If that many people disagree with you that strongly, perhaps you should consider the possibility that they have a point. Scounts do discriminate. They do exclude people based on religious beliefs. Some people find that offensive.
Just leave your kids at home playing GTAIV instead.
Yeah, cuz, obviously, there's no other possible activity for young boys. Get a grip. There is nothing the Scouts do that you can't do on your own. And without the religious agenda. Take your kids to the Boy Scouts, and you take them to an organization controlled by religious zealots. It is that simple.
The "first sale doctrine" has already been used to kill attempts by copyright holders to limit downstream use. The rulings have been consistently correct. The general reasoning, as was used in Softman V. Adobe is that if A) there is a one time fee, and not ongoing payments, and B) use is unlimited, not time limited, it is a "sale of goods" not a license. And if it is a sale of goods, then the first sale doctrine applies, and that's that.
It may vary somewhat from state to state, but for the most part, the Uniform Commercial Code is the standard for all state laws that will determine whether software is sold as a sale of goods or licensed. And being a copyright issue, this will generally be decided in federal court anyway.
This ia a good ruling, but for anyone who pays attention, not a big surprise.
BMI does not take in to account a person's build, age, or even sex. According to the BMI quacks, a man and woman of the same height should be the same weight. That's not juts quackery, that's quackery that kills people. I have known people with a BMI that would come out as grossly obese, but had - measured - less than 5% body fat, because of a massively muscular build. The reason more Americans are overweight is because the definition of overweight keeps changing, more than anything else.
I can't help but wonder if the "London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine," or at least these two quacks, are funded by pharmaceutical companies that are heavily in to the weight loss drug market.
Everything you mention is, in fact, science fantasy (and most of it bad science fantasy). Even if it's good science fantasy, that doesn't make it science fiction.
Maybe they could set a new record for the fastest cancellation of a series ever. CBS just cancelled a "reality" show after one episode, but that, of course, has happened several times.
No, the record they're going for was set by the TV show in Australia ("Australia's funniest home videos of animals having sex", as I recall - seriously), that was canceled at the first commercial break ("We are having technical difficulties, but only until the next show comes on").
I'm hoping for it to be canceled before the opening credits are complete.
Sometimes, it'd very difficult to distinguish between an IT guy who says "You're an idiot" to divert blame for his own failures, and an IT guy who says "You're an idiot" because, well, you're an idiot.
A researcher at Brookhaven National Lab reckons it could be just a few years before computers can pass through the uncanny valley.
We can use it for the heads-up display for our flying cars (just a few years away) powered by practical fusion (just a few years away) while travling to the clinic for our immortality tratements (just a few years away).
Thank god all the best things humanity will ever invent are going to be practical at the same time (just a few years away).
I agree. It's not unreasonable to expect that. However, expecting it doesn't make it so. What you have said is that the people who run the forum have failed utterly in their responsibilitie to run the forum in a respsonsible way. What kind of fool allows uploading unmoderated images on a fourm?
Given how trivial it was to conduct this attack, I have say that this forum didn't "used to be" a safe haven, it only seemed to be. Now, you have a clearer understanding of how the world really works.
I disagree. There are no sides at all. The issue is one of continuously varying shades of gray. It's not a binary equation; there are more than two answers. There are, in fact infinite answers, to each variation of the question.
In some cases, people should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. In other cases, they should receive guidance and protection from the government. This varies by the circumstances - everyone should have the government look for obvious signs of criminal behavior, because without government protection, we cannot protect ourselves against Might Makes Right gangs. It also varies by the people in question - some parents do, in fact, need strict government oversight in how they raise, or kill, their children.
There are no simple answers, only simple people asking the wrong question.
Perhaps these students should consider that having a bunch of dumbasses running around campus, running in to people, yelling and screaming, leaving litter lying about, and generally proving they're dumbasses who shouldn't be in college in the first place because small children get in the way of studying, isn't exactly going to make them feel welcome.
Maybe these dumbasses should consider that reporting the nerf toys as real-looking guns is a ruse. Maybe the reason they're banned isn't becaues they're dangerous, it' because the dumbasses carrying them are annoying.
. . . if there's a biometric "authentication" method that hasn't been cracked in the real world in ways that would be easy for the average clever crook to duplicate for a trivial amount of money. Fingerprint scanners are trivial - Mythbusters fooled a brand new, state of the art door lock with a xerox of a fingerprint, by licking it. Retina scanners have been cracked, facial recognition software is a joke with no punch line. What else is there?
And once a system has been cracked, it is totally useless, since you can't change your "password" on biometric stuff.
We need to ban anonymous posting to the internet because bullies who post anonymously are hard to track down.
