The other thing to think about is in regards to it being a conference full of hackers. Yes, it seems silly to tell them not to hack the wired connections. On the other hand, did they really think that a thousand hackers wouldn't be able to figure out who was doing the hacking?
I find what they did slightly humorous, but I think they're idiots if they thought they could do it and get away with it.
If we terminate your service for nonpayment or other default before the end of the Service Commitment, or if you terminate your service for any reason other than (a) in accordance with the cancellation policy; or (b) pursuant to a change of terms, conditions, or rates as set forth below, you agree to pay us with respect to each Equipment identifier or telephone number assigned to you, in addition to all other amounts owed, an Early Termination Fee of $175.
Quoted from AT&T Wireless's Service Agreement (emphasis mine). So yes, they can in fact charge you the fee if they are the ones canceling the contract.
you cannot have a contract without some proof that all parties have agreed to the terms of the contract. Yes you can. The example used in the parent's post is called an oral contract, but the laws governing them vary by jurisdictions. Nevertheless, your post really makes you out to be some kind of maniac. Don't they make you kids take Business Law courses for your degrees anymore? Here is some further reading:
You've been poorly educated on this subject as evident in your convoluted understanding of contracts and licenses and legal definitions of products and services. You owe an apology to the parent.
You'll still be a dumbass, though. Yes, another/. post wrought with irony.
Correct sir, but it's also important to note that there are actually two separate companies that we're talking about. As per the wiki that you quoted:
Westinghouse Digital Electronics LLC is an American company that manufactures LCD monitors and other consumer electronic products, licensing its name from Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a division of CBS Corporation. So, Westinghouse Electric Corporation does have a crazy on convoluted history, but you are correct in asserting that they are not the company making these products. Westinghouse Digital Electronics LLC is the company that actually produces these products, whom are merely licensees of the Westinghouse name, are also in cahoots in some form or another with Taiwanese based Chi Mei Optoelectronics and are not a publicly traded company.
Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ...
on
Mod Chips Legal In the UK
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Possibly of some coincidence, Robert Wilson has a sculpture named "Topological III", which is on display at "Cabot Science Center building, Harvard University." which you can see at the above wikipedia page. From what I can tell from the photo, it looks like a representation of a kind of Mobius strip.
I only looked at the sculpture because the name contains "III" in it, which strikes me as significant since the message is apparently encoded using only the "I" character (middle stanza excluded of course), though I imagine this is all probably me just getting completely sidetracked from not having slept since Sunday night.
The takedown isn't controversial, but the complaint itself appears to be. I believe conveying this was the intention of the summary, though apparently poorly worded.
He is every bit as much a wannabe monopolist as is Gates. He loves total control and complete product lock down.
Those two are practically opposites. He's not a wannabe monopolist -- he's a control freak, which virtually precludes being a monopolist. Does anybody doubt that if Apple made Mac OS run on clone PCs, they'd take over Microsoft's position in a year? But Steve doesn't do this. He wants to control his products, not have a monopoly.
I'm not making a call on which is better to be than the other, but I don't see how you can reasonably claim he's both. I'm interested in your explanation of how being a control freak precludes being a monopolist. There are many strong arguments I am thinking of right now that show why having a control freak's skill set would assist someone in creating a monopoly, and I can't think of any good arguments that say why that skill set would be a hindrance.
If everyone would switch to Mac OS if they allowed it to run on clone PCs with no change in the cost of the OS, then there's no reason all those people switching wouldn't already be running Linux already.
Just to be a nit-picker, but what is the reason for treating "God" like a curse-word? It's not the name of the deity in question, nor is it being "taken in vain". Is it some sort of badge thing, a way of saying "coo-ie! Lookie here, I'm being pious!"? Is it an attempt to be annoying so that later you can claim you're being persecuted when people ask you to cut it out? Because I really, really find it annoying, mate, even more annoying than emo haircuts. Well, turn off the nerd rage and be annoyed no more my friend. As far as I've ever been able to tell, the origins of "G-d" is based in Judaism, in reverence to the name of God, not as a curse as you ironically assumed. The idea originates from a passage in the book of Deuteronomy where the people are told to destroy all idols and images of the false gods, and then afterwards were forbidden from doing the same to their God. Scribes took this as meaning that this command included not erasing of the name of God when it has been written, so it is only written when absolutely necessary.
You can read about it on manysites with a simple Google search, instead of jumping to conclusions and making poorly worded implied threats to emo kids and/or Jews.
I didn't intend to suggest that they were the same, I only meant to question why giving money to one supposedly evil corporation instead of another supposedly evil corporation was a better situation, based solely on the grounds of trying to avoid giving money to an evil corporation.
If the answer is "because x isn't as evil as y" then my response is that it all seems to be an arbitrary way of deciding what products you are purchasing instead of figuring out which ones meet your needs at the best value.
Apologies if that wasn't clear in my post.
