Who says they'd be willing to pay, or would even consider buying a game if they were forced to pay to download batches of the crap and sort through it instead of feeling extorted?
Ah nah, I didn't want to be ad hominem, I just felt like you had missed my own comment. That part threw me off a little.
However, the "basically record everything" part is a good idea, legal or not.
It just can't be used in court. That would be the time to get lawyer advice, of course. In contrast, it's pretty hard to prove someone has a recording if they simply state that they don't (and maybe hid the copies). That would be borderline conspiracy charges in court. Plenty of whistleblower/slapp/other things can come into play with this, especially if the recordings you do use were stated and implied consensual, etc. This is a part of anonymity that is well protected.
Okay, did you read what I said? Go back and read again, and you'll see that you missed that part right afterwards. Here, I'll help you on what you missed.
I said: "In an extreme case only, I would suggest stating that you are recording all conversations as is your privilege, and then do so (say with a digital camera or something). Refuse to have conversations that do not have other people with you, and absolutely refuse to have a 2v1 scenario (2 management plus you)...that is quite deliberate as a legal maneuver for workplaces so they can choose what to deny/accept as fact."
This would be the part that you would not be able to go further without all parties consenting, so it doesn't matter if you're in a single party consent state or not. Even if they say that they don't consent but they do talk, then they have just given their own form of verbal consent. IANAL but I do study it with other lawyers.
Yeah I used the wrong acronym, I realized that after the fact. Thankfully I think people understood what I meant. What is the one that is good for employees' rights and so forth? Would you suggest the EEOC? Or Whom?
Remember: get everything in writing and recorded. That includes statements and discussions about this "you need to extend your leave or we might not be so friendly". In an extreme case only, I would suggest stating that you are recording all conversations as is your privilege, and then do so (say with a digital camera or something). Refuse to have conversations that do not have other people with you, and absolutely refuse to have a 2v1 scenario (2 management plus you)...that is quite deliberate as a legal maneuver for workplaces so they can choose what to deny/accept as fact.
I'd be calling the ACLU among other places and start talking to a lawyer and getting advice in case they do pull something. I think you just found your sign of a bad employer.
Either way, get more info. This just reeks of "not enough info".
Why don't you try the phone before assuming? N810 has its own problems because of how its handled.
The G1 tends to handle the sizing better than most phones in all honesty. If there's one thing the phone does noticeably well it's handle an enormous amount of icons while still having a keyboard (and not on screen keyboard) available.
What that really means is that 2$ is what we consider the total value of news. Not "2$ daily".
2$/yr? I'll pay that for news subscriptions. Anything more? What's the point? I don't want paper, and news isn't even reliable anymore. Honestly what was the last time the spin was worse via newspaper than via internet?
Are you saying that you think people will actually use these cameras responsibly? Do I need to even start to point to examples about how unlikely that is?
Law enforcement is not the entire solution, but it is the brunt of the problem, agreed.
This Richard Koman doesn't know shit. The reasoning, is explained below. He should be quiet because as a lawyer, it's usually not safe to give a legal opinion if you have no knowledge of it.
Here we have a english speaking, US lawyer commenting on a swedish case? That's like me saying that I know everything about US laws if that's not even my job. Last I checked, US and Swedish laws are not even remotely the same.
Does anyone remember what happened the last time a US justice made a comment about stuff that goes across the pond? I think it was in the MS case, and the lawyer had to make a public apology for it.
We share some similarities between EU and US law but in general our laws are different. As usual, bad slashie coverage.
Obviously you have no concept of how much it truly costs them.
Since the cost of their distribution = about 1$'s worth of plastic and cardboard, and the last 20$ or so is retail mark up, I'd say you don't have a remote clue what the hell you're talking about. they'd have to triple their sales to arrive at the same gross sales figures, but not the same net ones.
Also, if you had RTFA, you'd have seen that after certain amounts prices go up more than the %age decrease.
