While you are right the summary is completly wrong, you should blame the person that got it wrong. Mac of Macistan, the article submitter and summary writer, is the person that got it wrong.
If you are going to bitch about the summary at least bitch about the person that made the mistake. Or be more specific that the person approving this article should have appended the summary with a correct description of the article.
The weekly world news logo also links DIRECTLY back to the site. The wwn in the url should clue in many US readers, but the link back to wwn should clue in everyone else.
The problem is not Phoenix bios, it's the Phoenix Technologies _BROWSER_ for embedded systems. Hence they are similar and could be confusing.
The same is not true of the Firebird SQL software. They are in differant spaces and in my opinion are not likely to be confused. The IBPhoenix guy also handled the situation poorly and doesn't merit a response.
I don't care if you are from the US or not, the weekly world news is online and just as accesible (for most people) as slashdot is.
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com
Yes, Yahoo should have credited the original source better, but there are items on the page that identify this as a weekly world news piece. Going to the wwn site would certainly lead you to believe that this is fake.
You had to check Snopes for this? The URL has wwn in it, the page has the Weekly World News logo in the upper right side. I figured all that was certainly enough to show that this story was bunk.
Unless of course you are one of those people that believes everything wwn publishes.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft maintaining a monopoly. They may have made a lot of money from the monopoly, but even if they had made the boatloads of money they have without a monopoly this would still be a wise move. As others have pointed out a Doom III release that was for all platforms at the same time gives the X-Box a small advantage. Some people might rather go out and buy an Xbox and copy of Doom III rather than spending $300-500 on a new video card.
I dunno, I'm a subscriber and I think it's hilarious. It's one day a year. Big deal. Hell, I think all the people whining is actually funnier than the repeated story.
Actually most of the link in that search refer to using mozilla as an activex control (which you have been able to do for some time), not having mozilla run activex controls which is what this new development is.
Many people wouldn't, but they deserve what they get. I always read the labels on the items I buy (especially electronics etc). 99% of the games that use problem causing copy protection don't have that on the box. I don't think people would start looking for that unless they have had a problem in the past. After they have had a problem they are much more likely to look. You don't buy foods that contain ingredients that you are allergic to, you probably won't buy a cd that has a technology that didn't work for you either.
Manufacturers are labeling discs as cds and includingthe Philips logos even if they are fully aware that the disc may not play in all drives and may not conform to Red Book. This in my opinion is clearly intent to deceive.
Caveat emptor, right? Before you buy something, find out what the store's return policy is first. This is common sense.
Knowing and accepting the stores return policy doesn't do you any good if the item you are buying is deceptivly labeled. If I go to a store that I know doesn't allow the return of opened software and I purchase a cd based on the fact that there is a philips cd logo on the packing (which means it is supposed to work) I have taken the necessary precautions and still gotten screwed. This is more than just buyer beware. This is more like buyer decieved.
Of course it is. That's exactly what our small claims judicial system is for. If this were happening on a large scale, a class action would be a better way to go for all involved, but of course both the small claims and the class action routes presume that the manufacturer has some kind of liability here. It doesn't seem to me that that's the case at all.
This is what our small claims courts are for yes. However it is not an effective use of our courts in my opinion. I can't speak for other areas, but our small claims courts are bogged down. Yes this is in direct relation to our litegious society (which I think is bad), but adding onto that load won't help matters. In each case the company will probably not show up and you will recieve judgment. Then you have to pray you can collect.
The problem with class action suits is that the majority of the people that have been harmed by the practices of the business do not recieve compensation. It is an over used and abused system that no longer works. I can speak directly to this topic as I was recently the benificiary of a class action suit against a credit card company that was over charging its cutomers. Personally the company attempted to get an extra $500 dollars from me through their illegal behavior. My compensation from the suit was $22 applied to my account. I also spent an additional six weeks getting the other charges removed. The class action suit failed to do any good. I don't see it being any differant in these cases.
I see liability in the cases where there are damages to devices these discs are played in. While it was possible to remove these discs from some iMacs I have seen several that had to be removed manually, and these were newer iMacs where there is no eject hole for the drive and the machines needed to be taken apart. Most of the support centers here would charge well over $100 for that simple task.
Consumers require no protection from this practice. Consumer protection by the FTC is, and should be, reserved for things that affect health and safety. If CD's were exploding and killing people, the FTC would have a reason to get involved. But this? This is just silliness.
I disagree. Simply for this reason. If we allow deceptive business practices in one area because consumers don't need protection as it doesn't affect their health or saftey then that idea can spread to other areas.
On the current topic the consumer has little recourse against the manufacturer. Many stores won't allow returns of open cd's or games, they will only allow for exchanges for the same product. Contacting the manufacturer does little good, especially if the use of their cd caused damage to your device (ie the iMacs and the drives being unopenable). Each consumer can take these big manufacturers to small claims courts, but that is also not an effective use of our judicial system.
