Would that result in free games for the hackers? No. Well too bad. They'd rather spend their time playing pirated games then actually contributing to society.
any band worth listening to these days still creates albums and not songs, though you're most likely not going to hear any of it on the radio.
Translation: The music I like is good because its unknown and as such indie music. Mainstream = teh sucks. Also OSS rules and people should give Linux a chance!!!1111
Indeed. I'll be eagerly awaiting the minimum requirements. Although that said my computer is getting rather old. My computer is 3 years old, and I didn't buy the latest and greatest when I did get it. I instead simply bought a computer that fit my needs of the time (surf the web, read e-mail, write fairly basic programs, be cheap).
Civilization is about the only game I insist on playing on my computer, so its pretty much the ONLY game that can force me to upgrade. I'm quite happy to simply do without for most other games (that said, I did skip over Civilization IV as I was only just getting into Civilization III when IV came out. I went to buy Civ IV late last year only to discover that Civ V was on the horizon).
I'm sure the judge is enjoying his new Wii-shaped swimming pool.
Citation needed. Because making completely unsupported allegations like this is just ridiculous. Then again, this is slashdot where all corporations are evil.
Oh goodie. Yet another thing to thank Johnny Howard for.
Given I'm talking about the original playstation (which is when I heard about this legal loophole that allowed stores to openly selling their services to chip playstations) and the PS2 came out in 2000, I'm going to assume it happened before the free trade agreement;) (I don't remember the exact date I saw stores openly selling playstation modding services, but I do remember being quite surprised and either seeing something about it on the news or looking it up on the internet).
That said don't misconstrue this as to have any actual sympathy for people selling devices to get around copyright protection. I understand that these devices can be used for homebrewing. And I'll support the first to support any company that actually tries to make a business out of homebrewing for the Nintendo DS. But first that company will have to do a pretty damn good job convincing me they really are trying to make a business out of homebrewing and aren't using it as a legal pretext to allow people to pirate DS games.
Modding consoles, selling chips to mod consoles and selling services to mod consoles have been deemed legal in Australia in the past due to the justification that they allow you to play backed up versions of games you've legally bought. Of course this is a valid reason to want to mod a console, but its also a "nudge nudge, wink wink" situation as the people who would actually mod their console only for playing backed up versions of their game would be in the extreme minority.
But this bullshit justification has always been enough in the past to stop people from facing the consequences of selling chips to get around DRM in consoles. So how come the excuse didn't work this time? Is it because its a civil trial? I understand the burden of proof is much less in civil, but if this was a successful avenue for corporations to take, I'm sure Sony would have done it years ago with the original Playstation. Did the defendants in this case mess up and get caught actively encouraging people to use their chip to pirate games?
I RTFA, but it was completely silent on how Nintendo managed to win this court case.
The distributor advises consumers to use their modification devices for legal reasons only, such as playing legal copies of games from different regions
Wait, what? I thought handhelds (both the Gameboy Advance, Nintendo DS and PSP) weren't region-locked, but were in fact region-free. This allows people to play games from any region without having to resort to "chipping" their devices (which can often cause permanent damage). If the Nintendo DS is region-free, how could this be a legal purpose for this device? Or is it, in fact, region-locked?
Well the article is good enough to tell us which games to avoid due to horrible DRM.
Yup. "Anything produced by Ubisoft after the year 2009"
Of course, I play almost no games on my computer, instead using it to surf the web, send e-mails, and create documents and the like. When I want to play a game, I just whip out my console. Sure it also has DRM, but its also completely invisible to me. That is, of course, until I upgrade to the seventh generation of consoles. I'm not looking forward to all this rubbish about installing games onto a console and downloading patches. If I wanted to put up with that rubbish, I'd just use my computer.
How long until PS3 has 10 different types of video cards and each game is only compatible with a subset?
So few people care about DRM that it probably cancels out with the extra sales they'll get from the 10 people who decided not to pirate because of the DRM.
Few people care about DRM. But how many people care about their movie torrents getting slowed down because they're playing the latest game? How many people care about not being able to play the latest game because the internet has died?
DRM isn't the issue here. Annoying users and pissing them off is. If your DRM annoys people too much, they'll stop buying your games. Now this DRM would be annoying for me. If I'm in the minority, it will become the latest practice and life will continue as usual. Although if I'm in the majority, this will go the way of the Sony rootkit.
However lets see how much of this actually supports the claim that all that:
Everyone publishing used those 2 as the ultimate source of their data. The data currently published cannot be trusted. None of it.
