Considering that you can choose not only how much to pay but also how it gets divided and how the transaction is processed, I wish that they'd provide a little more information so that we could maximize the proportion of our contribution that goes where we want. For example:
One of the split options is "humble tip," to compensate them for running the thing. I want to allot them exactly their break-even cost, but I don't know what it is.
Between PayPal, Amazon Payments and Google Checkout, which has the lowest fees (for the payment amount chosen)?
A 9.0 quake should have been easily manageable in the sense that the plant was designed to withstand it. Having your structure fail do to an unanticipated cause is one thing, but having it fail due to something that you had planned for means you fucked up your engineering!
Anyone who faults him for cutting his losses is an asshole.
Are you kidding? By releasing the work using his real name, he effectively begged Sony to sue him. He could have easily been anonymous! But he chose not to be, so he should have been prepared to deal with the consequences of that decision. He obviously wasn't, and that's what makes him the asshole!
Much as I think this battle needs to be fought geohot is an attention seeking ass, and itâ(TM)s a shame he was the one who was slated fight it.
That's the thing that bothers me most about this: it's blatantly obvious that geohot intended for Sony to come after him, by the fact that he released the work using his real name. If he didn't have any genuine intention of fighting, why couldn't he have had the decency to just be anonymous in the first place?
No. The best possible outcome would have been a precedent-setting judgement against Sony. Property law -- up to and including the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA -- was on Hotz's side, but until that gets made clear in court companies like Sony will continue to pretend that their Imaginary Property rights somehow trump device owners' actual property rights. And the longer that pretense is allowed to persist, the more people might actually start to believe it.
In some cases, it is illegal to modify something you own. Going with the weapon theme, a sawed-off shotgun comes to mind.
The difference is that that's a restriction created by government. Sony, in contrast, is a mere corporation -- it does not and should not have the right to make law!
DS9 is also the only series that isn't currently syndicated. I can watch TNG on at least 3 different channels (SyFy, BBC America, and Peachtree TV or something), but can't watch DS9 at all. Why?! : (
For example, you couldn't use it (at least without modification) for most 3D object textures, because it only introduces variation along one axis.
That's true for his first two examples (only because he picked inherently non-tiling-in-the-y-direction things), but the third (the Lego army) varied in two dimensions.
The thing is, everyone should have a problem with Sony's actions. What Sony is trying to do goes beyond just screwing their customers; Sony is trying to destroy the concept of property rights by subjugating an owner's right to modify his property below Sony's desire to dictate how their product is used!
Copyright is not a property right, but rather merely a temporary monopoly established at the whim of the public for the express purpose of enriching the Public Domain. To make it superior to genuine property rights is both blatantly unconstitutional and dangerously insane.
[I]t will keep SONY out of my household, and that is sufficient for my needs.
Will it still be sufficient for your needs if this case sets a bad precedent and every company thinks selling you its products gives it the right to dictate what you do with your property?
We need to stop pretending that anything can be owned without force. If there was no government to enforce private ownership then there would be no private ownership (only temporary restriction of use as long as you can fend off those that would attempt to use those things you want to keep to yourself).
The difference is that Imaginary Property can't be owned even with force.
You don't get it, do you? Sony isn't trying to do business in a free market economy; Sony is trying to change the rules so that actual people's physical property rights are destroyed in order to protect a virtual person's (i.e. a corporation's) virtual property rights (i.e., copyright). Sony is trying to bring about some sort of Bizarro world where individuals aren't allowed to own anything but instead are subjugated by whatever fucked-up rules the Corporate Overlord deigns to attach to the "privilege" of using their product. It is a new kind of serfdom, and cannot be permitted at any cost!
No, you don't get it. The doors aren't merely automatic like we have now; they somehow know to open if you want to walk through them or stay closed if you want to lean against them instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the user agreement for uploading to Google Video wasn't flexible enough to allow Google to copy the videos to Youtube?
