Big content are big lobbyists. Lobbyists pay for politicians' campaigns. Ergo, without lobbyists' support, politicians would not get reelected, meaning they would not continue to have access to the power and cash they currently have.
This, of course, suggests that the system is broken, and it is, but politicians control the system and politicians benefit from it being broken.
False dilemma. It doesn't have to be either "completely free market" or "complete communism". There can be reasonable regulations. The difficulty is in determining what is reasonable.
(Also controlling the root cause of all of this, corruption in government. But that's an even harder issue. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be working on it though.)
And which "rogue employees" have access to change the Amazon prices of their employer's most valuable properties? They'd have to be fairly high-ranked.
Because if you code up an "open", gratis API, and it's useful, people will build applications around it. Then, a year later, you start charging for it. Either the developers using your API have to pay or their applications won't work (at least, not without significant recoding, which often means significant developer cost). You're basically holding their code hostage. It's awesome if you're the API developer, of course.
Now, to be fair, this is only unethical if you infer that the API will continue to be free throughout its life. It's certainly not open source though.
If you want to know if something is or is not going to happen at the federal level, the only question you have to ask is who will or will not financially benefit from it.
Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you.
Pedantic, but I've always wondered why that phrase was necessary. In a contract with a severance clause (like every EULA ever), if the exclusion isn't legal, it just gets severed from the contract and the rest remains in full force. So why specifically mention it?
Someone who profits from the situation, who can ignore all the societal implications of the actual patents, could defend it quite well. Like, say, a patent lawyer.
I don't usually complain about the editors; they do a good enough job that the site is still useful by its community and conversation. But in this case I'm making an exception.
Timothy, did you even click through to the article AT ALL? I did, and it doesn't mention marijuana, cigarettes, or anything similar. The article just says that the camera does chemical composition, and it's not entirely clear that it could even do what's suggested in your summary.
Can we have a "No Original Research" rule like Wikipedia, please? It's great that you have your theories, editors, and they're completely welcome, but POST THEM AS COMMENTS. The summary spot is supposed to be a summary of the the fine article(s), and not much more; especially not your "educated guesses" presented as fact.
If you're at all worried about this, don't allow internet access. Either allow it or don't, but don't half-ass allow it. If you let them open any electronic device, you have to assume they have access to the full, unfiltered internet. Welcome to the 21st century, where we have cell phones with wireless tethering and all manner of wireless access dongles like 4G modems which are completely out of your control. I suppose if the classroom was surrounded by a Faraday cage and only wired internet to their desks was allowed you could try to filter it, but then you're putting yourself into an adversarial relationship with blackhat engineering students... not a great place to be. If you think you're smarter than them, you're probably right, but they still might try a thing or two you haven't considered.
If you're testing them individually, due to the problems mentioned above, don't allow internet access at all. Cheaters will talk amongst themselves, which means in the best case scenario you'll have a bunch of students to fail, and in the worst case, you won't even know, so they'll have artificially higher marks than everyone else.
Never go to Best Buy on Black Friday. They're well-known to be full of bait and switch offers. In fact, there's really no reason to go out on Black Friday at all. Just wake up at / stay up until 4 AM and do all your shopping online. No lines, no up-selling, and the products get shipped directly to your door, at the same crazy Black Friday prices. I prefer Walmart.com for this sort of thing; there's remarkably little BS with which to deal. So far have bought a ~$400 42" TV and a ~$130 surround sound / Blu-Ray system, both of which were surprisingly quality.
By the way, the reps argue with you about buying the "advertised" items in Best Buys primarily because they don't get commission / do get yelled at if those items are what are sold, rather than the designated, higher-priced snake oil switched items. And God help them if they sell something without a warranty...
Never said I was continuing to use it. Perhaps my tenses could have used some work. In any case, both of us maintain our OkC profiles (with status set to "married") because we trust each other.
They tend to reject people they think are depressed as well. Alternatively, you could simply be an outlier; they check after you submit if there are any people who they could match you with right then, and if not, assume you're unmatchable.
Slashdot Mirror
Big content are big lobbyists. Lobbyists pay for politicians' campaigns. Ergo, without lobbyists' support, politicians would not get reelected, meaning they would not continue to have access to the power and cash they currently have.
This, of course, suggests that the system is broken, and it is, but politicians control the system and politicians benefit from it being broken.
False dilemma. It doesn't have to be either "completely free market" or "complete communism". There can be reasonable regulations. The difficulty is in determining what is reasonable.
