Prove it. Advertisers are just people too, they can be wrong. It's entirely possible that the entire industry is surviving on the idea that it's effective rather than any actual effectiveness.
Well.. if their software still doesn't have the full EULA on the box, purchase the software from a big chain store, read the EULA, return the software.
The store will typically refuse your return, directing you to return it to Microsoft. Get it in writing.
Microsfot will typically refuse your return, directing you to return it to the store. Get it in writing.
Now, file a small-claims court case naming both of them as defendants, refusing to take back unusable merchandise.
Be sure to take in all your documentation to the court.
Rince, wash, repeat with every new version of Windows, and get your friends to do the same thing.
Sooner or later, either Microsoft or the store will cave and start giving refunds. No worries, continue with the purchase and return scenario until the EULA becomes acceptable. This costs either the store time and money, or Microsoft time and money. If it costs the store, sooner or later those costs get reflected back to Microsoft.
Now.. if they have the full EULA or a way to access it on the outside of the box? Then don't do this, as you'll likely lose in court. Do tell the store that you would have bought it, but on checking out the EULA you find you can't, and would they be good enough to show you a similar product without such an onerous EULA? Repeat weekly -- preferably with different cashiers/sales reps. Sooner or later the stories get to management, and they start looking around -- coming up with various Linux distributions.
Ideally at this point, you'd follow through and purchase one, but that's not necessary.
Congratulations. You're missing that media and culture are as entirely susceptible to market manipulation as anything else.
The a reason why American culture would steam-roll Canada, has nothing to do with quality or "rightness" of culture, it's simply the economies of scale. American media producers can afford to re-sell American culture and American media to foreign countries for generally cheaper than said foreign countries could produce it themselves. Why? Because with a massive media-hungry population, they get profits from inhome and then can simply "dump" their product on foreign markets for cheaper than the original cost of production (one of the side effects of free copies).
End result, media companies in non-US countries would happily pay bargain basement rates for shows that then allow them to charge advertisers. When cost to purchase is below cost to produce, production doesn't happen -- no matter what the quality.
In any trade agreement, selling something for cheaper than the cost of production is considered dumping, and there are rules against it.
Now, since it's impossible to charge duty or tarriffs to stop this dumping of media content over our borders, another way needs to be taken to handle this. Legislation was chosen to do this.
Unfortunately, they're not getting fairly compensated. The sad fact is, the money collected from the levy gets divvied up according to popular sales charts.
So really, the person who sees the compensation from the levy (other than the lawyers and leeches) is more likely Celine Dion or Brian Adams than the people you're actually using that MP3 player for.
It should be at least 100%. You shouldn't be allowed to profit from a crime no matter how small the profit is.
Banned from internet access is of course a given.
In addition, I don't think a few hundred hours of community service would be necessarily a bad thing either. He's wasted society's time and money, now society gets to get it back.
Each time a story like this comes up, I find the address of the minister responsible (and it seems like it's a different one every time. How much is the music industry paying these people?) and write my letter, CCing it to the leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister, and my MP.
It's getting to the point where I'm just getting tired of doing it.
The thing is though.. Bean wanted to, but didn't. Bean was cold and without remorse, but not ruthless. Ender was the exact opposite -- he didn't want to kill but did anyway because it was what was necessary to guaruntee survival.
Ender had the people skills to make people do things even though there was no benefit to themselves in doing it. Take Petra as an example.
Bean had the skills to make people see when it was in their interest to do something. Very different.
Uh.. no I didn't. There was no mistatement. I meant exactly what I said, and it wasn't intended to be rule utilitarianism. If you didn't approach with such preconcieved notions, you would have perceived this.
I don't have the exact law, I'm not a lawyer. However, I'm also not a pedant, so I'm able to use common sense and determine that the rule against this act is likely in the exact same place as the rule that says you don't put a nail down behind somebody's car tire. It's under the general rule of "respect others and don't be a dipshit."
Bringing the brace down, but not adding the extra line conserves the space lost with the latter method and keeps the connection between the test and the block, but at the same time makes visual "chunking" of the code blocks that much easier by having the open and closing braces in the same column.
