Reverse it, you couldn't play Brood War without buying SC1. Conversely, he's saying that the SC2 'expansions' don't require the purchase of one another to be playable.
However, as someone else has pointed out, if you actually want to be able to play somethign more than "Terran Vs Terran" or etc. then you actually do need to purchase the full set.
My iPod explodes/catches fire. Apple's sensors indicate a severe temperature spike and a sharp jolt.
So here's the question, what exactly does this indicate? Cars have even more sophisticated black boxes and even then they rarely are able to piece together what actually happened using just that data. Does anyone actually think that these sensors are going to be used in any other way than blanket warranty denials?
From the same wiki link already provided, bolding added by me:
SAS 70 and Sarbanes-Oxley Act
With the introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), SAS 70 took on increased importance. SOX adopted the COSO model of controls, which is the same model that SAS 70 audits have used since inception. SOX heightened the focus placed on understanding the controls over financial reporting and identified a Type II SAS 70 report as the only acceptable method for a third party to assure a service organization's controls. Security "certifications" are excluded as acceptable substitutes for a Type II SAS 70 audit report. Audit Standard 5 (which replaced AS 2), available on the PCAOB's (www.pcaobus.org) website, details how a SAS 70 audit should be used in relation to SOX.
SAS 70 Type II for Google Apps Tuesday, November 04, 2008 at 3:46 PM Posted by Eran Feigenbaum, Director of Security, Google Apps
Ever since the first Gmail users began trusting Google with their private information, keeping people's data safe has been one of our top priorities. Today, more than a million businesses, plus thousands of schools and organizations using Google Apps rely on us to safeguard their critical information.
We've published some of the ways we keep sensitive information where it belongs, but we wanted to go farther and have external independent security specialists audit our systems and procedures. Here's the outcome: an independent public accounting firm has verified the effectiveness of our technical processes and controls for Google Apps, and Google Apps has satisfactorily completed a SAS 70 Type II audit.
Our commitment to keeping customer information safe - whether they're consumer users or our largest enterprise customers - is part of our DNA, and we protect this information as rigorously as we protect our own sensitive corporate information. In fact, we use the very same services that we offer to our users for our own email, documents, project team sites and calendars.
Statement on Auditing Standards No. 70: Service Organizations, commonly abbreviated as SAS 70 and available full-text by permission of the AICPA, is an auditing statement issued by the Auditing Standards Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), officially titled "Reports on the Processing of Transactions by Service Organizations". SAS 70 defines the professional standards used by a service auditor to assess the internal controls of a service organization and issue a service auditor's report. Service organizations are typically entities that provide outsourcing services that impact the control environment of their customers. Examples of service organizations are insurance and medical claims processors, trust companies, hosted data centers, application service providers (ASPs), managed security providers, credit processing organizations and clearinghouses.
There are two types of service auditor reports. A Type I service auditor's report includes the service auditor's opinion on the fairness of the presentation of the service organization's description of controls that had been placed in operation and the suitability of the design of the controls to achieve the specified control objectives. A Type II service auditor's report includes the information contained in a Type I service auditor's report and also includes the service auditor's opinion on whether the specific controls were operating effectively during the period under review
The seeds themselves contain very low levels of opiates.[1] However, the television show MythBusters demonstrated that one could test positive for narcotics after consuming four poppy seed bagels. The show Brainiac: Science Abuse had subjects who tested positive with only two poppy seed bagels. As a result, the U.S. standard for urinalysis raised the threshold for a positive result by a considerable amount.[citation needed] However, many labs have not implemented the increased detection threshold and many believe that the new threshold is still too low.
Depends on the nebulous definition of 'network management' I would imagine. If it means your carrier can go "Oh noes! Tethering = unstable network" then no.
And thank you for playing the "lets throw out insults because we miss the point" game! What does he win Johnny?
Well mrchaotica, you win the ultimate prize of looking like an idiot! WOOT! To you good sir. WOOT.
Congratz, really. Congratz.
Now, if we could dispense with the remainder of the dick measuring part of your gambit, I'd like to point out a some things your infinitely infantile brain apparently isn't glomping onto:
Data is not real.
