We already know what's wrong with these sites. But to summarize for latecomers:
$3.00 to rent a movie for 24 hours, versus $5.00 to rent it for a week from the shop down the road.
It's not portable. I can only watch it from the downloading computer.
Forced, automatic "updating" of their software.
For any lurkers: Charge me $5 to $10, depending on age, for a permanant copy which I can burn to DVD myself. Charge me extra if I want the "value added" version (the retail DVD, versus just a movie.) Afraid I might pirate your stuff? Please, if I have broadband, I already can. So, take my money, the way I want you to, or I'll get your product somewhere else. Get over it and get with the economy.
But the shrapnel would lose the aerodynamic properties of the original shell. This means more reduction of speed through air resistance, and a miss in the ocean.
Except that they were busted for faking technology demonstrations during trial. If they're willing to do that under oath and under penalty of perjury, why do you think they're above distributing "mistated" code?
I find a disturbing trend in the messages I see here. A large percentage of the posts have gone along the lines of "I don't care, because I don't watch that show -- I prefer (other show aimed at similar audience) instead."
Folks, try being a little more tolerant of those of us who do care. I don't use Macs, but when a Mac story comes up, my response isn't "I don't use a Mac, why should it matter." Same with half of the topics that show up here. But I do show some courtesy to the people who are interested, and politely step away from it, and find a discussion that does matter to me instead. So just a little reciprocity please. After all, News for Nerds means more than just Tech News.
But there are enough of us who do care, not just because of the individual programming change, but because of the continuing degredation of the network and changing it into KidsWB2. Oh, and the man at the helm: Jamie Kellner. You know, the guy who thinks that it's illegal to take a dump during commercials. Hell, if that's not enough to enrage the collective, we really are screwed.
Passing thought: "Baby Looney Tunes"? Oh, my eyes, my eyes!
You should have the right to own a gun. Really, I'm a fan of distorting the Constitution as much as the next guy, and I think you should have the opportunity to bear firearms.
The problem is in the actual regulation. How much training were you required to go through before you got your gun? Do all of the members of your family go through training (even the younger ones, so that they know to respect the gun, and so that they know it's not just daddy's toy)? Is it state or federally mandated that you had to prove that you knew what the hell you were doing before they let you take one of those things home with you?
This isn't a black or white matter of guns or no guns. People on either side of think so are delusional. This is a question of how carefully we screen and prepare gun recipients. Do we make sure they're prepared for the responsibility, or do we hand them over with new bank accounts and throw caution to the wind? How much accountability do you, the gun dealers (gun shows included) and the government have in insuring that people with weapons are people who know how do take care of weapons?
Qualification: I'm not a gun owner. I knew I wouldn't be one the day I went onto a range and my sheet came back without any holes. However, I know several, and most of them treat their weapons with the necessary respect and restrain due them. The ones that don't, well let's just say that's not an extra armrest in the front seat of the car, and pray that they're forced into choosing between responsbility or giving up their arms.
Here's the funny thing about American campaign chests: Once the Senator retires, he gets to pocket anything leftover. So, whatever moneys might be remaining come Jan. 2003 are totally his to keep (post-taxes, of course).
You have argued yourself into a bit of a paradox here. If you'd like to preserve the author's design, accept what he gave you. If you require a version suitable for usage with a disability, turn on the necessary browser options and accept a small loss in artistic vision. Suggesting that you shouldn't have to set your browser for the alternations you prefer, and instead imposing them on all of us, is no small amount of hubris. (Flamebait retardant on)
And it is important to realize that some small part of what's done here is art. Design. In the modern web, the design and the content are intertwined, and beyond certain standard accomodations that anyone should be able to do (like alt-ing your images), it should be up to the viewer to decide what parts of the message are immaterial.
Since they published his comment as is, I'll assume that this isn't as commonly understood as it should be. The match will end after eight games, period. If the remaining 5 games are drawn (which they won't) then the human wins, 5-3. There are no additional games to make up for draws. If it were to be 4-4 after eight games, the match would just end in a draw.
Firewalled are we? I didn't know that. To prove it, please give a small list of, say, 10 - or even ONE - site that can't be accessed from Oz. Excluding those that involve goats, minors etc.
We'd love to, but your government won't tell which sites they blocked.
Do I then have to be considered subject to US law simply because people from the US choose to use my product?
