The essential element of being an arm chair quatterback is NOT working it like a job. I, sir, (when it comes to posting on slashdot) am a hacker. I will wind up and take a few swings at interesting issues, but I don't claim (or expect to be treated) like an expert.
That being said, I read the documents, and my only concern (hindsight etc) was that the plaintiff's allegation that AOL "has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiff's sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiffs' consent. Defendant does not dispute this fact" was not specifically and directly attacked. I am a firm believer (from my debate experience) that any allegation that isn't named and countered will be treated as true by the listener (hear, the judge).
That's my concern, as a citizen, and a non-lawyer looking in.
As a student of the law, I'd like to leave it at this for a few reasons. One, it's bad form. Two, I don't want any more experienced lawyers out there having cause to wish me ill luck in my career. Three, there is almost never a positive outcome to this kind of exchange on slashdot.
I will say, that I don't think there is reason to disagree that RIAA provides their lawyers with ALOT of money, alot of manpower, and a free hand to screw people. That, to me, is the reciepie for finding oneself out-gunned simply under the press of manpower. Isn't that essentially your argument? That they use a lawyering advantadge to tie these cases up eternally while digging through the lives of the accused until they find enough to force a deal?
Yes, but won't her MS be even worsened in going through the ordeal of a countersuit? If not, then I'd say the RIAA has a very good way to prove the countersuit incorrect (although there isn't 100% chance it will work). Which is unfortunate as if her condition has been affected by this lawsuit, she has no safe way (to her health) to get monetary compensation. Leaving aside the axe being ground here... No, generally there is far less stress involved in letting your lawyers go try to get their fees from the bastard that sued you then facing a > $100,000 figure judgement.
That's a pretty narrow reading of the requirement. If it was her computer, and her account, then it was likely her or one of her licensies.
If I was a judge, I'd want to see evidence that the connection came from the phone line at her home (rather than say, somewhere in nebraska), but below that level, isn't it enough that her account was used in the execution of a tortious act against the plaintiff's group? I'm in the middle of finals now, so I don't have much time to toss at side projects, but that was my reading of the original complaint.
I think they're using an assumption of risk argument. When you license others to use your account, you become liable for their online acts.
We techies don't argue with this concept generally.. when it's say, a 19 year old kid using his Dad's service to spam-bot or DOS somebody he dosen't like. You have to draw the line evenly through all cases in order for the process to be just.
In this case I feel for the defenant and hope she wins, but honestly a motion for summary judgement requires (speaking very generally here) that there is no issue of fact to be heard by a jury, the judge then applies the given law and produces a result. All the evidence you've just spoken to is factual debate. Is it the case that one can believe she was the likely user, or that there is evidence she licensed the user who committed the act in question? That's a question for the jurry, not a judge.
Actually those that bring up such facts for sympathy are people I lose empathy for and try to ignore. The fact "news outlets" try to shove it down my throat simply means I stop viewing them.
I have a friend that thinks just like you do about this issue. We often argue over whether or not the local tv station was justified in covering local news of the mostly bullshit variety. My answer to him, and to you is the same: Your personal view is irrelevant unless you have a substantive reason to believe it is the majority view, when one is evaluating the newsworthiness of an article, or the persuasiveness of a factor like this woman having MS. Most people would be persuaded to feel empathy for this, and the art of drafting a persuasive argument is about addressing most people. Likewise, most people (more than 51%) who watch the news (less than 51% of the population) do care about such factors. Therefore, highlighting them is legitimate in that forum.
I fail to see how her having MS has absolutely anything to do with the above statement.
Because persons who have MS are a special class of people (legal class) who are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves. This makes them bad targets for psuedo-random lawsuits of the variety here. Her phyisical vulnerability highlights, (grounds in visible and cognizable evidence) her mental and legal liability to this lawsuit. She has a physical burden which mirrors the heavy legal burden of raising an expensive defense.
