You do know that 1) the originals were on film so technically they are films. 2) the "rare" part is that very few people had them. In this case only NASA has these films so they are "one-offs" by your own definition. In contrast, how many films existed of the Challenger explosion. A few because there were more than a few members of the public that filmed it. NASA looked all footage when trying to asses what happened.
1. If some intramural staffing change is now "the most serious thing" then it's amusing that you just admitted all the B.S. about Trump being a robot built by Putin actually is a lie.
Well I would disagree that a WH Press Secretary resigning 182 days after taking the job is "some intramural staffing change". The last person to last less than a year was Jake Siewart who lost his job after 112 days because Bush was elected and Clinton left office. Before that George Stephanopoulos left after 138 days but stayed with the administration in other roles. It appears that Sean Spicer will not only leave the position but the administration as well. So how do you call it "some intramural staffing change"?
How is Sean Spicer quitting a job prove or disprove that Trump is in the pocket of Putin? It doesn't say anything about Trump; it just says Spicer has had enough.
Not only that but hard work doesn't seem like something Trump actually does. He promised he'd work hard if elected yet seems to spend almost every weekend golfing.
It's corruption because any money is spent or is it corruption that these particular companies spend money? It is sad that these companies have to spend this money or they are not heard. For example, the telecoms probably spent roughly $86M last year in the US Senate alone. If we extrapolate what these companies spent in the last 3 months, the telecoms will probably out spend them.
Again, you confuse ROMs with ROM files. The two are not the same. When someone says ROM and not "copy of ROM", you can safely assume that they mean the actual physical ROM.
You didn't answer the question: Did you solder the chip into your motherboard or not? No. At best you used an adapter which Atari has not mentioned they will make. Again neither the GP said anything about using a cartridge through an adapter which would be perfectly legal and require absolutely no questions. He's clearly talking about getting ROM files from somewhere to use including buying them. All of which you are ignoring.
Once you've bought the ROM, nothing prevents you from making a private copy for use in an emulator. If your electronic skills aren't up to par, people make and sell interfaces for legally reading game cartridges, including Retrode (for N64/Gameboy) and A26 (for Atari 2600).
Did you even read any of my comments at all? I clearly said making a ROM from your own system is fine like I said ripping a your own Bluray or DVD is also fine. I said it multiple times. Distributing any content to others (through the Internet) is the problem if you don't own the copyrights.
They should be considered unreliable for a number of reasons, one of which is that it doesn't pass the sniff test. If you come to the conclusion that, were a T-Rex to try to run full-speed that its legs would just shatter, it may be that you're missing the forest for the trees, getting caught up enough in what-ifs that you don't realize the conclusion you're coming to is absolutely ridiculous on its face.
Explain your justification. You can't just call someone else's conclusions are wrong and ridiculous without some reasoning. At that point you're engaging in the pure speculation that you are decrying in others.
The speculation is based on biomechanical analysis based on today's birds and other species. It's not exactly ridiculous to say that the larger the animal, the less likely they are to be fast. It's not ridiculous to say that an elephant puts way more stress on their limbs moving at high speeds (for them) than an emu or ostrich.
A conclusion so ridiculous that you ought to have extraordinary, undeniable proof, or that it's a sign you need to go back to the drawing board rather than publish
No, the saying is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." It is not "All claims require extraordinary proof." At this point no one has yet to establish any kind of speed for a T-Rex. Saying it probably couldn't move very fast isn't an extraordinary claim. Weight estimates range from 8 metric tons to 14 metric tons which is about the size of an elephant. The top speed of elephant with 4 legs is 25 mph. Asserting that a bi-pedal T-Rex could only move about half that speed isn't an extraordinary claim. Saying a T-rex could do 120mph is an extraordinary claim.
But perhaps the researchers are under a mandate to publish -- that's sometimes a fact of life in academia and science: you have to publish something, even if it's crap.
Someone's motivation does not undermine the legitimacy of their claim. If Grigori Perelman solved the Poincaré Conjecture because he wanted the million dollar prize money, would that undermine his proof?
