Would you expect Apple to have to deliver current OS capabilities to to PowerPC based Macs; or should OS vendors be required to ensure each new OS release, that adds functionality or fixes bugs, is backwards compatible with all programs to not take away any originally provided functionality?
No but if they ad an update to the older version of the software that disables dualboot on the mac, or stops Adobe CSX from working they would be facing similar/more wrath. It would be one thing if sony stopped updating the software, and a third party started requiring a higher version of software to play a game, but this is removing a core feature PSN, and a feature advertised. yes i'm using advertised a bit loosely, they had instruction on their site for getting it set up.
Upsetting users and violating consumer protection laws are two different issues. Companies piss off users all the time but that doesn't mean their actions violate laws.
The other way to do this would have been for Sony to charge for the update - in essence selling you a new set of features that changes the basic functionality. Of course, many more users would be upset over that than the loss of the other OS feature.
As for PSN, they could change how access is done to restore older firmware access. At that point, they have not undone any original functionality for non-upgraders and the issue is moot.
Of course, this then open s the whole issue of "do games produced after the original release of the machine have to able to be run on the original hardware?" I would think the answer to that is no; and if Sony decides to make an update available then a user deciding to upgrade is making the decision to forgo previous capabilities in order to gain new ones; and Sony is not violating EU law, IMHO.
Damn right. And European Law sides very closely with customers.
All it would require is a concerted combined effort by EU PS3 owners getting refunds for the retailers (who have to legally make the refund) to sue Sony, and force the Linux option back into the EU fat PS3 firmware.
Consumer Protection Laws FTW.
While I don't like Sony's action and IANAL; I'm not sure it would violate consumer protection laws. I think it would depend on what Sony claimed when the first sold it. While I agree there is an implied ability to run all future PS3 releases they might be able to argue all the functionality as originally delivered is still there since it will run all the launch games; and re-enable Playstation Network for all PS3's regardless of OS version. It might also be possible to argue the fat PS3 represents an old model that is at EOL but are offering users the option to continue using; does EU law require indefinite retention of capabilities or only for a limited time? If it is indefinite, a company ending support for any product could wind up running afoul of the law; which I doubt is the EU's intent. Would you expect Apple to have to deliver current OS capabilities to to PowerPC based Macs; or should OS vendors be required to ensure each new OS release, that adds functionality or fixes bugs, is backwards compatible with all programs to not take away any originally provided functionality?
Is that what the government is wasting our tax dollars on these days? Detecting thumbdrives on networks? Come on, it shouldn't take the NSA to come up with something like this. I'll bet money that somebody has already written a piece of software to do just this. Even if they haven't there are loads of ways within Windows to watch and report stuff like this. I guess if they could upgrade it to work remotely on computers outside a network it might be useful (and if and only if, it gives specific details on the media and extends to other types beyond USB), but I don't really see the point on a network.
A few points:
Given it was developed in house, the NSA probably has done all the testing and certification need to allow an install without having t jump through the purchasing / getting approval to use a COTS product. That alone is worth something, especially if you are installing it on classified networks (where it would be most useful).
TFA did not say what it does or how. Just that it's free to US government agencies.
As a tool, it allows you to determine who is doing what and watch for patterns that may indicate nefarious, vs simply stupid or lazy, motivations. Patterns can b as important as simply knowing someone used a USB device.
Don't underestimate the value of free - government agencies that might not buy such a tool now have a non-budget way to add the capability.
And yes, I realize some OLDER person will get on this thread and say "I'm a train engineer - a real engineer - unlike these punks with engineering 'degrees'"
Of course, engineers existed before train drivers; but that's another story...
"The geek personality is very different," says Bectel. "I've worked in a lot of different markets, and techies have much higher expectations for coverage than virtually any one else. It's because they're so passionate about what they do, and they expect everyone else to be equally passionate about it."