One of the elements of this case that upsetts me is seeing stories like this which imply that her defense attorneys are not of the same caliber as the RIAA's attack dogs. Such a broad statment should have been challenged the instant the RIAA claimed the defendant had admitted to downloading music. That statment is caustic to the defense, and by failing to object to it immediately it becomes a much tougher fight, having to go back, dig out the statment, object to it, and demonstrate to the judge that you're not just going back on your word because you realize that failing to raise an objection there allowed the case to go forward.
I would never argue that any individual has to care about this woman's status. That's not the point. This kind of tactic is not a demand for sympathy, but it does call upon the pre-existing emotion that most people (esp. those who will identify with family members who have MS) feel for the infirm. It is valid because, as a lawyer, your job is to persuade for your client. Persuasion is about exciting the mind and the heart to your cause. Sound legal arguments bend the mind. Emotional appeals bend the heart. You need to address both issues, and you can be damn sure that the RIAA would bring in some starving local band as an example of an injured party if it could (and it may be able to).
Final statment - it's easier to be an arm-chair quarterback than it is to throw the ball while 8 guys in opposing colors are screaming, yelling, and charging to throw you to the ground with enough force to knock the ball from your hand. Therefore, don't read too much into my critique of her lawyers from the safe distance of Indiana.
I can't address the question of what qualifies you for disbarment in NY, but before we get there.. where did they lie?
What did they state? confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.
Break that statment into it's component parts: AOL has provided a letter stating that the defendant owned an interenet account || through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.
Unpacking that statment leads me to wonder if they had earlier proven to the satisfaction of the standard of proof required at that time that the person who was using the IP's listed in the AOL e-mail had downloaded such songs. If that's the case, then they are simply linking the evidence of ownership of the account to the evidence associated with the IP address.
Sure, it's a shaddy statement, but isn't necessarily false, let alone and intentional lie. The attorney for the defense had a duty to be familiar with the evidence, to argue against the statement that the letter proved anything. That is how the system works in an advesarial way.
That being said, I get the feeling from the current and prior coveraged that the RIAA is also cloaking its evidence and arguments in illegitimate ways, thus barring the defendant from presenting a solid defense. To what degree this is their fault.. that is not clear from the printed record. I will tell you that it's alot easier to be blocked from entering the legal community than it is to be kicked out.
Judges and jurries look on the infirm and those with disabilities in a kinder light than others. Specficially Judges will tend to view it as the work of the court to protect the weak (the disabled) from the powerful (RIAA).
Don't get me wrong, this I'm not making a claim to a legal fact, just that the status of the defendant is taken into account by the judge. It's perfectly reasonable to address that fact in the cour memos, since it draws sympathy, and it highlights the degree to which the practice of randomly selecting defendants with little or no concern to physical evidence of guilt is an injustice. That's a very important word to a court. Judges don't like injustice, and the constitutions of the various states (and of course the U.S. constitution) grant judges a wide array of abilities to limit, curtail, and disbar injustice.
On a more practical level, the fact that this woman has MS is a public interest factor. You should pay attention because this poor woman has a crippling disease.. sympathy and empathy sell papers.
Insitutional Bias is a fine thing to claim in say, Literary studies, or philosophy (a continental philosopher you say.. there's the door I say), but science generally (and this includes climatology) is a field where on earns street credit by conducting experiments which challange (and defeat) your own hypothosies.
Remember, Stephen Hawking's bet over whether one could trace the path of matter through a black hole? Steve said you couldn't track matter's course through the singularity, a competing physicist said you could.. fast foward a few years to Hawking hosting a big press event to report that he was wrong, and this other guy was able to prove it mathematically.
Granted, this is based on the assumption that climatology is a measurable and testable science - to which I reply: Sure, we cannot play with the atmosphere like we do with rocketry and electronics - but we can't play with passing matter through a black hole either. Mathematical models are very nearly the limit of our experimentation with the speed of light, string theory, macro-economics, and a hundred other fields. We cannot say that because we can't experiment "in the dirt" that you cannot conduct scientific investigations of climatology. Einstien (who some say was a pretty decent scientist) did almost all of his work in his head and on chalk boards. He came up with e=mc2 using mental models. He proved it with mathematics. It wasn't until years later that any of his hair-brained ideas could be verified in the dirt. Getting your hands dirty isn't science, thurough going investigative research is the bread and butter of advancing human knowledge, from Descartes to us, with love.
