If your goal is to/really/ spread around leaked documents for the benefit of mankind, you will find a way to do it regardless. Complaining that people aren't giving you enough money and taking down a site is simply babyish. Yes, you aren't going to become a millionaire* by doing it, but if you are/really/ doing it for the benefit of mankind, you will do it for free and find ways to make it work.
*Assuming you don't get a list of future lottery numbers or something
Except that it really does cost money to run a server, pay for bandwidth, pay for lawyers, etc.
>>>Uhhhh... That's NOT what the written contract says.
Yeah but it probably includes a clause that says XYZ Company can change the terms any time they feel like it. Your only recourse is to either accept the new terms, or terminate the service.
I appreciate the comment. makes more sense hearing it that way. Still we don't know this for sure otherwise the city probably shouldn't be suing if that was the case.
Did you even read my comment, or is your understanding of contracts just that limited? If I had said "a contract that old doesn't matter", you might have a point; but that isn't what I said.
1) I'm pointing out that the contract they signed probably has termination clauses; unless you have access to the contract to read those clauses, you have no idea whether your assessment is correct.
2) If Comcast is not getting any consideration for a contract, even if it is "the contract they signed", it is not a legal contract. I'm unaware whether this can be applied to contracts that historically conveyed consideration in both directions, but based on the tone of your comment I'll bet you don't know either.
You obviously have an axe to grind with Comcast. You may have a valid complaint against them. In the context of this discussion, I don't care if you do; how they've wronged you has nothing to do with whether they're right or wrong in this case.
Let's see here.. Start with a ad-hominum then go to they probably have termination clauses. Let's back something up here ok? Axe to grind? I don't give a shit about the company anymore. 3 years and Concast free.
I hear a lot of people saying Comcast is "ingoring the contract they signed". I'd like to hear a few more facts before jumping on that bandwagon.
The contract was pretty old. A contract with a term that long usually has termination clauses. Have you read the contract to know if it has such clauses? Do you know if Comcast exercised them properly?
Granted, if they did, and if the law on which they were relying when they decided to abandon that contract gets overturned, then they'll likely find themselves needing to negotiate a new contract with the city.
I'm no fan of most cable companies. I've not dealt with Comcast but am not impressed with their reputation. However, I don't think you can reasonably hold that they're responsible for knowing that the state law isn't valid (if indeed it isn't). I've argued the other side of that issue when there were obvious individual rights violations going on (e.g. AT&T allegedly cooperating with illegal wiretaps), but that isn't the case here.
If they assumed it was a valid law and granted them authority to operate in Detroit, then the original contract becomes superfluous to them and as a for-profit business their only option would be to try to jettison it. The only thing left to blame them for would be if their original contract really didn't have a termination clause (or they didn't follow the rules of that clause). Even then it's a murky area; if Comcast was no longer getting meaningful consideration from the contract (because what they get is something they already have - authority to operate as a momopoly in Detroit) then arguably it was no longer a valid contract.
IMO the correct course of action for Detroit would have been to challenge the law directly, then sort things out (preferably non-adversarially) with Comcast once the status of the law was determined.
Whether the contract was old or not, it was the contract signed by Concast and is in force unless there was a sunset added to the contract. The company love to pull these kind of stunts. Which is why after 3 years we still haven't gone back to them (despite the weekly advertisements we're still getting to our mail box).
In my contract the company stated we had unlimited use for a flat monthly fee. Then people started saying it was unlimited access not use. Uhhhh... That's NOT what the written contract says. But then again they have the cables and cut it for 12 months and now they want us back? After treating us like this they have some serious stones there.
I don't blame Detroit for wanting what was agreed upon in the contract. If Concast doesn't like it then they can break the contract and let Detriot take care of itself. I'm sure they have no problem with that.
.... I've never understood what goes on in the head of a net neutrality supporter who wants the government to regulate net traffic, as if the government isn't more corrupt, inept, and power-hungry than corporations.
And this is different from the cable monopolies today?
So what is the solution then? Certainly most people can't just start up their own Internet ISP from home to at least meet the needs of their community.
According to the Constitution there are rights we cannot be forced to give up because they were not given to us by men.
Wrong. The Constitution doesn't make claims about the origin of rights, nor does prevent any of them from being taken away through amendment (except the "right" to participate in the slave trade, and that only for a set period of years after the Constitution was adopted.)
