If they don't ban DRM outright, one good thing they could do is to enforce some labeling requirements.
Something like:
"This game includes DRM:
* It will not be unintstalled with the game. * It prevents you from using other software, specifically:
- Virtual CD-ROM software (e.g. Alcohol 120%)
- PC Emulators * It requires you to insert the original CD/DVD when playing the game. * It reports data back to the licensing server whenever you are connected to the internet, including but not limited to:
- License #
- Computer specifications (CPU speed, etc.)
- Other software installed on the system (other games, modifications to this game, other software that looks like it might be a crack or a form of the banned software listed above). * This game will cease to work when the licensing server goes offline in 2012."
I wonder how many people would agree to conditions like that if they had to be spelled out up front? Then again, I guess people would still buy it and complain. But maybe that's not entirely a bad thing. The publishers need to hear a lot of complaints from customers...
> But the future spending would have the "multiplier" as well. They cancel each other out. Read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" for more info (there is a free version online but I don't have the link handy ATM).
How is that different from saying that I'll get 1% interest on my savings account both now and in 20 years, so it doesn't matter if I invest this $1000 now or then, because I'll have the same amount of money in 25 years? Aren't we completely ignoring the compounded interest over that span of 20 years?
While it's nice that new music will be DRM-free, the part that bothers me is that it'll cost you $0.30 per song to remove the restrictions on music you've already purchased.
It's too bad they had to gouge their customers again. I mean, how can they get away with that when there are other websites out there where you can upgrade your music collection for free?
> After seeing the rampant fraud committed by the global financial elite, I'm very inclined to agree with you. What we need isn't just a number that quantifies risk, but also a number that quantifies trust.
Won't they just game that number, too? Once you fix the rules for any system, people will start to attack them. And, based on what I've seen in online games, they'll find a way to break them. Especially when there's real money at stake, not just virtual gold and items (though even those can be converted to cash these days...).
This is related to the paradox of high standards: once you set your standards too high, the only people who "meet" them are the worst cheaters.
> The test you link to used SP2, while the new tests use SP3. XP SP2 and SP3 aren't the same thing. In fact, most benchmarks put Vista SP1 ahead of XP SP3 or at least within spitting distance of each other.
I think that's pretty telling, actually, assuming it's the reason. Did Microsoft manage to destroy XP's performance with SP3 enough that it's now below Vista? Did their software department design that "upgrade" or did marketing? (Assuming the two departments haven't been unified this whole time...)
Any ideas where they go from here? The only thing that strikes me is that they're using a non-US firm. I have to believe that's part of some plot to use international boundaries to keep courts from taking a good look at what, exactly, this firm is doing on the RIAA's behalf.
> All that matters is who originated the file transfer, i.e. If I am downloading something, you wouldn't say "The server is uploading something to me." Nor would it make any sense to say "The server is downloading something from me." when I am in fact uploading.
Actually, I know plenty of people who would say exactly that and think it made sense. I would go so far to say that it's going the way of the "hacker vs. cracker" distinction in that few people appear to care at this point. Best find some new terms, like they did with the white hat/black hat thing.
I mean, at this point, if you say that crackers broke into your website, people will be on the lookout for someone speaking with a southern drawl...
Am I the only one who wonders about the legal implications of hiring a firm based in Copenhagen? Do they suppose that that will protect them from the consequences of using investigators who are not licensed in the USA? Or do they plan to poison more torrents and release more spoof files rather than suing people?
The only thing I can think of when I read this is that they plan to cheat the system somehow and I can only wonder what they plan to do next...
> There are actually two elements of unconscionability: Procedural and substantive. Procedural means that the process was unfair in some way; in this case, that the end user had no reasonable alternative but to sign a contract of adhesion. O rly? There aren't 100's of free Web hosts out there besides AOL? Not to mention the cheap-ass Web hosts out there. I have a great one with a free domain name for $7/month with phenomenal service that has backups in a different state! So I doubt there is procedural unconscionability.
