If you look around eBay you'll realize quickly that Macs in general maintain their value much better than PCs do. Resale values for even really old Mac models are much higher than for more recent PCs.
This is especially true for their PowerBooks.
It's good to see that they have the sense to keep at least one of the new iMacs in that sub-$1000 spot. Still means that a cheap PC is a lot cheaper than the cheapest Mac, but maybe that's part of the reason they keep their resale value. Better design and construction than those cheap PCs.
As a user of Vonage in Minnesota this concerns (and annoys!) me.
One of the reasons I got the VOIP service was the fact that I'm sick of being scr*w*d with by local phone companies. It's also cheaper, and the sound quality is better. (And hey - I'm a geek.)
I just recently moved. I had a cable modem installed in my new house before I cut off my broadband service at my old house. I unplugged the little Cisco box that my Vonage phone service runs out of and took it to my new house and plugged it in. I ran the phone cable that comes out of it into the nearest wall jack... et voila! My home phone service for my entire house just moved from one house to the next in 20 minutes with no hassles.
The last time I moved I was using Qwest. Instead of transferring my phone number from one home to the next in adjoining towns in the Minneapolis suburbs, they transferred my phone number to a town in Iowa and told me that there was no way that they could move it back in less than three days.
Anything that threatens to impede the growth of regular phone alternatives must be stopped. The traditional phone companies deserve to die a slow death if they can't get their heads around the idea of "customer service" instead of "self serving."
Although this may(?) not be the intention of the RIAA, by signing a statement stating that you have shared songs, it may be possible that you could be sued by OTHER parties who also have rights to those songs... even if the RIAA itself says that it ("honest!") won't sue you.
So I sign what seems to amount to an affidavit admitting my violations... "Danger, Will Robinson!"
The RIAA doesn't sue me - but one day I learn that I am being sued by ASCAP or BMI or maybe by UMG... but not by the RIAA...
IANAL, however I've seen this "third party lawsuit" idea posited in a couple of articles on this subject by those who are AL. I believe in each instance the L said he would not advise a client of his to sign any such thing.
I've increasingly been concerned lately that we're moving away from that "open" Internet in the name of safety.
I can only operate my own SMTP server to send out mail if I relay through my ISP. I just moved into a new house which is thankfully served by a different cable provider than my old home. My old (RoadRunner) provider actively blocked my server from forwarding.
OTOH, I can't really think of a reason now or in the future when someone should have a legitimate reason for leaving certain ports open to the Internet (like 135 for example.) But I'd still hate to see it *not* be optional. The not optional route is what burnt me with AOL's blocking dynamic IP addresses from sending it's users any mail.
Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
I think someone's not moderating correctly... The posting which was modded "Troll" does not mix up facts, distort reality, or seek to provoke indignant responses.
I grew up in a small town in Indiana... I reserve the right to make the occassional redneck joke. In this case the joke was on topic.
1. How did they get the guns?
2. Who didn't notice that these two kids needed to be in therapy or on medication before this?
3. Are some form of consequences going to be leveled at the adult who is responsible for the firearms used?
Someone somewhere fscked up very very badly in creating a situation where two deranged or mentally challenged (or both?) teenagers had access to firearms and ammo.
Should that person or persons be held responsible? Well, an innocent bystander died because of their actions, inactions, or dereliction.
It's entirely possible that the kids who are being charged should more properly be locked up in psychiatric care. The better question is what should be done about whomever created this situation... and it obviously wasn't the game company.
How can you not see where your argument just doesn't hold up?
"1. To all those saying, 'Its like he broke in your house': No it isn't. The machines were connected to the internet, which is a public medium. A house is a physically closed space where courts have rules one can have an expectation of privacy. Nobody can claim that the internet should provide an expectation of privacy - by its very nature of using shared resources it flies in the face of such an argument."
Yessssss... it IS like he broke into a house. If not a house, then a company owned building. Every HOUSE, every building has public streets and other public access ways adjoining it. Many company buildings have PUBLIC areas and PUBLIC hours of availability. NONE of that means that you, I, or anyone else can do as they please in that space, real or virtual.
If a company puts a faulty lock on their doors and I come along and check that lock I KNOW that the lock means I'm not supposed to be there. It's COMMON SENSE that I'm not supposed to try to pick that lock. If I want to tell the company that the lock is faulty, that makes me a good samaritan.