First of all
"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”
He isn't saying global warming isn't happening. He's saying global warming isn't man-made.
My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit
He's welcome to his belief. He's also welcome to publish his beliefs in a scientific journal and to support these beliefs with data so the debate can be further continued. Writing to a committee is hardly the same.
some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results
Great. SOME scientists have done this. Awesome. Let's throw out all the published papers (even the papers that don't support global warming) because an unspecified group of "some" scientists have manipulated data.
Also, why was the term manipulated use? Why not use the term "falsified"? Manipulating shit is what statisticians do. Its why they're so distrusted.
"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
Alright, whose they? I'm assuming given the context in the article "they," are referring to the some scientists who have manipulated data. So because SOME scientists aren't making their work transparent, all climate model forecasts are suspect? This sounds like someone with an axe to grind and is looking for political clout.
The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary here) for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making undocumented and unexplained revisions.
See, now that's more credible and actually supports the claim. But following that link again doesn't provide any conclusive support for tarball's claims. It raises questions, but doesn't provide any answers.
If you're just some random internet troll, I'm more than happy to dismiss you and move on. So the work isn't so much for me, as actually giving your posts some purpose here besides spouting your opinion which everyone will ignore.
For the second claim, if you missed the news last year, search for "climategate".
I take issue with any source that uses the suffix gate to refer to a scandal if it isn't appended to "water". So already I have more issues with the credibility of your claims.
There's also been periods of extinction where most of the land-lifeforms have disappeared. It shouldn't be a question of whether or not man caused global warming, but if man can stop global warming. I'd rather not join the dinosaurs and turn into birds or die.
Science has its staunch supporters who are just as closed minded over their beliefs as are the extremist in religion.
Definitely. Just look at archaeology. New ideas are often only accepted after the old guard who have built their career on an older idea have died. For example it was believed Hatshepsut wasn't a true pharoah because she was female, whereas more modern archaeologists have debunked every argument used to not consider her as a pharaoh.
Reputable citations needed, particularly on the "Everyone publishing used those 2 as the ultimate source of their data" part.
I say that not because I think this is Wikipedia, but because I find this allegation/claim to be quite interesting so I would be quite happy to hear that this claim is true. Because I don't want global warming to be true. If it isn't true, we can keep burning as many greenhouse gases as we like. But without something to support your claim, you're just a random person on the internet who has yet to be modded troll;)
What about if you yourself bought a ticket and boarded the plane, saw a literally tiny seat and was given the same choice-- to buy two seats or get off?
It truly matters on how up front they are about their seat sizes. In this case, Kevin Smith was not only aware of their seat size and their policy on overweight and obese people, but he had quite willingly accepted it before he got to the airport.
Would you still think it was fair and acceptable capitalism if you were negatively affected by it?
Yes.
It's a ridiculous argument that any person can do anything they want in a capitalistic marketplace.
Good thing I didn't make that argument.
They then put him on the earlier flight, but only gave him *one* seat, not the two he had purchased. That was their mistake.
Yes, it was their mistake to attempt to accommodate him. Next time they should say "fatties aren't allowed in standby" except that of course would bring your ire even more. How about we find the largest size possible that someone can be without dying, and make the seats that size.
You've just said straight out that fat people shouldn't be treated the same as persons with normal weight. Why not? Are they de facto assholes? Are they child rapers?
Because they are physically incapable of doing stuff that people within a healthy weight range can do. Treating them as if they CAN physically do these tasks is political correctness run amok.
If I'm simply incapable of lifting 100kg on a regular basis, should I be given a job that requires me to lift 100kg on a regular basis? Of course not.
Are you really arguing that obese persons would voluntarily choose to buy two seats on a plane if they could buy only one?
But they can't buy one and stay within the confines of that one seat.
or, for airlines to make a proportion of their seats large enough to accommodate above-average persons?
How far above average are we going to go here? What about people who can't fit within the ailes? What about people who can't walk on their own two legs because they are so overweight? At one point we're going to have to draw a line and say "people over this weight cannot be treated as healthy people." But you're arguing that to draw such a line is wrong.
And if it's really such a social drag to have obese people amongst the population, then perhaps the nation should start banning foods like McDonald's that are notoriously fattening and unhealthy instead of profiting by taxation and economic prosperity through allowing their consumption and then villifying those who legally consume them.
Because arguing the choice of the individual (companies are also comprised of individuals) is definitely the same thing as arguing for the government to tell you what you can eat.
