DMCA may apply if it can shown that the purpose of locking the iPhone is copy protection. There's a pretty strong argument that it's not, and is actually about preventing interoperability, but that isn't going to protect you from a hefty legal bill if Apple does sue.
We should ban the sale of iPhones with this potentially dangerous bug until Apple can fix it, either by providing unlocked iPhones, or without this being handled by the iHpone's locking mechanism.
the thing is, the law is a blunt instrument. Politicians make laws that cover the general case as best they can. Trials cover specific cases.
Is it infringement of copyright to read a story to a class of children? A strict reading of the law may well say it is. It's one of the many cases that the authors of the many pages of copyright law didn't consider. Should a publisher sue a teacher, it's up to the jury to decide whether the law applies to this specific case.
No, what ruined the immersion was bad voice acting.
Does the fact that Chief Wiggum, Moe, Principal Skinner, Apu and Professor Frink all have the same voice actor ruin The Simpsons? No, because Hank Azaria is a talented actor who gives each character his own voice. Hell, Eeyore and Optimus Prime have the same voice. Nobody cares because they sound different.
Well, dubbing is often done cheaply. Also - especially in live action - the lip syncing issues can be rather jarring. Lip sync is less of a problem in cartoons, but Disney do hire some decent talent for the original songs. There are all sorts of possible reasons for this - Romania not seen as a particularly valuable market, international sales of CDs being based on English language versions of the songs, and so on.
Does it really matter what Linus thinks here? If I said the same thing, nobody would care. Linus wrote an OS Kernel. I'm quite willing to bow to his expertise in Kernel design, but I don't see why his opinion on the politics of open source is really all that important.
Liquidize the babies before pumping them. The V8 should have enough juice for the liquidiser. Should also make it run slightly quieter as long as you can make the liquidizer quieter than dozens of screaming babies.
You come up with a lot of ideas. If someone steals one why let it worry you? Just come up with another idea. If you come up with so many, why do you think they're so valuable? Do you think you;re the only person with good ideas
Come up with the best idea for a business in the world. Ask a VC for funding. He'll laugh at you. Come up with the best idea for a novel ever. Ask a publisher for an advance or an agent to represent you. They'll ignore you. Nobody weants an idea. They want a fully fledged plan at the very least. Ideally they'll want a prototype.
So talk to people. Tell them your idea. If they're good they'll come up with 100 reasons why it won't work/. Deal with those reasons (either by proving they don't matter or working out how to solve them) and you;re on your way to a solution.
I've said it for years: Steve Jobs/Apple are Bill Gates/Microsoft wannabes.
It's closer than that. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are very much cut from the same mould. Both ruthless businessmen, both willing to take any opportunity for success. Bill Gates was more successful because he was in the right place at the right time. I dare say if IBM decided to write their own OS, Gates would have had a hugely successful software company but MS wouldn't have dominated the market in the way it has. If IBM had decided to sell rebranded and slightly modified Apples, and made a similar mistake in allowing clones, Apple would probably have dominated the computer market.
After digging through the EFF documents, I'm not sure who to believe here. The story, the EFF and the wiki operator claim it was a discussion about doing this and it was not actually implemented.
IIRC, Apple accused them of discussing how to circumvent the Fairplay system (This can be confirmed easily). BluWiki claimed they were only discussing software to communicate with the iPod for transferring music, not for circumventing the encryption. The wiki pages haven't been restored yet so we can only take their word for it here. Apple seem to have changed their story and now claim they only objected to decompiled code.
Not sure about the rights and wrongs of it but it looks like Apple have decided to backpedal based on the bad PR from a case that they most likely can't win, and are changing their story to make it look like they haven't lost.
I think the US is the wrong market for this car. In Europe, journeys of over 320km are not common. Personally I try to take a break after a couple of hours driving, and this is recommended for long journeys.
The market isn't really for solo play. There are a lot of people who will play it this way but the main reason people like it is to get friends round to play. This means you need to make it as easy to pick up as possible.
