If you leave a box of goodies outside your house, you may be asking for trouble, but you're not accepting responsibility for someone stealing it.
Okay, let's talk about the box of goodies. Let's say you leave a box of weapons outside with full knowledge that a neighborhood kid will probably find it and will likely use the contents for something illegal. If that happens, do you think you are partially responsible for whatever happens?
Before you jump all over me for such a hyperbole of an analogy, no, I don't equate running an insecure machine with handing out a small arsenal to the neighborhood kids. But I think you might be able to see my point given so many peoples' reactions of "What kind of parent leaves a gun where a kid can get it?" seemingly whenever a video game violence article is posted.
Take note of the bold text in the first paragraph. It's key to my point. If that box of weapons was in a place that you could reasonably assume wouldn't be accessible by the hypothetical gunman, I wouldn't place any blame on you, the owner.
So no, you're not responsible for other's actions, they are, don't be stupid.
You're exactly right - you aren't responsible for others' actions. In this case, you'd be liable for your irresponsible action.
Don't think I'm calling for honeypot operators to be arrested for setting out some bait. I think it's fine. In fact, I think it's a good addition to a security infrastructure. But dropping something insecure out in the open with full knowledge that it will probably be compromised and then likely used for undesireable activities isn't responsible.
Perhaps I should have made that point more clear initially.
Amazing. Even after you made your millions from underground African money transfers, you still find time to post to Slashdot. What character! I can see why Igwe Emanuel thought you good enough to do business with.
I, on the other hand, will be out of here as soon as the transaction is complete. So long, suckers!
If you do this, are you willing to be responsible if someone hijacks the machine and uses it to commit illegal/unethical acts? I know, it's unlikely that this would happen, but knowingly putting an open machine online with the intention of having it compromised is asking for trouble. It's one thing to not know any better, but it's another to be apathetic to the situation.
Re:How about a GC to buy her legal copies?
on
RIAA PR Efforts Examined
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Someone should raise money to buy her a gift certificate to her local music store to buy legal CDs of all the music she had to delete.
Yes, fill the RIAA's war chest some more!
How about showing the girl that there are plenty of great artists that allow some or all of their music to be traded freely? Educate her on how Britney Spears and her cohorts are manufactured by the same music industry that came after her, only to make money. Show her how artists like the ones she was probably downloading and sharing have come and gone, only to be replaced by some newer fad, and all to continue to fill the industry's already deep pockets.
Obviously I don't expect a 12 year old to understand all of that. Arguing over musical tastes with somebody is pointless. But the remedy to problems like this is not to buy more pop garbage, but rather to introduce people to alternatives to RIAA-backed crap.
1. How do you know the physical copy is the original? The data undoubtedly came from a computer and who is to say where it was first published? And so what if it is the "original?" The content is the same.
I suppose "original" is a bit of a misnomer in this case. "The copy for which I am licensed to read" might work better. Anyway, the same sort of thing applies to the compact disc case. Sure, when you buy a CD you don't necessarily know for sure that it's licensed properly, but I think you can reasonably assume that (given that there are no apparent copyright violations, like buying a Britney Spears CD on a NYC street corner).
2. People that read your dead tree version but didn't pay for it are copying the copyrighted content from the paper into their brain. Using your logic, you must assume responsibility for this, as you didn't make enough of an effort to prevent it and it is unauthorized duplication and distribution.
There's still no difference between giving somebody your CD to listen to. The day the RIAA wants to sue me for lending a CD to a friend, I'll eat my words and buy your argument.
The point I'm making is that copyright needs to be reexamined in the digital age. How are libraries going to be able to exist if this nonsense keeps up?
That's partially true, but I don't think the spirit of copyright law needs to change much just because of emerging technology.
If that's the case, you'd better guard the dead tree version as well if you have it. Don't leave it on your kitchen table, on the patio or at the laundromat. People that didn't pay for it should not be allowed to view it.
The RIAA isn't coming after people who leave their CDs laying around where someone else might be able to listen to them. I don't think your analogy quite works, as we're now dealing with transmission of the original, physical copy.
More over, remember the people being sued are NOT being sued for dowloading but for sharing.
