And I quote from the site: SPECS: 6.8GHZ CPU (AtomChip® Quantum® II processor or 4 x Intel® Pentium® M processors 1.7CHz)
So its their chip... or Quad Pentium 4 Ms... And we all know that 4x1.7GHz (mispelt on the site) is supposed to equal 6.8GHz. Two things wrong with this - or 4 x PentiumMs? WTF! Weasiling out? Its as if I said "Oh here I came out with this super duper chip... but hey, I'll package the laptop with a Sempron instead..." And as much as it was questionable to fit any of the other components into the laptop, we know for sure that fitting 4 PentiumM CPUs in that space is an impossibility.
Between Google and Baidu, which is truly the lesser of the two evils?
We always allude to "our" search engines because they don't suffer the same fate as Chinese web-produce - massive censorship. One just has to search Baidu for Tianamen Square Massacre. There are 3 (pro-Chinese) results. This is unlike Google that provides over 750 results for the same search term.
But then, Google isn't much better. One just has to look up Google for anything that could contrive the plans of a business, and the corporate entity will use the DMCA to somehow ban the disfavourable content.
Of course, I'd pick Google anyday. But it's hypocritical to state that Baidu is this horrid entity due to its censoring, when in fact this is common practice over here.
Someone should patent "sexually explicit acts in a video game."
They'd be rich.
This is why I lost faith in the institution
on
Textbooks With EULAs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Textbooks. I could write a textbook on how textbooks are a ripoff.
Needless to say, depending on how popular your subject may be, you can pay upwards of $150 for a [required, mandated, don't have it you're screwed] textbook. Now I understand that much of that money is in fact pure profit to go pay the publishers/authors for their time/research. After all, I can buy a book of the same dimensions at Chapters [Canadian bookstore] for about $40.
I've learned that University is a business, and nothing else. Aims of 'higher morals' were simply a fantasy taught in schools. But if a standard author can be content with the profits from his $40 sell, why can't a university professor that authored the book? Especially, since by the virtue of being introduced in any one university, his sells increase exponentially? Think of it: 3,000 students a year at University X are forced to buy his book. And thats just in one year. Who else can enjoy such market permeation?
Anyways - my thoughts are that textbooks are ripoffs. And just when I thought that it was at its worst - it got even more abysmal.
Coming to campus: E-books with expiration dates By John Borland, CNET News.com
When students at Princeton University, the University of Utah and eight other colleges start combing their school bookstore shelves for fall semester textbooks, they'll find a new alternative to the hard-covered tomes they're used to buying.
Alongside the new and used versions of Dante's "Inferno" and "Essentials of Psychology" will be little cards offering 33 percent off if students decide to download a digital version of a text instead of buying a hard copy.
So - you now pay $100 instead of $150. But you also don't have anything tangible - no books. Therefore, the cost of producing this eBook on CD is nada. Maybe $2 at best. They cash in $98 in pure profits. Now such figures are pure speculation on my part, but needless to say that the final figures won't be all that far off.
Not only that, but that $100 purchase is essentially deleted in 5 months by the author (DRM). Now with a normal book at $150, I can at least resell it for $70... if the new annual edition isn't out [another ploy]... or if I fail the class [as I have], I can at least reuse it.
Not so with 5-month DRMed books. This is an exercise in pure greed if ever I saw it, and the fact that the administration of Princeton sees nothing wrong with this exploitation is even worse. My faith into the integrity of universities suddenly dropped.
I should note that price is normally somewhat irrelevant to me. I am fortunate enough that I can still live at home while I attend. That said, all my money goes to pay university. All of it, so that I may not be caught with a $20,000 debt when I get out. I have bought stuff yes - but pretty much all of it was with either tips I get in the day (I'm a tourguide), and a second job I did a month ago (which went to pay off my previous debt).
But price - is not irrelevant to my friends. Take Corie, and a million of my friends. They're returning here in Ottawa to continue their studies. Most don't live at home because their home is hours/days away. Here they are, now paying rent. That's $400 a month. Plus living expenses. That's what... $200 a month? That's the equivalent of a month's parttime paycheck at a standard lowly job. They are below the poverty line. If they weren't attending university - then they could at least work fulltime. But they can't because university schedule takes up some prime working hours. Then in summer, if they live in Ottawa, rent/living-expenses takes up much of their profits. They'll save up maybe half of whats needed to pay off this year's tuition, if that. They have to take loans, and go further in debt. Maybe they're about $10,000 in debt already. 19/20 year olds.
