I'm not beyond changing my opinion, so let's review everything here.
The key point here is wether the prices they set for a sale are their own intellectual property or are open facts. I believe that since the price tags are on the shelves, they would lean more toward facts but, with a good team of lawyers and a slanted judge, BB might with such a case.
So, assuming the prices are open facts that are accessible to anyone, the case then becomes "Best Buy's Interest VS Freedom of Speech," That is an open and shut case.
Let us assume that Best But can somehow flag their prices and sale information as private property, then the issue becomes "Best Buy's Interest and Copyright VS Freedom of Speech," That is a much greyer area.
The synopsis of the entire debate is that. From here it becomes a matter of opinion as to wether Best Buy has the right to call their sale information Private Intellectual Property. I think... yes if they changed their practices in such a way that they would be hurt far far more than this little spat over a website is hurting them.
Alright, possible benefits aside, it is a litle on the weird side that BB is crying foul and running to the courts over their prices. Maybe BB could lose something from having the information released but that is the risk of running a semi-public, well known chain. Anyone could walk in, see that they're selling a notebook for $900, tell a friend and there you go. But that actually helps them.
My original point was to possibly put into perspective why BB was doing this. If we look 100% at the legal implications, it would be another step for the DMCA juggernaut. In the grand scheme of things, putting another 3 turkeys on the BB CEO's table is not as important as preserving our rights and freedoms.
At first read I thought to myself "What the hell?!" but now that I sit back, chug my daily dose of caffeine, and think about it, I wonder if maybe Best Buy is in the right and has an interest in keeping their items and prices under their hat.
As said above, releasing such data would cripple Best Buy's ability to price and stock their items strategically. But on the other side of the coin, I believe BB would benefit much more by having the data released to a limited degree and allowing people to at least see WHAT will be on sale. If I wanted a new notebook all year (I do... Christmas gifts anyone? =P) and saw that BB had the model I wanted on sale, I would be inclined to stop in and see just how much cheaper it would be.
In the end, BB has a vested interest in keeping the exact prices secret, but can benefit from the releasing of rough item descriptions and price deductions. Also, the negative publicity they would get from this would just be shooting themselves in the foot and making them seem like they have something valuable to hide.
I wonder... if they want to keep the sale information secret, will BB have big men in suits standing at the door searching for camera and writing utensils as individuals walk in and out?;)
I just very recently passed the stage where my parents were concerned with what I was looking at online. At about age 15, my father signed up with a local ISP and in a heartbeat I had the whole world at my fingertips. At first I thought the internet was all innocent but oh how quickly that changed.
At 16 I started searching for things that might not exactly be what my father intended for me to search for (details withheld, for decency reasons) really... even if a child is using the internet for the 'wrong' reasons, it can be a very educational experience. If the child is open about their surfing habits, the act of finding something objectionible can segway into a fruitful discussion on sex, violence, drugs or anything of the ilk. As long as the child respects the opinion of the parent and knows that the pages they read online can be written by any yokel with half a brain cell... it might be alright.
So should a parent play roulette like this, hoping a child will be open and understanding about the situations that appear online? No. While I was into... what I was into, I did some VERY stupid things that could have easily got me killed. It's been 3 or 4 years, I still surf for those things and my parents still don't know; but at 19 I know better.
Really, it all comes down to what you do as a parent. The three golden rules to apply here are:
1.) Involvement. Flip on the computer while your child is at school and read the history files. If they're cleaned out, be suspicious. Ask questions. When my dad walked by the computer and asked what I was doing, I HATED it, but 3 years later, I understand.
2.) Software. Install a filter or a proxy to monitor wheres, whens, and whats of the children's surfing habits. A friend of mine and her sister had both their computers tied through a proxy that ran a single copy of filtering and time-limiting software. This is very effective if you have enough computers and bandwidth to do it because the children can't try to hack with the software on the proxy.
3.) Common Sense. A parent's secret weapon;) Like I said, if the children are popping up screen savers and clicking like mad when you walk by, ask questions. Check history files, get nosey. Best yet, TELL THEM you are going to scan their history files. Tell them you can find out what they do no matter what (you can with a little software). Scare tactics work.