By that logic, a lot of research is suspect because many researchers are under pressure to publish. In universities, professors who don't publish often normally don't get tenure.
The thing is, neither the authors nor doubters like me can be provably wrong which makes the paper more a declaration of faith than real science.
All science has some assumptions. There is always some speculation. For example, Hawking radiation was proposed in 1974. It hasn't been confirmed 100% because humans can't travel near a black hole at the moment. Evidence has appeared in other ways.
However if we are talking about a species that is extinct and gone for over 65 million years, it may always be speculation.
Hundreds of fit marathon runners vs nothing special horses over rough ground that favours 2 legs.
Is your assertion that none of the horses were fit or prepared for a race? How do you know that? As for rough grounds that would describe most of places in the wild.
Now lets try it over flat grassland and what happens? Oh yeah, you get the Pony Express. I wonder why they didn't just get men to run with the post instead?
Yes because if I was a person trying to hunt down a horse I would pick the conditions which would favor the horse. Or would I pick environments that favor me?
I'm really not convinced by these arguments that our ancestors were somehow multi marathon fit and could run down anything on the plain. No native peoples today do that - they wound first with spears or arrows then follow it until it dies, they don't wear it down physically!
No native peoples? Are the bushman in the Kalahari an example of native people that you would accept.
The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa, and David Attenborough's documentary The Life of Mammals (program 10, "Food For Thought") showed a bushman hunting a kudu antelope until it collapsed.
As for running down a horse, you must be joking. Horses can gallop then trot for hours, long after even the fittest marathon runner would be in a sweaty heap on the ground panting like dog. And unless you're a first class tracker you're never going to find that horse that has probably put 10 miles between you and him in the first hour.
You assume that ancient people hunted solo. To bring down a large animal most likely would be a group hunt (especially since a single person could never eat an entire horse before it spoiled. Also a horse's first instinct when frightened is to gallop at full speed for about 1/4 mile. Getting a group to continually scare a horse periodically to tire itself out would be the best approach. Also the group could force a horse into an area where the horse would be trapped.
From what we know of mammoth hunts, ancient men did not face them down with spears alone. It seems that driving them off a cliff was a preferred method of killing them.
Their methodology in determining the speed of a (assumed healthy) T-Rex (assumed to be) walking at it's best speed contains too many assumptions that _cannot_ be proven to be reliable.
I have to disagree with your assessment of the assumptions. The assumptions cannot be proven at this time. Or ever. However, it's another things to say that they are unreliable. The conclusion could be completely wrong but the assumptions given the circumstances are necessary.
It also may not be binary. Many predators in the wild are not pure hunters. Lions will scavenge if they have to do so. They will also take kills from other animals like cheetahs and hyenas. Bears will also scavenge. T-Rex may have hunted but it may not have hunted like a cheetah chasing down prey. It might be more of an ambush hunter like a leopard.
You use an ORIGINAL BOUGHT AND PAID FOR cartridge. (ROM) No one is copying anything.
So you implanted the chip in the cartridge directly in your computer by soldering it directly onto your Motherboard? Is your soldering and electrical engineering skill level that high? No, you extracted the software from the ROM (read-only memory) chip and put it memory on your computer. Creating a ROM image file is creating a copy. How is that not copying? Ripping a movie or music file off a DVD or CD is creating a copy. Fair Use allows you to create that copy in certain cases like backups and format shifting. But it's still a copy. Legally you can be justified in creating a copy; however, you are not justified in distributing the ROM if you are not the copyright holder or have permission of the copyright holder.
With some old games, the copyright holder doesn't care, doesn't exist, doesn't know, whatever. . . and are not likely going to pursue legal claims. But they could.
The GP never said anything about using the old cartridges with the system. He clearly said "buy your ROMs". He never said "buy old cartridges." Someone somewhere had to extract the game from the cartridge to make a ROM file from old games. Certainly people can create new original games but that is not even close to what I or the GP was talking about.
Well in some cases, the researchers contacted the companies themselves about the exploits. And the companies didn't do anything about them and sometimes didn't even acknowledge them. So the researcher can wait but the exploit might be found by someone else. Or they can publish the exploit. In this case, this researcher is talking about modifying an already leaked exploit, ETERNALSYNERGY.
