Capitalism does not guarantee anyone's right to make a profit.
There are way that could be examined to transfer domains without people incurring the expenses. This is a red herring. If I was a parent, I would like a way to regulate what my young kids come across online until they are old enough to make understand some of these things. I don't know why.xxx is so difficult. It could actually make it easier to target the market for pr0n, and make it easier for those who want to block it as well.
We have done the math for you. (We will charge you for this service)
You have ripped 300 CDs and you admit sending music to friends. Well, 300 CDs at about 12 tracks per CD to on average 5 friends means you now owe us well, 5 * 300 * 12 * $0.99 so this comes up to $17,820.
Not such a tiny nitpick. If you are talking about the population of the entire world, it is probably true with probability 99.99999999% or soemthing like that. You can do funny stuff with median in small sample spaces, but when your sample space get very large, you can say things with much more certainty.
I work in the insurance industry and while I am not in the USA, I can't see how someone can lose their pension. He might lose his next six months income, and that may have a minor impact on his pension, but he can surely retire early or something. In any case, if he wants to retire, then IBM has nothing to gain (or should not be able to gain) from his being fired. The law should normally prevent that.
I think IBM should just allow him to retire early, and save themselves 6 months wages at the same time, or just give the guy his 6 months salary, damn, he has been working there for like only 19 years. It is not worth it to fight this guy.
What Gogole is saying is that you cannot rely on SMART to warn you of all or even most hard drive failures. So whilst you do reduce the possibility to lose data, they are saying you are still very likely to lose data anyway.
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I don't think AMD would want a price war with Intel unless they have a good product coming through. They better hope Intel hasn't left something in reserve. I think it would be a good strategy then. Build up market share despite an inferior product, then hit the competition with a really good product.
Whilst there might be able to get drivers to work on Solaris that way, they probably will require in Solaris have Joint Copyright with Sun, so that they can release Solaris closed source. so it might not be an option.
No. Linus is not whining. The Linux kernel is not going to be licensed under v3. He closed that loophole a long time ago. Anyone who put GPLv2 or later in their code left a loophole for the FSF to relicense their software as they see fit. Remember that the GPL is not a public document. No one but the FSF can release a new version, which means that if you have a project licensed under the GPL with the 'or later' clause, even you are not as free to relicense the whole thing like the FSF is able to.
Linus was asked about relicensing and he gave his views. People then jumped on these views and tried to make him look bad. But he talks much sense. If you want to trust the FSF to know what's best for your code then that is your prerogative.
Seriously what are they thinking. Do they not know that some people who use IE will find any excuse to download using Bittorrent. Including not supporting their best friend's preferred browser.
If you were caught with a picture of these two kids. You would be sent to jail. No question. Is that right?
If these two 'kids' mutually agreed to send out their pics to other people, should they be prosecuted?
Now, can it be illegal to have pics of these two kids if there are situations under which the possession of such pictures might not be illegal. I mean, does the law really care who took the pictures, and the circumstances. Perhaps a judge has to consider that he might make a ruling that leads to a very slippery slope. So maybe these kids hope for a mistrial or something, or they are convicted, but not really punished so as not to set a dangerous precedent.
I think that would actually be a good idea. Variable pricing works both ways. When a record is new, and all the 13 year olds want it, they should pay top dollar. The artist's gotta eat. But when the initial demand dies down, it might be worthwhile for the price to drop to something like a 'library price' for people who are interested in building a good music library. It already happens with other media. PC games for instance. The price comes down over the life.
At current prices, who wants to spend $10,000 on music they are putting on that 80GB player. Seriously. And people actually complain about the prices of mp3 players. To legally fill that thing up with popular music(assuming its all music, at 128 kpbs) you need about $10,000.
No no no. A court can't cherry pick parts of a contract to enforce. Go read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts#Illegal_con tracts about illegal contracts. When a contract becomes is illegal, it becomes void, and is of no force or effect (or something like that). So there is not contract anymore, hence if a Apple was disallowed to sell music with Fairplay, that would void the contract with the recording companies. A court can either hold two parties to a contract, or it can declare a contract void.