You are probably confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
Ooops.. You are right. I stand corrected. My bad:-)
No CDs?? I would like to see the rule on that, that would mean you can't bring music CDs, and you might as well not have CDR disks anyway, if you can't use them while you are out. This doesn't sound legit.
Rights are meant to protect you from a corrupt government. It is your duty as an American to resist a corrupt government just as the red coats were removed from this country by force after being told to leave so much for 'violence is never the answer.' Laws that make criminals easier to catch make revolutionaries against corrupt government easier to catch and the only one interested in that are the entrenched corrupt government. Liberties are meant to defend you from your government and should NEVER be surrendered. Violent revolution adds a physical cost to corrupt governance.
According to the Constitution there are rights we cannot be forced to give up because they were not given to us by men.
But they were sure taken by force by weak minded men
Yeah, except that same helicopter (same day, before the 17min Collateral Murder vid) crew DIDN'T fire when children and other noncombatants were present
And that makes firing on a van full of civilians ok exactly how?
and watch how the military won't imprison those who fired (whether mistakenly or not) at the civilians in the video. Or imprison those who made the poor decisions to allow combat against civilians.
Out of context? I'm more than willing to hear their story ont he matter. As they are unwilling to provide the 'context' then I take it as I see it.
Something tells me that electing cops would not make them more accountable or ethical.
Good point. After all, look how well that's worked all these years with our elected officials. They still find ways of getting around those inconvenient laws.
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up. I sure blame the person who backed into my last car. Guess what she did not even come close to risking death zones in the gulf. Her insurance paid the for everything and got me a rental while my car was fixed. That is all we ask here, they fix their mess. If that means they go out of business collecting every last drop of that oil, too fucking bad for them.
These assholes cut corners, you can read all about on the news sites. The simple fact is they did this to make a quick buck and now thousands of folks are screwed, fishermen with no fish to sell, property owners with ocean front property ruined, the list goes on and on.
I have been waiting for someone to come up with a car analogy. Now I can rest grateful that it's here;-)
Cue the "privacy is dead" asshats, who for some reason are determined to purge the natural human desire for privacy that has existed since the dawn of human evolution.
You are presuming the "Privacy is dead" crowd have evolved?;-)
Let's see... as of right now, the total contributed is $1,030,536, and the total number of contributions is 113,838, making the average contribution $9.05 for a bundle of four games (5 if the people who purchased the bundle before Penumbra was added still get it).
An executive at EA just blew his nose on $1,030,536. They are not interested.
Fortunately I'm not interested in EA games (except for the Wii... Gotta have the wii version::grinz::)
This shows that the giving freedom to your customers can work. It is a momentous slap in the face to the big boys like EA and ilk.
This also shows that people won't pay very much for games if you let them decide how much they will pay, and EA is not interested in getting less money per game. They want to bang out the big number of big-budget titles that let them play up in the rarefied air where, presumably, they pay little taxes, where cities in fact will offer them deals to come to their town and employ their best and brightest.
With that said, getting money is good, and this surely provided sales that wouldn't have otherwise been made. I was too lazy to even play the goo demo for example, and I bought the bundle and downloaded goo first. Shrug.
It also demonstrated that the Linux users were willing to shell out double compared to Windows users for quality games.
And yes, I bought it and they run great under Ubuntu 10.04:D
"If piracy dropped 30% in one year, Jesus and Muhammad would come back to life and smoke a peace pipe thus ending pain and suffering all over the world."
And of course, this would be OK because cancer is caused by software piracy. Of course, those pesky pirates keep promoting the lie that it has to do with smoking.
That being the case I promise to amend my ways and delete all pirated software and replace them with Linux and Linux equivalent products. From now on, It's Linux all the way:-)
When I decided to buy the PS3, it made that choice based on the fact that I could legally run Linux on it, as well as use it for a game console. What happened to the promise in the commercials that "It does everything?" I refuse to install any update that takes away this important functionality, and will continue to use the system as a computer. I have already filed a complaint against Sony with the Federal Trade Commission. I will never buy any more games for it, and I will never buy another Sony products again. Sony you can stick it to everyone else, but you've lost this customer, and any profit that you will ever gain from me again.
Unfortunately I doubt they really care. If they piss off enough customers then yes they will do the right thing. Otherwise they will probably act like Concast did in my situation. 3 years later the company is unwilling to make things right. So we made the same decision. We could go back since the 12 month termination has ended but do we want to risk being the customer of a company that has such a shoddy record?
