The point is that they never told us. If they were up front about 'buy this game and you fund the weapons industry' then I can be an informed consumer and I'd be fine with you buying your games while I go buy my own. Instead all of a sudden I'm told that 10+% of my games purchase goes to something I oppose. I'm not saying ban this sick filth, I'm saying that these need to be clearly labelled, because it matters if I'm effectively funding the wars that I oppose.
Since you're so confused, I'll help you out. If you buy a game that has a coke-a-cola logo in it, you're funding the soda industry. If you buy a game that has a Chevrolet Corvette in it, you're funding the auto industry. See how that works? Extrapolate.
So there's a copyrighted look, a trademarked name, and a patented design. Players demand real brand-name stuff in their games, so developers deliver by licensing real brand-name stuff in their games. To do this legally means getting a license.
What's so shady about that?
Exactly what I was here to comment. There's nothing shady going on here. Company A has a product with a recognizable name. Company B pays company A for the use of that recognizable name. Consumers by the product from company B and everyone involved is happy.
We are strangely territorial when it comes to our wireless networks.
Hmm... I'd phrase it as "We are strangely territorial when it comes to the forced penetration of our buttholes while in prison. Since leaving your network open or even running a TOR node has proven to be something you can wind up in jail for if the people you share with are scumbags, it's not a good idea.
Do you have any idea how empty that would leave our campuses? (Not to mention our faculty offices...)
BTW: I teach at University level.
That is a nice thought - we can only hope it would play out that way. Currently kids either have to come from some serious wealth, have truly exceptional high school records, or be part of a minority group to get into most Universities. BTW: I have kids in high school and have been looking into it lately.
Hey, if it also emptied out faculty offices then it could help solve our unemployment problems a bit as well!
If you didn't include a license then those others had no legal right to use it whatsoever. Even looking at it in the public viewer is questionable.
The problem is that the legal framework defaults to all rights reserved unless you explicitly grant rights.
In that case, I'd say the article is about a problem that isn't really a problem at all. If someone wanted to use your code in a business environment it'd be in their best interest to get in touch with you and license it.
The batteries have already been ruled out as the cause of the problems. It's most likely in the charging or temp monitoring systems.
This is just Elon Musk being a bit of an asshole and drumming up publicity.
No, he made the offer before it was publicized that the problem wasn't batteries. We've been the victim of Slashdot being slow and posting things in the wrong order. Maybe he is an assole (don't know) and I'm sure he wanted publicity out of it. However, I don't see anything wrong with his offering to help.
Norway and Sweden are very different; some conflicts even exist between the two.
Norway has a bigger territory, and has control over all the areas where there are natural resources.
Norway has a much smaller population.
Sweden has a more vibrant society and prettier girls.
Norway is much more rich thanks to all the oil.
If all those things are true, then Sweden needs a new government to properly exploit the rich natural resources you mentioned.
iPad Mini's are selling like crazy, even though the Nexus 7 is cheaper, and superior technically in pretty much every way. When it comes to what Apple fans will buy, it's very difficult to tell whether something is a joke or not.
It's true. In a world where this type of stuff is real, there's no reason to not assume an iphone cup holder would not be real as well.
You will also note that the word 'joke' is in quotes throughout this story - the reason is, of course, that this 'joke' is no joke to Apple fanbois, many of whom are outraged after discovering that they could not pre-order this case, and not have declared jihad.
Apple has taken note, and you can be sure that they'll be offering this product for sale along with the "really new" iphone aka iphone 6.
Nothing. In fact, many Americans (such as myself) went out of their way to get the David Peterborough version. The Weaver version is what was available locally in stores. I find his narration much easier to listen to for extended periods of time.
The other retailer is not discouraging the use of the card, he's just no longer subsidizing your costs by adding it to everyone's price.
If I, a cash customer, can stop paying your fees, I'll happily shop at the retailer you boycott.
Except it won't work out that way. You will still be paying the same price you've always paid (including the baked in fee) and the retailers that implement it will be getting an extra influx from the fees they charge to CC users.
What if their prices are lower than other retailers' with just the amount of the surcharge?
That might be interesting, but black Friday sales aside most retailers sell products at the same prices as other retailers. You have stores like Walmart that sell cheaper versions of similar products for less; but typically not the same products.
No this is not true. In fact, if it were true, unlocking would remain legal. It becomes illegal, because they want to force you to use that particular phone while you are with them and that you cannot use the phone with a different provider after the contract has ended!
If you pay full price for the phone, there is no contract required. Also, you'll notice that TFA specifically talks about fulfilling the contracts. I'd bet that if you walked into an AT&T (or pick your carrier) store and ponied up $600 plus tax for an iphone they would even unlock it for you on the spot.
There's nothing preventing you from buying a phone at the unsubsidized price and then modifying it. You're making a deal with the cell phone provider: You agree that you'll honor the contract you signed, and they give you a phone at a discount. Hopefully this is going to be a bit easier over time as everyones moves to LTE (does this mean that CDMA finally bites the dust?) and phones become standardized like the rest of the civilized world.