Also I meant to also add, if Hypothetical Airline does make have small seats and charges people the industry standard price per seat (rather then per inch), then they'll lose their customers if its an issue for their customers. If its only an issue for a few obese or overweight people, then clearly the market has spoken. After all, obesity isn't a right in which everyone should be forced to treat you as if you were a person within a healthy weight range.
Of course its alright for airlines to make unusually small seats and charge what they feel like. Guess what, that's capitalism! This hypothetical isn't even capitalism run amok, its just standard, acceptable capitalism, with a small few assumptions.
First of all, if the average weight is 250 pounds (which is 113 kg by the way!) your nation is in a lot more trouble then having to pay double for their airlines tickets.
Second of all, if the seats are unusually small for the airline industry, then I can see a claim for false advertising if the airline isn't upfront about this. If they try to hide the size of their seats and rely on consumer ignorance to allow them to be bait and switched, then clearly there's an issue. Bait and switch tactics aren't legal and is considered fraud.
However Southwest Airlines is up front about their policy. This customer was aware of their policy. This customer had shown a willingness to accept their policy by buying 2 tickets beforehand. It was only when the airline attempted to accommodate him when he decided to make a last minute change that an issue came up.
Also, having read their policy, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Being medically obese isn't a right in which everyone should be forced to treat you as if you were a person within a healthy weight range.
Handicapped isn't allowed in America? It covers both the physical and mental faculties in which you may be deficient in. If someone can do their job, why not hire them regardless of what handicap they may have?
Fat and overweight both have similar derogatory connotations
Overweight is a medical term. As is obese. Overweight people have a BMI between 26 - 30 while obese people have a BMI 31 and higher.
I use to be obese, I am now overweight.
If people find these terms offensive, stiff-shit. How about instead of changing how we talk to better suit them, they change their appearance to better suit their own sensibilities. It would be like calling people who need glasses (such as myself) "sight-challenged" instead of "long-sighted" or "near-sighted"
Although I'm sure the suits in legal and public relations will take issue with actually telling the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Would that result in free games for the hackers? No. Well too bad. They'd rather spend their time playing pirated games then actually contributing to society.
any band worth listening to these days still creates albums and not songs, though you're most likely not going to hear any of it on the radio.
Translation: The music I like is good because its unknown and as such indie music. Mainstream = teh sucks. Also OSS rules and people should give Linux a chance!!!1111
I guess you don't have anything against the synthesised boy bands that big record companies like to produce such as the Hanson or the Monkees.
Indeed. I'll be eagerly awaiting the minimum requirements. Although that said my computer is getting rather old. My computer is 3 years old, and I didn't buy the latest and greatest when I did get it. I instead simply bought a computer that fit my needs of the time (surf the web, read e-mail, write fairly basic programs, be cheap).
Civilization is about the only game I insist on playing on my computer, so its pretty much the ONLY game that can force me to upgrade. I'm quite happy to simply do without for most other games (that said, I did skip over Civilization IV as I was only just getting into Civilization III when IV came out. I went to buy Civ IV late last year only to discover that Civ V was on the horizon).
I'm sure the judge is enjoying his new Wii-shaped swimming pool.
Citation needed. Because making completely unsupported allegations like this is just ridiculous. Then again, this is slashdot where all corporations are evil.
Oh goodie. Yet another thing to thank Johnny Howard for.
Given I'm talking about the original playstation (which is when I heard about this legal loophole that allowed stores to openly selling their services to chip playstations) and the PS2 came out in 2000, I'm going to assume it happened before the free trade agreement ;) (I don't remember the exact date I saw stores openly selling playstation modding services, but I do remember being quite surprised and either seeing something about it on the news or looking it up on the internet).
That said don't misconstrue this as to have any actual sympathy for people selling devices to get around copyright protection. I understand that these devices can be used for homebrewing. And I'll support the first to support any company that actually tries to make a business out of homebrewing for the Nintendo DS. But first that company will have to do a pretty damn good job convincing me they really are trying to make a business out of homebrewing and aren't using it as a legal pretext to allow people to pirate DS games.
Modding consoles, selling chips to mod consoles and selling services to mod consoles have been deemed legal in Australia in the past due to the justification that they allow you to play backed up versions of games you've legally bought. Of course this is a valid reason to want to mod a console, but its also a "nudge nudge, wink wink" situation as the people who would actually mod their console only for playing backed up versions of their game would be in the extreme minority.
But this bullshit justification has always been enough in the past to stop people from facing the consequences of selling chips to get around DRM in consoles. So how come the excuse didn't work this time? Is it because its a civil trial? I understand the burden of proof is much less in civil, but if this was a successful avenue for corporations to take, I'm sure Sony would have done it years ago with the original Playstation. Did the defendants in this case mess up and get caught actively encouraging people to use their chip to pirate games?
