Pollution and energy wastage isn't inherent in raising animals to eat - just in certain forms of it. Ranching cattle in areas unsuitable for raising common crops, for example. On the other hand, the raising of pretty much any crop results in the death of some animals, whether by insecticide, destruction of habitat, or harvesting.
Yeah, parents aren't allowed to "authorize" someone to buy it. But they can buy it themselves, and screen it for their children. Whether or not that's technically against the law is dubious - the law's framed around cinemas and stores. But to my knowledge, there has never been even an attempt to interpret it that way in a court case, nor any prosecution of a parent for screening a film for their child under that law.
No, what its saying is that if the content is sufficiently tame, anyone can buy it, and if it's over a certain threshold, under 18s need parental permission. Sounds fine to me. Kids can vary greatly in maturity in the 13 - 17 bracket, and the people in the best position to judge are their parents. This puts the responsibility for those cases onto the parents, which is where it should always have been in the first place
Uhh, so does the R rating. Not having an MA just shifts the boundaries, it doesn't change the fundamental system. Without an MA rating, that material will probably just get bumped into the R18 class, relegating it to "parental decision". MA15+ is always problematic, because validating age is harder. At 18, people will often have at least their learners permit, or else age cards for them to get into bars/clubs which also have the same 18-year limit. At 15, kids generally don't have any reliable ID, and aren't likely to go get one specifically to buy a game.
Originally, this was designed to protect consumers. If you bought a Ford car, you knew who you were buying it off - nobody else could whip up a car, whack Ford on it, and flog it to customers who thought they were getting an actual Ford.
Since then, it's changed. Personally, I think trademark law should be changed, so that only consumers can bring suit against violators.
I read the Sydney Morning Herald; not a tabloid, but you wouldn't know it with some of the stories it runs. If it's an Australian newspaper, it's either going to be the Herald (broadsheet) or the Telegraph (tabloid). You may get the odd Australian (business broadsheet) in there too.
The outage made headlines today, after Sony announced the data leak. The outage, prior to that, I hadn't heard a peep about.
So what you're saying is that the enthusiast community are a bunch of entitled dicks?
No, you're thinking of Sony, who believe they're entitled to disable your system after they sold it to you.
Do what we say or we'll hose your entire business workflow? Isn't that bullying?
Well, yeah, it would be, if anyone had actually said that instead of you just stuffing words into their mouths.
Assuming the console hack theory pans out, what happened was a side-effect of Sony being a dick, not a direct response. While OtherOS was available, people were happy using it. Once it was disabled, they had to go outside of the box in order to find a way to get their system working again. Which revealed a backdoor that other, less scrupulous users were able to use.
Besides, where has it been shown and proven that the PSN break-in was conducted on a compromised console?
Nowhere. Hence the claimed in the title of this story.
The CFW thing was about getting freebies, not users personal details.
Actually, the CFW was about reclaiming your own system, and the features it had when you bought it. The fact that it circumvented copy protection mechanisms is likewise a side-effect, and another one that Sony could have avoided by not being a dick. Now, most people who download it might use it for copy protection circumvention (and more power to them - they're probably the only ones who can play downloaded content now that the PSN's down) but the people who wrote it only did so after OtherOS was removed, and their stated intention was to restore that functionality.
Actually, one of the most widely-used translations of the Bible (NIV) is under copyright. It seems they can copyright particular translations, if not the original text.
by the hordes of people who seem to think that Apple is somehow more powerful in the world of computing than Microsoft
It was a little less than a year ago when Apple fanboys were busily proclaiming that Apply had overtaken MS in market cap
or that they are "more evil" than MS has ever been
They've got different target markets. MS is evil in its business dealings, Apple specializes in anti-consumer evilness.
about half of them swear they've never used a mac or iDevice in their lives yet they are experts on the subject...
Because they generally aren't complaining about specific implementation issues (other than laughing at antenna issues) so much as the company's attitude and mindset, which you don't need to own a device to know about.
On the other hand, even with nothing but rumour and unconfirmed speculation, it's still out-performing traditional media on this topic. I haven't even heard of the outage on Australian media; it's hard to hear anything over the clamour the newsies are making over the royal shindig.
Uh, he said what he'd prefer it to be spent on right there in the middle of his post. You would have seen it if you weren't so busy trying to inject politics into the debate, or engage in vendor proselytization.
He's missing a word or two. Try reading it this way:
It might just be that green (chloroplast) is useful to plants because it (uses) the right wavelength for efficient photosynthesis with the sun's light.
If you read the rest of his post, it's obvious he's talking about the colour of the chloroplast, not the wavelength of light it absorbs
Meh, and I think people that believe copyright is the way things ought to be are brainwashed by the status quo, and lack the imagination or intellect to think beyond the current circumstances.
