If you had taken the three seconds to do a search on "newegg refurbished fraud," you'd see over 700 pages where most of them discuss their dishonesty.
Not in the first six pages of results you won't. Maybe further, but I wasted enough time. In fact, the closest thing I found was someone who knew he bought a refurbished item that ended up missing a necessary part. He called NewEgg and they refunded his money entirely, including S&H both ways. Not exactly an overwhelming torrent of fraud stories.
Don't hide behind Google, do your own research and give up a link.
Okay I get "M$", "Winblows" and "Windoze", even though I think it makes the writer look stupid, but how the hell is "Windose" supposed to be denigrating?
perhaps they are indistinguishable to you, but professional photographers that I've asked have said that 5Mpixels is the absolute minimum for emulating 35mm film
That's great, and I'm not arguing with that, but "emulating 35mm film" and "3mp is the absolute minimum resolution for decent 4x6 printing" (which I was debating) are radically different concepts.
My 2.1mp camera produces 4x6 prints that are indistinguishable from film. The couple 8x10s I've done have come out quite good as well, though at that point it's definitely noticable up close. Regardless, the parent was referring to screen resolution, not printing.
So open sourcing the drivers is a legal impossibility.
So you're saying that Intel and Atheros are breaking the law?
Let's try not to lose sight of the fact that Linux has many times the hardware support of Windows.
Linux has many times the architecture support, not "hardware support". Sure, just about anything with a floating point unit (and even a lot without) can be made to run Linux. But that's not what we're talking about. I can't think of a single hardware device that will work with Linux but not Windows (though I'm sure some exist). I can easily think of countless devices that work with Windows but not Linux. In fact, I have to be careful to check compatibility of devices I'm interested in so I don't get an unpleasant surprise later.
Ever try running Windows on an Alpha? What about MIPS?
Personally I've run Windows on Alpha (an old NT server), MIPS (a P/PC and H/PC device) and ARM processors (my PPC2002 Jornada). The SHx family is also supported. Perhaps you're just not familiar with the full line of Windows products.
Yeah, this does run the risk of making it easier for terrorists to forge the ID because there's only one kind instead fo many
No it makes it harder. With only one type of identification one can be assured that all guards and even employees are thoroughly familiar with it. When there are many different types of valid ID it's very easy for a guard to not be trained in how to spot a forgery of that type or for a regular employee to simply think "must be a new type".
It's why in Massachusetts you may be refused alcohol if you don't have an in-state drver's license or a special Massachusetts Liquor ID (or a Federal ID). Most of the time, at least in college, fake IDs are from out of state because no bar can be familiar with all the various forms of state ID out there. Accepting only one of those forms of ID means a liquor merchant "exercised due care" in determining age and it limits his liability.
The only problem is that if this is suscessful, who's to say they aren't beyond a National ID for everyone
I have one. It's called a passport. Sure, there's no law saying you have to have one, but there's no law saying I need to have any sort of state ID either. It just makes things a lot easier.
Though I wonder how much a little money helped them to like something?
Considering the articles mentions several times that they receive no compensation beyond some free samples of the product, I would have to say not at all.
(esp for some of those great 70's and 80's bands that really took advantage of surround sound)
Dolby Digital was introduced at the consumer level in 1992. Even the analog Dolby Surround Pro Logic wasn't introduced till probably the mid 80's. Very few, if any, commercial music recordings have been made this way (now with DVD-A there's a small upsurge).
What you're probably referring to is "quadrophonic" sound, a niche technology from the early 70's that didn't really take off. They were only available on 8 track (which could only fit two songs because they needed the extra tracks), vinyl and open reel. Not something you're likely to be ripping to mp3. Other bands (I recall Boston's Third Stage) did some cool stereo tricks, but there was nothing special technologically about them.
It is, in fact, legal everywhere in Massachusetts to turn left on red from one one-way street to another unless there is a sign prohibting it.
Link to Mass code
Yes, I have, many times. And they've always been labeled "time sensitive" or some such at the time of download IF they're time sensitive. Of course you could have simply pointed out that this one was in the EULA you don't see until install time, like an Anonymous Coward did in another reply, but that would be provided useful information so I'm sure you can't have that.
No, actually "we" don't. Mind pointing out that section of the MS site? I couldn't find a thing about an expiration date or that this was a "time limited" beta.
Why is this insightful? I doubt the last thing a plumber wants to do when he gets home is unclog his sister's toilet, nor does the mechanic want to talk to his neighbor about that tapping sound his car started making. People generally take side jobs because they need the money. I don't really want to clean megs of spyware off a family members' computer, but if they want to slip me some cash I'll be right over.
However, I feel I should be asking - this is 2004. Why are you installing an operating system from 1999?