And this university wants them to buy $100 CDs of text that will go bad in 5 months?
This is precisely why I lost faith in the institution.
And in that respect, I forsee Slashdot posting this newsbit in the future:
"Man gets arrested for adding *gasp* a CD Player in his car... the modification of cars consoles has been an illegal practice since October 2003, when the UK enacted the EU Copyright Directive."
Then I think there's something wrong in my version...
I believe that what the article was pointing out that it could be a game of killing cops and fooking hookers; only because its unrealistic to opt those features out in something that vast. However, in essence, the game is one of a plot from going up the ladder (GTA3) or setting things right (GTA:SA).
Buuut the beauty of the game is that the style of play varies on your tastes. So if you are, as you lead us to believe, one who is just in it to kill cops and fook hookers, so be it. Though I'd recommend you'd stick with Super Mario or something (you scare me). Alternatively, if you're one who stops at the traffic lights to let old ladies through; help cops out on their missions (vigilante); save people via ambulances; race around town; then that works too.
Question is: are you really into it to just fook hookers and kill cops? Actually... don't answer that.
"Those groups are believed responsible for stealing and distributing copyrighted works including... and Autodesk's Autocad 2006 and Adobe's Photoshop software."
--AP
Autocad 2006 is $3,750. Photoshop is equally prohibitively expensive. And yet, the worth of the product itself (a $0.50 disc) as well as the research that went into is only worth a fraction of what they're charging.
It's the equivalent of someone selling you a $4 paintbrush for $600. Since no one person in their right mind is able to afford that, the individual decides to copy the paintbrush and produce their own [at their expense]. The original maker did not loose a paintbrush in the process.
So when this article makes claims of theft; I ask in return: Who is stealing from who exactly? I am against "piracy"; but I am more against companies that blatantly rip off their consumers every which way.
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses," Justice David Souter wrote in the ruling.
I therefore decree that pen manufacturers should be sued, as their products make excellent stabbing weapons. Following the same logic as above.
That said, I'm sure glad this sort of corporate presence wasn't there 10 years ago... or the Internet may have never existed in its present form.
Though not implementing this law would mean violating the WIPOs rulings; which state that circumvention of TPM (...DRMs) are illegal.
Unfortunately, the heritage minister in charge of this debacle has seen little evidence to support our cause. The one event that was supposed to make her see the light failed miserably due to a lack of foresight from the organisers and poor arguments from the attendees.
In essence: we're screwed. Though we do have the advantage of our lawmakers not being bribed $179,000 by the RIAA/MPAA.
Pardon my ignorance, but: Most people double-click movie/audio files and expect them to work off the bat. They really don't care about what program is used to open it; even if it is an ugly brute and an unecessary ressource hog. Thus the popularity of WMP explained.
That said, when they now double-click that movie/audio file, and a new window asks them what program they want to use to open it, there will be many blank faces about. And many calls to their local geeks/customer service/retail store [blaming the store for the lack of Media Player surely]. I don't really see the EU comission's decision as a particularily wise one... what would be the sane alternative to "no-WMP": force MS to include alternatives from third-parties? Highly doubtful.
I see a problem, and that is YOU are not the one that would make that choice. Not only are "Violent" and "sexual" broad terms that can be mis-interpreted, but the choice really should be the parent's choice. I feel that many people, but not everybody mind you, who supports this are too lazy to do the job of being a parent and say no to video games they don't approve of, and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow them to play said gams for certain reasons, such as proven maturity.
With such logic we should thus: remove the enforcivility with the movie "R" rated system, allow alcohol to be sold to minors, allow drivers liscences to be passed to children of any age... That should all be the parent's choice!
I feel the same. Just like we don't let minors see R rated movies (in Canada at least), we shouldn't allow minors to play M rated games.
I really fail to understand why someone believes that a game like GTA is okay to be sold to a 6 year old.
Realistically, if the kid is old enough, he/she will find away around this restriction anyways; just like most find ways around getting alcohol whilst underage.
