Hmm, you've got a point. GPL3 does now contain some very spurious language that attempts to assert that the recipient has "agreed" to the GPL if they distribute.
That was an attempt to stab at Microsoft - a failed one, obviously, since there's no way under copyright law you can bind a copyright license on an organisation for distributing vouchers to get a piece of software off a third party and any half-baked lawyer should know that.
I don't know if you noticed, but not all of the products being distributed as "abandonware" come from publishers that are out of business. I've seen groups distributing Commander Keen, and that you can even today pick up off Steam for a few dollars.
That's actually why I like Home of the Underdogs (that still around?) - they take down the things for which a publisher exists that says "hey, don't do that". And they link you to where you can buy $obscure-game if it's possible.
Still his manager's fault for not firing him on the spot.
No, not really. Since you can only fire someone AFTER they've done something wrong. Under AC's dumb plan, they're already liable for millions in fines, despite the potential that they actually want to fix it.
Senior management advocate they should get bonuses for the actions of all those employees they probably never meet so it's just tit-for-tat.
Well, yes. Don't get me started on management bonuses.
(Also, hey mods: "Flamebait" doesn't fucking mean "I disagree, and wish to censor your opinion")
A limited subset of data, yes. The call centre employee doesn't need access to billing for example. The billing support people do, but even they probably don't need access to CC details (perhaps some senior staff should, just so that they can deal with calls related to it). Dealer stores most definitely don't need access to that level of detail, and certainly not for every customer (even those they didn't sign up). And all this stuff sure as shit shouldn't be delivered directly over the frigging internet.
Ah, so the CEO and upper management are personally responsible for anything bad that happens?
I know this is not a popular opinion here, but sometimes the "peon" implementing the system actually is lazy and useless. You're advocating making senior management pay for the actions of an employee they probably never met. Unless you think senior management (who aren't IT people, inevitably) should be vetting every single deployment for stuff they don't understand?
Your "solution" is stupider than the problem it's trying to solve. Preventing that sort of shit from happening is the point of limited liability.
Amazon has a physical presence in some states. Basically, look to see if Amazon has what they call a "Nexus" there - it's basically a gigantic warehouse and shipping hub, where they send orders from. If they have one of these in your state, they charge tax. Otherwise, they don't.
The taxpayer, who has to pick up the tab for the implementation and border enforcement - of the 20c tax on a $2 cable. Because I'll tell you one thing for free, the overseas retailers won't be collecting and remitting it. Why should they? They've got their own tax laws to ensure compliance with. You start expecting online retailers to comply with taxes in every single country on the planet they sell to, and you're looking at compliance costs jumping up by orders of magnitude. Guess what? Then you're in a situation where online retailers are at a hundred fold disadvantage to brick and mortar stores. So your only option is customs charging it at the border.
There's a reason that governments only charge sales tax on expensive overseas purchases - the administrative cost of charging tax (including biosecurity vetting, staffing costs, storage, payment administration, and all sorts of other expenses). And for bonus points, you have to charge different amounts of tax based on the origin (Free Trade Agreements, or at least ones as one sided as US Free Trade Agreements, tend to forbid charging more tax than the other country charges on imports). So then US online retailers have an advantage over any others. Yay!
I personally feel that anyone who supports this tax probably works for a large Australian (or New Zealand, which tends to mean Australian anyway) retailer. So which one are you?
It's not online retailers, it's overseas retailers. They want to charge tax on all imports, no matter the amount, so that you won't even be able to import a pair of $50 shoes without them taxing it.
And if that isn't bad enough, the New Zealand Retail Association thinks it's a great idea - they want the 15% GST to be applied to EVERY purchase, no matter the origin.
The way I see it, they should just stop whining that they don't have it easy any more. You just can't have a 50% margin any more, get over it. Stores should start competing based on their actual merits, such as the ability to get a product to you in less than 2 weeks. And an actual warranty.
Wait, are you telling me your network provider doesn't even bother re-delivering until the receiving phone ACKs it?
What sort of braindead implementation do you guys use!
Also, all of that equipment is still not free like commodore64_love claims. So there is a real cost involved. Especially when you consider the cost of the billing systems I explicitly didn't mention in my initial post.
Meh, I was just playing devil's advocate. I agree with you that there should be "no free ride". But I also see the point that there actually is benefit to the "free(ish) advertising" that craptastic quality clips (i.e. Youtube) can provide if used properly.
That said, Google has no business making money off that content. Currently, when Youtube gets caught showing infringing content, Google offers the copyright owner "a share" of the ad revenue. I reckon that Google should be giving them the entire ad revenue. We shouldn't be rewarding businesses aiding piracy.
