Point me at one source that suggests ever in the history of mankind that million dollar deals were sealed with handshakes. I've never heard of a man dumb enough to trust people's handshake for more than a million dollars.
And you cannot blame lawyers for the people whom employ them. That sort of unreasonable bias towards lawyers is just bitterness on the part of people who aren't educated about actual lawyers. There are unscrupulous lawyers, of course, just like there are unscrupulous people in every walk of life. That sort of generalization is just ignorant and childish.
Yeah, except Thoreau was totally wrong. The mistake occurs at the point where you say "[the law abiding] don't need to be coerced to do good". That's just wrong. There are plenty of situations where the laws exist to essentially inform the good-intentioned of how they're going to have to behave to do good. The simple example is the complexity of contract law, which provides people with instructions on entering an enforceable contract [while uneducated laymen would generally fail to write enforceable documents]. Other examples include laws which require things like taxes [which good people may not want to pay, but sitll need to].
The better way to understand what Thoreau is saying is to view it in terms of the Aristotilian division of types of men: Angelic men (i.e. those whose impulses are to do only good, and whose reasons for acting are to do only good) don't need laws. Temperate men (i.e. those whose impulses are to do some bad things, but whose reason overwhelms it and means they still do only good) need laws to help them perform that reasoning. Intemperate men (i.e. those whose impulses are to do some bad things and whose reason fails to keep them from doing at least some of those bad things) need laws to help them try to do good, even if they fail. Bestial men (i.e. those who have bad impulses and bad deeds, with no attempt to do otherwise) don't need law, since they don't care.
As I understand the original poster, this is what he's saying:
The Walkman couldn't be killed, because it was so solidified in its paradigm as the standard. The iPod, however, broke that paradigm and replaced it with its own, thereby 'killing' the walkman. Similarly, the iPod is the standard in its paradigm, so until a device sufficiently breaks the paradigm, its going to be hte standard.
How is this funny? Have you been to Oakley's site in the past twenty years? I carry Splices, which are awesome, but you'll note among other things the very nerd-happy Thumps they just released [w/ Lil' John's endorsement], as well as the also nerd-happy fact that Juliets were used as Cyclops' shades in the x-men movies, and Romeos were used in MI and MI:2.
Minidiscs are magnetic-read drives, whereas the UMD is an optical drive. The latter, I believe, draw more energy, as well as being more succeptible to read errors (thus requiring more energy for error correction).
Well, the PSP has a better screen (both in resolution, size and aspect ratio), is significantly faster and more powerful (featuring PS2 ports from the get-go with full true 3d as opposed to n64 graphics on the DS), is aesthetically MUCH more pleasing, is more hackable (thanks to the fact that its got USB interface built in, including using that as a firmware upgrade vector according to the developers)...sounds like comeptition to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not tossing my GBA SP, but I'm not even thinking about buying a DS but I'm debating the PSP.
Its worth noting, of course, that the PSP uses Memory Stick Magic Gate media for its memory cards (which has the added benefit of being hooked up via USB to a computer for backing up your saves, etc.).
You're missing the point: most of us carry at least one or two devices the size [or smaller] of the PSP, that either cost more or are worth more (my phone, for example, only cost around $100, but is WORTH way more, since it has all my contact info, etc.). I, for example, carry a 30g ipod, my oakleys (around $150), my phone, often a GBA SP (if I've got my backpack), plus my laptop if i'm going to/from law school. I've never lost one of these, so why am I suddenly so likely to lose the PSP?
Actually, I think it'd be hard to prove that the main purpose is for pirating, considering the large number of people who hack their xboxes, etc. to use as media servers, etc.
You completely misunderstood your parent post. They were quoting a reference that indicating that firmware updates could be delivered either via MemStick Duo or through the USB cable. Nothing was said about loading the firmware through the discs...
No, you're being intentionally daft, which means you're a troll. Clearly, the point was that since there are precisely zero legal means to possess GTA: SA at this point, if you possess it then you must have stolen it. There is no reasonable way to interpret this to suggest that after the legal release of the game, that possession of it will be criminal.
Actually, you can still see that in the new DVD versions, and Lucas has also added a sound effect for it. That's mentioned on the DVDAnswers page for ep. 4.
You seem to be misunderstanding what malicious means. In the system of trademarks, it means this: if you have information which you believe in good faith, you can present it employing my trademark (i.e. using the McDonald's name in an article). However, if you are demonstrably not acting in good faith (i.e. if you're intending malicious harm, or know the claims to be false, etc.) then you are not privileged to use my trademark.
