I wonder what will happen if a soldier buys a game off base while stationed in Europe, and brings it into the Xbox gameroom on base, and discovers it won't play.
Well, he takes it back to the store for a refund. Since he has a gun slung over his shoulder, the store will take it back without any questions. They'll also learn to start warning the soldiers before they buy games, and the soldiers will learn the mail order them from the US. No matter the stereotypes you might have, soldiers are not stupid, and they're very good at getting their own equipment. Talk to a soldier and he'll tell you all about his favorite gear that he'd take into battle--GPS units that are smaller and lighter than what the army provides, backpacks that don't strain their backs as much when they run, comfortable boots, and so on. People that put so much effort into optimizing their kits aren't going to have too much trouble buying XBox games.
This is one of those cases where it's obvious what's going on, but the party that buys the lawyers and the PR firm prevents the truth from being proven in court. (Look at OJ Simpson's first trial for another example of this.) It's obvious to us that MS "bought a license" from SCO as a way to funnel money to a dying company, in exchange for which it would launch a massive FUD campaign against Linux. MS looks clean but the damage is done. SCO execs make some money. The SEC has been squeezed of funds so it won't ever bring the case to trial.
no more floppy copying for me
on
Random Humor
·
· Score: 1
Oh BSA, your cacophonic rapper playing on an 68020 processor without an FPU has opened my eyes. I will never again copy a floppy. In fact, I won't even use one, and I quite hopefully will never see one again except perhaps in a RAID device. From now on, I will only copy CDs, DVDs, books, Reagan's economic policies, the sound of a dying giraffe, and just about everything other than floppies.
No, this isn't the free market at work. At best, it's civil disobedience. The free market doesn't work when people break the laws. Unless you're willing to call Enron's defrauding of investors the "free market in action", you might be careful about applying that term to actions which are illegal, no matter what you may think about them ethically.
True, and there's another incentive for them at work here. The filler songs are what create the real fans. Sure the radio hits make them rich, but what about the bands that have stopped making music? They go on tours where their hardcore fans dish out loads of cash. Basically, those filler tracks are their retirement plans.
Not, mind you, that I think they somehow have an inherent right to that business model. But it's their right to control how their songs are distributed.
That's a lie they love to tell. The US negotiates with terrorists all the time. Right now the Bush administration is engaged in intensive negotiations with several Palestinian terrorist groups. (And I'm not calling them terrorists because it's the US-Israeli line, but rather because they detonate bombs in places crowded with civilians.) We negotiate hostage exchanges, "disarmament" (cease fire) agreements, and much more. It all depends on how much we want the terrorists to cooperate. The US (and most other countries) have never had serious policies against negotiating with terrorists, no matter what their propaganda campaigns would like you to believe.
And even where it's legal, it's just plain stupid. You ultimately don't have a legal right to control what people do with the hardware you sell them (except in the US), so selling the X-Box at a loss if not a smart move. Why don't they just sell the X-Box at no less than cost and lower the price on games? They could do this in a way that will keep their profits (or losses) constant, and at the same time eliminate most of the incentive to buy a unit just to run something non-MS on it. It seems to me they picked a stupid business model and now they're paying the price.
The reason why three of the the four hijacked planes hit the attackers' targets is this: no one on the planes, not the pilots, not the passengers, not the attendents, had an inkling that the hijackers were intent on crashing the planes.
I agree, and furthermore I'd point out that one of the four hijacked planes did not hit its target (whatever that might have been). Passengers with cell phones found out about the tactic and it is believed they then fought the hijackers for control, resulting in the plane's crashing in a field rather than a building. No matter how stupid some of the people running this country may be, it's heartening to know that the people on that fourth flight were not only fast learners, but also able to coordinate a group action that was at least partially successful. (If it had been completely successful, they'd have landed safely with the terrorists tied up or dead, but that may well have been impossible.)
Also, as noted above, it doesn't really apply to people who give out your physical address when they shouldn't.
Actually, there is a way around that. I'll often put a fake apartment number, like Street: 2718 Notmyrealstreet Apt.amazondotcom. Or if they don't accept addresses that long, I'll put it as my company, e.g. Company: Address Sold By amazondotcom. If all else fails I can stick it at end end of my name.
USPS and the other delivery services have no problem delivering to these addresses. Of course if they had humans looking at this data they'd spot it, but for the most part they don't. The only people who will see the address are on the warehouse floor packing my order, and they really don't care. Then when the company sells my address in bulk to someone, I have some way to trace it. I've caught several companies in this way, even ones that didn't sell my similarly distinguished email address.