Computer users, esp. newer computer users are heavily reliant on brands to form the basis of their opinions on products.
For example, it was almost impossible to sell Athlon PCs where I worked: The less-abled customers had it hard-coded into their brains that it was all about the "Pentium, Pentium, Pentium" and nothing else.
Likewise, convincing users to switch software to another brand, esp. with productivity products seems as fruitless. For the most part, even the people that state that MS Office would cost them their monthly savings would rather not switch to the free OpenOffice; despite the fact that it handles.doc and.xls quite admirably.
The more important the software is regarded by users, the less likely they are to want to switch to anything but what they hear in advertisements on TV. Thus the challenge of carrying OSS products in stores; or convince people to use them; will be a very tough, if not futile, undertaking.
She can have music other than that from iTunes on her iPod. Its just that removing the DRM from those other legit music files obtained at other legal music distribution sites would be illegal.
Steve Jobs has little to do with what DRM systems other companies implement. No, the DMCA is more to blame here for causing this mess. The very act that she helped pass.
It is because (indirectly albeit) of her own actions that using music legitimately bought any way seen fit (ie. using it on more than just one brand specific MP3 player) is illegal.
Exactly. If my memory serves me correctly, the RIAA has previously sued music distribution sites which didn't provide DRM.
I suppose the solution to her quandary would be a DRM system that works on all platforms. That is something (considering the closed nature of DRM) that would be dead near impossible to accomplish. I prefer the solution where she justs STFU.
Here's the difference between the US and Canada in Copyright reforms:
The American comittee on Copyright Reforms is Sen. Orrin Hatch. He was payed $179,000 in 2004 by the RIAA/MPAA.
The members of the Canadian comittee on Copyright reforms, on the other hand, were not given any noticeable contributions by the entertainment industries. For one, corporations are limited into how much they can donate, for another such conflict of interest wouldn't be allowed.
So who'se reforms are you likely to believe to be lest biast? The opinion of the side who was payed nearly 200 grand by a party that voices one specific view, or the opinion of the side that wasn't bribed.
Well I would hope that Canada wouldn't have the exact same Constitution as that that the US signed some couple of centuries ago.
I would suggest that you educate yourself ever so slightly before commenting on something you evidently know very little about (which begs to question your credibility on your other posts). Canada has something called the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'.
And I quote from the chart:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
So please, spare us of your ignorance next time.
Slashdot Mirror
And I quote from the site:
SPECS: 6.8GHZ CPU (AtomChip® Quantum® II processor or 4 x Intel® Pentium® M processors 1.7CHz)
So its their chip... or Quad Pentium 4 Ms... And we all know that 4x1.7GHz (mispelt on the site) is supposed to equal 6.8GHz. Two things wrong with this - or 4 x PentiumMs? WTF! Weasiling out? Its as if I said "Oh here I came out with this super duper chip... but hey, I'll package the laptop with a Sempron instead..." And as much as it was questionable to fit any of the other components into the laptop, we know for sure that fitting 4 PentiumM CPUs in that space is an impossibility.
Between Google and Baidu, which is truly the lesser of the two evils?
We always allude to "our" search engines because they don't suffer the same fate as Chinese web-produce - massive censorship. One just has to search Baidu for Tianamen Square Massacre. There are 3 (pro-Chinese) results. This is unlike Google that provides over 750 results for the same search term.
But then, Google isn't much better. One just has to look up Google for anything that could contrive the plans of a business, and the corporate entity will use the DMCA to somehow ban the disfavourable content.
Of course, I'd pick Google anyday. But it's hypocritical to state that Baidu is this horrid entity due to its censoring, when in fact this is common practice over here.
Someone should patent "sexually explicit acts in a video game." They'd be rich.
Needless to say, depending on how popular your subject may be, you can pay upwards of $150 for a [required, mandated, don't have it you're screwed] textbook. Now I understand that much of that money is in fact pure profit to go pay the publishers/authors for their time/research. After all, I can buy a book of the same dimensions at Chapters [Canadian bookstore] for about $40.
I've learned that University is a business, and nothing else. Aims of 'higher morals' were simply a fantasy taught in schools. But if a standard author can be content with the profits from his $40 sell, why can't a university professor that authored the book? Especially, since by the virtue of being introduced in any one university, his sells increase exponentially? Think of it: 3,000 students a year at University X are forced to buy his book. And thats just in one year. Who else can enjoy such market permeation?
