And a 2GB SD card works just fine in the PDA I bought when 1
GB disk were the largest available and cost >$100. Sony doesn't want an expandable format. They want control of everyones information, and to collect money when anyone uses it. To my knowledge, UMD disk are a fixed size. Cartridges and cards continue to have more memory/size, but Sony doesn't get a format licensing fee so that won't work. While were discussing "flow of time" lets take a look at Sony's history and see if it is a "flow of time" or "all your base are belong to us" issue.
The only one that is still polular is Blueray, and forcing it to be so is why the PS3 is so damn expensive. If you still want to argue that Sony HAD to use their own proprietary format for technical reasons, may I suggest that you move to a sandy area and raise Ostridges for a living, you have a lot in common with them.
I use to work with flow meters for a living. Several of them for pumping various chemicals back and forth between chemcial plants. These meters are used to bill the amount of product. A mass flow meter that measures mass, temperature, and denisty, calculates volume, and can normalize the volume is about $5000 for the flow rates needed to pump gas. Anyone that runs a gas station care to elaborate how much they have to pay when the nozzle starts sticking and has to be replaced. I am guessing that $5000 is not prohibitively high. An added expense, and higher than it would have been if they installed them to begin with, but not prohibitive.
As an American let me answer a few of those points. Our President has an approval rating of around 1/3 the population a good part of that is because of the detention without trial. The President agrees with that idea not America. The othe 2/3 are just waiting for him to get out of office so that someone else can fix his mess, that is why we have reletively short terms in office and limits on the number of terms a President may hold.
Banning guns for a violent act is by definition "security" not "boredom". I personally think that the gun control that is being issued because of the Virgina Tech shooting is a little knee-jerk, but the results is to make it so people found to be unstable are not allowed to have weapons. They are actually trying to solve the problem by targeting the people that have been shown to be unstable instead of everyone. It actually isn't too bad an attempt for a knee-jerk reaction, and a lot better than what I was expecting. The UK law being described would be more along the lines of all people going to college not being able to look at a gun catalog because it might give them ideas.
If the violent act that is causing this law to be pushed into effect was video taped and released, then a good knee-jerk reaction would have been making it illegal to video tape violent acts. If a person was blugened to death by a video tape containing a BDSM scene, then banning possesion of such material could be compared to a gun control law.
Just to clarify the original sarcasm for you "out of boredom" is just symbolic of the fact that this law does not directly prevent the type of actions it states that it is intended to prevent in order to get around the civil right protection it violates. U.S. politicians usually spend a fair amount of time making their justifications sound plausable so that they can claim they are helping the people the represent while they push in the things their financial backers request.
I don't need to know the politics behind why the average person is recorded on a video camera X times a day to think that having cameras everywhere seems like a police state to me. I think that police states are creepy to live in, and a combination of creepy and sad when a police state starts forming inside a democratic nation. Just like you don't understand enough about U.S. politics to realize that the best chance for fixing the detenion problem is voting in 2008, you think that locking people up without giving a reason is creepy. Most American's agree, but if the American people tried to violently protest the matter, it would just provide them with justification for what they are doing.
The people in America that are watching Paris and Britney are the same ones that were distracted enough to keep the people in power in 2004 while a lot of people like me could see what was coming. We didn't know how it would take shape, but we knew there was going to be a power grab. Most of the people that are reading Slashdot are not the people watching all the celebrities and voting for american idol. We both live in countries where a select few are trying to secure the power they have over the rest of the population. Don't feel like the parent singled your country out. Just because most of our new "security" laws are given lip service about how it will save us from the big bad terrorist doesn't mean that the people here are buying into it. From the tone, I suspect that the original poster has written off both our governing bodies for the time being. I know that I have.
By only blocking VPN traffic that goes outside the country for anyone that has a residential account. Most people that would need to access a VPN outside the country would need to do so from the company that they were visiting, or access from a hotel. I am sure that companies large enough to have international visitors and hotels could set up an unfiltered line. I am not in favor of this action, just given some prior thought about how this wonderful loophole was going to be eventually closed.
Now we just need someone to develop an earth based machine to harness the solar wind, use the power for GPS systems and personal solar shields, develop a protien drink that can be made in a lab when the crops fail, and we wouldn't have to worry about all those polluting fossil based fuels anymore.