Suing for downloading would be tough. I have downloaded many MP3s for which I own the CD, purely for convenience.
The point is, the people being sued may not have stolen anything at all and not intended to help anyone steal.
They might not have infringed on copyrights themselves, but by allowing others to download from them, they've opened themselves up to the lawsuit.
If every morning, I made a copy of the Wall Street Journal (to which I hypothetically subscribe) and published it on my website for my own viewing pleasure, I should be obligated to make reasonably sure that unauthorized users can't view it. I should not be able to leave it out in the open with the excuse that "Maybe everybody accessing it is a legitimate WSJ subscriber."
You should get a partial tuition refund if you don't use Windows, and thus the university's IT doesn't have to worry about you.
Since when does using Linux mean IT doesn't have to worry about you? A friend of mine set up a Linux box a few years ago. ITS showed up at his office and shut his computer down because it was (unintentionally) DDoSing the DHCP server.
I'm a Linux user as well, but I certainly don't think that it solves all problems. Should knowledgeable Windows users who keep their systems patched receive a tuition discount too? And students who use more than their share of network resources, should they pay more?
Because it's not more profitable. I don't mean to be insulting, but any time I hear (or read) somebody complain about the high price of CDs, I wonder if they have considered what makes up the price of a product. The cost to produce said product certainly plays a role. With regards to the big music labels, they're paying for the costs of the unsuccessful investments with profits from the successful ones, not to mention advertising. This has been rehashed many times, so I'm sure you're familiar with it.
But the main cost driver has to do with what people will pay. Why would a capitalistic organization sell a product for less than a price that will maximize profits? Let's put aside ethical considerations here (e.g. a pharmacuetical company developing a cure for cancer and pricing it unrealistically), because I don't think it's wrong to charge $18 for something like a CD. I am certain that all major labels have a team of marketing professionals who price their products for maximum profitability.
Don't get me wrong, I won't argue that record labels behave ethically, I simply don't have a problem with pricing CDs as high as they like. Sure, you could argue that there are some monopolistic issues, but I don't think they're so great that it's anything the free market can't sort out.
I agree, a line of lenses geared towards digital cameras would be ideal. I don't think Canon offers enough non-L lenses, although there's always Sigma and a few other smaller manufacturers to fill that void. An effective 35-200mm lens with a relatively large aperture would be a perfect walkaround lens. If it's a good performer and priced around $500, I have to think that every Canon-using amateur enthusiast would want one. But that would be a 22-125mm lens, and knowing the current costs of Canon's wide-angle stuff, I'm sure such a lens would be closer to four figures.
To be honest, if it was Canon or Nikon who came out with the same camera that Sony did, it might sway my decision. The Coolpix 5700 is close, but not quite there. I'm still on the fence (buy now or wait?), but I think I'll end up with the 10D, a 50mm f/1.8, and a 28-135 IS.
nyah, nyah, don't forget the focus multiplier (the 10D is not a full frame camera) so in order to go down to 28mm you have to get a 20-40mm (reasonable price, discontinued and hard to find) a 17-35 (discontinued, still very expensive) or a 16-35 (in production, prepare yourself to take a loan).
Well, to be technical, a 20-40mm would effectively be 31.8-63.6mm (with the 1.59 multiplier), so you still wouldn't get down to 28mm. I was looking for a single lens that would come closest to covering the Sony's range. If one exists, I'm not aware of it. The 28-135 (44.5-214.7mm) seems to be closest, although that's a pretty significant gap on the wide-angle end.
The Zeiss 28-200 equiv on the sony seems to be a really nice lens (even if I'd like to wait for Phil's full review with tests etc.) and there's no way you could get that range on the 10D without buying a 28-135 + an extra wide zoom.
I agree, and it makes the Sony tempting to those who don't need super wide-angle or long telephoto. Still, I think I'll go with the 10D.
The 10D is a great camera for the price, but readers should note that the $1499 MSRP is for the body only. Lenses must be purchased seperately. I read the article on the Sony a few days ago so I can't remember the focal length specs, but to get something similar on the Canon would require a serious cash outlay for lenses. In fact, I don't think there's a single Canon-mount lens that will cover that range. The EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens might be closest, and is considered a bargain at around $500 - and that's inexpensive as far as lenses go. Most likely two lenses would be required to cover the Sony's focal length, and a good pair will run around $2500.
