Actually, given such high stakes, a company's legal department might be inclined to challenge the legitimacy of EULAs and/or click-through agreements. We can hope, anyway.
Maybe. But Uncle Joe's Game Shop isn't exactly a large business, nor will it be replaced by an overseas business. Money spent on miniatures will stay, if not in the same local area, at least within the United States, since Games Workshop is based in the United States. It might impact the economy of, say, Canada--but not in any measurable sense.
Actually, there're probably two chief factors: First, if the Navy personnel are trained from manuals that are as outdated as the ones I was trained from just three years ago, they may well consider 512MB drives to still be huge. Second, their evaluation sounds better if they can make a "multi-gigabyte drive" sound like a big number.
And propping up a business model that can't compete on its own is good for the economy? What a load of baloney.
Yeah, I'd feel for the guy who can't stay in business because of competition, but I don't feel like I'd owe him anything. If he can't compete, he needs to get out. Throwing good money after bad would be a worse course of action, I would think.
What happens if you don't go platinum on that first album? Who eats that debt? The artist can declare bankruptcy, but the label is stuck with whatever cost they put into the artist.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to try and defend the RIAA; but at least try and keep some perspective on at least some of the reasoning behind their practices.
And why is this "utter filth," as you say? Maybe it is, but without offering supporting opinion on why it's filth, how can anybody agree with your view?
What if this guy spoke harshly about the government, would you feel the same?
If he was an abortion doctor would he feel the same?
If he was a communist would you feel the same?
Nice try, but that's not a valid analogy. Which of those three groups you mentioned makes money by violating my privacy rights?
Not only that--but because Slashdot sells advertising space on the pages that contain a link to the site, Slashdot actually makes money from what is effectively a denial-of-service attack.
One of these days, someone's going to do more than post a webpage saying, "Slashdot sucks." They're going to hire a lawyer. Then we'll see story caches, I'm sure!
These folks are still being caught and fired for their actions, however. I'd say that, on par, the American journalistic community does as good a job watching itself as it does watching the American government.
There may be a dozen routers between your router and the final destination of that communication that perform the same function your router does, but clearly, none of those are endpoints either.
At my router, the message leaves the Internet topology altogether. The message from my ISP stops at my router, which let's say has the address 62.65.160.84. Once my router receives the message, the internet portion of the transmission is done. What the router does with the data after that is irrelevant, or should be, as far as the ISP is concerned. Their pipes are no longer carrying the data--mine are.
What this boils down into is property rights. Think of the cellphone tower and the voice relay the same way: the message is not under my control until it has reached a receiving device (my phone). Once it has reached that receiving device, however, I can do with the message as I please--encrypt it, decrypt it, forward it to my friends, whatever. I can do this using the same phone, or, if I own a second phone, I could conceivably even relay the data from one phone directly to the other. The point is, it's out of the telco's hands.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Governor Huckabee of Arkansas. The current governor of Alabama is Bob Riley; and before him it was Don Siegleman.
But don't worry - I wouldn't give a shit who ran Alabama, either, if I didn't have to live here.
Actually, Google goes further than you think. You just have to know how to search.
Hah. If only making a Slashdot post were any indication of legitimacy. . .
Actually, given such high stakes, a company's legal department might be inclined to challenge the legitimacy of EULAs and/or click-through agreements. We can hope, anyway.
Maybe. But Uncle Joe's Game Shop isn't exactly a large business, nor will it be replaced by an overseas business. Money spent on miniatures will stay, if not in the same local area, at least within the United States, since Games Workshop is based in the United States. It might impact the economy of, say, Canada--but not in any measurable sense.
Actually, there're probably two chief factors: First, if the Navy personnel are trained from manuals that are as outdated as the ones I was trained from just three years ago, they may well consider 512MB drives to still be huge. Second, their evaluation sounds better if they can make a "multi-gigabyte drive" sound like a big number.
And propping up a business model that can't compete on its own is good for the economy? What a load of baloney.
Yeah, I'd feel for the guy who can't stay in business because of competition, but I don't feel like I'd owe him anything. If he can't compete, he needs to get out. Throwing good money after bad would be a worse course of action, I would think.
If they do, why hasn't Amazon sued them yet? :)
Have mercy! Us geeks have enough competition already without creating more!
Rule #1: You do not talk about the IRS.
Rule #2: You do not talk about the IRS.
Right! Michiganders are sure to freely surrender their right to privacy if it means less spam!
Just because a horribly-conceived law has a positive side-effect, doesn't mean it's not still a horribly-conceived law.
What happens if you don't go platinum on that first album? Who eats that debt? The artist can declare bankruptcy, but the label is stuck with whatever cost they put into the artist.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to try and defend the RIAA; but at least try and keep some perspective on at least some of the reasoning behind their practices.
What is this, "See how many sites we can slashdot in one story" day? :)
Are you saying this should have gone in the size-doesn't-matter department?
But what, exactly, are you signing just by clicking "I agree"? That little button looks nothing like my legal signature.
Hell yes! Until now, all we could do was assume their code resembled Italian pasta. . . but now they've gone and removed all doubt!
And why is this "utter filth," as you say? Maybe it is, but without offering supporting opinion on why it's filth, how can anybody agree with your view?
Are you sure he didn't become a Microsoft executive? :)
What if this guy spoke harshly about the government, would you feel the same?
If he was an abortion doctor would he feel the same?
If he was a communist would you feel the same?
Nice try, but that's not a valid analogy. Which of those three groups you mentioned makes money by violating my privacy rights?
Not only that--but because Slashdot sells advertising space on the pages that contain a link to the site, Slashdot actually makes money from what is effectively a denial-of-service attack.
One of these days, someone's going to do more than post a webpage saying, "Slashdot sucks." They're going to hire a lawyer. Then we'll see story caches, I'm sure!
These folks are still being caught and fired for their actions, however. I'd say that, on par, the American journalistic community does as good a job watching itself as it does watching the American government.
And in the meantime, the enemy's already thought of an alternative name: enhanced CD.
Ohh, the doublespeak. Ohh, the irony! . . .oh, well, I had better things to do with my money anyway.
. . .Which makes far more sense than monitoring the flights from Pensacola Beach, even if Pensacola Beach was far more comfortable. :)
Which is all well and good, since let's face it, you weren't really getting all that much "security" anyway.
There may be a dozen routers between your router and the final destination of that communication that perform the same function your router does, but clearly, none of those are endpoints either.
At my router, the message leaves the Internet topology altogether. The message from my ISP stops at my router, which let's say has the address 62.65.160.84. Once my router receives the message, the internet portion of the transmission is done. What the router does with the data after that is irrelevant, or should be, as far as the ISP is concerned. Their pipes are no longer carrying the data--mine are.
What this boils down into is property rights. Think of the cellphone tower and the voice relay the same way: the message is not under my control until it has reached a receiving device (my phone). Once it has reached that receiving device, however, I can do with the message as I please--encrypt it, decrypt it, forward it to my friends, whatever. I can do this using the same phone, or, if I own a second phone, I could conceivably even relay the data from one phone directly to the other. The point is, it's out of the telco's hands.