LTE != unlocked. Even though all carriers are using a SIM for LTE (afaik), the device and the sim card are married. You can't just pop a SIM out of your phone and put another in without the carrier first unlocking the phone. I've tried it recently.
>> the subsidized handset business models of the US carriers are viable, just not universally popular. There's a difference.
> I disagree. They are very popular to the typical US consumer, who doesn't want to pay more than a couple bucks for a new shiny phone in their hands.
The subsidized handset business model is popular with typical US customers because customers do not realize that they are actually paying full price for their handset through what is essentially an installment plan. Pay one cent up front and several hundred dollars spread over the next two years. If US mobile phone users are not going to have the ability to do as they will with their mobiles after the contract has expired then the carriers should be honest about the situation and rent the handsets instead of using stealth leases.
Sort of. Except you don't pay less on the monthly bill if you opt to pay for the phone up front. You're paying the amortized "fee" either way.
the subsidized handset business models of the US carriers are viable, just not universally popular. There's a difference.
I disagree. They are very popular to the typical US consumer, who doesn't want to pay more than a couple bucks for a new shiny phone in their hands.
If it wasn't popular, then the business model wouldn't be viable, because no one in their right might would voluntarily chain themselves to a carrier for years knowing that plan pricing, internet caps, speed throttling, and terms of usage are continually shifting and subject to change without notice, approval, or even the threat of class action from the affected.
Nail meet head. Every mobile phone I've ever looked at on a carriers price has the full non-subsidized price listed, then the discounted "with contract" price. Nothing here sounds like it would stop anyone who had the cash from paying full price for a non-contract and therefore unlockable phone of any model.
With unemployment so high in the US as it is....they'd better sign off that EVERY US citizen potential employee is hired first....then start letting outsiders in.
Absolutely why the H1-B Visa program is a major problem. H1-B's work cheaper than similarly skilled citizens, and so are preferred by employers. In turn it will keep those otherwise employable American IT workers on unemployment. This legislation should be treated as an assault on the US citizens that it is.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that they never told us. If they were up front about 'buy this game and you fund the weapons industry' then I can be an informed consumer and I'd be fine with you buying your games while I go buy my own. Instead all of a sudden I'm told that 10+% of my games purchase goes to something I oppose. I'm not saying ban this sick filth, I'm saying that these need to be clearly labelled, because it matters if I'm effectively funding the wars that I oppose.
Since you're so confused, I'll help you out. If you buy a game that has a coke-a-cola logo in it, you're funding the soda industry. If you buy a game that has a Chevrolet Corvette in it, you're funding the auto industry. See how that works? Extrapolate.
Maybe I'm looking for some deep meaning other than "oh, look, it's just like everything else branded but with guns"
Look no further. That seems to be the extent of the "story" here.
So there's a copyrighted look, a trademarked name, and a patented design. Players demand real brand-name stuff in their games, so developers deliver by licensing real brand-name stuff in their games. To do this legally means getting a license.
What's so shady about that?
Exactly what I was here to comment. There's nothing shady going on here. Company A has a product with a recognizable name. Company B pays company A for the use of that recognizable name. Consumers by the product from company B and everyone involved is happy.
We are strangely territorial when it comes to our wireless networks.
Hmm... I'd phrase it as "We are strangely territorial when it comes to the forced penetration of our buttholes while in prison. Since leaving your network open or even running a TOR node has proven to be something you can wind up in jail for if the people you share with are scumbags, it's not a good idea.
Works fine for me - and looks very interesting too.
Your current credentials do not allow retrieval of the full text.
Do you have any idea how empty that would leave our campuses? (Not to mention our faculty offices ...)
BTW: I teach at University level.
That is a nice thought - we can only hope it would play out that way. Currently kids either have to come from some serious wealth, have truly exceptional high school records, or be part of a minority group to get into most Universities. BTW: I have kids in high school and have been looking into it lately.
Hey, if it also emptied out faculty offices then it could help solve our unemployment problems a bit as well!
There is nothing atractive about the us
If you believe that, then you have never seen the "Jenna" channel.
If you didn't include a license then those others had no legal right to use it whatsoever. Even looking at it in the public viewer is questionable.
The problem is that the legal framework defaults to all rights reserved unless you explicitly grant rights.
In that case, I'd say the article is about a problem that isn't really a problem at all. If someone wanted to use your code in a business environment it'd be in their best interest to get in touch with you and license it.
And from a user's point of view the interface IS the product.
From an Apple user's point of view, perhaps. This is a nerd related site, and posters here should know better.
The batteries have already been ruled out as the cause of the problems. It's most likely in the charging or temp monitoring systems.
This is just Elon Musk being a bit of an asshole and drumming up publicity.
No, he made the offer before it was publicized that the problem wasn't batteries. We've been the victim of Slashdot being slow and posting things in the wrong order. Maybe he is an assole (don't know) and I'm sure he wanted publicity out of it. However, I don't see anything wrong with his offering to help.
without even mentionning that "nihao" is chinese...
