Not all advertising is manipulation. For example, look at coupons for your local Cub Foods or Krogers in the newspaper. The coupons are basically the retailer notifying you that if you bring in the coupon, they will allow you to purchase a specific product for a reduced price.
The coupons are often for things you would not normally purchase, but with a reduced price the product may offer a better value and thus be worthy of your purchase. There is no manipulation involved in this case.
Another example are advertisements in the newspaper for car dealerships, offering one car for a low price. However, when you arrive at the dealership that car is "on a test drive" or "sold" but they push the malleable consumer into looking at or even purchasing another more expensive car. That is manipulation, because the consumer is baited to the dealership under false pretenses.
In my opinion, all advertisements that are designed to encourage an emotional response is manipulation because you are appealing to subjective emotions in what should be an objective purchasing decision. I don't mind targeted ads that show me things I may want to buy, if they provide an honest objective reason why I might want to buy the product.
There will always be limited resources, and those who would deny those resources to others as leverage against their fellow man. It's about power, not scarcity of resources.
You're right, we should just give up now. Obviously the fact that it's not ready for commercialization now is indicative of it's future potential as a technology.
Netcraft confirmed Iceland is dying because Natalie Portman dragged an anchor across Iceland's cables while eating grits and laughing hysterically "In Soviet Russia, you skullfuck Microsoft!".
In all seriousness, I guess these so-called "partners" of Microsoft now realize what a bad decision they made. I hope all of Iceland switches to OSS.
Politicians are corrupt. There is value(read: profit) in artificial scarcity. By reducing the consumer's expectations you can get them to pay more for the same service. Profit is good for the economy(in theory).
Soon, you'll pick your ISP or your rate plan based on the sites you want to see. The content producers and ISP's will share the revenue from the increased revenue. Sadly, I really think a lot of consumers will pony up the cash.
Regardless of what the laws say, ISP's can choose to allow universal access. If this new business model fails, they may eventually give up.
You're looking at this entirely wrong. Rejection of the GPL and rejection of DRM are two entirely separate things.
DRM isn't a license, it's a mechanism to restrict the use of the copyrighted work. From a moral perspective, it's improper for consumers to be forced to purchase the same work for their Zune, iPod, generic MP3 player, car, computer and CD player. If, through DRM, music publishers thought they could get away with that they would. DRM is their weak attempt at this, with the false presumption that consumers won't fight back.
Again, from a moral perspective, bypassing DRM to use a legally purchased copyrighted work such as an audio recording or a movie on the device of your choice is not wrong - it is a prerogative. From a legal perspective, well obviously the current state of laws are out of touch with reality, as is the mindset of content producers(see Authors Guild recent statements regarding Kindle). In fact, on that note, I would love to see the Authors Guild representative tell a blind man face to face that he has to pay extra because of text to speech capability. Good fucking luck.
GPL is a license. The license doesn't restrict your use of the software and thus does not impose morally unfair conditions upon users of GPL software. If you downloaded the next Linux kernel and it had an addendum on the license that said "This software can only be used while wearing pink fuzzy slippers", I would wholeheartedly agree that users should ignore that portion of the license.
In many ways, the laws on the books are out of touch with common morality and consumer expectations of fairness. They will catch up eventually, I hope.
Explorer, MMC, Control Panel, just to name a few all use mshtml.dll. In addition, any.NET application that utilizes the WebBroswer class or MFC application that uses the CHtmlView class will need mshtml.dll to be available.
The only alternative here is for Mozilla or another OS browser to reimplement mshtml.dll from scratch - a daunting task of questionable logic.
You don't seem to know much about software development.
Say the update you make is an edit to a structure or class definition in a commonly included header file. Now rebuilding your project might require rebuilding a large portion of your project.
Also, file access latency if a huge killer in software development. In some languages like C and C++, there are dozens or hundreds of header files that need to be read and parsed for each source file you compile.
There is a lot to be said for using SSD's. Another good option really is to just get enough ram to alleviate hitting the hard drive frequently, since as others have noted, all modern operating systems use available ram for file caching.