I have done a bit of contract law. I know that much.
If they made jaywalking legal, and forced motorists to stop every time a pedestrian wanted to cross the road, in the busier cities, this would make cars that much more inconvenient, and would encourage people to possible use public transportation.
So you want a whitelist internet. No, not good. Internet is a public area. We should blacklist 'bad' sites, and the rest of the sites should be assumed to be not bad.
A contract is a two party thing. Usually, a contract requires the agreement of both parties for it to be suspended. No party can unilaterally change the terms of the contract. If a court invalidates a contract, it then allows either party to withdraw from it. Imposing conditions on a contract is another thing altogether, and the courts cannot force the music companies to transact in a way they do not wish to. I would be surprised if the contract did not allow the music companies to unilaterally withdraw if a court ruling makes it impossible to continue the relationship in the way originally intended.
The only way for a court to remove the DRM clause specifically, is if Apple requested it, because they are a party to the contract. I cannot go to court and ask someone to amend the terms of a contract between two other parties because I am a potential consumer. The most I can hope for is that the court will make it illegal for one or both of the parties to continue offer those terms, and hence encourage the parties to offer new terms.
That is very true. That is how pymusique and later sharpmusique were able to get songs downloaded from iTMS on Linux. They 'forgot' to apply the DRM, and you Linux machine will play your aac files just fine if they do not have DRM.Putting DRM on the server would be expensive in processor terms, and they really don't want to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism does not guarantee anyone's right to make a profit.
.xxx is so difficult. It could actually make it easier to target the market for pr0n, and make it easier for those who want to block it as well.
There are way that could be examined to transfer domains without people incurring the expenses. This is a red herring. If I was a parent, I would like a way to regulate what my young kids come across online until they are old enough to make understand some of these things. I don't know why
This can be win win.
This is the RIAA maths department calling.
We have done the math for you. (We will charge you for this service)
You have ripped 300 CDs and you admit sending music to friends. Well, 300 CDs at about 12 tracks per CD to on average 5 friends means you now owe us well, 5 * 300 * 12 * $0.99 so this comes up to $17,820.
For the hard math, we will charge you $1,000.
Please make out your check to RIAA-R-US.
Thank you for your cooperation.
RIAA
Two words for you, inheritance tax. Just raise that and you are good to go.
I tend to not believe anything I see in the movies. Except when they are having sex of course (as opposed to when they are pretending to have sex).
Not such a tiny nitpick. If you are talking about the population of the entire world, it is probably true with probability 99.99999999% or soemthing like that. You can do funny stuff with median in small sample spaces, but when your sample space get very large, you can say things with much more certainty.
I work in the insurance industry and while I am not in the USA, I can't see how someone can lose their pension. He might lose his next six months income, and that may have a minor impact on his pension, but he can surely retire early or something. In any case, if he wants to retire, then IBM has nothing to gain (or should not be able to gain) from his being fired. The law should normally prevent that.
I think IBM should just allow him to retire early, and save themselves 6 months wages at the same time, or just give the guy his 6 months salary, damn, he has been working there for like only 19 years. It is not worth it to fight this guy.
What Gogole is saying is that you cannot rely on SMART to warn you of all or even most hard drive failures. So whilst you do reduce the possibility to lose data, they are saying you are still very likely to lose data anyway.
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I don't think AMD would want a price war with Intel unless they have a good product coming through. They better hope Intel hasn't left something in reserve. I think it would be a good strategy then. Build up market share despite an inferior product, then hit the competition with a really good product.
I would be happy to see AMD breach 30% share.
Must...wake....up....now
Ah. Thinking of the children.
I hate prompts. The first thing I do on my PC is turn off the prompt asking me if I really want to delete what I said to delete.
I actually use [Shift][Delete] almost exclusively.
Wish I had mod points.
People keep saying this. It isn't true. 2 Pixar titles can sell more DVDs that the entire pr0n industry in a year.