In the future, all languages will be Korean. Chinese becomes Korean-C.
Norway and Sweden are very different; some conflicts even exist between the two. Norway has a bigger territory, and has control over all the areas where there are natural resources. Norway has a much smaller population. Sweden has a more vibrant society and prettier girls. Norway is much more rich thanks to all the oil.
If all those things are true, then Sweden needs a new government to properly exploit the rich natural resources you mentioned.
iPad Mini's are selling like crazy, even though the Nexus 7 is cheaper, and superior technically in pretty much every way. When it comes to what Apple fans will buy, it's very difficult to tell whether something is a joke or not.
It's true. In a world where this type of stuff is real, there's no reason to not assume an iphone cup holder would not be real as well.
You will also note that the word 'joke' is in quotes throughout this story - the reason is, of course, that this 'joke' is no joke to Apple fanbois, many of whom are outraged after discovering that they could not pre-order this case, and not have declared jihad.
Apple has taken note, and you can be sure that they'll be offering this product for sale along with the "really new" iphone aka iphone 6.
Nothing. In fact, many Americans (such as myself) went out of their way to get the David Peterborough version. The Weaver version is what was available locally in stores. I find his narration much easier to listen to for extended periods of time.
Just wait until THESE guys get sentenced. The panel will probably write a special set of guidelines just for them.
"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?
The act of downloading music is not called stealing. If the download is done illegally then it may be called copying or sometimes more loosely piracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-wwqW37-gg
The other retailer is not discouraging the use of the card, he's just no longer subsidizing your costs by adding it to everyone's price.
If I, a cash customer, can stop paying your fees, I'll happily shop at the retailer you boycott.
Except it won't work out that way. You will still be paying the same price you've always paid (including the baked in fee) and the retailers that implement it will be getting an extra influx from the fees they charge to CC users.
What if their prices are lower than other retailers' with just the amount of the surcharge?
That might be interesting, but black Friday sales aside most retailers sell products at the same prices as other retailers. You have stores like Walmart that sell cheaper versions of similar products for less; but typically not the same products.
No this is not true. In fact, if it were true, unlocking would remain legal. It becomes illegal, because they want to force you to use that particular phone while you are with them and that you cannot use the phone with a different provider after the contract has ended!
If you pay full price for the phone, there is no contract required. Also, you'll notice that TFA specifically talks about fulfilling the contracts. I'd bet that if you walked into an AT&T (or pick your carrier) store and ponied up $600 plus tax for an iphone they would even unlock it for you on the spot.
There's nothing preventing you from buying a phone at the unsubsidized price and then modifying it. You're making a deal with the cell phone provider: You agree that you'll honor the contract you signed, and they give you a phone at a discount. Hopefully this is going to be a bit easier over time as everyones moves to LTE (does this mean that CDMA finally bites the dust?) and phones become standardized like the rest of the civilized world.
LTE != unlocked. Even though all carriers are using a SIM for LTE (afaik), the device and the sim card are married. You can't just pop a SIM out of your phone and put another in without the carrier first unlocking the phone. I've tried it recently.
>> the subsidized handset business models of the US carriers are viable, just not universally popular. There's a difference.
> I disagree. They are very popular to the typical US consumer, who doesn't want to pay more than a couple bucks for a new shiny phone in their hands.
The subsidized handset business model is popular with typical US customers because customers do not realize that they are actually paying full price for their handset through what is essentially an installment plan. Pay one cent up front and several hundred dollars spread over the next two years. If US mobile phone users are not going to have the ability to do as they will with their mobiles after the contract has expired then the carriers should be honest about the situation and rent the handsets instead of using stealth leases.
Sort of. Except you don't pay less on the monthly bill if you opt to pay for the phone up front. You're paying the amortized "fee" either way.
the subsidized handset business models of the US carriers are viable, just not universally popular. There's a difference.
I disagree. They are very popular to the typical US consumer, who doesn't want to pay more than a couple bucks for a new shiny phone in their hands.
If it wasn't popular, then the business model wouldn't be viable, because no one in their right might would voluntarily chain themselves to a carrier for years knowing that plan pricing, internet caps, speed throttling, and terms of usage are continually shifting and subject to change without notice, approval, or even the threat of class action from the affected.
Nail meet head. Every mobile phone I've ever looked at on a carriers price has the full non-subsidized price listed, then the discounted "with contract" price. Nothing here sounds like it would stop anyone who had the cash from paying full price for a non-contract and therefore unlockable phone of any model.
With unemployment so high in the US as it is....they'd better sign off that EVERY US citizen potential employee is hired first....then start letting outsiders in.
Absolutely why the H1-B Visa program is a major problem. H1-B's work cheaper than similarly skilled citizens, and so are preferred by employers. In turn it will keep those otherwise employable American IT workers on unemployment. This legislation should be treated as an assault on the US citizens that it is.
Watch out for when they start talking about a credibility cap - "We can lie this much..."
Unlikely to happen. The only people who would have to worry about such a cap would be the very ones to legislate such a cap.