As long as the EULA for the software indicates that this is what they are going to do it is fine. If however the say that the software is going to speed up your downloads, it should speed up your downloads. If it does not mention that it also downloads a scanner then it should be clasified as fraud. Just because I install a program that states it will make certain files/information available, does not mean I give permission for every piece of spyware/trojan that wants to access the same information is free to install itself without my permission.
If the file they do let you download is a dummy file when they told you they were giving you a movie, then it is also fraud.
She has not won anything. This lady is from East Texas. Most patent leeches do everyting they can to file in East Texas because it is almost certain that the judge will rule in their favor. I have no doubt that the case is already biased against her, and if she loses the RIAA will use it as precident for other cases
The first time I had to go to court in Texas, was when I was in a minor car accident. I got a bill from the other person for $4093.27 in damage to the vehicle. When I showed them the police report that said their was no vehicle damage, I got a bill for $4093.27 for medical bills for a named individual, when I showed them that the named person was not listed on the accident report I got a bill for $4093.27 to cover the medical bill of the driver.
When I went to court I showed the judge the 3 bills, the accident report, and said that I thought the charges were bogus. The judge told the plantiffs attorney that he didn't know the law in this situation, and asked her what he should do. The attorney for the plantiff said that I wasn't allowed to question the bill, that I couldn't review the actual medical bill because it was private information. So he had no choice but to rule in their favor.
My first mistake was thinking that I didn't need a defense lawyer for something that was so obvious. My second mistake was assuming that a Texas judge knew what a clue was, yet alone find it. The judge pulled my drivers license for 2 years for not paying the bill before it got to court. I had no prior record before this. Because the "only" reason that someone loses their license in Texas is a DWI, they filed the suspension on the same paperwork as a DWI. I had to get a notorized letter from the court explaining that I did not have a DWI on my record in order to look for a job for the next 10 years. They would all run background checks and pass me over. I had one headhunter tell me that he couldn't take me because of the DWI conviction or I would have never known why I wasn't getting hired.
The person before me had 4 prior DWIs and was there for his 5th, he got deferred adjudication with 2 months probation, and got to keep his license.
Texas justice is not going to save us from the RIAA. If this was any other place, we might have had a chance.
You have the right to do whatever is legal with your business. I have the right to do whatever is legal with my business. You have the right to tell me you do not like what I am doing with my business. I have the right to tell you that I do not like the way you are doing business. You have the right to tell other people your opinion about my business. I have the right to tell other people my opinion about your business.
You do not have the right to threaten me because you do not like my business. You do not have the right to violate laws that regulate restrictions on free trade. You do not have the right to tell people things that you know to be false as a means to discredit my business. In return these same laws offer protection towards you by preventing me from doing the same.
If against prior history and current context "retaliation" is to mean "make a better service/product that will reduce your service/product to less than worthless (he has alread established the fair market price of $0.00) in a free market" then No, you are not allowed to be given the opportunity to distribute your own music without fear of retaliation. If however "retaliation" is to mean using a prestablished position of power to crush you by using illegal tatics, then YES, a person should be allowed to give their music away without fear of "retaliation"
Turn off the firewall and surf several known malware sites with both computers. They said she is allowed to configure them the way she wants. If they run their scanners and find 100+ hits on both laptops, it will be very difficult to detect which one has the rootkit based on resource consumption.
And then the ISP complies with the takedown notice, and blocks access to your site. Now if we could get Google to introduce a takedown notice! They should not have any problems claiming financial lost for inserted adds, and I don't think their is an ISP that could block access to Google and remain in business.
I'm not so sure that it doesn't have an implication of their political leanings. While I don't think that any of the canidates are closely enough involved to even know what is running their web server, it had to be decided by someone. It gives a lot more insite into the beliefs of the people they surround them with than what they believe directly, but it has been my experience that most people surround themselves with people that have similar beliefs.
It makes sense that people that have a strong belief in personal freedoms would prefer an open source solution over a corporate one. It makes sense that people that have a belief that strong corporations provide a more stable economy would shy away from an open source solution. People that develop campaigns through grass roots perfer to have a root account that was developed by grass root means, and people that are use to buying support want an operating system that was paid for and handed to them ready to go.
