But the cost of DVD production in those quantities didn't have very far to drop in relation to the retail price. This might have been true with CDs, but the basic manufacturing process/factories where already in place with DVDs.
Because it's legal, it must necessarily be safe? Tell that to all the scarred/burned/dead people.
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's not safe. M80s are perfectly safe when used properly, just as you can severely injure yourself with a kiddy sparkler. I have no sympathy for people who hurt themselves with fireworks because it's there own fault for being careless, just as I would expect no sympathy if I hurt myself while doing something stupid. In fact, I wish further harm on them if they then try to make things that I like to have fun with illegal because they can't be bothered to be responsible with them.
Make sure you select the right friend. This is crucial.
You need someone who is not a close enough friend that he/she will drop the camera and run to help you. Yet close enough that he/she will want to help you and not just bolt from the scene, thus hesitating long enough to get the shot.
From how you described it, it sounds like he connected the igniter to the wiring system and then lowered the shell into the mortar. I'm not trying to be dick, but that was clearly a mistake on his part. Common sense says that the shells should be safely in the tubes before any electrical connections are made because if they go off unexpectedly, they shoot (relatively) harmlessly in the air instead of the lifting charge bursting at ground level.
I would say you absolutely own the physical coin or bill. I the government might be able to decide to stop honoring them at some time in the future. (I say might because the bills say they are legal tender on them so they probably can't just retroactively void existing currency.) If they did this, you could still coins and bills with anyone who agrees to accept them, like the Liberty Dollars. I don't believe the mint has the authority to issue this rule because ti would be in direct conflict with standard property rights. The limits on exporting them is equally unenforceable.
The point of a patent is that you can't write around it because it's the function that is protected. It would have been easy to write around any SCO code (if it did exist). A patent would have to be declared invalid.
The problem with the DMCA is that this exact situation is illegal.
According to the DMCA 1) Circumventing any copy prevention technology is illegal. The fact that 'fair use' would allow you to make the copy is no defence. You couldn't be charged with copyright infringment, but you could still be charged with violating the DMCA with much harsher penelities. 2) Creating a tool that can circumvent any copy prevention technology is illegal. Again, the fact that 'fair use' would allow you to make the copy is no defence.
It sounds like they are licensing a template. If you want there's, then accept the license or make your own. They can't stop you from making a copy your self. This seems like the same thing as the license for wxWidgets or some other GUI library.
City of Heroes didn't do anything wrong in this case because they didn't make those Marvel characters. They had a character creator where a user could alter the attributes of the characters, skin colors, pants length, pants color, mustache, beard, hair length, hair color like an expanded version to those police face flip books that let you come up with a suspect's face. It would be completely unreasonable for CoH to have to include some code that would reject certain combinations of attributes.
Jack thompson's request is equally baseless. It would also be baseless even if MK has made an actual Jack Thompson character skin from an actual picture of him.
Yes that's exactly what I'm going to do with my sensitive data. I'll give the working drives to someone who promises destroy them for me. Plus I get to pay for it.:rollseyes:
My point was it wouldn't be cheap to buy a metal stamping press, and pay a die maker to make dies for each manufacturers covers.
That costs an order of magnitude more than a pallet of drives.
When you buy something from eBay, you don't really buy it from eBay, you buy it from a separate person who you were introduced to through eBay. It would be like a mall saying that store owners can't accept American Express. Normally this would be stupid but completely withing their rights. The issue here is that it's the ONLY mall AND they just happen to own Visa, a direct competitor to American Express.
I think eBay's being a little to cautious in baning Google pay, but not at all unreasonable. Didn't Google Checkout just open a few days ago? I know it's Google but what if Microsoft/Oracle/Novel/other large company just opened a payment service, would you want to risk thousands of angry customers because there was some massive scaling bug that hadn't surfaced yet.
The gentlemanly thing for them to do is warn the users the Google Checkout is new and they should understand the risks. If Google's service has been working fine for a 6 months and the ban is still in place, there would definitely be a valid anti-trust issue here.
That still wouldn't necessarily solve the critical mass problem, which allows eBay to kill off every other significant competitor -- if you need it, its on eBay. Thus, the buyers are on eBay. Thus, all sellers go to eBay.
Slashdot Mirror
But the cost of DVD production in those quantities didn't have very far to drop in relation to the retail price. This might have been true with CDs, but the basic manufacturing process/factories where already in place with DVDs.
