Teaching my g/f how to play WoW. She doesn't play video games at all. Yes it is that hard to learn to use. I had to explain she can press forward and right at the same time to move at an angle, but pressing forward and backward at the same time does nothing.
I play WoW and was excited to get this. Driver software (provided in CD) does not work with Vista 64 premium - constantly get an error when trying to load it. The keyboard works - but without the software you can't remap the keys and this is bad joo-joo magic (WoW reference).
So I went to their website to download the latest software hoping to fix the problem....site does not come up. Tried it from a different computer at home....site still does not come up. Tried it from a different network AND computer.... yup no go.
Tried searching for software on the net...after 30 minutes I gave up.
Went to Google cache and found an 800 number....they are closed until Jan 5th (I called them on Dec 22).
So are they going out of business? I don't know...but I am returning this product from a company that takes at LEAST a 10 BUSINESS day vacation during the biggest shopping season and their WEBSITE is down (it may be up now, but since I am returning it there is no point in me trying).
I will stick with my G15. Now waiting for my WoW mouse to get off back-order.
We can make antimatter fuel it's just so insanely expensive that without a major technical leap you aren't going to be powering a car much less a starship with it
It is illegal to acquire (most likely knowingly) this kind of material. This is always after-the-fact since there was no product for him to acquire until after-the-fact.
Really - a semi-decent attorney doesn't have to try to hard.
The thing that annoys me - this guy listed pretty much all of the most likely scenarios. So when one of those happen he will liken himself to be Nostradamos. When you throw enough shit at the ceiling, eventually one will stick.
Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.
Are you implying that if you didn't like what you read you would not have bought it? If so then you are the hippocrit. I love the people who download stuff, use it and then say they shouldn't pay for it because it did not meet a specific criteria. I knew a person who downloaded games, played them from start to finish then justified it by saying it was crappy games. He only paid for games that required online subs (e.g. WoW). Copyrights are made to protect artists/studios from people who do that kind of nonsense. BTW plenty of companies offer previews, synopsis, and demo copies to try it before you buy it.
How does the above get +5 insightful? The guy says Hollywood doesn't come up with fresh ideas with some exception. So he contradict ed himself. Then saying these ideas weren't from Hollywood, but from individuals who work in...wait for it Hollywood!
Dude - all films come from certain individuals. They each put a piece of their time/though into it and before you know it you have a film.
if this movie comes out I will go watch it. If this movie came out as a low cost budget I probably wouldn't. Then again that is not because I am against low budget films, but this is an action movie - and I want glitz and glamour when I see action movies. And those special effects cost money.
436 pages of comic book - most of it spent on pictures, some of it on pages dedicated to advertisements. So 2 hours of movie for 436 pages of comic book (pictures and all) is not a big deal
This argument is old and frankly poor. How many comic books came out for Batman, and not many people are saying the latest Batman movie sucked.
It's all about the writer, director, and actors. If they do a good job then they can take out the elements of the book and make it into a great movie.
Then again, fanboys/girls will always complain - even BEFORE they see the product.
Fanboy: "OMG WTF LOL this movie is t3h FAIL"
Non-Fanboy: "Did you see the movie that hasn't been released yet?"
Fanboy: "OMG WTF LOL this movie is t3h FAIL"
Non-Fanboy: "..."
Whichever is shorter, not longer.
And what YOU seem to be forgetting is copyright is something we, as a society, are offering artists to help society. There is no benfit to society for them getting 70 years or more. They(mostly corporations) are breaking their part of the contract when they ask for continually longer copyright, especially the retroactive ones.
Yea just saying "whichever is shorter, not longer" is not really a viable solution. That is the same as "give me free, even if they pay is only $1". What contract did people or corporations break when they asked for longer copyright laws? Please show me this contract. I am not forgetting anything, except that you assume copyright have no benefits to society. It helps society a lot when someone (and all their supporting employees) make a ton of money. It means that everyone from the actor(s) to the sanitation worker at the recording studio get paid and earn a living. Thusly spending money in our society. See a big benefit. Another is that the artist is able to devote their lives to this (assuming they are popular enough to get paid the big bucks). You may not like it because that means you can't get the stuff for free - but that is just tough potatoes - and a weak argument.
I have not seen anyone suggest that it shouldn't extend a little past death, assuming it's early. Most suggestions I see(That aren't for abolishing it) are along the lines of 10-20 years, or life + 5/10 years, whichever is shorter.
