The source isn't Discovery Channel. The actual source is the Alto Adige daily newspaper. Its not even the discovery channel, it is the Discovery news that has translated the article for your enjoyment and pleasure.
They are testing the technology to communicate between the sensors and the base station, not the sensors themselves. It's similar to testing fire alarms, you don't need a fire to test those either.
The do a similar thing with "Official" pace cars in racing. Basically there is a real pace car and then 25 other cars that does one lap before the race and then sell the cars as Official Indy cars or whatever.
It's the same reason why Apple doesn't make cameras and printers anymore. Unless they develop inhouse it's likely that they will have to pay for licensing fees and lag behind companies that can pump out products quicker. That's why the dock connector is such genius. Apple gets a small royalty for each accessory using the dock connector without putting R&D into new products that might fail miserably.
I think having a map on the bottom screen on MarioKart Ds vastly improves gameplay vs the stand alone counterparts, especially in Battle Mode. I can see how an FPS would also benefit from this kind of control scheme as well.
I was speaking more of MarioKart DS. In the future with Revolution getting online, I predict that if you want you can play SNES mario kart with people around the world as well.
Damages in this case is a defective product. It's like suing Ford for a defective design on their SUVs even though you personally did not suffer any physical injuries. You still were injured because the product you own is defective and may cause injuries in the future. But if you owned a Chevy, you can't sue Ford for design flaws in the Ford because you don't have a case that Ford has caused damages to you as a Chevy owner.
Yeah and then the lawyer and the client gets sanctioned and fined for Rule 11 sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm Also if you do it enough times then you face the local state bar and be sanctioned and even disbarment proceedings. Exhibit A, see Jack Thompson.
My point is that you can't sue a company if you aren't using their products. You can't sue Creative, if you never use Creative products. This guy sued Apple because he had an Apple product. I doubt that this guy lost his hearing because of the iPod. But that's the decision for the courts to decide. My use of the word damage is used in the legal sense, not that Apple damaged his hearing.
You are confusing the term damages and liability. Liable is a fact question, a judge or jury make that decision. You don't know the answer before filing suit. So you are sorta right In the US, you can sue anyone, even though they aren't remotely liable. However that doesn't mean they are not liable. However damages is something you have to claim before filing suit. Damages doesn't necessarily mean physical damage.
If you look at the top Mariokart time trial sites, they make you prove your score, either by screenshot or with video and if it still a little suspicious, you play an online game to show off your technique.
You are allowed to sue if two people even though you are not sure if one or two of them did damage. The most common example is if two people were to shoot at you but only one bullet hits your leg. You are allowed to sue both even though it was physically impossible that both person's were responsible for the damage done.
I am just stating the law. Not saying I agree with the kid.
Gates wants hobbiests to charge for software including paying him for a Basic license. He wanted to create an environment where there is a software industry back in 1976. In this case MS doesn't want hobbiest according to their words because they don't want to support the hobbiest. However to the more cynical of people, I think it is to prevent hobbiest from making software that is as good or if not better than the software industry and giving it away for free. The biggest threats to MS right now is free software, Tivo, Firefox, Linux and the like. So I think the comparison is an apt one.
It's not that hypocritical. We buy cheap TVs from China and in return we send them movies starring Carrot Top. Then the Chinese public see how much cooler democracy is without censorship and pretty soon we will have a revolution.
This guy used Apple earbuds. So if any damage were because of earbuds he would have to sue Apple. He can't go suing all earbud manufacturers because that's not what did damage to his hearing. Earbuds probably did damage his hearing, whether this is the fault of Apple or the user that's up for the courts to decide.
It depends of Apple headphones were defective. If they are defective or if the design was defective then he is free to sue Apple because he used an Apple product. You can't go sue Creative because of hearing loss even though maybe Creative products are just as defective because he never used Creative.
There are also lawyers that represent views opposite to the views of the interest of the firms. There are a lot of patent attorneys who advocate the removal of interference precedings in patent law, even though removal of procedings would mean less income for them.
Slashdot Mirror
It was region coding, which isn't really DRM at least the way I understand it.
The source isn't Discovery Channel. The actual source is the Alto Adige daily newspaper. Its not even the discovery channel, it is the Discovery news that has translated the article for your enjoyment and pleasure.