Lots of things are solved when people realize that volume + sales = greater market than raising the price. Economies of scale introduce new methods of profit and marketing if the volume is there.
If at 60$ you're selling 1/4 of the copies you could sell at 20$, which do you think makes more money?
You see, that applies in criminal cases but not civil, and not in all situations at all.
If you allow them to step in your house at all, they can basically arrest you for anything they want at that point AND take you to court for anything they find.
This is completely legal, and for valid and legitimate reasons too. so don't think they're going to just let that go.
In the game concept of pricing issues, movies are not worth a 20$ pricetag, and we all know it.
It's why they aren't selling.
5$, 7$ pricetags for the "best" or most popular movies, sure. For the rest though, 1$ or 2$ is more realistic. 20$ is a freakin scam for something you can get off TPB and can actually store somewhere and recover if you lose the disc, via re-downloads.
As another to add to the inevitable statistic, I shall say that anything over 20$ for a game is too much.
If the expansions are 20$ too, after 2 expansions you're back at $60 again. Lots of companies try to turn this into micropayments at which point most of us say fuck that. However, 60$ upfront and then 60$ for expansions? I'm looking at you, everquest.
Meanwhile, 10$ or 15$ for a game? I'd buy it if it looked decent.
Will businesses realize the charge less = more overall profit due to volume? Hell no. Not in anyone's lifetime. It's well established that companies like EA are far too greedy to realize they could be sensible and make more money.
Do the 8 thousand voices around you screaming DRM/danger/It's a trap seem to have any indication of this being anything other than a ticking timebomb in your pc?
Man, I've heard of selective hearing but damn!
Microsoft is just cutting off its nose to spite it's face. For the infinite #th time.
I have a pair of trendnet TPL-202E's, and they run flawless. Never wavering connections, or anything. I've hit above 1MB/s in transfers on comcast which is pretty decent.
No matter what is added, they run constant. In addition I tested the maximum throughput (since I run them on an extension cable) with a heater on the other side of the extension cable and it didn't affect speed at all. I have not bothered with the encryption but I could, I guess.
For me for gaming it is dead on perfect, no problems of packetloss. Keeps up with games.
The more secretive someone is, the minute anyone takes notice, people will take far more notice. It's like walking down the street with a newspaper that has an envelope hidden inside vs having a package hidden under a jacket when it's clear you're smuggling it. One will get a hell of a lot more attention than the other.
Using someone else's club card has 0 to do with privacy nor is it even an accurate comparison. However, they are tracking your "friend" for using that card. Maybe you should read this article for some understanding. What makes you think that free porn for example, doesn't track you? Do you even read the TOS? what makes you think that if people wanted, they couldn't misconstrue your data to show the opposite of your sexuality, for example? How about publicizing it where it could cost you a job? This stuff is childs play compared to the destructive work someone can do.
Online privacy issues are easy to sniff out, I have been helping my friend write his thesis about it for law school.
Gossip is not the same as being nosey, and this has nothing to do with gossip. There are more people nosey than you can spot, because thats anonymity in general. Trying to stop that would be like thinking you can track all the anonymous cowards on slashdot.
The other reality of this concept is "you can never make things as private as you want them to be", so you can either be careful and leak minimal amounts which are more than you want or be open and leak more than you want.
Notice the trend here?
It's just reality that unless you live in a bunker that has armed guards, people are going to have plenty of ways to keep track of your life if they desire. Trying to maintain privacy invites the opposite.
The moderate best you can hope for is hiding things in plain sight. That's the only way people don't take notice of things.
aww I wish I had seen this post, but you replied to the guy who replied to me.
I never said it was 100% feasible but the concept of sirius letting people tune in to any internet radio station of their choosing and taking some kind of small cut for themselves, or just plain giving internet on the move in the car, would be a step forward for them. Not to mention it's something that's already coming anyway. There are internet radio in-dash units on the way. Why not sirius step up on that? They wouldn't even need their own content, and plus they have satellite available to maybe beam to repeaters on the terrestrial side.
