More like, funny that they're now harassing the one group with the power to STOP them from abusing the system once and for all. It's like a Dickens character asking, "Please sir, may I have more regulation?"
Re:Although I think racing is a waste of resources
on
Hack This, Please
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Exactly. I don't see why people (companies, consumers, Senators, etc) don't understand that hacking\modding an X-Box is effectively NO different than modding a car. It baffles me when, on one hand, Congress keeps passing laws to protect small garages and prevent auto manufacturers from locking down hoods, and simultaneously on the other, they pass restrictive laws to prevent any consumer from ever so much as thinking about modifying a piece of electronics.
Well, not ENTIRELY baffled. It's about stupidity and money. But in principle I'm baffled.
If your toaster becomes deliberately (by the manufacturer) "hackable" then they can no longer have those big warnings that tinkering with the device voids the warranty,
Um... no. It's not like this article was literally talking about slapping a "hack me please!" sticker on the box. It's talking about things like not going out of your way to sue\harass people who DO hack the product and talk about it. Or, from an engineering standpoint, not attempting to lock every component behind locks and doors to keep people from tinkering.
It's still quite possible to keep the same basic policies about not supporting modified hardware, without having to go on a Microsoft-like rampage against those who hack. Just look at the whole story of Lego Mindstorm vs LegOS. In the end, all they did was ask the creator of LegOS to change the name of the product and make it more clear it wasn't official.
As I see it, it's just like cars. No one - well, no one but the spectacularly stupid - is going to, say, install a nitro system in their car and then expect the engine warranty to be valid when they blow it up. I would wager *most* people understand that at the point they open something up and start mechanically altering it, they know that they're not going to get official support.
If the journalist spends X dollars, but ends up saving the public 1000X dollars, it is definitely worth it.
Your willingness to spend $2,500 of someone else's money in the name of the public good is quite heartening.
Fascinating troll... Despite overwhelming evidence that the man was untrustworthy, not to mention the fact that he ignored requests for a demo machine to review, you don't think their opinion is valid unless they willingly PAY HIM his outrageous prices just to get their hands on a machine? That's an excellent way of deterring crime, giving money to the scammers, don't you think?
Actually, yes. Thanks to them assigning minor moons the names of deities, they've pretty much run out of Roman gods, Greek alternates, and have even put a pretty good dent in the Norse pantheon.
Do NONE of the companies that he allegedly pirated from have offices in Australia? No official presence at all? If they do, why are they not simply suing him in Australian civil courts?
pretend this guy was cybersexing your prepubescent sister, (etc etc etc)
You do realize, this is one of the weakest arguments you can possibly make. "Forget all intellectual arguments, precedent, centuries of commonlaw. If this happened to YOU, you'd want him hung! So it's OK to hang him!"
Try giving a few of us the benefit of the doubt that we DO value the system and won't automatically join the lynch mob at the first chance. Or, failing that, how about the idea that the entire purpose of having *impartial* judicial systems is to make sure that the victims DON'T turn into blindly self-serving mobs?
Theatre has always relied on the audience to "go with it" in terms of special effects. You just do something which sort of symbolically represents the effect (stab someone between the side and arm, they drop a red handkerchief, and suddenly flights of angels are speeding Hamlet home) and that's it. As far as a vanishing "effect", I'd just give Frodo a cloak he can pull over himself; then everyone else just acts like they can't see him.
Go play the Genny StarCon sometime. It was rushed into production with no code optimization, and runs far slower than the PC version. If I play it in an emulator, I have to tell it to run at about twice speed to get the same performance.
I'd love to try the cart on an actual OCed Genny like this guy has.
The article is rather fuzzy on who said what on EB's side, but it certainly sounds like corporate (or whoever the "spokesman" worked for) was just as uncaring as the store itself.
The truly demented part was EB informing the woman that *she* has to sue the thief for restitution. This appears to be nothing less than a ploy to attempt to de facto rewrite property law in this regard. The onus is on THEM to sue the thief, as he committed fraud in selling them stolen property. And they would win, easily, given the Confession. He would probably just agree to hand over the money rather than even show up in court over it. That they're not taking that route can only suggest that they are attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility, and in the process, alter a few centuries of commonlaw.