Have you never had a mortgage before? Closing costs alone can total upwards of $5,000, which isn't exactly a drop in the bucket.
Yes I have a mortgage. Lenders can't just tack on closing costs without telling you what they are. Also you can negotiate the costs. The seller and I split the cost. The seller didn't raise the price.
When you are buying a home you generally pay all of the costs associated with that transaction. However, depending on the contract or State law, the seller may end up paying for some of these costs. ..
Again how was the loan cost raised up because of bad purchases the lender made? A lender in question normally assesses each loan based on the particular case. In this story particularly, the supposed current owner of the debt wasn't the original lender but someone who later bought the debt. Some of these companies never made a loan themselves; they buy them as investments. How can they enforce higher costs on those that they bought the loans from?
ROMs are not "grey areas". I develop completely new Atari 2600 games and offer some for free in digital form.
We are not talking about you making new games. We are talking about people making ROMs from classic Atari titles on cartridges. They are legal grey areas because they exist no case law about you creating a ROM from a cartridge. You could argue that format shifting falls under Fair Use but it's never been decided in a court either way. Thus it is a legal grey area. Certainly distributing a ROM of these old games on the Internet without permission would constitute copyright infringement.
In making a new Atari box, people will want to play the old games. Who owns the classic Atari games? It might not be this Atari company as it may have purchased the rights to the name and the hardware but not necessarily the titles like Galaga, Centipede, etc. Some titles might be owned by companies that have gone bankrupt and don't exist any more. Some might have been bought by other companies that don't know/remember they own the title.
Consoles with short controller cables and long video cables are intended to sit on your coffee table.
So I should re-arrange my living room to accommodate a console? I shouldn't use the furniture I have? By the way, I don't have a coffee table. I do have side tables. Even if I had a coffee table, the problem with your proposal is that a dangerous tripping hazard is now in my living room.
This was true of the original Family Computer, and it remains true of the NES Classic.
My point again: Times have changed. People no longer set up their living rooms like that anymore. Furniture has changed. Computers and monitors for example don't require larger footprints. Desks can be smaller. A TV console these days will be wider but not necessarily as deep as they used to be.
In Japan they have a habit of putting a small space heater under the coffee table [wikipedia.org], with a comforter to direct the heat to the seating.
That's well and good for Japan. I don't live in Japan. I don't need direct heating in my living room like that.
Personally my mortgage was bought and sold twice in two months right after I took it out. It was a mess trying to figure out who I should pay. One month it was this company. So I had to set them up in my bank accounts. Next month I was informed that they sold it so I had to do the same thing over again. One problem was that actually sold it within the same month but I didn't get notified until the next month. That was a little bit of stress within getting a new mortgage to figuring who to pay and that the last payment made it to the right people.
Again, how does it lead to higher insurance premiums? A lender can charge higher interest for riskier borrowers but what does insurance have to do with it?
Obviously, you don't know. If you get out of your misconception that a ROM is a copy, and re-read the GP, you'll find that what was talked about was using the ROM in legal cartridges. No copy involved.
How is it not a copy? The cartridge was the one and only original? It was a copy too. Creating a ROM from it is creating a copy. It's called format shifting. It's no different than ripping a CD, Bluray, or DVD. I can do that to content I own. The problem is that just because I own a copy doesn't mean I have rights to upload the content to the Internet.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing. I've just said people are ethically bound to pay their debts, and they should be just as responsible for knowing what those debts are as the lenders.
Iin the exact article one of the complaints of a borrower was that the lender was trying to make her pay for loans she claims she never made. According to her there were loans to a college she never attended. The problem with your last sentence is no, it is not the responsibility of the borrower to prove the lender's claim. It is the responsibility of the party bringing the claim in the eyes of the law to substantiate it.
Did you even read my last comment? How am I to know that XYZ Corp bought out my student loan. I wasn't there for the sale. I didn't see the negotiation or the transaction. How do I know ABC Corp who is also asking me for the money didn't actually buy it? I don't. There are a lot of scammers out there. Considering that the lender in the article has already been accused of trying to levy bogus loans, there is a reasonable question as to where the lender owns the debt. They have to prove it in court.