This doesn't mean that all Democratic canidates are going to run linux, it means that a larger portion of people that run linux are probably not Republican. If those administrators are going to support a campaign with their existing Linux servers, it will most likely not be Republican. If a larger corporation is going to support a canidate, it will most likely be one that historically supports large corporations. Being a large corporation and entrenched in the corporate world, they probably have existing Windows servers.
I am not stating this is all fact, just suggesting a plausable theory in support of the numbers.
That card was played a long time ago. Microsoft was sued because Win 3.1 checked to make sure that the operating system was MS-DOS. It was proved that just by changing a system variable to read MS-Dos instead of DR-Dos that it would install. Microsoft lost the case! It just takes a lot of time and a lot of money, so much that it would bankrupt most companies. It doesn't matter if something is illegal as long as no one can afford to challenge you.
That worked when the patent system required a working model. Now people can patent the idea before it is even created, can patent the business model used to sell it, can patent the software that is used to run it, and patent the basic concept of just doing 'X' instead of a method for doing 'X'. Most patents are written to prevent people from being able to develop a different method. People do not write patents to protect a new idea. They intentionally come up with patents to corner the market on the products they already sell by making a slightly "new & improved" and covering as many other improvements under a patent as they can before someone else can do it. It does cause small improvements, but prevents larger ones because the companies do not have to compete once they get the competition locked out of the market for 20 years.
So Ford and GM should have the right to limit which brands of after market stereo that you purchase because some are capable of having a higher than recomended dB level, and they are looking out for your interest. Maybe they should also select who you are allowed to give a ride to to make sure that you don't hang out with the wrong people. Once it is sold, it is not their platform, but your console. If a third party wants to sell you software that runs on your hardware they should have the right to sell it, and you should have the right to buy it. If MS, Sony, & Nintendo do not want their name associated with it, then they have the right to limit the use of their name to anything beyond "This game works on 'X' Consoles" Maybe ask nicely for a disclaimer that says, "This game is not endorsed by 'X' console manufacturer" The console manufactures rights to limit what type of media end up on their systems should end there. If they still insist on policing what content the consumer is allowed to use on their personal system, then it also needs to be possible to hold the console manufacturer criminally and finacially liable if someone underage manages to play a game that is not rated for them.
And I will counter that affordable is a mandatory requirement of being "perfect" in any kind of consumer oriented device. If people can't afford to own one, then all the other features are useless. If you have so much money that you are the only one that can afford one, that makes it affordable to you, and therefore it may be your perfect device. Just because being perfect is not set in stone as the same for all people does not negate the fact that patents are preventing people from manufacturing items that some people would think are perfect. There is no inherent requirement for one item to be perfect for everyone for it to be a perfect item to someone. Since logically, one item being the perfect item for everyone is not going to happen, it implies that by "perfect" item, they are talking about an item that a group of people will think is perfect. Without the patent requirements, there is nothing preventing two companies making items that are perfect for two different groups of people, thus still allowing competition as well as better products.
Your argument was that it can't be a problem because if it was it would have been brought up by now. I countered proving that historically it has been an issue. To many people a car they can actually afford to purchase and drive instead of just look at through a window is a feature that is required in any automobile they purchase. Just because you don't consider price an important feature does not disprove that it is a problem that has been discussed.
Your argument doesn't hold water. The parent says that HE would not have bought it. You have founded your entire argument on the jump from one person to all people that violate copyright are makeing the same argument. And have tried to discredit the original argument by proving that one perosn bought material after illegal copies no longer worked. Some people just don't have a problem with stealing anything that is not bolted down. I don't think that these people would even entertain a thought about wether or not something is fair use. Unless you can prove that the the people that caused the 40% jump in sales were not in this group, and have numbers on how many people refrained from playing the game after there cracked copy no longer worked then it is just a random number.
To emphasie that people can NEVER be honest also just defeated your own argument. You are trying to sensationalize. If you would like to argue that MOST of the people USUALLY can not be honest about saying "they wouldn't have bought it" then you might have a leg to stand on. However your argument is for NEVER, to disprove your argument all that is needed is one case where someone did not purchase an original copy of copyrighted material when the illegal copy was rendered inoperable. This is a valid argument because you did not start it out by stipulating a single person. You started out by stipulating an absolute for all people. When I was in school I received several copies of bootleg demo cassettes through the years. Some of them caused me to go out and purchase an album when it was released. Others got lost or deystroyed through the years, and I still have not replaced them. Some of those were descent, but not worth the price that stores were asking.