And, in the larger scheme, why not? This has to happen all the time. How many people write down the serial numbers of their gaming equipment, just on the off chance it gets stolen and pawned? Given their often-outrageous used prices, they must turn quite a tidy profit nationwide through turning a blind eye to stolen goods. And doing anything that causes them to assume responsibility for the goods would only hurt their profit margins.
So, institute a hands-off policy where they assume no culpability at all, and put all responsibility for legal action upon the person who was stolen from. The number of people who would actually manage to sue them would be comparatively tiny. (especially considering most would just sue in small claims court, and not even dream of launching a multi-year legal fight over a $100 PS2.)
Good point, but the distinction is that she did it in Good Faith. Her sole purpose in registering the domain as she did was to express her displeasure with the company, with what appeared to be a valid complaint about the way they did business. Which means her Free Speech rights trump their trademark.
Conversely, had she been selling "Lucas Nursery Sucks!" T-Shirts, or had provably falsified the complaint, then she would've been acting in bad faith (out to either profit through bashing them, or engaging in slander) and therefore would have lost the case.
Wow, someone likes my.sig. Mainly I get flamed for it.:-)
You point out the major argument that the Trademarked Powers were making. They were saying that the proliferation of (Company)Sucks.com sites was cutting into their market share by keeping people from seeing their official sites. This decision basically says, "Tough. Free Speech means you too can get shouted down."
It's not entirely legal, per se, as it's never really been tested. (AFAIK & IANAL) Many publications will back down rather than face a court battle from a major power, since even if they won, it would be a phyrric victory.
And that, in turn, leads us right back to the current problem with our legal system, which is that, "He who has the money, wins."
Certain powers were attempting to twist trademark law into, essentially, outlawing negative speech about their products. They were just fighting it in the realm of the Internet, a place regarding which the courts can make very silly decisions, due to their misunderstanding of it.
Now we just need a judgement striking down "Thou shalt not speak badly of us," terms in EULAs, which have been used to intimidate publications into not running negative reviews.
I haven't heard of this case. Could someone post (or link to) a summary?
That excerpt sounds like they're holding AOL responsible for the actions of its users, based on AOL having a bad e-mail address listed. Which sounds insane, so there must be more going on...
Slashdot Mirror
More like, funny that they're now harassing the one group with the power to STOP them from abusing the system once and for all. It's like a Dickens character asking, "Please sir, may I have more regulation?"
Well, not ENTIRELY baffled. It's about stupidity and money. But in principle I'm baffled.
Um... no. It's not like this article was literally talking about slapping a "hack me please!" sticker on the box. It's talking about things like not going out of your way to sue\harass people who DO hack the product and talk about it. Or, from an engineering standpoint, not attempting to lock every component behind locks and doors to keep people from tinkering.
It's still quite possible to keep the same basic policies about not supporting modified hardware, without having to go on a Microsoft-like rampage against those who hack. Just look at the whole story of Lego Mindstorm vs LegOS. In the end, all they did was ask the creator of LegOS to change the name of the product and make it more clear it wasn't official.
As I see it, it's just like cars. No one - well, no one but the spectacularly stupid - is going to, say, install a nitro system in their car and then expect the engine warranty to be valid when they blow it up. I would wager *most* people understand that at the point they open something up and start mechanically altering it, they know that they're not going to get official support.
...who's just laughing his head off and thinks no commentary of any kind is really needed?
If the journalist spends X dollars, but ends up saving the public 1000X dollars, it is definitely worth it. Your willingness to spend $2,500 of someone else's money in the name of the public good is quite heartening.
Fascinating troll... Despite overwhelming evidence that the man was untrustworthy, not to mention the fact that he ignored requests for a demo machine to review, you don't think their opinion is valid unless they willingly PAY HIM his outrageous prices just to get their hands on a machine? That's an excellent way of deterring crime, giving money to the scammers, don't you think?
Actually, yes. Thanks to them assigning minor moons the names of deities, they've pretty much run out of Roman gods, Greek alternates, and have even put a pretty good dent in the Norse pantheon.
It was only something like 1,400 klicks across, if memory serves. So this new find does at least have the distinction of being substantially larger.