Note that malicious means the following: "Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful: malicious gossip." (Dictionary.com).
Also note the following: Lucent sued Lucentsucks.com for trademark infringement, but lost because the parody content of the site prevented confusion as to whether the legal trademark owner was the owner of the site lucentsucks.com. In the instant case, there is intentional and obvious confusion created by this infringement upon the plaintiff's trademark. That's the distinction: the key violation of trademark is the attempt to dillute the power of the mark through confusion as to the nature of that mark, or its owner.
Nothing is 'definately ethically wrong'. Things are ONLY ever ethically wrong within the scope of an ethical system, and so the description of something as wrong is only true insofar as that system extends. If people don't adopt your ethos, there is no meaningful way in which to argue the case (i.e. you must agree on the hypothesis of what makes something generally right or wrong, before you can debate whether something in particular is right or wrong).
This was my point: depending on your assumptions about ethics (in a very fine-toothed way, i.e. whether reasonably predictable results should be understood as accepted results) you could go either way on this.
"While Microsoft is a trademark, (morally speaking, I'm not talking about actual laws here) this only gives MS the right to prevent other people trying to use their name to make a profit based on their reputation."
You're mistaken. The trademark also allows them to prevent people from using their mark to intentionally and maliciously cause them harm.
While I don't agree with it, I think there is an interesting argument that this isn't morally wrong (I dont say it isn't dubious, since obviousy it is debateable whether its right or wrong, i.e. dubious): look at it this way, politics is about pragmatics, at least in the campaigning. That's why Bush is talking about flip-flopping instead of jobs lost, and why Kerry is talking about Iraq instead of how he's actually going to fund his programs. Its been this way for quite some time. Isn't it possibly reasonable that a politician, entering the arena this far into the game, should anticipate such moves, and [as suggested] move preemptively?
As a disclaimer, I said I don't agree with this argument, but I think it's interesting at least insofar as it poses sociological and moral questions about something we find deeply important to society as a whole, i.e. free speach.
Just a small quibble: you can say there's no such thing as intellectual property all you want, but countless cases quite explicitly refer to trademarks, copyrights and patents as such. Not to mention the fact that they're taught as such in law school.
I think its time to stop protesting the phrase "intellectual property" and just start dealing with the actual law...
Uh, no. The ability of individuals to contract between each other [as protected by the 10th amendment's empowering of the individual states] specifically prohibits slavery [or more accurately, involuntary servitude] while priviliging the waiving of other rights (such as right to access, etc.).
You're just taking an extreme example which has repeatedly been discussed in court [and codified by law] and making it out to be representative of the situation. You're being inflammatory (hear me mods?) and doing so without contributing anything to the conversation.
You're apparently not aware of what unconscionable means in a legal context. You mistakenly say that the bnetd developers couldn't leave the contract, implying that there's something wrong with that: no one can ever leave a contract, except by (a) completion of the duties involved or (b) breach of the agreements therein. The bnetd developers left by breach of contract, but the price of breach of contract is damages. Alternately, they could have destroyed their copy of the software, and left by completion of duties (i.e. by terminating the reciprocal duties engaged in the contract, the contract is completed).
Its that many people would find this house to be an eye-sore, in particular the dilbert tower. Many if not most people in the world want houses around them to look like the same style as their own house, or at least a complementary style so that (a) they don't have to be faced every day with something they find unattractive and (b) when they sell, they wont face the prospect of trying to convince someone that the idiot's house next door isn't too unpleasant to look at.
Look at it this way, there are two groups of replies to this:
The Slashdot Crowd...
They're going to demand support for all of the Ogg contained codecs.
They're going to demand no drm, even optionally, so while you'll probably see AAC as a general format, you wont see fair-play.
You'll see the classic mp3, of course.
The price is going to have to be far less than 99c, since so many people here resent all things associated with the Apple store. I'm thinking what, 30 pence will please you guys?
The Normal Crowd... For everyone else, you know what the perfect music store would be? The iTunes music store with basically a few additions:
There should be some ability to purchase at least some songs (i.e. certain classical pieces) at a higher bitrate.
There should be the ability to purchase files for more than one player, so that may mean something like WMA.
There's probably more, but I think these are the key points...
Not really a fanatic...its the distinction between the word disc (which derives from discus) and disk (which derives from diskette). The fact that their modern, shortened forms are homophones shouldn't mean that people who recognize that they're not homonyms are fanatic...
Slashdot Mirror
Point me at one source that suggests ever in the history of mankind that million dollar deals were sealed with handshakes. I've never heard of a man dumb enough to trust people's handshake for more than a million dollars.
