It doesn't matter how many times people say it, its still wrong. About 90% of the consoles sold in the last 3 years say SONY on them. Dont believe me, go look it up yourself. Let that sink in. PS2 continues to outsell X-box. There is no hope for the X-box. SONY beat Sega and Nintendo on their first try. They beat Sega, Nintendo, and Microsoft on their second try. Microsoft is free to throw several billion dollars at the x-box 2.0, but I see no reason to believe that they will beat Sony then either. Blow a billion dollars and the stockholders tend to get upset. Microsoft has been beaten several times in all kinds of places, Direct TV. Microsoft NET. Quicken still beats Money. Photoshop still rules.
Another gorilla, Intel, decided that you should use Rambus, and it tried to force computer makers to use it. But it takes more than money and power to make people buy stuff.
Most people only buy one console. Yes, you know people who have more than one, but those people are a small minority of the buying public. The guy who buys his child a console at Christmas only buys one console. Nearly all the people who have bought a console in the last 2 years bought a Sony. Its too late for M$ to sell to these people. They have to wait until the PS2 becomes obsolete to sell these people. PS2 continues to outsell the X-box, and not by a little bit. So X-box is getting further behind. The next real opportunity for M$ to break into this market is 2 or 3 years away. X-box isn't going to snap out of it any more than the Dreamcast, which was ahead of the curve not behind it.
I think the 2.5 figure assumes that the person is also buying a second controller and a memory card or something like that. That is how they make up the $100 loss on the console.
But the PS2 had an enormous head start and is still selling faster than the X-box. Since they are just getting further behind, how do you expect M$ to surpass Sony and become a monopoly?
Don't forget Sony is still making money on each console, so they could even drop the prices further if they wanted to compete in that way.
Sony designed their own integrated system. They paid something like a billion dollars for the silicon fab to make their "emotion engine" so they can make it for cheap. Now the fab is paid for. Sony makes money on every PS2 that they sell. Sony can afford to drop the price of a PS2 further if they need to. Microsoft buys parts from everyone else and pays someone to put them together. Intel, Nvidia, etc. make money on every X-box sold. M$ loses money on every X-box sold. X-boxes are not going to get any cheaper to make, as the parts are mature already.
Nintendo doesn't lose money on each console either, but they are essentially releaseing a Dreamcast, but way too late. Something like 95% of all consoles sold for the past 5 years have had the name SONY on them. Who do you think developers are going to write games for?
You are an abusive troll. However, I'm going to respond anyways. The fun and excitement of buying the ticket, dreaming of what you would do with the money, and checking your numbers is cheap entertainment and well worth a dollar every once in a while.
I had a very similar experience with Civ 2 on a 486 and my 2nd Jr. year of University. "Just 2 more turns until the robotics factory is done and I can start the Cure for Cancer project there. I can't stop now because tomorrow I won't remember where I was going to build it. I'll stop just as soon......it isn't really getting light out is it?" I too have deliberately avoided buying ANY world building or RTS games. No Call to Power, no Age of Empires, no The Sims, no open-ended EverCrack/Asheron's etc. Now I only play games that come in bite sized pieces, like Counter-Strike and MCO where the matches are 2 minutes long and there are plenty of opportunities to turn it off.
IANAL, but if the lady can prove that EveryQuest is deliberately designed to be addictive (good luck) then she just might have a case for negligence, or am I wrong?
You are probably right. I don't think a Fair Use movement can use Dr. King's methods. But I think the real point is that the Fair Use movement should NOT try to put on the rightous mantle of the Civil Rights movement.
In the end, there won't have to be a formal boycott to break the monopoly that the RIAA has. MP3's have changed the way people listen to music, and we are not going to go back. After I bought a CD player, I didn't buy any more Cassettes or LP's. Now that I have bought an MP3 player that lets me hold 1500 songs in my hand (none of which I got from the Internet), I'm not going to buy any music that I can't play on it. If they change CD's so I can't rip them, then I won't buy CD's. If they close the PC so that all HDD's have copy protection built in, I won't buy a new PC, I'll just use my old one. It is not even about principles for me, if they are only selling something that doesn't do what I want, then I won't buy it. If the only new music that I can get for my player is MP3's off of Indie labels, then I'll buy it. And if Internet radio stations can only play Indie stuff, that becomes the way I find out what MP3's I want to buy. The major record labels will make themselves obsolete by trying to deny us what we want. Legislation that takes away my fair use isn't going to make me go back to buying casettes (figuratively)
That is a fine idea as long as you don't mind them cancelling your account without any notice. If they actually start getting spam at these addresses, and notice that numerous accounts have this setting they will just do a sweep of the database and delete all the accounts that use these addresses.