See, this is why I like Electrical Engineering. Everything I work with is invisible, nobody can explain how it works (there aren't even any good theories*
*(snip)
But for some reason, nobody comes up with a "God did it" explanation. Sure, we've got the magic smoke explanation, but nobody takes that seriously except the Rastafarians.
and those who've ever driven a British sports car....
The Animated Series. It had the original voices, added greatly to the cnon, and look what it did - it was followed by many more movies and series. Maybe SW:TAS will rejuvinate SW in the same manner.
Couldn't Warden have sent requests to the EFF to provide lawyers so he could fight an evil corporation to use freely publicly available information?
Finding something on the web does not give you the legal authority to publish and redistribute it. Sure, he could have stuck the whole thing on a torrent somewhere, but if he actually wants to do real work and real research with these data, he's got to play by the rules of the real world...the one with the big blue ceiling and a concept called the rule of law.
If you don't like that reality, keep it in mind next time you vote.
I'm not sure what he did was not legal; but the article is pretty clear he doesn't have the resources to fight it in a court and so decided to destroy it. Maybe someone with more money and time may someday decide to fight it and the legality of scrapping information will be clarified by a court.
To me, the real question is how do TOS square with robot files? Given the generally accepted and followed practice of their use; does not forbidding crawling implicitly allow the data to be collected and used as the scrapper sees fit?
If you view the data as facts; then they are not copyrightable and so aggregating them would be permissible; assuming the TOS is not binding if a scrapper follows the robots.txt instructions. If that is the case, I'd guess a lot more robots.txt files would prohibit scrapping.
At any rate, I'd say the real world rules are not real clear here, other than the one that says "avoid picking a legal fight with someone who has a ton more money and lawyers than you."
Personally, I'd be surprised if someone else already has the same data; but rather than publicize it the simply are using it however they see fit.
After much research I think I agree with you on the speech part.
Specifically it appears that any "legislative act" taken by a congressmen or anything/one under their direction (for that legislative act) would be protected (specifically this includes their staff). Also it appears that this includes an immunity from action by congress (criminal or civil but not procedural)
Thanks for the articles. I'm not sure they are totally immune from Congressional action, as referred to in:
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The article explicitly states that the immunity is not valid if the Congressman is committing a felony. If they are divulging classified information (a felony) while giving speech on the floor of the House, they may be arrested. This is very clear.
I'm not sure it explicitly states that - the speech clause comes after a semi-colon and thus provides absolute immunity from any speech or debate in either house. That immunity would protect them from arrest as well. In short, from a constitutional perspective anything they say on the floor is protected; they do still remain accountable to the House or Senate and ultimately the voters.
The Executive branch apsolutly can file charges against a member of Congress for such actions as we have discussed (it has been done in the past).
The Congressman would then have the right to state that they are immune from prosecution by virtue of Article I Section 6 (or many other such allowances).
It would then be up to the Judicial branch to rule on the validity of the immunity. They could allow the trial or dismiss it depending on the facts of the case. (Although I could not find an instance where the immunity was not upheld.)
It is the beauty of the checks and balance system; no one branch of the government is immune from actions of the others.
While they can file charges; as I said they are prohibited by the Constitution from questioning the member in regards to any discussion in either chamber. In the end; that makes the ability to file charges based on debate moot. Given the legislative branches' ability to discipline it's own members that is appropriate. Note that we are talking about debate on the floor; not other acts, such as bribery, that clearly aren't protected speech per the referenced article.
If the information was classified, it is a felony under US Federal law to disclose that information to a non-privileged person. That would be why you do not see any Congressman from disclosing stuff for political profit.
True, and both houses have offices to investigate security breaches; which would be in keeping with Article I, Section 6. I assume they could then recommend prosecution if they felt it was warranted. In the end, the immunity is not, IMHO, absolute because the constitution gives each house the right to question members. The executive branch, however couldn't. In the end, a sense of what's right and long standing rules and traditions act to enforce secrecy as much as the threat of political fallout, again IMHO.
As for the treaty, I see no reason it shouldn't be public.
