Times change. Surely you don't think that as technology increases and new concepts are created, new laws shouldn't be made to govern them? We live in a world where information has value. Laws have been created/altered to take that into consideration. Remember, IP laws were originally created to prevent stagnation--if someone can't make a living off of their IP, they won't continue creating it. That hasn't changed. What has changed is the fact that copies of the information can be had for pennies. For some reason people can't seem to conceptualize the fact that there is something wrong with copying something you don't have the rights to. They seem to think that because they haven't actually taken anything away from the original owner, it isn't theft. They're right--it's not theft in the conventional sense. But it is still a violation of copyright laws. It is, to some extent, immoral because the creators of the IP had a good faith agreement with the population (through the government) that their IP will not be used without compensation. By living in a country which acknowledges and respects IP, you agree to follow those laws. You agree in the same way that you agree to obey any other law. You don't break the speed limit (or if you do, you deal with the consequences). You don't hurt or injure others. If you don't like a particular law, there are (usually) ways to go about trying to repeal them.
You say that the RIAA asserts that 'theft' of IP costs them money. Whether this is correct or not is up for debate (although I am inclined to believe that more people don't buy music they have downloaded than actually do, and I suspect that there are some people who would have bought the music if they hadn't had it available for "free"), however it is against their law and it is within the RIAA's rights to enforce their copyrights. They may actually lose money in these enforcement practices--it's impossible to say for sure--however it is within their rights to control their IP.
You can call them foolish, you can cite examples where they would make more money by allowing copyright violations, however that does not give you the right to illegally copy their property.
Incidentally you will get both a read and a write performance benefit from raid0. This can be a real boon when you're doing video capture. Capturing a raw AVI at NTSC DVD resolution is roughly 41,472,000 bytes per second. With a single IDE drive, you simply can't achieve this continuous data rate (at least, I couldn't in my setup with ATA/100 drives). Just to check it out, I set up software RAID0 in Win2k on my two extra drives. Handled the capture with 0 frame loss.
Incidentally, the better solution to this particular problem is the HUFFYUV video codec, which is basically lossless compression at roughly a 3:1 ratio of AVI data. Still not suitable for transmitting, but compressing before writing it to disk means you can capture to a non-raid setup.
There's a contractual obligation there. When visiting a website, there is no such obligation. I mentioned this in my post, you clearly chose to ignore it in order to build your argument.
Also, at least in my case, I refuse to purchase from a company that uses popups. They are that aversive to me. I refuse to click a link in a pop-up ad, so I don't see how I'm "stealing."
There has been no contact or agreement on my part to view ads in order to view the content of the site. Much like television commercials. Your entire argument is completely invalid for a number of reasons, but instead of listing them, let me ask you one question: how far am I, as a web site viewer, obligated to go? Many ad sites don't pay out unless the link is actually clicked. Should I click the link? If I don't, am I "stealing" content? Should I be required to buy something from the site? Am I stealing if I don't?
Fair enough, I know it has a backlight, but it's damn ugly. As for losing data, I'm mostly talking about going too long without changing the battery. I always sync, but installing apps was what was the most annoying.
I picked up a PDA on the cheap (Palm iiixe just before they killed the line) and used it for quite awhile. Ultimately the lack of a backlit screen and constantly having to replace batteries made it more trouble than it was worth. I used rechargeable batteries which helped with the cost, however this meant that "replacement" was more frequent. Once or twice I would actually lose my data because of this, so I had to go through the process of reinstalling all my software and then syncing back up.
Finally I decided it was more trouble than it was worth. A backlit color PDA with an internal rechargeable battery would be much more useful to me, and I imagine that if I had one of those I'd still be using it today. Also, those Treo's have been/awfully/ tempting since you get Internet access on them as well. I may eventually get around to picking up one of these, however the time I would spend re-inputting my data might remove some of the utility/value--at least at first.
People/want/ to fight it, they just can't. Try going up against Wal Mart, Best Buy, Target...you can't. You don't have the money. They can tie you up in court until your financing runs out, then your lawyer says "buh-bye" and you effectively lose.
That's how laws like this stay in effect, and it shows a massive flaw in the court system in America. For civil suits, you have a huge advantage if you have money to burn, and enforcing laws like this are only to the corporation's benefit.