You can not touch data.
You can not see data.
Data has no physical form.
Data has no physical properties.
Data can not be created
Data can not be destroyed
Data is an ABSTRACT concept.
Amazon did not take anything from you, Amazon did not come into your house and remove anything from your Kindle. If you were to have a magic "Super duper CSI McGuffin" device that compared your Kindle the day before 1984 was deleted from your machine and the day after, there would be ZERO physical difference between the devices other than a handful of atoms being in a different position.
The REASON why the RIAA's argument for copyright infringement being theft is bunk is not because "it's just copying", it's because you can't steal something that doesn't exist. What you can do is create physical representations of that data. What you can do is destroy those representations. Copyright infringement is making unauthorized representations. Nothing has been taken, and nothing has been stolen.
Similarly, if I walk into the the Louvre and start slashing paintings or walk into a library and start blacking out random pages in books, I may be destroying the physical objects and thus removing from the access to the data that was represented in them. But I am not STEALING shit.
Can I be sued for what I've done? Of course. Would it be theft? Only an idiot would claim so.
What can I be sued for? Damages. What are damages? The value of the item I've destroyed and/or the value of the data I've deprived the owner access to.
What are the damages from Amazon's deletion of 1984 from your Kindle? The price of the book. Which Amazon has already refunded you.
And here's a fundamental concept you could try grasping sometime. When a conversation doesn't start off with random insults, introducing them into the the mix simply because you are too fucking stupid and think it's the only way to get your point across doesn't make you seem smarter or make your argument any less dense. It just ensures the person you are speaking to realizes that he's dealing with a moron who isn't really worth the effort of conversing with.
And on that note, that's the last word I have for you on this topic.
Even in a criminal trial you could have a defendant yelling "I did it" and the lawyers arguing that he is bonkers.
And yet, his team wasn't. Was it?
More importantly, this wasn't a random "Judge up and decides the point on their own inititive" event, it was a response to a motion from the RIAA lawyers, which appearently wasn't opposed by HIS lawyers.
Regardless of anything else that is happening in this case, getting upset over the Judge doing this is pointless, appearently his lawyers didn't think it was worth fighting and they were actually in the room.
Except, in this and the cases I've refered to, it's not at all a joke. The judgements have been sound, while the penalities may not have been, the failure wasn't in the game being rigged, the failure was someone coming in thinking they could play the clown and actually win.
"This is me. I'm here to answer," said Tenenbaum. "I used the computer. I uploaded and downloaded music. This is how it is. I did it," he testified before a packed courtroom, whose spectators included an all-star cast of Harvard Law School copyright scholars: Lawrence Lessig, John Palfrey, and Jonathan Zittrain.
"Are you admitting liability for all 30 sound recordings" on which the record labels brought suit, asked the plaintiffs' attorney Tim Reynolds.
"Yes," said Tenenbaum.
Tenenbaum then admitted that he "lied" in his written discovery responses, the ones in which he denied responsibility.
"Why did you lie at that point?" asked Tenenbaum's attorney, Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson. "It was kind of something I rushed through," responded Tenenbaum. "It's what seemed the best response to give." At the time he gave the admittedly false discovery responses, Tenenbaum testified that he was being advised by his mother Judith, a family law attorney who works for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
He had a jury trial, he also admitted to doing what he was accused of doing. In a criminal trial that's pleading guilty. Why would they waste time at that point arguing over a point that has already been conceded.
How many RIAA/Copyright related lawsuits this year have started off with a hopeful - "Yeah! Damnit! We are taking this one all the way and are going to stick it to the MAN! Fuck him! Fuck the MAN Baby!" only to result in a circus and a horrible verdict for the defendant?
Damn that's depressing, and this one was the one I was actually hoping the guy running the show had some sort of fucking clue/hidden plan that he was going to spring out at the end.
I mean, yes, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of willfull copyright infringement, but I thought at least this would come out to forcing the RIAA to cut out some of their crap.
You've basicly said "It's theft because it's theft and nah nah nah I'm not going to read the rest of what you've said".