Law has nothing to do with it.
Considering that the article has to do with debts, contracts, ownership, and lawsuits, I can't see how you can say that.
By your logic, anyone can claim that you owe them money and not have to provide any evidence. I owe student loans but not to XYZ Corp. According to you I should just pay them. Wait, ABC Corp says I owe them the money, should I pay them too. The bare minimum these companies had to do was to keep up with paperwork. Why do you make them also equally accountable? Or are you just beholden to a corporation?
, assuming you learned basic math with your education.
I learned basic math but I seem to be more versed in the law than you. You have to prove what you say in court. If you can't then the court doesn't have to believe you.
You do understand that if the lender can't tell you (and document) what you owe, how can you pay it back?
Bank: "This person owes $10,000 dollars your honor"
Borrower: "No I don't. I only owe $5,000"
Judge: "Where is the promissory note for any amounts"
Bank: "We don't have any."
Judge: "How are you going to make the defendant pay any amount of a loan for which you have no documentation? How do I know that the borrower owes you the money?"
Sorry, you don't get out of the loan just because you didn't get a decent education.
Sure, those who provided loans should have tracked things better, but that doesn't eliminate the ethical responsibility borrowers have to pay back what they agreed.
True but one issue brought up is that the lenders can't prove what the borrowers loaned so it would be impossible for them to pay back. In one case mentioned, a woman disputes some of the loans in question because she claims that she never went to a college that the lender says she did. She doesn't dispute the other loans. However, then the judge had to ask the lender to prove what she owed. And they can't.
The end result will only be to raise the cost of loans for future borrowers.
How will the cost of loans be raised for future borrowers? Interest rates are what determines the cost. And the fact of the matter is that the lenders by law have to follow certain guidelines.
Slashdot Mirror
You be the judge.
You do know that 1) the originals were on film so technically they are films. 2) the "rare" part is that very few people had them. In this case only NASA has these films so they are "one-offs" by your own definition. In contrast, how many films existed of the Challenger explosion. A few because there were more than a few members of the public that filmed it. NASA looked all footage when trying to asses what happened.
1. If some intramural staffing change is now "the most serious thing" then it's amusing that you just admitted all the B.S. about Trump being a robot built by Putin actually is a lie.
Well I would disagree that a WH Press Secretary resigning 182 days after taking the job is "some intramural staffing change". The last person to last less than a year was Jake Siewart who lost his job after 112 days because Bush was elected and Clinton left office. Before that George Stephanopoulos left after 138 days but stayed with the administration in other roles. It appears that Sean Spicer will not only leave the position but the administration as well. So how do you call it "some intramural staffing change"?
How is Sean Spicer quitting a job prove or disprove that Trump is in the pocket of Putin? It doesn't say anything about Trump; it just says Spicer has had enough.
Not only that but hard work doesn't seem like something Trump actually does. He promised he'd work hard if elected yet seems to spend almost every weekend golfing.
It's corruption because any money is spent or is it corruption that these particular companies spend money? It is sad that these companies have to spend this money or they are not heard. For example, the telecoms probably spent roughly $86M last year in the US Senate alone. If we extrapolate what these companies spent in the last 3 months, the telecoms will probably out spend them.
Again, you confuse ROMs with ROM files. The two are not the same. When someone says ROM and not "copy of ROM", you can safely assume that they mean the actual physical ROM.
You didn't answer the question: Did you solder the chip into your motherboard or not? No. At best you used an adapter which Atari has not mentioned they will make. Again neither the GP said anything about using a cartridge through an adapter which would be perfectly legal and require absolutely no questions. He's clearly talking about getting ROM files from somewhere to use including buying them. All of which you are ignoring.
Once you've bought the ROM, nothing prevents you from making a private copy for use in an emulator. If your electronic skills aren't up to par, people make and sell interfaces for legally reading game cartridges, including Retrode (for N64/Gameboy) and A26 (for Atari 2600).