If I pick that lock, then go inside and pick the lock on a file cabinet and rifle through the files inside, I am going to be in a world of legal hurt if I get caught. And I am NOT a good samaritan. I am now a THRILL SEEKER. The whole point of being a thrill seeker is that you KNOW you are doing something you are not supposed to do.
Is there some part of this which isn't completely clear to anyone with a mentality older than the age of 8?
It's interesting that there are so many people who refuse to carry this through into the digital space. The analogy I just gave carries through perfectly to the current case.
Adrian tested the lock - found out that it was a sh*tty lock and got it open. He went into the server (the building) where he knew he was NOT supposed to go and he got into the file cabinets (the files with the company data). He then went and talked about it. He had no expressed or implied permission to do something that IT WAS UNDERSTOOD he should not be doing and that there are legal penalties for doing.
There may be questions about how severe the penalties should be based on what he did with the information he gained access to, however there is no question at all that he was doing something that EVERYONE knows you should not do. To think that there's no problem with what he did is NOT to be living in the real world.
We all know that companies do NOT want us to break into their systems.
To try to rephrase the argument in such a way that he didn't REALLY break into their systems is to play semantic games and apologetics.
I don't think he's demon spawn for what he did, but it's a really immature habit to be (yes) breaking into other people's property and expect that sooner or later someone isn't going to take it VERY personally.
I've heard a couple of comments to the effect that it's almost impossible for a small developer to sue for heisted GPL code and not being a lawyer a question occurred to me...
In a case where someone is licensing their software under the GPL and someone else hijacks their code and starts selling it, it's been said that you can't really sue because you can't claim damages -- you weren't selling the code so you didn't lose anything.
Isn't there a way to flip that on it's head though? (For someone who can say IAAL?)
The villains (this is what SCO is trying to do) are selling something that they do not have the rights to sell. Can't it be claimed in some legal way that *all* of the gross proceeds of those sales actually belong to the party that *really* "owns" the code?
It seems exceeding strange that someone can in effect "steal" something, sell it to someone else and legally keep the money just because the original party was willing to give it away but only to someone who would *not* sell it.
Slashdot Mirror
The dandelion break has ended!!!
This is especially true for their PowerBooks.
It's good to see that they have the sense to keep at least one of the new iMacs in that sub-$1000 spot. Still means that a cheap PC is a lot cheaper than the cheapest Mac, but maybe that's part of the reason they keep their resale value. Better design and construction than those cheap PCs.
One of the reasons I got the VOIP service was the fact that I'm sick of being scr*w*d with by local phone companies. It's also cheaper, and the sound quality is better. (And hey - I'm a geek.)
I just recently moved. I had a cable modem installed in my new house before I cut off my broadband service at my old house. I unplugged the little Cisco box that my Vonage phone service runs out of and took it to my new house and plugged it in. I ran the phone cable that comes out of it into the nearest wall jack... et voila! My home phone service for my entire house just moved from one house to the next in 20 minutes with no hassles.
The last time I moved I was using Qwest. Instead of transferring my phone number from one home to the next in adjoining towns in the Minneapolis suburbs, they transferred my phone number to a town in Iowa and told me that there was no way that they could move it back in less than three days.
Anything that threatens to impede the growth of regular phone alternatives must be stopped. The traditional phone companies deserve to die a slow death if they can't get their heads around the idea of "customer service" instead of "self serving."
All the people sued in this case have been sharing more than 1000 songs.
Nooooo... All the people sued in this case have been accused of sharing more than 1000 songs.
We all know that the RIAA's lackeys have already accused people who were *not* guilty in past cases, and tried to lynch them.
So I sign what seems to amount to an affidavit admitting my violations... "Danger, Will Robinson!"
The RIAA doesn't sue me - but one day I learn that I am being sued by ASCAP or BMI or maybe by UMG... but not by the RIAA...
IANAL, however I've seen this "third party lawsuit" idea posited in a couple of articles on this subject by those who are AL. I believe in each instance the L said he would not advise a client of his to sign any such thing.
I can only operate my own SMTP server to send out mail if I relay through my ISP. I just moved into a new house which is thankfully served by a different cable provider than my old home. My old (RoadRunner) provider actively blocked my server from forwarding.