Your argument about the comparison not being the same because one hurts the "producers of the product" is flawed in that copyright was intended to protect the artist not the producer. The artist is now forced to hand over the copyrights in todays market in order to make the producer the legal copyright holder so that they can use copyright laws to protect their profits. This forces the artist to make what is the equivilent of a one time sale. Even if there are stipulations for the artist to receive a fractional amount of money for each movie/cd/software sale, the artist is no longer the one with the incentive to protect copyrights in order to produce more artistic works.
I do think that distributing copyrighted material without the copyright holders permission is wrong. I was telling several of my friends back in the late 1990's that downloading copyrighted material is wrong, and they would not be allowed to do it from my broadband connection, and I encouraged them not to do it period. However, I think that the current tactics that are being used are also wrong, and will fight them when I can. The current companies are using a lot of misinformation to persuade public and political opinions to protect their enforcement of copyrights. I keep reading about people getting into lawsuits for downloading music, but then reading how the actual charges are for possible distribution, and they want payment for all the people that could have possible downloaded the file, not the number of people that actually did. At some point this will create an overlap of people. They will be fining two people for distributing to the same person. This is why their numbers of loses are so inflated.
Instead of download protected software I download open source. Instead of downloading protected music I have stopped buying mainstream CDs and just listen to the radio. I am looking at my entertainment center, and everything says Sony. It was all purchased before the rootkit fiasco, RIAA lawsuits, and trying to use the PS3 to push their proprietary formats. I will not purchase another item from that company. They are losing sales by being overly agressive and taking away my rights in the name of enforcing theirs, but I am sure that is put on the line labeled "sales lost from piracy"
The real purpose of the project is to produce a reproducable standard. If something was to happen to the lump of metal that currently defines a kilogram, there is no reliable way to reproduce it. You can make another lump of metal and weigh it, but even the most precise scale we have been calibrated back to the original lump of metal plus or minus the error of the machine. The problem is that the errors are cumulative. If we have to replace the lump of metal several times, it will be less and less precise. If however we can base the weight on a physical constant, then we can use that physical constant to calibrate future scales on. There will be errors based on the precision of the machine, but they are no longer cumulative. If you build a more precise machine, you get a more precise measurement.
As soon as AT&T purchased Cingular I received a notice in my bill informing me that I had "volunteered" to give up my constitutional right to a jury trial. I could have forced them to cancel the contract, but my contract is up in 2 days, so it was easier to wait than spend hours on the phone explaining that making a material change to the contract gives me the right to cancel it it. I am quickly running out of good choices for phone/data carriers. I will not return to Verizon. And Comcast just purchase my Roadrunner connection.
Vista is an operating system. The job of an operating system is to allow software to run on the hardware. If Microsoft wishes to sell embedded systems that are more secure because no one else may install software on it they are free to do so. If however they wish to market an operating system, I expect the operating system to do what it is advertised to do an operate my computer. If they wish to throw in extras, they need to be that extra! If I decide that I don't want an extra, it should be removable.
Forget "consumer protection laws", let me refer you to Amendment 7 of the US Constitution:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Maybe I just don't understand how they are defining common law, but how are all these companies getting away with adding a non signed contract that takes away an inalienable right?
But the DS has a similar, but even better parental control than the rest of the game systems. You go look at what you kid is playing, and if it something that you have told them not to play. You take the game system out of their hand and place it in your pocket. The other systems have the incovenience of forcing you to unplug the unit and find a bulkier space like the master bedroom.
This guy is a lawyer, how can he get away with threatening legal action if they allow a sale to "anyone" that is under 17. I am pretty sure there are a few places that Microsoft sells software that does not have a law restricting the sale of a game in that age group. I could understand if it was just a nutcase without legal training, but this is a nutcase that has passed the bar. You think he would understand that as a lawyer he is not allowed to threaten the wrath of law for retribution against legal acts that he personally disagrees with.