Yes, the space program's future is about money. Everything is. And no, I never said anything about war, so don't try to put words into my mouth. The the questions we ask about both manned spaceflight and war are the same: what are the benefits, and what are the risks? If the benefits don't outweigh the risks, we don't do it. That's why we never made a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, for example.
And don't tell me you really believe in this obscene calculus of lives. You know, in America 7 people die every 90 seconds of heart disease. If we wanted to save 17 lives (the total number of astronauts lost in our space program), we could do it *very* easily. So you don't really care about those lives except as a rhetorical device ("fewer lives lost than a war!") and you're just using them to make an argument based on national pride ("to demonstrate technology superiority").
And it's your money too, unless you're trying to make a living off the government dole.
Those are all examples involving personal pursuits or hobbies. I need no arguments to justify doing what I personally want to do. When it becomes a matter of public policy and spending, you need some good arguments.
Why does a running try to break the record on the mile? Personal pride, the "challenge", fun, whatever. It's the runner's choice, so let it be. Why does the US Olympic Committee sponsor that runner? National pride. That's really the best argument they have. And I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad one, just that "because we can" is not a good reason to spend money.
(Damnit, why didn't anyone take up my suggestion to buy low.iq and CNAME it to whitehouse.gov? Come on Iraqis, for once it's in your interests to cooperate with us.)
That people can seriously use this as a reason continues to astound me. It's just a feel-good excuse for a real argument. There are lots of things involving science and technology that we can do, but we don't.
We can dig canals with nuclear bombs. We can kill people who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses. We can create a society where every human movement is tracked by the government. We can release terraforming gasses into our atmosphere to raise the temperature. We can breed deadly diseases.
Less harmfully, we can grow enough food to feed everyone in the world (at least for now). We can move quantities of earth to fight erosion. We can produce flying cars. We can build cities under the sea. We can cheaply produce enough drugs to bring the HIV epidemic under control in China and Africa.
But do we go about trying to do these things? No. So the fact that we can do something doesn't mean that we should or we will.
That's why I go out of my way to make sure incorrect information about me is entered into various databases. For example, I am now registered with literally upwards of 50 frequent flyer programs, all with variations on my information. (As long as I don't try to fly on those numbers, I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking the law, though IANAL.) But there are lots of easy ways to get fake data about you into those databases, and the net result is that it's harder to figure out what information about you is real.
The reason ISPs are buying laws against NAT has nothing to do with a limited number of IPs. These ISPs have plenty of IPs. It has to do with their wanting to charge exorbitant rates to have more computers using the same amount of bandwidth.
Yes, but every now and then you'll make a mistake and the hammer will smash not only the nail, but the entire project, your workbench, and most of Guatemala. Up to the end of the line, that is.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of those cases where it's obvious what's going on, but the party that buys the lawyers and the PR firm prevents the truth from being proven in court. (Look at OJ Simpson's first trial for another example of this.) It's obvious to us that MS "bought a license" from SCO as a way to funnel money to a dying company, in exchange for which it would launch a massive FUD campaign against Linux. MS looks clean but the damage is done. SCO execs make some money. The SEC has been squeezed of funds so it won't ever bring the case to trial.
Oh BSA, your cacophonic rapper playing on an 68020 processor without an FPU has opened my eyes. I will never again copy a floppy. In fact, I won't even use one, and I quite hopefully will never see one again except perhaps in a RAID device. From now on, I will only copy CDs, DVDs, books, Reagan's economic policies, the sound of a dying giraffe, and just about everything other than floppies.
No, this isn't the free market at work. At best, it's civil disobedience. The free market doesn't work when people break the laws. Unless you're willing to call Enron's defrauding of investors the "free market in action", you might be careful about applying that term to actions which are illegal, no matter what you may think about them ethically.
True, and there's another incentive for them at work here. The filler songs are what create the real fans. Sure the radio hits make them rich, but what about the bands that have stopped making music? They go on tours where their hardcore fans dish out loads of cash. Basically, those filler tracks are their retirement plans.
Not, mind you, that I think they somehow have an inherent right to that business model. But it's their right to control how their songs are distributed.
It's hotter now than it was in January, so their barratry campaign must be working really well.
And we're still waiting on the patent for the "spork" to expire. Actually, do you think they could extend that one indefinitely please?
