The RIAA is doing what it does for no reason other than money.
Yes, but I don't think that's their immediate aim. Money is a means to an end. Like most organisations, the RIAA's purpose has become primarily to perpetuate its own existence.
They're not going to fabricate3 evidence. Something you have to realise is that the RIAA thinks they're the good guys here, defending their historical industry against the eeeevil pirates.
The main problem is that people will file lawsuits that they know they can't win but they know they'll be cheaper to pay off in a settlement than fight in the courts.
I've always wondered what would happen if an organisation made a point of aggressively defending any lawsuit that they knew they would win. Would they end up in fewer lawsuits as the litigious went for softer targets?
And what's your point, that governments shouldn't be responsible to their citizens becuase it's ultimately the citizens who pay?
No. just that penalising the city doesn't in gerneal hurt the people responsible. Fine - discipline the people involved if you have to but "the government" and "the police" are more abstract concepts that only have the morality of the people within them.
People shouldn't be entitled to large amounts of money if their rights are violated. They should be put n the position they'd be in if their rights were not violaed. Those who violated their rights should be removed from a position where they are able to do so.
Better for the city though. Since cities aren't operating on a for-profit basis, a big payout either comes from increased taxes or cuts in services. The people who would ultimately pay for it didn't have anything to do with this apart from electing the guy who hired the guy who hired the guy who screwed up.
He didn't show the cop his ID. That's not being a jerk. He agreed to a search when he had no obligation to do so. He gave his name. He just decided to draw the line at providing his driving licence when he wasn't driving. The cop was asking way too much.
I want an a la carte TV channel as well. I only want to pay for the shows I watch. I also want an a la carte newspaper. I don't care about the sport section so stop charging me for it. The thing is though that a cable company can offer channels for less by packaging them. I might not really be too keen to pay as much as someone with kids for a kid's channel, but there's occasionally something good so I'm willing to pay a small extra in addition to other channels.
The family with kids may not really want one of the other channels but see it as worthwhile if it's in addition to the kid's channel, but there might occasionally be something kid oriented so they'll pay a little extra.
If the flashlights were marked with rabbits and the book was called "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" I bet they would have noted that as well.
They just report on what is notable. If I had a pair of rainbow coloured shoes, no doubt that would be reported as well. It's just a mess of pointless beaurocracy. The morons on the ground are following orders to report what they find. The paper pushers store it because that's what they do with paper once the finish storing it.
It's not that sinister. It's just the government being its usual inefficient self.
It's the UK. This would be a small claims track thing. You can't claim legal costs under small claims. But it's fairly informal and would just be a metter of the guy explaining that the hinge broke and the company refused to fix it, and demonstrate that he gave the company a reasonable chance to resolve the situation. PCWorld would then be gven the opportunity to explain that the hinge breaking was clearly a direct result of a different OS being installed, and/or is normal wear and tear or a result of misuse by the customer.
So if I'm a professional book critic who is paid by a newspaper, I have no fair use when quoting a passage for critical purposes? Don't be silly.
Commercial use can still be fair use. But the nature of the use is one of the factors taken when determining whether a use is fair. It is possible in borderline cases that it's fair use only if the infringer is not making a profit.
If there was no Microsoft, there would still be a Desktop PC. They existed before MS-DOS did and WIMP GUIs existed before Windows. 3D graphics standards existed before Microsoft was involved. Google required a lot of other businesses to exist before they could, but Microsoft is not one of them.
They're not going to be harmed by his not wearing a helmet. So by the above definition we can argue he's a dick because of his lack of consideration for general safety but not for his failure to wear a helmet.
The thing is, that's not how things are done. The ESRB ratings are mainly self certification from companies that really don't have any desire to mislead anyone.
The impression people seem to have is that developers write a game, and then the ESRB decides what rating to give it. A developer knows full well what rating they want right at the start of the design. The game is targetted at the rating. They'll remove anything that will give it a higher rating long before anyone at the ESRB gets to see it. They already know what rating they'll get. They've been working within the guidelines. All they need to do is make sure that their understanding of the ratings is right so they create a disc with various samples, including some of the more violent aspects of the game for an independent adjudicator to review.
In the unlikely event they're wrong, they'll remove the parts of the game that fail, or tone down the violence.
Stallman's view that you can "lose your freedom" is similar to the argument that "piracy is stealing".
