Interesting. Although it appears that any algorithm that automatically randomly alters the metadata of all files would clobber this, unless the software is smart enough to extract just the raw image data. Presumably people simply don't do this.
though how you can tell someone whos 18 and a day or 17 and 355 days old, I dont know,
The language is typically along the lines of "Is or appears to be under 18". Personally I see hundreds of problems with this but there's way too much public hysteria over the issue for these concerns to be addressed.
Yes, but it's a little more complicated than "tell us the password or we arrest you". They have to apply to a court. Once you're going to that level of difficulty, the USB device seems substantially less plug and play even if it's just a rubber stamp.
Well, surely damages and punishment are different things. The injured party deserves to be compensated for their loss. No more, no less. That is damages. The perpetrator needs to be discouraged if they acted wilfully. That is punishment. As such, the penalty needs to be at least as much as their gain. (This only works if there's a 100% chance of being caught so in needs to be modified based on risk as well).
So it's not so much about whether they're a business as whether they're intending to make a profit. If an individual makes 100 copies of a CD and intends to sell them for $5 each then they should be punished exactly the same as if a business does the same. If a business decides to act unlawfully for reasons other than making a profit (which would be odd behaviour for a business) then they should only pay damages.
Yes. If you wilfully cause harm, you should not only compensate the injured party but also lose any profit you made as a result. If you make more money you should end up paying more for it.
loop_point:
Apple rejects an app for stupid reasons.
This will spread across the web.
Apple will looks bad.
Apple will "reconsider" and accept the app.
Lots of people will completely miss the point and think it's all okay.
Apple will then reject another app for stupid reasons.
goto loop_point;
Well, this would be of direct benefit to potentially millions of blind people, even if it's very crude. Fuel efficient cars are of benefit to many times more people but in a less direct way.
I think it's reasonable to ask "why" first. If it's email they can wait. If it's a website they can wait. If it's for school work they can use school equipment. If they urgently need to settle a bet then let them borrow it:)
Sure they can. A lot of open source software is developed commercially. Most of the rest is to scratch a developers personal itch (it's no coincidence that the best open source tools are for ones used for software development). Both sets of developers will improve it until the software runs adequately on the target platform. Try running any latest version of KDE on hardware that's several years older than it.
If you don't like people using your code, then don't release it under a licence that allows people to use it without giving back.
If you don't like people using stuff that your "community" created, what gives you the right to say how other people should let their code be used?
What harm is done if they don't give back to the community? Failing to do so does no harm to the resource. It doesn't benefit it either but neither does using a closed source solution.
Absolutely. The application overshadowed the platform. People would go into stores and ask to buy "A Visicalc" (the stores being sufficiently used to this that they'd sell them an Apple computer with the software).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Clumsy mistake on my part but in hindsight may be more accurate.
Interesting. Although it appears that any algorithm that automatically randomly alters the metadata of all files would clobber this, unless the software is smart enough to extract just the raw image data. Presumably people simply don't do this.
though how you can tell someone whos 18 and a day or 17 and 355 days old, I dont know,
The language is typically along the lines of "Is or appears to be under 18". Personally I see hundreds of problems with this but there's way too much public hysteria over the issue for these concerns to be addressed.
No, but it's a bit of an imposition if you're innocent that you have to pay a substantial amount of money to someone to prove it.
Yes, but it's a little more complicated than "tell us the password or we arrest you". They have to apply to a court. Once you're going to that level of difficulty, the USB device seems substantially less plug and play even if it's just a rubber stamp.
So, wait - you mean #I am legally entitled to hurry love!? I always wondered about the constitutional basis for that argument.
Well, surely damages and punishment are different things. The injured party deserves to be compensated for their loss. No more, no less. That is damages. The perpetrator needs to be discouraged if they acted wilfully. That is punishment. As such, the penalty needs to be at least as much as their gain. (This only works if there's a 100% chance of being caught so in needs to be modified based on risk as well).
So it's not so much about whether they're a business as whether they're intending to make a profit. If an individual makes 100 copies of a CD and intends to sell them for $5 each then they should be punished exactly the same as if a business does the same. If a business decides to act unlawfully for reasons other than making a profit (which would be odd behaviour for a business) then they should only pay damages.
Yes. If you wilfully cause harm, you should not only compensate the injured party but also lose any profit you made as a result. If you make more money you should end up paying more for it.
Try older hardware. Try a machine specced to run XP well.
KDE will be abysmal. What is it doing that takes so much RAM?
Yup. Pretty crappy on a Pentium 3 with 128 Megs that can handle other equally pretty GUIs no trouble at all.
The law should be different for someone who makes huge amounts of money from infringing and someone who doesn't.
loop_point:
Apple rejects an app for stupid reasons.
This will spread across the web.
Apple will looks bad.
Apple will "reconsider" and accept the app.
Lots of people will completely miss the point and think it's all okay.
Apple will then reject another app for stupid reasons.
goto loop_point;
Well, this would be of direct benefit to potentially millions of blind people, even if it's very crude. Fuel efficient cars are of benefit to many times more people but in a less direct way.
we need a brain interface
I think that's the part that makes it "bionic" rather than synthetic.
How well did that sell? Oh yeah...huh.
10.5 million units. 7.7% of the total available market is not too bad really.
There's Eyetyo Hero for the PS2 eyetoy. Not actually seen it in the shops though.
I think it's reasonable to ask "why" first. If it's email they can wait. If it's a website they can wait. If it's for school work they can use school equipment. If they urgently need to settle a bet then let them borrow it:)
How many of that 87% are iPod owners? I'm guessing more than 81.6%.
... portion of the market without iPods than iTunes is".
I said "I bet Amazon's mp3 store is a lot more popular with the
So eliminate the ipod owners from that 87% and how many do you have?
I bet Amazon's mp3 store is a lot more popular with the (reasonably large) portion of the market without iPods than iTunes is.
Who cares about switching? Amazon went for new users. Google can do the same. How many people do you know who buy books digitally?
Well, she's probably learning independence.
That this will do everything Apple claims it will.
Seems unlikely though.
So in fact there's no obligation to give back at all. The only person who you need to give anything to is the recipient.
Sure they can. A lot of open source software is developed commercially. Most of the rest is to scratch a developers personal itch (it's no coincidence that the best open source tools are for ones used for software development). Both sets of developers will improve it until the software runs adequately on the target platform. Try running any latest version of KDE on hardware that's several years older than it.
Sometimes. But at a cost to developer time. Sometimes it makes more sense to pay more for hardware than pay for better developers.
If you don't like people using your code, then don't release it under a licence that allows people to use it without giving back.
If you don't like people using stuff that your "community" created, what gives you the right to say how other people should let their code be used?
What harm is done if they don't give back to the community? Failing to do so does no harm to the resource. It doesn't benefit it either but neither does using a closed source solution.
Absolutely. The application overshadowed the platform. People would go into stores and ask to buy "A Visicalc" (the stores being sufficiently used to this that they'd sell them an Apple computer with the software).