I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
As I recall, SCOTUS has interpreted that to mean legislators have immunity from prosecution for legislative acts; that they don't abuse that right is a sign that they are (sometimes, at least) adults. Of course, Congress could still censure a member if the did something outrageous.
Add the ability to convert Americans fat chicks into Sweden porn stars and you got yourself a deal.
People have been using beer to achieve that effect for a long time.
Yeah, but with beer the vomiting remains.
That's a feature, not a bug. It's a method to allow you to rapidly remove yourself from a situation when the transformative affects of the beer begin to wear off...
Seriously, Skype already offers WiFi calls for a lot less, and works well. I used it recently overseas via free hotel WiFi and it worked great. It's a lot cheaper if you don't want a Skype in number. Vonage has a plan as well but costs a lot more. Both are Wifi only, unless you have a jailbroken iPhone. The question is will Apple allow VOIP via 3G; if so I think the current crop of VOIP apps will quickly add that feature, making Line2Talk yet another me too app without the name recognition of the bigger players.
Of course, once Apple and ATT sort out the issue (which they seem to be doing) I expect one (probably Apple) to bring out their own VOIP via 3G app. Apple could easily integrate that into its phone App, if they could do so in a way that lets the phone know it's making a VOIP call then ATT could even add that as an extra cost feature. Being able to ID when an app wants to do VOIP would be, for ATT, a double win - more money for them as well as a way to block other VOIP calls via 3G unless they are paid for them. I don't like that idea, but ATT must be looking at ways to monetize VOIP using their phones. I realize many calls are already VOIP, but that's at ATT's end where tehy decide how to haul the traffic; this would put a meter on the consumer end.
Q: I've heard OpenOffice discussed on Slashdot before, so why not this?
A: Because OpenOffice is an open-source, collaborative project that no-one has to pay for.
As an aside, this Softmaker product probably needs a serious amount of advertising to generate any kind of traction in the Linux market. Until today, I had never heard of it, and I've been using Linux for something like 15 years. I would suppose that it might appeal to new users of Linux who are accustomed to having to pay for any software they find useful, but I can't see it appealing to older hands.
I agree with your sentiments./. is not the place I'd go to advertise a product given the general type of responses you'd get. Beside the complaining about price; they'll be a number of posts pointing out free alternatives and some informative ones discussing problems and performance issues. Anyone reading it is likely to come away with a mixed view of your software; and if it has a free equivalent the/. readers are likely already using it. Not exactly what I'd call a receptive audience that will generate comments favorable to your product; and anyone doing so will likely get a number of replies along the "yea, but XX does it better... and is free..."
The Gamestop near me let's you return the game within 7 days if the box is unopened (they put a sticker on the box which you need to tear open). If the box is opened, you can only exchange the game for another copy of the same game. That's not going to help in this situation.
That's interesting. According to their website:
Returns and exchanges are subject to the following guidelines:
A receipt is required for all returns and exchanges.
Unopened new merchandise may be returned for a refund or exchanged within 30 days of purchase.
Opened new merchandise may be exchanged for the identical item within 30 days of purchase but, with the exception of opened new accessories, cannot be returned for a refund.
Used (pre-owned) merchandise and opened new accessories may be returned for a refund within 7 days of purchase or exchanged for the identical item within 30 days of purchase.
We reserve the right to refuse any return and to require that certain items be returned directly to the manufacturer.
Maybe they have franchised locations that can set different terms?
Gamestop offers a 7 day return window - during which the purchaser can determine if the content is available or not; but the purchaser apparently didn't bother to try. The cover art states that the DLC is available only to full retail purchasers; which was not the case here. I fail to see how Gamestop, or even the publisher, did anything wrong. I don't like the DLC model; but that's solved by not buying the product.
To make this perfectly clear – the game is being reimplemented from scratch; all they share is a name
Isn't this one of the main bones of contention though? The www.nexuiz.com URL no longer takes you to the GPL project it used to, it displays a page about Illfonic's new console game and there's a tiny link in the corner of the page that takes you to the original project page!