No matter how much I release derived software in violation of the GPL, your freedom is not reduced any more than if I hadn't. There is nothing I could do to prevent you from taking the current version of Linux and changing it to do what you want.
Most people are going to be reasonably honest but a little bit lazy. They'll copy it without really thinking about it so you need to prevent this behaviour. Very few people are going to go to extreme lengths to hack your copy protection out, and there's no stopping those that are so you'll just have to tolerate this.
I'd suggest going for a simple registration key system. Installation produces a random number and this is used to generate a key for the specific installation. Don't require the software to phone home. Way too much hassle dealing with use-cases (what do you do with unreliable network connections? Can you be sure your servers will always be available? What if your company is firewalled or your IP address changes?).
If it fails and you can prove that the failure had nothing to do with removing the sticker they're probably still responsible. If there's a dispute they will point to the fact that it's probably been opened and tinkered with as evidence that you broke it. In this type of legal situation, it's based on preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt so they'd only have to show it's more likely than not your fault that it broke.
This is not worth it. You can't claim legal costs under the small claims track and there shouldn't be any need.
You should check all the documents they gave you with the computer. If none of them mention warranty being voided by changing the OS, they don't have a leg to stand on
True, but even if it does, the warranty is in addition to your statutory rights. The hinge should not fail within 5 months.
Game development programmes aren't really treated all that seriously by any of the developers I've worked for. It might help in addition to a degree in a related field but, real world experience will serve you a lot better.
Or how about just heading north a bit and going at half that speed. Or even better go a bit further than that during mid summer and then it makes no difference how fast you go because you'll be in 24 hour sunlight.
Except that these sites are annoying enough that the fairly trivial effort to set up a DDOS in retribution feels worthwhile.
Scam baiting is great, and I'm delighted that it's causing some annoyance but thinking of it as anything other than a fun way to wind up someone who deserves it, is just deluding yourself.
Heroes is great. The only real problem is that no individual episode is anywhere near as good as the entire series (And Hugos are only for individual episodes).
That and Blink was one of the best pieces of sf television I've seen for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA is doing what it does for no reason other than money.
Yes, but I don't think that's their immediate aim. Money is a means to an end. Like most organisations, the RIAA's purpose has become primarily to perpetuate its own existence.
They're not going to fabricate3 evidence. Something you have to realise is that the RIAA thinks they're the good guys here, defending their historical industry against the eeeevil pirates.
The main problem is that people will file lawsuits that they know they can't win but they know they'll be cheaper to pay off in a settlement than fight in the courts.
I've always wondered what would happen if an organisation made a point of aggressively defending any lawsuit that they knew they would win. Would they end up in fewer lawsuits as the litigious went for softer targets?
And what's your point, that governments shouldn't be responsible to their citizens becuase it's ultimately the citizens who pay?
No. just that penalising the city doesn't in gerneal hurt the people responsible. Fine - discipline the people involved if you have to but "the government" and "the police" are more abstract concepts that only have the morality of the people within them.
People shouldn't be entitled to large amounts of money if their rights are violated. They should be put n the position they'd be in if their rights were not violaed. Those who violated their rights should be removed from a position where they are able to do so.
Better for the city though. Since cities aren't operating on a for-profit basis, a big payout either comes from increased taxes or cuts in services. The people who would ultimately pay for it didn't have anything to do with this apart from electing the guy who hired the guy who hired the guy who screwed up.
He didn't show the cop his ID. That's not being a jerk. He agreed to a search when he had no obligation to do so. He gave his name. He just decided to draw the line at providing his driving licence when he wasn't driving. The cop was asking way too much.
Should this be the option for everything?
I want an a la carte TV channel as well. I only want to pay for the shows I watch. I also want an a la carte newspaper. I don't care about the sport section so stop charging me for it. The thing is though that a cable company can offer channels for less by packaging them. I might not really be too keen to pay as much as someone with kids for a kid's channel, but there's occasionally something good so I'm willing to pay a small extra in addition to other channels.
The family with kids may not really want one of the other channels but see it as worthwhile if it's in addition to the kid's channel, but there might occasionally be something kid oriented so they'll pay a little extra.
At the time at least.
I felt it was ludicrous that SCO would invest so much in this if they didn't at least have a chance of winning.
I must say I'm quite pleased to look a little stupid in this respect.
If the flashlights were marked with rabbits and the book was called "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" I bet they would have noted that as well.