IANAL, but I thought that we had to compare the OTHER webmail services to see if THEY also require that clause when determining procedural unconscionability with contracts of adhesion? I admit that my recollection is a bit fuzzy of that particular conversation, but I'm not quite sure that it's not always cut & dried as you seem to be making it out to be.
Then again, I suppose that may be why you mentioned that you have a $7/month webhost that keeps offsite backups for you (though we've muddled our examples by talking about Gmail here and that would more likely apply to the AOL shutdowns, rather than any hypothetical shutdown of Gmail--you'd have to compare like services with like).
Anyhow, all that said, I'm reasonably certain that it's a good idea to back up your own email if there's anything that important in it. I seem to remember that Gmail allows you to download an archive of your mailbox and I have to believe that doing that would be FAR cheaper than hiring a lawyer to sue Google... or anyone else for that matter.
And I don't have to put a disclaimer on that sort of advice.
>..find a lawyer for when Microsoft claims this violates their copyright?
You kid, but I remember reading some version of the MS Agent EULA that said you couldn't use Clippy or any of the other agents to "disparage Microsoft."
So you could add violating the EULA to the copyright claims...
Yeah, I wonder what the best way to screw them over for this nonsense would be? I'm not a customer and I never will be, so the best I can figure is to see if there's any way to get their lawyers to talk to Microsoft's about whether Fairpoint is confusingly similar to SharePoint.
Maybe they could go sue each other and quit this nonsense...
> So what exactly are you to do to those who preach persecution of others. In this case, you direct the same persecution toward them to marginalize them
Since you're preaching persecution of others, it's okay if we do that to you, right? Or is this one of those things that's only bad when other people do it?
This should be solved Australian style. Just arrange so that this crazy filter guy has to be rescued from his locked office, where he gets found drunk and naked with a sheep and a pile of kiwis.
That should put an end to things, unless that helps him get reelected in New Zeland...
> Would you say it's easier or harder to organize a violent effort when religion is involved?
Neither. It's absolutely the same (which proves that it's a matter of getting enough people royally pissed off, not a matter of religion).
You don't need religion to piss lots of people off. Religion is a popular target, but there are plenty of others and I sincerely doubt you'll find anywhere that doesn't care about something. I mean, even on Slashdot we have the RIAA to whip people into a frenzy.
Given the proper incitement and some torches & pitchforks...
> First, it needs to be determined if he was defamed. Maybe the accusations are true.
You know, this reminded me of a *very* old news story where someone took a picture of a rat in a Dunkin' Donuts and it caused a huge fuss. I had all but forgotten about that, too. I think the news at the time quipped that you should avoid the chocolate sprinkles.
Oh, and then there's that stupid thing where people decided that one of their spokeswomen was wearing a "terrorist" scarf or something. But that was totally idiotic.
I'm sure this isn't what they wanted to remind us of. If they'd wanted to solve this normally, they should have posted on the forum rebutting the claims made rather than suing.
I think I confused a few things somewhere along the way, but there are weird statutes concerning federal jurisdiction. I think I confused it with federal diversity jurisdiction (which has a different dollar figure and probably doesn't apply to this case). Too bad.
That said, the $20 clause (PDF) is quite interesting for a number of other reasons.
> Let me put it differently. If you substituted a person for the "sick girl" who got screwed over in a similar fashion by the RIAA, what would that detract from the story about the current copyright war?
It would detract from the point we're trying to make about the RIAA's motives. For a matter of 10 songs (retail value: $10), they will screw someone over who, whether innocent or guilty, cannot pay them back. Let me reiterate, because you still don't get the point: they have nothing to gain from screwing her over. They will lose money screwing her over. But they will do it anyway.
RIAA lawyers are scum.
As are the people at Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG who banded together to create the RIAA in the first place.
It doesn't hurt that the investigations are done by a for-profit, unlicensed company operating illegally[1], using suspect methodology that they were not able to justify using the relevant legal standards[2], and which has not been peer-reviewed by any independent authority.
[1] Based on the representations made by the relevant licensing bodies in the states which sent them letters.