When you're striking the chains some pain is to be expected. I'll take this for what it is: an admission that your "solution" doesn't actually meet the requirements presented by the problem.
You say gaming will catch up; so your solution doesn't work now, but somewhere in some possible future? You say that eventually people will move to standardized file formats, sometime in this glorious future.
How can you expect people to use a product that you readily admit doesn't suit their needs instead of one that actually does fulfill all the requirements with a few very notable drawbacks? The point is that with this "wrong" solution requirements are being resolved with a trade-off. Your solution doesn't meet their needs now and also has notable trade-offs. Guess which one people will consistently choose?
I still don't understand why you bothered bringing IBM into this to explain why you suggested that instead of giving money to one evil corporation, that getting a PS3 and thus giving money to another evil corporation is better? You're acting like you've got scruples, but it seems they're just blinders. Do you so intensely hate Microsoft that you're willing to allow wrongs done by another corporation corporation slide unnoticed? Once again, a compromise I'm not willing to make for another non-solution.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and I know from first hand experience that a decent sized company can be run almost exclusively on open source software. I've got 3 linux boxes, a gaming pc, and a 360 all sitting on the very same desk. It didn't burst into flames or anything. The point is, I love and support FLOSS, but I hate when people propose it for solutions for which it isn't intended (yet) because when it inevitable goes wrong it hurts the chances of any other FLOSS projects seeing the light of day within these restricted environments. So cut it out, will you?
Unsurprisingly, you display a tremendous lack of knowledge about video game design. Go talk to a proper game designer about the differences between PC and console games. You'll discover that most developers are forced to dumb down their console products so that they do not scare away console gamers who may be confused with things that have more than 10 buttons.
Current gen consoles are making progress, weening console gamers into more complex gaming that has been on the pc for years, but its still not anywhere close to the mark.
In short, PC games have a different design process from console games, and your suggestion to use a console for PC gaming is completely and laughably absurd. It contains the same short sighted illogic of your suggestion to use citrix in linux to run an office application. Your only concern seems to be to stop giving microsoft money, with absolutely no concern for the real requirements that were originally provided. In light of these facts, I wouldn't be surprised to find that you work for microsoft.
As a side note: You suggest giving money to Sony instead of Microsoft? Short sighted indeed.
I wasn't confused, and neither apparently were most of the people in this thread, let alone everyone else responding who didn't mention this gaff. Your complaints are nothing more than nerd pedantry. Also, your analogy is awful. Furthermore, you are complaining about the title of a slashdot post, and it is well known that the editors hardly pay attention to the titles of these posts, let alone the content that follows.
In short, I'd like to congratulate you on your Perfect Slashdot Post.
We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us. ( If someone from a foreign country claimed the same privelege, we would not take them seriously, right? )
But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
I'm not advocating either side here, just pointing out the logical consequences of the position that we should be able to watch them. Whenever someone asks a question and then answers it for you, it's probably not the right answer.
The reason that transparency is required with police and other government personnel is not because "they work for us", it's because they are civil servants. They serve all of us, a relationship that is going to be a bit different than your standard employer:employee relationship. Being civil servants, some are granted powers not granted to civilians, and as such those granted power require a higher level of supervision. Hence the transparency.
So your "logical consequences" aren't consequences nor are they logical. There's a huge difference between being a civil servant and working for someone, and you've just discovered why.
Slashdot Mirror
My voice is my passport. Verify me.
The other thing to think about is in regards to it being a conference full of hackers. Yes, it seems silly to tell them not to hack the wired connections. On the other hand, did they really think that a thousand hackers wouldn't be able to figure out who was doing the hacking? I find what they did slightly humorous, but I think they're idiots if they thought they could do it and get away with it.
I'm honestly surprised every single one of his posts doesn't get modded down as -1 Troll because of it.
This news report is idiotic and old news, and has been proven to be false. Yesterday. Get with the program Kdawson. On second thought, don't. That might cause some sort of apocalyptic catastrophe, as it's never happened before.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/hardware.ars/2008/08/01/nvidia-to-ars-were-not-leaving-the-chipset-market
For science, new information enlarges our understanding of the world. For religion, new information only threatens sanctified prejudices.
We'll see if you're singing the same tune when the valence lithium beasts come from below and devour your loved ones.
Quoted from AT&T Wireless's Service Agreement (emphasis mine). So yes, they can in fact charge you the fee if they are the ones canceling the contract.
Hopefully not for long.
Judge Rules Sprint Early Termination Fees Illegal
I'm still pretty sure that counts as malware.
Michigan has an economy? I thought they ran everybody off?
They didn't run, they drove off in impressively made foreign cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-contract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_in_fact_contract
You've been poorly educated on this subject as evident in your convoluted understanding of contracts and licenses and legal definitions of products and services. You owe an apology to the parent. You'll still be a dumbass, though. Yes, another
Ignorantia legis non excusat
Awesome work here.