Robocode
Tripping over a table can fuck up a lot of evidence too.
Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's not safe. M80s are perfectly safe when used properly, just as you can severely injure yourself with a kiddy sparkler. I have no sympathy for people who hurt themselves with fireworks because it's there own fault for being careless, just as I would expect no sympathy if I hurt myself while doing something stupid. In fact, I wish further harm on them if they then try to make things that I like to have fun with illegal because they can't be bothered to be responsible with them.
You need someone who is not a close enough friend that he/she will drop the camera and run to help you. Yet close enough that he/she will want to help you and not just bolt from the scene, thus hesitating long enough to get the shot.
From how you described it, it sounds like he connected the igniter to the wiring system and then lowered the shell into the mortar. I'm not trying to be dick, but that was clearly a mistake on his part. Common sense says that the shells should be safely in the tubes before any electrical connections are made because if they go off unexpectedly, they shoot (relatively) harmlessly in the air instead of the lifting charge bursting at ground level.
I would say you absolutely own the physical coin or bill. I the government might be able to decide to stop honoring them at some time in the future. (I say might because the bills say they are legal tender on them so they probably can't just retroactively void existing currency.) If they did this, you could still coins and bills with anyone who agrees to accept them, like the Liberty Dollars. I don't believe the mint has the authority to issue this rule because ti would be in direct conflict with standard property rights. The limits on exporting them is equally unenforceable.
The point of a patent is that you can't write around it because it's the function that is protected. It would have been easy to write around any SCO code (if it did exist). A patent would have to be declared invalid.
The problem with the DMCA is that this exact situation is illegal.
According to the DMCA
1) Circumventing any copy prevention technology is illegal. The fact that 'fair use' would allow you to make the copy is no defence. You couldn't be charged with copyright infringment, but you could still be charged with violating the DMCA with much harsher penelities.
2) Creating a tool that can circumvent any copy prevention technology is illegal. Again, the fact that 'fair use' would allow you to make the copy is no defence.
It sounds like they are licensing a template. If you want there's, then accept the license or make your own. They can't stop you from making a copy your self. This seems like the same thing as the license for wxWidgets or some other GUI library.
That is actually a problem with the game. Blizzard is using this as an excuse instead of fixing core elements of game play.
City of Heroes didn't do anything wrong in this case because they didn't make those Marvel characters. They had a character creator where a user could alter the attributes of the characters, skin colors, pants length, pants color, mustache, beard, hair length, hair color like an expanded version to those police face flip books that let you come up with a suspect's face. It would be completely unreasonable for CoH to have to include some code that would reject certain combinations of attributes.
Jack thompson's request is equally baseless. It would also be baseless even if MK has made an actual Jack Thompson character skin from an actual picture of him.
Yes that's exactly what I'm going to do with my sensitive data. I'll give the working drives to someone who promises destroy them for me. Plus I get to pay for it. :rollseyes:
Keys to the MRI scanner at your locak hospital?
My point was it wouldn't be cheap to buy a metal stamping press, and pay a die maker to make dies for each manufacturers covers.
That costs an order of magnitude more than a pallet of drives.
It sounds like the old reasoning:
I didn't kill anyone, I only ordered their deaths.
I was only following orders from the litigimate government at the time.
This would be great for one of those DIY projectors.
TrueCrypt info -> http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#41
What kind of "nerd" RARs files in a torrent? Fucking noob.
http://www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/00E99E7C-76 B3-406F-AE703233C2157E4E/310/101/
When you buy something from eBay, you don't really buy it from eBay, you buy it from a separate person who you were introduced to through eBay. It would be like a mall saying that store owners can't accept American Express. Normally this would be stupid but completely withing their rights. The issue here is that it's the ONLY mall AND they just happen to own Visa, a direct competitor to American Express.
I think eBay's being a little to cautious in baning Google pay, but not at all unreasonable. Didn't Google Checkout just open a few days ago? I know it's Google but what if Microsoft/Oracle/Novel/other large company just opened a payment service, would you want to risk thousands of angry customers because there was some massive scaling bug that hadn't surfaced yet.
The gentlemanly thing for them to do is warn the users the Google Checkout is new and they should understand the risks. If Google's service has been working fine for a 6 months and the ban is still in place, there would definitely be a valid anti-trust issue here.
EXPECTORATE-Gmail-EXPECTORATE
http://www.sawstop.com/
Rape Rape Revolution