It's similar in approach to Spam Arrest Spam Arrest is annoying, and I refused to "authorize" my email address, which was problematic for me since the person using it was on a listserv I actively participated in. Every message I sent got me a Spam Arrest message sent to me asking for authorization.
Strictly speaking, the law doesn't allow you to obtain a backup. You have to make it yourself. Also, the code for the cartridge is much different from the code for the arcade version, so it makes sense that a copy of one wouldn't entitle you to a copy of the other.
Yup. All it takes is one "free gaming" night and a friend to write down the joystick/keypresses for each scene. Of course, the scenes flipped on the horizontal axis periodically, so you had to keep that in mind, but even still...once you knew the sequence of keypresses, you the timing was all you had to work on, and it wouldn't be too long before you could drop in your $0.50 and beat the game, to the amazement of onlookers.
When Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring came out, several of us couldn't help laughing out loud during the Balrog scene. Later while discussing the movie, we discovered that we'd all pictured an ampersand (&) chasing a bunch of h's and @'s;)
I have ascended (beaten it) as have two of my friends. It's difficult, and can take weeks. The number one problem I see when someone new plays nethack is that they try to go too fast. Take your time. It should take a week at minimum to finish a game. I consider that a speed play. To finish the game you have to be extremely careful. One of the most fun and challenging aspects is identifying items. Sure, you can look for scrolls of identify, but even then you're unlikely to have/those/ identified! Trying to figure out items by the way they interact with the world and without using them in a way that they can blow up in your face is one of my favorite aspects of the game, and almost a necessity unless you are very lucky early in the game (Book of Identify or a couple of scrolls). There are sites devoted to "spoilers" for the game. These sites detail the way object interact with the world. For example, if you engrave something into the floor with a wand, usually something non-destructive will happen. By knowing the message a fire wand gives, for example, you can rule out whether the random item you find is a fire wand. Similarly for just about all item types. Also, once you find a shop, you can have a general idea of the power of an item by attempting to sell it. Once you get a large number of items identified (either by truly ID'ing them or by marking them when you find out what they are) you can begin really gearing yourself up. Eventually you'll find a wand of wishing (there's always one at least) with which you can get some real protection and be more daring.
I used to be addicted to the game. I came close to ascending a monk, and I did ascend a couple of Wizards (cheesiest class, imo), but you truly must take your time or else the game will be nothing but a frustration.
It says you're too cheap or just unable to give them a donation. You're giving them something, but in order to use it they have to buy your product anyway. Basically you're giving them nothing. Says the same thing.
The donation was for a usability aspect. The school couldn't afford what they were asking for. Rather than donate the OS, Microsoft chose to donate the office suite, meaning the school would have to buy the OS anyway. Yes, Microsoft didn't have to donate anything, but the fact that they were offering smething fundamentally useless to the school (they couldn't afford to run the software) shows something.
Someone should submit a story about this;) This story says to use brak.slashdot.org but since all the links point to slashdot.org, this won't be seen by those who need it;)
Any speculation on who would win depends on which of the comic stories/storylines they draw from. For example, in one crossover, Batman kept a single Kryptonite bullet in a vault "just in case." I don't think it was ever explained exactly how he would fire and manage to hit Superman;) Beyond that, Superman's powers would have to be exceptionally weak for Batman to win in any modern comic adaptation. The situation would have to be engineered so that Superman's powers were reduced--perhaps through a weakening of the sun's rays, and the two heroes would have to have some reason for fighting, perhaps thinking the other had gone crazy through a series of elaborate framings by one of the criminal organizations.
It could be a really interesting story, but it would have to be done extremely carefully.
As an aside, I recall a long time ago when the Freddy vs. Jason movies were all the talk of the BBSs when the idea of multiple endings was thrown around. The idea was that each theater would be given one of two possible endings to the conflict, where each of the villains was the victor. Of course, a third/could/ have been thrown out there, where they both kill each other. Regardless, a viewer wouldn't know which ending they were going to be seeing until they finally went and saw it, and it would be an incentive to see the film twice (at another theater) to see the alternate ending. This approach is similar to the way Clue was released in theaters, although it was not known ahead of time. Imagine the movie discussions that took place, each person having seen a different ending and thinking the other was full of crap!