Like I said, there has to be some enforcment. Philips can remove the license to those that choose to break the Red Book specification, and they have said they will. However they don't appear to be following through. At that point consumers have no protection from the practice.
While technically don't say "works in all players all the time no matter what" it is implied by the use of the Philips compact disc logos. Unfortunatly it's not always true (SafeDisc 2 has burned me a couple of times).
There has to be some enforcment of either removing the cd logos or labeling them as defective or whatever. Whether this should be left to the manufacturers or the FTC is questionable. Parental warnings have done absolutely no good and are a collosal waste of time so I don't see this as being any better. However after being burned a couple of times I can't help but want to force these bastards to properly label thier games, music cds, etc.
Apparently you haven't looked at how little most large companies actually pay in taxes. They have so many write offs they end up either paying a very small amount or nothing at all.
You've still infringed the copyright. It would be the same as if you took the entire book home with you and photocopied it. You don't have the copyright holders permission to do so.
Actually, there are more significant differances. My tax dollars pay for my local libraries. I am therefor allowed to go to the library and have access to any and all of the material there, books or music. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to copy it or keep it. Copyright infringment is still taking place if you take a library book and copy it, if you take a library album and rip it, or download a song off the internet. Now, my tax dollars may have paid for a portion of Internet infrastructure, but not the majority. I pay a hefty price for bandwidth. However at no point in this agreement to pay for access to the Internet did I get access to copies of millions of pieces of copyrighted media. This is completly differant than public libraries.
Now, if you want to talk about the problems with copyrights go right ahead, but don't compare copyright infringment with how libraries work. Copyright infringment happens at libraries and on the Internet, but neither the library or the Internet are at fault. The users are.
I don't think that's entirely true. My copy of the extended edition is making it's rounds through my various non uber geek friends. They all wish they had bought the extended edition and many of them will now. I also have a couple of uber geek friends that wish they had only purchased the extended version as after seeing it they have no desire to see the theatrical version again.
Slashdot Mirror
While you are right the summary is completly wrong, you should blame the person that got it wrong. Mac of Macistan, the article submitter and summary writer, is the person that got it wrong.
If you are going to bitch about the summary at least bitch about the person that made the mistake. Or be more specific that the person approving this article should have appended the summary with a correct description of the article.
Get it right.
The weekly world news logo also links DIRECTLY back to the site. The wwn in the url should clue in many US readers, but the link back to wwn should clue in everyone else.
The problem is not Phoenix bios, it's the Phoenix Technologies _BROWSER_ for embedded systems. Hence they are similar and could be confusing.
The same is not true of the Firebird SQL software. They are in differant spaces and in my opinion are not likely to be confused. The IBPhoenix guy also handled the situation poorly and doesn't merit a response.
I don't care if you are from the US or not, the weekly world news is online and just as accesible (for most people) as slashdot is.
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com
Yes, Yahoo should have credited the original source better, but there are items on the page that identify this as a weekly world news piece. Going to the wwn site would certainly lead you to believe that this is fake.
Being a Yank has nothing to do with it, the damn "paper" also publishes this garbage on the web.
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
Your stapler can be found here.
You had to check Snopes for this? The URL has wwn in it, the page has the Weekly World News logo in the upper right side. I figured all that was certainly enough to show that this story was bunk.
Unless of course you are one of those people that believes everything wwn publishes.
It was a joke. Ever seen Office Space?
guess not.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft maintaining a monopoly. They may have made a lot of money from the monopoly, but even if they had made the boatloads of money they have without a monopoly this would still be a wise move. As others have pointed out a Doom III release that was for all platforms at the same time gives the X-Box a small advantage. Some people might rather go out and buy an Xbox and copy of Doom III rather than spending $300-500 on a new video card.
I dunno, I'm a subscriber and I think it's hilarious. It's one day a year. Big deal. Hell, I think all the people whining is actually funnier than the repeated story.
Actually most of the link in that search refer to using mozilla as an activex control (which you have been able to do for some time), not having mozilla run activex controls which is what this new development is.
Many people wouldn't, but they deserve what they get. I always read the labels on the items I buy (especially electronics etc). 99% of the games that use problem causing copy protection don't have that on the box. I don't think people would start looking for that unless they have had a problem in the past. After they have had a problem they are much more likely to look. You don't buy foods that contain ingredients that you are allergic to, you probably won't buy a cd that has a technology that didn't work for you either.
Where is the intent to deceive?
Manufacturers are labeling discs as cds and includingthe Philips logos even if they are fully aware that the disc may not play in all drives and may not conform to Red Book. This in my opinion is clearly intent to deceive.