Did you even read any of my comments at all? I clearly said making a ROM from your own system is fine like I said ripping a your own Bluray or DVD is also fine. I said it multiple times. Distributing any content to others (through the Internet) is the problem if you don't own the copyrights.
They should be considered unreliable for a number of reasons, one of which is that it doesn't pass the sniff test. If you come to the conclusion that, were a T-Rex to try to run full-speed that its legs would just shatter, it may be that you're missing the forest for the trees, getting caught up enough in what-ifs that you don't realize the conclusion you're coming to is absolutely ridiculous on its face.
Explain your justification. You can't just call someone else's conclusions are wrong and ridiculous without some reasoning. At that point you're engaging in the pure speculation that you are decrying in others.
The speculation is based on biomechanical analysis based on today's birds and other species. It's not exactly ridiculous to say that the larger the animal, the less likely they are to be fast. It's not ridiculous to say that an elephant puts way more stress on their limbs moving at high speeds (for them) than an emu or ostrich.
A conclusion so ridiculous that you ought to have extraordinary, undeniable proof, or that it's a sign you need to go back to the drawing board rather than publish
No, the saying is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." It is not "All claims require extraordinary proof." At this point no one has yet to establish any kind of speed for a T-Rex. Saying it probably couldn't move very fast isn't an extraordinary claim. Weight estimates range from 8 metric tons to 14 metric tons which is about the size of an elephant. The top speed of elephant with 4 legs is 25 mph. Asserting that a bi-pedal T-Rex could only move about half that speed isn't an extraordinary claim. Saying a T-rex could do 120mph is an extraordinary claim.
But perhaps the researchers are under a mandate to publish -- that's sometimes a fact of life in academia and science: you have to publish something, even if it's crap.
Someone's motivation does not undermine the legitimacy of their claim. If Grigori Perelman solved the Poincaré Conjecture because he wanted the million dollar prize money, would that undermine his proof?
By that logic, a lot of research is suspect because many researchers are under pressure to publish. In universities, professors who don't publish often normally don't get tenure.
The thing is, neither the authors nor doubters like me can be provably wrong which makes the paper more a declaration of faith than real science.
All science has some assumptions. There is always some speculation. For example, Hawking radiation was proposed in 1974. It hasn't been confirmed 100% because humans can't travel near a black hole at the moment. Evidence has appeared in other ways.
However if we are talking about a species that is extinct and gone for over 65 million years, it may always be speculation.
Hundreds of fit marathon runners vs nothing special horses over rough ground that favours 2 legs.
Is your assertion that none of the horses were fit or prepared for a race? How do you know that? As for rough grounds that would describe most of places in the wild.
Now lets try it over flat grassland and what happens? Oh yeah, you get the Pony Express. I wonder why they didn't just get men to run with the post instead?
Yes because if I was a person trying to hunt down a horse I would pick the conditions which would favor the horse. Or would I pick environments that favor me?
I'm really not convinced by these arguments that our ancestors were somehow multi marathon fit and could run down anything on the plain. No native peoples today do that - they wound first with spears or arrows then follow it until it dies, they don't wear it down physically!
No native peoples? Are the bushman in the Kalahari an example of native people that you would accept.
The persistence hunt is still practiced by hunter-gatherers in the central Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa, and David Attenborough's documentary The Life of Mammals (program 10, "Food For Thought") showed a bushman hunting a kudu antelope until it collapsed.
As for running down a horse, you must be joking. Horses can gallop then trot for hours, long after even the fittest marathon runner would be in a sweaty heap on the ground panting like dog. And unless you're a first class tracker you're never going to find that horse that has probably put 10 miles between you and him in the first hour.
You assume that ancient people hunted solo. To bring down a large animal most likely would be a group hunt (especially since a single person could never eat an entire horse before it spoiled. Also a horse's first instinct when frightened is to gallop at full speed for about 1/4 mile. Getting a group to continually scare a horse periodically to tire itself out would be the best approach. Also the group could force a horse into an area where the horse would be trapped.
From what we know of mammoth hunts, ancient men did not face them down with spears alone. It seems that driving them off a cliff was a preferred method of killing them.