They're assuming it isn't going to work with any browser they haven't tested with. Irritating but understandable. The server sent to Opera checks for the browser and deliberately refuses to work, but any more obscure browser will not be tested for at all.
Columbus didn't just pull the figure out of his ass. It was an estimate based on maps and guesswork, but many cartographers accepted the figures.
Okay - just about any astronomical based measurement would have been considerably more accurate, and I'll accept that most scientists of the time would have gone with that figure, but then I'll counter that convincing the queen would have been more akin to convincing politicians than convincing NASA, and we all know how they're often quite happy to accept whatever scientific evidence supports their own word view.
Since it has been shown that removing DRM increases their profits, that would suggest that they have an overwhelming desire to implement DRM, even at the expense of their own profits.
considering the RIAA's raison d'etre is to preserve the interests (i.e. profits) of its members, why would they want it back?
If the person making the argument showed that at least some respectable scientists agreed with him and he was willing to fund and go on the mission himself I would.
I'm thinking you might have misunderstood my position somewhat. If Wikipedia wants better material then they need to change their policy. If this is not in their interests then they have no options. Whichever they choose, the company has no obligation to make any changes.
The equivalent when applied to your analogy is that it's up to me to determine whether I want that dollar more than I care about not killing myself. While I may be able to persuade you to change your offer, you are under no obligation here. I am the only one under any obligation if I want your dollar that much. It's unlikely that I would.
Hmm. Oddly I hadn't considered commercial websites.
I wonder if there is still a way. Maybe a visible ("Licenced under CC-BY-ND") watermark and no derivative works or something would be good enough for Wikipedia and not good enough for commercial sites.
Surely the workplace has no obligation to change purely for the betterment of Wikipedia. Wikipedia will benefit here so that is the organisation that must change.
Slashdot Mirror
DMCA may apply if it can shown that the purpose of locking the iPhone is copy protection. There's a pretty strong argument that it's not, and is actually about preventing interoperability, but that isn't going to protect you from a hefty legal bill if Apple does sue.
We should ban the sale of iPhones with this potentially dangerous bug until Apple can fix it, either by providing unlocked iPhones, or without this being handled by the iHpone's locking mechanism.
the thing is, the law is a blunt instrument. Politicians make laws that cover the general case as best they can. Trials cover specific cases.
Is it infringement of copyright to read a story to a class of children? A strict reading of the law may well say it is. It's one of the many cases that the authors of the many pages of copyright law didn't consider. Should a publisher sue a teacher, it's up to the jury to decide whether the law applies to this specific case.
LOL! As someone who can remember when video games were new and exciting, I've got to love the fact that the video game culture has its own old-timers.
Yeah, that totally didn't ruin any immersion..
No, what ruined the immersion was bad voice acting.
Does the fact that Chief Wiggum, Moe, Principal Skinner, Apu and Professor Frink all have the same voice actor ruin The Simpsons? No, because Hank Azaria is a talented actor who gives each character his own voice. Hell, Eeyore and Optimus Prime have the same voice. Nobody cares because they sound different.
Well, dubbing is often done cheaply. Also - especially in live action - the lip syncing issues can be rather jarring. Lip sync is less of a problem in cartoons, but Disney do hire some decent talent for the original songs. There are all sorts of possible reasons for this - Romania not seen as a particularly valuable market, international sales of CDs being based on English language versions of the songs, and so on.
Does it really matter what Linus thinks here? If I said the same thing, nobody would care. Linus wrote an OS Kernel. I'm quite willing to bow to his expertise in Kernel design, but I don't see why his opinion on the politics of open source is really all that important.
You can't patent ideas. Only implementations.
Actually that doesn't seem to be truebut that's meant to be the principle.
"The million dollar idea!"
Well, if it's a simple game, that's probably enough to cover development costs although you'll not have a lot left for marketing.
Liquidize the babies before pumping them. The V8 should have enough juice for the liquidiser. Should also make it run slightly quieter as long as you can make the liquidizer quieter than dozens of screaming babies.