[2] Based on their non-answers in response to one of NYCL's deposition wherein they seemed to me to be not merely ignoring the relevant legal standards for "scientific" evidence like this, but actually unaware of them. They get away with it due to an abuse of the "business records" exception which, IMHO, is ridiculous when applied to a for-profit company that profits whether or not the records are accurate (thanks to settlements and default judgments from people who can't fight back) and which does little EXCEPT produce records that are intended to be used in court.
Frankly, I can't imagine how they get away with this except insofar as judges are ignorant of their operations or perhaps of the rationale behind the business records exemption (which lets them present their records as legal evidence), because the effects are simply absurd.
Perhaps I should start a company that does "pedophile detection" using my own suspect methodology (picking names from a list of RIAA employees and lawyers) and send that to the cops to see how they like it. Won't somebody please think of the children?
> Is there a suggestion they went out to find someone especially vulnerable?
No, there's a suggestion that they're not in this for the money. In spite of their claims about this being about economic recovery, they're wasting thousands of dollars on lawyers to screw someone over further who will never be able to pay them back. Read that again: someone who will never be able to pay them back.
Would you be so petty as to screw someone like that over a matter of 10 songs ($10 on iTunes, $20 if they were all on the same CD)? Frankly, he should have asked them to dismiss it from federal court on Constitutional grounds (you can't sue in federal court for matters of less than $20 per the Constitution, and you can't sue over copyrights anywhere else, though the statutory damages could easily push it over the cap if there's precedent to that effect and I have no idea if they've ever argued that the $20 was in 1776 dollars, and should be adjusted for inflation).
> That having this disease makes it impossible for you to pirate music?
No one is arguing that (nor have I seen someone make that argument on any prior story, ever, in all the times this has come up). Moreover, this person does profess innocence and is entitled to that presumption until and unless the RIAA provides evidence to the contrary (you don't need too much to win a default judgment when there's no one pointing out that your investigators are unlicensed and possibly operating illegally).
While I can understand why you might not believe that, combined with the previous point, it makes their prosecution of this case questionable. IBM dropped their patent claims against SCO because they knew they couldn't pay, and SCO was as guilty as they come!
That's normal legal practice, which shows how the RIAA's campaign is something else. Or do you think this woman, who allegedly cost them a grand total of $10, is worse than SCO?
(That's a rhetorical question. I don't seriously think you believe that, but people don't seem to recognize rhetorical questions online...)
> That sick people should get a free pass on legal liabilities?
Certainly not. The only suggestion is that she's in no position to fight back and that the RIAA is a bully to screw over some poor, sick young lady over $10 of songs. Thankfully, a lawyer has been able to donate services this time, but that won't happen all the time. The lawyers can't afford to work for free all the time any more than most of us can.
> This type of emotive argument is fairly silly and pointless. This person being sued is no worse an example than that of anyone else who is sued by these thugs.
This point has been addressed in essentially every article until now with pretty much the same arguments I'm giving now. While I would suggest to NYCL that he start preempting them in his submission, these arguments are pretty much common knowledge by now and he has, in fact, raised them in plenty of comments in plenty of stories until now.
So you know or should know that this isn't an attempt at the logical fallacy of ad misercordiam, but rather an attempt to provide more evidence that the RIAA's campaign is one of extortion and fear rather than a wronged party trying every reasonable measure to recover what's rightfully theirs.
Could someone add this to a FAQ? Do I need to write up one of those checklists like the one for "solutions" to spam that someone can post every time? Because this is old, man. You should know what we're arguing and why by now if you read these things. This question is really old by now.
> There aren't many instances where tables give an advantage, and in the few instances it, the advantage isn't significant
Tables are good for tabular data (e.g. a chart or matrix of features). For site layout, you use CSS. It's not exactly a difficult concept, really, unless you come across one of those people who hate tables for reasons of ideological purity.
It's the same with goto, really. You don't use it to replace while/for/if and friends. You DO use it when it's needed (e.g. finite state machines).
They're both perfectly good tools for people who know how to use them.
> I had been always confused by software advertising (especially Microsoft's). When they say it (i.e. a new version of Windows) would run faster than previous versions, I thought: "Hey! This will work great on my old computer!" - until I saw that the product requirements included the next generation of CPUs. WTF?