Yes, I've noticed OO.org loads much faster than previous versions. I'm using 3.0.1 right now and really haven't had any issues with it, aside from a bizarre Rich Text Format file export formatting issue.
Questionable. I would venture to guess that depends greatly on where you live.
The question isn't whether it's legal or not, it's whether you would be interested in spending the money to defend yourself from such legal action. Unless you're planning on reselling software as a business(Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (W.D. Wash. 2008)), it's just not worth the risk to save $10. Although I suppose in Timothy Vernor's case, he was selling expensive software(AutoCAD R14) so maybe sometimes it is worth the risk.
Moderators must be high today. While your first line is true, it's not strictly relevant.
There is no clear cut line for what constitutes a loan, license or sale. Guidelines from the 9th circuit(Wise, 550 F.2d 1189) seem to indicate resale of a copyrighted work by a vendee who has sole control of the work can do so without permission from the copyright holder. The title of the agreement under which the sale or license occurs is not deterministic in revealing if the transaction constitutes a sale.
This is unlikely to apply to games purchased through Steam, since the copyrighted work still remains under control of the vendor. At most, the vendee would be liable to the copyright holder for breach of contract but the copyright act is not invoked. Even if the first sale doctrine were applicable, it doesn't require Steam to issue activation keys to the new owner of the copy.
Indeed. I propose also that there be new rules for certain patentable product categories such as pharmaceuticals whereby:
a) A patent application is filed upon a drug reaching a stage of development where efficacy in treating, preventing or curing a disease or condition has been demonstrated. b) Clinical trials are completed until final FDA approval is issued. c) Patent is issued, issue date being that of the FDA approval date. Patent duration is to be 5 years.
The key with a plan like this is that the long period of time that is needed for drug development becomes unimportant. Public disclosure of the drug's basic function occurs in a timely manner, the drug company gets the same fixed duration of patent protection regardless of the number of clinical trials needed to obtain FDA approval and the drug company has an opportunity to exploit their monopoly status to fund development of new drugs with a little profit added in.
In addition to this, I also believe only NEW drugs should be patent eligible, meaning combination of existing drugs should not be eligible for patent protection unless there is demonstration of marked utility in combining the drugs. A good example are patents issued for combination drugs that have statins and other drugs included in the same pill, but are available and useful separately.
It doesn't have to cost ridiculous amounts of money to obtain a patent. Despite what patent lawyers may tell you, if you have sufficient time and effort you can obtain a patent all by yourself. The filing fees are more than some can afford, but are not outside the realm of reasonableness given the amount of patent examiner time needed to evaluate the application.
The most difficult part of a patent application is writing concise claims and properly citing any prior art.
Current USPTO fee list. Note, you even get a 50% discount for being a small entity if you are a person or small business.
It is not completely without legal ramifications. For instance, the very same Wiki entry you linked cites this:
35 U.S.C. 292 False marking. (a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made, used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the words "patent," "patentee," or the like, with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article the word "patent" or any word or number importing the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article the words "patent applied for," "patent pending," or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public - Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.
(b) Any person may sue for the penalty, in which event one-half shall go to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.
In other words, marking products "Patent Pending" does not protect the patent applicant but if misused does result in up to $500 in fines per offense.
I'm originally from Washington and my recent move to Minnesota just before winter kind of left me stuck indoors. I just didn't have the wardrobe for -30F temperatures.
Changed my entire perspective on temperature. In Washington, if it was below 55F, that was coat weather. Now, if it's below 35F that is coat weather and I really don't complain about the weather much until we're below 0F. An inch of snow in Washington made me happy that I might get to make a snowman. Now it snows and it's just another day. My front yard has about 16" of snow right now and if that snowplow covers my mailbox again on purpose I might beat the plow driver with a shovel.
Your explanation of entrapment is a good theory I suppose. All across america every weekend hundreds if not thousands of policewomen dress up as hookers and entice johns into engaging in activity they might not otherwise engage in.
The courts have routinely allowed evidence based on these encounters, despite the fact that often these men would not try to obtain services from prostitutes if it weren't for them standing on the side of the road. On TV shows where these types of 'sting' operations are displayed, often times the policewomen dressed as hookers even approach cars parked at stop lights which is very obviously entrapment, but they get away with it anyway.