Anyways - my thoughts are that textbooks are ripoffs. And just when I thought that it was at its worst - it got even more abysmal.
So - you now pay $100 instead of $150. But you also don't have anything tangible - no books. Therefore, the cost of producing this eBook on CD is nada. Maybe $2 at best. They cash in $98 in pure profits. Now such figures are pure speculation on my part, but needless to say that the final figures won't be all that far off.
Not only that, but that $100 purchase is essentially deleted in 5 months by the author (DRM). Now with a normal book at $150, I can at least resell it for $70... if the new annual edition isn't out [another ploy]... or if I fail the class [as I have], I can at least reuse it.
Not so with 5-month DRMed books. This is an exercise in pure greed if ever I saw it, and the fact that the administration of Princeton sees nothing wrong with this exploitation is even worse. My faith into the integrity of universities suddenly dropped.
I should note that price is normally somewhat irrelevant to me. I am fortunate enough that I can still live at home while I attend. That said, all my money goes to pay university. All of it, so that I may not be caught with a $20,000 debt when I get out. I have bought stuff yes - but pretty much all of it was with either tips I get in the day (I'm a tourguide), and a second job I did a month ago (which went to pay off my previous debt).
But price - is not irrelevant to my friends. Take Corie, and a million of my friends. They're returning here in Ottawa to continue their studies. Most don't live at home because their home is hours/days away. Here they are, now paying rent. That's $400 a month. Plus living expenses. That's what... $200 a month? That's the equivalent of a month's parttime paycheck at a standard lowly job. They are below the poverty line. If they weren't attending university - then they could at least work fulltime. But they can't because university schedule takes up some prime working hours. Then in summer, if they live in Ottawa, rent/living-expenses takes up much of their profits. They'll save up maybe half of whats needed to pay off this year's tuition, if that. They have to take loans, and go further in debt. Maybe they're about $10,000 in debt already. 19/20 year olds.
And this university wants them to buy $100 CDs of text that will go bad in 5 months?
This is precisely why I lost faith in the institution.
And in that respect, I forsee Slashdot posting this newsbit in the future:
"Man gets arrested for adding *gasp* a CD Player in his car... the modification of cars consoles has been an illegal practice since October 2003, when the UK enacted the EU Copyright Directive."
Buuut the beauty of the game is that the style of play varies on your tastes. So if you are, as you lead us to believe, one who is just in it to kill cops and fook hookers, so be it. Though I'd recommend you'd stick with Super Mario or something (you scare me). Alternatively, if you're one who stops at the traffic lights to let old ladies through; help cops out on their missions (vigilante); save people via ambulances; race around town; then that works too.
Question is: are you really into it to just fook hookers and kill cops? Actually... don't answer that.
*Thief enters mall.*
*Thief notices $50 shoes.*
*Thief alterted by $10,000 robot.*
*Thief steals robot AND shoes.*
"Those groups are believed responsible for stealing and distributing copyrighted works including... and Autodesk's Autocad 2006 and Adobe's Photoshop software."
--AP
Autocad 2006 is $3,750. Photoshop is equally prohibitively expensive. And yet, the worth of the product itself (a $0.50 disc) as well as the research that went into is only worth a fraction of what they're charging.
It's the equivalent of someone selling you a $4 paintbrush for $600. Since no one person in their right mind is able to afford that, the individual decides to copy the paintbrush and produce their own [at their expense]. The original maker did not loose a paintbrush in the process.
So when this article makes claims of theft; I ask in return: Who is stealing from who exactly? I am against "piracy"; but I am more against companies that blatantly rip off their consumers every which way.
And I quote:
... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses," Justice David Souter wrote in the ruling.
"One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright
I therefore decree that pen manufacturers should be sued, as their products make excellent stabbing weapons. Following the same logic as above.
That said, I'm sure glad this sort of corporate presence wasn't there 10 years ago... or the Internet may have never existed in its present form.
Though not implementing this law would mean violating the WIPOs rulings; which state that circumvention of TPM (...DRMs) are illegal.