I assume you've also looked at the man the building is named after, Robert R. Wilson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R._Wilson
Possibly of some coincidence, Robert Wilson has a sculpture named "Topological III", which is on display at "Cabot Science Center building, Harvard University." which you can see at the above wikipedia page. From what I can tell from the photo, it looks like a representation of a kind of Mobius strip.
I only looked at the sculpture because the name contains "III" in it, which strikes me as significant since the message is apparently encoded using only the "I" character (middle stanza excluded of course), though I imagine this is all probably me just getting completely sidetracked from not having slept since Sunday night.
The takedown isn't controversial, but the complaint itself appears to be. I believe conveying this was the intention of the summary, though apparently poorly worded.
Yeah, haha, he's completely clueless. He'll never make any money with that kind of attitude.
But mom, I need NSL's. I need them or I'll DIE.
Who put these kids in charge?
If everyone would switch to Mac OS if they allowed it to run on clone PCs with no change in the cost of the OS, then there's no reason all those people switching wouldn't already be running Linux already.
I suggest you file a complaint at your local synagogue.
You can read about it on many sites with a simple Google search, instead of jumping to conclusions and making poorly worded implied threats to emo kids and/or Jews.
I didn't intend to suggest that they were the same, I only meant to question why giving money to one supposedly evil corporation instead of another supposedly evil corporation was a better situation, based solely on the grounds of trying to avoid giving money to an evil corporation.
If the answer is "because x isn't as evil as y" then my response is that it all seems to be an arbitrary way of deciding what products you are purchasing instead of figuring out which ones meet your needs at the best value. Apologies if that wasn't clear in my post.
You say gaming will catch up; so your solution doesn't work now, but somewhere in some possible future? You say that eventually people will move to standardized file formats, sometime in this glorious future.
How can you expect people to use a product that you readily admit doesn't suit their needs instead of one that actually does fulfill all the requirements with a few very notable drawbacks? The point is that with this "wrong" solution requirements are being resolved with a trade-off. Your solution doesn't meet their needs now and also has notable trade-offs. Guess which one people will consistently choose?
I still don't understand why you bothered bringing IBM into this to explain why you suggested that instead of giving money to one evil corporation, that getting a PS3 and thus giving money to another evil corporation is better? You're acting like you've got scruples, but it seems they're just blinders. Do you so intensely hate Microsoft that you're willing to allow wrongs done by another corporation corporation slide unnoticed? Once again, a compromise I'm not willing to make for another non-solution.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and I know from first hand experience that a decent sized company can be run almost exclusively on open source software. I've got 3 linux boxes, a gaming pc, and a 360 all sitting on the very same desk. It didn't burst into flames or anything. The point is, I love and support FLOSS, but I hate when people propose it for solutions for which it isn't intended (yet) because when it inevitable goes wrong it hurts the chances of any other FLOSS projects seeing the light of day within these restricted environments. So cut it out, will you?
Unsurprisingly, you display a tremendous lack of knowledge about video game design. Go talk to a proper game designer about the differences between PC and console games. You'll discover that most developers are forced to dumb down their console products so that they do not scare away console gamers who may be confused with things that have more than 10 buttons.
Current gen consoles are making progress, weening console gamers into more complex gaming that has been on the pc for years, but its still not anywhere close to the mark.
In short, PC games have a different design process from console games, and your suggestion to use a console for PC gaming is completely and laughably absurd. It contains the same short sighted illogic of your suggestion to use citrix in linux to run an office application. Your only concern seems to be to stop giving microsoft money, with absolutely no concern for the real requirements that were originally provided. In light of these facts, I wouldn't be surprised to find that you work for microsoft.
As a side note: You suggest giving money to Sony instead of Microsoft? Short sighted indeed.
I wasn't confused, and neither apparently were most of the people in this thread, let alone everyone else responding who didn't mention this gaff. Your complaints are nothing more than nerd pedantry. Also, your analogy is awful. Furthermore, you are complaining about the title of a slashdot post, and it is well known that the editors hardly pay attention to the titles of these posts, let alone the content that follows.
In short, I'd like to congratulate you on your Perfect Slashdot Post.
But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
I'm not advocating either side here, just pointing out the logical consequences of the position that we should be able to watch them. Whenever someone asks a question and then answers it for you, it's probably not the right answer. The reason that transparency is required with police and other government personnel is not because "they work for us", it's because they are civil servants. They serve all of us, a relationship that is going to be a bit different than your standard employer:employee relationship. Being civil servants, some are granted powers not granted to civilians, and as such those granted power require a higher level of supervision. Hence the transparency.
So your "logical consequences" aren't consequences nor are they logical. There's a huge difference between being a civil servant and working for someone, and you've just discovered why.
[quote]So... why is [i]male[/i] genital mutilation still acceptable in the USA?[/quote] What the fuck is this non sequitur? Off-topic much?