So we'll make them register their names and email addresses with the state.
But they can get literally thousands of email address, for free, from services that aren't subject to our state's (or even country's) laws, and there is no mechanism even possible to police what email address or name they actually use, so they can continue to post anonymously.
And even though we can't track down anonymouse cyber bullies now, we'll be able to later, when they're not using the name or email address they registered with the state.
In addition to having no effect whatsoever, we will give them a legal defense of "Well, that's not my name or email adress! I registered those with the state, just like the law requires, so how could it be me?"
This doesn't even look like an attempt to "do something." In fact, it looks more like an attempt to protect bullies than punish them.
Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. It's very explicit. They can be patented, if they meet the requirements for originality, etc., but any patent would have expired years ago.
What can be patented is artwork, including, possibly, the layout of the game board. Maybe. If it's original enough. And the name, of course, is trademarked. If the layout of the online version is identical, Mattel might have a case. Trademark infringement, maybe. But copyrighted? Not really.
Looking at the archive of correspondence, it looks to me like both sides were evasive, rude and snotty. Both sides, no doubt, had their reasons. Given the nature of the web site, and the history of this kind of fight, were I the bank's lawyers, I'd be very concerned that they would zip it all up and send it off to a hundred other web sites as soon as they got file names, especially if they could so do legally (and they could, since they wouldn't have gotten the C&D yet). Given the history of such C&D efforts, I can see why the web site wouldn't want to give out any freebies to the other side's lawyers.
However, in the end, the only thing Wikileaks made available to the bank to deal with was their domain name. I can't imagine how else they thought this would go, when the bank had no other path to follow.
Slashdot Mirror
I recommend a cattle prod. Seriously.
At the bottom of their "Contact US" page, there are "Home Audio Contacts" and "Pro Audio Contacts" links that lead to an email form.
Have fun.
It's just another speaker cable scam, based on the fact that audiophiles are idiots. Tests have been conducted to demonstrate that most audiophiles cannot tell the difference between Monster cables and coat hanger wire.
On the other hand, fMRI scans by Caltech showed that people who were given samples of the same wine physically enjoyed it more when they thought it cost more.
There is little reason to believe that humanity will survive much longer.
If you settle right away, it costs them less. If you fight it, they spend more in legal fees. It's not only legal to do this, it's appropriate.
People like you make the RIAA look like the smart, honest ones.
That is not a good thing.
If that many people disagree with you that strongly, perhaps you should consider the possibility that they have a point. Scounts do discriminate. They do exclude people based on religious beliefs. Some people find that offensive.
Just leave your kids at home playing GTAIV instead.
Yeah, cuz, obviously, there's no other possible activity for young boys. Get a grip. There is nothing the Scouts do that you can't do on your own. And without the religious agenda. Take your kids to the Boy Scouts, and you take them to an organization controlled by religious zealots. It is that simple.
The "first sale doctrine" has already been used to kill attempts by copyright holders to limit downstream use. The rulings have been consistently correct. The general reasoning, as was used in Softman V. Adobe is that if A) there is a one time fee, and not ongoing payments, and B) use is unlimited, not time limited, it is a "sale of goods" not a license. And if it is a sale of goods, then the first sale doctrine applies, and that's that.
It may vary somewhat from state to state, but for the most part, the Uniform Commercial Code is the standard for all state laws that will determine whether software is sold as a sale of goods or licensed. And being a copyright issue, this will generally be decided in federal court anyway.
This ia a good ruling, but for anyone who pays attention, not a big surprise.
You know, troll-boy, if you'd spelled "copyright" correctly, you might have had me.
BMI does not take in to account a person's build, age, or even sex. According to the BMI quacks, a man and woman of the same height should be the same weight. That's not juts quackery, that's quackery that kills people. I have known people with a BMI that would come out as grossly obese, but had - measured - less than 5% body fat, because of a massively muscular build. The reason more Americans are overweight is because the definition of overweight keeps changing, more than anything else.
I can't help but wonder if the "London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine," or at least these two quacks, are funded by pharmaceutical companies that are heavily in to the weight loss drug market.
. . . they obviously don't care what decision is finally made.
Couple of comments to that effect from the head of the FCC, and I'll betcha they'll all be at the next conference.
Everything you mention is, in fact, science fantasy (and most of it bad science fantasy). Even if it's good science fantasy, that doesn't make it science fiction.
Maybe they could set a new record for the fastest cancellation of a series ever. CBS just cancelled a "reality" show after one episode, but that, of course, has happened several times.
No, the record they're going for was set by the TV show in Australia ("Australia's funniest home videos of animals having sex", as I recall - seriously), that was canceled at the first commercial break ("We are having technical difficulties, but only until the next show comes on").