Unfortunately, the heritage minister in charge of this debacle has seen little evidence to support our cause. The one event that was supposed to make her see the light failed miserably due to a lack of foresight from the organisers and poor arguments from the attendees.
In essence: we're screwed. Though we do have the advantage of our lawmakers not being bribed $179,000 by the RIAA/MPAA.
Pardon my ignorance, but:
Most people double-click movie/audio files and expect them to work off the bat. They really don't care about what program is used to open it; even if it is an ugly brute and an unecessary ressource hog. Thus the popularity of WMP explained.
That said, when they now double-click that movie/audio file, and a new window asks them what program they want to use to open it, there will be many blank faces about. And many calls to their local geeks/customer service/retail store [blaming the store for the lack of Media Player surely]. I don't really see the EU comission's decision as a particularily wise one... what would be the sane alternative to "no-WMP": force MS to include alternatives from third-parties? Highly doubtful.
I see a problem, and that is YOU are not the one that would make that choice. Not only are "Violent" and "sexual" broad terms that can be mis-interpreted, but the choice really should be the parent's choice. I feel that many people, but not everybody mind you, who supports this are too lazy to do the job of being a parent and say no to video games they don't approve of, and allowing laws to ruin it for kids whos parents allow them to play said gams for certain reasons, such as proven maturity.
With such logic we should thus: remove the enforcivility with the movie "R" rated system, allow alcohol to be sold to minors, allow drivers liscences to be passed to children of any age... That should all be the parent's choice!
I feel the same. Just like we don't let minors see R rated movies (in Canada at least), we shouldn't allow minors to play M rated games. I really fail to understand why someone believes that a game like GTA is okay to be sold to a 6 year old. Realistically, if the kid is old enough, he/she will find away around this restriction anyways; just like most find ways around getting alcohol whilst underage.
Computer users, esp. newer computer users are heavily reliant on brands to form the basis of their opinions on products.
.doc and .xls quite admirably.
For example, it was almost impossible to sell Athlon PCs where I worked: The less-abled customers had it hard-coded into their brains that it was all about the "Pentium, Pentium, Pentium" and nothing else.
Likewise, convincing users to switch software to another brand, esp. with productivity products seems as fruitless. For the most part, even the people that state that MS Office would cost them their monthly savings would rather not switch to the free OpenOffice; despite the fact that it handles
The more important the software is regarded by users, the less likely they are to want to switch to anything but what they hear in advertisements on TV. Thus the challenge of carrying OSS products in stores; or convince people to use them; will be a very tough, if not futile, undertaking.
She can have music other than that from iTunes on her iPod. Its just that removing the DRM from those other legit music files obtained at other legal music distribution sites would be illegal.
Steve Jobs has little to do with what DRM systems other companies implement. No, the DMCA is more to blame here for causing this mess. The very act that she helped pass.
It is because (indirectly albeit) of her own actions that using music legitimately bought any way seen fit (ie. using it on more than just one brand specific MP3 player) is illegal.
Exactly. If my memory serves me correctly, the RIAA has previously sued music distribution sites which didn't provide DRM.
I suppose the solution to her quandary would be a DRM system that works on all platforms. That is something (considering the closed nature of DRM) that would be dead near impossible to accomplish. I prefer the solution where she justs STFU.
What was the biggest triumph of space exploration in the last ten years? Managing to prove the existence of the Bing Bang with certainty?
That was my bad. I meant to say that he was the head of the committee.
Here's the difference between the US and Canada in Copyright reforms: The American comittee on Copyright Reforms is Sen. Orrin Hatch. He was payed $179,000 in 2004 by the RIAA/MPAA. The members of the Canadian comittee on Copyright reforms, on the other hand, were not given any noticeable contributions by the entertainment industries. For one, corporations are limited into how much they can donate, for another such conflict of interest wouldn't be allowed. So who'se reforms are you likely to believe to be lest biast? The opinion of the side who was payed nearly 200 grand by a party that voices one specific view, or the opinion of the side that wasn't bribed.
Well I would hope that Canada wouldn't have the exact same Constitution as that that the US signed some couple of centuries ago. I would suggest that you educate yourself ever so slightly before commenting on something you evidently know very little about (which begs to question your credibility on your other posts). Canada has something called the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'. And I quote from the chart: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. So please, spare us of your ignorance next time.