Because a whole lot of people are running a computer from that era? Because you might already have plenty of licenses and Win2k is perfectly good functionality wise? (meaning you only need to plug security flaws, which are product defects anyway)
Would you install a Linux server using a kernel from 1999?
If I was getting it from a distro that backported security patches, sure, why not? There are plenty of production machines that have run that long. Heck I just installed Red Hat 6.2 on an ancient Thinkpad because it was the most appropriate option.
Windows 2003 is significantly better than Windows 2000 across the board.
But we're not talking about servers.
Likewise, on the desktop front, Windows XP is a much more refined operating system.
Complaining that Microsoft isn't providing enough support for Windows 2000 is like complaining that Redhat doesn't provide enough support for Redhat 5.2
Well, no, Win2k is the previous version of Windows. Red Hat 5.2 is, what, 5 major versions back? (hard to tell with Enterprise and Fedora) They still support back to version 9, which is still prior to both Enterprise versions and Fedora. It's not at all unreasonable to ask that the current version and one prior version be keep up to date. It doesn't matter how old it is if it was the only thing being kept up to date all that time. A Linux distro from 1999 could be kept current if it was the only version being maintained. Heck ask a Gentoo user, you could install any version of it you find and get it right up to speed. The reason Red Hat 5.2 isn't updated is because they would have to update 5 different versions each time if they went that far back. Not everyone wants or needs to be cutting edge.
Also, considering Microsoft will still sell it to you right now, they should damn well support it.
I use lightweight programs on my desktop such as Window Maker, AbiWord, and Firefox.
Firefox is far from lightweight. It's a great program and all, but lightweight is the last word I'd use. Granted I don't use Windows, so maybe it's relative. I would say that Firefox is the single biggest resource sucking app I run on a regular basis. Not to mention it seems to have some sort of memory leak that makes me eventually have to close it (or it crashes).
I reread the article and answered my own question. The record they chose to release after being dropped was Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. The record fans were attempting to pay for was A Ghost Is Born, their newest album being released by the label Nonesuch, which had been leaked onto P2P extremely early. They couldn't take money for A Ghost Is Born because Nonesuch obviously had publishing rights.
Why not? The article never says. It's not like there was some tangled rights issue. They article does say they had the rights to do whatever they wanted with it after Reprise dropped them, and they obviously had the rights to give it away, so why couldn't they take money for it?
What's the deal with people who don't understand the relativity of humor? I mean, people send me links all the time, and I don't find them all funny. Do I just know defective people? Why doesn't everyone know what's funny and what's not?
Considering that defamation in the form of libel/slander is defined as "issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm" I don't see how that could be the case. There are perhaps jurisdictions where saying harmful but true things are actionable but those are, by definition, not libel/slander.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in the first six pages of results you won't. Maybe further, but I wasted enough time. In fact, the closest thing I found was someone who knew he bought a refurbished item that ended up missing a necessary part. He called NewEgg and they refunded his money entirely, including S&H both ways. Not exactly an overwhelming torrent of fraud stories.
Don't hide behind Google, do your own research and give up a link.
Okay I get "M$", "Winblows" and "Windoze", even though I think it makes the writer look stupid, but how the hell is "Windose" supposed to be denigrating?
The "evolution" of a console system refers to the direction future consoles in the line will take.
That's great, and I'm not arguing with that, but "emulating 35mm film" and "3mp is the absolute minimum resolution for decent 4x6 printing" (which I was debating) are radically different concepts.
My 2.1mp camera produces 4x6 prints that are indistinguishable from film. The couple 8x10s I've done have come out quite good as well, though at that point it's definitely noticable up close. Regardless, the parent was referring to screen resolution, not printing.
So you're saying that Intel and Atheros are breaking the law?
Let's try not to lose sight of the fact that Linux has many times the hardware support of Windows.
Linux has many times the architecture support, not "hardware support". Sure, just about anything with a floating point unit (and even a lot without) can be made to run Linux. But that's not what we're talking about. I can't think of a single hardware device that will work with Linux but not Windows (though I'm sure some exist). I can easily think of countless devices that work with Windows but not Linux. In fact, I have to be careful to check compatibility of devices I'm interested in so I don't get an unpleasant surprise later.
Ever try running Windows on an Alpha? What about MIPS?
Personally I've run Windows on Alpha (an old NT server), MIPS (a P/PC and H/PC device) and ARM processors (my PPC2002 Jornada). The SHx family is also supported. Perhaps you're just not familiar with the full line of Windows products.
No it makes it harder. With only one type of identification one can be assured that all guards and even employees are thoroughly familiar with it. When there are many different types of valid ID it's very easy for a guard to not be trained in how to spot a forgery of that type or for a regular employee to simply think "must be a new type".
It's why in Massachusetts you may be refused alcohol if you don't have an in-state drver's license or a special Massachusetts Liquor ID (or a Federal ID). Most of the time, at least in college, fake IDs are from out of state because no bar can be familiar with all the various forms of state ID out there. Accepting only one of those forms of ID means a liquor merchant "exercised due care" in determining age and it limits his liability.