Slashdot Mirror
And a 2GB SD card works just fine in the PDA I bought when 1 GB disk were the largest available and cost >$100. Sony doesn't want an expandable format. They want control of everyones information, and to collect money when anyone uses it. To my knowledge, UMD disk are a fixed size. Cartridges and cards continue to have more memory/size, but Sony doesn't get a format licensing fee so that won't work. While were discussing "flow of time" lets take a look at Sony's history and see if it is a "flow of time" or "all your base are belong to us" issue.
1. BetaMax
2. Minidisk
3. Memorystick
4. UMD
5. Blueray
The only one that is still polular is Blueray, and forcing it to be so is why the PS3 is so damn expensive. If you still want to argue that Sony HAD to use their own proprietary format for technical reasons, may I suggest that you move to a sandy area and raise Ostridges for a living, you have a lot in common with them.
They have been genetically enginered to not produce lysine, unless they receive a regular supply of lysine from us, they will die.
I use to work with flow meters for a living. Several of them for pumping various chemicals back and forth between chemcial plants. These meters are used to bill the amount of product. A mass flow meter that measures mass, temperature, and denisty, calculates volume, and can normalize the volume is about $5000 for the flow rates needed to pump gas. Anyone that runs a gas station care to elaborate how much they have to pay when the nozzle starts sticking and has to be replaced. I am guessing that $5000 is not prohibitively high. An added expense, and higher than it would have been if they installed them to begin with, but not prohibitive.
As an American let me answer a few of those points. Our President has an approval rating of around 1/3 the population a good part of that is because of the detention without trial. The President agrees with that idea not America. The othe 2/3 are just waiting for him to get out of office so that someone else can fix his mess, that is why we have reletively short terms in office and limits on the number of terms a President may hold.
Banning guns for a violent act is by definition "security" not "boredom". I personally think that the gun control that is being issued because of the Virgina Tech shooting is a little knee-jerk, but the results is to make it so people found to be unstable are not allowed to have weapons. They are actually trying to solve the problem by targeting the people that have been shown to be unstable instead of everyone. It actually isn't too bad an attempt for a knee-jerk reaction, and a lot better than what I was expecting. The UK law being described would be more along the lines of all people going to college not being able to look at a gun catalog because it might give them ideas.
If the violent act that is causing this law to be pushed into effect was video taped and released, then a good knee-jerk reaction would have been making it illegal to video tape violent acts. If a person was blugened to death by a video tape containing a BDSM scene, then banning possesion of such material could be compared to a gun control law.
Just to clarify the original sarcasm for you "out of boredom" is just symbolic of the fact that this law does not directly prevent the type of actions it states that it is intended to prevent in order to get around the civil right protection it violates. U.S. politicians usually spend a fair amount of time making their justifications sound plausable so that they can claim they are helping the people the represent while they push in the things their financial backers request.
I don't need to know the politics behind why the average person is recorded on a video camera X times a day to think that having cameras everywhere seems like a police state to me. I think that police states are creepy to live in, and a combination of creepy and sad when a police state starts forming inside a democratic nation. Just like you don't understand enough about U.S. politics to realize that the best chance for fixing the detenion problem is voting in 2008, you think that locking people up without giving a reason is creepy. Most American's agree, but if the American people tried to violently protest the matter, it would just provide them with justification for what they are doing.
The people in America that are watching Paris and Britney are the same ones that were distracted enough to keep the people in power in 2004 while a lot of people like me could see what was coming. We didn't know how it would take shape, but we knew there was going to be a power grab. Most of the people that are reading Slashdot are not the people watching all the celebrities and voting for american idol. We both live in countries where a select few are trying to secure the power they have over the rest of the population. Don't feel like the parent singled your country out. Just because most of our new "security" laws are given lip service about how it will save us from the big bad terrorist doesn't mean that the people here are buying into it. From the tone, I suspect that the original poster has written off both our governing bodies for the time being. I know that I have.
By only blocking VPN traffic that goes outside the country for anyone that has a residential account. Most people that would need to access a VPN outside the country would need to do so from the company that they were visiting, or access from a hotel. I am sure that companies large enough to have international visitors and hotels could set up an unfiltered line. I am not in favor of this action, just given some prior thought about how this wonderful loophole was going to be eventually closed.
Now we just need someone to develop an earth based machine to harness the solar wind, use the power for GPS systems and personal solar shields, develop a protien drink that can be made in a lab when the crops fail, and we wouldn't have to worry about all those polluting fossil based fuels anymore.