How many employers would pay your spouse/kids even one year after you die? That's what life insurance is for.
It all depends on the job you have. If someone spent their entire lives trying to make something work and finally at the tail end of their lives it does work they should get paid for that. But that is fairy tale - they get paid what the market will pay them.
You said 10-20 years or life + 5/10 years - these are all arbitrary. Why not 40-70 or Life+50. If we were to go by life +5/10, how fair would it be if person A made something at age 20 and got life +5/10, or someone at age 70 and got life +5/10. So making it some VERY arbitrary base of 'life' is unfair. A fixed number is more fair.
Now it is just a matter of what that arbitrary number is. Is it 10 years? 20? 40? 100? What if it took me 50 years to create a hit....why should I only get 10 years of pay from it?
And the thing that everyone seems to ignore/forget is that the topic we are talking about is not a necessity to life - not what-so-ever - so if you don't like the terms and agreement then do not use the product. By using it and discarding the terms of agreement then YOU are in the wrong no matter how much you justify entitlement.
Woosh!
If you're going to respond, at least try to argue with a point actually made by the parent. He never said sharing those CDs with friends should be considered legally or morally proper. His point is that the punishment should be proportional to the crime.
Do you think that copying a CD of 15 songs for a friend is a crime worthy of a $2.25 million fine?
They want people to be terrified of downloading anything, regardless of where it comes from. Then they can go back to selling CD's and being the gatekeepers that they used to be.
No, they are telling you do not download/upload material that you are not given permission to download/upload. Otherwise they would be sueing groups like Applie iTunes. If you want to d/l and/or u/l music free of prosectuion get the copyright holders permission
What is the legality of this? RIAA tells them that they represent Metallica and I have a rar file called metalica. This would mean that the provider opens my rar file and looks into it. They should not be allowed to do so. Privacy and such, you know.
You gave up your privacy right when you turned on your torrent program that makes the rar file available to the public.
The life of the author plus 50/70 years is a damned long time. And it has now placed copyrights beyond the lives of human beings. That has made them the currency of corporations, and are no longer within the means of trade for us mere mortals.
here is a hypothetical: I am an artist. I spent most of my adult life poor, my family is also poor because of this. Right around the age of 50 I make a hit. It is going to sell and I am going to get paid like a rockstar. I tragically die. Should my family not get the money from my hardwork? Or, what if I spent years working on something but it takes it a while to come to fruition. So I may not make a million bucks in a year, but it may take time - a slow trickle of funds. A few thousand dollars every year. Why should I not enjoy that money I worked for. You certainly enjyo the money you get from your employer - and if you were to die your last paycheck would be delivered to your next of kin.
There is no monopoly on games, music and movies. If you don't want to pay for a movie go to the free library and rent one for free or find a movie online that is free (legally) to download. If you don't want to pay for music turn the radio on or go to the Internet. If you want to play a computer game but don't want to pay then go find a free open source game that you can play for free and tweak the code all you want.
If, however, you want to play the latest and greatest game from XYZ corporation that protects their code and has strict EULA agreements, if you want to listen to the music of someone who wants the "protection" of the RIAA, or you want to see the latest blockbuster movie - then guess what you gotta pay and play by their rules. The content is theres not yours. If you don't like it - don't use their product. You won't die. They are not denying you food, water, air, housing, clothing, medicine or education. In fact, by not participating in those events you are saving time you could use to socialize with your friends, read a book from the free library, get out and exercise, or just experience life outside of mass media. Pretty simple. But the truth is you want the blockbuster movies, that new Spears CD that you publically revile but secretly have a fetish for, and that new game that can't be run on the best computers today so you say it sucks but you are building a new computer system so you can play it.
It wouldn't be a problem to integrate with those systems they weren't obfuscated to prevent reverse engineering. It also doesn't help that they seem to aim to prevent migration, in outlook in particular. You can't export as RFC2882.eml, which is importable by everything, but you can dump a.pst which can be read by any outlook product.
I don't think it's illegal, but they *have* built a de facto monopoly on half truths and big marketing. Saying other os-es need to look / feel like windows to gain market acceptance is a silly way to go about replacing it.
Reply to This
Then you make your own and make it open standards (we have that open office, linux, etc.) But now that you have a product you need people to use it, and people don't like leaving their comfort zone. There was a guy in this thread who cited one of the flaws in Vista was the change from Add/Remove PRograms to Programs (or w/e it's called). So make the migration easy for people, then slowly (over time) change them to something better.
