Exactly my point was simon who replied and hit the nail on the head. I'm not saying legal legal, I understand the legality of unlocking, I'm referring to what is okay in apple's eyes to allow them to milk you further.
So how do you like your ibrick? After the first brick today, or after the second brick today?
I mean seriously, how many times has this phone been bricked lately? I could be building myself a house by now with all of the bricking./half sarcasm, half facepalm
Which of course, most people don't humorously know, but I believe it was anydvd (or maybe clonedvd) that is based out of Antigua and was developed ever since this WTO issue.
One of the real subtle reasons why DVDs eventually added extra features is because it increased the size of the discs to where you'd need to have a dual layer to copy all the data. This was to "combat casual piracy", labeled as "increasing the value of a dvd" (ever heard that in the market? hmmmm?)
Not many people care for the extra features. But they sure do manage to take up a lot of space! You'd be able to fit if it was "just a movie" onto a regular 2.4gig DVD easily, thus the media industries say its too easy to pirate...don't forget the production costs to come up with all this "Commentary" bullshit and all that instead of giving it out online.
then I take back all I said about lack of interop...I've not had a reason to have to test it, nobody I know uses office newer than 2003 if they happen to unfortunately be in that crowd.
I also haven't checked to verify your comment, guess I'll have to check that later/take your word fo rit.
I think the subject line speaks for itself. If any of them was actually making a superior product consumers would flock in a heartbeat.
How about invest in infrastructure to help your long term business increase? Spend a little more to make something better to get an exponential benefit out of it in the long run. I seem to remember somewhere saying that to retain 10% more of your current customers will be more profitable than adding 25% new customers due to all the additional managerial and other costs involved (and ripple effect).
I of course, could be wrong, but this seems to be the simplest thing. If someone offered symmetrical 30down/up with no filtering across the US right now for consumers, I think they would have more people sign up than I can conceive!
You know, it's being announced tomorrow and its April 1st. Also the opensourcer's numbers don't even remotely add up. Come on folks, you can do better than that for an April fools joke.
That may sound like a good idea, but what about the fact that Carmack says the stuff is a waste (and isn't planning to program it in)....let alone we're talking Intel integrated graphics, which is not stuff that gamers use. So where is this magically supposed to make a difference other than break compliance?
Personally, I'd have people pay more attention to textures and make things more efficient than concentrate on a new shiny method to improve shadows. Shadows are the first thing to go from non high end systems. Does any part of intel graphics sound like high end systems? No, and it never will. So who is going to really use this stuff? About scalability: all graphics have scalability. Ray tracing is low on that priority level. With 32 GPUs, things like textures will come first, not ray tracing, not rasterization, and not anything involving shadows.
The wiki link talks a lot more about Rasterization (current method) than Ray Tracing. Ray tracing has its potential uses, but we are WAY way off from it being necessary or something.
Didn't we essentially already talk about a processor replacement with Graphene? It wasn't that long ago that such a thing was posted....although I don't know anything about it from a truly technical standpoint whether that is viable or not.
ahh Matt, you usually have some good info for me as always./salute
I don't actually get cable, I happen to live in a place where it's provided but its complementary (and I don't watch TV for the most part anyway). I could see how what you say would tie to the OP's comment, but applying that to basically "internet" seems to be quite a stretch. I understand the difference with radio in that argument.
Hey, I welcome being corrected. Honestly, corrections are always welcome if I don't explain something, or if I am just plain wrong. I absolutely do not welcome you trying to be a complete jackass in any fashion, warranted or not. Legal terminology and understanding is not "something only for the big lawyers and legal secretaries" and/or people strictly of a related professional, law is something that involves the world. Everyone has their levels of expertise, and I never said I was giving law advice. If I offended you, I honestly apologize. I would have welcomed a debate in any form this whole time. I find it rather disconcerting that you attempt to spite someone for them using legal terminology really opens up plenty of personal attacks that are not worth it.
With that said, See the people that replied to your response here (chainsaw examples), and I am pretty much in agreement. I'm sorry that due to my lack of legal expertise I didn't explain that too clearly, but that is the case. Including the last part about "we'll go for the business instead of the individual consumers".