In the TOS you agree to give them accurate and up-to-date information, and you agree they can cancel you if you don't. So I wouldn't do this if you actually USE this email address.
IANAL, but I think they could just ignore your letter with impunity. You may only use the service if you agree to their Terms. They have not agreed to your terms. And here is a sectin of their TOS:
24. GENERAL INFORMATION
The TOS constitute the entire agreement between you and Yahoo and
govern your use of the Service, superceding any prior agreements between
you and Yahoo. You also may be subject to additional terms and conditions
that may apply when you use affiliate services, third-party content or
third-party software. The TOS and the relationship between you and Yahoo
shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to
its conflict of law provisions. You and Yahoo agree to submit to the
personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the
county of Santa Clara, California. The failure of Yahoo to exercise or
enforce any right or provision of the TOS shall not constitute a waiver of
such right or provision. If any provision of the TOS is found by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the parties nevertheless agree
that the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties' intentions
as reflected in the provision, and the other provisions of the TOS remain
in full force and effect. You agree that regardless of any statute or law
to the contrary, any claim or cause of action arising out of or related to
use of the Service or the TOS must be filed within one (1) year after such
claim or cause of action arose or be forever barred.
They may have breached your trust, but they didn't breach their terms. They said they wouldn't share your personal information unless you agreed OR if it is a 3rd party that they trust.
You stopped one line too soon.
"...or under the following circumstances:
We provide the information to trusted partners..."
You see they mean that no matter what you do or don't ask for, they will share all they want with 3rd parties that promise to keep it secret. And if they feel like it, they might just change their terms (without notice) and share it with whomever is willing to pay for it. They havne't yet, but they could as long as they changed their policy first.
From the TOS
"1. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
Welcome to Yahoo!. Yahoo provides its service to you, subject to the following Terms of Service ("TOS"), which may be updated by us from time
to time without notice to you. "
And also from the Privacy Policy:
"Information Sharing and Disclosure
Yahoo! does not rent, sell, or share personal information about you with other people or nonaffiliated companies except... under the following circumstances:
We provide the information to trusted partners.." etc.
If you read the entire Privacy Policy it will probably surprise you a bit. They collect a lot of personal information. They say they won't share it with other people, except when they want to and when the other people promise not to share it.
So I think they can do pretty much whatever they want to, because they told you they might.
You won't know if it works unless you try it. You can't claim "The lawmakers aren't listening to me." if you haven't talked to them.
Call your Senator's office and tell him you don't like the DMCA, the new Senate bill "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act", the SDMI, or anything else that erodes Fair Use, closes hardware standards, or promotes the existing Music Industry Monopoly by closing off other avenues of commerce. Get people you know to do the same thing. It doesn't really take that many people to make an impression. The top priority for all Congresspeople is getting re-elected, and that means listening to both contributors (read corporations) and voters. For every phone call they get, they assume 100 or 1000 more people feel the same way but didn't call in. Even 25 phone calls to them represents something that could determine their re-election. Corporations only have all the power if you give up yours.
Re:Memo to people who install spyware at home.
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 1
Contratulations on finding the most simplistic view of the world possible. Now stretch your imagination a bit. Suppose our software user IS leaving their rotten spouse for good reason. Can you think of some scenarios where our user will benefit greatly from the use of Spyware? Go ahead try it. I'll give you a hint: C U S T O D Y. I'll give you another hint: H I D D E N A S S E T S.
Lets do the math. Lets say a Spammer sends out 100,000 emails at a cost of $0.50-$20. Lets say their %0.01 hit rate gets them 10 $20 subscriptions for their effort. Thats a nice $180-199.50 profit. Now suppose they hit one Washington resident who charges them $250 in small claims court.
Now the numbers are all questionable, but I think the premise that it only takes a few people using the laws to make Spamming unprofitable is valid. Right now sending spam costs next to nothing. Any fines really move the margin.
But he/she said EU member states' laws, not EU Law. And I think the point is that even if your company employment policy does NOT claim your IP, the Country's laws might give your employer rights to everything that isn't covered by contract.
Think twice about this. Any action against the employer (who has the law on their side) may just hurt Tilly more.
