they have to be ones that are generally applicable to all contracts, not ones limited in scope to only the contract that was at dispute.
But most corporations mandate the use of IE anyway, so what's the problem? Corporations don't care about whether or not some interface supports web standards and all the various alternative browsers. They care that it works with the corporate standard which is IE.
I should alter my statement. By "multiplayer" I mean co-op. So please, list these "many big name titles" that have a co-op mode but don't let you do it split screen. And since there are 1300 games between the PS3 and Xbox combined you should have no problems coming up with numerous examples.
As a result, computers become more versatile every year, while consoles become increasingly limited to single applications.
And at the same time console and console game sales keep growing every year with sales that are eclipsing the PC version of a game by sometimes more than a magnitude. You tend to overestimate how much DRM and the locked-down nature of a console matters to most people. That is, it's a non-issue.
Many big name titles already don't support split screen on the 360 or PS3, because they realized their market is in online gaming with really good graphics.
Many? Really? I doubt you could even provide 30 examples of multiplayer games that don't have split screen.
Slashdot Mirror
That's great, but how does that apply to this case? He was clearly inciting people to do this to be disruptive of the court. That's a pretty clear-cut and easily defended charge of contempt. Your abstract and vague claims have little bearing on the actual matter at hand.
The difference is all in the intent. His intent wasn't as innocent as you are attempting to make it seem.
Yep, the first person I'm going to choose to buy products from is someone who has a history of credit card fraud. It's rather sad how many idiots pay for the schlock he peddles.
Maybe he shouldn't have been an idiot and incited people to do this act? This seems to be a pretty clear cut and easily defended example of contempt.
In a free society, shouldn't people be allowed to buy snake oil if they choose to.
No, you shouldn't be free to defraud people out of their money. The only reason he is getting people to pay for whatever he is selling is through fraudulent claims.
Did you miss the part where he was encouraging them to do so? This is no different than being liable for inciting others to do any sort of crime.
Because they are made from recycled tacos?
Nothing really. It's just further proof that kdawson is even more incompetent than Jon Katz.
"Terms are subject to change without notice" is commonplace in nearly every contract in the US, even though that doesn't hold up in court.
Case law citations, please. And they have to be ones that are generally applicable to all contracts, not ones limited in scope to only the contract that was at dispute.
You may not be the only one, but you are part of an extremely tiny minority of PS3 owners that actually care about this option.
You are assuming that all PS3 owners are going to:
1) Know about the other os option.
2) Care about having "lost" an option that they never knew existed.
Considering that 99% of people using a PS3 either don't know or care about the "Other OS" option, you seem to be way overestimating any costs to Sony.
2) Playstation Network does not perform checks.
And you think they won't start performaing a check?
I would argue that Mindsweeper has a far larger audience. And, yes, there are competitive mindsweeper players and leagues.
Because it is tagged so automatically.
But most corporations mandate the use of IE anyway, so what's the problem? Corporations don't care about whether or not some interface supports web standards and all the various alternative browsers. They care that it works with the corporate standard which is IE.
Was this claimed to be something new?
Let's not forget things like the Berne Convention that dates back to the 1880s which the US wasn't a signatory of for years.
I should alter my statement. By "multiplayer" I mean co-op. So please, list these "many big name titles" that have a co-op mode but don't let you do it split screen. And since there are 1300 games between the PS3 and Xbox combined you should have no problems coming up with numerous examples.
As a result, computers become more versatile every year, while consoles become increasingly limited to single applications.
And at the same time console and console game sales keep growing every year with sales that are eclipsing the PC version of a game by sometimes more than a magnitude. You tend to overestimate how much DRM and the locked-down nature of a console matters to most people. That is, it's a non-issue.
Many big name titles already don't support split screen on the 360 or PS3, because they realized their market is in online gaming with really good graphics.
Many? Really? I doubt you could even provide 30 examples of multiplayer games that don't have split screen.
And they hold 99% of the desktop market.
The switch back to Google was (reportedly) to stick users with a more "familiar" default.
So it sounds like Canonical is putting users first, which strikes me as a very good policy in the long-term, if they want to grow the user base.
Such a quaint and naive view. The real reason is that Google offered more than Yahoo hence they decided not to go to Yahoo.
Money? Google must have offered them more to come back then they were originally paying Canonical.
Well, then it's ok for you if they suddenly go and change the terms of service to, let's say, require you to pay a fee each time you log onto the PSN?
Yes, it is okay for them to do so. If you don't find it acceptable, though, you can stop using the service.
After all, if you don't accept, you don't get to use it, f*ck you very much !
Yes, if you don't want to pay for a paid service, you don't get access to it.
And nothing of value was lost.