Also, tell me how you can see a form of a copyright violation (cite cases, links, etc) so I can educate myself and understand your viewpoint as to what they have in their favor as far as copyright? It's not a derivative and nothing involves modification of anything on the Blizzard side of the software as far as I know. If the opposite of what I just said is the case, I would infer that would be more of a tresspass issue. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appf.html seems to be a decent example of that. Give me a debate or personal opinion, and spare me your ego.
I cannot see how wowglider can be purported to be causing a damage or detriment to the service that blizzard provides. Their methods are rather indirect. To claim that wowglider detriments blizzard service would require some way to separate wowglider paying customers from normal ones, which in this part would be all in the same boat, no? The only way that I come up with is something involving tort (or criminal charge) is electronic tresspass (or equivalent, god forbid I don't use the most accurate word on a slashdot debate) depending on how MMOglider functions and it's interaction with data on Blizzard servers.
So, not to be ad hominem, but lets use your own analogy.
The difference here is between choosing to go to Disneyland (and pay it or not), and being forced to pay for Disneyland. It's not a question of where the money goes, its whether you have the choice of how to spend it. The system doesn't work because the cost will be passed to the consumer, not the ones tossing aside their liability. Additionally, what does this do for non-label artists? There are issues on both sides of the table and why this doesn't work.
Or analogy two: Your choice to buy the swiss army knife or not, are you saying that you should just pay the fee for it, or you can choose to buy it? That is the bigger deal here. It's not where the magic marketing numbers are (which are shown that most people don't click advertising)
I hate to say it, but I would be seriously offended by a "pay for being a criminal" type subscription charge for the reasons above, what it implies, and all it is doing is degrading service. I really hate to support big business but by increasing the cost for the same service that is the same thing as degrading it due to lack of efficiency. Sometimes this happens naturally but artificially like this is just lining MPAA/RIAA/IFPI pockets at the simultaneous expense of every consumer who is legitimately or not using a service.
May as well just label it a "profit charge" and put that into your service bill for anything...except for the reality of just how much backlash that would create. Or maybe they'll try to get it passed by calling it "opt-out" or some garbage.
There are plenty of articles out there about ad revenue, associating things like "just because you watch TV" = money in a media associates pocket are unaccurate as far as ad revenue. Unless someone explicitly provides you a way to track a sale back to a TV ad, you can't really associate a sales increase from strictly an ad (especially if there is more than 1 source of adds, and even with fairly stable business). Reason here is that markets are volatile, and sales is just as volatile. People can change on the drop of a hat, because the sky is blue today, etc in the same way that a stock does. http://techdirt.com/articles/20060504/1941211.shtml provides a decent example of that.
First off. Wait till there is action on this. I still saw a 30% reset rate as of this morning seeding a torrent.
The phrase is : I'll believe it when I see it.
So I would not believe even for an instant this is anything other than trying to get people off their backs a little as anyone who found out about it has been majorly pissed off. Really, this is comcast, they have a reputation of doing shady and stupid things. Would anyone logically expect them to just turn a new leaf anytime before they have competition? I doubt it.
note: not intended as flame, please don't flame me, I welcome replies and opinions
Thank you for the explanation:) As said, I am not a lawyer but I like to understand/always welcome a better explanation from people who know more than I do, as long as it's not a complete flame. After all, it's a great way to learn, and I enjoy reading up on legal stuff.
I was really wondering what was up with this case since tortious interference was the scope of things I was thinking of (although I did not know the right wording even remotely)...not copyright. Or is tortious interference able to be inferred with copyright? I guess I'll have to look into it as you stated further on down on my own time. That aspect didn't seem to make sense to me but you are right, people slip things into bills etc.
So thank you again for correcting me, I guess I have more research to do.
Hey, thanks for the ad hominem flame. Save it for someone else. Normally I wouldn't want to reply but you've shown a complete lack of maturity in addition to everything else with your response, cheese. I'll reply in your fashion.
Sometimes typing in bold just makes you look retarded
Suing for damages is an expression. It is an abbreviation for "suing for tortious punitive damages". Thanks for implying I'm stupid too, so I'll be downmodding you in future. There are other situations that Blizzard could have sued for - including some forms of theft. However, copyright? Please. Whether you are a lawyer or not, claiming copyright in this form is just frivolous at best.
