As Sony is a company that manufactures HD-TVs, it's in their interest to add that compatibility to give consumers another reason to upgrade.
Sony Computer Entertainment make the PS3. Sony Electronics make the HDTVs. They're both part of Sony, but typically in large companies such as this, the different divisions have as nothing to do with each other. They certainly wouldn't consider fringe benefits to another division as part of their business plan.
Riiiight... And Lucas is fluent in Dutch is he? Odd that in interviews before Empire he talked about Obi Wan and Luke's father fighting Darth Vader. Hell - Vader even appeared in early drafts where there was no way he could be Luke's father.
And wouldn't any half competent screenwriter throw in an occasional clue rather than a total outright lie?
Part 1, no, 4 of a 12 erm, 9, 3, erm oh yeah - 6 part series where we follow Luke skywalker. No we follow Aniken skywalker who was killed by Darth Vader, but as it turned out became Darth Vader, and Han dies or possibly survives at the end, and it turns out that the first officer on a tatty smugglers ship was always intended to be a high ranking military officer, and han hsot first. Or maybe second. Or maybe they had a friendly arm wrestle to settle their argument over Jabba.
And it turns out that Leia is Luke's sister, alghough you wouldn't have thought that was what in mind given the kiss in the first film. Which comes fourth.
But at least we know that the super THX enhanced 1138 genetically engineered extra shiny doublemint editions are the version of the story that George Lucas wanted to tel us in the beginning.
Ignorance of the facts is usually a defence. If you have every reason to believe you have a legitimate copy and can prove this then you're probably in the clear.
There is nothing inherent in a democratic system apart from the constant watch of the people that stops the system from becoming undemocratic and fascist.
True. But what do we do about it? Sure we can protest about it, which helps to an extent, but to a disturbingly large number of people, this sounds like a hysterical overreaction (which is ironic considering how much the support hysterical overreactions to terrorism).
Is Days of Our Lives art? Is Battlefield Earth? Yes. But not exactly Da Vinci now is it. Games are pretty much in the same area. They qualify as art because they're creations of subjective value created for human pleasure. But they're not going to be elevated to the level of serious art because they're produced in a cynical manner purely to make money. Nobody is out to make a statement with a video game. Nobody is trying to stir any serious emotion from the gamers. They just want it to be fun (and yes, there probably are exceptions).
Games will probably mature and people will expect more from the medium. Right now, they're low grade commercial pulp.
Blockbuster's censorship is a totally different issue. If you don't like it then simply avoid Blockbuster. They're perfectly entitled to their censorship policy and you're perfectly entitled to tell them where to stick it. It's all about the free market. Not quite sure how Blockbuster, non-government censorship, or even fascism are un-American per se.
My point is that the time spent dealing with spam is typically insignificant. If someone spent a considerable amount of time dealing with spam in their inbox, then I'd understand it, but I can deal with all the spam I receive in about 2 minutes, and I'd imagine that's fairly typical. I don't believe that a waste of 5 minutes each day is a legitimate reason for the furore that spam generates.
Do these people get so upset if they have to spemnd a few more minutes in a queue because the supermarket doesn't open more checkouts? It seems unlikely that they'd expect the imprisonment of the supermarket managers. So the long and short of it is that I simply don't believe you when you say that the time taken is the reason that people get so upset over the spam.
Would you personally be happy with spam if you received one spam a day and it didn't cost you money?
Who's to say they're not operating at a loss and covering the expenses with ads displayed in the margins of the e-mail webapp?
Lycos. Their service promises no advertising.
Also, no, this isn't the only reason people get so worked up about spam (though 2/3 waste of resources is pretty bad no matter how you cut it).
If you cut it as 2/3 of a really a small section of their resources. ISPs offer web access, usenet, and general internet connectivity for apps such as FTP, P2P and usenet into the bargain.
Take a look at the other thread comment here. "Trespass to Chattels" is what comes up here. The spammers are abusing a resource provided by a particular entity (i.e. the ISP) for a purpose it was not intended for.