In other news, they make a ton of wild promises in order to generate news and get people to want their new releases. But the system requirements will only get higher. If it runs faster, it's only because the CPU designers have outpaced them.
Frankly, I'd be more inclined to believe them if they said that I could play Duke Nukem Forever on my new Phantom console running Windows 7 with a WinFS file system... It's a lot more likely than to suppose that this is anything but marketing nonsense that will get cut from the final version (because it never actually existed, except maybe as a demo they could show journalists).
> Who do you think does that manipulation, sunshine? > Government is a problem masquerading as its own solution.
Corporations are miniature governments accountable only to their own shareholders (and not even then, at times). There are plenty of ways to coerce people without using laws.
> "The law should be what I think it should be, and not what it actually is" is not a valid line of argument.
Actually, one can give a court a "good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." That's how laws get overturned, especially when the Supreme Court is involved.
That language, by the way, is from a legal definition of 'frivolous'. Anything that doesn't fall under that good faith argument or existing law, however, is a bad idea to argue in court. But don't take my word for it. Read for yourself. Yes, I know that's only for the state of South Carolina, but that's the only link I can be bothered to Google up right now. I believe that most other jurisdictions use very similar language to describe what is not considered a frivolous argument.
The 'or' side of the machine-or-transformation clause. It transforms ingredients into a sandwich.
Though in this case, it seems rather obvious that you can pre-assemble various bits of a sandwich. I know that I, personally, do things that way by default and usually parallelize whatever I'm doing so that I always do something while I'm waiting for other things to finish.
While GP can pick apart the submission as much as he likes, it's not a good patent, even if Bilski won't kill it. Granted, the patent hasn't been issued, but hopefully it will never be.
Slashdot Mirror
If they don't ban DRM outright, one good thing they could do is to enforce some labeling requirements.
Something like:
"This game includes DRM:
* It will not be unintstalled with the game.
* It prevents you from using other software, specifically:
- Virtual CD-ROM software (e.g. Alcohol 120%)
- PC Emulators
* It requires you to insert the original CD/DVD when playing the game.
* It reports data back to the licensing server whenever you are connected to the internet, including but not limited to:
- License #
- Computer specifications (CPU speed, etc.)
- Other software installed on the system (other games, modifications to this game, other software that looks like it might be a crack or a form of the banned software listed above).
* This game will cease to work when the licensing server goes offline in 2012."
I wonder how many people would agree to conditions like that if they had to be spelled out up front? Then again, I guess people would still buy it and complain. But maybe that's not entirely a bad thing. The publishers need to hear a lot of complaints from customers...
> But the future spending would have the "multiplier" as well. They cancel each other out. Read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" for more info (there is a free version online but I don't have the link handy ATM).
How is that different from saying that I'll get 1% interest on my savings account both now and in 20 years, so it doesn't matter if I invest this $1000 now or then, because I'll have the same amount of money in 25 years? Aren't we completely ignoring the compounded interest over that span of 20 years?
> DRM-free music is nice though.
While it's nice that new music will be DRM-free, the part that bothers me is that it'll cost you $0.30 per song to remove the restrictions on music you've already purchased.
It's too bad they had to gouge their customers again. I mean, how can they get away with that when there are other websites out there where you can upgrade your music collection for free?
> After seeing the rampant fraud committed by the global financial elite, I'm very inclined to agree with you. What we need isn't just a number that quantifies risk, but also a number that quantifies trust.
Won't they just game that number, too? Once you fix the rules for any system, people will start to attack them. And, based on what I've seen in online games, they'll find a way to break them. Especially when there's real money at stake, not just virtual gold and items (though even those can be converted to cash these days...).
This is related to the paradox of high standards: once you set your standards too high, the only people who "meet" them are the worst cheaters.
> The test you link to used SP2, while the new tests use SP3. XP SP2 and SP3 aren't the same thing. In fact, most benchmarks put Vista SP1 ahead of XP SP3 or at least within spitting distance of each other.