As long as the EULA for the software indicates that this is what they are going to do it is fine. If however the say that the software is going to speed up your downloads, it should speed up your downloads. If it does not mention that it also downloads a scanner then it should be clasified as fraud. Just because I install a program that states it will make certain files/information available, does not mean I give permission for every piece of spyware/trojan that wants to access the same information is free to install itself without my permission.
If the file they do let you download is a dummy file when they told you they were giving you a movie, then it is also fraud.
She has not won anything. This lady is from East Texas. Most patent leeches do everyting they can to file in East Texas because it is almost certain that the judge will rule in their favor. I have no doubt that the case is already biased against her, and if she loses the RIAA will use it as precident for other cases
The first time I had to go to court in Texas, was when I was in a minor car accident. I got a bill from the other person for $4093.27 in damage to the vehicle. When I showed them the police report that said their was no vehicle damage, I got a bill for $4093.27 for medical bills for a named individual, when I showed them that the named person was not listed on the accident report I got a bill for $4093.27 to cover the medical bill of the driver.
When I went to court I showed the judge the 3 bills, the accident report, and said that I thought the charges were bogus. The judge told the plantiffs attorney that he didn't know the law in this situation, and asked her what he should do. The attorney for the plantiff said that I wasn't allowed to question the bill, that I couldn't review the actual medical bill because it was private information. So he had no choice but to rule in their favor.
My first mistake was thinking that I didn't need a defense lawyer for something that was so obvious. My second mistake was assuming that a Texas judge knew what a clue was, yet alone find it. The judge pulled my drivers license for 2 years for not paying the bill before it got to court. I had no prior record before this. Because the "only" reason that someone loses their license in Texas is a DWI, they filed the suspension on the same paperwork as a DWI. I had to get a notorized letter from the court explaining that I did not have a DWI on my record in order to look for a job for the next 10 years. They would all run background checks and pass me over. I had one headhunter tell me that he couldn't take me because of the DWI conviction or I would have never known why I wasn't getting hired.
The person before me had 4 prior DWIs and was there for his 5th, he got deferred adjudication with 2 months probation, and got to keep his license.
Texas justice is not going to save us from the RIAA. If this was any other place, we might have had a chance.
Lets clarify something.
You have the right to do whatever is legal with your business. I have the right to do whatever is legal with my business. You have the right to tell me you do not like what I am doing with my business. I have the right to tell you that I do not like the way you are doing business. You have the right to tell other people your opinion about my business. I have the right to tell other people my opinion about your business.
You do not have the right to threaten me because you do not like my business. You do not have the right to violate laws that regulate restrictions on free trade. You do not have the right to tell people things that you know to be false as a means to discredit my business. In return these same laws offer protection towards you by preventing me from doing the same.
If against prior history and current context "retaliation" is to mean "make a better service/product that will reduce your service/product to less than worthless (he has alread established the fair market price of $0.00) in a free market" then No, you are not allowed to be given the opportunity to distribute your own music without fear of retaliation. If however "retaliation" is to mean using a prestablished position of power to crush you by using illegal tatics, then YES, a person should be allowed to give their music away without fear of "retaliation"
Turn off the firewall and surf several known malware sites with both computers. They said she is allowed to configure them the way she wants. If they run their scanners and find 100+ hits on both laptops, it will be very difficult to detect which one has the rootkit based on resource consumption.
And then the ISP complies with the takedown notice, and blocks access to your site. Now if we could get Google to introduce a takedown notice! They should not have any problems claiming financial lost for inserted adds, and I don't think their is an ISP that could block access to Google and remain in business.
I'm not so sure that it doesn't have an implication of their political leanings. While I don't think that any of the canidates are closely enough involved to even know what is running their web server, it had to be decided by someone. It gives a lot more insite into the beliefs of the people they surround them with than what they believe directly, but it has been my experience that most people surround themselves with people that have similar beliefs.
It makes sense that people that have a strong belief in personal freedoms would prefer an open source solution over a corporate one. It makes sense that people that have a belief that strong corporations provide a more stable economy would shy away from an open source solution. People that develop campaigns through grass roots perfer to have a root account that was developed by grass root means, and people that are use to buying support want an operating system that was paid for and handed to them ready to go.