I should disclaim, I don't even own a 10D, although I plan to. I currently have a Powershot S400 because I need a small point-and-shoot, but I also want a full-featured camera for serious (albeit amateur) photography.
Well, the range for a $5 table is usually $5-$500, from what I've seen, but that's still just seven bets until you're no longer able to continue with your system. Of course, you can always get up and go to a higher-limit table and continue where you left off, but neither my heart nor my bankroll can handle that. I seem to recall that the $25 minimum tables had a $5000 maximum the last time I was at the casino. Even with that, if you lose ten hands in a row, you can no longer double your bet within the limits of the table (close, but not quite). And experienced blackjack players will tell you that losing 10 hands in a row is not uncommon. And that's not factoring in splits and doubles.
In the long run, the Martingale will fail unless you have the bankroll and high enough table limits available... and the guts to put down several thousand dollars to win back $5.
I owned a 48GX, but sold it and upgraded to the 49G when it came out. I still regret it.
The 49G had some great features (equation writer, CAS, as you mentioned), but the thing didn't compare to the 48GX in feel. To this day I still mis-punch a key or double-punch one. The keypad is nowhere near as good as the 48GX. The screen on the 49G scratches easily, and the slip-over hard case sucks compared to the nice zippered pouch of the 48 series.
And while the 49G managed to get me an A in Calculus I, I still don't understand the material as well as I should. I definitely relied on it too much. But, I'm not an engineer any more, so I can't justify switching calculators again.
Both parties are pro-rich. Otherwise, Lieberman wouldn't be in the pocket of Arthur Anderson, Daschle wouldn't be in the pocket of the airline industry, etc.
I think it was Jon Stewart on the Daily Show who said something to the effect of, "Lieberman is for Republicans who think Bush isn't Jewish enough."
On the other hand, voting for a third-party candidate tells the two major party candidates that they'll have to adjust their policy in order to capture those votes.
Looking at this page, the race for popular votes was close in many states, like New Mexico and Missouri. Nader grabbed a few percent (roughly) in each case. He took 10% in Alaska. If I were a political scientist for a major candidate analyzing this or primary data, I would probably suggest a shift to the left in a few key areas (such as privacy rights, environmental standards, etc.).
However, had all the third-party voters chosen to go with the lesser of two evils and vote within the two major parties, how would those parties know that voters with differing views existed?
Can I watch DVDs on this machine with my HDTV (after some hacks to enable progressive-scan)?
This isn't exactly relevant to your post, but the Xbox is horrible when it comes to DVD playback. I have a 3+ year old Pioneer DV-525 that blows it away. I find the picture that the Xbox produces, even with component video and nice cables, is unacceptable for anything other than casual viewing. If I want to actually sit down and watch a movie, I'll use the DVD player. The Xbox is so bad, I considered returning the $30 DVD playback kit.
That said, I love playing games on my Xbox, and I think it's reasonably priced for what you get.
You're either "land of the free", or you are not. So either live up to the hype, or change the tagline. Can't have it both ways, with a closed society fueled on fear, claming to be "free".
That's a huge oversimplification. I wouldn't even respond to such a troll had some ill-informed moderators not decided to mod it up to a 5 and make it the first comment on the page.
Ideally, information becomes classified when the benefits of the information being publicly available are less than the dangers of that availability. Here at the university where I work, when I need to get a list of students in my department, I can't just call up and request it. I have to be authorized to have it. In that case, the extra day it takes to get the information is justified because we don't want just anybody to have access to that sort of information.
On the flip side, we have the Freedom of Information Act. It has been decided that certain information should be available to the public without such restrictions. In this case, the public benefit outweighs the negative aspects of the FOIA.
To suggest that the "land of the free" entails zero security is simply ignorant.
I first started reading this book via netLibrary through my school's library. Just the first two chapters are enough to explain regular expressions to the point where one can use them effectively in programs. The remaining chapters expand on this information and discuss language specifics. I bought a paper copy to have on my shelf, and I constantly find myself referencing it.