And if they did make it right, what is to prevent them from screwing the customer again?
I don't like it. there was a day where the FTC and the government was for the people. Now they are up for the highest bidder.
Feels like an Ebay commercial when I talk to them. Sad.
Dumbest thread topic I have seen in a long time, and an insult to those who live/have lived under true totalitarian regimes. Waah, my video game system automatically updates! I'm so oppressed!
I guess you never heard the story about a boiling pot and a frog
Never used steam myself so maybe someone can enlighten me. The video drivers for Linux are crap compared to Windows, does this mean they have some way access the hardware properly? Or does it mean you need twice the hardware to run at the Windows equivalent performance?
I haven't seen a problem. been playing Alien Arena, Urban Terror, Nexuiz and warzone 2100 for years with great results on my Nvidia cards under Linux from RedHat, Suse and now Ubuntu.
Twice the hardware? Huh? where did you get that from? Even my Wine / Crossover games like Team Fortress 2 and Counterstrike Source seem to run better under crossover games. My ping for some reason is also half of what the same connection/hardware has to the same servers under windows. No a scientific test but it was around 50% faster. Now if it can go native then I'd be switching so fast it would make your head spin:-)
"You can't comapre that to Comcast, which was forging packet contents to force P2P and high-bandwidth connections to outright drop."
True however that only came out later where as before they were 'claiming' it was network management.
You and I know however that it probably wasn't true. Concast isn't well known for being an honest company. forging packets being an example of that IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
If your goal is to /really/ spread around leaked documents for the benefit of mankind, you will find a way to do it regardless. Complaining that people aren't giving you enough money and taking down a site is simply babyish. Yes, you aren't going to become a millionaire* by doing it, but if you are /really/ doing it for the benefit of mankind, you will do it for free and find ways to make it work.
*Assuming you don't get a list of future lottery numbers or something
Except that it really does cost money to run a server, pay for bandwidth, pay for lawyers, etc.
Not to mention evading the US military ;-)
>>>Uhhhh... That's NOT what the written contract says.
Yeah but it probably includes a clause that says XYZ Company can change the terms any time they feel like it. Your only recourse is to either accept the new terms, or terminate the service.
I appreciate the comment. makes more sense hearing it that way. Still we don't know this for sure otherwise the city probably shouldn't be suing if that was the case.
Did you even read my comment, or is your understanding of contracts just that limited? If I had said "a contract that old doesn't matter", you might have a point; but that isn't what I said.
1) I'm pointing out that the contract they signed probably has termination clauses; unless you have access to the contract to read those clauses, you have no idea whether your assessment is correct.
2) If Comcast is not getting any consideration for a contract, even if it is "the contract they signed", it is not a legal contract. I'm unaware whether this can be applied to contracts that historically conveyed consideration in both directions, but based on the tone of your comment I'll bet you don't know either.
You obviously have an axe to grind with Comcast. You may have a valid complaint against them. In the context of this discussion, I don't care if you do; how they've wronged you has nothing to do with whether they're right or wrong in this case.
Let's see here.. Start with a ad-hominum then go to they probably have termination clauses. Let's back something up here ok?
Axe to grind? I don't give a shit about the company anymore. 3 years and Concast free.
I hear a lot of people saying Comcast is "ingoring the contract they signed". I'd like to hear a few more facts before jumping on that bandwagon.
The contract was pretty old. A contract with a term that long usually has termination clauses. Have you read the contract to know if it has such clauses? Do you know if Comcast exercised them properly?
Granted, if they did, and if the law on which they were relying when they decided to abandon that contract gets overturned, then they'll likely find themselves needing to negotiate a new contract with the city.
I'm no fan of most cable companies. I've not dealt with Comcast but am not impressed with their reputation. However, I don't think you can reasonably hold that they're responsible for knowing that the state law isn't valid (if indeed it isn't). I've argued the other side of that issue when there were obvious individual rights violations going on (e.g. AT&T allegedly cooperating with illegal wiretaps), but that isn't the case here.