OTOH, I can't really think of a reason now or in the future when someone should have a legitimate reason for leaving certain ports open to the Internet (like 135 for example.) But I'd still hate to see it *not* be optional. The not optional route is what burnt me with AOL's blocking dynamic IP addresses from sending it's users any mail.
Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
I think someone's not moderating correctly... The posting which was modded "Troll" does not mix up facts, distort reality, or seek to provoke indignant responses.
I grew up in a small town in Indiana... I reserve the right to make the occassional redneck joke. In this case the joke was on topic.
Something seems amiss here...
Who needs an electric fence to get a shock?
1. How did they get the guns?
2. Who didn't notice that these two kids needed to be in therapy or on medication before this?
3. Are some form of consequences going to be leveled at the adult who is responsible for the firearms used?
Someone somewhere fscked up very very badly in creating a situation where two deranged or mentally challenged (or both?) teenagers had access to firearms and ammo.
Should that person or persons be held responsible? Well, an innocent bystander died because of their actions, inactions, or dereliction.
It's entirely possible that the kids who are being charged should more properly be locked up in psychiatric care. The better question is what should be done about whomever created this situation... and it obviously wasn't the game company.
How can you not see where your argument just doesn't hold up? "1. To all those saying, 'Its like he broke in your house': No it isn't. The machines were connected to the internet, which is a public medium. A house is a physically closed space where courts have rules one can have an expectation of privacy. Nobody can claim that the internet should provide an expectation of privacy - by its very nature of using shared resources it flies in the face of such an argument." Yessssss... it IS like he broke into a house. If not a house, then a company owned building. Every HOUSE, every building has public streets and other public access ways adjoining it. Many company buildings have PUBLIC areas and PUBLIC hours of availability. NONE of that means that you, I, or anyone else can do as they please in that space, real or virtual. If a company puts a faulty lock on their doors and I come along and check that lock I KNOW that the lock means I'm not supposed to be there. It's COMMON SENSE that I'm not supposed to try to pick that lock. If I want to tell the company that the lock is faulty, that makes me a good samaritan. If I pick that lock, then go inside and pick the lock on a file cabinet and rifle through the files inside, I am going to be in a world of legal hurt if I get caught. And I am NOT a good samaritan. I am now a THRILL SEEKER. The whole point of being a thrill seeker is that you KNOW you are doing something you are not supposed to do. Is there some part of this which isn't completely clear to anyone with a mentality older than the age of 8? It's interesting that there are so many people who refuse to carry this through into the digital space. The analogy I just gave carries through perfectly to the current case. Adrian tested the lock - found out that it was a sh*tty lock and got it open. He went into the server (the building) where he knew he was NOT supposed to go and he got into the file cabinets (the files with the company data). He then went and talked about it. He had no expressed or implied permission to do something that IT WAS UNDERSTOOD he should not be doing and that there are legal penalties for doing. There may be questions about how severe the penalties should be based on what he did with the information he gained access to, however there is no question at all that he was doing something that EVERYONE knows you should not do. To think that there's no problem with what he did is NOT to be living in the real world. We all know that companies do NOT want us to break into their systems. To try to rephrase the argument in such a way that he didn't REALLY break into their systems is to play semantic games and apologetics. I don't think he's demon spawn for what he did, but it's a really immature habit to be (yes) breaking into other people's property and expect that sooner or later someone isn't going to take it VERY personally.
Brilliant. Bloody brilliant... =D
I've heard a couple of comments to the effect that it's almost impossible for a small developer to sue for heisted GPL code and not being a lawyer a question occurred to me...
In a case where someone is licensing their software under the GPL and someone else hijacks their code and starts selling it, it's been said that you can't really sue because you can't claim damages -- you weren't selling the code so you didn't lose anything.
Isn't there a way to flip that on it's head though? (For someone who can say IAAL?)
The villains (this is what SCO is trying to do) are selling something that they do not have the rights to sell. Can't it be claimed in some legal way that *all* of the gross proceeds of those sales actually belong to the party that *really* "owns" the code?
It seems exceeding strange that someone can in effect "steal" something, sell it to someone else and legally keep the money just because the original party was willing to give it away but only to someone who would *not* sell it.