Do NONE of the companies that he allegedly pirated from have offices in Australia? No official presence at all? If they do, why are they not simply suing him in Australian civil courts?
You do realize, this is one of the weakest arguments you can possibly make. "Forget all intellectual arguments, precedent, centuries of commonlaw. If this happened to YOU, you'd want him hung! So it's OK to hang him!"
Try giving a few of us the benefit of the doubt that we DO value the system and won't automatically join the lynch mob at the first chance. Or, failing that, how about the idea that the entire purpose of having *impartial* judicial systems is to make sure that the victims DON'T turn into blindly self-serving mobs?
Theatre has always relied on the audience to "go with it" in terms of special effects. You just do something which sort of symbolically represents the effect (stab someone between the side and arm, they drop a red handkerchief, and suddenly flights of angels are speeding Hamlet home) and that's it. As far as a vanishing "effect", I'd just give Frodo a cloak he can pull over himself; then everyone else just acts like they can't see him.
Ok, short version:
SNES - slow as hell processor, makes up for it with specialized GFX and Sound chips.
Genny - Faster processor, better memory usage, but fewer colors onscreen and no built-in scaling and rotation.
But really, if you aren't running NeoGeo, you're eating squirrel burgers. ;-)
Go play the Genny StarCon sometime. It was rushed into production with no code optimization, and runs far slower than the PC version. If I play it in an emulator, I have to tell it to run at about twice speed to get the same performance.
I'd love to try the cart on an actual OCed Genny like this guy has.
Nope, sorry. Although I've got family out in west Texas, so they're probably relatives.
The truly demented part was EB informing the woman that *she* has to sue the thief for restitution. This appears to be nothing less than a ploy to attempt to de facto rewrite property law in this regard. The onus is on THEM to sue the thief, as he committed fraud in selling them stolen property. And they would win, easily, given the Confession. He would probably just agree to hand over the money rather than even show up in court over it. That they're not taking that route can only suggest that they are attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility, and in the process, alter a few centuries of commonlaw.
And, in the larger scheme, why not? This has to happen all the time. How many people write down the serial numbers of their gaming equipment, just on the off chance it gets stolen and pawned? Given their often-outrageous used prices, they must turn quite a tidy profit nationwide through turning a blind eye to stolen goods. And doing anything that causes them to assume responsibility for the goods would only hurt their profit margins.
So, institute a hands-off policy where they assume no culpability at all, and put all responsibility for legal action upon the person who was stolen from. The number of people who would actually manage to sue them would be comparatively tiny. (especially considering most would just sue in small claims court, and not even dream of launching a multi-year legal fight over a $100 PS2.)
It all makes a rather sad sense.
Conversely, had she been selling "Lucas Nursery Sucks!" T-Shirts, or had provably falsified the complaint, then she would've been acting in bad faith (out to either profit through bashing them, or engaging in slander) and therefore would have lost the case.
Verisign, obviously. :-)
You point out the major argument that the Trademarked Powers were making. They were saying that the proliferation of (Company)Sucks.com sites was cutting into their market share by keeping people from seeing their official sites. This decision basically says, "Tough. Free Speech means you too can get shouted down."
It's not entirely legal, per se, as it's never really been tested. (AFAIK & IANAL) Many publications will back down rather than face a court battle from a major power, since even if they won, it would be a phyrric victory.
And that, in turn, leads us right back to the current problem with our legal system, which is that, "He who has the money, wins."
No, because then you would be acting in bad faith, which the quote you selected specifically says she was not. Troll harder next time.
Certain powers were attempting to twist trademark law into, essentially, outlawing negative speech about their products. They were just fighting it in the realm of the Internet, a place regarding which the courts can make very silly decisions, due to their misunderstanding of it.
Now we just need a judgement striking down "Thou shalt not speak badly of us," terms in EULAs, which have been used to intimidate publications into not running negative reviews.
Thanks all! :-)
That excerpt sounds like they're holding AOL responsible for the actions of its users, based on AOL having a bad e-mail address listed. Which sounds insane, so there must be more going on...
I'm certainly hoping his mystery project is the movie.
Why is it there's going to be a Firefly film, but still no Babylon 5 movie?