The "necessity" word you are searching for is duress, and while that defense would work for a lot(even the bank robbery scenario you described), it would be unlikely to work for breaking out of jail.
With respect to the RIAA, you're right that entrapment wouldn't work, but criminal computer trespass might.
I wish it were nonsense. There was a US case about a patient who had an acute spinal cord injury. There is a controversy about whether or not to give steroids in these cases to reduce swelling and decrease subsequent injury. So far the consensus is that it doesn't help. The ER attending physician therefore did not give steroids. The patient had a bad outcome. The ER attending was found guilty (not sure what the correct term is) because the prosecution found an expert witness who said that it might have helped.
Naproxen sodium is also very good for this use and equally non-habit forming.
Vicodin is very effective but also habit forming and widely overused. While it makes sense in a lot of cases such as people who cannot take NSAIDs, the higher cost and risk of addiction make vicodin a riskier choice more often than sales statistics would imply.
Do you just not understand there are religious people out there who do NOT believe in religion of freedom and thin you should die for not believing as they do?
As a former Jehovah's Witness, I know a thing or two about religious conservatives and fundamentalists. The average religious zealot will try to convert you, but only a fundamentalist would try to kill you because you reject their faith. These types of people have no place in modern society.
And you want to advocate a position of compromise... There isn't compromise with them. Look at Afghanistan. The taliban will only allow government if it includes forcing sharia law on people who for the most part are moderate Islamic people. They take this position to the detriment of their own people, hiding among them or kidnapping/killing those who would propose another way(true democracy).
And you still want to advocate meeting in the middle? Fuck the fundamentalists, and fuck you too.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all advertising is manipulation. For example, look at coupons for your local Cub Foods or Krogers in the newspaper. The coupons are basically the retailer notifying you that if you bring in the coupon, they will allow you to purchase a specific product for a reduced price.
The coupons are often for things you would not normally purchase, but with a reduced price the product may offer a better value and thus be worthy of your purchase. There is no manipulation involved in this case.
Another example are advertisements in the newspaper for car dealerships, offering one car for a low price. However, when you arrive at the dealership that car is "on a test drive" or "sold" but they push the malleable consumer into looking at or even purchasing another more expensive car. That is manipulation, because the consumer is baited to the dealership under false pretenses.
In my opinion, all advertisements that are designed to encourage an emotional response is manipulation because you are appealing to subjective emotions in what should be an objective purchasing decision. I don't mind targeted ads that show me things I may want to buy, if they provide an honest objective reason why I might want to buy the product.
There will always be limited resources, and those who would deny those resources to others as leverage against their fellow man. It's about power, not scarcity of resources.
You're right, we should just give up now. Obviously the fact that it's not ready for commercialization now is indicative of it's future potential as a technology.
Excuse me while I go reload my coal plant.
Netcraft confirmed Iceland is dying because Natalie Portman dragged an anchor across Iceland's cables while eating grits and laughing hysterically "In Soviet Russia, you skullfuck Microsoft!".
In all seriousness, I guess these so-called "partners" of Microsoft now realize what a bad decision they made. I hope all of Iceland switches to OSS.
Politicians are corrupt. There is value(read: profit) in artificial scarcity. By reducing the consumer's expectations you can get them to pay more for the same service. Profit is good for the economy(in theory).
Soon, you'll pick your ISP or your rate plan based on the sites you want to see. The content producers and ISP's will share the revenue from the increased revenue. Sadly, I really think a lot of consumers will pony up the cash.
Regardless of what the laws say, ISP's can choose to allow universal access. If this new business model fails, they may eventually give up.
You're looking at this entirely wrong. Rejection of the GPL and rejection of DRM are two entirely separate things.
DRM isn't a license, it's a mechanism to restrict the use of the copyrighted work. From a moral perspective, it's improper for consumers to be forced to purchase the same work for their Zune, iPod, generic MP3 player, car, computer and CD player. If, through DRM, music publishers thought they could get away with that they would. DRM is their weak attempt at this, with the false presumption that consumers won't fight back.