And you cannot blame lawyers for the people whom employ them. That sort of unreasonable bias towards lawyers is just bitterness on the part of people who aren't educated about actual lawyers. There are unscrupulous lawyers, of course, just like there are unscrupulous people in every walk of life. That sort of generalization is just ignorant and childish.
Yeah, except Thoreau was totally wrong. The mistake occurs at the point where you say "[the law abiding] don't need to be coerced to do good". That's just wrong. There are plenty of situations where the laws exist to essentially inform the good-intentioned of how they're going to have to behave to do good. The simple example is the complexity of contract law, which provides people with instructions on entering an enforceable contract [while uneducated laymen would generally fail to write enforceable documents]. Other examples include laws which require things like taxes [which good people may not want to pay, but sitll need to].
The better way to understand what Thoreau is saying is to view it in terms of the Aristotilian division of types of men: Angelic men (i.e. those whose impulses are to do only good, and whose reasons for acting are to do only good) don't need laws. Temperate men (i.e. those whose impulses are to do some bad things, but whose reason overwhelms it and means they still do only good) need laws to help them perform that reasoning. Intemperate men (i.e. those whose impulses are to do some bad things and whose reason fails to keep them from doing at least some of those bad things) need laws to help them try to do good, even if they fail. Bestial men (i.e. those who have bad impulses and bad deeds, with no attempt to do otherwise) don't need law, since they don't care.
Its 3/4th of a mile long, that's why its 85 bucks.
As I understand the original poster, this is what he's saying:
The Walkman couldn't be killed, because it was so solidified in its paradigm as the standard. The iPod, however, broke that paradigm and replaced it with its own, thereby 'killing' the walkman. Similarly, the iPod is the standard in its paradigm, so until a device sufficiently breaks the paradigm, its going to be hte standard.
How is this funny? Have you been to Oakley's site in the past twenty years? I carry Splices, which are awesome, but you'll note among other things the very nerd-happy Thumps they just released [w/ Lil' John's endorsement], as well as the also nerd-happy fact that Juliets were used as Cyclops' shades in the x-men movies, and Romeos were used in MI and MI:2.
Seriously, we need a test for moderators...
Minidiscs are magnetic-read drives, whereas the UMD is an optical drive. The latter, I believe, draw more energy, as well as being more succeptible to read errors (thus requiring more energy for error correction).
Well, the PSP has a better screen (both in resolution, size and aspect ratio), is significantly faster and more powerful (featuring PS2 ports from the get-go with full true 3d as opposed to n64 graphics on the DS), is aesthetically MUCH more pleasing, is more hackable (thanks to the fact that its got USB interface built in, including using that as a firmware upgrade vector according to the developers)...sounds like comeptition to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not tossing my GBA SP, but I'm not even thinking about buying a DS but I'm debating the PSP.
Its worth noting, of course, that the PSP uses Memory Stick Magic Gate media for its memory cards (which has the added benefit of being hooked up via USB to a computer for backing up your saves, etc.).
You're missing the point: most of us carry at least one or two devices the size [or smaller] of the PSP, that either cost more or are worth more (my phone, for example, only cost around $100, but is WORTH way more, since it has all my contact info, etc.). I, for example, carry a 30g ipod, my oakleys (around $150), my phone, often a GBA SP (if I've got my backpack), plus my laptop if i'm going to/from law school. I've never lost one of these, so why am I suddenly so likely to lose the PSP?
Actually, I think it'd be hard to prove that the main purpose is for pirating, considering the large number of people who hack their xboxes, etc. to use as media servers, etc.
You completely misunderstood your parent post. They were quoting a reference that indicating that firmware updates could be delivered either via MemStick Duo or through the USB cable. Nothing was said about loading the firmware through the discs...
Come on, they're children! How refined were your fine-motor skills at age seven?
Actually, Minila is extremely similar to Godzuki, as I understand it. A pic of Minila is on the website linked to in the post.
No, you're being intentionally daft, which means you're a troll. Clearly, the point was that since there are precisely zero legal means to possess GTA: SA at this point, if you possess it then you must have stolen it. There is no reasonable way to interpret this to suggest that after the legal release of the game, that possession of it will be criminal.
Actually, you can still see that in the new DVD versions, and Lucas has also added a sound effect for it. That's mentioned on the DVDAnswers page for ep. 4.
You seem to be misunderstanding what malicious means. In the system of trademarks, it means this: if you have information which you believe in good faith, you can present it employing my trademark (i.e. using the McDonald's name in an article). However, if you are demonstrably not acting in good faith (i.e. if you're intending malicious harm, or know the claims to be false, etc.) then you are not privileged to use my trademark.