Remember, from the empoyers viewpoint, Tilly did something wrong. They are going to be irritated, not persuaded by a bunch of self-righteous Open Source people crying "How dare they! How dare they lay claim to what is legally theirs!" I'm not saying their draconian employment contract isn't morally wrong, but it is apparently legal in NY.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter how many times people say it, its still wrong. About 90% of the consoles sold in the last 3 years say SONY on them. Dont believe me, go look it up yourself. Let that sink in. PS2 continues to outsell X-box. There is no hope for the X-box. SONY beat Sega and Nintendo on their first try. They beat Sega, Nintendo, and Microsoft on their second try. Microsoft is free to throw several billion dollars at the x-box 2.0, but I see no reason to believe that they will beat Sony then either. Blow a billion dollars and the stockholders tend to get upset. Microsoft has been beaten several times in all kinds of places, Direct TV. Microsoft NET. Quicken still beats Money. Photoshop still rules. Another gorilla, Intel, decided that you should use Rambus, and it tried to force computer makers to use it. But it takes more than money and power to make people buy stuff.
Thats a good one. Someone who makes a living running a video game store doesn't know what people buy? Tell me another one.
Most people only buy one console. Yes, you know people who have more than one, but those people are a small minority of the buying public. The guy who buys his child a console at Christmas only buys one console. Nearly all the people who have bought a console in the last 2 years bought a Sony. Its too late for M$ to sell to these people. They have to wait until the PS2 becomes obsolete to sell these people. PS2 continues to outsell the X-box, and not by a little bit. So X-box is getting further behind. The next real opportunity for M$ to break into this market is 2 or 3 years away. X-box isn't going to snap out of it any more than the Dreamcast, which was ahead of the curve not behind it.
I think the 2.5 figure assumes that the person is also buying a second controller and a memory card or something like that. That is how they make up the $100 loss on the console.
But the PS2 had an enormous head start and is still selling faster than the X-box. Since they are just getting further behind, how do you expect M$ to surpass Sony and become a monopoly? Don't forget Sony is still making money on each console, so they could even drop the prices further if they wanted to compete in that way.
Sony designed their own integrated system. They paid something like a billion dollars for the silicon fab to make their "emotion engine" so they can make it for cheap. Now the fab is paid for. Sony makes money on every PS2 that they sell. Sony can afford to drop the price of a PS2 further if they need to. Microsoft buys parts from everyone else and pays someone to put them together. Intel, Nvidia, etc. make money on every X-box sold. M$ loses money on every X-box sold. X-boxes are not going to get any cheaper to make, as the parts are mature already.
Nintendo doesn't lose money on each console either, but they are essentially releaseing a Dreamcast, but way too late. Something like 95% of all consoles sold for the past 5 years have had the name SONY on them. Who do you think developers are going to write games for?
You are an abusive troll. However, I'm going to respond anyways. The fun and excitement of buying the ticket, dreaming of what you would do with the money, and checking your numbers is cheap entertainment and well worth a dollar every once in a while.
I had a very similar experience with Civ 2 on a 486 and my 2nd Jr. year of University. "Just 2 more turns until the robotics factory is done and I can start the Cure for Cancer project there. I can't stop now because tomorrow I won't remember where I was going to build it. I'll stop just as soon......it isn't really getting light out is it?" I too have deliberately avoided buying ANY world building or RTS games. No Call to Power, no Age of Empires, no The Sims, no open-ended EverCrack/Asheron's etc. Now I only play games that come in bite sized pieces, like Counter-Strike and MCO where the matches are 2 minutes long and there are plenty of opportunities to turn it off. IANAL, but if the lady can prove that EveryQuest is deliberately designed to be addictive (good luck) then she just might have a case for negligence, or am I wrong?
Pandarin is a lot funnier that the removal of Orcs.
You are probably right. I don't think a Fair Use movement can use Dr. King's methods. But I think the real point is that the Fair Use movement should NOT try to put on the rightous mantle of the Civil Rights movement. In the end, there won't have to be a formal boycott to break the monopoly that the RIAA has. MP3's have changed the way people listen to music, and we are not going to go back. After I bought a CD player, I didn't buy any more Cassettes or LP's. Now that I have bought an MP3 player that lets me hold 1500 songs in my hand (none of which I got from the Internet), I'm not going to buy any music that I can't play on it. If they change CD's so I can't rip them, then I won't buy CD's. If they close the PC so that all HDD's have copy protection built in, I won't buy a new PC, I'll just use my old one. It is not even about principles for me, if they are only selling something that doesn't do what I want, then I won't buy it. If the only new music that I can get for my player is MP3's off of Indie labels, then I'll buy it. And if Internet radio stations can only play Indie stuff, that becomes the way I find out what MP3's I want to buy. The major record labels will make themselves obsolete by trying to deny us what we want. Legislation that takes away my fair use isn't going to make me go back to buying casettes (figuratively)
That is a fine idea as long as you don't mind them cancelling your account without any notice. If they actually start getting spam at these addresses, and notice that numerous accounts have this setting they will just do a sweep of the database and delete all the accounts that use these addresses. In the TOS you agree to give them accurate and up-to-date information, and you agree they can cancel you if you don't. So I wouldn't do this if you actually USE this email address.
