What if the writer were a Martian? That question makes as much sense as your question.
No one has asked that question because Apple does market research, actually listens to it's users, and tries to provide what the users what the users want. Implementing an UNIX backend was driven by what users want (more stability) and still they took head over it.
To me, it looks like you are trying to sidestep the question.
Complement their new hair, new shoes, new dress; ask them about their weekend;
That can be construed as unprofessional conduct, prying, and unwanted advances and result in a sexual harassment complaint.
if she asks why you don't do it, just tell her you're shy - girls love shy guys
Ask women and I guarantee you the vast majority will say they like confident men and that shy != confident.
See if anyone is noticing you - if so, walk up to them and say "Hi, my name is [your name here]";-p Get the girl (or guy's) name then say "Nice meeting you" and walk back over to your group.
That assumes that she is not looking at a goofy dumbass wearing horrible clothes, will be able to hear you over the excessively loud music, and/or is not on her cellphone non-stop.
she will come over to the group and introduce herself to join the group
In a perfect world, maybe. In reality, most women will not do this. Most women are too cowardly to do that. It is too much of a risk because she might be rejected by the group and/or the guys might all be rapists.
That assumes the developers actually CARE about what the users really want. According to the article, and my personal experience and numerous slashdot posts, the pretty much don't care.
It may have been Thomas-Rasset's computer, but could the RIAA prove she actually installed KaZaa?
They don't have to. They only have to convince the jury that she is responsible. Their argument is that the program was install on her computer, under a user ID which is the same ID she uses in many other computer systems, and that she was savy enough to set up multiple accounts for other users.
Sure, the original HDD was toasted and this may be a mute point.
It is not a moot point because she lied about when the drive was replaced. That goes to credibility and shows an attempt to distort evidence.
I've heard young children say "I don't want a Sony because they're bad people".
Really? Which young children? Who were their parents, friends of yours? Or, did you over hear this in a playground? Were their parents perhaps rabid anti-copyright people who hate the **AA and all their members? Or, are they your children?
Your anecdote is too vague to be of any value. In fact, here is a refutation of your anecdote: my 18yo nephew saved up his money to buy a PS3.
I don't surf for porn, download warez, download games from the internet, or play web-based games. I use WinXP WITHOUT antivirus and I use Vista with anti-virus. Guess what. I haven't had a single virus, spyware, or malware issue. Not one.
PJ mentions the Snapdragon thing and links an article. But read the first line of the article(emphasis added)blockquote>ONE OF THE rumors floating around Computex involves a pretty little Asus 'Smartbook' based on the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor and it's mid-show disappearance.
It is rumor, not fact, with no supporting evidence and not even "an unamed ASUS rep".
So next time you hear Microsoft bragging that people *prefer* their software to Linux on netbooks, you'll know better.
Here is an interesting thing:
Every time I go down to my local computer store to look at netbooks, some Linux geek has changed the password on the device rendering it useless. No one knows the password so no one can look at the applications and play with the device and the only way to recover the device is to reflash the device. Meanwhile, every single Windows netbook is available to be played with. Guess which one get bought?
So, Linux geeks, showing off their 1337 h4x0r sk177z are busy preventing people from seeing Linux based netbooks resulting in lower sales for Linux based devices.
What if automakers measured gas mileage by rolling their cars downhill with their engines idling?
While they don't do that, what they do is almost as bad.
They tune the car perfectly and esentially put it on a rollers in a room. No road, no wind, no hills, just the car sitting in a room under perfect driving conditions.
Really? You are the one suggesting that the proper way to impose your will on the rest of the nation and world is to take up arms against your government.
Or did you think that "ammo box" meant something else?
She wrecked her own life. She is not a political refugee, nor any other kind of refugee. She was sued, found liable, and lost. And, her claiming bankruptcy in Canada does not apply to her debts in the U.S.
You are right, you are not a lawyer, you aren't even very knowledgeable about the world.
You, as in the collective group, as well as you personally. You do not represent "the people", you represent a small minority of people who think they are entitled to have their way.
a soap box with over one million voices
One million people, not all of which are American, most of which agree with you are hear on slashdot. That is what you consider using the soap box? Meanwhile, the RIAA is using musicians, lawyer, lobbyists, radio, TV, magazines, and the internet to reach the other 299 million people in the U.S. You are too busy preaching to the choir to reach out to the people, you know, the general public. You don't even know what a soap box is, and have failed to use it properly.
we have managed to vote politicians into power that have their hands in the entertainment industry's pockets
Yes, you did manage to do that didn't you. You did it. The RIAA didn't put them in power, your did. Looks like you didn't do a very good job at the ballot box, eh? That is your responsibility, so try again.