Yes that is an interesting take on the subject. Seems people should consider this rather than whining about the rather negligible and irrelevant financial cost.
So, how much does email cost an ISP. Given the number of companies that can afford to offer an email service for free, I'd imagine that the cost of all the other bandwidth, basic support and infrastructure, cost a lot more. Lycos charge $20 per year for their premium email service. They have all the same spam issues that an ISP has, and they still presumably make a profit. So this means that even if the cost of running a spam free email service is zero, and they have no marketting or any other costs, the total cost of spam to you in a month is clearly less than $1.67.
You probably lose more money than this in a month just through trivial things caused by other people's laziness. Why not demand that the bank keeps track of your account to 0.00001 cent? And the same for the credit card company. And the same for any purchase that includes sales tax? This sort of rounding error costs the public millions. What is the per-person threshold at which it becomes neccesary to imprison these people? Is this $1.67 really the reason people get so upset?
It's a very small part of the overall network traffic though. It doesn't cost that much. Mail server cost is not a substantial part of an ISP's budget.
And there are lots of cost associated with doing business, many of which are the result of people being thoughtless. Nobody gets as worked up about those.
So people who merely waste their time dealing with it aren't entitled to legitimacy of claim? Ridiculous.
Indeed it is ridiculous. But I didn't say that thiur claim wasn't legitimate did I?
In this capitalist society that we embrace so readily if you want my time, you pay me for it. Simple as that. If you take it without my consent then you are stealing from me.
Fine. How much time do you waste dealing with spam? How much time do you waste queuing? Do you get as annoyed by the banks not supplying as many ATMs or the supermarket not having more checkouts? Would you just laugh it off if you only got a handful of spams per day?
Studies that show how much time is being stolen from individuals and companies dealing with this shit reveal it adds up to hundreds if not thousands of hours. That's a lot of money being stolen.
But it doesn't take thousands of hours of your time. Sorry, but I don't believe that your anger is purely patriotic fervour on behalf of the total time this is costing your nation. The time takes is a trivial part of the working hours of the world.
All I'm trying to work out is the real reason for people's anger. Everyone comes up with suggestions but they always seem either highly specialised for their own reasons, or ill thought out rationalisations. Not the actual reason.
Most people here are from the UK or the US. A lot of complaints come from people who really are paying a negligible amount in bandwidth costs for the spam. I have a free email account that is dedicated soleley to getting spam. In the last 3 months, I've managed to get 21Megs of spam. How much does that cost? I bet bad HTML costs me a lot more each month.
But do all the people who complain about it use a GPRS phone for their emails? If they do then their complaints are legitimate, but I expect they're in the minority.
Reasonable. And I can see how this causes direct harm. But I got annoyed when I got one spam (Yes. I started using email pre-spam). I'm justtrying to work out why.
Seriously - It shouldn't be the problem that it quite clearly is.
People complain about the time spent dealing with it and the cost of bandwidth, but these are really quite small. In fact, most people's entire bill for all internet services and total bandwidth used for all email is a drop in the ocean. I'd imagine people would satill be upset if they only received a single spam email a day.
So, what is the real issue with it?
Seriously - It shouldn't be the problem that it quite clearly is.
People complain about the time spent dealing with it and the cost of bandwidth, but these are really quite small. In fact, most people's entire bill for all internet services and total bandwidth used for all email is a drop in the ocean. I'd imagine people would satill be upset if they only received a single spam email a day.
Of course they are allowed to criticise the arrest. They are also allowed to criticise their own national policy over yahoo. They're even allowed to have differing opinions over both, although that may well make them hypocrites.
I don't think that is how it works. I think claim 2 is considered an entirely different invention. So a system as described in claim 1, but adding trading of mod points would not be covered by Slashdot's prior art.
Slashdot Mirror
As Sony is a company that manufactures HD-TVs, it's in their interest to add that compatibility to give consumers another reason to upgrade.
