TiVo collects aggregate non-personal data like that, it's in their privacy policy, so I'm sure most other non-homebuilt DVRs do the same. That's why right after the Superbowl they can tell you which commercials were replayed the most
But movies aren't interactive... why must something be either one extreme (interactive) or another (non-interactive). I crave a movie where I can float around in the story, choose my own camera angles, talk to various secondary characters about what they feel about what's going on, and explore the surrounding area a little.
That's not truly interactive. Everything still comes out the same way, all you did was activate some DVD special features. What you've described is all possible with current-gen DVD technology and many packed DVDs come very close (the big LotR sets for example). Special editions that include plenty of interviews about the characters and story, "making of" vignettes for you to explore the world, etc.
I know I'm just one opinion, but I think there's room for both. And A LOT of people out there crave a story where they have the interactivity to simply be immersed in it, but not neccessarilly control it. I find this desire for complete control a bit eerie, to say the least. A certain amount of it may be healthy, and there is a place for open-ended story-telling, but I certainly don't think it should be required.
You want jRPGs. Seriously. You've described them to a T. You want a linear, focused story that allows you to interact with the window dressing but not to have any real effect on the outcome. That exists today. You are right that it's something a lot of people crave, which is why they're so immensely popular. But you have yet to describe anything that can't be, and isn't, fulfilled today.
There are only 18 million addresses in the private address ranges. Nextel has 15 million subscribers, and they're one of the smaller carriers. Verizon had 32.5 million back in 2003.
Are you kidding me? There are tons of minimalist distros. Here over one hundred minimalist distros to get you started. Many are specialized for some function, but many are not.
"Um, now you're wrong."
Er, yes. Repeated use had me confusing words. His language (Bislama) is most probably a creole, as it now has a dictionary and can be considered stable. However I was correcting his claim that "[Pidgin] refers to a number of English-derived dialects spoken in Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific." When he later added "I speak Bislama, the Vanuatu version of the language" (empahsis mine) this very strongly implies an exclusionary statement, that only that language and its dialects are "Pidgin" and that he was unaware of any other pidgin or creole languages. This is what I was correcting.
There are "creole" languages which did not arise from a pidgin language, however.[...] To differentiate them from the pidgin-creole continuum they are often called "mixed" languages instead.
Sure, but those aren't creoles. Like you said, they're mixed languages. That some people refer to them as creoles is more sloppy terminology than anything else.
No, I'm right. You simply reiterated what I said in that "Many pidgin languages are named some variation of "Pidgin" but they don't have exclusive claim to the title." I'm aware that there are pidgins named some variation of "Pidgin" and went out of my way to state that. The post I replied to claimed that his language was the pidgin, which is simply untrue.
. For example: that article implicitly claims that Haitian Creole developed from a previous pidgin. That's certainly a possibility, but it is far from certain.
No, it's not. A creole language is simply a pidgin language that has stood the test of time and become a full, stable first language for a group of people. All creoles were once pidgins by definition. It's a bit nebulous when a pidgin becomes a creole officially, but there's no doubt that that's the progression.
'Pidgin', which refers to a number of English-derived dialects spoken in Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific.
"Pidgin" is actually an adjective describing a simplified combining of languages, not a specific language family. There are pidgin languages spoken all over the world combining many languages, not always English. Many pidgin languages are named some variation of "Pidgin" but they don't have exclusive claim to the title.
They've done it many times, as far back as 1967 (Edward White, the first American spacewalk) and as recently as the 9/11 stamp with the three NYC firemen. The idea is that they don't want to honor living individuals. People who are still alive will sometimes appear when the event is what's important and the individual is secondary.
Who says websites are "expected to be public places"? I surely don't.
The US court system, for one. The courts are currently split over whether or not web sites are "places of public accomodation", meaning should the law require them to be ADA compliant. At least one Circuit has ruled they are, and at least one has ruled they are not. That wouldn't even be an issue if you needed to be explicitly invited to access a web site, which is a ludicrous assumption.
And in any case, this woman's, and others' websites are clearly marked in the language of the website, what the terms of use are.
It wasn't in the "language of the website" it was in English. You cannot put "terms of use" on something you display publicly. Life just doesn't work that way.
Any explicit statement trumps any supposed assumption...
Not an explicit statement that cannot be understood by the intended reader, which would be web spiders. To return to your flawed analogy it would be as if I went to the house knocked on a door and said in English, "Can I come in and take pictures?" (the robot sending the HTTP GET request) and the owner replied "Sure!" (the web site responding to the GET by sending the page). Then, once I'm in the house the owner started talking to me in French telling me that I could walk around but not take pictures (the robot having no idea how to parse English instructions that are contrary to what it was just told anyway). You can't respond to requests in one language (HTML) and then put conditions on it in another language (English).