Things spread "virally" all the time. Someone tells a joke, which someone repeats to a friend. Should they go back and pay the originator a shiny nickel for the privilege? The only reason we think they should when it comes to books and music is that we've artificially commoditized those things via legislation. Jump back only a handful of generations, and musicians, writers and artists wanted their work copied. They were paid by their patrons to create, and the more widely their work was recognised (ie: viciously stolen and copied) the more likely they were to attract a more generous patron.
Lack of attribution is a subset of copyright - it involves you copying it and passing the copy off as your own. People intrinsically see this as wrong - as opposed to copying, which is intuitively (and naturally) moral. It's only when you get governments handing out artificial monopolies that it becomes problematic. The fact that people's first reaction to defending themselves against copyright is to explicitly include attribution shows what people in general consider to be the most important - and the disjunction between the people's idea of morality and that of the legislators.
I get the usual Idiocracy "you're a fag and your shit's all retarded"
Well, that's what you get for participating in YouTube comments.
I think it goes to show people do understand copyright - at least, they understand the moral premise that copyright should be based on, which is the right to be identified as the author of a work.
No, the summary's title was about an "Awesome Button", and the first sentence mentioned an "awesome hardware hack". The focus of the summary (if not the article) was definitely on how awesome the hack was (not very).
If the title of the summary was "Build Your Own USB HID" or "Basic Arduino Tutorial", you might have a point.
just that they were temporarily suspended for the particular instance, and then put right back in place
As an educated bible believer, I don't believe that. God doesn't "temporarily suspend the laws of gravity", any more than we do when we use heavier than air aircraft.
Exclude that middle much? If your hypothesis isn't testable, it just means it's not science; it doesn't make it religion. It could also make it history, politics, literary theory, or a slew of other non-science, non-religion areas of endeavor. Also, not being scientific doesn't make it wrong; it just means you can't use science to demonstrate the validity of the hypothesis.
It doesn't presume anything about rights. It simply shows what happens in this scenario - whether she has the "right" to obtain the content or not, she is going to use alternative methods if the market doesn't serve her wants. This is the creation of a black market - and it happens in any scenario where the legitimate market fails to serve the wants of the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
Pollution and energy wastage isn't inherent in raising animals to eat - just in certain forms of it. Ranching cattle in areas unsuitable for raising common crops, for example. On the other hand, the raising of pretty much any crop results in the death of some animals, whether by insecticide, destruction of habitat, or harvesting.
Yeah, parents aren't allowed to "authorize" someone to buy it. But they can buy it themselves, and screen it for their children. Whether or not that's technically against the law is dubious - the law's framed around cinemas and stores. But to my knowledge, there has never been even an attempt to interpret it that way in a court case, nor any prosecution of a parent for screening a film for their child under that law.
No, what its saying is that if the content is sufficiently tame, anyone can buy it, and if it's over a certain threshold, under 18s need parental permission. Sounds fine to me. Kids can vary greatly in maturity in the 13 - 17 bracket, and the people in the best position to judge are their parents. This puts the responsibility for those cases onto the parents, which is where it should always have been in the first place
Uhh, so does the R rating. Not having an MA just shifts the boundaries, it doesn't change the fundamental system. Without an MA rating, that material will probably just get bumped into the R18 class, relegating it to "parental decision". MA15+ is always problematic, because validating age is harder. At 18, people will often have at least their learners permit, or else age cards for them to get into bars/clubs which also have the same 18-year limit. At 15, kids generally don't have any reliable ID, and aren't likely to go get one specifically to buy a game.
A CMS is not on the same scale as SAP. Not even remotely close. By multiple orders of magnitude. CMS is really a very simple problem domain.
Originally, this was designed to protect consumers. If you bought a Ford car, you knew who you were buying it off - nobody else could whip up a car, whack Ford on it, and flog it to customers who thought they were getting an actual Ford.
Since then, it's changed. Personally, I think trademark law should be changed, so that only consumers can bring suit against violators.
I read the Sydney Morning Herald; not a tabloid, but you wouldn't know it with some of the stories it runs. If it's an Australian newspaper, it's either going to be the Herald (broadsheet) or the Telegraph (tabloid). You may get the odd Australian (business broadsheet) in there too.
The outage made headlines today, after Sony announced the data leak. The outage, prior to that, I hadn't heard a peep about.
The first Diablo was actually originally developed as turn-based. It was converted to real-time relatively late in its development cycle.
So what you're saying is that the enthusiast community are a bunch of entitled dicks?
No, you're thinking of Sony, who believe they're entitled to disable your system after they sold it to you.
Do what we say or we'll hose your entire business workflow? Isn't that bullying?
Well, yeah, it would be, if anyone had actually said that instead of you just stuffing words into their mouths.
Assuming the console hack theory pans out, what happened was a side-effect of Sony being a dick, not a direct response. While OtherOS was available, people were happy using it. Once it was disabled, they had to go outside of the box in order to find a way to get their system working again. Which revealed a backdoor that other, less scrupulous users were able to use.
