I'd like to know about #5 (regular USB keyboards/mice) specifically.
Not ten minutes ago I had a conversation with my son about DC Universe Online, and how you can get it for the PS3, and how "weird" it would be to play a MMO on the PS3. I had replied with "Well, you can hook up a regular keyboard and mouse to the PS3, so it should play like it does on a PC."
I always wondered if that would be a effective form of protesting EULAs, if everybody just bought stuff, clicked 'decline', and then returned the stuff, over and over again, in large numbers?
No, I understand the point you're trying to make. I'm just not agreeing with it, and doing so without being insulting.
When you purchase a DVD, it says right on the box its for home and non-commercial use only. I'd expect the same thing on the camera, to validate your point of view on the subject at hand.
Otherwise, its reasonable to expect that the camera manufacturer has paid all relevant licensing fees to patent holders for me to be able to use the camera for any reason I want, without worry of patent infringements.
If nothing else, you'd think that MPEG-LA would force camera companies to include a piece of paper in the box when you get the camera that says "If you want to use this for commercial purposes, you have to pay us too!".
In any case, I'd love to see this challenged in the court system. Even the one we have currently.
We might as well leave this as "agree to disagree" at this point, since we're basically talking past each other at this point. I'll even let you get the last word!:)
There is no EULA, but there IS a notification stating you have not purchased a commercial license.
Where is the notification that either the device I purchased is for personal use only, or that I have not purchased a commercial license? I don't remember seeing any? I don't remember agreeing to any shrinkwrap/EULA at purchase time either.
As for 'double dipping': do you know what the fee is that the manufacturer pays for the right to put the tech in the camera? $0.20 (yes, twenty cents, MAX). And no, they are not double-dipping. The only reason you paid that fee is because you bought something you didn't need - a consumer camera. I guess the reason you bought that is because a consumer camera is still way cheaper than a commercial camera that doesn't have an H.264 encoder, but you still complain about the whopping $0.20 that MPEG-LA got?
I bought the camera to take pictures, not to just purchase the cheapest device that I could use.
As far as the fee amounts goes, that is not my business, that is between the patent holder and the camera maker. If the camera maker is losing money to the patent holder, then raise the price of the camera.
And it is 'double dipping' if the patent owner charges the camera maker for the right to use the tech, and then wants to charge me again for the same tech.
I'm paying for the camera to use it in every way it can be used, unless I'm told up front that it can't be used in certain ways. At purchase time, no restrictions on its use was communicated to me.
Show me where it says the device I purchased has restrictions on its use, and I'll retract my statement.
Until then, I bought the hardware, its mine, and I can use it how I see fit, unless I agreed to otherwise at purchase time.
The onus is on the camera maker and seller to tell me when and under what conditions I can use the camera, otherwise, I can use it whatever way I want to.
Don't I need to be informed of, and agree to, this requirement, when purchasing the camera? I didn't see any EULA when I bought my camera.
Also, isn't the camera manufacturer already paying MPEG-LA for that, when they obtained the right to put the tech in the camera hardware? It seems like to me what you are advocating is akin to "double-dipping" in obtaining fees by MPEG-LA.
This is true if you think that "customers" are brainless automatons that can't make any choices, and just sit around and wait for cool services to be invented so that they can demand these services be provided cheaply (or free) like it's some natural resource.
I don't see how your reply has to do with the central point of what you were replying to...
the problem we have seen again and again with the whole libertarian "let the market take care of it" philosophy is this- without regulation one or two players will simply use their wealth to crush everyone else and then destory any free market that once existed there.
L.A. currently has the Metrolink trains (http://www.metrolinktrains.com/), which can take you from one county to another in Southern California. I used to commute using Metrolink from my home to downtown L.A. (via the Red Line subway). So, in essence, there is already in place city planning for intra-city commutes via trains. Also, you can currently use Amtrak to go from city to city in California.
While it seems like everything is "too expensive" to do in the U.S. these days:( I think its more of just an issue of getting the right-of-way and then building the tracks (if necessary vs. using existing ones), etc. It mainly takes political will to do so.
I spoke to a Metrolink person once about why there wasn't more routes available, and he basically said it came down to right-of-way issues, and not cost issues. Freight companies own the right-of-ways and they're loathe to sell them (or even lease them), because it slows down their trains (track track traffic) and reduces their profits.
