You must have missed the Roberts court decision in Omega v Costco. Because these are manufacture overseas, and bear a trademark, Apple has the legal right to control/restrict subsequent sales.
Stupid decision? Oh yeah, but completely on point.
Never underestimate the triumphs of bean-counting ingenuity.
As professional programmer for over 10 years, the idea that we fly in planes engineered and built by politically-selected contractors should scare the pants off of me. That said, I'm on a plane right now. Probably best to assume that these things drop like feathers.
A fast, uncontrolled dive? Did they overspeed and get stuck with mach tuck? Other system failures? Regular ScareBus electronic wonkiness?
The only reason I can think of for them not hitting power/attack procedures for faulty pitot systems would be that they were overspeed before they had a chance to fix anything. Perhaps the AutoPilot corrected for an indicated stall and boned everyone on board? I doubt we'll ever know for sure, but automatic systems that can go straight to crap in a half a minute mean persistently alert pilots on long-haul flights. That, frankly, may just be too much to ask.
Honestly, I'd expect Sprint to hold onto no data caps for WiMax a little longer, just to pull in subscribers that have nowhere else to go.
But, yes, this sucks, and it *will* only get worse once AT&T has swallowed T-Mobile. Heck, I went to T-Mobile because AT&T sucked so hard. At this rate, I'll have to go to Google/Microsoft's as-yet-unannounced TVBD-based phones.
I hit the cap and got 50kbps, so it's 14.4GB, but they could just go lower. Besides, have you actually tried to suck 14.4GB through a 50kbps straw? No thanks.
They'll hit you with a text message and pull you down to roughly 50kbps. It's actually worse than what EDGE could do, with all of the power consumption of HSPA. Funny enough, if you go 2G only, the speed cap appears to go away, and your data bandwidth goes up (latency also goes up, due to the tech).
Trust me, if you get dinged for going over the cap, you'll know.
The type of purchase that Apple changed their policy on is *not* an in-app purchase for which Apple has a cost. It is the restriction that materials available outside of the app (a la Kindle) also be available via the app store directly that kills it.
Simply put, Apple saw a level playing field for the ebook market and un-levelled it. Totally legal until they get too big (are they too big?). Also totally lame.
You can do more sophisticated traffic management with DD-WRT than with the stock router firmware.
Take care, though. There have been several cases of the FBI busting in and making life hard because of child porn traffic on open routers. You could also look at a FON router. They allow for some management of traffic (and cashing in).
I gotta say, I think I see where you're going with it, and I love it.
That's because I'm not a criminal, and I'd never be mistaken for one, because it's obvious how good I am, and I trust the system... oh, and I'm retarded.
SACD playback. PS2 compatibility. Four USB ports (instead of two). Card reader. Everything on the PSN being non-subscription.
Those were all minority features that, say, 90% of people didn't use. If there's no overlap between people for those being differentiating features, that's 50% of people who look at the platform and go "nope, nevermind." Now, of course there's overlap in your minorities, but they're not all the same minority. The number of people lost is somewhere between 10% and 50% (for our example numbers). Surprise, the PS3 is in dead last in the current generation of consoles.
What makes the OtherOS removal so much more nefarious is that it was actually perpetrated on *already sold* consoles. Imagine if, a few years after you bought your car, your manufacturer told you that you had to choose between having the headlights function or having the radio function (for the sake of argument, let's imagine that it's not a British car). Would that feel like a fair choice? What if it were something more rarely used, or not used by all, like the headlights and windshield wipers? Headlights and lumbar support adjustment? Headlights and cup-holders?
It would be completely stupid to make any of these concessions because you purchased that product for the collection of features or some personal subset thereof. It is not the right of the manufacturer to choose to do material harm to a group of purchasers only because that group is too small to make a dent in revenues.
Now, did Sony likely miscalculate just how many people it would cause to become life-long Anything-But-Sony purchasers? Probably, but this one is best not left up to the market. We don't let free market pressures govern rapists, murderers, and bank robbers. Hotz was stepping in and doing the job that the DOJ wouldn't.
Sony actually has a pretty interesting (but annoying) policy on this (or, at least, did a few years ago). Any Sony employee posting at any time online is supposed to clearly represent himself/herself as an employee of Sony to remove any hidden bias or unethical representation.
This includes when you're on your own time, doing un-Sony-related things.
That's not to say that people aren't violating, or being compelled to violate, that policy, but the suits seem to favor having their astroturf above board (which completely ruins the point).
That's the bit that makes this a load of crap (even though I hate patent trolls). They were found to be infringing but the fine was too large. Basically, they won too much. They should have convinced the jury to keep it under $80 mil.
It's basically like digg, or facebook like, or any other bumping, but, quite unlike everyone else, it's in your search results without the need to install a toolbar. It's also both social and global, so you have an incentive to link up with like-minded people, but you benefit from the preferences of the whole.
I'd certainly like a -1 facility, but I don't think that this is a small and/or stupid achievement.
On top of that, this gives Google absolutely awesome data to work with when it comes to refining search results and refining *ad* targeting.
You presume that privately storing private files associated only with your private account would warrant a license beyond that of the original media.