If they assumed it was a valid law and granted them authority to operate in Detroit, then the original contract becomes superfluous to them and as a for-profit business their only option would be to try to jettison it. The only thing left to blame them for would be if their original contract really didn't have a termination clause (or they didn't follow the rules of that clause). Even then it's a murky area; if Comcast was no longer getting meaningful consideration from the contract (because what they get is something they already have - authority to operate as a momopoly in Detroit) then arguably it was no longer a valid contract.
IMO the correct course of action for Detroit would have been to challenge the law directly, then sort things out (preferably non-adversarially) with Comcast once the status of the law was determined.
Whether the contract was old or not, it was the contract signed by Concast and is in force unless there was a sunset added to the contract. The company love to pull these kind of stunts. Which is why after 3 years we still haven't gone back to them (despite the weekly advertisements we're still getting to our mail box).
In my contract the company stated we had unlimited use for a flat monthly fee. Then people started saying it was unlimited access not use. Uhhhh... That's NOT what the written contract says. But then again they have the cables and cut it for 12 months and now they want us back? After treating us like this they have some serious stones there.
I don't blame Detroit for wanting what was agreed upon in the contract. If Concast doesn't like it then they can break the contract and let Detriot take care of itself. I'm sure they have no problem with that.
.... I've never understood what goes on in the head of a net neutrality supporter who wants the government to regulate net traffic, as if the government isn't more corrupt, inept, and power-hungry than corporations.
And this is different from the cable monopolies today?
So what is the solution then? Certainly most people can't just start up their own Internet ISP from home to at least meet the needs of their community.
I know it's really hard to click a link, so I'll provide the relevant part for you:
Must.... Not... Fail....
Link... just... above.... ;-)
uuuugggggg
Wrong. The Constitution doesn't make claims about the origin of rights, nor does prevent any of them from being taken away through amendment (except the "right" to participate in the slave trade, and that only for a set period of years after the Constitution was adopted.)
You are probably confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
Ooops.. You are right. I stand corrected. My bad :-)
No CDs?? I would like to see the rule on that, that would mean you can't bring music CDs, and you might as well not have CDR disks anyway, if you can't use them while you are out. This doesn't sound legit.
what part of DHS does?
Rights are meant to protect you from a corrupt government. It is your duty as an American to resist a corrupt government just as the red coats were removed from this country by force after being told to leave so much for 'violence is never the answer.' Laws that make criminals easier to catch make revolutionaries against corrupt government easier to catch and the only one interested in that are the entrenched corrupt government. Liberties are meant to defend you from your government and should NEVER be surrendered. Violent revolution adds a physical cost to corrupt governance.
According to the Constitution there are rights we cannot be forced to give up because they were not given to us by men.
But they were sure taken by force by weak minded men
The RIAA claims that if it wasn't for those meddling Limewire, they'd made more money than the entire population and industry of Canada in a year.
OK. Let's blame Canada.
What? No car analogy? ;-)
Yeah, except that same helicopter (same day, before the 17min Collateral Murder vid) crew DIDN'T fire when children and other noncombatants were present
And that makes firing on a van full of civilians ok exactly how?
and watch how the military won't imprison those who fired (whether mistakenly or not) at the civilians in the video. Or imprison those who made the poor decisions to allow combat against civilians.
Out of context? I'm more than willing to hear their story ont he matter. As they are unwilling to provide the 'context' then I take it as I see it.
Something tells me that electing cops would not make them more accountable or ethical.
Good point. After all, look how well that's worked all these years with our elected officials. They still find ways of getting around those inconvenient laws.
Accidents are rarely accidents, someone fucked up. I sure blame the person who backed into my last car. Guess what she did not even come close to risking death zones in the gulf. Her insurance paid the for everything and got me a rental while my car was fixed. That is all we ask here, they fix their mess. If that means they go out of business collecting every last drop of that oil, too fucking bad for them.
These assholes cut corners, you can read all about on the news sites. The simple fact is they did this to make a quick buck and now thousands of folks are screwed, fishermen with no fish to sell, property owners with ocean front property ruined, the list goes on and on.
I have been waiting for someone to come up with a car analogy. Now I can rest grateful that it's here ;-)
Cue the "privacy is dead" asshats, who for some reason are determined to purge the natural human desire for privacy that has existed since the dawn of human evolution.
You are presuming the "Privacy is dead" crowd have evolved? ;-)
It also demonstrated that the Linux users were willing to shell out double compared to Windows users for quality games.
Scarcity means higher prices, perhaps? There aren't that many Linux games to begin with.