Aw.. you got my five pointer down before I could.:)
This is almost the perfect example of group-think bullshit that rolls corporations into the ditch.
Big Boss: "The CEO has asked me to tell you about our new open door policy, if you have any problems feel free to ask me about them." Normally intenigent manager: "Aw come on, there are no problems in our group.. Right Guys?" The shuffling masses: "Uhm, no mr. manager, of course not. sigh Big Boss: "Great, well.. the doors open if anybody suddenly changes their mind."
Yehp, open to hearing the oposition, which of course dosen't exist and must be full of shit.
High schools are pretty free with attempting to manipulate their measurable statistics.
For instance: at the school I graudated from, it was not uncommon for the guidance conselors to urge students to transfer to a tech program before dropping out, or to drop out before graduation if it looked like the student would hurt the schools high (95+%) college admission rate.
So long as there is a significant number of professionals in the system who see beuracracy and administration of the district as their job (rather than educating students) we will continue to see students used, ignored, and abused - to suit the needs of the system.
You can't tell by initial launch statistics what will happen to a game system. Expectations were low for the PS1 so its modest early sales were a great success, but by the time the PS2 came out every little problem was "the sony killer!."
Hyperbole aside, all three of the major players have a good entry in this round of the "console wars" and victory will almost certainly come down to who has the better killer-apps.
That's strange, everywhere you go and everyone you ask seems to say that raiding is a moneysink for repaircost and potions/consumables. You must be about the only person existing that claims that the top level players raiding or doing instances are gathering massive amounts of gold.
Oh sorry, of course, you're right.. 60's are going broke everywhere. They can afford nothing, and are constantly begging in the streets to recoup their raiding expenses. Sorry, but your annecdote is false. Raiding does produce cash, as does all that grinding for reputation that 60's do because there's little better to do between raids. Toss in the value recovered from selling blue BoE items and shards gathered inside raids, and it's very easy to rack up a big bank account. The system is internally flawed... but hey, if you'd rather blame the users, go ahead, I won't try to stop you.
This is self-feeding. The RIAA brings suits against hundreds of defendants at a time, and quickly settles out most of them. That's money in their pocket that they use to pursue claims against the rest.. most of whom settle out as well.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I'll keep it vague.. but somewhere well above 70% of civil suits are settled out of court. Normally a plaintiff's lawyer will work for pay or for a percentage - either way the RIAA is likely rolling it in.
Consider that these seemingly random intervals between big announcements of a few hundred suits are probably spent gathering data and building cases for the next batch of suits. It's a bussiness plan unto itself, not an attempt to stifle music sharing on the internet. If the RIAA wanted to stop theft and make money, they could organize wide licensing agreements with groups like AOL and Comcast that provide internet services to users - you subscribe for internet acess, you get all the music you can eat. AOL offers this type of service through music now.. Yahoo has a similar one.. then there's Napster, etc.. all that stands between these services and broader use is general availability - they need to be able to download the songs and carry them around with them.. or have an internet enabled Ipod-like device that streams the data where you need it when you want it.
Sorry, I started waxing poetic - basically they do this not because its effective at ending piracy or building their legitimate buisiness, but because it's a money machine unto itself. Drop a coin and pump as hard as you can.
It doesn't get alot more clear than the explanations above.
Basically, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has read the federal laws and the constitution as allowing judges wide discretion over whether or not the partys before the court can request that the other side pay all the costs incurred in pursing the suit.
You want to sue me? I'm innocent!
"Yeah, but you can't pay for your legal defense, so you'll lose and have to pay anyway"
That's not fair, your Honor, if I win, will you make them pay for my fees?
seems fair to me.
"gulp"
"Can we drop the suit?"
Sure, but you have to pay the fees she's already incurred.