Couldn't they have used a different name for what is, essentially, a different game?
Sure, but why? The nexuiz name has brand recognition and so they can use that to help make the console game standout amongst other, similar games.
Which brings up an interesting point on the GPL - while the code is free the name may not be; resulting in an a FOSS project creating a valuable brand that then can be taken private. A rather novel way to get startup funding; I wonder when someone will want to extend the GPL to include the project name and any associated marks?
He's also the President of the Senate - parent is correct.
However, a 93-0 vote has no bearing on what the VP was doing. Given the very limited role of the VP wrt the Senate; and the existence of the President Pro-tempore, it's not unusual nor inappropriate for the VP to be absent from the Senate during votes unless there is the chance of a tie vote.
And what were the other 7 senators doing that day? Biden (the VP) is technically part of the senate, but I'll give him a pass on this. I'll be checking to see if my senator(s) were busy sleeping in that day.
Credit cards have a minimum fee too - like 50c, so the 2% is a lot more for small payments.
Which is why the $10 minimum is the amount generally used - the merchant pays that 50c on your $1 purchase, it turns into a net loss for them.
In the US the credit card merchant agreement forbid setting a minimum credit card charge; although it's easier to not buy at such a place tan to complain to Visa/MC/American Express. Generally they were the small mom and pops; I guess for a big chain they probably negotiate a deal taht limits the impact of small charges. I'm not sure if CC agreements still forbid minimum purchase, btw.
Also the $10 minimum is often (£10 here in the UK) the smallest amount you can charge before the card will phone home for authorisation. Less than that, they don't bother - so you can use a stolen card with impunity for small amounts (ok they do random authorisation)
Which is why gas stations are popular places to test stolen cards - the pay at pump checks to see if the card is good. Found that out the hard way when my CC company denied a gas purchase because it was suspicious - I had gone to the airport late and needed gas. When I calle dthem they explained their fraud system kicked in do to the unusual purchase.
Why do all these transparency things only apply to the executive branch of government?
I think it should be just as important to the public to know who lobbied which congressman and how as it is to know who talked to the White House about energy policy or heath care.
How about emails? Is there any rational arguments why rules about email archiving and disclosure are different for the different banches.
I'm afraid that the real answer to my question is that Congress always exempts itself from any kind of onerous rule. Just think how angry the public would be if they could read all those blackberry messages sent between members of the same party.
Congress does often exempt itself; part of the argument, no doubt is "we're theelected representatives of the people and so must be free to conduct their business without hindrance. I guess there is some Constitutional validity to that; but I'd guess the real reason is they are afraid of what would happen if people really knew what went on and there was a paper trail to hold them to there actions. That's why they do votes that don't require recording actual votes (no one can prove how you voted); allow remarks to be amended and extended in the record; etc.
I don't think they all are bad or evil; and I'd bet many would like more transparency, but the realities of the political process makes them afraid of anything that may show up in an attack ad. Of course, if voters had some spine as well and voted for politicians that would take a stand, even if it is unpopular, because they believed it was the right thing for the country; then we'd get a better government.
As much as people like to lambaste the late Ted Kennedy; at least he was willing to work for things he believed in and work across the aisle to accomplish goals. When Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy can not only work together, but maintain a civil and apparently friendly relationship, you get a government that works. That was the model of Nunn, Goldwater, Jackson, et. al. Goldwater's autobiography is an interesting insight into Washington politics written by someone who clearly understood there was a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable. Of course, in the end the right disowned him because he dared to disagree with some of their cherished truths. When we're reduced to name calling and insults we might as well be back in elementary school.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you expect Apple to have to deliver current OS capabilities to to PowerPC based Macs; or should OS vendors be required to ensure each new OS release, that adds functionality or fixes bugs, is backwards compatible with all programs to not take away any originally provided functionality?