Their methodology in determining the speed of a (assumed healthy) T-Rex (assumed to be) walking at it's best speed contains too many assumptions that _cannot_ be proven to be reliable.
I have to disagree with your assessment of the assumptions. The assumptions cannot be proven at this time. Or ever. However, it's another things to say that they are unreliable. The conclusion could be completely wrong but the assumptions given the circumstances are necessary.
It also may not be binary. Many predators in the wild are not pure hunters. Lions will scavenge if they have to do so. They will also take kills from other animals like cheetahs and hyenas. Bears will also scavenge. T-Rex may have hunted but it may not have hunted like a cheetah chasing down prey. It might be more of an ambush hunter like a leopard.
You use an ORIGINAL BOUGHT AND PAID FOR cartridge. (ROM) No one is copying anything.
So you implanted the chip in the cartridge directly in your computer by soldering it directly onto your Motherboard? Is your soldering and electrical engineering skill level that high? No, you extracted the software from the ROM (read-only memory) chip and put it memory on your computer. Creating a ROM image file is creating a copy. How is that not copying? Ripping a movie or music file off a DVD or CD is creating a copy. Fair Use allows you to create that copy in certain cases like backups and format shifting. But it's still a copy. Legally you can be justified in creating a copy; however, you are not justified in distributing the ROM if you are not the copyright holder or have permission of the copyright holder.
With some old games, the copyright holder doesn't care, doesn't exist, doesn't know, whatever. . . and are not likely going to pursue legal claims. But they could.
The GP never said anything about using the old cartridges with the system. He clearly said "buy your ROMs". He never said "buy old cartridges." Someone somewhere had to extract the game from the cartridge to make a ROM file from old games. Certainly people can create new original games but that is not even close to what I or the GP was talking about.
Well in some cases, the researchers contacted the companies themselves about the exploits. And the companies didn't do anything about them and sometimes didn't even acknowledge them. So the researcher can wait but the exploit might be found by someone else. Or they can publish the exploit. In this case, this researcher is talking about modifying an already leaked exploit, ETERNALSYNERGY.
Have you never had a mortgage before? Closing costs alone can total upwards of $5,000, which isn't exactly a drop in the bucket.
Yes I have a mortgage. Lenders can't just tack on closing costs without telling you what they are. Also you can negotiate the costs. The seller and I split the cost. The seller didn't raise the price.
Mortgage closing costs
When you are buying a home you generally pay all of the costs associated with that transaction. However, depending on the contract or State law, the seller may end up paying for some of these costs. . .
Again how was the loan cost raised up because of bad purchases the lender made? A lender in question normally assesses each loan based on the particular case. In this story particularly, the supposed current owner of the debt wasn't the original lender but someone who later bought the debt. Some of these companies never made a loan themselves; they buy them as investments. How can they enforce higher costs on those that they bought the loans from?
ROMs are not "grey areas". I develop completely new Atari 2600 games and offer some for free in digital form.
We are not talking about you making new games. We are talking about people making ROMs from classic Atari titles on cartridges. They are legal grey areas because they exist no case law about you creating a ROM from a cartridge. You could argue that format shifting falls under Fair Use but it's never been decided in a court either way. Thus it is a legal grey area. Certainly distributing a ROM of these old games on the Internet without permission would constitute copyright infringement.
In making a new Atari box, people will want to play the old games. Who owns the classic Atari games? It might not be this Atari company as it may have purchased the rights to the name and the hardware but not necessarily the titles like Galaga, Centipede, etc. Some titles might be owned by companies that have gone bankrupt and don't exist any more. Some might have been bought by other companies that don't know/remember they own the title.
Consoles with short controller cables and long video cables are intended to sit on your coffee table.
So I should re-arrange my living room to accommodate a console? I shouldn't use the furniture I have? By the way, I don't have a coffee table. I do have side tables. Even if I had a coffee table, the problem with your proposal is that a dangerous tripping hazard is now in my living room.
This was true of the original Family Computer, and it remains true of the NES Classic.