Sony Computer Entertainment make the PS3. Sony Electronics make the HDTVs. They're both part of Sony, but typically in large companies such as this, the different divisions have as nothing to do with each other. They certainly wouldn't consider fringe benefits to another division as part of their business plan.
Riiiight... And Lucas is fluent in Dutch is he? Odd that in interviews before Empire he talked about Obi Wan and Luke's father fighting Darth Vader. Hell - Vader even appeared in early drafts where there was no way he could be Luke's father.
And wouldn't any half competent screenwriter throw in an occasional clue rather than a total outright lie?
Part 1, no, 4 of a 12 erm, 9, 3, erm oh yeah - 6 part series where we follow Luke skywalker. No we follow Aniken skywalker who was killed by Darth Vader, but as it turned out became Darth Vader, and Han dies or possibly survives at the end, and it turns out that the first officer on a tatty smugglers ship was always intended to be a high ranking military officer, and han hsot first. Or maybe second. Or maybe they had a friendly arm wrestle to settle their argument over Jabba.
And it turns out that Leia is Luke's sister, alghough you wouldn't have thought that was what in mind given the kiss in the first film. Which comes fourth.
But at least we know that the super THX enhanced 1138 genetically engineered extra shiny doublemint editions are the version of the story that George Lucas wanted to tel us in the beginning.
Ignorance of the facts is usually a defence. If you have every reason to believe you have a legitimate copy and can prove this then you're probably in the clear.
There is nothing inherent in a democratic system apart from the constant watch of the people that stops the system from becoming undemocratic and fascist.
True. But what do we do about it? Sure we can protest about it, which helps to an extent, but to a disturbingly large number of people, this sounds like a hysterical overreaction (which is ironic considering how much the support hysterical overreactions to terrorism).
Before you get your account suspended, make sure you're in serious severe debt.
Is Days of Our Lives art? Is Battlefield Earth? Yes. But not exactly Da Vinci now is it. Games are pretty much in the same area. They qualify as art because they're creations of subjective value created for human pleasure. But they're not going to be elevated to the level of serious art because they're produced in a cynical manner purely to make money. Nobody is out to make a statement with a video game. Nobody is trying to stir any serious emotion from the gamers. They just want it to be fun (and yes, there probably are exceptions).
Games will probably mature and people will expect more from the medium. Right now, they're low grade commercial pulp.
Blockbuster's censorship is a totally different issue. If you don't like it then simply avoid Blockbuster. They're perfectly entitled to their censorship policy and you're perfectly entitled to tell them where to stick it. It's all about the free market. Not quite sure how Blockbuster, non-government censorship, or even fascism are un-American per se.
My point is that the time spent dealing with spam is typically insignificant. If someone spent a considerable amount of time dealing with spam in their inbox, then I'd understand it, but I can deal with all the spam I receive in about 2 minutes, and I'd imagine that's fairly typical. I don't believe that a waste of 5 minutes each day is a legitimate reason for the furore that spam generates.
Do these people get so upset if they have to spemnd a few more minutes in a queue because the supermarket doesn't open more checkouts? It seems unlikely that they'd expect the imprisonment of the supermarket managers. So the long and short of it is that I simply don't believe you when you say that the time taken is the reason that people get so upset over the spam.
Would you personally be happy with spam if you received one spam a day and it didn't cost you money?
Who's to say they're not operating at a loss and covering the expenses with ads displayed in the margins of the e-mail webapp?
Lycos. Their service promises no advertising.
Also, no, this isn't the only reason people get so worked up about spam (though 2/3 waste of resources is pretty bad no matter how you cut it).
If you cut it as 2/3 of a really a small section of their resources. ISPs offer web access, usenet, and general internet connectivity for apps such as FTP, P2P and usenet into the bargain.
Take a look at the other thread comment here. "Trespass to Chattels" is what comes up here. The spammers are abusing a resource provided by a particular entity (i.e. the ISP) for a purpose it was not intended for.
Yes that is an interesting take on the subject. Seems people should consider this rather than whining about the rather negligible and irrelevant financial cost.
