And the Tesla Roadster shows that decent performance can be attained. 150 miles and you've a couple of hours between recharges anyway. The problem is recharge times. Deal with that and electric cars are viable.
Yes, a licence is different from a sale. But whether it's a valid contract or not doesn't depend on the signature, which was the only reason for the example I gave
All sorts of agreements are binding without that. Legally, buying something from a shop is a contract. The act of me giving money and the shopkeeper accepting it is acceptance that I have exchanged money for the item in question.
Generally, if you act in a manner that makes it clear that you have accepted an agreement, then you've accepted. Signing a contract is just a form of proof. It shows that you have most likely read and understood the agreement.
It has come to our attention that you have been frequently accused of piracy. As a large ISP we are required to log this information. However, we would be willing to transfer your account details to our wholly owned sister company which currently only has 399,998 customers and has no policy of logging your information.
I think this sort of statement is part of the script. First lawyer makes a ludicrous claim, defence lawyer then says that it's stupid. Of course it can be measured in money and anyway, my clients didn't violate the law in the first place.
Speak for yourself. As a games developer myself, yes, I'd prefer it if people bought the games rather than downloading them. But a pirated game cost at most one lost sale and most likely works out to an average of about a tenth of a sale.
The mere act of suing them will cause considerable stress to them, that is completely disproportionate to any harm they might have done. If you think that piracy is unjustifiable, then I appreciate that's a valid opinion. However, suing someone for thousands of times the amount they cost you is also unjustifiable.
But they will be able to catch some of the less competent criminals, and slightly increase the cost of doing business. Also, if a lot of people seem to be using a phone registered to one cheerleader, and at least one of them is a criminal it's quite likely that others are using them for ilegitimate purposes.
Stolen phones can be tracked. They can also be disabled and typically are when reported stolen.
You could get someone else to by it for you but then that person will only be one step removed. It's a lead. It's someone you can apply pressure to to find out who now owns it.
Thing is, Intel were never in the same market as AMD and nVidia. Sure, nVidia had a few budget parts but that's not their main product. They're really making money from mid-range chips for PC gamers.
Anyone who would be satisfied with Intel would consider AMD and nVidia to be hopelessly expensive. Anyone who would consider paying for a decent graphics card would consider Intel chips to be worthless.
The spec is 282 pages. This would mean that for each page of specification (including examples, contents, explanations) there are at least 3 innovative "technologies".
That's a very good question. A year ago I was working for a significant games company that made exactly the sort of games that would suit this console. We certainly hadn't been contacted by the developers. If they had managed to persuade a few developers to take the risk and write something - even a simple puzzle game or a port of an existing title - this would have a lot more hope of taking off. Right now it looks like another cool but ultimately pointless geek curio.
All of them I'd imagine. But it's not really all that important because they're not going to spend a lot of money on DVDs anyway. Wealthy Canada and increasingly wealthy countries like China are actually worth spending politcal capital on.
On a cell phone you want a certain quality of video at as low a bitrate as possible. if you can get the same quality at a lower bitrate with a given codec then you want to use that one.
"Yes, we can totally support piracy. No, Hollywood doesn't have a leg to stand on. Yes, this is totally legal, honest. Someone who once read a lawbook thinks so. Oh, what do you mean Hollywood can afford better lawyers than us?"
If TPB had at least made a token effort to do something about piracy, Hollywood wouldn't have had such an easy target. Now they've got cocky.
It's not a terrible OS, it's supported by a third party, it's a recognised brand name, and there's some off the shelf software for it. There are worse choices.
Linux is fairly well recognised but there isn't a major player backing it. Getting it to work would require a certain amount of in-house development. QNX would be nice but nobody's heard of that and there's not a lot of software.
It's actually a wide open marketplace. MS don't have a monopoly here yet. Perhaps Google will release a version of android for netbooks.