Your choice, but it isn't a very compelling arguement. Especially when I've touched on the points you've attempted to make in my responses to the six other people who've replied.
The argument of the *IAA's to support the whole "Copyright infringement is theft" is that even digital copies are things that can be 'taken' from their owner. It can't be theft if nothing is being taken.
An eBook is NOTHING. It has no physical shape or form of its own. It is pure data. If you say taking an eBook is theft, then you are tacitly agreeing to the *IAA's argument. If that's your belief, then more power to you. I'm willing to let you see the world the way you wish.
The subsequent deletion of the copies was indeed theft and not copyright infringement because Amazon deprived the customers of the use of the physical copy they had bought, paid for, and owned.
Unless you are referring to some recounting of the events that I missed, where Amazon sent Dr McNinja to steal the Kindles of those who purchased our illicit copies of 1984, then no, that wasn't theft. There was no physical copy, just data being deleted on a machine that was set up to sync what was on it with what was listed on your account with Amazon.
Or not, at least, if you aren't willing to swallow the idea of copyright infringement being theft.
If you are, then sure, that was theft. And again, at that point, you were in possession of stolen goods and had no claim to the book either.
And let's not get into the bullshit realm of you and I trying to pretend we know the legal definitions here. You are no more in a position of claiming it's legally considered theft than I am. Legally, theft has a very strict and narrow definition and I guarantee you that neither the selling or subsequent deletion of the book will be counted under legal 'theft'.
The question will not be was it theft but was it legal. And I strongly suspect that Amazon will be found in the clear, especially since they refund the money paid for the books. As others have mentioned, while 1984 is a high profile case of this happening, it's not the only one.
Slashdot Mirror
Reverse it, you couldn't play Brood War without buying SC1. Conversely, he's saying that the SC2 'expansions' don't require the purchase of one another to be playable.
However, as someone else has pointed out, if you actually want to be able to play somethign more than "Terran Vs Terran" or etc. then you actually do need to purchase the full set.
My iPod explodes/catches fire. Apple's sensors indicate a severe temperature spike and a sharp jolt.
So here's the question, what exactly does this indicate? Cars have even more sophisticated black boxes and even then they rarely are able to piece together what actually happened using just that data. Does anyone actually think that these sensors are going to be used in any other way than blanket warranty denials?
Yes, I agree, the fact that Microsoft's corporate motto is not "Do not be evil" is exactly why Google is facing anti-trust queries.
From the same wiki link already provided, bolding added by me:
which leads to
Stupid question but can you still create your OWN stuff for Sims 3?
Anyone remember the Seinfeld episode with the poppy seeds?
Appearently it wasn't fictionalized that much.
With that load out, I'd agree. You definately are a threat to civilization.
Depends on the nebulous definition of 'network management' I would imagine. If it means your carrier can go "Oh noes! Tethering = unstable network" then no.
No. And really, you aren't trying very hard.
My reply.
It wasn't a criminal trial, civil trials have no "protection from self-incrimination" right attached.
And thank you for playing the "lets throw out insults because we miss the point" game! What does he win Johnny?
Well mrchaotica, you win the ultimate prize of looking like an idiot! WOOT! To you good sir. WOOT.
Congratz, really. Congratz.
Now, if we could dispense with the remainder of the dick measuring part of your gambit, I'd like to point out a some things your infinitely infantile brain apparently isn't glomping onto:
Amazon did not take anything from you, Amazon did not come into your house and remove anything from your Kindle. If you were to have a magic "Super duper CSI McGuffin" device that compared your Kindle the day before 1984 was deleted from your machine and the day after, there would be ZERO physical difference between the devices other than a handful of atoms being in a different position.
The REASON why the RIAA's argument for copyright infringement being theft is bunk is not because "it's just copying", it's because you can't steal something that doesn't exist. What you can do is create physical representations of that data. What you can do is destroy those representations. Copyright infringement is making unauthorized representations. Nothing has been taken, and nothing has been stolen.
Similarly, if I walk into the the Louvre and start slashing paintings or walk into a library and start blacking out random pages in books, I may be destroying the physical objects and thus removing from the access to the data that was represented in them. But I am not STEALING shit.