I think that's pretty telling, actually, assuming it's the reason. Did Microsoft manage to destroy XP's performance with SP3 enough that it's now below Vista? Did their software department design that "upgrade" or did marketing? (Assuming the two departments haven't been unified this whole time...)
Or do we have some bad benchmark data here?
Any ideas where they go from here? The only thing that strikes me is that they're using a non-US firm. I have to believe that's part of some plot to use international boundaries to keep courts from taking a good look at what, exactly, this firm is doing on the RIAA's behalf.
Oh, and lest I forget, we should keep reminding people that the RIAA = EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group & Warner Music Group. I'd hate for the labels to evade a little bad press by hiding behind the RIAA name.
> All that matters is who originated the file transfer, i.e. If I am downloading something, you wouldn't say "The server is uploading something to me." Nor would it make any sense to say "The server is downloading something from me." when I am in fact uploading.
Actually, I know plenty of people who would say exactly that and think it made sense. I would go so far to say that it's going the way of the "hacker vs. cracker" distinction in that few people appear to care at this point. Best find some new terms, like they did with the white hat/black hat thing.
I mean, at this point, if you say that crackers broke into your website, people will be on the lookout for someone speaking with a southern drawl...
Am I the only one who wonders about the legal implications of hiring a firm based in Copenhagen? Do they suppose that that will protect them from the consequences of using investigators who are not licensed in the USA? Or do they plan to poison more torrents and release more spoof files rather than suing people?
The only thing I can think of when I read this is that they plan to cheat the system somehow and I can only wonder what they plan to do next...
> There are actually two elements of unconscionability: Procedural and substantive. Procedural means that the process was unfair in some way; in this case, that the end user had no reasonable alternative but to sign a contract of adhesion. O rly? There aren't 100's of free Web hosts out there besides AOL? Not to mention the cheap-ass Web hosts out there. I have a great one with a free domain name for $7/month with phenomenal service that has backups in a different state! So I doubt there is procedural unconscionability.
IANAL, but I thought that we had to compare the OTHER webmail services to see if THEY also require that clause when determining procedural unconscionability with contracts of adhesion? I admit that my recollection is a bit fuzzy of that particular conversation, but I'm not quite sure that it's not always cut & dried as you seem to be making it out to be.
Then again, I suppose that may be why you mentioned that you have a $7/month webhost that keeps offsite backups for you (though we've muddled our examples by talking about Gmail here and that would more likely apply to the AOL shutdowns, rather than any hypothetical shutdown of Gmail--you'd have to compare like services with like).
Anyhow, all that said, I'm reasonably certain that it's a good idea to back up your own email if there's anything that important in it. I seem to remember that Gmail allows you to download an archive of your mailbox and I have to believe that doing that would be FAR cheaper than hiring a lawyer to sue Google... or anyone else for that matter.
And I don't have to put a disclaimer on that sort of advice.
> ..find a lawyer for when Microsoft claims this violates their copyright?
You kid, but I remember reading some version of the MS Agent EULA that said you couldn't use Clippy or any of the other agents to "disparage Microsoft."
So you could add violating the EULA to the copyright claims...
Yeah, I wonder what the best way to screw them over for this nonsense would be? I'm not a customer and I never will be, so the best I can figure is to see if there's any way to get their lawyers to talk to Microsoft's about whether Fairpoint is confusingly similar to SharePoint.
Maybe they could go sue each other and quit this nonsense...
> So what exactly are you to do to those who preach persecution of others. In this case, you direct the same persecution toward them to marginalize them
Since you're preaching persecution of others, it's okay if we do that to you, right? Or is this one of those things that's only bad when other people do it?
This should be solved Australian style. Just arrange so that this crazy filter guy has to be rescued from his locked office, where he gets found drunk and naked with a sheep and a pile of kiwis.
That should put an end to things, unless that helps him get reelected in New Zeland...
> Would you say it's easier or harder to organize a violent effort when religion is involved?
Neither. It's absolutely the same (which proves that it's a matter of getting enough people royally pissed off, not a matter of religion).
You don't need religion to piss lots of people off. Religion is a popular target, but there are plenty of others and I sincerely doubt you'll find anywhere that doesn't care about something. I mean, even on Slashdot we have the RIAA to whip people into a frenzy.