Ah, so you're saying that if you broadcast something unencrypted into the general vicinity, it's illegal to perceive it unless you can do so without the aid of any kind of equipment external to your body itself?
Nope. I'm saying that it's only unambiguously legal if it's reasonable that someone might be able to do so. If you need extra equipment to do so then things need to be considered on a case by case basis.
Next thing you know, you'll tell me that over-the-air broadcast television stations and radio stations can, at will, ban someone from listening and if they ever tune that station again they can be fined?
I believe you can be fined in Germany if you watch broadcast television and don't pay the licence fee. Actually most countries forbid listening on certain frequencies without permission.
Ultimately it comes down to expectations. I expect someone to be able to see a mural on a wall. I don't expect someone to be recording the radio packets that travel between my PC and my router, especially as part of their process of taking photographs of streets.
It's not exactly what Google were doing. You need at least some equipment to even "hear" what the people are saying. Most people, if aware that the communication is taking place, would have the decency not to listen. I'll grant you it's a public place, but it's closer to recording a conversation between two people. If I put a microphone under a restaurant table I think most people would consider that invading their privacy.
How is it misapplied? Hacking has been used for the act of breaking into computers for as long as I can remember, by all sorts of people, including security professionals.
In fact it seems to be a fancy from just a handful of geeks that these people are referred to as Crackers. I've heard security professionals use the term hacker.
Given that the language is defined by usage, and not by RFC 1392, I'm afraid you just have to accept that the word has come to mean something else. It happens.
In your car analogy, does the iPod contain sensitive government data, and was the data duplicated by someone who probably knew that it does? I think this makes a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
A nice thick coat, warm gloves and a hot water bottle.
And the Tesla Roadster shows that decent performance can be attained. 150 miles and you've a couple of hours between recharges anyway. The problem is recharge times. Deal with that and electric cars are viable.
Yes, a licence is different from a sale. But whether it's a valid contract or not doesn't depend on the signature, which was the only reason for the example I gave
All sorts of agreements are binding without that. Legally, buying something from a shop is a contract. The act of me giving money and the shopkeeper accepting it is acceptance that I have exchanged money for the item in question.
Generally, if you act in a manner that makes it clear that you have accepted an agreement, then you've accepted. Signing a contract is just a form of proof. It shows that you have most likely read and understood the agreement.
It has come to our attention that you have been frequently accused of piracy. As a large ISP we are required to log this information. However, we would be willing to transfer your account details to our wholly owned sister company which currently only has 399,998 customers and has no policy of logging your information.
The iPad seems to be a huge success. Tablets have never been hugely popular before. Now everyone wants to make one. Why all of a sudden?
And what are they actually for?
I think this sort of statement is part of the script. First lawyer makes a ludicrous claim, defence lawyer then says that it's stupid. Of course it can be measured in money and anyway, my clients didn't violate the law in the first place.
Speak for yourself. As a games developer myself, yes, I'd prefer it if people bought the games rather than downloading them. But a pirated game cost at most one lost sale and most likely works out to an average of about a tenth of a sale.
The mere act of suing them will cause considerable stress to them, that is completely disproportionate to any harm they might have done. If you think that piracy is unjustifiable, then I appreciate that's a valid opinion. However, suing someone for thousands of times the amount they cost you is also unjustifiable.
Which forces criminals to increase their risk and decrease their utility (you can't receive calls anonymously this way).
The proposal isn't trying or pretending to prevent all possible related crimes, simply to make them a little harder to accomplish.
But they will be able to catch some of the less competent criminals, and slightly increase the cost of doing business. Also, if a lot of people seem to be using a phone registered to one cheerleader, and at least one of them is a criminal it's quite likely that others are using them for ilegitimate purposes.
Stolen phones can be tracked. They can also be disabled and typically are when reported stolen.
You could get someone else to by it for you but then that person will only be one step removed. It's a lead. It's someone you can apply pressure to to find out who now owns it.
Doh! Yes. Initialism fail on my part.