Note that malicious means the following: "Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful: malicious gossip." (Dictionary.com).
Also note the following: Lucent sued Lucentsucks.com for trademark infringement, but lost because the parody content of the site prevented confusion as to whether the legal trademark owner was the owner of the site lucentsucks.com. In the instant case, there is intentional and obvious confusion created by this infringement upon the plaintiff's trademark. That's the distinction: the key violation of trademark is the attempt to dillute the power of the mark through confusion as to the nature of that mark, or its owner.
Nothing is 'definately ethically wrong'. Things are ONLY ever ethically wrong within the scope of an ethical system, and so the description of something as wrong is only true insofar as that system extends. If people don't adopt your ethos, there is no meaningful way in which to argue the case (i.e. you must agree on the hypothesis of what makes something generally right or wrong, before you can debate whether something in particular is right or wrong).
This was my point: depending on your assumptions about ethics (in a very fine-toothed way, i.e. whether reasonably predictable results should be understood as accepted results) you could go either way on this.
"While Microsoft is a trademark, (morally speaking, I'm not talking about actual laws here) this only gives MS the right to prevent other people trying to use their name to make a profit based on their reputation."
You're mistaken. The trademark also allows them to prevent people from using their mark to intentionally and maliciously cause them harm.
While I don't agree with it, I think there is an interesting argument that this isn't morally wrong (I dont say it isn't dubious, since obviousy it is debateable whether its right or wrong, i.e. dubious): look at it this way, politics is about pragmatics, at least in the campaigning. That's why Bush is talking about flip-flopping instead of jobs lost, and why Kerry is talking about Iraq instead of how he's actually going to fund his programs. Its been this way for quite some time. Isn't it possibly reasonable that a politician, entering the arena this far into the game, should anticipate such moves, and [as suggested] move preemptively?
As a disclaimer, I said I don't agree with this argument, but I think it's interesting at least insofar as it poses sociological and moral questions about something we find deeply important to society as a whole, i.e. free speach.
Just a small quibble: you can say there's no such thing as intellectual property all you want, but countless cases quite explicitly refer to trademarks, copyrights and patents as such. Not to mention the fact that they're taught as such in law school.
I think its time to stop protesting the phrase "intellectual property" and just start dealing with the actual law...
Uh, no. The ability of individuals to contract between each other [as protected by the 10th amendment's empowering of the individual states] specifically prohibits slavery [or more accurately, involuntary servitude] while priviliging the waiving of other rights (such as right to access, etc.).
You're just taking an extreme example which has repeatedly been discussed in court [and codified by law] and making it out to be representative of the situation. You're being inflammatory (hear me mods?) and doing so without contributing anything to the conversation.
You're apparently not aware of what unconscionable means in a legal context. You mistakenly say that the bnetd developers couldn't leave the contract, implying that there's something wrong with that: no one can ever leave a contract, except by (a) completion of the duties involved or (b) breach of the agreements therein. The bnetd developers left by breach of contract, but the price of breach of contract is damages. Alternately, they could have destroyed their copy of the software, and left by completion of duties (i.e. by terminating the reciprocal duties engaged in the contract, the contract is completed).
Its that many people would find this house to be an eye-sore, in particular the dilbert tower. Many if not most people in the world want houses around them to look like the same style as their own house, or at least a complementary style so that (a) they don't have to be faced every day with something they find unattractive and (b) when they sell, they wont face the prospect of trying to convince someone that the idiot's house next door isn't too unpleasant to look at.
Look at it this way, there are two groups of replies to this:
The Slashdot Crowd...
They're going to demand support for all of the Ogg contained codecs.
They're going to demand no drm, even optionally, so while you'll probably see AAC as a general format, you wont see fair-play.
You'll see the classic mp3, of course.
The price is going to have to be far less than 99c, since so many people here resent all things associated with the Apple store. I'm thinking what, 30 pence will please you guys?
The Normal Crowd...
For everyone else, you know what the perfect music store would be? The iTunes music store with basically a few additions:
There should be some ability to purchase at least some songs (i.e. certain classical pieces) at a higher bitrate.
There should be the ability to purchase files for more than one player, so that may mean something like WMA.
There's probably more, but I think these are the key points...
Not really a fanatic...its the distinction between the word disc (which derives from discus) and disk (which derives from diskette). The fact that their modern, shortened forms are homophones shouldn't mean that people who recognize that they're not homonyms are fanatic...