If you sell the product to people in the US, then yes. Without knowing UK law, if you're in one part of the UK, and you ship a product to another part of the UK, is a dissatisfied consumer able to sue in their own jurisdiction, or do they go to yours? Anyway, if you don't want to sell to the US, don't sell to the US.
Or does the fact that I have an Internet presence automatically mean I just want to sell to the US?
Only if your Internet website fulfills orders from the US. Otherwise, blow us off.
The precedent followed by this law would imply further things - like, for example, many other countries suing US gun manufacture firms because the guns they make are being exported to countries where they're illegal.
If the manufacturers are the ones directly responsible for shipping the guns, then heck yeah, fry them. They're trying to do business in a jurisdiction where their product is as illegal as crack cocaine. I've got no problem with the good ol' fashioned corporate death penalty here.
If Americans don't know about their own DMCA and don't know that they can't legally download or use Kazaa, why should Dutch people be punished for giving them the option, when doing so isn't locally illegal for them?
Because they make no effort to limit jurisdiction. They don't even say, "Hey guys, if you're in the US, promise not to get this!" They fail to specify what jurisdictions their products is intended for, and they make it available in every country in the world. Therefore, they have to be prepared to deal with all of those countries' laws. Not just US, but all of them.
I always thought it was to compensate, to provide an additional factor for weighing admissions. After all, a 4.0 GPA (or in my case, much lower) at Podunk U. really won't impress too many people without a measuring stick against other schools. The GRE gives us Podunkers a chance to demonstrate that our abilities can be on par with those at the uppercrust schools.
For me, standardized testing has been a Godsend, because I always perform at a much higher level on them (app. 2.5 GPA HS, but 30 ACT) and I receive opportunities (and unfortunately, expectations) that I wouldn't otherwise.
Tell that to my old GForce2 (old Gforce2? I am addicted to tech). It called it x3, and in fact I had to run it at that, and not x2 or x4, just because FF8 for the PC had a bug with that card otherwise. Who am I to argue?
Why don't they port FFIX and FFX first. And I mean really make an effort to port it -- I don't want to have to kick in anti-aliasing x3 to enjoy the game.
What? Don't think it'll sell? So quit trying to port XI.
Slashdot Mirror
- $3.00 to rent a movie for 24 hours, versus $5.00 to rent it for a week from the shop down the road.
- It's not portable. I can only watch it from the downloading computer.
- Forced, automatic "updating" of their software.
For any lurkers: Charge me $5 to $10, depending on age, for a permanant copy which I can burn to DVD myself. Charge me extra if I want the "value added" version (the retail DVD, versus just a movie.) Afraid I might pirate your stuff? Please, if I have broadband, I already can. So, take my money, the way I want you to, or I'll get your product somewhere else. Get over it and get with the economy.But the shrapnel would lose the aerodynamic properties of the original shell. This means more reduction of speed through air resistance, and a miss in the ocean.
Except that they were busted for faking technology demonstrations during trial. If they're willing to do that under oath and under penalty of perjury, why do you think they're above distributing "mistated" code?
Folks, try being a little more tolerant of those of us who do care. I don't use Macs, but when a Mac story comes up, my response isn't "I don't use a Mac, why should it matter." Same with half of the topics that show up here. But I do show some courtesy to the people who are interested, and politely step away from it, and find a discussion that does matter to me instead. So just a little reciprocity please. After all, News for Nerds means more than just Tech News.
But there are enough of us who do care, not just because of the individual programming change, but because of the continuing degredation of the network and changing it into KidsWB2. Oh, and the man at the helm: Jamie Kellner. You know, the guy who thinks that it's illegal to take a dump during commercials. Hell, if that's not enough to enrage the collective, we really are screwed.
Passing thought: "Baby Looney Tunes"? Oh, my eyes, my eyes!
The problem is in the actual regulation. How much training were you required to go through before you got your gun? Do all of the members of your family go through training (even the younger ones, so that they know to respect the gun, and so that they know it's not just daddy's toy)? Is it state or federally mandated that you had to prove that you knew what the hell you were doing before they let you take one of those things home with you?
This isn't a black or white matter of guns or no guns. People on either side of think so are delusional. This is a question of how carefully we screen and prepare gun recipients. Do we make sure they're prepared for the responsibility, or do we hand them over with new bank accounts and throw caution to the wind? How much accountability do you, the gun dealers (gun shows included) and the government have in insuring that people with weapons are people who know how do take care of weapons?