If I called tech support (the US one for Corporate, not the call center in India for home)
Say what you want about Dell's products, but their customer support has always been top notch in my experience. And I deal with their tech support about once every 6 weeks or so for the past 10 years.
Their corporate support is great. Their home support... no so much.:(
Just a quick comment on #7. You mention "Multimillion $ payouts won't bring back your relative", but if the relative who dies is the 'bread winner' of the family, then being payed compensation is a fair thing to have. How much can be argued of course, but at the same time, the payouts are also meant as a punitive remedy as well.
What needs to happen now is name the names, and get them into the public news instead of allowing them to cower behind the corporate image. At the end of the day, greedy people fucked up and caused this. Name and shame time.
Kind of defeats the purpose of corporations, if the people who are running it can be exposed and held accountable.
The April 2010 issue of Popular Science has an article called "The All-Seeing Border" (pages 30-31), which talks about this border fence tech. Does not mention that it does not work at all. Makes me wonder if PopSci investigates what they are publishing or just throws crap on their pages.
Both you and the parent are correct, basically. Its not a black or while thing.
In your examples, I'd just do a javadoc lookup of the api before I use it, and I'd know the right order and type of arguments to pass into the constructor/method.
But in other cases, its HOW you use the api that's important. I remember a ways back of using the Apache POI api, and in some cases, the ORDER in which you called the api made a difference, something that was not covered in the javadocs.
But overall, I agree more with the parent poster. At the end of the day, clearing the screen or getting a listing of files on the hard drive is the same concept, no matter what the api name is (dir, etc.). Its more important to know WHEN you should clear the screen or get the listing of files, than HOW you do so.
While I generally agree with you, there have been times when I'm "In the Zone" coding wise, and just hate to leave something half done until the next day, because then I'll have to pick things up after a long break and try to remember all the details of what I was doing, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to know about #5 (regular USB keyboards/mice) specifically.
Not ten minutes ago I had a conversation with my son about DC Universe Online, and how you can get it for the PS3, and how "weird" it would be to play a MMO on the PS3. I had replied with "Well, you can hook up a regular keyboard and mouse to the PS3, so it should play like it does on a PC."
Works for other older games too.
Nah, he's just new to the Human Race.
I always wondered if that would be a effective form of protesting EULAs, if everybody just bought stuff, clicked 'decline', and then returned the stuff, over and over again, in large numbers?
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=539458&cid=23258306
/Win!
No, I understand the point you're trying to make. I'm just not agreeing with it, and doing so without being insulting.
When you purchase a DVD, it says right on the box its for home and non-commercial use only. I'd expect the same thing on the camera, to validate your point of view on the subject at hand.
Otherwise, its reasonable to expect that the camera manufacturer has paid all relevant licensing fees to patent holders for me to be able to use the camera for any reason I want, without worry of patent infringements.
If nothing else, you'd think that MPEG-LA would force camera companies to include a piece of paper in the box when you get the camera that says "If you want to use this for commercial purposes, you have to pay us too!".
In any case, I'd love to see this challenged in the court system. Even the one we have currently.
We might as well leave this as "agree to disagree" at this point, since we're basically talking past each other at this point. I'll even let you get the last word! :)
Show me where it says the device I purchased has restrictions on its use, and I'll retract my statement.
There is no EULA, but there IS a notification stating you have not purchased a commercial license.
Where is the notification that either the device I purchased is for personal use only, or that I have not purchased a commercial license? I don't remember seeing any? I don't remember agreeing to any shrinkwrap/EULA at purchase time either.
As for 'double dipping': do you know what the fee is that the manufacturer pays for the right to put the tech in the camera? $0.20 (yes, twenty cents, MAX). And no, they are not double-dipping. The only reason you paid that fee is because you bought something you didn't need - a consumer camera. I guess the reason you bought that is because a consumer camera is still way cheaper than a commercial camera that doesn't have an H.264 encoder, but you still complain about the whopping $0.20 that MPEG-LA got?
I bought the camera to take pictures, not to just purchase the cheapest device that I could use.
As far as the fee amounts goes, that is not my business, that is between the patent holder and the camera maker. If the camera maker is losing money to the patent holder, then raise the price of the camera.
And it is 'double dipping' if the patent owner charges the camera maker for the right to use the tech, and then wants to charge me again for the same tech.
I'm paying for the camera to use it in every way it can be used, unless I'm told up front that it can't be used in certain ways. At purchase time, no restrictions on its use was communicated to me.