No but if they ad an update to the older version of the software that disables dualboot on the mac, or stops Adobe CSX from working they would be facing similar/more wrath. It would be one thing if sony stopped updating the software, and a third party started requiring a higher version of software to play a game, but this is removing a core feature PSN, and a feature advertised. yes i'm using advertised a bit loosely, they had instruction on their site for getting it set up.
Upsetting users and violating consumer protection laws are two different issues. Companies piss off users all the time but that doesn't mean their actions violate laws.
The other way to do this would have been for Sony to charge for the update - in essence selling you a new set of features that changes the basic functionality. Of course, many more users would be upset over that than the loss of the other OS feature.
As for PSN, they could change how access is done to restore older firmware access. At that point, they have not undone any original functionality for non-upgraders and the issue is moot.
Of course, this then open s the whole issue of "do games produced after the original release of the machine have to able to be run on the original hardware?" I would think the answer to that is no; and if Sony decides to make an update available then a user deciding to upgrade is making the decision to forgo previous capabilities in order to gain new ones; and Sony is not violating EU law, IMHO.
Damn right. And European Law sides very closely with customers.
All it would require is a concerted combined effort by EU PS3 owners getting refunds for the retailers (who have to legally make the refund) to sue Sony, and force the Linux option back into the EU fat PS3 firmware.
Consumer Protection Laws FTW.
While I don't like Sony's action and IANAL; I'm not sure it would violate consumer protection laws. I think it would depend on what Sony claimed when the first sold it. While I agree there is an implied ability to run all future PS3 releases they might be able to argue all the functionality as originally delivered is still there since it will run all the launch games; and re-enable Playstation Network for all PS3's regardless of OS version. It might also be possible to argue the fat PS3 represents an old model that is at EOL but are offering users the option to continue using; does EU law require indefinite retention of capabilities or only for a limited time? If it is indefinite, a company ending support for any product could wind up running afoul of the law; which I doubt is the EU's intent. Would you expect Apple to have to deliver current OS capabilities to to PowerPC based Macs; or should OS vendors be required to ensure each new OS release, that adds functionality or fixes bugs, is backwards compatible with all programs to not take away any originally provided functionality?
Is that what the government is wasting our tax dollars on these days? Detecting thumbdrives on networks? Come on, it shouldn't take the NSA to come up with something like this. I'll bet money that somebody has already written a piece of software to do just this. Even if they haven't there are loads of ways within Windows to watch and report stuff like this. I guess if they could upgrade it to work remotely on computers outside a network it might be useful (and if and only if, it gives specific details on the media and extends to other types beyond USB), but I don't really see the point on a network.
A few points:
Given it was developed in house, the NSA probably has done all the testing and certification need to allow an install without having t jump through the purchasing / getting approval to use a COTS product. That alone is worth something, especially if you are installing it on classified networks (where it would be most useful).
TFA did not say what it does or how. Just that it's free to US government agencies.
As a tool, it allows you to determine who is doing what and watch for patterns that may indicate nefarious, vs simply stupid or lazy, motivations. Patterns can b as important as simply knowing someone used a USB device.
Don't underestimate the value of free - government agencies that might not buy such a tool now have a non-budget way to add the capability.
And yes, I realize some OLDER person will get on this thread and say "I'm a train engineer - a real engineer - unlike these punks with engineering 'degrees'"
Of course, engineers existed before train drivers; but that's another story...
"The geek personality is very different," says Bectel. "I've worked in a lot of different markets, and techies have much higher expectations for coverage than virtually any one else. It's because they're so passionate about what they do, and they expect everyone else to be equally passionate about it."
The one line explanation of /.
See, this is why I like Electrical Engineering. Everything I work with is invisible, nobody can explain how it works (there aren't even any good theories*
*(snip)
But for some reason, nobody comes up with a "God did it" explanation. Sure, we've got the magic smoke explanation, but nobody takes that seriously except the Rastafarians.
and those who've ever driven a British sports car....
The Animated Series. It had the original voices, added greatly to the cnon, and look what it did - it was followed by many more movies and series. Maybe SW:TAS will rejuvinate SW in the same manner.