You don't seem to understand about the disclaimer, I didn't say it makes him free and clear, but it does give him an additional basis for a defense whether he is convicted or not. However, I don't need to even state for you just how many times disclaimers are used in many forms as solid defenses, aka policy disclaimers. I wonder if there's any companies out there who use policy disclaimers to get them fairly in the
So Mr. Expertguy, are you a lawyer? I never said I was. However, I do read up on law. Meanwhile, I will read whatever reply you right but don't expect a response back, because you really should try taking a vicodin or something, maybe smoke a blunt and calm down, freak.
Welcome to US law. Nobody else has punitive damages, a "lets wag our finger AND slap their face" as a method. Originally well intentioned (to give the consumer a way to punish a corporation), but obviously corporations pushed for greater protection than consumers (thus destroying any form of checks an balances)....so I don't blame the rest of the world for not liking it. I can't find it now but there was an article today about this, either in groklaw newspicks, on slashdot, or on techdirt.
Wow, thank you for reminding me. It has indeed been so long that I had forgotten about that one...in fact I definitely didn't pay attention enough (was too young) to realize just what Blizzard was doing and what that translated to. I really had no idea how far back the whole Microsoft fighting interop was essentially formed from, beyond our natural hate of them.
I guess maybe "they're making a mistake again" is a better wording. I can only hope that wowglider wins this one.
Well add me to the boycott list....effective immediately. Makes me really wish I knew enough about open source to make a living off it and translate that into developing new games. I guess I'll have to get on that goal as I originally planned for all these years:)
For once, Blizzard has definitely done something wrong...sued for the wrong things all the way around here. Sue for damages? Sure. Copyright? No. Trademark? No.
The guy has disclaimers on his site about using MMOglider that pretty much state "Blizzard doesn't like this", so no, Blizzard can't really do a lot about it.
Unless the guy doesn't have the resources to pay for the lawyer, I would suspect that the odds are in the mmoglider guy's favor.
I did mix them up for web browsing, but gaming and web surfing are very much not in the same category. Take for example counterstrike which averages about 20-40KB/s upstream up to about 60-80KB/s upstream. This =.1?
Yes I recognize downstream is far greater and didn't mean to misrepresent what I was stating. Thank you for clarifying.
Poster above is not a troll on this matter. The issue is pointing at TCP being "Exploited" by Bittorrent and people have failed to look at how biased and full of false information the graphs are.
There's a graph that shows a bittorrent user as the highest bandwith user over a day and then puts a youtube surfer and a websurfer on the same bandwith level as an xbox gamer and things of that nature. That is so far off from eachother that it is despicable.
Every one of the ones I mentioned in the previous paragraph are listed as using ".1 kbps" of upstream. There is no way in the world even websurfing alone can only use.1 kbps of upstream, as that would be 40 times slower than dialup. Meanwhile to exaggerate even further they suggest that average upstream usage is.05kb/s. That would be what, 400 times slower than dialup if not more? This is absurd. They even take it a step further and suggest that less than 500 kb is sent per DAY over all the aforementioned methods. I think one or two websites can breach that amount, even on dialup.
Anyone who takes a biased study with a clear and apparent lack of research done, should look further at the details here. It's embarrassing that the blog says it submitted this graph to the White House. I don't think they could have tried any harder to vindicate bittorrent than they did with it.
Yes, bittorrent uses more speed through efficiency, not exploitation. No, bittorrent is not the only thing that opens up multiple TCP streams at the same time. Nobody uses a single stream of TCP only anymore. More than one opens the minute you go to any website, so this whole process is flawed.
Acid3 was recently released so that people have new standards to meet. Nobody is 100% Acid3 compliant as of yet, and not everyone is Acid 2 compliant. This has been discussed to death in a million threads.
Firefox is and will likely continually be one of the more compliant browsers, as opposed to IE, which will continually be one of the less compliant browsers. That's just how it is. Not "the best" or "the worst".
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly my point was simon who replied and hit the nail on the head. I'm not saying legal legal, I understand the legality of unlocking, I'm referring to what is okay in apple's eyes to allow them to milk you further.
I seem to recall tons of issues rather recently.
The phrase you forgot there is "legal customer" not just regular customer.