Yes I agree, the add/remove program thing annoys me. And I prefer the old UI from XP. But I preferred the old 98 UI until I forced myself to get used to the XP. Now I will force myself to learn the Vista UI. Eventually it will be something new. It used to be DOS to 95. People will always complain when they are forced to leave their comfort zone...all I can say is, adapt and get over it. There are other things worse then a change of location for something.
(2) Offer free UPGRADES to Windows Seven for anyone who buys a machine loaded with Vista
I just bought a Dell laptop with Vista and a desktop (from a small manufacturer) with vista. So i have 32bit and 64 bit. I agree, but this won't happen. It will be like all those people who got stuck with ME - though I think Vista is echelons better then ME was.
Not really. MS isn't imposing any monopoly. First of all there are alternatives - some pay some free. So if MS had a true monopoly there would be no alternatives. The problem is that businesses are not willing to move from MS to another software platform. They are not 100% to blame - businesses need to stay competative and part of that is to play well with everyone else. Can't do that if your systems platforms are completely different. Also by going with a less used product you are more limited in your IT staff (more people know windows based products then linx or mac). Lastly if you use a less used product you have to spend extra money training your staff. Overall it is expensive to switch technologies.
MS doesn't have to work to maintain the customer base....if Linux and Mac want to become the defacto business product then they need to adjust themselves to look/feel/work (at least on the front-end) more like MS products -and then offer just as many (e.g. Exchange, Office, compatibility with 95% of the software out there, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Yea thats all well and good but does it come in 2 carret, D color, SI1 clarity? My g/f is demanding.
If the warranty was from a 3rd company you should be OK. Desktop components are easy/cheap to replace. Laptops are not so easy.
Is WASD really that hard to use?
Teaching my g/f how to play WoW. She doesn't play video games at all. Yes it is that hard to learn to use. I had to explain she can press forward and right at the same time to move at an angle, but pressing forward and backward at the same time does nothing.
I play WoW and was excited to get this. Driver software (provided in CD) does not work with Vista 64 premium - constantly get an error when trying to load it. The keyboard works - but without the software you can't remap the keys and this is bad joo-joo magic (WoW reference).
So I went to their website to download the latest software hoping to fix the problem....site does not come up. Tried it from a different computer at home....site still does not come up. Tried it from a different network AND computer.... yup no go.
Tried searching for software on the net...after 30 minutes I gave up.
Went to Google cache and found an 800 number....they are closed until Jan 5th (I called them on Dec 22).
So are they going out of business? I don't know...but I am returning this product from a company that takes at LEAST a 10 BUSINESS day vacation during the biggest shopping season and their WEBSITE is down (it may be up now, but since I am returning it there is no point in me trying).
I will stick with my G15. Now waiting for my WoW mouse to get off back-order.
We can make antimatter fuel it's just so insanely expensive that without a major technical leap you aren't going to be powering a car much less a starship with it
We can? Link to article?
try to make that charge stick in court.
It is illegal to acquire (most likely knowingly) this kind of material. This is always after-the-fact since there was no product for him to acquire until after-the-fact.
Really - a semi-decent attorney doesn't have to try to hard.
The thing that annoys me - this guy listed pretty much all of the most likely scenarios. So when one of those happen he will liken himself to be Nostradamos. When you throw enough shit at the ceiling, eventually one will stick.
This guy is not prophetic at all.
Sorry to be harsh. I did the same thing. But after reading the electronic versions, I understood what all the fuss was about and went and got a paperback version so I could enjoy the writing and admire the artwork without sitting in front of a computer, and also so Moore and Gibbons received whatever royalties they still get from the sales of their original work. They deserve it.
Are you implying that if you didn't like what you read you would not have bought it? If so then you are the hippocrit. I love the people who download stuff, use it and then say they shouldn't pay for it because it did not meet a specific criteria. I knew a person who downloaded games, played them from start to finish then justified it by saying it was crappy games. He only paid for games that required online subs (e.g. WoW). Copyrights are made to protect artists/studios from people who do that kind of nonsense. BTW plenty of companies offer previews, synopsis, and demo copies to try it before you buy it.
How does the above get +5 insightful? The guy says Hollywood doesn't come up with fresh ideas with some exception. So he contradict ed himself. Then saying these ideas weren't from Hollywood, but from individuals who work in...wait for it Hollywood!