This case is actually symptomatic of a much larger problem that the US (and the rest of the world, from the looks of it) face: using the courts and your clout to cover up your mistakes. It seems like it's gotten to the point where if something happens that you don't like, you sue someone. Doesn't really matter who. Filing a suit has become a method of saying "We did nothing wrong, in fact we were wronged." even when in many cases this is simply untrue. This company clearly messed up. A news agency got some information (and not by hacking!) and published it. The information wasn't fraudulant. If it was false, it wasn't with a disregard for the truth--after all, it was in a document on the company's website. But the company in question didn't like the fact that the information got out, so they sue the news company.
Forget terrorism and its effect on "free speech and free press" (right now a mostly US-centric concern) the real danger is big budget corporations who have the money and time to spend taking you to court because they didn't like what you had to say. It's scary, folks, and it's not getting any better.
I'd be interested to know more about this particular situation, too. Did the customer sign an agreement saying they'd allow this software to be installed? If not, the cable company itself could be liable for damages, including "loss of privacy", etc.
I still think the best solution is to have a Linux machine there during the install. Or if you don't want to see frustration on the installer's face, just a spare PC or maybe a VMWare session in fullscreen.
It is an essential element of personal freedom anywhere on the globe.
This shows just how entrenched in the American idea you are. It's an American idea that free speech is an essential element of personal freedom, yet you state it as fact. Censorship is censorship. You are right there. It's just that some countries allow it, and some don't. And then there are those who allow it but claim not to. Those are the ones to watch out for.
Mod me as a flame or a troll if you want, but here's the standard reply to an American saying something is "wrong" based on their culture or laws. The world is not American. Different countries have different laws, and I applaud Google for respecting the laws of other countries, and doing so in a way that doesn't affect web searching in countries without these restrictions.
Slashdot Mirror
Times change. Surely you don't think that as technology increases and new concepts are created, new laws shouldn't be made to govern them?
We live in a world where information has value. Laws have been created/altered to take that into consideration. Remember, IP laws were originally created to prevent stagnation--if someone can't make a living off of their IP, they won't continue creating it.
That hasn't changed. What has changed is the fact that copies of the information can be had for pennies. For some reason people can't seem to conceptualize the fact that there is something wrong with copying something you don't have the rights to. They seem to think that because they haven't actually taken anything away from the original owner, it isn't theft. They're right--it's not theft in the conventional sense. But it is still a violation of copyright laws. It is, to some extent, immoral because the creators of the IP had a good faith agreement with the population (through the government) that their IP will not be used without compensation. By living in a country which acknowledges and respects IP, you agree to follow those laws. You agree in the same way that you agree to obey any other law. You don't break the speed limit (or if you do, you deal with the consequences). You don't hurt or injure others. If you don't like a particular law, there are (usually) ways to go about trying to repeal them.
You say that the RIAA asserts that 'theft' of IP costs them money. Whether this is correct or not is up for debate (although I am inclined to believe that more people don't buy music they have downloaded than actually do, and I suspect that there are some people who would have bought the music if they hadn't had it available for "free"), however it is against their law and it is within the RIAA's rights to enforce their copyrights. They may actually lose money in these enforcement practices--it's impossible to say for sure--however it is within their rights to control their IP.
You can call them foolish, you can cite examples where they would make more money by allowing copyright violations, however that does not give you the right to illegally copy their property.
Ah, but are those numbers inflated? Movies cost more now than they did then.
Incidentally you will get both a read and a write performance benefit from raid0. This can be a real boon when you're doing video capture. Capturing a raw AVI at NTSC DVD resolution is roughly 41,472,000 bytes per second. With a single IDE drive, you simply can't achieve this continuous data rate (at least, I couldn't in my setup with ATA/100 drives). Just to check it out, I set up software RAID0 in Win2k on my two extra drives. Handled the capture with 0 frame loss.
Incidentally, the better solution to this particular problem is the HUFFYUV video codec, which is basically lossless compression at roughly a 3:1 ratio of AVI data. Still not suitable for transmitting, but compressing before writing it to disk means you can capture to a non-raid setup.
No problem. I just don't like being called a thief for blocking popups.