Caveat emptor, right? Before you buy something, find out what the store's return policy is first. This is common sense.
Knowing and accepting the stores return policy doesn't do you any good if the item you are buying is deceptivly labeled. If I go to a store that I know doesn't allow the return of opened software and I purchase a cd based on the fact that there is a philips cd logo on the packing (which means it is supposed to work) I have taken the necessary precautions and still gotten screwed. This is more than just buyer beware. This is more like buyer decieved.
Of course it is. That's exactly what our small claims judicial system is for. If this were happening on a large scale, a class action would be a better way to go for all involved, but of course both the small claims and the class action routes presume that the manufacturer has some kind of liability here. It doesn't seem to me that that's the case at all.
This is what our small claims courts are for yes. However it is not an effective use of our courts in my opinion. I can't speak for other areas, but our small claims courts are bogged down. Yes this is in direct relation to our litegious society (which I think is bad), but adding onto that load won't help matters. In each case the company will probably not show up and you will recieve judgment. Then you have to pray you can collect.
The problem with class action suits is that the majority of the people that have been harmed by the practices of the business do not recieve compensation. It is an over used and abused system that no longer works. I can speak directly to this topic as I was recently the benificiary of a class action suit against a credit card company that was over charging its cutomers. Personally the company attempted to get an extra $500 dollars from me through their illegal behavior. My compensation from the suit was $22 applied to my account. I also spent an additional six weeks getting the other charges removed. The class action suit failed to do any good. I don't see it being any differant in these cases.
I see liability in the cases where there are damages to devices these discs are played in. While it was possible to remove these discs from some iMacs I have seen several that had to be removed manually, and these were newer iMacs where there is no eject hole for the drive and the machines needed to be taken apart. Most of the support centers here would charge well over $100 for that simple task.
Consumers require no protection from this practice. Consumer protection by the FTC is, and should be, reserved for things that affect health and safety. If CD's were exploding and killing people, the FTC would have a reason to get involved. But this? This is just silliness.
I disagree. Simply for this reason. If we allow deceptive business practices in one area because consumers don't need protection as it doesn't affect their health or saftey then that idea can spread to other areas.
On the current topic the consumer has little recourse against the manufacturer. Many stores won't allow returns of open cd's or games, they will only allow for exchanges for the same product. Contacting the manufacturer does little good, especially if the use of their cd caused damage to your device (ie the iMacs and the drives being unopenable). Each consumer can take these big manufacturers to small claims courts, but that is also not an effective use of our judicial system.
Like I said, there has to be some enforcment. Philips can remove the license to those that choose to break the Red Book specification, and they have said they will. However they don't appear to be following through. At that point consumers have no protection from the practice.
While technically don't say "works in all players all the time no matter what" it is implied by the use of the Philips compact disc logos. Unfortunatly it's not always true (SafeDisc 2 has burned me a couple of times).
There has to be some enforcment of either removing the cd logos or labeling them as defective or whatever. Whether this should be left to the manufacturers or the FTC is questionable. Parental warnings have done absolutely no good and are a collosal waste of time so I don't see this as being any better. However after being burned a couple of times I can't help but want to force these bastards to properly label thier games, music cds, etc.
No, it's probably not fixed because they are probably not paying attention ;)
Topic selection is a pull down box. AMD and Apple are right next to eachother in the list and this is an simple off by one data entry error.
Apparently you haven't looked at how little most large companies actually pay in taxes. They have so many write offs they end up either paying a very small amount or nothing at all.
You've still infringed the copyright. It would be the same as if you took the entire book home with you and photocopied it. You don't have the copyright holders permission to do so.
Actually, there are more significant differances. My tax dollars pay for my local libraries. I am therefor allowed to go to the library and have access to any and all of the material there, books or music. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to copy it or keep it. Copyright infringment is still taking place if you take a library book and copy it, if you take a library album and rip it, or download a song off the internet. Now, my tax dollars may have paid for a portion of Internet infrastructure, but not the majority. I pay a hefty price for bandwidth. However at no point in this agreement to pay for access to the Internet did I get access to copies of millions of pieces of copyrighted media. This is completly differant than public libraries.
Now, if you want to talk about the problems with copyrights go right ahead, but don't compare copyright infringment with how libraries work. Copyright infringment happens at libraries and on the Internet, but neither the library or the Internet are at fault. The users are.
You return your books to the library. If you don't they send you a big fat bill in the mail.
True, but the number is possibly somewhere in the middle which seems much more reasonable.
I've got it....
ReUnited Linux!
Oh dear.... did I actually just post that?
I don't think that's entirely true. My copy of the extended edition is making it's rounds through my various non uber geek friends. They all wish they had bought the extended edition and many of them will now. I also have a couple of uber geek friends that wish they had only purchased the extended version as after seeing it they have no desire to see the theatrical version again.