Dude - all films come from certain individuals. They each put a piece of their time/though into it and before you know it you have a film.
if this movie comes out I will go watch it. If this movie came out as a low cost budget I probably wouldn't. Then again that is not because I am against low budget films, but this is an action movie - and I want glitz and glamour when I see action movies. And those special effects cost money.
436 pages of comic book - most of it spent on pictures, some of it on pages dedicated to advertisements. So 2 hours of movie for 436 pages of comic book (pictures and all) is not a big deal
This argument is old and frankly poor. How many comic books came out for Batman, and not many people are saying the latest Batman movie sucked.
It's all about the writer, director, and actors. If they do a good job then they can take out the elements of the book and make it into a great movie.
Then again, fanboys/girls will always complain - even BEFORE they see the product.
Fanboy: "OMG WTF LOL this movie is t3h FAIL"
Non-Fanboy: "Did you see the movie that hasn't been released yet?"
Fanboy: "OMG WTF LOL this movie is t3h FAIL"
Non-Fanboy: "..."
That's a way for a nerd to get some - make sure there aren't many other choices.
/.erds
Lots of opportunity for you
Whichever is shorter, not longer. And what YOU seem to be forgetting is copyright is something we, as a society, are offering artists to help society. There is no benfit to society for them getting 70 years or more. They(mostly corporations) are breaking their part of the contract when they ask for continually longer copyright, especially the retroactive ones.
Yea just saying "whichever is shorter, not longer" is not really a viable solution. That is the same as "give me free, even if they pay is only $1". What contract did people or corporations break when they asked for longer copyright laws? Please show me this contract. I am not forgetting anything, except that you assume copyright have no benefits to society. It helps society a lot when someone (and all their supporting employees) make a ton of money. It means that everyone from the actor(s) to the sanitation worker at the recording studio get paid and earn a living. Thusly spending money in our society. See a big benefit. Another is that the artist is able to devote their lives to this (assuming they are popular enough to get paid the big bucks). You may not like it because that means you can't get the stuff for free - but that is just tough potatoes - and a weak argument.
Not to be pedantic, but rendered webpages containing news are also physical publications
But you do it so well. I am sure we all realize, including you, that he meant the difference between hard copy vs soft/e copy.
*Whoosh*!
*Derrr*!
See works for me too.
I have not seen anyone suggest that it shouldn't extend a little past death, assuming it's early. Most suggestions I see(That aren't for abolishing it) are along the lines of 10-20 years, or life + 5/10 years, whichever is shorter. How many employers would pay your spouse/kids even one year after you die? That's what life insurance is for.
It all depends on the job you have. If someone spent their entire lives trying to make something work and finally at the tail end of their lives it does work they should get paid for that. But that is fairy tale - they get paid what the market will pay them.
You said 10-20 years or life + 5/10 years - these are all arbitrary. Why not 40-70 or Life+50. If we were to go by life +5/10, how fair would it be if person A made something at age 20 and got life +5/10, or someone at age 70 and got life +5/10. So making it some VERY arbitrary base of 'life' is unfair. A fixed number is more fair.
Now it is just a matter of what that arbitrary number is. Is it 10 years? 20? 40? 100? What if it took me 50 years to create a hit....why should I only get 10 years of pay from it?
And the thing that everyone seems to ignore/forget is that the topic we are talking about is not a necessity to life - not what-so-ever - so if you don't like the terms and agreement then do not use the product. By using it and discarding the terms of agreement then YOU are in the wrong no matter how much you justify entitlement.
Woosh! If you're going to respond, at least try to argue with a point actually made by the parent. He never said sharing those CDs with friends should be considered legally or morally proper. His point is that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. Do you think that copying a CD of 15 songs for a friend is a crime worthy of a $2.25 million fine?
Yes.
They want people to be terrified of downloading anything, regardless of where it comes from. Then they can go back to selling CD's and being the gatekeepers that they used to be.
No, they are telling you do not download/upload material that you are not given permission to download/upload. Otherwise they would be sueing groups like Applie iTunes. If you want to d/l and/or u/l music free of prosectuion get the copyright holders permission
Spread the truth, not propaganda.
What is the legality of this? RIAA tells them that they represent Metallica and I have a rar file called metalica. This would mean that the provider opens my rar file and looks into it. They should not be allowed to do so. Privacy and such, you know.
You gave up your privacy right when you turned on your torrent program that makes the rar file available to the public.