All in all, putting a computer in a child's room is screwing yourself. But it might be a good thing for the child's growth. No matter what, your attempts to protect the child will result in the child lashing out and screaming 'invasion of privacy'. They will understand later that you only wish to protect them. Talk alot, get involved and do the best you can.
The equation for the perfect parent doesn't exist. Every child needs a different parenting style and every parent does things their own way.
Unfortunately, most everyone will shrug off the work required to upgrade to ipv6. What we have now works fine for now and until something comes dangerously close to breaking, it will not change.
While I hate spam as much as the next person, we (Americans in this case) have to look at it from a more legal and governmental nature. While alot of us would chomp at the bit to outlaw spam, set fines and jailtime for spammers, you have to look at what that would do to the laws over the internet. It would set a precident stating that the governments of the world HAVE CONTROL OVER THE INTERNET. This is bad... very very bad.
First of all, the first thing that would come out the door after the anti-spam laws would be taxes. That's right, taxes on E-mail, taxes on webpage badnwidth, taxes on everything. Why have they not done this yet? Because the governments cannot establish that they have any ruling or administrating connection to the internet, therefore they cannot tax it. Once an internet law is passed, taxes will follow.
After taxes will come modified libel(slander) laws, court cases over websites (i.e.: he has an anti-gay site, I'm sueing!!), next maybe even such things over e-mail and the like.
Passing any internet-based law would open the door for the government to get its paws on the one truly unmoderated frontier left in the world. They futz with it enough as it is, do we really need that?
As said above, if an OS was judged on its networking merit, they would all fall short. One could say Windows has problems networking with Linux because Microsoft is the one holding the keys to the networking door. If networking with a WinPC is an issue, someone could program a better module to do so into the next Linux kernel release. That is... if Microsoft would be a bit more open with their networking protocols.
Unix/Linux in a desktop environment would be ideal in most cases: software solutions rival that of Windows and is mostly free, Linux is more stable (in most cases) than Windows, and works better in a server environment. Not to mention that Linux is flexible, secure, and totally open source. The downside is that calls to IT in the workplace and calls to tech support at home would skyrocket because Linux is not for the casual user. Getting it set up and running correctly can be a pain and a damper on productivity but that work-time is won back in that Linux does not crash as often as windows (when run correctly neither crash but eh)
Of course the main brownie point for Linux is that it is not owned and maintained by a bunch of corporate pinheads. =)
I'm not much of a sports gamer myself but I'll try to break this down the way I see it. Back in the dark ages, when Blizzard of America knew what they were doing, I played Diablo2 on Battle.net. This is, of course, free but is plagued by cheaters of all types. Why? Becuase there is simply very little or no incentive for Blizzard to work hard on moderating it. They are not being paid to run these servers and one could even say that they are bleeding cash through them. If a hack comes out, they release a patch and that is even more than they are legally obligated to do. Blizzard could start charging a monthly fee to play on Battle.net but that would drive away a large share of customers that want only online play.
That is Blizzard, let us focus on these sports games now. After beating the computer AI 50,000 times, one may wish to find other players to test their mettle against. Friends are good, online is good when such friends are not around. My point is, unlike these computer based games that would bomb without online features, console based sports games can be played alone or with a local friend and be very enjoyable. If one can have a perfectly good time playing by themselves or with a friend, why not make online play an extra feature?
Now I admit, there are people with no friends, or no friends interested in such games and those people may have to turn to the online realm. The plan proposed here caters to them perfectly because they can play spot matches for free but if they wanted to face the real challange of online tourneys, they have to fork over the cash. While this plan may appeal to the customers quite well, I fear that it would not generate very much revenue. If you check out Yahoo games, you will find that they have a very similar system of "You play free but if you want to play seriously, you have to pay," also, you will find that NO ONE has subscribed to this service.
So what would be the solution? Cash prizes? Online kudos? A sophisticated rating system? No. Those may gather a few people but in the end, the one thing that will really generate cash would be forced payments from everyone who wishes to play online, and this would be unethical in my opinion because the service has set its own precident as a free to play gathering place. Returning to the Blizzard example: there does NOT HAVE to be a server for everyone to play on. It is a gift and complaining about something as minor as paid tournaments is just wasting your breath.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not beyond changing my opinion, so let's review everything here.