You realize that good old Italy is renowned for having insane drivers and almost no sense of driving law.. right?
In Rome there were plenty of signs and signals everywhere (it was basically an american city for about a decade after WWII) but the locals don't pay much attention to the rules. The polizia are not allowed to pull drivers over, they can note your license and then send you a ticket.. but try to catch my plate number at 105kph.
Unike you, I saw a number of accidents last year in Italy (spent about 10 months in Rome), the worst of which almost always involved a motorinno (Scooter). Lack of laws there seems to create an anything goes atmosphere.. if you survived the trip - clearly you were driving well.
I saw one vespa dragged 30 feet under a bus. Not pretty.
The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were used to divide the nations of Earth into three broad categories. The three terms did not arise simultaneously. After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the "Western bloc" and the "Eastern bloc." The two "worlds" were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in 1952 French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" to describe this latter group; retroactively, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World".
you only have so many bag slots.. and the bot does not sell for you. Gold farmers are already 60, and they just cruise around killing critters for hours and hours collecting gold off the corpses for the most part.
Gold farming, however, is not a botting problem. Some use bots, many more use chinese labor.
Yes, the best items are BoP.. they're also in instances. There's not a thing to stop a bot from picking up a BoP item, so I think you're a little off yourself.
The Economy in WoW does have a problem.. but it's the same problem every MMORPG has eventually.. too many capped out players running around in instances grinding for top-loot incedentally picking up HUGE volumes of gold for which they have no purpose but to sell it, or hand it down to lower level alts. This is why the economy will inflate, with, or without bots and gold famers. It's a purely additive system - there is no cap on the amount of gold which exists, therefore there will always be an increasing amount of gold in the economy, therefore inflation. Econ 101 pal. The two sollutions are to: 1) put a cap on the total gold available on a server that rises proprtionate to the average level on the server. 2) create NPC stores that actually have items level 60 players would want... if not useful items, how about unique clothing or armor modding items (Want an all yellow suit of teir 2 epics.. buy this mod for all 8 pieces.), or unique clothing that can only be purchased for 4 weeks before it's gone forever.. housing with a monthly rent is another good money sink.
Until there's somewhere for all that money to go, other than raising prices for 20th level items (useful for the PvPers that like the low level games) you're going to have these issues.
The U.S. is.. by definition.. THE first world nation. Quick history lesson:
1st world = U.S. and her allies (hence the term "Leader of the free world, applied to Regan etc).
2nd world = Russia and her allies (soviet block countries of eastern europe, China, Vietnam, the "stans" sometimes Egypt and other N. African countries.
The 3rd world are those outside of the lines of alligence - India and Switzerland for example.
If you mean poor nations, I believe the modern euphamism is now "the global south" which of course includes many of the old 2nd world countries.. because politicians and geographers rarely see eye to eye.
Uhm.. remind me how one person rushing to 60 hurts another person who takes their time? It's not like the bot runs PvP for them. Bots don't do the instances where all the prime loot is either. Money? Money in one persons hands drives the economy for the proverbial hard-up player, who, taking their time to play along, will have collection skills to sell the resources those folks interested only in efficency will simply buy from the auction rather than collecting by hand.
It's just a game dude, not the valuation of a man's soul. -GiH
n.(contract of adhesion) a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer.
A class as large as the WoW player-base could roll that contract aside and claim damages (actual and punative) for loss of in game wealth and resources including their characters. Oh.. did I mention that Blizzard tends not to return your cash when they ban you half-way through a six-month subscription? This suit is almost inevitable.. once some lawyer gets banned and desides to form the class (on a health 10-30% commission of course).
It's usually best to focus on a particular tool or use before answering any of those questions.
For instance, the issues and concerns that arise from an OS switch are an order of magnitude more complex than giving open office a try. Both could save a mid-sized 100-200 computer company more than 10k.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about trying to switch to linux based servers running some custom apps.. focus on that issue.. well.. other issues, more problems.