So how do you like your ibrick? After the first brick today, or after the second brick today?
/half sarcasm, half facepalm
I mean seriously, how many times has this phone been bricked lately? I could be building myself a house by now with all of the bricking.
Which of course, most people don't humorously know, but I believe it was anydvd (or maybe clonedvd) that is based out of Antigua and was developed ever since this WTO issue.
One of the real subtle reasons why DVDs eventually added extra features is because it increased the size of the discs to where you'd need to have a dual layer to copy all the data. This was to "combat casual piracy", labeled as "increasing the value of a dvd" (ever heard that in the market? hmmmm?)
Not many people care for the extra features. But they sure do manage to take up a lot of space! You'd be able to fit if it was "just a movie" onto a regular 2.4gig DVD easily, thus the media industries say its too easy to pirate...don't forget the production costs to come up with all this "Commentary" bullshit and all that instead of giving it out online.
then I take back all I said about lack of interop...I've not had a reason to have to test it, nobody I know uses office newer than 2003 if they happen to unfortunately be in that crowd.
I also haven't checked to verify your comment, guess I'll have to check that later/take your word fo rit.
No, I mean like this comment on it: Only supported in Novell's version of OpenOffice.
Sound like a similar lock-in? HMMMM I WONDER.
You just answered what they said with proof supporting it, not the reverse.
Note they said "Microsoft will get anything running on windows" not the reverse.
The question is when does MS give info to ODF so they can run an OOXML to ODF converter and ODF back into OOXML. Now do you see the issue?
I think the subject line speaks for itself. If any of them was actually making a superior product consumers would flock in a heartbeat.
How about invest in infrastructure to help your long term business increase? Spend a little more to make something better to get an exponential benefit out of it in the long run. I seem to remember somewhere saying that to retain 10% more of your current customers will be more profitable than adding 25% new customers due to all the additional managerial and other costs involved (and ripple effect).
I of course, could be wrong, but this seems to be the simplest thing. If someone offered symmetrical 30down/up with no filtering across the US right now for consumers, I think they would have more people sign up than I can conceive!
Thanks on the correction, I didn't see all the last minute magic approvals that hadn't been updated on the malaysiablog yet.
You know, it's being announced tomorrow and its April 1st. Also the opensourcer's numbers don't even remotely add up. Come on folks, you can do better than that for an April fools joke.
That may sound like a good idea, but what about the fact that Carmack says the stuff is a waste (and isn't planning to program it in)....let alone we're talking Intel integrated graphics, which is not stuff that gamers use. So where is this magically supposed to make a difference other than break compliance?
Personally, I'd have people pay more attention to textures and make things more efficient than concentrate on a new shiny method to improve shadows. Shadows are the first thing to go from non high end systems. Does any part of intel graphics sound like high end systems? No, and it never will. So who is going to really use this stuff? About scalability: all graphics have scalability. Ray tracing is low on that priority level. With 32 GPUs, things like textures will come first, not ray tracing, not rasterization, and not anything involving shadows.
The wiki link talks a lot more about Rasterization (current method) than Ray Tracing. Ray tracing has its potential uses, but we are WAY way off from it being necessary or something.
Didn't we essentially already talk about a processor replacement with Graphene? It wasn't that long ago that such a thing was posted....although I don't know anything about it from a truly technical standpoint whether that is viable or not.
ahh Matt, you usually have some good info for me as always. /salute
I don't actually get cable, I happen to live in a place where it's provided but its complementary (and I don't watch TV for the most part anyway). I could see how what you say would tie to the OP's comment, but applying that to basically "internet" seems to be quite a stretch. I understand the difference with radio in that argument.
Hey, I welcome being corrected. Honestly, corrections are always welcome if I don't explain something, or if I am just plain wrong. I absolutely do not welcome you trying to be a complete jackass in any fashion, warranted or not. Legal terminology and understanding is not "something only for the big lawyers and legal secretaries" and/or people strictly of a related professional, law is something that involves the world. Everyone has their levels of expertise, and I never said I was giving law advice. If I offended you, I honestly apologize. I would have welcomed a debate in any form this whole time. I find it rather disconcerting that you attempt to spite someone for them using legal terminology really opens up plenty of personal attacks that are not worth it.