Because when you attend any institution, ethical behavior is that you respect the rules of that institution.
These people didn't respect the rules while still intending to become part of the institution. This is unethical behavior.. pretty simple.
The only way breaking rules is acceptable is if A) The rule is bad, B) There is little other option but the rule, C) You break the rule publically and announce to the authorities you are doing so, and D) Know and accept that you will be punished for it.
When you do things that way, it's called protest.
These rules fail criteria A and B. There's nothing wrong with a rule saying you don't get to look until Harvard says so. And if you don't like the rule, you don't have to go to Harvard.
As for the people, while I don't know all the cases individually, I'm willing to bet that most if not all failed at least criteria C.
No, the point was that it worked before. I didn't say NS wouldn't let me play it, I said Windows XP woudln't let me. Can you comprehend the difference?
The graphics card worked with it just fine with Windows 98 and appropriate drivers, as I've been playing since late in 2.0 with the exact same hardware. Am I going to claim it was stunning graphics? Hell no. But it was certainly decent, and more importantly, it ran with reasonable frame rates.
Why should I have to upgrade my hardware when it demonstratably works for the task at hand? I wasn't complaining about NS in the first place but I suppose with that case of fanboi knee-jerk you have it might have been hard to see it. Have I clarified enough that you can understand that yet?
Slashdot Mirror
So.. being that I'm Canadian... ..they're mercenaries.
Nope. But it does mean you agree to the terms under which you're allowed to do so, otherwise you don't get to legally form the business.
If you're given your charter for the express purpose of helping society, you don't get to decide what "helping society" entails. Society does.
Prove it.
Advertisers are just people too, they can be wrong. It's entirely possible that the entire industry is surviving on the idea that it's effective rather than any actual effectiveness.
Who says it's the U.S. government that will build it?
Well.. if their software still doesn't have the full EULA on the box, purchase the software from a big chain store, read the EULA, return the software.
The store will typically refuse your return, directing you to return it to Microsoft. Get it in writing.
Microsfot will typically refuse your return, directing you to return it to the store. Get it in writing.
Now, file a small-claims court case naming both of them as defendants, refusing to take back unusable merchandise.
Be sure to take in all your documentation to the court.
Rince, wash, repeat with every new version of Windows, and get your friends to do the same thing.
Sooner or later, either Microsoft or the store will cave and start giving refunds. No worries, continue with the purchase and return scenario until the EULA becomes acceptable. This costs either the store time and money, or Microsoft time and money. If it costs the store, sooner or later those costs get reflected back to Microsoft.
Now.. if they have the full EULA or a way to access it on the outside of the box? Then don't do this, as you'll likely lose in court. Do tell the store that you would have bought it, but on checking out the EULA you find you can't, and would they be good enough to show you a similar product without such an onerous EULA? Repeat weekly -- preferably with different cashiers/sales reps. Sooner or later the stories get to management, and they start looking around -- coming up with various Linux distributions.
Ideally at this point, you'd follow through and purchase one, but that's not necessary.
Three possibilities:
1. The thing isn't that great to actually play with. By doing this on MTV, they can avoid reviewers getting their grubby hands on it.
2. They're trying to get that first entry advantage by making it available (at least in mind-share) to the consumers.
3. Both.
And suddenly you understand.. ..they want to show it.. not have people play it.
Congratulations. You're missing that media and culture are as entirely susceptible to market manipulation as anything else.
The a reason why American culture would steam-roll Canada, has nothing to do with quality or "rightness" of culture, it's simply the economies of scale. American media producers can afford to re-sell American culture and American media to foreign countries for generally cheaper than said foreign countries could produce it themselves. Why? Because with a massive media-hungry population, they get profits from inhome and then can simply "dump" their product on foreign markets for cheaper than the original cost of production (one of the side effects of free copies).
End result, media companies in non-US countries would happily pay bargain basement rates for shows that then allow them to charge advertisers. When cost to purchase is below cost to produce, production doesn't happen -- no matter what the quality.
In any trade agreement, selling something for cheaper than the cost of production is considered dumping, and there are rules against it.