The legal issues change more - if you're supporting a large scale open source project, then your folks have to be comfortable with giving the code up to a community that will want to hack it up, critque it, and feel comfortable going through it and making changes - if you're building your own tools and pushing them out there, you'll have to consider what the cost benefit analysis looks like.. will others come back at your code with improvements and advice, or will it just sit out there, being pulled in for use by competitors and customers alike?
Open Source is a Good Thing (TM), but not every company needs to buy all the way into it now. The best thing you can do for the community is to use the tools you can where the clients and your co-workers will feel comfortable with it and welcome the addition, and then let them watch it work right:). The worst thing that can happen to open source in a fairly insulated tech enviroment is to have open source solutions forced on folks that don't trust it.. they'll see all the glitches and problems that exist in code generally, and attribute it all to "open source crap."
Slashdot Mirror
That being said, I read the documents, and my only concern (hindsight etc) was that the plaintiff's allegation that AOL "has confirmed that Defendant was the owner of the internet access account through which hundreds of Plaintiff's sound recordings were downloaded and distributed to the public without Plaintiffs' consent. Defendant does not dispute this fact" was not specifically and directly attacked. I am a firm believer (from my debate experience) that any allegation that isn't named and countered will be treated as true by the listener (hear, the judge).
That's my concern, as a citizen, and a non-lawyer looking in.
As a student of the law, I'd like to leave it at this for a few reasons. One, it's bad form. Two, I don't want any more experienced lawyers out there having cause to wish me ill luck in my career. Three, there is almost never a positive outcome to this kind of exchange on slashdot.
I will say, that I don't think there is reason to disagree that RIAA provides their lawyers with ALOT of money, alot of manpower, and a free hand to screw people. That, to me, is the reciepie for finding oneself out-gunned simply under the press of manpower. Isn't that essentially your argument? That they use a lawyering advantadge to tie these cases up eternally while digging through the lives of the accused until they find enough to force a deal?
-GiH
-GiH
That's a pretty narrow reading of the requirement. If it was her computer, and her account, then it was likely her or one of her licensies.
If I was a judge, I'd want to see evidence that the connection came from the phone line at her home (rather than say, somewhere in nebraska), but below that level, isn't it enough that her account was used in the execution of a tortious act against the plaintiff's group? I'm in the middle of finals now, so I don't have much time to toss at side projects, but that was my reading of the original complaint.
-GiH
We techies don't argue with this concept generally.. when it's say, a 19 year old kid using his Dad's service to spam-bot or DOS somebody he dosen't like. You have to draw the line evenly through all cases in order for the process to be just.
In this case I feel for the defenant and hope she wins, but honestly a motion for summary judgement requires (speaking very generally here) that there is no issue of fact to be heard by a jury, the judge then applies the given law and produces a result.
All the evidence you've just spoken to is factual debate. Is it the case that one can believe she was the likely user, or that there is evidence she licensed the user who committed the act in question? That's a question for the jurry, not a judge.
-GiH
Still not yet a lawyer. (gimme a few years).
I have a friend that thinks just like you do about this issue. We often argue over whether or not the local tv station was justified in covering local news of the mostly bullshit variety. My answer to him, and to you is the same: Your personal view is irrelevant unless you have a substantive reason to believe it is the majority view, when one is evaluating the newsworthiness of an article, or the persuasiveness of a factor like this woman having MS. Most people would be persuaded to feel empathy for this, and the art of drafting a persuasive argument is about addressing most people. Likewise, most people (more than 51%) who watch the news (less than 51% of the population) do care about such factors. Therefore, highlighting them is legitimate in that forum.
I fail to see how her having MS has absolutely anything to do with the above statement.
Because persons who have MS are a special class of people (legal class) who are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves. This makes them bad targets for psuedo-random lawsuits of the variety here. Her phyisical vulnerability highlights, (grounds in visible and cognizable evidence) her mental and legal liability to this lawsuit. She has a physical burden which mirrors the heavy legal burden of raising an expensive defense.