I'm hoping for it to be canceled before the opening credits are complete.
Sci-Fi? Hardly. More like fantasy. In Sci-Fi, you have to have stuff that's plausible within the known laws of the universe.
Sometimes, it'd very difficult to distinguish between an IT guy who says "You're an idiot" to divert blame for his own failures, and an IT guy who says "You're an idiot" because, well, you're an idiot.
Especially if you're the idiot.
A researcher at Brookhaven National Lab reckons it could be just a few years before computers can pass through the uncanny valley.
We can use it for the heads-up display for our flying cars (just a few years away) powered by practical fusion (just a few years away) while travling to the clinic for our immortality tratements (just a few years away).
Thank god all the best things humanity will ever invent are going to be practical at the same time (just a few years away).
Awwww, somebody need a hug. Or a puppy.
I agree. It's not unreasonable to expect that. However, expecting it doesn't make it so. What you have said is that the people who run the forum have failed utterly in their responsibilitie to run the forum in a respsonsible way. What kind of fool allows uploading unmoderated images on a fourm?
Given how trivial it was to conduct this attack, I have say that this forum didn't "used to be" a safe haven, it only seemed to be. Now, you have a clearer understanding of how the world really works.
There are two sides to this argument
I disagree. There are no sides at all. The issue is one of continuously varying shades of gray. It's not a binary equation; there are more than two answers. There are, in fact infinite answers, to each variation of the question.
In some cases, people should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. In other cases, they should receive guidance and protection from the government. This varies by the circumstances - everyone should have the government look for obvious signs of criminal behavior, because without government protection, we cannot protect ourselves against Might Makes Right gangs. It also varies by the people in question - some parents do, in fact, need strict government oversight in how they raise, or kill, their children.
There are no simple answers, only simple people asking the wrong question.
Perhaps these students should consider that having a bunch of dumbasses running around campus, running in to people, yelling and screaming, leaving litter lying about, and generally proving they're dumbasses who shouldn't be in college in the first place because small children get in the way of studying, isn't exactly going to make them feel welcome.
Maybe these dumbasses should consider that reporting the nerf toys as real-looking guns is a ruse. Maybe the reason they're banned isn't becaues they're dangerous, it' because the dumbasses carrying them are annoying.
Maybe they should consider getting a life.
. . . if there's a biometric "authentication" method that hasn't been cracked in the real world in ways that would be easy for the average clever crook to duplicate for a trivial amount of money. Fingerprint scanners are trivial - Mythbusters fooled a brand new, state of the art door lock with a xerox of a fingerprint, by licking it. Retina scanners have been cracked, facial recognition software is a joke with no punch line. What else is there?
And once a system has been cracked, it is totally useless, since you can't change your "password" on biometric stuff.
We need to ban anonymous posting to the internet because bullies who post anonymously are hard to track down.
So we'll make them register their names and email addresses with the state.
But they can get literally thousands of email address, for free, from services that aren't subject to our state's (or even country's) laws, and there is no mechanism even possible to police what email address or name they actually use, so they can continue to post anonymously.
And even though we can't track down anonymouse cyber bullies now, we'll be able to later, when they're not using the name or email address they registered with the state.
In addition to having no effect whatsoever, we will give them a legal defense of "Well, that's not my name or email adress! I registered those with the state, just like the law requires, so how could it be me?"
This doesn't even look like an attempt to "do something." In fact, it looks more like an attempt to protect bullies than punish them.
Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. It's very explicit. They can be patented, if they meet the requirements for originality, etc., but any patent would have expired years ago.
What can be patented is artwork, including, possibly, the layout of the game board. Maybe. If it's original enough. And the name, of course, is trademarked. If the layout of the online version is identical, Mattel might have a case. Trademark infringement, maybe. But copyrighted? Not really.
Looking at the archive of correspondence, it looks to me like both sides were evasive, rude and snotty. Both sides, no doubt, had their reasons. Given the nature of the web site, and the history of this kind of fight, were I the bank's lawyers, I'd be very concerned that they would zip it all up and send it off to a hundred other web sites as soon as they got file names, especially if they could so do legally (and they could, since they wouldn't have gotten the C&D yet). Given the history of such C&D efforts, I can see why the web site wouldn't want to give out any freebies to the other side's lawyers.
However, in the end, the only thing Wikileaks made available to the bank to deal with was their domain name. I can't imagine how else they thought this would go, when the bank had no other path to follow.
D&D and GenCon are owned by entirely different companies, and have no business connection whatsoever any more.
Which means we get to watch two companies crash and burn instead of just one.