So, how much does email cost an ISP. Given the number of companies that can afford to offer an email service for free, I'd imagine that the cost of all the other bandwidth, basic support and infrastructure, cost a lot more. Lycos charge $20 per year for their premium email service. They have all the same spam issues that an ISP has, and they still presumably make a profit. So this means that even if the cost of running a spam free email service is zero, and they have no marketting or any other costs, the total cost of spam to you in a month is clearly less than $1.67.
You probably lose more money than this in a month just through trivial things caused by other people's laziness. Why not demand that the bank keeps track of your account to 0.00001 cent? And the same for the credit card company. And the same for any purchase that includes sales tax? This sort of rounding error costs the public millions. What is the per-person threshold at which it becomes neccesary to imprison these people? Is this $1.67 really the reason people get so upset?
Since 1998 according to this article
It's a very small part of the overall network traffic though. It doesn't cost that much. Mail server cost is not a substantial part of an ISP's budget.
And there are lots of cost associated with doing business, many of which are the result of people being thoughtless. Nobody gets as worked up about those.
So people who merely waste their time dealing with it aren't entitled to legitimacy of claim? Ridiculous.
Indeed it is ridiculous. But I didn't say that thiur claim wasn't legitimate did I?
In this capitalist society that we embrace so readily if you want my time, you pay me for it. Simple as that. If you take it without my consent then you are stealing from me.
Fine. How much time do you waste dealing with spam? How much time do you waste queuing? Do you get as annoyed by the banks not supplying as many ATMs or the supermarket not having more checkouts? Would you just laugh it off if you only got a handful of spams per day?
Studies that show how much time is being stolen from individuals and companies dealing with this shit reveal it adds up to hundreds if not thousands of hours. That's a lot of money being stolen.
But it doesn't take thousands of hours of your time. Sorry, but I don't believe that your anger is purely patriotic fervour on behalf of the total time this is costing your nation. The time takes is a trivial part of the working hours of the world.
All I'm trying to work out is the real reason for people's anger. Everyone comes up with suggestions but they always seem either highly specialised for their own reasons, or ill thought out rationalisations. Not the actual reason.
Uhmmm... No.
Most people here are from the UK or the US. A lot of complaints come from people who really are paying a negligible amount in bandwidth costs for the spam. I have a free email account that is dedicated soleley to getting spam. In the last 3 months, I've managed to get 21Megs of spam. How much does that cost? I bet bad HTML costs me a lot more each month.
But do all the people who complain about it use a GPRS phone for their emails? If they do then their complaints are legitimate, but I expect they're in the minority.
Reasonable. And I can see how this causes direct harm. But I got annoyed when I got one spam (Yes. I started using email pre-spam). I'm justtrying to work out why.
Seriously - It shouldn't be the problem that it quite clearly is. People complain about the time spent dealing with it and the cost of bandwidth, but these are really quite small. In fact, most people's entire bill for all internet services and total bandwidth used for all email is a drop in the ocean. I'd imagine people would satill be upset if they only received a single spam email a day. So, what is the real issue with it?
Seriously - It shouldn't be the problem that it quite clearly is.
People complain about the time spent dealing with it and the cost of bandwidth, but these are really quite small. In fact, most people's entire bill for all internet services and total bandwidth used for all email is a drop in the ocean. I'd imagine people would satill be upset if they only received a single spam email a day.
So, what is the real issue with it?
Of course they are allowed to criticise the arrest. They are also allowed to criticise their own national policy over yahoo. They're even allowed to have differing opinions over both, although that may well make them hypocrites.
By "DVD Jon", people are of course referring to the cracking organisation that uses Jon as the public face.
And nobody actually likes hearing the negative parts of them, but the wise will consider them and work on resolving the problems.
Hey - You do know the "Origin of Species" was a 19th century publication don't you?
Perhaps if he has a blog dedicated entirely to discussion about the Simpsons...
I don't think that is how it works. I think claim 2 is considered an entirely different invention. So a system as described in claim 1, but adding trading of mod points would not be covered by Slashdot's prior art.