This is all speculation of course, but it seems like something that sirius would have the option of exploring more than most people.
Depends on the state. In some, it's illegal and/or a formal policy not to search. From talking to my HR folks they have told me it is illegal to use internet information in Illinois, for example. Upon googling for more research, I can see what they're talking about here:
So actually, you are very wrong. Shady/shitty HR folks will come up with BS excuses to dance this law, by coming up with stuff like "your skills don't match". My work does not do that. We don't dance laws.
So how again is someone unable to add other connectors to a phone for other features? What magic "stifling" of innovation occur?
The G1 carries power, data and audio as well. If they needed a connector for something else they'd build it in. It's not like cameras for example have only one connector. They have like 4, 1 being supplied.
Just wanted to say, login/auth is just a silly form of DRM. It's how blizzard has made so much, really. If it wasn't authenticated that way it'd be, I don't know, BnetD? God forbid people play on other things, and all that. Not like that made their company big, or anything. (/sarcasm)
meanwhile, a VM would absolutely never work. There's a problem with VM's, and it's called adaptability. Also once there is a VM that can handle openGL in its entirety (better than wine), you just opened a new bag because nobody would use windows at all anymore, and then we have MS flexing their lawyers. This same VM would never be able to handle all existing and future hardware, even with effort. It just doesn't happen. The best you can do is a limited subset of compatibility, which then puts everyone in a blame game.
I completely agree unlimited corporate economics as at fault though.
Lots of issues come up whenever they want someone out of office and magically the donations start getting tracked. Then it's not ordinary citizens who made the donations at all, you start finding rich folks contributing via their own nonprofit corp or whatever to double shove the money down the campaign's throat.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says they'd be willing to pay, or would even consider buying a game if they were forced to pay to download batches of the crap and sort through it instead of feeling extorted?
This is the other crux of the argument.
Ah nah, I didn't want to be ad hominem, I just felt like you had missed my own comment. That part threw me off a little.
However, the "basically record everything" part is a good idea, legal or not.
It just can't be used in court. That would be the time to get lawyer advice, of course. In contrast, it's pretty hard to prove someone has a recording if they simply state that they don't (and maybe hid the copies). That would be borderline conspiracy charges in court. Plenty of whistleblower/slapp/other things can come into play with this, especially if the recordings you do use were stated and implied consensual, etc. This is a part of anonymity that is well protected.
Not really, it's been widely debated that the FAT patent would not hold up on a review....so I wouldn't be so jumpy.
Okay, did you read what I said? Go back and read again, and you'll see that you missed that part right afterwards. Here, I'll help you on what you missed.
I said: "In an extreme case only, I would suggest stating that you are recording all conversations as is your privilege, and then do so (say with a digital camera or something). Refuse to have conversations that do not have other people with you, and absolutely refuse to have a 2v1 scenario (2 management plus you)...that is quite deliberate as a legal maneuver for workplaces so they can choose what to deny/accept as fact."
This would be the part that you would not be able to go further without all parties consenting, so it doesn't matter if you're in a single party consent state or not. Even if they say that they don't consent but they do talk, then they have just given their own form of verbal consent. IANAL but I do study it with other lawyers.
Yeah I used the wrong acronym, I realized that after the fact. Thankfully I think people understood what I meant. What is the one that is good for employees' rights and so forth? Would you suggest the EEOC? Or Whom?
Remember: get everything in writing and recorded. That includes statements and discussions about this "you need to extend your leave or we might not be so friendly". In an extreme case only, I would suggest stating that you are recording all conversations as is your privilege, and then do so (say with a digital camera or something). Refuse to have conversations that do not have other people with you, and absolutely refuse to have a 2v1 scenario (2 management plus you)...that is quite deliberate as a legal maneuver for workplaces so they can choose what to deny/accept as fact.
I'd be calling the ACLU among other places and start talking to a lawyer and getting advice in case they do pull something. I think you just found your sign of a bad employer.