My point again: Times have changed. People no longer set up their living rooms like that anymore. Furniture has changed. Computers and monitors for example don't require larger footprints. Desks can be smaller. A TV console these days will be wider but not necessarily as deep as they used to be.
In Japan they have a habit of putting a small space heater under the coffee table [wikipedia.org], with a comforter to direct the heat to the seating.
That's well and good for Japan. I don't live in Japan. I don't need direct heating in my living room like that.
Personally my mortgage was bought and sold twice in two months right after I took it out. It was a mess trying to figure out who I should pay. One month it was this company. So I had to set them up in my bank accounts. Next month I was informed that they sold it so I had to do the same thing over again. One problem was that actually sold it within the same month but I didn't get notified until the next month. That was a little bit of stress within getting a new mortgage to figuring who to pay and that the last payment made it to the right people.
Again, how does it lead to higher insurance premiums? A lender can charge higher interest for riskier borrowers but what does insurance have to do with it?
Obviously, you don't know. If you get out of your misconception that a ROM is a copy, and re-read the GP, you'll find that what was talked about was using the ROM in legal cartridges. No copy involved.
How is it not a copy? The cartridge was the one and only original? It was a copy too. Creating a ROM from it is creating a copy. It's called format shifting. It's no different than ripping a CD, Bluray, or DVD. I can do that to content I own. The problem is that just because I own a copy doesn't mean I have rights to upload the content to the Internet.
Er what insurance premiums? How can lenders making bad loans or keeping bad paperwork raise insurance rates in anyway. Especially for student loans.
I've neither said nor implied any such thing. I've just said people are ethically bound to pay their debts, and they should be just as responsible for knowing what those debts are as the lenders.
Iin the exact article one of the complaints of a borrower was that the lender was trying to make her pay for loans she claims she never made. According to her there were loans to a college she never attended. The problem with your last sentence is no, it is not the responsibility of the borrower to prove the lender's claim. It is the responsibility of the party bringing the claim in the eyes of the law to substantiate it.
Did you even read my last comment? How am I to know that XYZ Corp bought out my student loan. I wasn't there for the sale. I didn't see the negotiation or the transaction. How do I know ABC Corp who is also asking me for the money didn't actually buy it? I don't. There are a lot of scammers out there. Considering that the lender in the article has already been accused of trying to levy bogus loans, there is a reasonable question as to where the lender owns the debt. They have to prove it in court.
Law has nothing to do with it.
Considering that the article has to do with debts, contracts, ownership, and lawsuits, I can't see how you can say that.
Account for yourself
By your logic, anyone can claim that you owe them money and not have to provide any evidence. I owe student loans but not to XYZ Corp. According to you I should just pay them. Wait, ABC Corp says I owe them the money, should I pay them too. The bare minimum these companies had to do was to keep up with paperwork. Why do you make them also equally accountable? Or are you just beholden to a corporation?
, assuming you learned basic math with your education.
I learned basic math but I seem to be more versed in the law than you. You have to prove what you say in court. If you can't then the court doesn't have to believe you.
You do understand that if the lender can't tell you (and document) what you owe, how can you pay it back?
Bank: "This person owes $10,000 dollars your honor"
Borrower: "No I don't. I only owe $5,000"
Judge: "Where is the promissory note for any amounts"
Bank: "We don't have any."
Judge: "How are you going to make the defendant pay any amount of a loan for which you have no documentation? How do I know that the borrower owes you the money?"
Sorry, you don't get out of the loan just because you didn't get a decent education.
And where is this coming from? Freudian slip?
Sure, those who provided loans should have tracked things better, but that doesn't eliminate the ethical responsibility borrowers have to pay back what they agreed.
True but one issue brought up is that the lenders can't prove what the borrowers loaned so it would be impossible for them to pay back. In one case mentioned, a woman disputes some of the loans in question because she claims that she never went to a college that the lender says she did. She doesn't dispute the other loans. However, then the judge had to ask the lender to prove what she owed. And they can't.
The end result will only be to raise the cost of loans for future borrowers.
How will the cost of loans be raised for future borrowers? Interest rates are what determines the cost. And the fact of the matter is that the lenders by law have to follow certain guidelines.