Now we've had a second trial with bad lawyering on both sides ending in a jury deciding a ridiculous and impossible punishment.
Let's see. Two trials, two decisions you don't like, so it must be "bad lawyering". That means the system is broken because she, and by extension you, didn't get your way. It couldn't possibly be that she did it, right? Because that would mean you are wrong and aren't entitled to violate other people's copyright.
Learn to use the soap box and the ballot box and the jury box properly and then actually use them, then, maybe, if you can get a majority of the population to agree that it should be used, you can use the ammo box.
Otherwise, you are just another selfish, self-centered, arrogant, extremist thug who is willing to resort to violence and murder to get his way.
And what if people respected the copyrights held by the members of the RIAA and instead of pouring money, time, and effort into violating those copyrights and providing ammunion to the **AA, said worked to institute and enforce reasonable copyright laws? Imagine how greatful the **AA would be and people who want cheaper, DRM free works would look like good guys.
False assumption. The penalty is not based on the cost of purchasing the song from itunes, nor is it based on the number of times it was downloaded.
First there is actual damages and profits.
Then there are the statutary damages. The MINIMUM statutary damages for unknowing infringement is $200 per item. The maximum for knowingly and willfully infringing is $150,000 per item.
Um, no. If you had tried with the soap box and the ballot box (and I mean actually tried and not just whining on slashdot), then you could say that. But, you haven't tried really tried, because if you did, then I wouldn't be reading on slashdot about how there is no use in trying.
then get someone to put it up on a torrent and that's worth $160,000 right
See, if you get someone to put it up, then you are giving tacit permission for others to make copies. What you need to do is hack into Paris Hilton's computer, secretly install Kazaa on her computer, stick a 24 of your original songs on there for download, then erase all evidence you did it, and then sue her for infringement.
No, it doesn't. Maybe if you had some legal training you would see that. Here is a clue: If what you said was true, then Ray would have been crowing about it, but he isn't.
You have omitted the more obvious possibility: The jury saw how she has no real defense but has been wasting the time of everyone else and decided to award damages in line with what they saw.
I would also be interested to know if that $1.9 million award included legal fees as well as compensatory and punatative damages.
We have seen what happens when they throttle throughput haven't we?
Your arbitary numbers in your arbitary equation mean nothing. If the equation and numbers are pulled out of one's ass and not based on the real world, then they are worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the writer were a Martian? That question makes as much sense as your question.
No one has asked that question because Apple does market research, actually listens to it's users, and tries to provide what the users what the users want. Implementing an UNIX backend was driven by what users want (more stability) and still they took head over it.
To me, it looks like you are trying to sidestep the question.
That can be construed as unprofessional conduct, prying, and unwanted advances and result in a sexual harassment complaint.
Ask women and I guarantee you the vast majority will say they like confident men and that shy != confident.
That assumes that she is not looking at a goofy dumbass wearing horrible clothes, will be able to hear you over the excessively loud music, and/or is not on her cellphone non-stop.
In a perfect world, maybe. In reality, most women will not do this. Most women are too cowardly to do that. It is too much of a risk because she might be rejected by the group and/or the guys might all be rapists.
Who cares? It is just copyright infringement. Imaginary property and all that.
That assumes the developers actually CARE about what the users really want. According to the article, and my personal experience and numerous slashdot posts, the pretty much don't care.
They don't have to. They only have to convince the jury that she is responsible. Their argument is that the program was install on her computer, under a user ID which is the same ID she uses in many other computer systems, and that she was savy enough to set up multiple accounts for other users.
It is not a moot point because she lied about when the drive was replaced. That goes to credibility and shows an attempt to distort evidence.
Last I checked the minimum damages for willfully infringing copyright is US$750 per incident.
The maximum is US$150,000.
She got off with about half-way between the two.
Really? Which young children? Who were their parents, friends of yours? Or, did you over hear this in a playground? Were their parents perhaps rabid anti-copyright people who hate the **AA and all their members? Or, are they your children?
Your anecdote is too vague to be of any value. In fact, here is a refutation of your anecdote: my 18yo nephew saved up his money to buy a PS3.
I don't surf for porn, download warez, download games from the internet, or play web-based games. I use WinXP WITHOUT antivirus and I use Vista with anti-virus. Guess what. I haven't had a single virus, spyware, or malware issue. Not one.