Again, from a moral perspective, bypassing DRM to use a legally purchased copyrighted work such as an audio recording or a movie on the device of your choice is not wrong - it is a prerogative. From a legal perspective, well obviously the current state of laws are out of touch with reality, as is the mindset of content producers(see Authors Guild recent statements regarding Kindle). In fact, on that note, I would love to see the Authors Guild representative tell a blind man face to face that he has to pay extra because of text to speech capability. Good fucking luck.
GPL is a license. The license doesn't restrict your use of the software and thus does not impose morally unfair conditions upon users of GPL software. If you downloaded the next Linux kernel and it had an addendum on the license that said "This software can only be used while wearing pink fuzzy slippers", I would wholeheartedly agree that users should ignore that portion of the license.
In many ways, the laws on the books are out of touch with common morality and consumer expectations of fairness. They will catch up eventually, I hope.
Explorer, MMC, Control Panel, just to name a few all use mshtml.dll. In addition, any .NET application that utilizes the WebBroswer class or MFC application that uses the CHtmlView class will need mshtml.dll to be available.
The only alternative here is for Mozilla or another OS browser to reimplement mshtml.dll from scratch - a daunting task of questionable logic.
You don't seem to know much about software development.
Say the update you make is an edit to a structure or class definition in a commonly included header file. Now rebuilding your project might require rebuilding a large portion of your project.
Also, file access latency if a huge killer in software development. In some languages like C and C++, there are dozens or hundreds of header files that need to be read and parsed for each source file you compile.
There is a lot to be said for using SSD's. Another good option really is to just get enough ram to alleviate hitting the hard drive frequently, since as others have noted, all modern operating systems use available ram for file caching.
Yes, I've noticed OO.org loads much faster than previous versions. I'm using 3.0.1 right now and really haven't had any issues with it, aside from a bizarre Rich Text Format file export formatting issue.
Visual Basic is hard. Let's use Perl.
lolwut? That's my favorite thing about the movie. It wasn't made for 10 year old kids.
Now I want to see it even more.
CmdrTaco doesn't work you insensitive clod.
Questionable. I would venture to guess that depends greatly on where you live.
The question isn't whether it's legal or not, it's whether you would be interested in spending the money to defend yourself from such legal action. Unless you're planning on reselling software as a business(Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (W.D. Wash. 2008)), it's just not worth the risk to save $10. Although I suppose in Timothy Vernor's case, he was selling expensive software(AutoCAD R14) so maybe sometimes it is worth the risk.
Moderators must be high today. While your first line is true, it's not strictly relevant.
There is no clear cut line for what constitutes a loan, license or sale. Guidelines from the 9th circuit(Wise, 550 F.2d 1189) seem to indicate resale of a copyrighted work by a vendee who has sole control of the work can do so without permission from the copyright holder. The title of the agreement under which the sale or license occurs is not deterministic in revealing if the transaction constitutes a sale.
This is unlikely to apply to games purchased through Steam, since the copyrighted work still remains under control of the vendor. At most, the vendee would be liable to the copyright holder for breach of contract but the copyright act is not invoked. Even if the first sale doctrine were applicable, it doesn't require Steam to issue activation keys to the new owner of the copy.
Indeed. I propose also that there be new rules for certain patentable product categories such as pharmaceuticals whereby:
a) A patent application is filed upon a drug reaching a stage of development where efficacy in treating, preventing or curing a disease or condition has been demonstrated.
b) Clinical trials are completed until final FDA approval is issued.
c) Patent is issued, issue date being that of the FDA approval date. Patent duration is to be 5 years.
The key with a plan like this is that the long period of time that is needed for drug development becomes unimportant. Public disclosure of the drug's basic function occurs in a timely manner, the drug company gets the same fixed duration of patent protection regardless of the number of clinical trials needed to obtain FDA approval and the drug company has an opportunity to exploit their monopoly status to fund development of new drugs with a little profit added in.
In addition to this, I also believe only NEW drugs should be patent eligible, meaning combination of existing drugs should not be eligible for patent protection unless there is demonstration of marked utility in combining the drugs. A good example are patents issued for combination drugs that have statins and other drugs included in the same pill, but are available and useful separately.