One of the elements of this case that upsetts me is seeing stories like this which imply that her defense attorneys are not of the same caliber as the RIAA's attack dogs. Such a broad statment should have been challenged the instant the RIAA claimed the defendant had admitted to downloading music. That statment is caustic to the defense, and by failing to object to it immediately it becomes a much tougher fight, having to go back, dig out the statment, object to it, and demonstrate to the judge that you're not just going back on your word because you realize that failing to raise an objection there allowed the case to go forward.
I would never argue that any individual has to care about this woman's status. That's not the point. This kind of tactic is not a demand for sympathy, but it does call upon the pre-existing emotion that most people (esp. those who will identify with family members who have MS) feel for the infirm. It is valid because, as a lawyer, your job is to persuade for your client. Persuasion is about exciting the mind and the heart to your cause. Sound legal arguments bend the mind. Emotional appeals bend the heart. You need to address both issues, and you can be damn sure that the RIAA would bring in some starving local band as an example of an injured party if it could (and it may be able to).
Final statment - it's easier to be an arm-chair quarterback than it is to throw the ball while 8 guys in opposing colors are screaming, yelling, and charging to throw you to the ground with enough force to knock the ball from your hand. Therefore, don't read too much into my critique of her lawyers from the safe distance of Indiana.
-GiH
Still not a lawyer yet.
What did they state?
confirm[ing] that defendant owned an internet access account through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.
Break that statment into it's component parts: AOL has provided a letter stating that the defendant owned an interenet account || through which copyrighted sound recordings were downloaded and distributed.
Unpacking that statment leads me to wonder if they had earlier proven to the satisfaction of the standard of proof required at that time that the person who was using the IP's listed in the AOL e-mail had downloaded such songs. If that's the case, then they are simply linking the evidence of ownership of the account to the evidence associated with the IP address.
Sure, it's a shaddy statement, but isn't necessarily false, let alone and intentional lie. The attorney for the defense had a duty to be familiar with the evidence, to argue against the statement that the letter proved anything. That is how the system works in an advesarial way.
That being said, I get the feeling from the current and prior coveraged that the RIAA is also cloaking its evidence and arguments in illegitimate ways, thus barring the defendant from presenting a solid defense. To what degree this is their fault.. that is not clear from the printed record. I will tell you that it's alot easier to be blocked from entering the legal community than it is to be kicked out.
-GiH
Not a lawyer (yet).
Don't get me wrong, this I'm not making a claim to a legal fact, just that the status of the defendant is taken into account by the judge. It's perfectly reasonable to address that fact in the cour memos, since it draws sympathy, and it highlights the degree to which the practice of randomly selecting defendants with little or no concern to physical evidence of guilt is an injustice. That's a very important word to a court. Judges don't like injustice, and the constitutions of the various states (and of course the U.S. constitution) grant judges a wide array of abilities to limit, curtail, and disbar injustice.
On a more practical level, the fact that this woman has MS is a public interest factor. You should pay attention because this poor woman has a crippling disease.. sympathy and empathy sell papers.
-GiH
Not a Lawyer (yet).
Insitutional Bias is a fine thing to claim in say, Literary studies, or philosophy (a continental philosopher you say.. there's the door I say), but science generally (and this includes climatology) is a field where on earns street credit by conducting experiments which challange (and defeat) your own hypothosies.
Remember, Stephen Hawking's bet over whether one could trace the path of matter through a black hole? Steve said you couldn't track matter's course through the singularity, a competing physicist said you could.. fast foward a few years to Hawking hosting a big press event to report that he was wrong, and this other guy was able to prove it mathematically.
Granted, this is based on the assumption that climatology is a measurable and testable science - to which I reply: Sure, we cannot play with the atmosphere like we do with rocketry and electronics - but we can't play with passing matter through a black hole either. Mathematical models are very nearly the limit of our experimentation with the speed of light, string theory, macro-economics, and a hundred other fields. We cannot say that because we can't experiment "in the dirt" that you cannot conduct scientific investigations of climatology. Einstien (who some say was a pretty decent scientist) did almost all of his work in his head and on chalk boards. He came up with e=mc2 using mental models. He proved it with mathematics. It wasn't until years later that any of his hair-brained ideas could be verified in the dirt. Getting your hands dirty isn't science, thurough going investigative research is the bread and butter of advancing human knowledge, from Descartes to us, with love.