Given the proper incitement and some torches & pitchforks ...
> But their atrocities were based in ideology, which religion is a subset of.
So apathy is the solution? We can't care deeply about anything? Because that is the root of it.
Even people who are fanatical about atheism can go crazy and kill lots of people (e.g. Stalin's purges).
Sorry, but I don't think apathy is the answer.
> First, it needs to be determined if he was defamed. Maybe the accusations are true.
You know, this reminded me of a *very* old news story where someone took a picture of a rat in a Dunkin' Donuts and it caused a huge fuss. I had all but forgotten about that, too. I think the news at the time quipped that you should avoid the chocolate sprinkles.
Oh, and then there's that stupid thing where people decided that one of their spokeswomen was wearing a "terrorist" scarf or something. But that was totally idiotic.
I'm sure this isn't what they wanted to remind us of. If they'd wanted to solve this normally, they should have posted on the forum rebutting the claims made rather than suing.
I think I confused a few things somewhere along the way, but there are weird statutes concerning federal jurisdiction. I think I confused it with federal diversity jurisdiction (which has a different dollar figure and probably doesn't apply to this case). Too bad.
That said, the $20 clause (PDF) is quite interesting for a number of other reasons.
> Let me put it differently. If you substituted a person for the "sick girl" who got screwed over in a similar fashion by the RIAA, what would that detract from the story about the current copyright war?
It would detract from the point we're trying to make about the RIAA's motives. For a matter of 10 songs (retail value: $10), they will screw someone over who, whether innocent or guilty, cannot pay them back. Let me reiterate, because you still don't get the point: they have nothing to gain from screwing her over. They will lose money screwing her over. But they will do it anyway.
RIAA lawyers are scum.
As are the people at Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG who banded together to create the RIAA in the first place.
> Innocent until proven guilty.
It doesn't hurt that the investigations are done by a for-profit, unlicensed company operating illegally[1], using suspect methodology that they were not able to justify using the relevant legal standards[2], and which has not been peer-reviewed by any independent authority.
[1] Based on the representations made by the relevant licensing bodies in the states which sent them letters.
[2] Based on their non-answers in response to one of NYCL's deposition wherein they seemed to me to be not merely ignoring the relevant legal standards for "scientific" evidence like this, but actually unaware of them. They get away with it due to an abuse of the "business records" exception which, IMHO, is ridiculous when applied to a for-profit company that profits whether or not the records are accurate (thanks to settlements and default judgments from people who can't fight back) and which does little EXCEPT produce records that are intended to be used in court.
Frankly, I can't imagine how they get away with this except insofar as judges are ignorant of their operations or perhaps of the rationale behind the business records exemption (which lets them present their records as legal evidence), because the effects are simply absurd.
Perhaps I should start a company that does "pedophile detection" using my own suspect methodology (picking names from a list of RIAA employees and lawyers) and send that to the cops to see how they like it. Won't somebody please think of the children?
> Is there a suggestion they went out to find someone especially vulnerable?
No, there's a suggestion that they're not in this for the money. In spite of their claims about this being about economic recovery, they're wasting thousands of dollars on lawyers to screw someone over further who will never be able to pay them back. Read that again: someone who will never be able to pay them back.
Would you be so petty as to screw someone like that over a matter of 10 songs ($10 on iTunes, $20 if they were all on the same CD)? Frankly, he should have asked them to dismiss it from federal court on Constitutional grounds (you can't sue in federal court for matters of less than $20 per the Constitution, and you can't sue over copyrights anywhere else, though the statutory damages could easily push it over the cap if there's precedent to that effect and I have no idea if they've ever argued that the $20 was in 1776 dollars, and should be adjusted for inflation).
> That having this disease makes it impossible for you to pirate music?
No one is arguing that (nor have I seen someone make that argument on any prior story, ever, in all the times this has come up). Moreover, this person does profess innocence and is entitled to that presumption until and unless the RIAA provides evidence to the contrary (you don't need too much to win a default judgment when there's no one pointing out that your investigators are unlicensed and possibly operating illegally).