No, because your analogy is fundamentally flawed for one important reason: closets (and insides of homes in general) are expected to be private places. Websites are expected to be public places. "Reasonable expectation" is a common metric in the law. If you want to go against this expectation you are free to do so, but you have to understand that the burden is then on you to make that expectation clear to all it may affect.
All PocketPCs that I'm aware of have a D-pad. I'm fairly certain all modern PalmOS devices do as well. Smartphones have the same capability to install software as any other PC. They may or may not have additional OTA capability. Otherwise, I don't get what you're getting at. No one is "forced" to do anything. The barrier to entry is high if you want to publish a DS or PSP game, sure, but that's life and gaming systems are luxury items.
I could've been miss-informed, but I believe most if not all ISPs are considered common carrier.
They are not. Only the telecommunications network itself is a common carrier. The DSL services layered on top of it (as well as cable, fiber, etc) are considered information services.
If they weren't, every single illegal download that the RIAA could sue for could also be enacted against the ISP, since they 'allowed' the infringement to take place, or some such.
That would be true, were not other legislation in place. The Communications Decency Act says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider", which protects ISPs from any libel torts committed by their users.
The DMCA offers the "safe harbor" provision to ISPs, protecting them from liability for copyright violations by their users as long as they follow the notice and takedown procedures for complaints.
No, it's entirely optional. They can be used both ways, that's the point. Smaller merchants often don't even have the capability to do PIN transactions (although it's becoming more common).
We can refuse service to ANYBODY for ANY REASON unless it's based on racial/religious stuff. No card member agreement trumps that.
Legally? No, of course not. You're not breaking any laws. A card member agreement doesn't make something a crime. But you can sign away your rights to do a lot of things in a contract in exchange for the benefit of accepting cards and that's what you chose to do. You're agreeing not to turn away MasterCard customers specifically for trying to use their MC in a way you may not like at the price of possibly losing your ability to accept cards.
And no, I haven't read the 150 page, single spaced 8 point font agreement that my merchant banks have sent me
I would suggest you do, especially as a business owner with a lot to lose. It certainly seems cavalier not to. It's not hard even, I read all the fine print and Privacy Notices and countless little pamphlets I'm sent by banks and investments, etc. I can't generally change onerous terms and conditions, but at least I know what I'm getting into and what written word I can fall back on if I need to.
The reality is that Visa/MC isn't going to cut off a merchant for asking to see ID.
I'm not so sure about that. There are only four possible check boxes on the complaint form, in addition to the freeform complaint field. I find it hard to believe that if they didn't care they would break it out so clearly. There are a million things you can do in violation of your agreement that don't have specific ways to be complained about. While I doubt my one complaint does anything alone, I'm sure multiple complaints will at least draw attention to the merchant and start the wheels moving.
The reality is that eventually, you won't be able to buy anything in your area with your credit card because you're being a jerk and you're abusing the store and the employees.
No, the reality is that I've only found one store that has been a repeat offender and it's the Salvation Army of all places. No one else has ever been a problem.
It's interesting that you've built this scenario of me being a jerk and "abusing employees", especially when I've explained multiple times in this thread that I explain it quickly and don't like to make a scene or inconvenience. I guess it's just easier to villify others.
They can ask for ID, but they cannot require it. Your excerpt from pg 68 is under the following text: "The following sections contain acceptance procedures excerpted in previous editions from the Bylaws and Rules manual; however, effective with the October 2002 edition of the guide, these acceptance procedures were removed from the Bylaws and Rules manual and may be found only here."
I take that to mean that they are obsolete and left in as a sort of version control. It doesn't matter though, like I said, I let it go if they only ask and drop it. It's clear that they cannot require it.
The relevant rule for requiring identification is on pg 48, section 9.11.2:
"A merchant must not refuse to complete a MasterCard card transaction solely
because a cardholder who has complied with the conditions for presentment
of a card at the POI refuses to provide additional identification information,
except as specifically permitted or required by the Standards. A merchant may
require additional identification from the cardholder if the information is
required to complete the transaction, such as for shipping purposes."
Regardless of whether or not they're required to ask, they're clearly not allowed to actually require ID. I don't care if they do ask as long as they let it go when I refuse.
So do you only file complaints with those merchants that actually refused doing business with you because you didn't want to show ID? I would assume not because in a later post you mention that you always show ID when asked.
I file about merchants would would refuse if I did not show ID, not simply ones who ask and let it go.