I emphatically do not agree with you that content providers should be required to pay for upgrades to last mile networks for Internet Service Providers who are already being paid by their own direct customers. As it is, service providers already have to pay astronomical amounts to dozens of peering providers or backbone providers to ensure people can access their site. I don't see why they should also have to pay tens of thousands of ISPs the world over. That's just silly, and I think anyone who suggests it clearly works for an ISP.
I really hate when people say "copyrighted content" when they really mean "copyright infringing content". Do you understand the difference? Do you understand the fact that your own content on YouTube is also copyrighted, by you? Do you understand the fact that anyone is free to upload copyrighted content anywhere as long is they either own it, or they have proper license to do so, or the act of uploading it falls under some fair use provision of copyright law?
My apologies - you are correct, I misspoke. Infringing content was specifically what I refer to - however I believe you and everyone else understood what the condensed form means in context. It really didn't need a two paragraph lecture.
The difference is that in the USA, the screeners are looking for weapons. In Israel, the screeners are looking for terrorists. They collect intelligence on the people who purchase tickets. They ask questions. If necessary they interrogate and perform psychological evaluations. They know who you are, where you're going, whether you plan to return, and maybe also why you're going there. They look for inconsistent or conflicting stories. What they do is more like old-fashioned police work. Israel has many enemies and those enemies tend to use terrorism tactics rather than conventional warfare.
Oh, please. If the US government did that, I bet you'd be one of the first to whine about them "violating your constitutional rights". They can't win no matter what approach they take.
I begin to think the sooner you guys realise that scrap of paper was written hundreds of years ago, the better. I'm all for safeguarding of rights, but those rights should be safeguarded by a document written in the same bloody millennium.
Is that rule not hand in hand with the one stating that those rights not explicitly reserved to the United States government are retained by the states themselves? Hence, if the right is not explicitly enumerated, a state may opt to enforce it themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say "anything more significant than a 3 line scrap of code that can't really be implemented any other way".
Hmm, you've got a point. GPL3 does now contain some very spurious language that attempts to assert that the recipient has "agreed" to the GPL if they distribute.
That was an attempt to stab at Microsoft - a failed one, obviously, since there's no way under copyright law you can bind a copyright license on an organisation for distributing vouchers to get a piece of software off a third party and any half-baked lawyer should know that.
He said purpose, not marketing slogan.
Sadly, it's 28 years after his death. That's kind of the issue in point here.
I don't know if you noticed, but not all of the products being distributed as "abandonware" come from publishers that are out of business. I've seen groups distributing Commander Keen, and that you can even today pick up off Steam for a few dollars.
That's actually why I like Home of the Underdogs (that still around?) - they take down the things for which a publisher exists that says "hey, don't do that". And they link you to where you can buy $obscure-game if it's possible.
Still his manager's fault for not firing him on the spot.
No, not really. Since you can only fire someone AFTER they've done something wrong. Under AC's dumb plan, they're already liable for millions in fines, despite the potential that they actually want to fix it.
Senior management advocate they should get bonuses for the actions of all those employees they probably never meet so it's just tit-for-tat.
Well, yes. Don't get me started on management bonuses.
(Also, hey mods: "Flamebait" doesn't fucking mean "I disagree, and wish to censor your opinion")
Bollocks, don't you go speaking for NZ. You can just buy a voucher - with cash - and use the code printed on it to top up.
A limited subset of data, yes. The call centre employee doesn't need access to billing for example. The billing support people do, but even they probably don't need access to CC details (perhaps some senior staff should, just so that they can deal with calls related to it). Dealer stores most definitely don't need access to that level of detail, and certainly not for every customer (even those they didn't sign up). And all this stuff sure as shit shouldn't be delivered directly over the frigging internet.
Ah, so the CEO and upper management are personally responsible for anything bad that happens?
I know this is not a popular opinion here, but sometimes the "peon" implementing the system actually is lazy and useless. You're advocating making senior management pay for the actions of an employee they probably never met. Unless you think senior management (who aren't IT people, inevitably) should be vetting every single deployment for stuff they don't understand?
Your "solution" is stupider than the problem it's trying to solve. Preventing that sort of shit from happening is the point of limited liability.
Amazon has a physical presence in some states. Basically, look to see if Amazon has what they call a "Nexus" there - it's basically a gigantic warehouse and shipping hub, where they send orders from. If they have one of these in your state, they charge tax. Otherwise, they don't.
Illegal. Apparently, if the same book is available from an Aussie publisher, it's a criminal offence to parallel import it. Or something like that.
Well, not really. Windows XP SP2 introduced as much as Snow Leopard did, and yes I do use both.
He means you have to own a Mac to browse it.