Keep in mind that I'm not against digital rights here. I'm against Digital Rights Management and all of the buyer-abusive double-dipping that the labels have been looking to do since the dawn of the labels.
Perhaps they didn't get enough from me when I bought it on vinyl, or when I also bought it on CD, or when they got a kickback from CD-Rs that were used to burn data for the "inevitable infringement" that would occur, or when they got a fee for public performance, or when they got a fee for streaming internet radio.
The only battles that they've ever really lost? - Radio play - Resembling reasonable, ethical human beings
If I'm not sharing it with anyone else, I already overpaid for the CD due to price fixing. Eff off.
Oh yes, and you need to have a place for people to file notices of infringement.
Fortunately the "you only access your stuff" part of this means that any claim of infringement would be ridiculous. SkyDrive, DropBox, and plain old email still make this one a no-brainer.
You need to read up on the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. ISPs and hosting providers are *not* responsible for the content pushed to them by users. Besides, it's a private, per-user setup.
What about the content that you put on Sky Drive? In GMail? in regular email? On your ftp server at your hosting provider?
It is not the responsibility of ISPs to audit and police every bit that passes over their equipment. Simple common sense and the law both agree with me (a rare gem in itself).
The linked article definitely gives the sense that merely being sued by the record companies is deterrent enough, and that "doesn't sound particularly good for Amazon."
We need to get past the fear-mongering and extorsion of the RIAA and MPAA and remember that we have fair use rights. You are *not* entitled to the success of the business model of your choosing. If your business model is illegal, too bad.
I'm pleased to no end that we finally have someone as big as Amazon, a company with a proven track record of leveraging a legal advantage (remember one-click?), taking on this fight. It's your music, on your private space, not shared with anyone else. The record companies would have you pay a fee to hum a tune to yourself in your car.
When something has been around for a very short period of time, and most readers can remember a time when it didn't exist, it's pretty ridiculous to say that it is at an "all time low" because it's currently on the decline. It is at a "recent low" or "lowest value since..."
Perhaps it would have been better to point out what was *right* with this post...
Slashdot Mirror
one cannot copyright encryption keys yet ...
FTFY.
I have family outside of China who believe this crap.
Of course, they're complete idiots, so take from that what you will...
The point of manufacture is what matters. i.e. you make it outside of the U.S, you get special rules.
Note that trademark doesn't supercede first sale for items manufactured in the U.S. Stupid, eh.
You must have missed the Roberts court decision in Omega v Costco. Because these are manufacture overseas, and bear a trademark, Apple has the legal right to control/restrict subsequent sales.
Stupid decision? Oh yeah, but completely on point.
Well, at least we have *that* to look forward to.
Wait.. what kind of trains?
Never underestimate the triumphs of bean-counting ingenuity.
As professional programmer for over 10 years, the idea that we fly in planes engineered and built by politically-selected contractors should scare the pants off of me. That said, I'm on a plane right now. Probably best to assume that these things drop like feathers.
A fast, uncontrolled dive? Did they overspeed and get stuck with mach tuck? Other system failures? Regular ScareBus electronic wonkiness?
The only reason I can think of for them not hitting power/attack procedures for faulty pitot systems would be that they were overspeed before they had a chance to fix anything. Perhaps the AutoPilot corrected for an indicated stall and boned everyone on board? I doubt we'll ever know for sure, but automatic systems that can go straight to crap in a half a minute mean persistently alert pilots on long-haul flights. That, frankly, may just be too much to ask.
Honestly, I'd expect Sprint to hold onto no data caps for WiMax a little longer, just to pull in subscribers that have nowhere else to go.
But, yes, this sucks, and it *will* only get worse once AT&T has swallowed T-Mobile. Heck, I went to T-Mobile because AT&T sucked so hard. At this rate, I'll have to go to Google/Microsoft's as-yet-unannounced TVBD-based phones.
I hit the cap and got 50kbps, so it's 14.4GB, but they could just go lower. Besides, have you actually tried to suck 14.4GB through a 50kbps straw? No thanks.
They'll hit you with a text message and pull you down to roughly 50kbps. It's actually worse than what EDGE could do, with all of the power consumption of HSPA. Funny enough, if you go 2G only, the speed cap appears to go away, and your data bandwidth goes up (latency also goes up, due to the tech).
Trust me, if you get dinged for going over the cap, you'll know.
Small, but significant, point:
The type of purchase that Apple changed their policy on is *not* an in-app purchase for which Apple has a cost. It is the restriction that materials available outside of the app (a la Kindle) also be available via the app store directly that kills it.
Simply put, Apple saw a level playing field for the ebook market and un-levelled it. Totally legal until they get too big (are they too big?). Also totally lame.
You can do more sophisticated traffic management with DD-WRT than with the stock router firmware.
Take care, though. There have been several cases of the FBI busting in and making life hard because of child porn traffic on open routers. You could also look at a FON router. They allow for some management of traffic (and cashing in).
The fact that my password and credit card number have been pwned sort of screws the PSN in my eyes.
Why not just lock them all up to be sure?