Both of those things are a violation of your agreement, you can't require ID and you can't arbitrarily refuse my card. Why is it so hard to live up to what you've agreed to? If you thought the risk of not being able to require ID was an unacceptably high one, you shouldn't have agreed to it. That's the big sticking point here. You agreed to not require ID. You agreed to this of your own free will because the benefit of accepting credit cards was worth it to you. If you didn't intend to live up to that, why did you agree to it? I have to assume you're not a habitual liar who regularly breaks contracts. But if I witness you blatantly violating a contract, why would I want to do business with you? Even if I didn't care about this particular issue that much and I were simply reading this thread you're basically declaring to the world that you'll pick and choose the agreements you'll live up to.
I'll never cease to be amazed at the sense of entitlement people have shown here. I'm not the one asking for special treatment. All I'm asking for is that people live up to their agreements and suddenly I'm the bad guy. Amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
TiVo collects aggregate non-personal data like that, it's in their privacy policy, so I'm sure most other non-homebuilt DVRs do the same. That's why right after the Superbowl they can tell you which commercials were replayed the most
That's not truly interactive. Everything still comes out the same way, all you did was activate some DVD special features. What you've described is all possible with current-gen DVD technology and many packed DVDs come very close (the big LotR sets for example). Special editions that include plenty of interviews about the characters and story, "making of" vignettes for you to explore the world, etc.
I know I'm just one opinion, but I think there's room for both. And A LOT of people out there crave a story where they have the interactivity to simply be immersed in it, but not neccessarilly control it. I find this desire for complete control a bit eerie, to say the least. A certain amount of it may be healthy, and there is a place for open-ended story-telling, but I certainly don't think it should be required.
You want jRPGs. Seriously. You've described them to a T. You want a linear, focused story that allows you to interact with the window dressing but not to have any real effect on the outcome. That exists today. You are right that it's something a lot of people crave, which is why they're so immensely popular. But you have yet to describe anything that can't be, and isn't, fulfilled today.
There are only 18 million addresses in the private address ranges. Nextel has 15 million subscribers, and they're one of the smaller carriers. Verizon had 32.5 million back in 2003.
Are you kidding me? There are tons of minimalist distros. Here over one hundred minimalist distros to get you started. Many are specialized for some function, but many are not.
I've always pronounced it oo-BUN-two. I never bothered to look it up and it wasn't anywhere obvious.
Looks like we were both wrong on one syllable.
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/faq
How do you pronounce Ubuntu?
Ubuntu, an African word from Zulu and Xhosa, is pronounced "oo-BOON-too".
"Um, now you're wrong." Er, yes. Repeated use had me confusing words. His language (Bislama) is most probably a creole, as it now has a dictionary and can be considered stable. However I was correcting his claim that "[Pidgin] refers to a number of English-derived dialects spoken in Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific." When he later added "I speak Bislama, the Vanuatu version of the language" (empahsis mine) this very strongly implies an exclusionary statement, that only that language and its dialects are "Pidgin" and that he was unaware of any other pidgin or creole languages. This is what I was correcting.
Sure, but those aren't creoles. Like you said, they're mixed languages. That some people refer to them as creoles is more sloppy terminology than anything else.
No, I'm right. You simply reiterated what I said in that "Many pidgin languages are named some variation of "Pidgin" but they don't have exclusive claim to the title." I'm aware that there are pidgins named some variation of "Pidgin" and went out of my way to state that. The post I replied to claimed that his language was the pidgin, which is simply untrue.
No, it's not. A creole language is simply a pidgin language that has stood the test of time and become a full, stable first language for a group of people. All creoles were once pidgins by definition. It's a bit nebulous when a pidgin becomes a creole officially, but there's no doubt that that's the progression.
"Pidgin" is actually an adjective describing a simplified combining of languages, not a specific language family. There are pidgin languages spoken all over the world combining many languages, not always English. Many pidgin languages are named some variation of "Pidgin" but they don't have exclusive claim to the title.
More information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin
They've done it many times, as far back as 1967 (Edward White, the first American spacewalk) and as recently as the 9/11 stamp with the three NYC firemen. The idea is that they don't want to honor living individuals. People who are still alive will sometimes appear when the event is what's important and the individual is secondary.
The US court system, for one. The courts are currently split over whether or not web sites are "places of public accomodation", meaning should the law require them to be ADA compliant. At least one Circuit has ruled they are, and at least one has ruled they are not. That wouldn't even be an issue if you needed to be explicitly invited to access a web site, which is a ludicrous assumption.
And in any case, this woman's, and others' websites are clearly marked in the language of the website, what the terms of use are.
It wasn't in the "language of the website" it was in English. You cannot put "terms of use" on something you display publicly. Life just doesn't work that way. Any explicit statement trumps any supposed assumption...