-GiH
This is almost the perfect example of group-think bullshit that rolls corporations into the ditch.
Big Boss: "The CEO has asked me to tell you about our new open door policy, if you have any problems feel free to ask me about them."
Normally intenigent manager: "Aw come on, there are no problems in our group.. Right Guys?"
The shuffling masses: "Uhm, no mr. manager, of course not. sigh
Big Boss: "Great, well.. the doors open if anybody suddenly changes their mind."
Yehp, open to hearing the oposition, which of course dosen't exist and must be full of shit.
-GiH
Corporate CMA != change in tax policies.
-GiH
For instance: at the school I graudated from, it was not uncommon for the guidance conselors to urge students to transfer to a tech program before dropping out, or to drop out before graduation if it looked like the student would hurt the schools high (95+%) college admission rate.
So long as there is a significant number of professionals in the system who see beuracracy and administration of the district as their job (rather than educating students) we will continue to see students used, ignored, and abused - to suit the needs of the system.
-GiH
You can't tell by initial launch statistics what will happen to a game system. Expectations were low for the PS1 so its modest early sales were a great success, but by the time the PS2 came out every little problem was "the sony killer!."
Hyperbole aside, all three of the major players have a good entry in this round of the "console wars" and victory will almost certainly come down to who has the better killer-apps.
Halo 3 for the win!
-GiH
Oh sorry, of course, you're right.. 60's are going broke everywhere. They can afford nothing, and are constantly begging in the streets to recoup their raiding expenses.
Sorry, but your annecdote is false. Raiding does produce cash, as does all that grinding for reputation that 60's do because there's little better to do between raids. Toss in the value recovered from selling blue BoE items and shards gathered inside raids, and it's very easy to rack up a big bank account. The system is internally flawed... but hey, if you'd rather blame the users, go ahead, I won't try to stop you.
-GiH
-GiH
Thanks, I was being a bit lazy, but I wanted to avoid overstating the percentage :)
-GiH
The fact that this woman is deserving of sympathy due to her disease makes the article more compelling to readers (and probably the author).
The courts tend to protect those who for econonomic or physical reasons have difficulty protecting themselves.
Consider the language the court tends to use when discussing adhesion contracts, and products liability issues, etc.
-GiH
I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I'll keep it vague.. but somewhere well above 70% of civil suits are settled out of court. Normally a plaintiff's lawyer will work for pay or for a percentage - either way the RIAA is likely rolling it in.
Consider that these seemingly random intervals between big announcements of a few hundred suits are probably spent gathering data and building cases for the next batch of suits. It's a bussiness plan unto itself, not an attempt to stifle music sharing on the internet. If the RIAA wanted to stop theft and make money, they could organize wide licensing agreements with groups like AOL and Comcast that provide internet services to users - you subscribe for internet acess, you get all the music you can eat. AOL offers this type of service through music now.. Yahoo has a similar one.. then there's Napster, etc.. all that stands between these services and broader use is general availability - they need to be able to download the songs and carry them around with them.. or have an internet enabled Ipod-like device that streams the data where you need it when you want it.
Sorry, I started waxing poetic - basically they do this not because its effective at ending piracy or building their legitimate buisiness, but because it's a money machine unto itself. Drop a coin and pump as hard as you can.
-GiH
Basically, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has read the federal laws and the constitution as allowing judges wide discretion over whether or not the partys before the court can request that the other side pay all the costs incurred in pursing the suit.
You want to sue me? I'm innocent!
"Yeah, but you can't pay for your legal defense, so you'll lose and have to pay anyway"
That's not fair, your Honor, if I win, will you make them pay for my fees?
seems fair to me.
"gulp"
"Can we drop the suit?"