I gotta say, I think I see where you're going with it, and I love it.
That's because I'm not a criminal, and I'd never be mistaken for one, because it's obvious how good I am, and I trust the system... oh, and I'm retarded.
You're falling into the single-minority myth.
SACD playback.
PS2 compatibility.
Four USB ports (instead of two).
Card reader.
Everything on the PSN being non-subscription.
Those were all minority features that, say, 90% of people didn't use. If there's no overlap between people for those being differentiating features, that's 50% of people who look at the platform and go "nope, nevermind." Now, of course there's overlap in your minorities, but they're not all the same minority. The number of people lost is somewhere between 10% and 50% (for our example numbers). Surprise, the PS3 is in dead last in the current generation of consoles.
What makes the OtherOS removal so much more nefarious is that it was actually perpetrated on *already sold* consoles. Imagine if, a few years after you bought your car, your manufacturer told you that you had to choose between having the headlights function or having the radio function (for the sake of argument, let's imagine that it's not a British car). Would that feel like a fair choice? What if it were something more rarely used, or not used by all, like the headlights and windshield wipers? Headlights and lumbar support adjustment? Headlights and cup-holders?
It would be completely stupid to make any of these concessions because you purchased that product for the collection of features or some personal subset thereof. It is not the right of the manufacturer to choose to do material harm to a group of purchasers only because that group is too small to make a dent in revenues.
Now, did Sony likely miscalculate just how many people it would cause to become life-long Anything-But-Sony purchasers? Probably, but this one is best not left up to the market. We don't let free market pressures govern rapists, murderers, and bank robbers. Hotz was stepping in and doing the job that the DOJ wouldn't.
Sony actually has a pretty interesting (but annoying) policy on this (or, at least, did a few years ago). Any Sony employee posting at any time online is supposed to clearly represent himself/herself as an employee of Sony to remove any hidden bias or unethical representation.
This includes when you're on your own time, doing un-Sony-related things.
That's not to say that people aren't violating, or being compelled to violate, that policy, but the suits seem to favor having their astroturf above board (which completely ruins the point).
That's the bit that makes this a load of crap (even though I hate patent trolls). They were found to be infringing but the fine was too large. Basically, they won too much. They should have convinced the jury to keep it under $80 mil.
Add: "May be a computer or computing device" and you've got yourself a patent.
It's basically like digg, or facebook like, or any other bumping, but, quite unlike everyone else, it's in your search results without the need to install a toolbar. It's also both social and global, so you have an incentive to link up with like-minded people, but you benefit from the preferences of the whole.
I'd certainly like a -1 facility, but I don't think that this is a small and/or stupid achievement.
On top of that, this gives Google absolutely awesome data to work with when it comes to refining search results and refining *ad* targeting.
When it comes down to a legal battle, I'm happy to have the people with a proven track record of being clever legal bastards on my side.
I don't think that Google is evil enough for this fight.
You presume that privately storing private files associated only with your private account would warrant a license beyond that of the original media.
Keep in mind that I'm not against digital rights here. I'm against Digital Rights Management and all of the buyer-abusive double-dipping that the labels have been looking to do since the dawn of the labels.
Perhaps they didn't get enough from me when I bought it on vinyl, or when I also bought it on CD, or when they got a kickback from CD-Rs that were used to burn data for the "inevitable infringement" that would occur, or when they got a fee for public performance, or when they got a fee for streaming internet radio.
The only battles that they've ever really lost?
- Radio play
- Resembling reasonable, ethical human beings
If I'm not sharing it with anyone else, I already overpaid for the CD due to price fixing. Eff off.
Oh yes, and you need to have a place for people to file notices of infringement.
Fortunately the "you only access your stuff" part of this means that any claim of infringement would be ridiculous. SkyDrive, DropBox, and plain old email still make this one a no-brainer.
That's why it's a 50/50 thing in court.
Welcome to America.
You need to read up on the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions. ISPs and hosting providers are *not* responsible for the content pushed to them by users. Besides, it's a private, per-user setup.
What about the content that you put on Sky Drive? In GMail? in regular email? On your ftp server at your hosting provider?
It is not the responsibility of ISPs to audit and police every bit that passes over their equipment. Simple common sense and the law both agree with me (a rare gem in itself).
The linked article definitely gives the sense that merely being sued by the record companies is deterrent enough, and that "doesn't sound particularly good for Amazon."
We need to get past the fear-mongering and extorsion of the RIAA and MPAA and remember that we have fair use rights. You are *not* entitled to the success of the business model of your choosing. If your business model is illegal, too bad.
I'm pleased to no end that we finally have someone as big as Amazon, a company with a proven track record of leveraging a legal advantage (remember one-click?), taking on this fight. It's your music, on your private space, not shared with anyone else. The record companies would have you pay a fee to hum a tune to yourself in your car.
Oh, and there's one more:
"All time low"
When something has been around for a very short period of time, and most readers can remember a time when it didn't exist, it's pretty ridiculous to say that it is at an "all time low" because it's currently on the decline. It is at a "recent low" or "lowest value since..."
Perhaps it would have been better to point out what was *right* with this post...