Now, since it's impossible to charge duty or tarriffs to stop this dumping of media content over our borders, another way needs to be taken to handle this. Legislation was chosen to do this.
Unfortunately, they're not getting fairly compensated. The sad fact is, the money collected from the levy gets divvied up according to popular sales charts.
So really, the person who sees the compensation from the levy (other than the lawyers and leeches) is more likely Celine Dion or Brian Adams than the people you're actually using that MP3 player for.
That's what really sucks.
It should be at least 100%. You shouldn't be allowed to profit from a crime no matter how small the profit is.
Banned from internet access is of course a given.
In addition, I don't think a few hundred hours of community service would be necessarily a bad thing either. He's wasted society's time and money, now society gets to get it back.
With significant backing against this Bill, the tories may see an opportunity (especially coinciding with the scandal) to take power themsevles.
By that argument, it was also the British who fought for independance.
..they're wearing me down.
Each time a story like this comes up, I find the address of the minister responsible (and it seems like it's a different one every time. How much is the music industry paying these people?) and write my letter, CCing it to the leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister, and my MP.
It's getting to the point where I'm just getting tired of doing it.
..about the level of respect given the OSDL when I can see people believing this one.
The thing is though.. Bean wanted to, but didn't. Bean was cold and without remorse, but not ruthless. Ender was the exact opposite -- he didn't want to kill but did anyway because it was what was necessary to guaruntee survival.
Ender had the people skills to make people do things even though there was no benefit to themselves in doing it. Take Petra as an example.
Bean had the skills to make people see when it was in their interest to do something. Very different.
..I'll read a book.
That way I know I'm getting something that's at least been through an editing process so that the real crap writers have been mostly tossed.
Someone tell me the story behind Tetris or Pac Man.
These are the two most popular games in the world to date.
No story.
Think about it.
You assume that
A) The corporation manages to live through the lawsuit to begin with, and
B) They're not sued by a front corporation that declares bankruptcy, folds up, and disappears.
No. They shouldn't.
They should be allowed to trademark the Hulk.
Big difference.
Uh.. no I didn't. There was no mistatement. I meant exactly what I said, and it wasn't intended to be rule utilitarianism. If you didn't approach with such preconcieved notions, you would have perceived this.
I don't have the exact law, I'm not a lawyer. However, I'm also not a pedant, so I'm able to use common sense and determine that the rule against this act is likely in the exact same place as the rule that says you don't put a nail down behind somebody's car tire. It's under the general rule of "respect others and don't be a dipshit."
Especially when you get into nested..Bringing the brace down, but not adding the extra line conserves the space lost with the latter method and keeps the connection between the test and the block, but at the same time makes visual "chunking" of the code blocks that much easier by having the open and closing braces in the same column.
The key to commenting isn't explaining what your code is doing.
It's explaining why your code is doing it.
Because when you attend any institution, ethical behavior is that you respect the rules of that institution.
These people didn't respect the rules while still intending to become part of the institution. This is unethical behavior.. pretty simple.
The only way breaking rules is acceptable is if
A) The rule is bad,
B) There is little other option but the rule,
C) You break the rule publically and announce to the authorities you are doing so, and
D) Know and accept that you will be punished for it.
When you do things that way, it's called protest.
These rules fail criteria A and B. There's nothing wrong with a rule saying you don't get to look until Harvard says so. And if you don't like the rule, you don't have to go to Harvard.
As for the people, while I don't know all the cases individually, I'm willing to bet that most if not all failed at least criteria C.
No, the point was that it worked before. I didn't say NS wouldn't let me play it, I said Windows XP woudln't let me. Can you comprehend the difference?
The graphics card worked with it just fine with Windows 98 and appropriate drivers, as I've been playing since late in 2.0 with the exact same hardware. Am I going to claim it was stunning graphics? Hell no. But it was certainly decent, and more importantly, it ran with reasonable frame rates.
Why should I have to upgrade my hardware when it demonstratably works for the task at hand? I wasn't complaining about NS in the first place but I suppose with that case of fanboi knee-jerk you have it might have been hard to see it. Have I clarified enough that you can understand that yet?
That was the point..
You just missed it.