Who cares if you can do it legally or not. There's nothing immoral or unethical about doing it, and nobody's going to catch you, so what pathetic DRM exists on DVDs is truly not a hindrance to exercising your fair use rights in this case.
So, in other words, it's incredibly convenient for the content creator, user-be-damned.
Yes, yes, you said that Flash is ubiquitous, meaning it's not a hassle for the user to install. But who cares. I'm using a web browser, and it recognizes HTML and displays images without any additional installation on the part of the user, so Flash is no easier on the user than just plain HTML.
The problem is that Flash generally contributes to web cruft, making it harder for the user to get what he wants: information. Now, this isn't necessarily Flash's fault. It's just a tool, like a gun or a Robot 1-X. But people use it wrong, and that's why people like me go to extra efforts to avoid it.
Flash is really good for two things: (1) interactive content and (2) well-synchronized animation and sound requiring low bandwidth. That's great. In particular situations, I'll fire up my old IE (which still has Flash capabilities on my machine) to view a particular Flash crapplet that has a funny animation or an interesting interactive interface (like a web-based game). But 90% of the Flash out there is used for (3) site navigation. For the love of init, why?! This is, literally, what HTML was born for, yet webbastards continue churning out sites where there's only one URL, and the rest of the site is locked up in some colossal Flash crapplet that doesn't present any more information than a regular HTML design could provide, but has tons more fancy animations. It's like the blink tag for the third millennium.
I realize your friend is probably a die-hard Flash fanatic, but I hope you'll share with him a line borrowed from another industry whose product is often abused: "Please, Flash responsibly!"
If I could pay $2 per episode for content that was guaranteed to be ad-free, DRM-free (or free enough that it doesn't hinder my fair use efforts), persistent (meaning it doesn't get deleted out from under me), and included added-value content like commentaries and behind-the-scenes features, I would.
Oh wait, it's called buying it on DVD.
And until these newfangled methods of obtaining TV can provide what those shiny coasters can provide, I'll stick with buying the shows I want to watch repeatedly on DVD, and PVRing the ones I only want to see once.
would seem to indicate that RMT is now an acceptable part of Massive gaming
Bullshit. SOE and Sigil just opened the servers for Vanguard today, and the EULA/TOS forbids you (not surprisingly) from selling in-game stuff for RL cash. They also have a huge blurb in there where you agree not to sue them if they change things in-game such that your supposed investment tanks in value.
Compare this to Ohio, where a movie theater owner can detain you for having a video camera turned on anywhere in the building. Doing a local news expose on health conditions at the concession stand? Busted. Testing out a video camera in the local Wal-Mart, where a movie is being shown on the demo TVs? Busted. And better yet, it's a first-degree misdemeanor on the first offense, and a felony each time after that.
Won't any trained adversary prepare for this, deal with their discomfort, concentrate on not dropping their weapon, take a knee and shoot the operator of this "discomfort" causing weapon?
Perhaps you underestimate the amount of pain caused by this device. Also, it's supposed to be vehicle mounted, which makes it a lot harder to kneecap the operator.
Any legislation will hurt the ability of people to innovate.
Not true. The regional broadband duopolies can do far more to hamstring innovation than net neutrality legislation would*. For example, with net neutrality, anybody is free to innovate in the fields of VoIP and VoD. But if the broadband companies had their druthers, they'd be the only providers of those services to their customers. How does that help innovation?
* Yes, it's possible to craft legislation that would do more to hamstring innovation and then label it "net neutrality", but then, at its core, it wouldn't strictly be net neutrality legislation.
The problem with your statement is that operators of so-called "small websites" - i.e., non-notable ones - attempt to list their sites on Wikipedia in an effort to become notable. Talk about advertorializing - and talk about putting the cart before the horse. Make your website noteworthy on its own merits, and then come to Wikipedia to write about it.
For that matter, it would also catch people who had bought the stock as a legitimate (though probably poor) investment months or years ago and have had a pending limit order in place the whole time, one which finally got filled by coincidence during the pump.
Make sure you read the other responses to your post very carefully. They could save you thousands of dollars.
Also, keep in mind that a large part of why pump-and-dump works for the spammers is because they have already created their position in the stock before they pump it. If you are buying stock on the day it gets pumped, there is a good likelihood that you are already buying it from the spammer. In any event, you aren't going to make as much money as they are from the deal, and you expose yourself to more risk than they are, because the price at which they established their position was secured without competition from other buyers (i.e., victims of the scam), a luxury you don't have access to.
I don't see why people can't just do their research on well-established companies on the major exchanges and stick with the fundamentals. You can still make a lot of money that way, and with a lot less risk.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I included video in "(2) well-synchronized animation and sound requiring low bandwidth".
.flvs I want to watch to my hard drive and then view them in a standalone FLV player.
On a side note, I generally download the
"G'zOne" is not an electronic device, it is a name for a freaking Klingon.
Hip College-Age Guy on TV Commercial: Dude, you're getting an OoGhiJ MIQtxxXA!
Some contest sponsors provide a check to cover taxes, but that income is also taxable.
Fortunately, this series eventually converges to values small enough to lose it amid the rounding error on your taxes.
Who cares if you can do it legally or not. There's nothing immoral or unethical about doing it, and nobody's going to catch you, so what pathetic DRM exists on DVDs is truly not a hindrance to exercising your fair use rights in this case.
So, in other words, it's incredibly convenient for the content creator, user-be-damned.
Yes, yes, you said that Flash is ubiquitous, meaning it's not a hassle for the user to install. But who cares. I'm using a web browser, and it recognizes HTML and displays images without any additional installation on the part of the user, so Flash is no easier on the user than just plain HTML.