There's a contractual obligation there. When visiting a website, there is no such obligation. I mentioned this in my post, you clearly chose to ignore it in order to build your argument.
Also, at least in my case, I refuse to purchase from a company that uses popups. They are that aversive to me. I refuse to click a link in a pop-up ad, so I don't see how I'm "stealing."
There has been no contact or agreement on my part to view ads in order to view the content of the site. Much like television commercials. Your entire argument is completely invalid for a number of reasons, but instead of listing them, let me ask you one question: how far am I, as a web site viewer, obligated to go? Many ad sites don't pay out unless the link is actually clicked. Should I click the link? If I don't, am I "stealing" content? Should I be required to buy something from the site? Am I stealing if I don't?
Fair enough, I know it has a backlight, but it's damn ugly. As for losing data, I'm mostly talking about going too long without changing the battery. I always sync, but installing apps was what was the most annoying.
I picked up a PDA on the cheap (Palm iiixe just before they killed the line) and used it for quite awhile. Ultimately the lack of a backlit screen and constantly having to replace batteries made it more trouble than it was worth. I used rechargeable batteries which helped with the cost, however this meant that "replacement" was more frequent. Once or twice I would actually lose my data because of this, so I had to go through the process of reinstalling all my software and then syncing back up.
/awfully/ tempting since you get Internet access on them as well. I may eventually get around to picking up one of these, however the time I would spend re-inputting my data might remove some of the utility/value--at least at first.
Finally I decided it was more trouble than it was worth. A backlit color PDA with an internal rechargeable battery would be much more useful to me, and I imagine that if I had one of those I'd still be using it today. Also, those Treo's have been
People /want/ to fight it, they just can't. Try going up against Wal Mart, Best Buy, Target...you can't. You don't have the money. They can tie you up in court until your financing runs out, then your lawyer says "buh-bye" and you effectively lose.
That's how laws like this stay in effect, and it shows a massive flaw in the court system in America. For civil suits, you have a huge advantage if you have money to burn, and enforcing laws like this are only to the corporation's benefit.
It's similar in approach to Spam Arrest Spam Arrest is annoying, and I refused to "authorize" my email address, which was problematic for me since the person using it was on a listserv I actively participated in. Every message I sent got me a Spam Arrest message sent to me asking for authorization.
Strictly speaking, the law doesn't allow you to obtain a backup. You have to make it yourself. Also, the code for the cartridge is much different from the code for the arcade version, so it makes sense that a copy of one wouldn't entitle you to a copy of the other.
Anyone ever 'beat' this game?
Yup. All it takes is one "free gaming" night and a friend to write down the joystick/keypresses for each scene. Of course, the scenes flipped on the horizontal axis periodically, so you had to keep that in mind, but even still...once you knew the sequence of keypresses, you the timing was all you had to work on, and it wouldn't be too long before you could drop in your $0.50 and beat the game, to the amazement of onlookers.
When Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring came out, several of us couldn't help laughing out loud during the Balrog scene. Later while discussing the movie, we discovered that we'd all pictured an ampersand (&) chasing a bunch of h's and @'s ;)
We decided it was time to stop playing....
I have ascended (beaten it) as have two of my friends. It's difficult, and can take weeks. The number one problem I see when someone new plays nethack is that they try to go too fast. Take your time. It should take a week at minimum to finish a game. I consider that a speed play. To finish the game you have to be extremely careful. /those/ identified! Trying to figure out items by the way they interact with the world and without using them in a way that they can blow up in your face is one of my favorite aspects of the game, and almost a necessity unless you are very lucky early in the game (Book of Identify or a couple of scrolls).
One of the most fun and challenging aspects is identifying items. Sure, you can look for scrolls of identify, but even then you're unlikely to have
There are sites devoted to "spoilers" for the game. These sites detail the way object interact with the world. For example, if you engrave something into the floor with a wand, usually something non-destructive will happen. By knowing the message a fire wand gives, for example, you can rule out whether the random item you find is a fire wand. Similarly for just about all item types. Also, once you find a shop, you can have a general idea of the power of an item by attempting to sell it.
Once you get a large number of items identified (either by truly ID'ing them or by marking them when you find out what they are) you can begin really gearing yourself up. Eventually you'll find a wand of wishing (there's always one at least) with which you can get some real protection and be more daring.