Higher price? You can pay a penny for all 6 games if you like. It's your choice.
Besides I've played world of goo the game (bought it weeks ago). And I've seen the other games. They are pretty decent :D
Let's see... as of right now, the total contributed is $1,030,536, and the total number of contributions is 113,838, making the average contribution $9.05 for a bundle of four games (5 if the people who purchased the bundle before Penumbra was added still get it).
An executive at EA just blew his nose on $1,030,536. They are not interested.
Fortunately I'm not interested in EA games (except for the Wii... Gotta have the wii version ::grinz::)
This shows that the giving freedom to your customers can work. It is a momentous slap in the face to the big boys like EA and ilk.
This also shows that people won't pay very much for games if you let them decide how much they will pay, and EA is not interested in getting less money per game. They want to bang out the big number of big-budget titles that let them play up in the rarefied air where, presumably, they pay little taxes, where cities in fact will offer them deals to come to their town and employ their best and brightest.
With that said, getting money is good, and this surely provided sales that wouldn't have otherwise been made. I was too lazy to even play the goo demo for example, and I bought the bundle and downloaded goo first. Shrug.
It also demonstrated that the Linux users were willing to shell out double compared to Windows users for quality games.
And yes, I bought it and they run great under Ubuntu 10.04 :D
"If piracy dropped 30% in one year, Jesus and Muhammad would come back to life and smoke a peace pipe thus ending pain and suffering all over the world."
And of course, this would be OK because cancer is caused by software piracy. Of course, those pesky pirates keep promoting the lie that it has to do with smoking.
That being the case I promise to amend my ways and delete all pirated software and replace them with Linux and Linux equivalent products. From now on, It's Linux all the way :-)
The Windows donations still account for more than half.
According to their real time stats, Linux donations are double the Windows donations
When I decided to buy the PS3, it made that choice based on the fact that I could legally run Linux on it, as well as use it for a game console. What happened to the promise in the commercials that "It does everything?" I refuse to install any update that takes away this important functionality, and will continue to use the system as a computer. I have already filed a complaint against Sony with the Federal Trade Commission. I will never buy any more games for it, and I will never buy another Sony products again. Sony you can stick it to everyone else, but you've lost this customer, and any profit that you will ever gain from me again.
Unfortunately I doubt they really care. If they piss off enough customers then yes they will do the right thing. Otherwise they will probably act like Concast did in my situation. 3 years later the company is unwilling to make things right. So we made the same decision. We could go back since the 12 month termination has ended but do we want to risk being the customer of a company that has such a shoddy record?
And if they did make it right, what is to prevent them from screwing the customer again?
I don't like it. there was a day where the FTC and the government was for the people. Now they are up for the highest bidder.
Feels like an Ebay commercial when I talk to them. Sad.
+1
Dumbest thread topic I have seen in a long time, and an insult to those who live/have lived under true totalitarian regimes. Waah, my video game system automatically updates! I'm so oppressed!
I guess you never heard the story about a boiling pot and a frog
What should I do, my PS3 was given to me as a present? Should I burn it? Tell me, oh wise one.
You should give it to me and I will properly dispose of it :-)
Is that legal?
Why not? concast has been doing this for years. Why couldn't another company or service do the same?
I'm not saying I agree. I don't. But if one can get away with it then what is to stop others??
Never used steam myself so maybe someone can enlighten me. The video drivers for Linux are crap compared to Windows, does this mean they have some way access the hardware properly? Or does it mean you need twice the hardware to run at the Windows equivalent performance?
I haven't seen a problem. been playing Alien Arena, Urban Terror, Nexuiz and warzone 2100 for years with great results on my Nvidia cards under Linux from RedHat, Suse and now Ubuntu.
Twice the hardware? Huh? where did you get that from? Even my Wine / Crossover games like Team Fortress 2 and Counterstrike Source seem to run better under crossover games. My ping for some reason is also half of what the same connection/hardware has to the same servers under windows. No a scientific test but it was around 50% faster. Now if it can go native then I'd be switching so fast it would make your head spin :-)
"You can't comapre that to Comcast, which was forging packet contents to force P2P and high-bandwidth connections to outright drop."
True however that only came out later where as before they were 'claiming' it was network management.
You and I know however that it probably wasn't true. Concast isn't well known for being an honest company. forging packets being an example of that IMO.