Though it's kind of pointless if you don't.
Also remember this isn't Microsoft
You're right. Microsoft wouldn't dare charge $30 for a Service Pack.
Of course they're closing it down. After all, the old system didn't allow them to collect 30%!
You know who it's really unfair to?
The taxpayer, who has to pick up the tab for the implementation and border enforcement - of the 20c tax on a $2 cable. Because I'll tell you one thing for free, the overseas retailers won't be collecting and remitting it. Why should they? They've got their own tax laws to ensure compliance with. You start expecting online retailers to comply with taxes in every single country on the planet they sell to, and you're looking at compliance costs jumping up by orders of magnitude. Guess what? Then you're in a situation where online retailers are at a hundred fold disadvantage to brick and mortar stores. So your only option is customs charging it at the border.
There's a reason that governments only charge sales tax on expensive overseas purchases - the administrative cost of charging tax (including biosecurity vetting, staffing costs, storage, payment administration, and all sorts of other expenses). And for bonus points, you have to charge different amounts of tax based on the origin (Free Trade Agreements, or at least ones as one sided as US Free Trade Agreements, tend to forbid charging more tax than the other country charges on imports). So then US online retailers have an advantage over any others. Yay!
I personally feel that anyone who supports this tax probably works for a large Australian (or New Zealand, which tends to mean Australian anyway) retailer. So which one are you?
It's not online retailers, it's overseas retailers. They want to charge tax on all imports, no matter the amount, so that you won't even be able to import a pair of $50 shoes without them taxing it.
And if that isn't bad enough, the New Zealand Retail Association thinks it's a great idea - they want the 15% GST to be applied to EVERY purchase, no matter the origin.
The way I see it, they should just stop whining that they don't have it easy any more. You just can't have a 50% margin any more, get over it. Stores should start competing based on their actual merits, such as the ability to get a product to you in less than 2 weeks. And an actual warranty.
"HD Ready" means "supports 720p, and fakes 1080i"
Wait, are you telling me your network provider doesn't even bother re-delivering until the receiving phone ACKs it?
What sort of braindead implementation do you guys use!
Also, all of that equipment is still not free like commodore64_love claims. So there is a real cost involved. Especially when you consider the cost of the billing systems I explicitly didn't mention in my initial post.
Meh, I was just playing devil's advocate. I agree with you that there should be "no free ride". But I also see the point that there actually is benefit to the "free(ish) advertising" that craptastic quality clips (i.e. Youtube) can provide if used properly.
That said, Google has no business making money off that content. Currently, when Youtube gets caught showing infringing content, Google offers the copyright owner "a share" of the ad revenue. I reckon that Google should be giving them the entire ad revenue. We shouldn't be rewarding businesses aiding piracy.
I emphatically do not agree with you that content providers should be required to pay for upgrades to last mile networks for Internet Service Providers who are already being paid by their own direct customers. As it is, service providers already have to pay astronomical amounts to dozens of peering providers or backbone providers to ensure people can access their site. I don't see why they should also have to pay tens of thousands of ISPs the world over. That's just silly, and I think anyone who suggests it clearly works for an ISP.
I really hate when people say "copyrighted content" when they really mean "copyright infringing content". Do you understand the difference? Do you understand the fact that your own content on YouTube is also copyrighted, by you? Do you understand the fact that anyone is free to upload copyrighted content anywhere as long is they either own it, or they have proper license to do so, or the act of uploading it falls under some fair use provision of copyright law?
My apologies - you are correct, I misspoke. Infringing content was specifically what I refer to - however I believe you and everyone else understood what the condensed form means in context. It really didn't need a two paragraph lecture.
The difference is that in the USA, the screeners are looking for weapons. In Israel, the screeners are looking for terrorists. They collect intelligence on the people who purchase tickets. They ask questions. If necessary they interrogate and perform psychological evaluations. They know who you are, where you're going, whether you plan to return, and maybe also why you're going there. They look for inconsistent or conflicting stories. What they do is more like old-fashioned police work. Israel has many enemies and those enemies tend to use terrorism tactics rather than conventional warfare.
Oh, please. If the US government did that, I bet you'd be one of the first to whine about them "violating your constitutional rights". They can't win no matter what approach they take.
I begin to think the sooner you guys realise that scrap of paper was written hundreds of years ago, the better. I'm all for safeguarding of rights, but those rights should be safeguarded by a document written in the same bloody millennium.
Is that rule not hand in hand with the one stating that those rights not explicitly reserved to the United States government are retained by the states themselves? Hence, if the right is not explicitly enumerated, a state may opt to enforce it themselves?
In New Zealand, there is no requirement for a warrant for an evidential blood test.