I RTFA, but it was completely silent on how Nintendo managed to win this court case.
The distributor advises consumers to use their modification devices for legal reasons only, such as playing legal copies of games from different regions
Wait, what? I thought handhelds (both the Gameboy Advance, Nintendo DS and PSP) weren't region-locked, but were in fact region-free. This allows people to play games from any region without having to resort to "chipping" their devices (which can often cause permanent damage). If the Nintendo DS is region-free, how could this be a legal purpose for this device? Or is it, in fact, region-locked?
Well the article is good enough to tell us which games to avoid due to horrible DRM.
Yup. "Anything produced by Ubisoft after the year 2009"
Of course, I play almost no games on my computer, instead using it to surf the web, send e-mails, and create documents and the like. When I want to play a game, I just whip out my console. Sure it also has DRM, but its also completely invisible to me. That is, of course, until I upgrade to the seventh generation of consoles. I'm not looking forward to all this rubbish about installing games onto a console and downloading patches. If I wanted to put up with that rubbish, I'd just use my computer.
How long until PS3 has 10 different types of video cards and each game is only compatible with a subset?
So few people care about DRM that it probably cancels out with the extra sales they'll get from the 10 people who decided not to pirate because of the DRM.
Few people care about DRM. But how many people care about their movie torrents getting slowed down because they're playing the latest game? How many people care about not being able to play the latest game because the internet has died?
DRM isn't the issue here. Annoying users and pissing them off is. If your DRM annoys people too much, they'll stop buying your games. Now this DRM would be annoying for me. If I'm in the minority, it will become the latest practice and life will continue as usual. Although if I'm in the majority, this will go the way of the Sony rootkit.
Thanks for finding a source.
However lets see how much of this actually supports the claim that all that:
Everyone publishing used those 2 as the ultimate source of their data. The data currently published cannot be trusted. None of it.
First of all
"I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”
He isn't saying global warming isn't happening. He's saying global warming isn't man-made.
My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit
He's welcome to his belief. He's also welcome to publish his beliefs in a scientific journal and to support these beliefs with data so the debate can be further continued. Writing to a committee is hardly the same.
some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results
Great. SOME scientists have done this. Awesome. Let's throw out all the published papers (even the papers that don't support global warming) because an unspecified group of "some" scientists have manipulated data.
Also, why was the term manipulated use? Why not use the term "falsified"? Manipulating shit is what statisticians do. Its why they're so distrusted.
"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
Alright, whose they? I'm assuming given the context in the article "they," are referring to the some scientists who have manipulated data. So because SOME scientists aren't making their work transparent, all climate model forecasts are suspect? This sounds like someone with an axe to grind and is looking for political clout.
The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary here) for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making undocumented and unexplained revisions.
See, now that's more credible and actually supports the claim. But following that link again doesn't provide any conclusive support for tarball's claims. It raises questions, but doesn't provide any answers.
I won't do the work for you
If you're just some random internet troll, I'm more than happy to dismiss you and move on. So the work isn't so much for me, as actually giving your posts some purpose here besides spouting your opinion which everyone will ignore.
For the second claim, if you missed the news last year, search for "climategate".
I take issue with any source that uses the suffix gate to refer to a scandal if it isn't appended to "water". So already I have more issues with the credibility of your claims.
There's also been periods of extinction where most of the land-lifeforms have disappeared. It shouldn't be a question of whether or not man caused global warming, but if man can stop global warming. I'd rather not join the dinosaurs and turn into birds or die.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 [dailymail.co.uk]
I'm going to have to take issue with the credibility of any source that uses the suffix "gate" in a scandal that doesn't have "water" before it.
Science has its staunch supporters who are just as closed minded over their beliefs as are the extremist in religion.
Definitely. Just look at archaeology. New ideas are often only accepted after the old guard who have built their career on an older idea have died. For example it was believed Hatshepsut wasn't a true pharoah because she was female, whereas more modern archaeologists have debunked every argument used to not consider her as a pharaoh.
Reputable citations needed, particularly on the "Everyone publishing used those 2 as the ultimate source of their data" part.
I say that not because I think this is Wikipedia, but because I find this allegation/claim to be quite interesting so I would be quite happy to hear that this claim is true. Because I don't want global warming to be true. If it isn't true, we can keep burning as many greenhouse gases as we like. But without something to support your claim, you're just a random person on the internet who has yet to be modded troll ;)
There is no line that can be drawn at which we say "people over this weight cannot be treated as people." To draw such a line is wrong.