(Also controlling the root cause of all of this, corruption in government. But that's an even harder issue. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be working on it though.)
Haha, you think this extends to textbooks.
Yeah, but you have to think in car years.
And which "rogue employees" have access to change the Amazon prices of their employer's most valuable properties? They'd have to be fairly high-ranked.
Yep. I really hope I live to see the Star Trek Economy days.
You already hate Sony. Sony already hates you. You're not Sony's primary audience. Sony's primary audience won't notice things like this.
Because if you code up an "open", gratis API, and it's useful, people will build applications around it. Then, a year later, you start charging for it. Either the developers using your API have to pay or their applications won't work (at least, not without significant recoding, which often means significant developer cost). You're basically holding their code hostage. It's awesome if you're the API developer, of course.
Now, to be fair, this is only unethical if you infer that the API will continue to be free throughout its life. It's certainly not open source though.
Zynga has more money and better lawyers.
If not, this isn't bloody likely.
If you want to know if something is or is not going to happen at the federal level, the only question you have to ask is who will or will not financially benefit from it.
Do I really have to say more?
Can you imagine if say Coca cola were able to make laws[?]
They'd classify Pepsi as a Class 1 controlled substance and have the DEA enforce its prohibition. Wait, didn't this happen with the timber industry?
Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you.
Pedantic, but I've always wondered why that phrase was necessary. In a contract with a severance clause (like every EULA ever), if the exclusion isn't legal, it just gets severed from the contract and the rest remains in full force. So why specifically mention it?
Someone who profits from the situation, who can ignore all the societal implications of the actual patents, could defend it quite well. Like, say, a patent lawyer.
I don't usually complain about the editors; they do a good enough job that the site is still useful by its community and conversation. But in this case I'm making an exception.
Timothy, did you even click through to the article AT ALL? I did, and it doesn't mention marijuana, cigarettes, or anything similar. The article just says that the camera does chemical composition, and it's not entirely clear that it could even do what's suggested in your summary.
Can we have a "No Original Research" rule like Wikipedia, please? It's great that you have your theories, editors, and they're completely welcome, but POST THEM AS COMMENTS. The summary spot is supposed to be a summary of the the fine article(s), and not much more; especially not your "educated guesses" presented as fact.
If you're at all worried about this, don't allow internet access. Either allow it or don't, but don't half-ass allow it. If you let them open any electronic device, you have to assume they have access to the full, unfiltered internet. Welcome to the 21st century, where we have cell phones with wireless tethering and all manner of wireless access dongles like 4G modems which are completely out of your control. I suppose if the classroom was surrounded by a Faraday cage and only wired internet to their desks was allowed you could try to filter it, but then you're putting yourself into an adversarial relationship with blackhat engineering students... not a great place to be. If you think you're smarter than them, you're probably right, but they still might try a thing or two you haven't considered.
If you're testing them individually, due to the problems mentioned above, don't allow internet access at all. Cheaters will talk amongst themselves, which means in the best case scenario you'll have a bunch of students to fail, and in the worst case, you won't even know, so they'll have artificially higher marks than everyone else.
MythBusters?
Never go to Best Buy on Black Friday. They're well-known to be full of bait and switch offers. In fact, there's really no reason to go out on Black Friday at all. Just wake up at / stay up until 4 AM and do all your shopping online. No lines, no up-selling, and the products get shipped directly to your door, at the same crazy Black Friday prices. I prefer Walmart.com for this sort of thing; there's remarkably little BS with which to deal. So far have bought a ~$400 42" TV and a ~$130 surround sound / Blu-Ray system, both of which were surprisingly quality.
By the way, the reps argue with you about buying the "advertised" items in Best Buys primarily because they don't get commission / do get yelled at if those items are what are sold, rather than the designated, higher-priced snake oil switched items. And God help them if they sell something without a warranty...
Use "I" not "we" please. I happen to agree with the GP. Not everyone here is part of some weird Apple collective consciousness.
Never said I was continuing to use it. Perhaps my tenses could have used some work. In any case, both of us maintain our OkC profiles (with status set to "married") because we trust each other.
They tend to reject people they think are depressed as well. Alternatively, you could simply be an outlier; they check after you submit if there are any people who they could match you with right then, and if not, assume you're unmatchable.
Yeah, that's a dumb question. Why would you be signing up if you were happy with everything in your life as it was?
The reality is that if you think a relationship doesn't require work, you're not really ready to be in a long-term relationship.
Do I really need to whoosh you?
Less than three :^P