Couldn't Warden have sent requests to the EFF to provide lawyers so he could fight an evil corporation to use freely publicly available information?
Finding something on the web does not give you the legal authority to publish and redistribute it. Sure, he could have stuck the whole thing on a torrent somewhere, but if he actually wants to do real work and real research with these data, he's got to play by the rules of the real world...the one with the big blue ceiling and a concept called the rule of law.
If you don't like that reality, keep it in mind next time you vote.
I'm not sure what he did was not legal; but the article is pretty clear he doesn't have the resources to fight it in a court and so decided to destroy it. Maybe someone with more money and time may someday decide to fight it and the legality of scrapping information will be clarified by a court.
To me, the real question is how do TOS square with robot files? Given the generally accepted and followed practice of their use; does not forbidding crawling implicitly allow the data to be collected and used as the scrapper sees fit?
If you view the data as facts; then they are not copyrightable and so aggregating them would be permissible; assuming the TOS is not binding if a scrapper follows the robots.txt instructions. If that is the case, I'd guess a lot more robots.txt files would prohibit scrapping.
At any rate, I'd say the real world rules are not real clear here, other than the one that says "avoid picking a legal fight with someone who has a ton more money and lawyers than you."
Personally, I'd be surprised if someone else already has the same data; but rather than publicize it the simply are using it however they see fit.
Unless they're too stupid to notice.
or getting married a second time...
After much research I think I agree with you on the speech part. Specifically it appears that any "legislative act" taken by a congressmen or anything/one under their direction (for that legislative act) would be protected (specifically this includes their staff). Also it appears that this includes an immunity from action by congress (criminal or civil but not procedural)
Thanks for the articles. I'm not sure they are totally immune from Congressional action, as referred to in:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33668.pdf
At any rate, it's an interesting issue and it's good to have a reasonable discussion on /.; a tip of my hat to you.
Except that is not what is written.
The article explicitly states that the immunity is not valid if the Congressman is committing a felony. If they are divulging classified information (a felony) while giving speech on the floor of the House, they may be arrested. This is very clear.
I'm not sure it explicitly states that - the speech clause comes after a semi-colon and thus provides absolute immunity from any speech or debate in either house. That immunity would protect them from arrest as well. In short, from a constitutional perspective anything they say on the floor is protected; they do still remain accountable to the House or Senate and ultimately the voters.
The Executive branch apsolutly can file charges against a member of Congress for such actions as we have discussed (it has been done in the past). The Congressman would then have the right to state that they are immune from prosecution by virtue of Article I Section 6 (or many other such allowances). It would then be up to the Judicial branch to rule on the validity of the immunity. They could allow the trial or dismiss it depending on the facts of the case. (Although I could not find an instance where the immunity was not upheld.) It is the beauty of the checks and balance system; no one branch of the government is immune from actions of the others.
While they can file charges; as I said they are prohibited by the Constitution from questioning the member in regards to any discussion in either chamber. In the end; that makes the ability to file charges based on debate moot. Given the legislative branches' ability to discipline it's own members that is appropriate. Note that we are talking about debate on the floor; not other acts, such as bribery, that clearly aren't protected speech per the referenced article.
If the information was classified, it is a felony under US Federal law to disclose that information to a non-privileged person. That would be why you do not see any Congressman from disclosing stuff for political profit.
True, and both houses have offices to investigate security breaches; which would be in keeping with Article I, Section 6. I assume they could then recommend prosecution if they felt it was warranted. In the end, the immunity is not, IMHO, absolute because the constitution gives each house the right to question members. The executive branch, however couldn't. In the end, a sense of what's right and long standing rules and traditions act to enforce secrecy as much as the threat of political fallout, again IMHO.
As for the treaty, I see no reason it shouldn't be public.
I'm not sure what the flaw in your reasoning is, but I can say with reasonable confidence that if it only took a single Congressperson to put any given piece of information in the public eye without repercussion, we'd live in a very different world than we do today.
Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
As I recall, SCOTUS has interpreted that to mean legislators have immunity from prosecution for legislative acts; that they don't abuse that right is a sign that they are (sometimes, at least) adults. Of course, Congress could still censure a member if the did something outrageous.
Add the ability to convert Americans fat chicks into Sweden porn stars and you got yourself a deal.
People have been using beer to achieve that effect for a long time.
Yeah, but with beer the vomiting remains.
That's a feature, not a bug. It's a method to allow you to rapidly remove yourself from a situation when the transformative affects of the beer begin to wear off...
Seriously, Skype already offers WiFi calls for a lot less, and works well. I used it recently overseas via free hotel WiFi and it worked great. It's a lot cheaper if you don't want a Skype in number. Vonage has a plan as well but costs a lot more. Both are Wifi only, unless you have a jailbroken iPhone. The question is will Apple allow VOIP via 3G; if so I think the current crop of VOIP apps will quickly add that feature, making Line2Talk yet another me too app without the name recognition of the bigger players.
Of course, once Apple and ATT sort out the issue (which they seem to be doing) I expect one (probably Apple) to bring out their own VOIP via 3G app. Apple could easily integrate that into its phone App, if they could do so in a way that lets the phone know it's making a VOIP call then ATT could even add that as an extra cost feature. Being able to ID when an app wants to do VOIP would be, for ATT, a double win - more money for them as well as a way to block other VOIP calls via 3G unless they are paid for them. I don't like that idea, but ATT must be looking at ways to monetize VOIP using their phones. I realize many calls are already VOIP, but that's at ATT's end where tehy decide how to haul the traffic; this would put a meter on the consumer end.
Q: I've heard OpenOffice discussed on Slashdot before, so why not this? A: Because OpenOffice is an open-source, collaborative project that no-one has to pay for. As an aside, this Softmaker product probably needs a serious amount of advertising to generate any kind of traction in the Linux market. Until today, I had never heard of it, and I've been using Linux for something like 15 years. I would suppose that it might appeal to new users of Linux who are accustomed to having to pay for any software they find useful, but I can't see it appealing to older hands.
I agree with your sentiments. /. is not the place I'd go to advertise a product given the general type of responses you'd get. Beside the complaining about price; they'll be a number of posts pointing out free alternatives and some informative ones discussing problems and performance issues. Anyone reading it is likely to come away with a mixed view of your software; and if it has a free equivalent the /. readers are likely already using it. Not exactly what I'd call a receptive audience that will generate comments favorable to your product; and anyone doing so will likely get a number of replies along the "yea, but XX does it better... and is free..."
The Gamestop near me let's you return the game within 7 days if the box is unopened (they put a sticker on the box which you need to tear open). If the box is opened, you can only exchange the game for another copy of the same game. That's not going to help in this situation.
That's interesting. According to their website:
Returns and exchanges are subject to the following guidelines:
A receipt is required for all returns and exchanges.
Unopened new merchandise may be returned for a refund or exchanged within 30 days of purchase.
Opened new merchandise may be exchanged for the identical item within 30 days of purchase but, with the exception of opened new accessories, cannot be returned for a refund.
Used (pre-owned) merchandise and opened new accessories may be returned for a refund within 7 days of purchase or exchanged for the identical item within 30 days of purchase.
We reserve the right to refuse any return and to require that certain items be returned directly to the manufacturer.
Maybe they have franchised locations that can set different terms?
Gamestop offers a 7 day return window - during which the purchaser can determine if the content is available or not; but the purchaser apparently didn't bother to try. The cover art states that the DLC is available only to full retail purchasers; which was not the case here. I fail to see how Gamestop, or even the publisher, did anything wrong. I don't like the DLC model; but that's solved by not buying the product.
Isn't this one of the main bones of contention though? The www.nexuiz.com URL no longer takes you to the GPL project it used to, it displays a page about Illfonic's new console game and there's a tiny link in the corner of the page that takes you to the original project page!
Couldn't they have used a different name for what is, essentially, a different game?