Because acknowledging someone's limits is treating them as subhuman.
What about if you yourself bought a ticket and boarded the plane, saw a literally tiny seat and was given the same choice-- to buy two seats or get off?
It truly matters on how up front they are about their seat sizes. In this case, Kevin Smith was not only aware of their seat size and their policy on overweight and obese people, but he had quite willingly accepted it before he got to the airport.
Would you still think it was fair and acceptable capitalism if you were negatively affected by it?
Yes.
It's a ridiculous argument that any person can do anything they want in a capitalistic marketplace.
Good thing I didn't make that argument.
They then put him on the earlier flight, but only gave him *one* seat, not the two he had purchased. That was their mistake.
Yes, it was their mistake to attempt to accommodate him. Next time they should say "fatties aren't allowed in standby" except that of course would bring your ire even more. How about we find the largest size possible that someone can be without dying, and make the seats that size.
You've just said straight out that fat people shouldn't be treated the same as persons with normal weight. Why not? Are they de facto assholes? Are they child rapers?
Because they are physically incapable of doing stuff that people within a healthy weight range can do. Treating them as if they CAN physically do these tasks is political correctness run amok.
If I'm simply incapable of lifting 100kg on a regular basis, should I be given a job that requires me to lift 100kg on a regular basis? Of course not.
Are you really arguing that obese persons would voluntarily choose to buy two seats on a plane if they could buy only one?
But they can't buy one and stay within the confines of that one seat.
or, for airlines to make a proportion of their seats large enough to accommodate above-average persons?
How far above average are we going to go here? What about people who can't fit within the ailes? What about people who can't walk on their own two legs because they are so overweight? At one point we're going to have to draw a line and say "people over this weight cannot be treated as healthy people." But you're arguing that to draw such a line is wrong.
And if it's really such a social drag to have obese people amongst the population, then perhaps the nation should start banning foods like McDonald's that are notoriously fattening and unhealthy instead of profiting by taxation and economic prosperity through allowing their consumption and then villifying those who legally consume them.
Because arguing the choice of the individual (companies are also comprised of individuals) is definitely the same thing as arguing for the government to tell you what you can eat.
I heard he's suing the airline for medical bills because their policy made him eat an extra 5 twinkies.
Also I meant to also add, if Hypothetical Airline does make have small seats and charges people the industry standard price per seat (rather then per inch), then they'll lose their customers if its an issue for their customers. If its only an issue for a few obese or overweight people, then clearly the market has spoken. After all, obesity isn't a right in which everyone should be forced to treat you as if you were a person within a healthy weight range.
Of course its alright for airlines to make unusually small seats and charge what they feel like. Guess what, that's capitalism! This hypothetical isn't even capitalism run amok, its just standard, acceptable capitalism, with a small few assumptions.
First of all, if the average weight is 250 pounds (which is 113 kg by the way!) your nation is in a lot more trouble then having to pay double for their airlines tickets.
Second of all, if the seats are unusually small for the airline industry, then I can see a claim for false advertising if the airline isn't upfront about this. If they try to hide the size of their seats and rely on consumer ignorance to allow them to be bait and switched, then clearly there's an issue. Bait and switch tactics aren't legal and is considered fraud.
However Southwest Airlines is up front about their policy. This customer was aware of their policy. This customer had shown a willingness to accept their policy by buying 2 tickets beforehand. It was only when the airline attempted to accommodate him when he decided to make a last minute change that an issue came up.
Also, having read their policy, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Being medically obese isn't a right in which everyone should be forced to treat you as if you were a person within a healthy weight range.
Handicapped isn't allowed in America? It covers both the physical and mental faculties in which you may be deficient in. If someone can do their job, why not hire them regardless of what handicap they may have?
Fat and overweight both have similar derogatory connotations
Overweight is a medical term. As is obese. Overweight people have a BMI between 26 - 30 while obese people have a BMI 31 and higher.
I use to be obese, I am now overweight.
If people find these terms offensive, stiff-shit. How about instead of changing how we talk to better suit them, they change their appearance to better suit their own sensibilities. It would be like calling people who need glasses (such as myself) "sight-challenged" instead of "long-sighted" or "near-sighted"
Although I'm sure the suits in legal and public relations will take issue with actually telling the truth.
That's why you only use the computer for 10 minutes each hour, right?
They're a shit to read in bed with though. And ultimately that's the most important consideration for me when it comes to an ebook reader.