IANAL, but I think they could just ignore your letter with impunity. You may only use the service if you agree to their Terms. They have not agreed to your terms. And here is a sectin of their TOS: 24. GENERAL INFORMATION The TOS constitute the entire agreement between you and Yahoo and govern your use of the Service, superceding any prior agreements between you and Yahoo. You also may be subject to additional terms and conditions that may apply when you use affiliate services, third-party content or third-party software. The TOS and the relationship between you and Yahoo shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflict of law provisions. You and Yahoo agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of Santa Clara, California. The failure of Yahoo to exercise or enforce any right or provision of the TOS shall not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. If any provision of the TOS is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the parties nevertheless agree that the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties' intentions as reflected in the provision, and the other provisions of the TOS remain in full force and effect. You agree that regardless of any statute or law to the contrary, any claim or cause of action arising out of or related to use of the Service or the TOS must be filed within one (1) year after such claim or cause of action arose or be forever barred.
They may have breached your trust, but they didn't breach their terms. They said they wouldn't share your personal information unless you agreed OR if it is a 3rd party that they trust.
Oregon has a No Call List also. I think our fines are even higher. It costs me $3 per year to be on it and it works.
Either button saved the changes to the entire page.
You stopped one line too soon. "...or under the following circumstances: We provide the information to trusted partners..." You see they mean that no matter what you do or don't ask for, they will share all they want with 3rd parties that promise to keep it secret. And if they feel like it, they might just change their terms (without notice) and share it with whomever is willing to pay for it. They havne't yet, but they could as long as they changed their policy first.
From the TOS "1. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS Welcome to Yahoo!. Yahoo provides its service to you, subject to the following Terms of Service ("TOS"), which may be updated by us from time to time without notice to you. " And also from the Privacy Policy: "Information Sharing and Disclosure Yahoo! does not rent, sell, or share personal information about you with other people or nonaffiliated companies except ... under the following circumstances:
We provide the information to trusted partners.." etc.
If you read the entire Privacy Policy it will probably surprise you a bit. They collect a lot of personal information. They say they won't share it with other people, except when they want to and when the other people promise not to share it.
So I think they can do pretty much whatever they want to, because they told you they might.
You won't know if it works unless you try it. You can't claim "The lawmakers aren't listening to me." if you haven't talked to them. Call your Senator's office and tell him you don't like the DMCA, the new Senate bill "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act", the SDMI, or anything else that erodes Fair Use, closes hardware standards, or promotes the existing Music Industry Monopoly by closing off other avenues of commerce. Get people you know to do the same thing. It doesn't really take that many people to make an impression. The top priority for all Congresspeople is getting re-elected, and that means listening to both contributors (read corporations) and voters. For every phone call they get, they assume 100 or 1000 more people feel the same way but didn't call in. Even 25 phone calls to them represents something that could determine their re-election. Corporations only have all the power if you give up yours.
Contratulations on finding the most simplistic view of the world possible. Now stretch your imagination a bit. Suppose our software user IS leaving their rotten spouse for good reason. Can you think of some scenarios where our user will benefit greatly from the use of Spyware? Go ahead try it. I'll give you a hint: C U S T O D Y. I'll give you another hint: H I D D E N A S S E T S.
Lets do the math. Lets say a Spammer sends out 100,000 emails at a cost of $0.50-$20. Lets say their %0.01 hit rate gets them 10 $20 subscriptions for their effort. Thats a nice $180-199.50 profit. Now suppose they hit one Washington resident who charges them $250 in small claims court. Now the numbers are all questionable, but I think the premise that it only takes a few people using the laws to make Spamming unprofitable is valid. Right now sending spam costs next to nothing. Any fines really move the margin.
But small claims may not set precedent. So taking their money is the best you can do. If enough people do it, it works.
I thought it was a patented technology.
But he/she said EU member states' laws, not EU Law. And I think the point is that even if your company employment policy does NOT claim your IP, the Country's laws might give your employer rights to everything that isn't covered by contract.
Think twice about this. Any action against the employer (who has the law on their side) may just hurt Tilly more. Remember, from the empoyers viewpoint, Tilly did something wrong. They are going to be irritated, not persuaded by a bunch of self-righteous Open Source people crying "How dare they! How dare they lay claim to what is legally theirs!" I'm not saying their draconian employment contract isn't morally wrong, but it is apparently legal in NY.
You are quoting one fiction to claim a flaw in a theme in another fiction. Thats kind of silly isn't it.