You come up with a lot of ideas. If someone steals one why let it worry you? Just come up with another idea. If you come up with so many, why do you think they're so valuable? Do you think you;re the only person with good ideas
Come up with the best idea for a business in the world. Ask a VC for funding. He'll laugh at you. Come up with the best idea for a novel ever. Ask a publisher for an advance or an agent to represent you. They'll ignore you. Nobody weants an idea. They want a fully fledged plan at the very least. Ideally they'll want a prototype.
So talk to people. Tell them your idea. If they're good they'll come up with 100 reasons why it won't work/. Deal with those reasons (either by proving they don't matter or working out how to solve them) and you;re on your way to a solution.
iTunes the application is distinct from the iTunes media store (although I gather it can be used to access it).
I've said it for years: Steve Jobs/Apple are Bill Gates/Microsoft wannabes.
It's closer than that. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are very much cut from the same mould. Both ruthless businessmen, both willing to take any opportunity for success. Bill Gates was more successful because he was in the right place at the right time. I dare say if IBM decided to write their own OS, Gates would have had a hugely successful software company but MS wouldn't have dominated the market in the way it has. If IBM had decided to sell rebranded and slightly modified Apples, and made a similar mistake in allowing clones, Apple would probably have dominated the computer market.
After digging through the EFF documents, I'm not sure who to believe here. The story, the EFF and the wiki operator claim it was a discussion about doing this and it was not actually implemented.
IIRC, Apple accused them of discussing how to circumvent the Fairplay system (This can be confirmed easily). BluWiki claimed they were only discussing software to communicate with the iPod for transferring music, not for circumventing the encryption. The wiki pages haven't been restored yet so we can only take their word for it here. Apple seem to have changed their story and now claim they only objected to decompiled code.
Not sure about the rights and wrongs of it but it looks like Apple have decided to backpedal based on the bad PR from a case that they most likely can't win, and are changing their story to make it look like they haven't lost.
I think the US is the wrong market for this car. In Europe, journeys of over 320km are not common. Personally I try to take a break after a couple of hours driving, and this is recommended for long journeys.
The market isn't really for solo play. There are a lot of people who will play it this way but the main reason people like it is to get friends round to play. This means you need to make it as easy to pick up as possible.
Microsoft scramble to add explosion functionality to the Zune.
I don't think that's quite so bad.
They're assuming it isn't going to work with any browser they haven't tested with. Irritating but understandable. The server sent to Opera checks for the browser and deliberately refuses to work, but any more obscure browser will not be tested for at all.
Yes, but isn't that kind of obvious?
Of course if it isn't worth it you shouldn't do it.
Columbus didn't just pull the figure out of his ass. It was an estimate based on maps and guesswork, but many cartographers accepted the figures.
Okay - just about any astronomical based measurement would have been considerably more accurate, and I'll accept that most scientists of the time would have gone with that figure, but then I'll counter that convincing the queen would have been more akin to convincing politicians than convincing NASA, and we all know how they're often quite happy to accept whatever scientific evidence supports their own word view.
Since it has been shown that removing DRM increases their profits, that would suggest that they have an overwhelming desire to implement DRM, even at the expense of their own profits.
considering the RIAA's raison d'etre is to preserve the interests (i.e. profits) of its members, why would they want it back?
If the person making the argument showed that at least some respectable scientists agreed with him and he was willing to fund and go on the mission himself I would.
Think about it.
I'm thinking you might have misunderstood my position somewhat. If Wikipedia wants better material then they need to change their policy. If this is not in their interests then they have no options. Whichever they choose, the company has no obligation to make any changes.
The equivalent when applied to your analogy is that it's up to me to determine whether I want that dollar more than I care about not killing myself. While I may be able to persuade you to change your offer, you are under no obligation here. I am the only one under any obligation if I want your dollar that much. It's unlikely that I would.
Hmm. Oddly I hadn't considered commercial websites.
I wonder if there is still a way. Maybe a visible ("Licenced under CC-BY-ND") watermark and no derivative works or something would be good enough for Wikipedia and not good enough for commercial sites.
Surely the workplace has no obligation to change purely for the betterment of Wikipedia. Wikipedia will benefit here so that is the organisation that must change.