Either way, get more info. This just reeks of "not enough info".
Why don't you try the phone before assuming? N810 has its own problems because of how its handled.
The G1 tends to handle the sizing better than most phones in all honesty. If there's one thing the phone does noticeably well it's handle an enormous amount of icons while still having a keyboard (and not on screen keyboard) available.
Micropayments are not an answer for anything.
What that really means is that 2$ is what we consider the total value of news. Not "2$ daily".
2$/yr? I'll pay that for news subscriptions. Anything more? What's the point? I don't want paper, and news isn't even reliable anymore. Honestly what was the last time the spin was worse via newspaper than via internet?
Are you saying that you think people will actually use these cameras responsibly? Do I need to even start to point to examples about how unlikely that is?
Law enforcement is not the entire solution, but it is the brunt of the problem, agreed.
This Richard Koman doesn't know shit. The reasoning, is explained below. He should be quiet because as a lawyer, it's usually not safe to give a legal opinion if you have no knowledge of it.
Here we have a english speaking, US lawyer commenting on a swedish case? That's like me saying that I know everything about US laws if that's not even my job. Last I checked, US and Swedish laws are not even remotely the same.
Does anyone remember what happened the last time a US justice made a comment about stuff that goes across the pond? I think it was in the MS case, and the lawyer had to make a public apology for it.
We share some similarities between EU and US law but in general our laws are different. As usual, bad slashie coverage.
Obviously you have no concept of how much it truly costs them.
Since the cost of their distribution = about 1$'s worth of plastic and cardboard, and the last 20$ or so is retail mark up, I'd say you don't have a remote clue what the hell you're talking about. they'd have to triple their sales to arrive at the same gross sales figures, but not the same net ones.
Also, if you had RTFA, you'd have seen that after certain amounts prices go up more than the %age decrease.
Lots of things are solved when people realize that volume + sales = greater market than raising the price. Economies of scale introduce new methods of profit and marketing if the volume is there.
If at 60$ you're selling 1/4 of the copies you could sell at 20$, which do you think makes more money?
You see, that applies in criminal cases but not civil, and not in all situations at all.
If you allow them to step in your house at all, they can basically arrest you for anything they want at that point AND take you to court for anything they find.
This is completely legal, and for valid and legitimate reasons too. so don't think they're going to just let that go.
In the game concept of pricing issues, movies are not worth a 20$ pricetag, and we all know it.
It's why they aren't selling.
5$, 7$ pricetags for the "best" or most popular movies, sure. For the rest though, 1$ or 2$ is more realistic. 20$ is a freakin scam for something you can get off TPB and can actually store somewhere and recover if you lose the disc, via re-downloads.
As another to add to the inevitable statistic, I shall say that anything over 20$ for a game is too much.
If the expansions are 20$ too, after 2 expansions you're back at $60 again. Lots of companies try to turn this into micropayments at which point most of us say fuck that. However, 60$ upfront and then 60$ for expansions? I'm looking at you, everquest.
Meanwhile, 10$ or 15$ for a game? I'd buy it if it looked decent.
Will businesses realize the charge less = more overall profit due to volume? Hell no. Not in anyone's lifetime. It's well established that companies like EA are far too greedy to realize they could be sensible and make more money.
Do the 8 thousand voices around you screaming DRM/danger/It's a trap seem to have any indication of this being anything other than a ticking timebomb in your pc?
Man, I've heard of selective hearing but damn!
Microsoft is just cutting off its nose to spite it's face. For the infinite #th time.
I have a pair of trendnet TPL-202E's, and they run flawless. Never wavering connections, or anything. I've hit above 1MB/s in transfers on comcast which is pretty decent.
No matter what is added, they run constant. In addition I tested the maximum throughput (since I run them on an extension cable) with a heater on the other side of the extension cable and it didn't affect speed at all. I have not bothered with the encryption but I could, I guess.