Can I be sued for what I've done? Of course. Would it be theft? Only an idiot would claim so.
What can I be sued for? Damages. What are damages? The value of the item I've destroyed and/or the value of the data I've deprived the owner access to.
What are the damages from Amazon's deletion of 1984 from your Kindle? The price of the book. Which Amazon has already refunded you.
And here's a fundamental concept you could try grasping sometime. When a conversation doesn't start off with random insults, introducing them into the the mix simply because you are too fucking stupid and think it's the only way to get your point across doesn't make you seem smarter or make your argument any less dense. It just ensures the person you are speaking to realizes that he's dealing with a moron who isn't really worth the effort of conversing with.
And on that note, that's the last word I have for you on this topic.
And yet, his team wasn't. Was it?
More importantly, this wasn't a random "Judge up and decides the point on their own inititive" event, it was a response to a motion from the RIAA lawyers, which appearently wasn't opposed by HIS lawyers.
Regardless of anything else that is happening in this case, getting upset over the Judge doing this is pointless, appearently his lawyers didn't think it was worth fighting and they were actually in the room.
Except, in this and the cases I've refered to, it's not at all a joke. The judgements have been sound, while the penalities may not have been, the failure wasn't in the game being rigged, the failure was someone coming in thinking they could play the clown and actually win.
What he said
He had a jury trial, he also admitted to doing what he was accused of doing. In a criminal trial that's pleading guilty. Why would they waste time at that point arguing over a point that has already been conceded.
"Your honor, I did it! I admit it."
"That's for a jury to decide son..."
How many RIAA/Copyright related lawsuits this year have started off with a hopeful - "Yeah! Damnit! We are taking this one all the way and are going to stick it to the MAN! Fuck him! Fuck the MAN Baby!" only to result in a circus and a horrible verdict for the defendant?
Damn that's depressing, and this one was the one I was actually hoping the guy running the show had some sort of fucking clue/hidden plan that he was going to spring out at the end.
I mean, yes, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of willfull copyright infringement, but I thought at least this would come out to forcing the RIAA to cut out some of their crap.
You've basicly said "It's theft because it's theft and nah nah nah I'm not going to read the rest of what you've said".
Your choice, but it isn't a very compelling arguement. Especially when I've touched on the points you've attempted to make in my responses to the six other people who've replied.
The argument of the *IAA's to support the whole "Copyright infringement is theft" is that even digital copies are things that can be 'taken' from their owner. It can't be theft if nothing is being taken.
An eBook is NOTHING. It has no physical shape or form of its own. It is pure data. If you say taking an eBook is theft, then you are tacitly agreeing to the *IAA's argument. If that's your belief, then more power to you. I'm willing to let you see the world the way you wish.
But it is an either/or.
Unless you are referring to some recounting of the events that I missed, where Amazon sent Dr McNinja to steal the Kindles of those who purchased our illicit copies of 1984, then no, that wasn't theft. There was no physical copy, just data being deleted on a machine that was set up to sync what was on it with what was listed on your account with Amazon.
Or not, at least, if you aren't willing to swallow the idea of copyright infringement being theft.
If you are, then sure, that was theft. And again, at that point, you were in possession of stolen goods and had no claim to the book either.
And let's not get into the bullshit realm of you and I trying to pretend we know the legal definitions here. You are no more in a position of claiming it's legally considered theft than I am. Legally, theft has a very strict and narrow definition and I guarantee you that neither the selling or subsequent deletion of the book will be counted under legal 'theft'.
The question will not be was it theft but was it legal. And I strongly suspect that Amazon will be found in the clear, especially since they refund the money paid for the books. As others have mentioned, while 1984 is a high profile case of this happening, it's not the only one.
No I'm not saying that. I think I pretty clearly did not say that. However I can understand observational bias might incline you to see it anyway.
Cause they were Ayn Rand books? :-P
Seriously, who IS John Galt?
No Winston, you are the Cheese.
Whoops, sorry... wrong meme.
It is on Guttenberg, just not the "US" facing part.