Besides, where has it been shown and proven that the PSN break-in was conducted on a compromised console?
Nowhere. Hence the claimed in the title of this story.
The CFW thing was about getting freebies, not users personal details.
Actually, the CFW was about reclaiming your own system, and the features it had when you bought it. The fact that it circumvented copy protection mechanisms is likewise a side-effect, and another one that Sony could have avoided by not being a dick. Now, most people who download it might use it for copy protection circumvention (and more power to them - they're probably the only ones who can play downloaded content now that the PSN's down) but the people who wrote it only did so after OtherOS was removed, and their stated intention was to restore that functionality.
Ha, yeah right. Disclosing to Sony that found a flaw in their system is likely to get you the exact same treatment as Geohot.
Actually, one of the most widely-used translations of the Bible (NIV) is under copyright. It seems they can copyright particular translations, if not the original text.
by the hordes of people who seem to think that Apple is somehow more powerful in the world of computing than Microsoft
It was a little less than a year ago when Apple fanboys were busily proclaiming that Apply had overtaken MS in market cap
or that they are "more evil" than MS has ever been
They've got different target markets. MS is evil in its business dealings, Apple specializes in anti-consumer evilness.
about half of them swear they've never used a mac or iDevice in their lives yet they are experts on the subject...
Because they generally aren't complaining about specific implementation issues (other than laughing at antenna issues) so much as the company's attitude and mindset, which you don't need to own a device to know about.
This whole "new media" thing is unconvincing.
On the other hand, even with nothing but rumour and unconfirmed speculation, it's still out-performing traditional media on this topic. I haven't even heard of the outage on Australian media; it's hard to hear anything over the clamour the newsies are making over the royal shindig.
Uh, he said what he'd prefer it to be spent on right there in the middle of his post. You would have seen it if you weren't so busy trying to inject politics into the debate, or engage in vendor proselytization.
Netbooks.
He's missing a word or two. Try reading it this way:
It might just be that green (chloroplast) is useful to plants because it (uses) the right wavelength for efficient photosynthesis with the sun's light.
If you read the rest of his post, it's obvious he's talking about the colour of the chloroplast, not the wavelength of light it absorbs
Who cares about whether it motivates or demotivates. The question is - is it true? Cynicism is only bad insomuch as it doesn't reflect reality.
Banking is. What bankers do now isn't
Meh, and I think people that believe copyright is the way things ought to be are brainwashed by the status quo, and lack the imagination or intellect to think beyond the current circumstances.
Things spread "virally" all the time. Someone tells a joke, which someone repeats to a friend. Should they go back and pay the originator a shiny nickel for the privilege? The only reason we think they should when it comes to books and music is that we've artificially commoditized those things via legislation. Jump back only a handful of generations, and musicians, writers and artists wanted their work copied. They were paid by their patrons to create, and the more widely their work was recognised (ie: viciously stolen and copied) the more likely they were to attract a more generous patron.
Lack of attribution is a subset of copyright - it involves you copying it and passing the copy off as your own. People intrinsically see this as wrong - as opposed to copying, which is intuitively (and naturally) moral. It's only when you get governments handing out artificial monopolies that it becomes problematic. The fact that people's first reaction to defending themselves against copyright is to explicitly include attribution shows what people in general consider to be the most important - and the disjunction between the people's idea of morality and that of the legislators.
I get the usual Idiocracy "you're a fag and your shit's all retarded"
Well, that's what you get for participating in YouTube comments.
I think it goes to show people do understand copyright - at least, they understand the moral premise that copyright should be based on, which is the right to be identified as the author of a work.
Yeah, just like Big Tony didn't threaten to burn down Joe's Bar. He just asked him if he wanted some insurance. Joe could have said no.
No, the summary's title was about an "Awesome Button", and the first sentence mentioned an "awesome hardware hack". The focus of the summary (if not the article) was definitely on how awesome the hack was (not very).
If the title of the summary was "Build Your Own USB HID" or "Basic Arduino Tutorial", you might have a point.
just that they were temporarily suspended for the particular instance, and then put right back in place
As an educated bible believer, I don't believe that. God doesn't "temporarily suspend the laws of gravity", any more than we do when we use heavier than air aircraft.
Exclude that middle much? If your hypothesis isn't testable, it just means it's not science; it doesn't make it religion. It could also make it history, politics, literary theory, or a slew of other non-science, non-religion areas of endeavor. Also, not being scientific doesn't make it wrong; it just means you can't use science to demonstrate the validity of the hypothesis.
It doesn't presume anything about rights. It simply shows what happens in this scenario - whether she has the "right" to obtain the content or not, she is going to use alternative methods if the market doesn't serve her wants. This is the creation of a black market - and it happens in any scenario where the legitimate market fails to serve the wants of the consumer.