Show me where it says the device I purchased has restrictions on its use, and I'll retract my statement.
Until then, I bought the hardware, its mine, and I can use it how I see fit, unless I agreed to otherwise at purchase time.
The onus is on the camera maker and seller to tell me when and under what conditions I can use the camera, otherwise, I can use it whatever way I want to.
Don't I need to be informed of, and agree to, this requirement, when purchasing the camera? I didn't see any EULA when I bought my camera.
Also, isn't the camera manufacturer already paying MPEG-LA for that, when they obtained the right to put the tech in the camera hardware? It seems like to me what you are advocating is akin to "double-dipping" in obtaining fees by MPEG-LA.
This is true if you think that "customers" are brainless automatons that can't make any choices, and just sit around and wait for cool services to be invented so that they can demand these services be provided cheaply (or free) like it's some natural resource.
I don't see how your reply has to do with the central point of what you were replying to...
the problem we have seen again and again with the whole libertarian "let the market take care of it" philosophy is this- without regulation one or two players will simply use their wealth to crush everyone else and then destory any free market that once existed there.
L.A. currently has the Metrolink trains (http://www.metrolinktrains.com/), which can take you from one county to another in Southern California. I used to commute using Metrolink from my home to downtown L.A. (via the Red Line subway). So, in essence, there is already in place city planning for intra-city commutes via trains. Also, you can currently use Amtrak to go from city to city in California.
While it seems like everything is "too expensive" to do in the U.S. these days :( I think its more of just an issue of getting the right-of-way and then building the tracks (if necessary vs. using existing ones), etc. It mainly takes political will to do so.
I spoke to a Metrolink person once about why there wasn't more routes available, and he basically said it came down to right-of-way issues, and not cost issues. Freight companies own the right-of-ways and they're loathe to sell them (or even lease them), because it slows down their trains (track track traffic) and reduces their profits.
Don't call him Shirley.
Most of Los Angeles is just not dense enough for working internal public transport.
http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/la/historic/redcars/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro)
I thank you citizen, for your service to your country.
... the shoe polish he uses to keep his helmet shiny costs him an arm and a leg!
Or was that an arm and two legs?
If I called tech support (the US one for Corporate, not the call center in India for home)
Say what you want about Dell's products, but their customer support has always been top notch in my experience. And I deal with their tech support about once every 6 weeks or so for the past 10 years.
Their corporate support is great. Their home support... no so much. :(
A former Dell M1710 laptop owner.
Just a quick comment on #7. You mention "Multimillion $ payouts won't bring back your relative", but if the relative who dies is the 'bread winner' of the family, then being payed compensation is a fair thing to have. How much can be argued of course, but at the same time, the payouts are also meant as a punitive remedy as well.
Sorry, it seems that my humorous sarcasm wasn't evident enough.
What needs to happen now is name the names, and get them into the public news instead of allowing them to cower behind the corporate image. At the end of the day, greedy people fucked up and caused this. Name and shame time.
Kind of defeats the purpose of corporations, if the people who are running it can be exposed and held accountable.
Fucking FUD -- all that we needed after 9/11 was a locked cockpit door.
And/or U.S. Air Marshals.
Still waiting for someone to tell me where they were on the 9/11 flights.
The April 2010 issue of Popular Science has an article called "The All-Seeing Border" (pages 30-31), which talks about this border fence tech. Does not mention that it does not work at all. Makes me wonder if PopSci investigates what they are publishing or just throws crap on their pages.
The World is what we make of it.
Both you and the parent are correct, basically. Its not a black or while thing.
In your examples, I'd just do a javadoc lookup of the api before I use it, and I'd know the right order and type of arguments to pass into the constructor/method.
But in other cases, its HOW you use the api that's important. I remember a ways back of using the Apache POI api, and in some cases, the ORDER in which you called the api made a difference, something that was not covered in the javadocs.
But overall, I agree more with the parent poster. At the end of the day, clearing the screen or getting a listing of files on the hard drive is the same concept, no matter what the api name is (dir, etc.). Its more important to know WHEN you should clear the screen or get the listing of files, than HOW you do so.
While I generally agree with you, there have been times when I'm "In the Zone" coding wise, and just hate to leave something half done until the next day, because then I'll have to pick things up after a long break and try to remember all the details of what I was doing, etc.