With that said, See the people that replied to your response here (chainsaw examples), and I am pretty much in agreement. I'm sorry that due to my lack of legal expertise I didn't explain that too clearly, but that is the case. Including the last part about "we'll go for the business instead of the individual consumers".
Also, tell me how you can see a form of a copyright violation (cite cases, links, etc) so I can educate myself and understand your viewpoint as to what they have in their favor as far as copyright? It's not a derivative and nothing involves modification of anything on the Blizzard side of the software as far as I know. If the opposite of what I just said is the case, I would infer that would be more of a tresspass issue. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appf.html seems to be a decent example of that. Give me a debate or personal opinion, and spare me your ego.
I cannot see how wowglider can be purported to be causing a damage or detriment to the service that blizzard provides. Their methods are rather indirect. To claim that wowglider detriments blizzard service would require some way to separate wowglider paying customers from normal ones, which in this part would be all in the same boat, no? The only way that I come up with is something involving tort (or criminal charge) is electronic tresspass (or equivalent, god forbid I don't use the most accurate word on a slashdot debate) depending on how MMOglider functions and it's interaction with data on Blizzard servers.
So, not to be ad hominem, but lets use your own analogy.
The difference here is between choosing to go to Disneyland (and pay it or not), and being forced to pay for Disneyland. It's not a question of where the money goes, its whether you have the choice of how to spend it. The system doesn't work because the cost will be passed to the consumer, not the ones tossing aside their liability. Additionally, what does this do for non-label artists? There are issues on both sides of the table and why this doesn't work.
Or analogy two: Your choice to buy the swiss army knife or not, are you saying that you should just pay the fee for it, or you can choose to buy it? That is the bigger deal here. It's not where the magic marketing numbers are (which are shown that most people don't click advertising)
I hate to say it, but I would be seriously offended by a "pay for being a criminal" type subscription charge for the reasons above, what it implies, and all it is doing is degrading service. I really hate to support big business but by increasing the cost for the same service that is the same thing as degrading it due to lack of efficiency. Sometimes this happens naturally but artificially like this is just lining MPAA/RIAA/IFPI pockets at the simultaneous expense of every consumer who is legitimately or not using a service.
May as well just label it a "profit charge" and put that into your service bill for anything...except for the reality of just how much backlash that would create. Or maybe they'll try to get it passed by calling it "opt-out" or some garbage.
There are plenty of articles out there about ad revenue, associating things like "just because you watch TV" = money in a media associates pocket are unaccurate as far as ad revenue. Unless someone explicitly provides you a way to track a sale back to a TV ad, you can't really associate a sales increase from strictly an ad (especially if there is more than 1 source of adds, and even with fairly stable business). Reason here is that markets are volatile, and sales is just as volatile. People can change on the drop of a hat, because the sky is blue today, etc in the same way that a stock does. http://techdirt.com/articles/20060504/1941211.shtml provides a decent example of that.
First off. Wait till there is action on this. I still saw a 30% reset rate as of this morning seeding a torrent.
The phrase is : I'll believe it when I see it.
So I would not believe even for an instant this is anything other than trying to get people off their backs a little as anyone who found out about it has been majorly pissed off. Really, this is comcast, they have a reputation of doing shady and stupid things. Would anyone logically expect them to just turn a new leaf anytime before they have competition? I doubt it.
note: not intended as flame, please don't flame me, I welcome replies and opinions
Thank you for the explanation :) As said, I am not a lawyer but I like to understand/always welcome a better explanation from people who know more than I do, as long as it's not a complete flame. After all, it's a great way to learn, and I enjoy reading up on legal stuff.
I was really wondering what was up with this case since tortious interference was the scope of things I was thinking of (although I did not know the right wording even remotely)...not copyright. Or is tortious interference able to be inferred with copyright? I guess I'll have to look into it as you stated further on down on my own time. That aspect didn't seem to make sense to me but you are right, people slip things into bills etc.
So thank you again for correcting me, I guess I have more research to do.
Hey, thanks for the ad hominem flame. Save it for someone else. Normally I wouldn't want to reply but you've shown a complete lack of maturity in addition to everything else with your response, cheese. I'll reply in your fashion.