The problem is that Flash generally contributes to web cruft, making it harder for the user to get what he wants: information. Now, this isn't necessarily Flash's fault. It's just a tool, like a gun or a Robot 1-X. But people use it wrong, and that's why people like me go to extra efforts to avoid it.
Flash is really good for two things: (1) interactive content and (2) well-synchronized animation and sound requiring low bandwidth. That's great. In particular situations, I'll fire up my old IE (which still has Flash capabilities on my machine) to view a particular Flash crapplet that has a funny animation or an interesting interactive interface (like a web-based game). But 90% of the Flash out there is used for (3) site navigation. For the love of init, why?! This is, literally, what HTML was born for, yet webbastards continue churning out sites where there's only one URL, and the rest of the site is locked up in some colossal Flash crapplet that doesn't present any more information than a regular HTML design could provide, but has tons more fancy animations. It's like the blink tag for the third millennium.
I realize your friend is probably a die-hard Flash fanatic, but I hope you'll share with him a line borrowed from another industry whose product is often abused: "Please, Flash responsibly!"
That's why I said
Around here, there's only room for one Starbucks per intersection, what with all the CVSes, Walgreenses, and Rite-Aids in the way.
If I could pay $2 per episode for content that was guaranteed to be ad-free, DRM-free (or free enough that it doesn't hinder my fair use efforts), persistent (meaning it doesn't get deleted out from under me), and included added-value content like commentaries and behind-the-scenes features, I would.
Oh wait, it's called buying it on DVD.
And until these newfangled methods of obtaining TV can provide what those shiny coasters can provide, I'll stick with buying the shows I want to watch repeatedly on DVD, and PVRing the ones I only want to see once.
would seem to indicate that RMT is now an acceptable part of Massive gaming
Bullshit. SOE and Sigil just opened the servers for Vanguard today, and the EULA/TOS forbids you (not surprisingly) from selling in-game stuff for RL cash. They also have a huge blurb in there where you agree not to sue them if they change things in-game such that your supposed investment tanks in value.
Compare this to Ohio, where a movie theater owner can detain you for having a video camera turned on anywhere in the building. Doing a local news expose on health conditions at the concession stand? Busted. Testing out a video camera in the local Wal-Mart, where a movie is being shown on the demo TVs? Busted. And better yet, it's a first-degree misdemeanor on the first offense, and a felony each time after that.
t ers0304.htm
Other states have similarly ridiculous laws:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/tape-in-thea
Unfortunately, most APs don't have a 30,000 foot range.
It's also really tough to see warchalking from that altitude.
It is a pity then that the modern penny is actually made of zinc with just coat of copper.
This is true, but it was also established in the OP that the copper jacket is sufficient to make the US penny worth more than one US cent.
Copper is valuable enough that thieves are routinely stealing it wherever they can get it, even if that means taking live phone wires.
So what's next, Femto-ZTX? Eventually, they're gonna run out of prefixes.
And what's worse, your computer will be small enough to swallow, while the power supply will require a forklift to move it around.
It amuses me that the link "non-partisan vote" in the OP goes to a page whose title is "The Maine Senate Democrats".
Bah! If I want to play Wii games, I have to buy a Wii. Outlaw the Wii.
Surveyor: Have you illegally downloaded a full-length movie?
Random Individual: (nervously) Um.... no?
Without more details as to how this study was conducted, we really have no clue whether these results are reasonable or not.
Won't any trained adversary prepare for this, deal with their discomfort, concentrate on not dropping their weapon, take a knee and shoot the operator of this "discomfort" causing weapon?
Perhaps you underestimate the amount of pain caused by this device. Also, it's supposed to be vehicle mounted, which makes it a lot harder to kneecap the operator.
Fry: Eeee! Now say nuclear wessels!
If people would quit stretching their damn strings when they cut them, we wouldn't have this problem.
Any legislation will hurt the ability of people to innovate.
Not true. The regional broadband duopolies can do far more to hamstring innovation than net neutrality legislation would*. For example, with net neutrality, anybody is free to innovate in the fields of VoIP and VoD. But if the broadband companies had their druthers, they'd be the only providers of those services to their customers. How does that help innovation?
* Yes, it's possible to craft legislation that would do more to hamstring innovation and then label it "net neutrality", but then, at its core, it wouldn't strictly be net neutrality legislation.
The problem with your statement is that operators of so-called "small websites" - i.e., non-notable ones - attempt to list their sites on Wikipedia in an effort to become notable. Talk about advertorializing - and talk about putting the cart before the horse. Make your website noteworthy on its own merits, and then come to Wikipedia to write about it.
For that matter, it would also catch people who had bought the stock as a legitimate (though probably poor) investment months or years ago and have had a pending limit order in place the whole time, one which finally got filled by coincidence during the pump.
Make sure you read the other responses to your post very carefully. They could save you thousands of dollars.
Also, keep in mind that a large part of why pump-and-dump works for the spammers is because they have already created their position in the stock before they pump it. If you are buying stock on the day it gets pumped, there is a good likelihood that you are already buying it from the spammer. In any event, you aren't going to make as much money as they are from the deal, and you expose yourself to more risk than they are, because the price at which they established their position was secured without competition from other buyers (i.e., victims of the scam), a luxury you don't have access to.
I don't see why people can't just do their research on well-established companies on the major exchanges and stick with the fundamentals. You can still make a lot of money that way, and with a lot less risk.
They would have sued the abusers, but incarcerated sex offenders aren't known for their deep pockets.
Ba dum bum.