This doesn't mean that all Democratic canidates are going to run linux, it means that a larger portion of people that run linux are probably not Republican. If those administrators are going to support a campaign with their existing Linux servers, it will most likely not be Republican. If a larger corporation is going to support a canidate, it will most likely be one that historically supports large corporations. Being a large corporation and entrenched in the corporate world, they probably have existing Windows servers.
I am not stating this is all fact, just suggesting a plausable theory in support of the numbers.
That card was played a long time ago. Microsoft was sued because Win 3.1 checked to make sure that the operating system was MS-DOS. It was proved that just by changing a system variable to read MS-Dos instead of DR-Dos that it would install. Microsoft lost the case! It just takes a lot of time and a lot of money, so much that it would bankrupt most companies. It doesn't matter if something is illegal as long as no one can afford to challenge you.
That worked when the patent system required a working model. Now people can patent the idea before it is even created, can patent the business model used to sell it, can patent the software that is used to run it, and patent the basic concept of just doing 'X' instead of a method for doing 'X'. Most patents are written to prevent people from being able to develop a different method. People do not write patents to protect a new idea. They intentionally come up with patents to corner the market on the products they already sell by making a slightly "new & improved" and covering as many other improvements under a patent as they can before someone else can do it. It does cause small improvements, but prevents larger ones because the companies do not have to compete once they get the competition locked out of the market for 20 years.
So Ford and GM should have the right to limit which brands of after market stereo that you purchase because some are capable of having a higher than recomended dB level, and they are looking out for your interest. Maybe they should also select who you are allowed to give a ride to to make sure that you don't hang out with the wrong people. Once it is sold, it is not their platform, but your console. If a third party wants to sell you software that runs on your hardware they should have the right to sell it, and you should have the right to buy it. If MS, Sony, & Nintendo do not want their name associated with it, then they have the right to limit the use of their name to anything beyond "This game works on 'X' Consoles" Maybe ask nicely for a disclaimer that says, "This game is not endorsed by 'X' console manufacturer" The console manufactures rights to limit what type of media end up on their systems should end there. If they still insist on policing what content the consumer is allowed to use on their personal system, then it also needs to be possible to hold the console manufacturer criminally and finacially liable if someone underage manages to play a game that is not rated for them.
And I will counter that affordable is a mandatory requirement of being "perfect" in any kind of consumer oriented device. If people can't afford to own one, then all the other features are useless. If you have so much money that you are the only one that can afford one, that makes it affordable to you, and therefore it may be your perfect device. Just because being perfect is not set in stone as the same for all people does not negate the fact that patents are preventing people from manufacturing items that some people would think are perfect. There is no inherent requirement for one item to be perfect for everyone for it to be a perfect item to someone. Since logically, one item being the perfect item for everyone is not going to happen, it implies that by "perfect" item, they are talking about an item that a group of people will think is perfect. Without the patent requirements, there is nothing preventing two companies making items that are perfect for two different groups of people, thus still allowing competition as well as better products.
Your argument was that it can't be a problem because if it was it would have been brought up by now. I countered proving that historically it has been an issue. To many people a car they can actually afford to purchase and drive instead of just look at through a window is a feature that is required in any automobile they purchase. Just because you don't consider price an important feature does not disprove that it is a problem that has been discussed.
It has been a major topic long since. At least since the creation of an affordable autombile.
e ldona.htm
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarss
Your argument doesn't hold water. The parent says that HE would not have bought it. You have founded your entire argument on the jump from one person to all people that violate copyright are makeing the same argument. And have tried to discredit the original argument by proving that one perosn bought material after illegal copies no longer worked. Some people just don't have a problem with stealing anything that is not bolted down. I don't think that these people would even entertain a thought about wether or not something is fair use. Unless you can prove that the the people that caused the 40% jump in sales were not in this group, and have numbers on how many people refrained from playing the game after there cracked copy no longer worked then it is just a random number.
To emphasie that people can NEVER be honest also just defeated your own argument. You are trying to sensationalize. If you would like to argue that MOST of the people USUALLY can not be honest about saying "they wouldn't have bought it" then you might have a leg to stand on. However your argument is for NEVER, to disprove your argument all that is needed is one case where someone did not purchase an original copy of copyrighted material when the illegal copy was rendered inoperable. This is a valid argument because you did not start it out by stipulating a single person. You started out by stipulating an absolute for all people. When I was in school I received several copies of bootleg demo cassettes through the years. Some of them caused me to go out and purchase an album when it was released. Others got lost or deystroyed through the years, and I still have not replaced them. Some of those were descent, but not worth the price that stores were asking.