Thing is, Intel were never in the same market as AMD and nVidia. Sure, nVidia had a few budget parts but that's not their main product. They're really making money from mid-range chips for PC gamers.
Anyone who would be satisfied with Intel would consider AMD and nVidia to be hopelessly expensive. Anyone who would consider paying for a decent graphics card would consider Intel chips to be worthless.
The spec is 282 pages. This would mean that for each page of specification (including examples, contents, explanations) there are at least 3 innovative "technologies".
Doesn't sound all that believable.
That's a very good question. A year ago I was working for a significant games company that made exactly the sort of games that would suit this console. We certainly hadn't been contacted by the developers. If they had managed to persuade a few developers to take the risk and write something - even a simple puzzle game or a port of an existing title - this would have a lot more hope of taking off. Right now it looks like another cool but ultimately pointless geek curio.
All of them I'd imagine. But it's not really all that important because they're not going to spend a lot of money on DVDs anyway. Wealthy Canada and increasingly wealthy countries like China are actually worth spending politcal capital on.
Yeah, but you're a weirdo!
Actually I'm intrigued. What do you use it for? Is it a day to day computer or do you use it for some specific Amiga software?
On a cell phone you want a certain quality of video at as low a bitrate as possible. if you can get the same quality at a lower bitrate with a given codec then you want to use that one.
And what was the defence doing all this time?
Suggesting that Hollywood were bribing judges is a serious allegation. I submit that TPB simply had incompetent representation.
The Pirate Bay happened.
"Yes, we can totally support piracy. No, Hollywood doesn't have a leg to stand on. Yes, this is totally legal, honest. Someone who once read a lawbook thinks so. Oh, what do you mean Hollywood can afford better lawyers than us?"
If TPB had at least made a token effort to do something about piracy, Hollywood wouldn't have had such an easy target. Now they've got cocky.
It's not a terrible OS, it's supported by a third party, it's a recognised brand name, and there's some off the shelf software for it. There are worse choices.
Linux is fairly well recognised but there isn't a major player backing it. Getting it to work would require a certain amount of in-house development. QNX would be nice but nobody's heard of that and there's not a lot of software.
It's actually a wide open marketplace. MS don't have a monopoly here yet. Perhaps Google will release a version of android for netbooks.
Ah, so you're saying that if you broadcast something unencrypted into the general vicinity, it's illegal to perceive it unless you can do so without the aid of any kind of equipment external to your body itself?
Nope. I'm saying that it's only unambiguously legal if it's reasonable that someone might be able to do so. If you need extra equipment to do so then things need to be considered on a case by case basis.
Next thing you know, you'll tell me that over-the-air broadcast television stations and radio stations can, at will, ban someone from listening and if they ever tune that station again they can be fined?
I believe you can be fined in Germany if you watch broadcast television and don't pay the licence fee. Actually most countries forbid listening on certain frequencies without permission.
Ultimately it comes down to expectations. I expect someone to be able to see a mural on a wall. I don't expect someone to be recording the radio packets that travel between my PC and my router, especially as part of their process of taking photographs of streets.
It's not exactly what Google were doing. You need at least some equipment to even "hear" what the people are saying. Most people, if aware that the communication is taking place, would have the decency not to listen. I'll grant you it's a public place, but it's closer to recording a conversation between two people. If I put a microphone under a restaurant table I think most people would consider that invading their privacy.
How is it misapplied? Hacking has been used for the act of breaking into computers for as long as I can remember, by all sorts of people, including security professionals.
In fact it seems to be a fancy from just a handful of geeks that these people are referred to as Crackers. I've heard security professionals use the term hacker.
Given that the language is defined by usage, and not by RFC 1392, I'm afraid you just have to accept that the word has come to mean something else. It happens.
In your car analogy, does the iPod contain sensitive government data, and was the data duplicated by someone who probably knew that it does? I think this makes a difference.