The only problem is that if this is suscessful, who's to say they aren't beyond a National ID for everyone
I have one. It's called a passport. Sure, there's no law saying you have to have one, but there's no law saying I need to have any sort of state ID either. It just makes things a lot easier.
What was once considered true, then a myth, is now potentially true again.
Montana, late 90's. It was the safest period ever on the roads there.
Considering the articles mentions several times that they receive no compensation beyond some free samples of the product, I would have to say not at all.
Dolby Digital was introduced at the consumer level in 1992. Even the analog Dolby Surround Pro Logic wasn't introduced till probably the mid 80's. Very few, if any, commercial music recordings have been made this way (now with DVD-A there's a small upsurge).
What you're probably referring to is "quadrophonic" sound, a niche technology from the early 70's that didn't really take off. They were only available on 8 track (which could only fit two songs because they needed the extra tracks), vinyl and open reel. Not something you're likely to be ripping to mp3. Other bands (I recall Boston's Third Stage) did some cool stereo tricks, but there was nothing special technologically about them.
ISPs are not common carriers and never have been. That's one thing the DMCA does, grants them an explicit safe harbor if they comply with it.
It is, in fact, legal everywhere in Massachusetts to turn left on red from one one-way street to another unless there is a sign prohibting it. Link to Mass code
I'm assuming the submitter is confusing Donald Rumsfeld with Donald Evans, the outgoing Commerce Secretary.
Yes, I have, many times. And they've always been labeled "time sensitive" or some such at the time of download IF they're time sensitive. Of course you could have simply pointed out that this one was in the EULA you don't see until install time, like an Anonymous Coward did in another reply, but that would be provided useful information so I'm sure you can't have that.
No, actually "we" don't. Mind pointing out that section of the MS site? I couldn't find a thing about an expiration date or that this was a "time limited" beta.
Why is this insightful? I doubt the last thing a plumber wants to do when he gets home is unclog his sister's toilet, nor does the mechanic want to talk to his neighbor about that tapping sound his car started making. People generally take side jobs because they need the money. I don't really want to clean megs of spyware off a family members' computer, but if they want to slip me some cash I'll be right over.
Because a whole lot of people are running a computer from that era? Because you might already have plenty of licenses and Win2k is perfectly good functionality wise? (meaning you only need to plug security flaws, which are product defects anyway)
Would you install a Linux server using a kernel from 1999?
If I was getting it from a distro that backported security patches, sure, why not? There are plenty of production machines that have run that long. Heck I just installed Red Hat 6.2 on an ancient Thinkpad because it was the most appropriate option.
Windows 2003 is significantly better than Windows 2000 across the board.
But we're not talking about servers.
Likewise, on the desktop front, Windows XP is a much more refined operating system.
Complaining that Microsoft isn't providing enough support for Windows 2000 is like complaining that Redhat doesn't provide enough support for Redhat 5.2
Well, no, Win2k is the previous version of Windows. Red Hat 5.2 is, what, 5 major versions back? (hard to tell with Enterprise and Fedora) They still support back to version 9, which is still prior to both Enterprise versions and Fedora. It's not at all unreasonable to ask that the current version and one prior version be keep up to date. It doesn't matter how old it is if it was the only thing being kept up to date all that time. A Linux distro from 1999 could be kept current if it was the only version being maintained. Heck ask a Gentoo user, you could install any version of it you find and get it right up to speed. The reason Red Hat 5.2 isn't updated is because they would have to update 5 different versions each time if they went that far back. Not everyone wants or needs to be cutting edge.
Also, considering Microsoft will still sell it to you right now, they should damn well support it.
Wow, lucky thing that's not what he's doing!
Firefox is far from lightweight. It's a great program and all, but lightweight is the last word I'd use. Granted I don't use Windows, so maybe it's relative. I would say that Firefox is the single biggest resource sucking app I run on a regular basis. Not to mention it seems to have some sort of memory leak that makes me eventually have to close it (or it crashes).
I reread the article and answered my own question. The record they chose to release after being dropped was Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. The record fans were attempting to pay for was A Ghost Is Born, their newest album being released by the label Nonesuch, which had been leaked onto P2P extremely early. They couldn't take money for A Ghost Is Born because Nonesuch obviously had publishing rights.
Why not? The article never says. It's not like there was some tangled rights issue. They article does say they had the rights to do whatever they wanted with it after Reprise dropped them, and they obviously had the rights to give it away, so why couldn't they take money for it?
That would be slander.
Considering that defamation in the form of libel/slander is defined as "issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm" I don't see how that could be the case. There are perhaps jurisdictions where saying harmful but true things are actionable but those are, by definition, not libel/slander.