I used to be addicted to the game. I came close to ascending a monk, and I did ascend a couple of Wizards (cheesiest class, imo), but you truly must take your time or else the game will be nothing but a frustration.
It says you're too cheap or just unable to give them a donation. You're giving them something, but in order to use it they have to buy your product anyway. Basically you're giving them nothing. Says the same thing.
The donation was for a usability aspect. The school couldn't afford what they were asking for. Rather than donate the OS, Microsoft chose to donate the office suite, meaning the school would have to buy the OS anyway. Yes, Microsoft didn't have to donate anything, but the fact that they were offering smething fundamentally useless to the school (they couldn't afford to run the software) shows something.
Someone should submit a story about this ;) This story says to use brak.slashdot.org but since all the links point to slashdot.org, this won't be seen by those who need it ;)
No VCR either? Most people I know have one of those, even if they have a TiVo and DVD player.
Any speculation on who would win depends on which of the comic stories/storylines they draw from. For example, in one crossover, Batman kept a single Kryptonite bullet in a vault "just in case." I don't think it was ever explained exactly how he would fire and manage to hit Superman ;)
/could/ have been thrown out there, where they both kill each other. Regardless, a viewer wouldn't know which ending they were going to be seeing until they finally went and saw it, and it would be an incentive to see the film twice (at another theater) to see the alternate ending. This approach is similar to the way Clue was released in theaters, although it was not known ahead of time. Imagine the movie discussions that took place, each person having seen a different ending and thinking the other was full of crap!
Beyond that, Superman's powers would have to be exceptionally weak for Batman to win in any modern comic adaptation. The situation would have to be engineered so that Superman's powers were reduced--perhaps through a weakening of the sun's rays, and the two heroes would have to have some reason for fighting, perhaps thinking the other had gone crazy through a series of elaborate framings by one of the criminal organizations.
It could be a really interesting story, but it would have to be done extremely carefully.
As an aside, I recall a long time ago when the Freddy vs. Jason movies were all the talk of the BBSs when the idea of multiple endings was thrown around. The idea was that each theater would be given one of two possible endings to the conflict, where each of the villains was the victor. Of course, a third
This case is actually symptomatic of a much larger problem that the US (and the rest of the world, from the looks of it) face: using the courts and your clout to cover up your mistakes. It seems like it's gotten to the point where if something happens that you don't like, you sue someone. Doesn't really matter who. Filing a suit has become a method of saying "We did nothing wrong, in fact we were wronged." even when in many cases this is simply untrue.
This company clearly messed up. A news agency got some information (and not by hacking!) and published it. The information wasn't fraudulant. If it was false, it wasn't with a disregard for the truth--after all, it was in a document on the company's website. But the company in question didn't like the fact that the information got out, so they sue the news company.
Forget terrorism and its effect on "free speech and free press" (right now a mostly US-centric concern) the real danger is big budget corporations who have the money and time to spend taking you to court because they didn't like what you had to say. It's scary, folks, and it's not getting any better.
An excellent response.
I'd be interested to know more about this particular situation, too. Did the customer sign an agreement saying they'd allow this software to be installed? If not, the cable company itself could be liable for damages, including "loss of privacy", etc.
I still think the best solution is to have a Linux machine there during the install. Or if you don't want to see frustration on the installer's face, just a spare PC or maybe a VMWare session in fullscreen.
More amusing would be a Linux machine. Let him try to figure it out. :)
That's fine. Criticize the country, not Google for obeying their laws.
It is an essential element of personal freedom anywhere on the globe.
This shows just how entrenched in the American idea you are. It's an American idea that free speech is an essential element of personal freedom, yet you state it as fact.
Censorship is censorship. You are right there. It's just that some countries allow it, and some don't. And then there are those who allow it but claim not to. Those are the ones to watch out for.
"Of course it's wrong"....
How self-centered.
Mod me as a flame or a troll if you want, but here's the standard reply to an American saying something is "wrong" based on their culture or laws.
The world is not American.
Different countries have different laws, and I applaud Google for respecting the laws of other countries, and doing so in a way that doesn't affect web searching in countries without these restrictions.