To those at universities, see if your school offers netLibrary-based books. It's easy to read and it's free.
I think that the point is that the government is "paying" to protect assets of private companies.
Who protects the assets of the local convenience store? If it's robbed (I know, copyright violation isn't the same as stealing, no need to rehash that point), isn't it the police that respond? Isn't your local police department a government agency?
A lot of folks around here tend to make a false distinction between companies they like and companies they don't. There are laws in place that protect the RIAA's interests just like laws that protect interests of small businesses. As much as I dislike the RIAA/MPAA, I see nothing wrong with them saying to the FBI, "We're having a serious problem with copyright violations. Please enforce the laws that protect our interests."
Complaints about the fairness and constitutionality of laws are fine in my book. Laws that overextend their intended reach are common, and if you think copyright law is one of those (not to say it isn't), that's a valid point.
Way to go... letÂs do it right... crime and terrorists rampaging through the country while law officers run honey pots to convict downloaders...
I'm sorry, but to an objective reader, this is a slippery-slope fallacy. While terrorism should be a high priority to all law enforcement agencies, it doesn't mean that everything else is unimportant. What kind of government would we have if it fell apart after an incident such as September 11?
Here's some more text because with the way I ended that last paragraph, it sounds like I'm about to tell you to think of the children or something.
Normally, I wouldn't recommend litigation, but the player concerned seems to feel that the article was very unfriendly (in his online reply he says he feels like he's been raped) so perhaps the legal route would be good for him, if only to provide a sense of closure.
Keep in mind that in order to prove that libel was committed, one must prove that (1) something written as fact is false, (2) the person who wrote said misinformation knew it was false, and (3) there existed "actual malice". And if he can prove all of that, he must prove that he suffered actual damages.
I'm not saying that libel didn't occur, I just don't want anybody to think that all you have to do to win a judgement in your favor is prove that something somebody wrote about you is false.
Slashdot Mirror
If you leave a box of goodies outside your house, you may be asking for trouble, but you're not accepting responsibility for someone stealing it.
Okay, let's talk about the box of goodies. Let's say you leave a box of weapons outside with full knowledge that a neighborhood kid will probably find it and will likely use the contents for something illegal. If that happens, do you think you are partially responsible for whatever happens?
Before you jump all over me for such a hyperbole of an analogy, no, I don't equate running an insecure machine with handing out a small arsenal to the neighborhood kids. But I think you might be able to see my point given so many peoples' reactions of "What kind of parent leaves a gun where a kid can get it?" seemingly whenever a video game violence article is posted.
Take note of the bold text in the first paragraph. It's key to my point. If that box of weapons was in a place that you could reasonably assume wouldn't be accessible by the hypothetical gunman, I wouldn't place any blame on you, the owner.
So no, you're not responsible for other's actions, they are, don't be stupid.
You're exactly right - you aren't responsible for others' actions. In this case, you'd be liable for your irresponsible action.
Don't think I'm calling for honeypot operators to be arrested for setting out some bait. I think it's fine. In fact, I think it's a good addition to a security infrastructure. But dropping something insecure out in the open with full knowledge that it will probably be compromised and then likely used for undesireable activities isn't responsible.
Perhaps I should have made that point more clear initially.
Amazing. Even after you made your millions from underground African money transfers, you still find time to post to Slashdot. What character! I can see why Igwe Emanuel thought you good enough to do business with.
I, on the other hand, will be out of here as soon as the transaction is complete. So long, suckers!
If you do this, are you willing to be responsible if someone hijacks the machine and uses it to commit illegal/unethical acts? I know, it's unlikely that this would happen, but knowingly putting an open machine online with the intention of having it compromised is asking for trouble. It's one thing to not know any better, but it's another to be apathetic to the situation.
Someone should raise money to buy her a gift certificate to her local music store to buy legal CDs of all the music she had to delete.
Yes, fill the RIAA's war chest some more!
How about showing the girl that there are plenty of great artists that allow some or all of their music to be traded freely? Educate her on how Britney Spears and her cohorts are manufactured by the same music industry that came after her, only to make money. Show her how artists like the ones she was probably downloading and sharing have come and gone, only to be replaced by some newer fad, and all to continue to fill the industry's already deep pockets.