The key point here is wether the prices they set for a sale are their own intellectual property or are open facts. I believe that since the price tags are on the shelves, they would lean more toward facts but, with a good team of lawyers and a slanted judge, BB might with such a case.
So, assuming the prices are open facts that are accessible to anyone, the case then becomes "Best Buy's Interest VS Freedom of Speech," That is an open and shut case.
Let us assume that Best But can somehow flag their prices and sale information as private property, then the issue becomes "Best Buy's Interest and Copyright VS Freedom of Speech," That is a much greyer area.
The synopsis of the entire debate is that. From here it becomes a matter of opinion as to wether Best Buy has the right to call their sale information Private Intellectual Property. I think... yes if they changed their practices in such a way that they would be hurt far far more than this little spat over a website is hurting them.
So yes, in that new light I see your point.
Alright, possible benefits aside, it is a litle on the weird side that BB is crying foul and running to the courts over their prices. Maybe BB could lose something from having the information released but that is the risk of running a semi-public, well known chain. Anyone could walk in, see that they're selling a notebook for $900, tell a friend and there you go. But that actually helps them.
My original point was to possibly put into perspective why BB was doing this. If we look 100% at the legal implications, it would be another step for the DMCA juggernaut. In the grand scheme of things, putting another 3 turkeys on the BB CEO's table is not as important as preserving our rights and freedoms.
At first read I thought to myself "What the hell?!" but now that I sit back, chug my daily dose of caffeine, and think about it, I wonder if maybe Best Buy is in the right and has an interest in keeping their items and prices under their hat.
;)
As said above, releasing such data would cripple Best Buy's ability to price and stock their items strategically. But on the other side of the coin, I believe BB would benefit much more by having the data released to a limited degree and allowing people to at least see WHAT will be on sale. If I wanted a new notebook all year (I do... Christmas gifts anyone? =P) and saw that BB had the model I wanted on sale, I would be inclined to stop in and see just how much cheaper it would be.
In the end, BB has a vested interest in keeping the exact prices secret, but can benefit from the releasing of rough item descriptions and price deductions. Also, the negative publicity they would get from this would just be shooting themselves in the foot and making them seem like they have something valuable to hide.
I wonder... if they want to keep the sale information secret, will BB have big men in suits standing at the door searching for camera and writing utensils as individuals walk in and out?
I just very recently passed the stage where my parents were concerned with what I was looking at online. At about age 15, my father signed up with a local ISP and in a heartbeat I had the whole world at my fingertips. At first I thought the internet was all innocent but oh how quickly that changed.
;) Like I said, if the children are popping up screen savers and clicking like mad when you walk by, ask questions. Check history files, get nosey. Best yet, TELL THEM you are going to scan their history files. Tell them you can find out what they do no matter what (you can with a little software). Scare tactics work.
At 16 I started searching for things that might not exactly be what my father intended for me to search for (details withheld, for decency reasons) really... even if a child is using the internet for the 'wrong' reasons, it can be a very educational experience. If the child is open about their surfing habits, the act of finding something objectionible can segway into a fruitful discussion on sex, violence, drugs or anything of the ilk. As long as the child respects the opinion of the parent and knows that the pages they read online can be written by any yokel with half a brain cell... it might be alright.
So should a parent play roulette like this, hoping a child will be open and understanding about the situations that appear online? No. While I was into... what I was into, I did some VERY stupid things that could have easily got me killed. It's been 3 or 4 years, I still surf for those things and my parents still don't know; but at 19 I know better.
Really, it all comes down to what you do as a parent. The three golden rules to apply here are:
1.) Involvement. Flip on the computer while your child is at school and read the history files. If they're cleaned out, be suspicious. Ask questions. When my dad walked by the computer and asked what I was doing, I HATED it, but 3 years later, I understand.
2.) Software. Install a filter or a proxy to monitor wheres, whens, and whats of the children's surfing habits. A friend of mine and her sister had both their computers tied through a proxy that ran a single copy of filtering and time-limiting software. This is very effective if you have enough computers and bandwidth to do it because the children can't try to hack with the software on the proxy.