That's a lie they love to tell. The US negotiates with terrorists all the time. Right now the Bush administration is engaged in intensive negotiations with several Palestinian terrorist groups. (And I'm not calling them terrorists because it's the US-Israeli line, but rather because they detonate bombs in places crowded with civilians.) We negotiate hostage exchanges, "disarmament" (cease fire) agreements, and much more. It all depends on how much we want the terrorists to cooperate. The US (and most other countries) have never had serious policies against negotiating with terrorists, no matter what their propaganda campaigns would like you to believe.
And even where it's legal, it's just plain stupid. You ultimately don't have a legal right to control what people do with the hardware you sell them (except in the US), so selling the X-Box at a loss if not a smart move. Why don't they just sell the X-Box at no less than cost and lower the price on games? They could do this in a way that will keep their profits (or losses) constant, and at the same time eliminate most of the incentive to buy a unit just to run something non-MS on it. It seems to me they picked a stupid business model and now they're paying the price.
Actually, there is a way around that. I'll often put a fake apartment number, like Street: 2718 Notmyrealstreet Apt.amazondotcom. Or if they don't accept addresses that long, I'll put it as my company, e.g. Company: Address Sold By amazondotcom. If all else fails I can stick it at end end of my name.
USPS and the other delivery services have no problem delivering to these addresses. Of course if they had humans looking at this data they'd spot it, but for the most part they don't. The only people who will see the address are on the warehouse floor packing my order, and they really don't care. Then when the company sells my address in bulk to someone, I have some way to trace it. I've caught several companies in this way, even ones that didn't sell my similarly distinguished email address.
Where are you, Gene Hackman? Save us!
not just any bash shell, but a bash shell well-integrated with some sort of database server...
Yes, the space program's future is about money. Everything is.
And no, I never said anything about war, so don't try to put words into my mouth. The the questions we ask about both manned spaceflight and war are the same: what are the benefits, and what are the risks? If the benefits don't outweigh the risks, we don't do it. That's why we never made a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, for example.
And don't tell me you really believe in this obscene calculus of lives. You know, in America 7 people die every 90 seconds of heart disease. If we wanted to save 17 lives (the total number of astronauts lost in our space program), we could do it *very* easily. So you don't really care about those lives except as a rhetorical device ("fewer lives lost than a war!") and you're just using them to make an argument based on national pride ("to demonstrate technology superiority").
And it's your money too, unless you're trying to make a living off the government dole.
Those are all examples involving personal pursuits or hobbies. I need no arguments to justify doing what I personally want to do. When it becomes a matter of public policy and spending, you need some good arguments.
Why does a running try to break the record on the mile? Personal pride, the "challenge", fun, whatever. It's the runner's choice, so let it be. Why does the US Olympic Committee sponsor that runner? National pride. That's really the best argument they have. And I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad one, just that "because we can" is not a good reason to spend money.
Except perhaps for unimportant jobs.
(Damnit, why didn't anyone take up my suggestion to buy low.iq and CNAME it to whitehouse.gov? Come on Iraqis, for once it's in your interests to cooperate with us.)
That post was twice as funny because Brazilians speak Portugese.
That people can seriously use this as a reason continues to astound me. It's just a feel-good excuse for a real argument. There are lots of things involving science and technology that we can do, but we don't.
We can dig canals with nuclear bombs. We can kill people who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses. We can create a society where every human movement is tracked by the government. We can release terraforming gasses into our atmosphere to raise the temperature. We can breed deadly diseases.
Less harmfully, we can grow enough food to feed everyone in the world (at least for now). We can move quantities of earth to fight erosion. We can produce flying cars. We can build cities under the sea. We can cheaply produce enough drugs to bring the HIV epidemic under control in China and Africa.
But do we go about trying to do these things? No. So the fact that we can do something doesn't mean that we should or we will.
That's why I go out of my way to make sure incorrect information about me is entered into various databases. For example, I am now registered with literally upwards of 50 frequent flyer programs, all with variations on my information. (As long as I don't try to fly on those numbers, I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking the law, though IANAL.) But there are lots of easy ways to get fake data about you into those databases, and the net result is that it's harder to figure out what information about you is real.
The reason ISPs are buying laws against NAT has nothing to do with a limited number of IPs. These ISPs have plenty of IPs. It has to do with their wanting to charge exorbitant rates to have more computers using the same amount of bandwidth.
Yes, but every now and then you'll make a mistake and the hammer will smash not only the nail, but the entire project, your workbench, and most of Guatemala. Up to the end of the line, that is.
Or don't send referers.