They just report on what is notable. If I had a pair of rainbow coloured shoes, no doubt that would be reported as well. It's just a mess of pointless beaurocracy. The morons on the ground are following orders to report what they find. The paper pushers store it because that's what they do with paper once the finish storing it.
It's not that sinister. It's just the government being its usual inefficient self.
Nice UI and the fact that everything that's designed to work with an mp3 player works with an ipod.
Another way of putting that second one is "It's popular because it's so popular".
It's the UK. This would be a small claims track thing. You can't claim legal costs under small claims. But it's fairly informal and would just be a metter of the guy explaining that the hinge broke and the company refused to fix it, and demonstrate that he gave the company a reasonable chance to resolve the situation. PCWorld would then be gven the opportunity to explain that the hinge breaking was clearly a direct result of a different OS being installed, and/or is normal wear and tear or a result of misuse by the customer.
So if I'm a professional book critic who is paid by a newspaper, I have no fair use when quoting a passage for critical purposes? Don't be silly.
Commercial use can still be fair use. But the nature of the use is one of the factors taken when determining whether a use is fair. It is possible in borderline cases that it's fair use only if the infringer is not making a profit.
If there was no Microsoft, there would still be a Desktop PC. They existed before MS-DOS did and WIMP GUIs existed before Windows. 3D graphics standards existed before Microsoft was involved. Google required a lot of other businesses to exist before they could, but Microsoft is not one of them.
They're not going to be harmed by his not wearing a helmet. So by the above definition we can argue he's a dick because of his lack of consideration for general safety but not for his failure to wear a helmet.
The thing is, that's not how things are done. The ESRB ratings are mainly self certification from companies that really don't have any desire to mislead anyone.
The impression people seem to have is that developers write a game, and then the ESRB decides what rating to give it. A developer knows full well what rating they want right at the start of the design. The game is targetted at the rating. They'll remove anything that will give it a higher rating long before anyone at the ESRB gets to see it. They already know what rating they'll get. They've been working within the guidelines. All they need to do is make sure that their understanding of the ratings is right so they create a disc with various samples, including some of the more violent aspects of the game for an independent adjudicator to review.
In the unlikely event they're wrong, they'll remove the parts of the game that fail, or tone down the violence.
Stallman's view that you can "lose your freedom" is similar to the argument that "piracy is stealing".
No matter how much I release derived software in violation of the GPL, your freedom is not reduced any more than if I hadn't. There is nothing I could do to prevent you from taking the current version of Linux and changing it to do what you want.
Most people are going to be reasonably honest but a little bit lazy. They'll copy it without really thinking about it so you need to prevent this behaviour. Very few people are going to go to extreme lengths to hack your copy protection out, and there's no stopping those that are so you'll just have to tolerate this.
I'd suggest going for a simple registration key system. Installation produces a random number and this is used to generate a key for the specific installation. Don't require the software to phone home. Way too much hassle dealing with use-cases (what do you do with unreliable network connections? Can you be sure your servers will always be available? What if your company is firewalled or your IP address changes?).
If it fails and you can prove that the failure had nothing to do with removing the sticker they're probably still responsible. If there's a dispute they will point to the fact that it's probably been opened and tinkered with as evidence that you broke it. In this type of legal situation, it's based on preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt so they'd only have to show it's more likely than not your fault that it broke.
you may want to start talking to solicitors,
This is not worth it. You can't claim legal costs under the small claims track and there shouldn't be any need.
You should check all the documents they gave you with the computer. If none of them mention warranty being voided by changing the OS, they don't have a leg to stand on
True, but even if it does, the warranty is in addition to your statutory rights. The hinge should not fail within 5 months.
Game development programmes aren't really treated all that seriously by any of the developers I've worked for. It might help in addition to a degree in a related field but, real world experience will serve you a lot better.
You're quite right. I had no clue what you do. Good work.
Or how about just heading north a bit and going at half that speed. Or even better go a bit further than that during mid summer and then it makes no difference how fast you go because you'll be in 24 hour sunlight.
Except that these sites are annoying enough that the fairly trivial effort to set up a DDOS in retribution feels worthwhile.
Scam baiting is great, and I'm delighted that it's causing some annoyance but thinking of it as anything other than a fun way to wind up someone who deserves it, is just deluding yourself.
Heroes is great. The only real problem is that no individual episode is anywhere near as good as the entire series (And Hugos are only for individual episodes).
That and Blink was one of the best pieces of sf television I've seen for a while.