Whilst there might be able to get drivers to work on Solaris that way, they probably will require in Solaris have Joint Copyright with Sun, so that they can release Solaris closed source. so it might not be an option.
No. Linus is not whining. The Linux kernel is not going to be licensed under v3. He closed that loophole a long time ago. Anyone who put GPLv2 or later in their code left a loophole for the FSF to relicense their software as they see fit. Remember that the GPL is not a public document. No one but the FSF can release a new version, which means that if you have a project licensed under the GPL with the 'or later' clause, even you are not as free to relicense the whole thing like the FSF is able to.
Linus was asked about relicensing and he gave his views. People then jumped on these views and tried to make him look bad. But he talks much sense. If you want to trust the FSF to know what's best for your code then that is your prerogative.
I really hope you didn't post this from your home PC.
Seriously what are they thinking. Do they not know that some people who use IE will find any excuse to download using Bittorrent. Including not supporting their best friend's preferred browser.
If you were caught with a picture of these two kids. You would be sent to jail. No question. Is that right?
If these two 'kids' mutually agreed to send out their pics to other people, should they be prosecuted?
Now, can it be illegal to have pics of these two kids if there are situations under which the possession of such pictures might not be illegal. I mean, does the law really care who took the pictures, and the circumstances. Perhaps a judge has to consider that he might make a ruling that leads to a very slippery slope. So maybe these kids hope for a mistrial or something, or they are convicted, but not really punished so as not to set a dangerous precedent.
Whatever happened to that?
I think that would actually be a good idea. Variable pricing works both ways. When a record is new, and all the 13 year olds want it, they should pay top dollar. The artist's gotta eat. But when the initial demand dies down, it might be worthwhile for the price to drop to something like a 'library price' for people who are interested in building a good music library. It already happens with other media. PC games for instance. The price comes down over the life.
At current prices, who wants to spend $10,000 on music they are putting on that 80GB player. Seriously. And people actually complain about the prices of mp3 players. To legally fill that thing up with popular music(assuming its all music, at 128 kpbs) you need about $10,000.
No no no. A court can't cherry pick parts of a contract to enforce. Go read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts#Illegal_con tracts about illegal contracts. When a contract becomes is illegal, it becomes void, and is of no force or effect (or something like that). So there is not contract anymore, hence if a Apple was disallowed to sell music with Fairplay, that would void the contract with the recording companies. A court can either hold two parties to a contract, or it can declare a contract void.
I have done a bit of contract law. I know that much.
For all you green people.
If they made jaywalking legal, and forced motorists to stop every time a pedestrian wanted to cross the road, in the busier cities, this would make cars that much more inconvenient, and would encourage people to possible use public transportation.
Hmmm.
So you want a whitelist internet. No, not good. Internet is a public area. We should blacklist 'bad' sites, and the rest of the sites should be assumed to be not bad.
This shall be pretty onerous for ISPs though. Keeping track of whatever users access. Might drive up the cost of providing these services.
A contract is a two party thing. Usually, a contract requires the agreement of both parties for it to be suspended. No party can unilaterally change the terms of the contract. If a court invalidates a contract, it then allows either party to withdraw from it. Imposing conditions on a contract is another thing altogether, and the courts cannot force the music companies to transact in a way they do not wish to. I would be surprised if the contract did not allow the music companies to unilaterally withdraw if a court ruling makes it impossible to continue the relationship in the way originally intended.
The only way for a court to remove the DRM clause specifically, is if Apple requested it, because they are a party to the contract. I cannot go to court and ask someone to amend the terms of a contract between two other parties because I am a potential consumer. The most I can hope for is that the court will make it illegal for one or both of the parties to continue offer those terms, and hence encourage the parties to offer new terms.
That is very true. That is how pymusique and later sharpmusique were able to get songs downloaded from iTMS on Linux. They 'forgot' to apply the DRM, and you Linux machine will play your aac files just fine if they do not have DRM.Putting DRM on the server would be expensive in processor terms, and they really don't want to do that.