Sure, but why? The nexuiz name has brand recognition and so they can use that to help make the console game standout amongst other, similar games.
Which brings up an interesting point on the GPL - while the code is free the name may not be; resulting in an a FOSS project creating a valuable brand that then can be taken private. A rather novel way to get startup funding; I wonder when someone will want to extend the GPL to include the project name and any associated marks?
it's not unusual nor inappropriate for the VP to be absent from the Senate during votes unless there is the chance of a tie vote.
And presumably, this is why Hadlock said, "...but I'll give him a pass on this."
Probably, but 'giving him a pass" is rather irrelevant to his inital comment of:
US Senate on Monday passed by a 93-0 margin And what were the other 7 senators doing that day?
He's also the President of the Senate - parent is correct.
However, a 93-0 vote has no bearing on what the VP was doing. Given the very limited role of the VP wrt the Senate; and the existence of the President Pro-tempore, it's not unusual nor inappropriate for the VP to be absent from the Senate during votes unless there is the chance of a tie vote.
And what were the other 7 senators doing that day? Biden (the VP) is technically part of the senate, but I'll give him a pass on this. I'll be checking to see if my senator(s) were busy sleeping in that day.
Uh, the VP only votes in case of a tie.
Credit cards have a minimum fee too - like 50c, so the 2% is a lot more for small payments.
Which is why the $10 minimum is the amount generally used - the merchant pays that 50c on your $1 purchase, it turns into a net loss for them.
In the US the credit card merchant agreement forbid setting a minimum credit card charge; although it's easier to not buy at such a place tan to complain to Visa/MC/American Express. Generally they were the small mom and pops; I guess for a big chain they probably negotiate a deal taht limits the impact of small charges. I'm not sure if CC agreements still forbid minimum purchase, btw.
Also the $10 minimum is often (£10 here in the UK) the smallest amount you can charge before the card will phone home for authorisation. Less than that, they don't bother - so you can use a stolen card with impunity for small amounts (ok they do random authorisation)
Which is why gas stations are popular places to test stolen cards - the pay at pump checks to see if the card is good. Found that out the hard way when my CC company denied a gas purchase because it was suspicious - I had gone to the airport late and needed gas. When I calle dthem they explained their fraud system kicked in do to the unusual purchase.
Why do all these transparency things only apply to the executive branch of government?
I think it should be just as important to the public to know who lobbied which congressman and how as it is to know who talked to the White House about energy policy or heath care.
How about emails? Is there any rational arguments why rules about email archiving and disclosure are different for the different banches.
I'm afraid that the real answer to my question is that Congress always exempts itself from any kind of onerous rule. Just think how angry the public would be if they could read all those blackberry messages sent between members of the same party.
Congress does often exempt itself; part of the argument, no doubt is "we're the elected representatives of the people and so must be free to conduct their business without hindrance. I guess there is some Constitutional validity to that; but I'd guess the real reason is they are afraid of what would happen if people really knew what went on and there was a paper trail to hold them to there actions. That's why they do votes that don't require recording actual votes (no one can prove how you voted); allow remarks to be amended and extended in the record; etc.
I don't think they all are bad or evil; and I'd bet many would like more transparency, but the realities of the political process makes them afraid of anything that may show up in an attack ad. Of course, if voters had some spine as well and voted for politicians that would take a stand, even if it is unpopular, because they believed it was the right thing for the country; then we'd get a better government.
As much as people like to lambaste the late Ted Kennedy; at least he was willing to work for things he believed in and work across the aisle to accomplish goals. When Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy can not only work together, but maintain a civil and apparently friendly relationship, you get a government that works. That was the model of Nunn, Goldwater, Jackson, et. al. Goldwater's autobiography is an interesting insight into Washington politics written by someone who clearly understood there was a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable. Of course, in the end the right disowned him because he dared to disagree with some of their cherished truths. When we're reduced to name calling and insults we might as well be back in elementary school.
In the end, we get the government we deserve.