Your argument about the comparison not being the same because one hurts the "producers of the product" is flawed in that copyright was intended to protect the artist not the producer. The artist is now forced to hand over the copyrights in todays market in order to make the producer the legal copyright holder so that they can use copyright laws to protect their profits. This forces the artist to make what is the equivilent of a one time sale. Even if there are stipulations for the artist to receive a fractional amount of money for each movie/cd/software sale, the artist is no longer the one with the incentive to protect copyrights in order to produce more artistic works.
I do think that distributing copyrighted material without the copyright holders permission is wrong. I was telling several of my friends back in the late 1990's that downloading copyrighted material is wrong, and they would not be allowed to do it from my broadband connection, and I encouraged them not to do it period. However, I think that the current tactics that are being used are also wrong, and will fight them when I can. The current companies are using a lot of misinformation to persuade public and political opinions to protect their enforcement of copyrights. I keep reading about people getting into lawsuits for downloading music, but then reading how the actual charges are for possible distribution, and they want payment for all the people that could have possible downloaded the file, not the number of people that actually did. At some point this will create an overlap of people. They will be fining two people for distributing to the same person. This is why their numbers of loses are so inflated.
Instead of download protected software I download open source. Instead of downloading protected music I have stopped buying mainstream CDs and just listen to the radio. I am looking at my entertainment center, and everything says Sony. It was all purchased before the rootkit fiasco, RIAA lawsuits, and trying to use the PS3 to push their proprietary formats. I will not purchase another item from that company. They are losing sales by being overly agressive and taking away my rights in the name of enforcing theirs, but I am sure that is put on the line labeled "sales lost from piracy"
The real purpose of the project is to produce a reproducable standard. If something was to happen to the lump of metal that currently defines a kilogram, there is no reliable way to reproduce it. You can make another lump of metal and weigh it, but even the most precise scale we have been calibrated back to the original lump of metal plus or minus the error of the machine. The problem is that the errors are cumulative. If we have to replace the lump of metal several times, it will be less and less precise. If however we can base the weight on a physical constant, then we can use that physical constant to calibrate future scales on. There will be errors based on the precision of the machine, but they are no longer cumulative. If you build a more precise machine, you get a more precise measurement.
As soon as AT&T purchased Cingular I received a notice in my bill informing me that I had "volunteered" to give up my constitutional right to a jury trial. I could have forced them to cancel the contract, but my contract is up in 2 days, so it was easier to wait than spend hours on the phone explaining that making a material change to the contract gives me the right to cancel it it. I am quickly running out of good choices for phone/data carriers. I will not return to Verizon. And Comcast just purchase my Roadrunner connection.
Vista is an operating system. The job of an operating system is to allow software to run on the hardware. If Microsoft wishes to sell embedded systems that are more secure because no one else may install software on it they are free to do so. If however they wish to market an operating system, I expect the operating system to do what it is advertised to do an operate my computer. If they wish to throw in extras, they need to be that extra! If I decide that I don't want an extra, it should be removable.
Forget "consumer protection laws", let me refer you to Amendment 7 of the US Constitution:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Maybe I just don't understand how they are defining common law, but how are all these companies getting away with adding a non signed contract that takes away an inalienable right?
But the DS has a similar, but even better parental control than the rest of the game systems. You go look at what you kid is playing, and if it something that you have told them not to play. You take the game system out of their hand and place it in your pocket. The other systems have the incovenience of forcing you to unplug the unit and find a bulkier space like the master bedroom.
This guy is a lawyer, how can he get away with threatening legal action if they allow a sale to "anyone" that is under 17. I am pretty sure there are a few places that Microsoft sells software that does not have a law restricting the sale of a game in that age group. I could understand if it was just a nutcase without legal training, but this is a nutcase that has passed the bar. You think he would understand that as a lawyer he is not allowed to threaten the wrath of law for retribution against legal acts that he personally disagrees with.
Why is a sign saying "Free WiFi" not considered giving permission to use the Wi-Fi connection?