What about Amazon Payments and Google Checkout? Which is the least evil?
Considering that you can choose not only how much to pay but also how it gets divided and how the transaction is processed, I wish that they'd provide a little more information so that we could maximize the proportion of our contribution that goes where we want. For example:
I'm annoyed that I apparently missed the second bundle. I guess I'm not on Slashdot enough!
s/Kansas/Nevada/
A 9.0 quake should have been easily manageable in the sense that the plant was designed to withstand it. Having your structure fail do to an unanticipated cause is one thing, but having it fail due to something that you had planned for means you fucked up your engineering!
What needed to happen would have been the EFF defending him itself.
Are you kidding? By releasing the work using his real name, he effectively begged Sony to sue him. He could have easily been anonymous! But he chose not to be, so he should have been prepared to deal with the consequences of that decision. He obviously wasn't, and that's what makes him the asshole!
That's the thing that bothers me most about this: it's blatantly obvious that geohot intended for Sony to come after him, by the fact that he released the work using his real name. If he didn't have any genuine intention of fighting, why couldn't he have had the decency to just be anonymous in the first place?
I live in the middle of a big city and have Clear wi-max just because I refuse to deal with Comcast or AT&T.
No. The best possible outcome would have been a precedent-setting judgement against Sony. Property law -- up to and including the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA -- was on Hotz's side, but until that gets made clear in court companies like Sony will continue to pretend that their Imaginary Property rights somehow trump device owners' actual property rights. And the longer that pretense is allowed to persist, the more people might actually start to believe it.
The difference is that that's a restriction created by government. Sony, in contrast, is a mere corporation -- it does not and should not have the right to make law!
Data was third officer (just behind Riker) and ran the bridge during the night shift. They just didn't show him in command on-camera much.
First, it's Garak, not "Garreck."
Second, Sisko is more awesome. Garak was a tailor; Sisko beat Q in a fistfight!
[Q, surprised at being knocked down] "You hit me! Picard never hit me!"
DS9 is also the only series that isn't currently syndicated. I can watch TNG on at least 3 different channels (SyFy, BBC America, and Peachtree TV or something), but can't watch DS9 at all. Why?! : (
Don't all companies sell off assets when they close? I think there's a word for it: liquidation.
That's true for his first two examples (only because he picked inherently non-tiling-in-the-y-direction things), but the third (the Lego army) varied in two dimensions.
Because the statue shows the egg in its post-Columbus state.
"Oh, lovely, lovely, Taco" isn't a real song. Try Taco Grande by Weird Al instead.
The thing is, everyone should have a problem with Sony's actions. What Sony is trying to do goes beyond just screwing their customers; Sony is trying to destroy the concept of property rights by subjugating an owner's right to modify his property below Sony's desire to dictate how their product is used!
Copyright is not a property right, but rather merely a temporary monopoly established at the whim of the public for the express purpose of enriching the Public Domain. To make it superior to genuine property rights is both blatantly unconstitutional and dangerously insane.
Will it still be sufficient for your needs if this case sets a bad precedent and every company thinks selling you its products gives it the right to dictate what you do with your property?
The difference is that Imaginary Property can't be owned even with force.
I'm pretty sure Sony's argument with the PS3 relies on copyright (and more specifically, the DMCA), not patents.
You don't get it, do you? Sony isn't trying to do business in a free market economy; Sony is trying to change the rules so that actual people's physical property rights are destroyed in order to protect a virtual person's (i.e. a corporation's) virtual property rights (i.e., copyright). Sony is trying to bring about some sort of Bizarro world where individuals aren't allowed to own anything but instead are subjugated by whatever fucked-up rules the Corporate Overlord deigns to attach to the "privilege" of using their product. It is a new kind of serfdom, and cannot be permitted at any cost!
No, you don't get it. The doors aren't merely automatic like we have now; they somehow know to open if you want to walk through them or stay closed if you want to lean against them instead.