Qualification: I'm not a gun owner. I knew I wouldn't be one the day I went onto a range and my sheet came back without any holes. However, I know several, and most of them treat their weapons with the necessary respect and restrain due them. The ones that don't, well let's just say that's not an extra armrest in the front seat of the car, and pray that they're forced into choosing between responsbility or giving up their arms.
Here's the funny thing about American campaign chests: Once the Senator retires, he gets to pocket anything leftover. So, whatever moneys might be remaining come Jan. 2003 are totally his to keep (post-taxes, of course).
Logical extension: if the theatrical release carried out his vision, why's he making the extended edition?
And it is important to realize that some small part of what's done here is art. Design. In the modern web, the design and the content are intertwined, and beyond certain standard accomodations that anyone should be able to do (like alt-ing your images), it should be up to the viewer to decide what parts of the message are immaterial.
Since they published his comment as is, I'll assume that this isn't as commonly understood as it should be. The match will end after eight games, period. If the remaining 5 games are drawn (which they won't) then the human wins, 5-3. There are no additional games to make up for draws. If it were to be 4-4 after eight games, the match would just end in a draw.
I don't know that this is about a language gap. I imagine 8 out of 10 Americans will open email labeled "nude pics of Brittney" as well.
We'd love to, but your government won't tell which sites they blocked.
If you sell the product to people in the US, then yes. Without knowing UK law, if you're in one part of the UK, and you ship a product to another part of the UK, is a dissatisfied consumer able to sue in their own jurisdiction, or do they go to yours? Anyway, if you don't want to sell to the US, don't sell to the US.
Or does the fact that I have an Internet presence automatically mean I just want to sell to the US?
Only if your Internet website fulfills orders from the US. Otherwise, blow us off.
The precedent followed by this law would imply further things - like, for example, many other countries suing US gun manufacture firms because the guns they make are being exported to countries where they're illegal.
If the manufacturers are the ones directly responsible for shipping the guns, then heck yeah, fry them. They're trying to do business in a jurisdiction where their product is as illegal as crack cocaine. I've got no problem with the good ol' fashioned corporate death penalty here.
If Americans don't know about their own DMCA and don't know that they can't legally download or use Kazaa, why should Dutch people be punished for giving them the option, when doing so isn't locally illegal for them?
Because they make no effort to limit jurisdiction. They don't even say, "Hey guys, if you're in the US, promise not to get this!" They fail to specify what jurisdictions their products is intended for, and they make it available in every country in the world. Therefore, they have to be prepared to deal with all of those countries' laws. Not just US, but all of them.
Did they link to the mp3's directly, or to the home pages of the sites that have the mp3's available for download?
Big diff in my mind.
That's like giving away 2 apples for every one you sell! Kind of a sad business model...
Apples for $24.99 each. Buy one, get two free!
I see what you mean. Noone's gonna survive giving away so many apples...
I always thought it was to compensate, to provide an additional factor for weighing admissions. After all, a 4.0 GPA (or in my case, much lower) at Podunk U. really won't impress too many people without a measuring stick against other schools. The GRE gives us Podunkers a chance to demonstrate that our abilities can be on par with those at the uppercrust schools.
For me, standardized testing has been a Godsend, because I always perform at a much higher level on them (app. 2.5 GPA HS, but 30 ACT) and I receive opportunities (and unfortunately, expectations) that I wouldn't otherwise.
I knew I should have enclosed that last comment in tags.
A fair point, but one not really needed to be made here.
Tell that to my old GForce2 (old Gforce2? I am addicted to tech). It called it x3, and in fact I had to run it at that, and not x2 or x4, just because FF8 for the PC had a bug with that card otherwise. Who am I to argue?
Nah, I've been maxed out for months. I'm just a karma whore.
What? Don't think it'll sell? So quit trying to port XI.
um, what is your definition of redundant? Anyone?
um, what is your definition of redundant? Anyone?
"Throw yourself at the ground and miss"
5) Microsoft loses $200 per box x 10,000 boxes.
6) Bankruptcy!
I wonder if Woz is interested in funding another worthy cause...
Mother Sentenced in Daughter Rape Case