If you're sharing your music collection with your friends, say 200 CDs * 15 songs
Did the creater/owner of the music give you expressed permission to share 200 CDs * 15 songs with your "friends"? No? Then STFU.
The life of the author plus 50/70 years is a damned long time. And it has now placed copyrights beyond the lives of human beings. That has made them the currency of corporations, and are no longer within the means of trade for us mere mortals.
here is a hypothetical: I am an artist. I spent most of my adult life poor, my family is also poor because of this. Right around the age of 50 I make a hit. It is going to sell and I am going to get paid like a rockstar. I tragically die. Should my family not get the money from my hardwork? Or, what if I spent years working on something but it takes it a while to come to fruition. So I may not make a million bucks in a year, but it may take time - a slow trickle of funds. A few thousand dollars every year. Why should I not enjoy that money I worked for. You certainly enjyo the money you get from your employer - and if you were to die your last paycheck would be delivered to your next of kin.
There is no monopoly on games, music and movies. If you don't want to pay for a movie go to the free library and rent one for free or find a movie online that is free (legally) to download. If you don't want to pay for music turn the radio on or go to the Internet. If you want to play a computer game but don't want to pay then go find a free open source game that you can play for free and tweak the code all you want.
If, however, you want to play the latest and greatest game from XYZ corporation that protects their code and has strict EULA agreements, if you want to listen to the music of someone who wants the "protection" of the RIAA, or you want to see the latest blockbuster movie - then guess what you gotta pay and play by their rules. The content is theres not yours. If you don't like it - don't use their product. You won't die. They are not denying you food, water, air, housing, clothing, medicine or education. In fact, by not participating in those events you are saving time you could use to socialize with your friends, read a book from the free library, get out and exercise, or just experience life outside of mass media. Pretty simple. But the truth is you want the blockbuster movies, that new Spears CD that you publically revile but secretly have a fetish for, and that new game that can't be run on the best computers today so you say it sucks but you are building a new computer system so you can play it.
Here here, it's a doggy-dog world.
Dog-eat-dog world.
It wouldn't be a problem to integrate with those systems they weren't obfuscated to prevent reverse engineering. It also doesn't help that they seem to aim to prevent migration, in outlook in particular. You can't export as RFC2882 .eml, which is importable by everything, but you can dump a .pst which can be read by any outlook product.
I don't think it's illegal, but they *have* built a de facto monopoly on half truths and big marketing. Saying other os-es need to look / feel like windows to gain market acceptance is a silly way to go about replacing it.
Reply to This
Then you make your own and make it open standards (we have that open office, linux, etc.) But now that you have a product you need people to use it, and people don't like leaving their comfort zone. There was a guy in this thread who cited one of the flaws in Vista was the change from Add/Remove PRograms to Programs (or w/e it's called). So make the migration easy for people, then slowly (over time) change them to something better.
Yes I agree, the add/remove program thing annoys me. And I prefer the old UI from XP. But I preferred the old 98 UI until I forced myself to get used to the XP. Now I will force myself to learn the Vista UI. Eventually it will be something new. It used to be DOS to 95. People will always complain when they are forced to leave their comfort zone...all I can say is, adapt and get over it. There are other things worse then a change of location for something.
(2) Offer free UPGRADES to Windows Seven for anyone who buys a machine loaded with Vista
I just bought a Dell laptop with Vista and a desktop (from a small manufacturer) with vista. So i have 32bit and 64 bit. I agree, but this won't happen. It will be like all those people who got stuck with ME - though I think Vista is echelons better then ME was.
Microsoft's monopoly is so entrenched
Not really. MS isn't imposing any monopoly. First of all there are alternatives - some pay some free. So if MS had a true monopoly there would be no alternatives. The problem is that businesses are not willing to move from MS to another software platform. They are not 100% to blame - businesses need to stay competative and part of that is to play well with everyone else. Can't do that if your systems platforms are completely different. Also by going with a less used product you are more limited in your IT staff (more people know windows based products then linx or mac). Lastly if you use a less used product you have to spend extra money training your staff. Overall it is expensive to switch technologies.
MS doesn't have to work to maintain the customer base....if Linux and Mac want to become the defacto business product then they need to adjust themselves to look/feel/work (at least on the front-end) more like MS products -and then offer just as many (e.g. Exchange, Office, compatibility with 95% of the software out there, etc).
You may not like that reality, but it is reality.