Sure, but you have to pay the fees she's already incurred.
"Uhm.. let me try to change your mind"
it's your dime
And that's where it is now
-GiH
In Rome there were plenty of signs and signals everywhere (it was basically an american city for about a decade after WWII) but the locals don't pay much attention to the rules. The polizia are not allowed to pull drivers over, they can note your license and then send you a ticket.. but try to catch my plate number at 105kph.
Unike you, I saw a number of accidents last year in Italy (spent about 10 months in Rome), the worst of which almost always involved a motorinno (Scooter). Lack of laws there seems to create an anything goes atmosphere.. if you survived the trip - clearly you were driving well.
I saw one vespa dragged 30 feet under a bus. Not pretty.
-GiH
-GiH
Gold farming, however, is not a botting problem. Some use bots, many more use chinese labor.
Yes, the best items are BoP.. they're also in instances. There's not a thing to stop a bot from picking up a BoP item, so I think you're a little off yourself.
The Economy in WoW does have a problem.. but it's the same problem every MMORPG has eventually.. too many capped out players running around in instances grinding for top-loot incedentally picking up HUGE volumes of gold for which they have no purpose but to sell it, or hand it down to lower level alts. This is why the economy will inflate, with, or without bots and gold famers. It's a purely additive system - there is no cap on the amount of gold which exists, therefore there will always be an increasing amount of gold in the economy, therefore inflation. Econ 101 pal. The two sollutions are to:
1) put a cap on the total gold available on a server that rises proprtionate to the average level on the server.
2) create NPC stores that actually have items level 60 players would want... if not useful items, how about unique clothing or armor modding items (Want an all yellow suit of teir 2 epics.. buy this mod for all 8 pieces.), or unique clothing that can only be purchased for 4 weeks before it's gone forever.. housing with a monthly rent is another good money sink.
Until there's somewhere for all that money to go, other than raising prices for 20th level items (useful for the PvPers that like the low level games) you're going to have these issues.
-GiH
Quick history lesson:
1st world = U.S. and her allies (hence the term "Leader of the free world, applied to Regan etc).
2nd world = Russia and her allies (soviet block countries of eastern europe, China, Vietnam, the "stans" sometimes Egypt and other N. African countries.
The 3rd world are those outside of the lines of alligence - India and Switzerland for example.
If you mean poor nations, I believe the modern euphamism is now "the global south" which of course includes many of the old 2nd world countries.. because politicians and geographers rarely see eye to eye.
-GiH
It's just a game dude, not the valuation of a man's soul.
-GiH
adhesion contract
A class as large as the WoW player-base could roll that contract aside and claim damages (actual and punative) for loss of in game wealth and resources including their characters. Oh.. did I mention that Blizzard tends not to return your cash when they ban you half-way through a six-month subscription? This suit is almost inevitable.. once some lawyer gets banned and desides to form the class (on a health 10-30% commission of course).
-GiH
For instance, the issues and concerns that arise from an OS switch are an order of magnitude more complex than giving open office a try. Both could save a mid-sized 100-200 computer company more than 10k.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about trying to switch to linux based servers running some custom apps.. focus on that issue.. well.. other issues, more problems.
The legal issues change more - if you're supporting a large scale open source project, then your folks have to be comfortable with giving the code up to a community that will want to hack it up, critque it, and feel comfortable going through it and making changes - if you're building your own tools and pushing them out there, you'll have to consider what the cost benefit analysis looks like.. will others come back at your code with improvements and advice, or will it just sit out there, being pulled in for use by competitors and customers alike?
Open Source is a Good Thing (TM), but not every company needs to buy all the way into it now. The best thing you can do for the community is to use the tools you can where the clients and your co-workers will feel comfortable with it and welcome the addition, and then let them watch it work right :). The worst thing that can happen to open source in a fairly insulated tech enviroment is to have open source solutions forced on folks that don't trust it.. they'll see all the glitches and problems that exist in code generally, and attribute it all to "open source crap."
Well, that's my 3 or 4 bits. Good Luck.
-GiH