For me for gaming it is dead on perfect, no problems of packetloss. Keeps up with games.
The more secretive someone is, the minute anyone takes notice, people will take far more notice. It's like walking down the street with a newspaper that has an envelope hidden inside vs having a package hidden under a jacket when it's clear you're smuggling it. One will get a hell of a lot more attention than the other.
Using someone else's club card has 0 to do with privacy nor is it even an accurate comparison. However, they are tracking your "friend" for using that card. Maybe you should read this article for some understanding. What makes you think that free porn for example, doesn't track you? Do you even read the TOS? what makes you think that if people wanted, they couldn't misconstrue your data to show the opposite of your sexuality, for example? How about publicizing it where it could cost you a job? This stuff is childs play compared to the destructive work someone can do.
Online privacy issues are easy to sniff out, I have been helping my friend write his thesis about it for law school.
Gossip is not the same as being nosey, and this has nothing to do with gossip. There are more people nosey than you can spot, because thats anonymity in general. Trying to stop that would be like thinking you can track all the anonymous cowards on slashdot.
The other reality of this concept is "you can never make things as private as you want them to be", so you can either be careful and leak minimal amounts which are more than you want or be open and leak more than you want.
Notice the trend here?
It's just reality that unless you live in a bunker that has armed guards, people are going to have plenty of ways to keep track of your life if they desire. Trying to maintain privacy invites the opposite.
The moderate best you can hope for is hiding things in plain sight. That's the only way people don't take notice of things.
aww I wish I had seen this post, but you replied to the guy who replied to me.
I never said it was 100% feasible but the concept of sirius letting people tune in to any internet radio station of their choosing and taking some kind of small cut for themselves, or just plain giving internet on the move in the car, would be a step forward for them. Not to mention it's something that's already coming anyway. There are internet radio in-dash units on the way. Why not sirius step up on that? They wouldn't even need their own content, and plus they have satellite available to maybe beam to repeaters on the terrestrial side.
This is all speculation of course, but it seems like something that sirius would have the option of exploring more than most people.
Depends on the state. In some, it's illegal and/or a formal policy not to search. From talking to my HR folks they have told me it is illegal to use internet information in Illinois, for example. Upon googling for more research, I can see what they're talking about here:
http://www.hrtrainingcenter.com/showWCDetails.asp?TCID=1003117
So actually, you are very wrong. Shady/shitty HR folks will come up with BS excuses to dance this law, by coming up with stuff like "your skills don't match". My work does not do that. We don't dance laws.
Those aren't hockey sticks they're waving
So how again is someone unable to add other connectors to a phone for other features? What magic "stifling" of innovation occur?
The G1 carries power, data and audio as well. If they needed a connector for something else they'd build it in. It's not like cameras for example have only one connector. They have like 4, 1 being supplied.
Just wanted to say, login/auth is just a silly form of DRM. It's how blizzard has made so much, really. If it wasn't authenticated that way it'd be, I don't know, BnetD? God forbid people play on other things, and all that. Not like that made their company big, or anything. (/sarcasm)
meanwhile, a VM would absolutely never work. There's a problem with VM's, and it's called adaptability. Also once there is a VM that can handle openGL in its entirety (better than wine), you just opened a new bag because nobody would use windows at all anymore, and then we have MS flexing their lawyers. This same VM would never be able to handle all existing and future hardware, even with effort. It just doesn't happen. The best you can do is a limited subset of compatibility, which then puts everyone in a blame game.
I completely agree unlimited corporate economics as at fault though.
Easy solution for sirius:
10$ a month for a satellite connection fast enough for internet radio.
Done. They'd have more subscribers than they'd know what to do with, and plenty of people would buy. Of course the initial investment would suck.
Ahh, but it didn't.
Lots of issues come up whenever they want someone out of office and magically the donations start getting tracked. Then it's not ordinary citizens who made the donations at all, you start finding rich folks contributing via their own nonprofit corp or whatever to double shove the money down the campaign's throat.