3.) Common Sense. A parent's secret weapon
All in all, putting a computer in a child's room is screwing yourself. But it might be a good thing for the child's growth. No matter what, your attempts to protect the child will result in the child lashing out and screaming 'invasion of privacy'. They will understand later that you only wish to protect them. Talk alot, get involved and do the best you can.
The equation for the perfect parent doesn't exist. Every child needs a different parenting style and every parent does things their own way.
Unfortunately, most everyone will shrug off the work required to upgrade to ipv6. What we have now works fine for now and until something comes dangerously close to breaking, it will not change.
While I hate spam as much as the next person, we (Americans in this case) have to look at it from a more legal and governmental nature. While alot of us would chomp at the bit to outlaw spam, set fines and jailtime for spammers, you have to look at what that would do to the laws over the internet. It would set a precident stating that the governments of the world HAVE CONTROL OVER THE INTERNET. This is bad... very very bad.
First of all, the first thing that would come out the door after the anti-spam laws would be taxes. That's right, taxes on E-mail, taxes on webpage badnwidth, taxes on everything. Why have they not done this yet? Because the governments cannot establish that they have any ruling or administrating connection to the internet, therefore they cannot tax it. Once an internet law is passed, taxes will follow.
After taxes will come modified libel(slander) laws, court cases over websites (i.e.: he has an anti-gay site, I'm sueing!!), next maybe even such things over e-mail and the like.
Passing any internet-based law would open the door for the government to get its paws on the one truly unmoderated frontier left in the world. They futz with it enough as it is, do we really need that?
As said above, if an OS was judged on its networking merit, they would all fall short. One could say Windows has problems networking with Linux because Microsoft is the one holding the keys to the networking door. If networking with a WinPC is an issue, someone could program a better module to do so into the next Linux kernel release. That is... if Microsoft would be a bit more open with their networking protocols.
Unix/Linux in a desktop environment would be ideal in most cases: software solutions rival that of Windows and is mostly free, Linux is more stable (in most cases) than Windows, and works better in a server environment. Not to mention that Linux is flexible, secure, and totally open source. The downside is that calls to IT in the workplace and calls to tech support at home would skyrocket because Linux is not for the casual user. Getting it set up and running correctly can be a pain and a damper on productivity but that work-time is won back in that Linux does not crash as often as windows (when run correctly neither crash but eh)
Of course the main brownie point for Linux is that it is not owned and maintained by a bunch of corporate pinheads. =)
I'm not much of a sports gamer myself but I'll try to break this down the way I see it. Back in the dark ages, when Blizzard of America knew what they were doing, I played Diablo2 on Battle.net. This is, of course, free but is plagued by cheaters of all types. Why? Becuase there is simply very little or no incentive for Blizzard to work hard on moderating it. They are not being paid to run these servers and one could even say that they are bleeding cash through them. If a hack comes out, they release a patch and that is even more than they are legally obligated to do. Blizzard could start charging a monthly fee to play on Battle.net but that would drive away a large share of customers that want only online play.
That is Blizzard, let us focus on these sports games now. After beating the computer AI 50,000 times, one may wish to find other players to test their mettle against. Friends are good, online is good when such friends are not around. My point is, unlike these computer based games that would bomb without online features, console based sports games can be played alone or with a local friend and be very enjoyable. If one can have a perfectly good time playing by themselves or with a friend, why not make online play an extra feature?
Now I admit, there are people with no friends, or no friends interested in such games and those people may have to turn to the online realm. The plan proposed here caters to them perfectly because they can play spot matches for free but if they wanted to face the real challange of online tourneys, they have to fork over the cash. While this plan may appeal to the customers quite well, I fear that it would not generate very much revenue. If you check out Yahoo games, you will find that they have a very similar system of "You play free but if you want to play seriously, you have to pay," also, you will find that NO ONE has subscribed to this service.
So what would be the solution? Cash prizes? Online kudos? A sophisticated rating system? No. Those may gather a few people but in the end, the one thing that will really generate cash would be forced payments from everyone who wishes to play online, and this would be unethical in my opinion because the service has set its own precident as a free to play gathering place. Returning to the Blizzard example: there does NOT HAVE to be a server for everyone to play on. It is a gift and complaining about something as minor as paid tournaments is just wasting your breath.