PJ mentions the Snapdragon thing and links an article. But read the first line of the article(emphasis added)blockquote>ONE OF THE rumors floating around Computex involves a pretty little Asus 'Smartbook' based on the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor and it's mid-show disappearance.
It is rumor, not fact, with no supporting evidence and not even "an unamed ASUS rep".
Here is an interesting thing:
So, Linux geeks, showing off their 1337 h4x0r sk177z are busy preventing people from seeing Linux based netbooks resulting in lower sales for Linux based devices.
While they don't do that, what they do is almost as bad.
They tune the car perfectly and esentially put it on a rollers in a room. No road, no wind, no hills, just the car sitting in a room under perfect driving conditions.
Really? You are the one suggesting that the proper way to impose your will on the rest of the nation and world is to take up arms against your government.
Or did you think that "ammo box" meant something else?
She wrecked her own life. She is not a political refugee, nor any other kind of refugee. She was sued, found liable, and lost. And, her claiming bankruptcy in Canada does not apply to her debts in the U.S.
You are right, you are not a lawyer, you aren't even very knowledgeable about the world.
You, as in the collective group, as well as you personally. You do not represent "the people", you represent a small minority of people who think they are entitled to have their way.
One million people, not all of which are American, most of which agree with you are hear on slashdot. That is what you consider using the soap box? Meanwhile, the RIAA is using musicians, lawyer, lobbyists, radio, TV, magazines, and the internet to reach the other 299 million people in the U.S. You are too busy preaching to the choir to reach out to the people, you know, the general public. You don't even know what a soap box is, and have failed to use it properly.
Yes, you did manage to do that didn't you. You did it. The RIAA didn't put them in power, your did. Looks like you didn't do a very good job at the ballot box, eh? That is your responsibility, so try again.
Let's see. Two trials, two decisions you don't like, so it must be "bad lawyering". That means the system is broken because she, and by extension you, didn't get your way. It couldn't possibly be that she did it, right? Because that would mean you are wrong and aren't entitled to violate other people's copyright.
Learn to use the soap box and the ballot box and the jury box properly and then actually use them, then, maybe, if you can get a majority of the population to agree that it should be used, you can use the ammo box.
Otherwise, you are just another selfish, self-centered, arrogant, extremist thug who is willing to resort to violence and murder to get his way.
And what if people respected the copyrights held by the members of the RIAA and instead of pouring money, time, and effort into violating those copyrights and providing ammunion to the **AA, said worked to institute and enforce reasonable copyright laws? Imagine how greatful the **AA would be and people who want cheaper, DRM free works would look like good guys.
False assumption. The penalty is not based on the cost of purchasing the song from itunes, nor is it based on the number of times it was downloaded.
First there is actual damages and profits.
Then there are the statutary damages. The MINIMUM statutary damages for unknowing infringement is $200 per item. The maximum for knowingly and willfully infringing is $150,000 per item.
Yes, she is going to pack up her 4 kids and move to a third-world country on what little money she has in the bank.
Um, no. If you had tried with the soap box and the ballot box (and I mean actually tried and not just whining on slashdot), then you could say that. But, you haven't tried really tried, because if you did, then I wouldn't be reading on slashdot about how there is no use in trying.
See, if you get someone to put it up, then you are giving tacit permission for others to make copies. What you need to do is hack into Paris Hilton's computer, secretly install Kazaa on her computer, stick a 24 of your original songs on there for download, then erase all evidence you did it, and then sue her for infringement.
I may be mistaken, but I don't think there are juries at appeal.
Didn't you also repeatedly say that the RIAA has effectively no chance of winning this time around in the last article on this?
No, it doesn't. Maybe if you had some legal training you would see that. Here is a clue: If what you said was true, then Ray would have been crowing about it, but he isn't.
You have omitted the more obvious possibility:
The jury saw how she has no real defense but has been wasting the time of everyone else and decided to award damages in line with what they saw.
I would also be interested to know if that $1.9 million award included legal fees as well as compensatory and punatative damages.
Even if she admitted guilt and the RIAA agreed to the awarding of minimum damages, she would still be on the hook for the legal fees of the RIAA.
We have seen what happens when they throttle throughput haven't we?
Your arbitary numbers in your arbitary equation mean nothing. If the equation and numbers are pulled out of one's ass and not based on the real world, then they are worthless.
It is not a fine. It is compensatory and punative damages in a civil suit. There is an important difference.