Not an explicit statement that cannot be understood by the intended reader, which would be web spiders. To return to your flawed analogy it would be as if I went to the house knocked on a door and said in English, "Can I come in and take pictures?" (the robot sending the HTTP GET request) and the owner replied "Sure!" (the web site responding to the GET by sending the page). Then, once I'm in the house the owner started talking to me in French telling me that I could walk around but not take pictures (the robot having no idea how to parse English instructions that are contrary to what it was just told anyway). You can't respond to requests in one language (HTML) and then put conditions on it in another language (English).
See the last page of the article. Europe has been using this drug in animals for a decade, with a resulting rise in resistance.
All PocketPCs that I'm aware of have a D-pad. I'm fairly certain all modern PalmOS devices do as well. Smartphones have the same capability to install software as any other PC. They may or may not have additional OTA capability. Otherwise, I don't get what you're getting at. No one is "forced" to do anything. The barrier to entry is high if you want to publish a DS or PSP game, sure, but that's life and gaming systems are luxury items.
A Palm or PocketPC. Both offer a free development platform and no cost distribution.
Ok, I'm by a DVD player. What are you all doing?
They are not. Only the telecommunications network itself is a common carrier. The DSL services layered on top of it (as well as cable, fiber, etc) are considered information services.
If they weren't, every single illegal download that the RIAA could sue for could also be enacted against the ISP, since they 'allowed' the infringement to take place, or some such.
That would be true, were not other legislation in place. The Communications Decency Act says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider", which protects ISPs from any libel torts committed by their users.
The DMCA offers the "safe harbor" provision to ISPs, protecting them from liability for copyright violations by their users as long as they follow the notice and takedown procedures for complaints.
How do you "beat" Animal Crossing?
No, it's entirely optional. They can be used both ways, that's the point. Smaller merchants often don't even have the capability to do PIN transactions (although it's becoming more common).
Legally? No, of course not. You're not breaking any laws. A card member agreement doesn't make something a crime. But you can sign away your rights to do a lot of things in a contract in exchange for the benefit of accepting cards and that's what you chose to do. You're agreeing not to turn away MasterCard customers specifically for trying to use their MC in a way you may not like at the price of possibly losing your ability to accept cards.
And no, I haven't read the 150 page, single spaced 8 point font agreement that my merchant banks have sent me
I would suggest you do, especially as a business owner with a lot to lose. It certainly seems cavalier not to. It's not hard even, I read all the fine print and Privacy Notices and countless little pamphlets I'm sent by banks and investments, etc. I can't generally change onerous terms and conditions, but at least I know what I'm getting into and what written word I can fall back on if I need to.
The reality is that Visa/MC isn't going to cut off a merchant for asking to see ID.
I'm not so sure about that. There are only four possible check boxes on the complaint form, in addition to the freeform complaint field. I find it hard to believe that if they didn't care they would break it out so clearly. There are a million things you can do in violation of your agreement that don't have specific ways to be complained about. While I doubt my one complaint does anything alone, I'm sure multiple complaints will at least draw attention to the merchant and start the wheels moving.
The reality is that eventually, you won't be able to buy anything in your area with your credit card because you're being a jerk and you're abusing the store and the employees.
No, the reality is that I've only found one store that has been a repeat offender and it's the Salvation Army of all places. No one else has ever been a problem.
It's interesting that you've built this scenario of me being a jerk and "abusing employees", especially when I've explained multiple times in this thread that I explain it quickly and don't like to make a scene or inconvenience. I guess it's just easier to villify others.
I take that to mean that they are obsolete and left in as a sort of version control. It doesn't matter though, like I said, I let it go if they only ask and drop it. It's clear that they cannot require it.
The relevant rule for requiring identification is on pg 48, section 9.11.2:
"A merchant must not refuse to complete a MasterCard card transaction solely because a cardholder who has complied with the conditions for presentment of a card at the POI refuses to provide additional identification information, except as specifically permitted or required by the Standards. A merchant may require additional identification from the cardholder if the information is required to complete the transaction, such as for shipping purposes."
Regardless of whether or not they're required to ask, they're clearly not allowed to actually require ID. I don't care if they do ask as long as they let it go when I refuse.
So do you only file complaints with those merchants that actually refused doing business with you because you didn't want to show ID? I would assume not because in a later post you mention that you always show ID when asked.
I file about merchants would would refuse if I did not show ID, not simply ones who ask and let it go.
I'll never cease to be amazed at the sense of entitlement people have shown here. I'm not the one asking for special treatment. All I'm asking for is that people live up to their agreements and suddenly I'm the bad guy. Amazing.
So..you're saying that you won't give something as harmless as your business name out whenever anyone asks you? Shocking to learn. Just shocking.
What's the name of your business, so I know to avoid shopping there and saving us both the hassle?