It doesn't have to cost ridiculous amounts of money to obtain a patent. Despite what patent lawyers may tell you, if you have sufficient time and effort you can obtain a patent all by yourself. The filing fees are more than some can afford, but are not outside the realm of reasonableness given the amount of patent examiner time needed to evaluate the application.
The most difficult part of a patent application is writing concise claims and properly citing any prior art.
Current USPTO fee list. Note, you even get a 50% discount for being a small entity if you are a person or small business.
It is not completely without legal ramifications. For instance, the very same Wiki entry you linked cites this:
35 U.S.C. 292 False marking.
(a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made, used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the words "patent," "patentee," or the like, with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article the word "patent" or any word or number importing the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article the words "patent applied for," "patent pending," or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public - Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.
(b) Any person may sue for the penalty, in which event one-half shall go to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.
In other words, marking products "Patent Pending" does not protect the patent applicant but if misused does result in up to $500 in fines per offense.
I'm originally from Washington and my recent move to Minnesota just before winter kind of left me stuck indoors. I just didn't have the wardrobe for -30F temperatures.
Changed my entire perspective on temperature. In Washington, if it was below 55F, that was coat weather. Now, if it's below 35F that is coat weather and I really don't complain about the weather much until we're below 0F. An inch of snow in Washington made me happy that I might get to make a snowman. Now it snows and it's just another day. My front yard has about 16" of snow right now and if that snowplow covers my mailbox again on purpose I might beat the plow driver with a shovel.
Fun times.
Your explanation of entrapment is a good theory I suppose. All across america every weekend hundreds if not thousands of policewomen dress up as hookers and entice johns into engaging in activity they might not otherwise engage in.
The courts have routinely allowed evidence based on these encounters, despite the fact that often these men would not try to obtain services from prostitutes if it weren't for them standing on the side of the road. On TV shows where these types of 'sting' operations are displayed, often times the policewomen dressed as hookers even approach cars parked at stop lights which is very obviously entrapment, but they get away with it anyway.
The "necessity" word you are searching for is duress, and while that defense would work for a lot(even the bank robbery scenario you described), it would be unlikely to work for breaking out of jail.
With respect to the RIAA, you're right that entrapment wouldn't work, but criminal computer trespass might.
Wafertech is a subsidiary of TSMC, so pretty close.
Also, as to reasons Intel might want to move some production to TSMC....
Feyde is that you?
I wish it were nonsense. There was a US case about a patient who had an acute spinal cord injury. There is a controversy about whether or not to give steroids in these cases to reduce swelling and decrease subsequent injury. So far the consensus is that it doesn't help. The ER attending physician therefore did not give steroids. The patient had a bad outcome. The ER attending was found guilty (not sure what the correct term is) because the prosecution found an expert witness who said that it might have helped.
Link?
Naproxen sodium is also very good for this use and equally non-habit forming.
Vicodin is very effective but also habit forming and widely overused. While it makes sense in a lot of cases such as people who cannot take NSAIDs, the higher cost and risk of addiction make vicodin a riskier choice more often than sales statistics would imply.
Do you just not understand there are religious people out there who do NOT believe in religion of freedom and thin you should die for not believing as they do?
As a former Jehovah's Witness, I know a thing or two about religious conservatives and fundamentalists. The average religious zealot will try to convert you, but only a fundamentalist would try to kill you because you reject their faith. These types of people have no place in modern society.
And you want to advocate a position of compromise... There isn't compromise with them. Look at Afghanistan. The taliban will only allow government if it includes forcing sharia law on people who for the most part are moderate Islamic people. They take this position to the detriment of their own people, hiding among them or kidnapping/killing those who would propose another way(true democracy).
And you still want to advocate meeting in the middle? Fuck the fundamentalists, and fuck you too.
I don't care what religious fundamentalists have to offer. I don't want it.
Their ability to make contribute to modern society doesn't undo the harm they cause.
Finding apple users is easy, just go to school and look across the lunchroom.
For many of us who have to actually pay for our computers, the linux on cheap hardware value proposition is too good to pass up.