While I can understand why you might not believe that, combined with the previous point, it makes their prosecution of this case questionable. IBM dropped their patent claims against SCO because they knew they couldn't pay, and SCO was as guilty as they come!
That's normal legal practice, which shows how the RIAA's campaign is something else. Or do you think this woman, who allegedly cost them a grand total of $10, is worse than SCO?
(That's a rhetorical question. I don't seriously think you believe that, but people don't seem to recognize rhetorical questions online...)
> That sick people should get a free pass on legal liabilities?
Certainly not. The only suggestion is that she's in no position to fight back and that the RIAA is a bully to screw over some poor, sick young lady over $10 of songs. Thankfully, a lawyer has been able to donate services this time, but that won't happen all the time. The lawyers can't afford to work for free all the time any more than most of us can.
> This type of emotive argument is fairly silly and pointless. This person being sued is no worse an example than that of anyone else who is sued by these thugs.
This point has been addressed in essentially every article until now with pretty much the same arguments I'm giving now. While I would suggest to NYCL that he start preempting them in his submission, these arguments are pretty much common knowledge by now and he has, in fact, raised them in plenty of comments in plenty of stories until now.
So you know or should know that this isn't an attempt at the logical fallacy of ad misercordiam, but rather an attempt to provide more evidence that the RIAA's campaign is one of extortion and fear rather than a wronged party trying every reasonable measure to recover what's rightfully theirs.
Could someone add this to a FAQ? Do I need to write up one of those checklists like the one for "solutions" to spam that someone can post every time? Because this is old, man. You should know what we're arguing and why by now if you read these things. This question is really old by now.
> There aren't many instances where tables give an advantage, and in the few instances it, the advantage isn't significant
Tables are good for tabular data (e.g. a chart or matrix of features). For site layout, you use CSS. It's not exactly a difficult concept, really, unless you come across one of those people who hate tables for reasons of ideological purity.
It's the same with goto, really. You don't use it to replace while/for/if and friends. You DO use it when it's needed (e.g. finite state machines).
They're both perfectly good tools for people who know how to use them.
> I had been always confused by software advertising (especially Microsoft's). When they say it (i.e. a new version of Windows) would run faster than previous versions, I thought: "Hey! This will work great on my old computer!" - until I saw that the product requirements included the next generation of CPUs. WTF?
In other news, they make a ton of wild promises in order to generate news and get people to want their new releases. But the system requirements will only get higher. If it runs faster, it's only because the CPU designers have outpaced them.
Frankly, I'd be more inclined to believe them if they said that I could play Duke Nukem Forever on my new Phantom console running Windows 7 with a WinFS file system ... It's a lot more likely than to suppose that this is anything but marketing nonsense that will get cut from the final version (because it never actually existed, except maybe as a demo they could show journalists).
> Who do you think does that manipulation, sunshine?
> Government is a problem masquerading as its own solution.
Corporations are miniature governments accountable only to their own shareholders (and not even then, at times). There are plenty of ways to coerce people without using laws.
Ponder that for a while.
> "The law should be what I think it should be, and not what it actually is" is not a valid line of argument.
Actually, one can give a court a "good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." That's how laws get overturned, especially when the Supreme Court is involved.
That language, by the way, is from a legal definition of 'frivolous'. Anything that doesn't fall under that good faith argument or existing law, however, is a bad idea to argue in court. But don't take my word for it. Read for yourself. Yes, I know that's only for the state of South Carolina, but that's the only link I can be bothered to Google up right now. I believe that most other jurisdictions use very similar language to describe what is not considered a frivolous argument.
The 'or' side of the machine-or-transformation clause. It transforms ingredients into a sandwich.
Though in this case, it seems rather obvious that you can pre-assemble various bits of a sandwich. I know that I, personally, do things that way by default and usually parallelize whatever I'm doing so that I always do something while I'm waiting for other things to finish.
While GP can pick apart the submission as much as he likes, it's not a good patent, even if Bilski won't kill it. Granted, the patent hasn't been issued, but hopefully it will never be.