But this one is sponsored by Duck tape.
They are testing the technology to communicate between the sensors and the base station, not the sensors themselves. It's similar to testing fire alarms, you don't need a fire to test those either.
The do a similar thing with "Official" pace cars in racing. Basically there is a real pace car and then 25 other cars that does one lap before the race and then sell the cars as Official Indy cars or whatever.
It's the same reason why Apple doesn't make cameras and printers anymore. Unless they develop inhouse it's likely that they will have to pay for licensing fees and lag behind companies that can pump out products quicker. That's why the dock connector is such genius. Apple gets a small royalty for each accessory using the dock connector without putting R&D into new products that might fail miserably.
You obviously did not buy the matching iBook accessory to the iPod.
I think having a map on the bottom screen on MarioKart Ds vastly improves gameplay vs the stand alone counterparts, especially in Battle Mode. I can see how an FPS would also benefit from this kind of control scheme as well.
Rim is a Canadian Company.
Personally, I think it serves him right for listening to Ashley Simpson.
I was speaking more of MarioKart DS. In the future with Revolution getting online, I predict that if you want you can play SNES mario kart with people around the world as well.
Bunch of companies agreeing to do something to restrict prices is called collusion and is looked down upon by the justice department.
Damages in this case is a defective product. It's like suing Ford for a defective design on their SUVs even though you personally did not suffer any physical injuries. You still were injured because the product you own is defective and may cause injuries in the future. But if you owned a Chevy, you can't sue Ford for design flaws in the Ford because you don't have a case that Ford has caused damages to you as a Chevy owner.
Yeah and then the lawyer and the client gets sanctioned and fined for Rule 11 sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm Also if you do it enough times then you face the local state bar and be sanctioned and even disbarment proceedings. Exhibit A, see Jack Thompson.
My point is that you can't sue a company if you aren't using their products. You can't sue Creative, if you never use Creative products. This guy sued Apple because he had an Apple product. I doubt that this guy lost his hearing because of the iPod. But that's the decision for the courts to decide. My use of the word damage is used in the legal sense, not that Apple damaged his hearing.
You are confusing the term damages and liability. Liable is a fact question, a judge or jury make that decision. You don't know the answer before filing suit. So you are sorta right In the US, you can sue anyone, even though they aren't remotely liable. However that doesn't mean they are not liable. However damages is something you have to claim before filing suit. Damages doesn't necessarily mean physical damage.
If you look at the top Mariokart time trial sites, they make you prove your score, either by screenshot or with video and if it still a little suspicious, you play an online game to show off your technique.
You are allowed to sue if two people even though you are not sure if one or two of them did damage. The most common example is if two people were to shoot at you but only one bullet hits your leg. You are allowed to sue both even though it was physically impossible that both person's were responsible for the damage done.
I am just stating the law. Not saying I agree with the kid.
Gates wants hobbiests to charge for software including paying him for a Basic license. He wanted to create an environment where there is a software industry back in 1976. In this case MS doesn't want hobbiest according to their words because they don't want to support the hobbiest. However to the more cynical of people, I think it is to prevent hobbiest from making software that is as good or if not better than the software industry and giving it away for free. The biggest threats to MS right now is free software, Tivo, Firefox, Linux and the like. So I think the comparison is an apt one.
It's not that hypocritical. We buy cheap TVs from China and in return we send them movies starring Carrot Top. Then the Chinese public see how much cooler democracy is without censorship and pretty soon we will have a revolution.
This guy used Apple earbuds. So if any damage were because of earbuds he would have to sue Apple. He can't go suing all earbud manufacturers because that's not what did damage to his hearing. Earbuds probably did damage his hearing, whether this is the fault of Apple or the user that's up for the courts to decide.
It depends of Apple headphones were defective. If they are defective or if the design was defective then he is free to sue Apple because he used an Apple product. You can't go sue Creative because of hearing loss even though maybe Creative products are just as defective because he never used Creative.
Because you can only sue people that actually did damage.
There are also lawyers that represent views opposite to the views of the interest of the firms. There are a lot of patent attorneys who advocate the removal of interference precedings in patent law, even though removal of procedings would mean less income for them.
That's a copycat site. This is the original. http://www.4q.cc/chuck/