Obviously I don't expect a 12 year old to understand all of that. Arguing over musical tastes with somebody is pointless. But the remedy to problems like this is not to buy more pop garbage, but rather to introduce people to alternatives to RIAA-backed crap.
1. How do you know the physical copy is the original? The data undoubtedly came from a computer and who is to say where it was first published? And so what if it is the "original?" The content is the same.
I suppose "original" is a bit of a misnomer in this case. "The copy for which I am licensed to read" might work better. Anyway, the same sort of thing applies to the compact disc case. Sure, when you buy a CD you don't necessarily know for sure that it's licensed properly, but I think you can reasonably assume that (given that there are no apparent copyright violations, like buying a Britney Spears CD on a NYC street corner).
2. People that read your dead tree version but didn't pay for it are copying the copyrighted content from the paper into their brain. Using your logic, you must assume responsibility for this, as you didn't make enough of an effort to prevent it and it is unauthorized duplication and distribution.
There's still no difference between giving somebody your CD to listen to. The day the RIAA wants to sue me for lending a CD to a friend, I'll eat my words and buy your argument.
The point I'm making is that copyright needs to be reexamined in the digital age. How are libraries going to be able to exist if this nonsense keeps up?
That's partially true, but I don't think the spirit of copyright law needs to change much just because of emerging technology.
If that's the case, you'd better guard the dead tree version as well if you have it. Don't leave it on your kitchen table, on the patio or at the laundromat. People that didn't pay for it should not be allowed to view it.
The RIAA isn't coming after people who leave their CDs laying around where someone else might be able to listen to them. I don't think your analogy quite works, as we're now dealing with transmission of the original, physical copy.
More over, remember the people being sued are NOT being sued for dowloading but for sharing.
Suing for downloading would be tough. I have downloaded many MP3s for which I own the CD, purely for convenience.
The point is, the people being sued may not have stolen anything at all and not intended to help anyone steal.
They might not have infringed on copyrights themselves, but by allowing others to download from them, they've opened themselves up to the lawsuit.
If every morning, I made a copy of the Wall Street Journal (to which I hypothetically subscribe) and published it on my website for my own viewing pleasure, I should be obligated to make reasonably sure that unauthorized users can't view it. I should not be able to leave it out in the open with the excuse that "Maybe everybody accessing it is a legitimate WSJ subscriber."
This thread addresses the part of eBay's policy that has probably been violated.
Of course, who's to say eBay didn't just roll over under the pressure? Wouldn't be the first time.
You are correct, my mistake. DDoS just sounds so cool!
One of the requirements of registration is that you have to apply all of the patches for the recent Blaster, SoBig, etc. viruses.
Out of curiosity, how do they verify that these patches have been applied?
You should get a partial tuition refund if you don't use Windows, and thus the university's IT doesn't have to worry about you.
Since when does using Linux mean IT doesn't have to worry about you? A friend of mine set up a Linux box a few years ago. ITS showed up at his office and shut his computer down because it was (unintentionally) DDoSing the DHCP server.
I'm a Linux user as well, but I certainly don't think that it solves all problems. Should knowledgeable Windows users who keep their systems patched receive a tuition discount too? And students who use more than their share of network resources, should they pay more?
Why haven't lower prices kicked in?
Because it's not more profitable. I don't mean to be insulting, but any time I hear (or read) somebody complain about the high price of CDs, I wonder if they have considered what makes up the price of a product. The cost to produce said product certainly plays a role. With regards to the big music labels, they're paying for the costs of the unsuccessful investments with profits from the successful ones, not to mention advertising. This has been rehashed many times, so I'm sure you're familiar with it.
But the main cost driver has to do with what people will pay. Why would a capitalistic organization sell a product for less than a price that will maximize profits? Let's put aside ethical considerations here (e.g. a pharmacuetical company developing a cure for cancer and pricing it unrealistically), because I don't think it's wrong to charge $18 for something like a CD. I am certain that all major labels have a team of marketing professionals who price their products for maximum profitability.