Sometimes typing in bold just makes you look retarded
Suing for damages is an expression. It is an abbreviation for "suing for tortious punitive damages". Thanks for implying I'm stupid too, so I'll be downmodding you in future. There are other situations that Blizzard could have sued for - including some forms of theft. However, copyright? Please. Whether you are a lawyer or not, claiming copyright in this form is just frivolous at best.
You don't seem to understand about the disclaimer, I didn't say it makes him free and clear, but it does give him an additional basis for a defense whether he is convicted or not. However, I don't need to even state for you just how many times disclaimers are used in many forms as solid defenses, aka policy disclaimers. I wonder if there's any companies out there who use policy disclaimers to get them fairly in the
So Mr. Expertguy, are you a lawyer? I never said I was. However, I do read up on law. Meanwhile, I will read whatever reply you right but don't expect a response back, because you really should try taking a vicodin or something, maybe smoke a blunt and calm down, freak.
Welcome to US law. Nobody else has punitive damages, a "lets wag our finger AND slap their face" as a method. Originally well intentioned (to give the consumer a way to punish a corporation), but obviously corporations pushed for greater protection than consumers (thus destroying any form of checks an balances)....so I don't blame the rest of the world for not liking it. I can't find it now but there was an article today about this, either in groklaw newspicks, on slashdot, or on techdirt.
Wow, thank you for reminding me. It has indeed been so long that I had forgotten about that one...in fact I definitely didn't pay attention enough (was too young) to realize just what Blizzard was doing and what that translated to. I really had no idea how far back the whole Microsoft fighting interop was essentially formed from, beyond our natural hate of them.
:)
I guess maybe "they're making a mistake again" is a better wording. I can only hope that wowglider wins this one.
Well add me to the boycott list....effective immediately. Makes me really wish I knew enough about open source to make a living off it and translate that into developing new games. I guess I'll have to get on that goal as I originally planned for all these years
For once, Blizzard has definitely done something wrong...sued for the wrong things all the way around here. Sue for damages? Sure. Copyright? No. Trademark? No.
The guy has disclaimers on his site about using MMOglider that pretty much state "Blizzard doesn't like this", so no, Blizzard can't really do a lot about it.
Unless the guy doesn't have the resources to pay for the lawyer, I would suspect that the odds are in the mmoglider guy's favor.
I did mix them up for web browsing, but gaming and web surfing are very much not in the same category. Take for example counterstrike which averages about 20-40KB/s upstream up to about 60-80KB/s upstream. This = .1?
Yes I recognize downstream is far greater and didn't mean to misrepresent what I was stating. Thank you for clarifying.
Poster above is not a troll on this matter. The issue is pointing at TCP being "Exploited" by Bittorrent and people have failed to look at how biased and full of false information the graphs are.
.1 kbps of upstream, as that would be 40 times slower than dialup. Meanwhile to exaggerate even further they suggest that average upstream usage is .05kb/s. That would be what, 400 times slower than dialup if not more? This is absurd. They even take it a step further and suggest that less than 500 kb is sent per DAY over all the aforementioned methods. I think one or two websites can breach that amount, even on dialup.
There's a graph that shows a bittorrent user as the highest bandwith user over a day and then puts a youtube surfer and a websurfer on the same bandwith level as an xbox gamer and things of that nature. That is so far off from eachother that it is despicable.
Every one of the ones I mentioned in the previous paragraph are listed as using ".1 kbps" of upstream. There is no way in the world even websurfing alone can only use
Anyone who takes a biased study with a clear and apparent lack of research done, should look further at the details here. It's embarrassing that the blog says it submitted this graph to the White House. I don't think they could have tried any harder to vindicate bittorrent than they did with it.
Yes, bittorrent uses more speed through efficiency, not exploitation. No, bittorrent is not the only thing that opens up multiple TCP streams at the same time. Nobody uses a single stream of TCP only anymore. More than one opens the minute you go to any website, so this whole process is flawed.
Umm, misinformation a bit?
Acid3 was recently released so that people have new standards to meet. Nobody is 100% Acid3 compliant as of yet, and not everyone is Acid 2 compliant. This has been discussed to death in a million threads.
Firefox is and will likely continually be one of the more compliant browsers, as opposed to IE, which will continually be one of the less compliant browsers. That's just how it is. Not "the best" or "the worst".