Don't get me wrong, I won't argue that record labels behave ethically, I simply don't have a problem with pricing CDs as high as they like. Sure, you could argue that there are some monopolistic issues, but I don't think they're so great that it's anything the free market can't sort out.
I agree, a line of lenses geared towards digital cameras would be ideal. I don't think Canon offers enough non-L lenses, although there's always Sigma and a few other smaller manufacturers to fill that void. An effective 35-200mm lens with a relatively large aperture would be a perfect walkaround lens. If it's a good performer and priced around $500, I have to think that every Canon-using amateur enthusiast would want one. But that would be a 22-125mm lens, and knowing the current costs of Canon's wide-angle stuff, I'm sure such a lens would be closer to four figures.
To be honest, if it was Canon or Nikon who came out with the same camera that Sony did, it might sway my decision. The Coolpix 5700 is close, but not quite there. I'm still on the fence (buy now or wait?), but I think I'll end up with the 10D, a 50mm f/1.8, and a 28-135 IS.
nyah, nyah, don't forget the focus multiplier (the 10D is not a full frame camera) so in order to go down to 28mm you have to get a 20-40mm (reasonable price, discontinued and hard to find) a 17-35 (discontinued, still very expensive) or a 16-35 (in production, prepare yourself to take a loan).
Well, to be technical, a 20-40mm would effectively be 31.8-63.6mm (with the 1.59 multiplier), so you still wouldn't get down to 28mm. I was looking for a single lens that would come closest to covering the Sony's range. If one exists, I'm not aware of it. The 28-135 (44.5-214.7mm) seems to be closest, although that's a pretty significant gap on the wide-angle end.
The Zeiss 28-200 equiv on the sony seems to be a really nice lens (even if I'd like to wait for Phil's full review with tests etc.) and there's no way you could get that range on the 10D without buying a 28-135 + an extra wide zoom.
I agree, and it makes the Sony tempting to those who don't need super wide-angle or long telephoto. Still, I think I'll go with the 10D.
The 10D is a great camera for the price, but readers should note that the $1499 MSRP is for the body only. Lenses must be purchased seperately. I read the article on the Sony a few days ago so I can't remember the focal length specs, but to get something similar on the Canon would require a serious cash outlay for lenses. In fact, I don't think there's a single Canon-mount lens that will cover that range. The EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens might be closest, and is considered a bargain at around $500 - and that's inexpensive as far as lenses go. Most likely two lenses would be required to cover the Sony's focal length, and a good pair will run around $2500.
I should disclaim, I don't even own a 10D, although I plan to. I currently have a Powershot S400 because I need a small point-and-shoot, but I also want a full-featured camera for serious (albeit amateur) photography.
Well, the range for a $5 table is usually $5-$500, from what I've seen, but that's still just seven bets until you're no longer able to continue with your system. Of course, you can always get up and go to a higher-limit table and continue where you left off, but neither my heart nor my bankroll can handle that. I seem to recall that the $25 minimum tables had a $5000 maximum the last time I was at the casino. Even with that, if you lose ten hands in a row, you can no longer double your bet within the limits of the table (close, but not quite). And experienced blackjack players will tell you that losing 10 hands in a row is not uncommon. And that's not factoring in splits and doubles.
In the long run, the Martingale will fail unless you have the bankroll and high enough table limits available... and the guts to put down several thousand dollars to win back $5.
I owned a 48GX, but sold it and upgraded to the 49G when it came out. I still regret it.
The 49G had some great features (equation writer, CAS, as you mentioned), but the thing didn't compare to the 48GX in feel. To this day I still mis-punch a key or double-punch one. The keypad is nowhere near as good as the 48GX. The screen on the 49G scratches easily, and the slip-over hard case sucks compared to the nice zippered pouch of the 48 series.
And while the 49G managed to get me an A in Calculus I, I still don't understand the material as well as I should. I definitely relied on it too much. But, I'm not an engineer any more, so I can't justify switching calculators again.
Both parties are pro-rich. Otherwise, Lieberman wouldn't be in the pocket of Arthur Anderson, Daschle wouldn't be in the pocket of the airline industry, etc.
I think it was Jon Stewart on the Daily Show who said something to the effect of, "Lieberman is for Republicans who think Bush isn't Jewish enough."
Made me laugh, anyway.
On the other hand, voting for a third-party candidate tells the two major party candidates that they'll have to adjust their policy in order to capture those votes.
Looking at this page, the race for popular votes was close in many states, like New Mexico and Missouri. Nader grabbed a few percent (roughly) in each case. He took 10% in Alaska. If I were a political scientist for a major candidate analyzing this or primary data, I would probably suggest a shift to the left in a few key areas (such as privacy rights, environmental standards, etc.).
However, had all the third-party voters chosen to go with the lesser of two evils and vote within the two major parties, how would those parties know that voters with differing views existed?
Can I watch DVDs on this machine with my HDTV (after some hacks to enable progressive-scan)?
This isn't exactly relevant to your post, but the Xbox is horrible when it comes to DVD playback. I have a 3+ year old Pioneer DV-525 that blows it away. I find the picture that the Xbox produces, even with component video and nice cables, is unacceptable for anything other than casual viewing. If I want to actually sit down and watch a movie, I'll use the DVD player. The Xbox is so bad, I considered returning the $30 DVD playback kit.
That said, I love playing games on my Xbox, and I think it's reasonably priced for what you get.
You're either "land of the free", or you are not. So either live up to the hype, or change the tagline. Can't have it both ways, with a closed society fueled on fear, claming to be "free".
That's a huge oversimplification. I wouldn't even respond to such a troll had some ill-informed moderators not decided to mod it up to a 5 and make it the first comment on the page.
Ideally, information becomes classified when the benefits of the information being publicly available are less than the dangers of that availability. Here at the university where I work, when I need to get a list of students in my department, I can't just call up and request it. I have to be authorized to have it. In that case, the extra day it takes to get the information is justified because we don't want just anybody to have access to that sort of information.
On the flip side, we have the Freedom of Information Act. It has been decided that certain information should be available to the public without such restrictions. In this case, the public benefit outweighs the negative aspects of the FOIA.
To suggest that the "land of the free" entails zero security is simply ignorant.
I first started reading this book via netLibrary through my school's library. Just the first two chapters are enough to explain regular expressions to the point where one can use them effectively in programs. The remaining chapters expand on this information and discuss language specifics. I bought a paper copy to have on my shelf, and I constantly find myself referencing it.
To those at universities, see if your school offers netLibrary-based books. It's easy to read and it's free.
I think that the point is that the government is "paying" to protect assets of private companies.
Who protects the assets of the local convenience store? If it's robbed (I know, copyright violation isn't the same as stealing, no need to rehash that point), isn't it the police that respond? Isn't your local police department a government agency?
A lot of folks around here tend to make a false distinction between companies they like and companies they don't. There are laws in place that protect the RIAA's interests just like laws that protect interests of small businesses. As much as I dislike the RIAA/MPAA, I see nothing wrong with them saying to the FBI, "We're having a serious problem with copyright violations. Please enforce the laws that protect our interests."
Complaints about the fairness and constitutionality of laws are fine in my book. Laws that overextend their intended reach are common, and if you think copyright law is one of those (not to say it isn't), that's a valid point.
Way to go... letÂs do it right... crime and terrorists rampaging through the country while law officers run honey pots to convict downloaders...
I'm sorry, but to an objective reader, this is a slippery-slope fallacy. While terrorism should be a high priority to all law enforcement agencies, it doesn't mean that everything else is unimportant. What kind of government would we have if it fell apart after an incident such as September 11?
Here's some more text because with the way I ended that last paragraph, it sounds like I'm about to tell you to think of the children or something.
Normally, I wouldn't recommend litigation, but the player concerned seems to feel that the article was very unfriendly (in his online reply he says he feels like he's been raped) so perhaps the legal route would be good for him, if only to provide a sense of closure.
Keep in mind that in order to prove that libel was committed, one must prove that (1) something written as fact is false, (2) the person who wrote said misinformation knew it was false, and (3) there existed "actual malice". And if he can prove all of that, he must prove that he suffered actual damages.
I'm not saying that libel didn't occur, I just don't want anybody to think that all you have to do to win a judgement in your favor is prove that something somebody wrote about you is false.