Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to claim benefits if they swear that they: (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas before July 20, 2005; (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to modify and alter the game's content using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; (c ) would not have bought the game had they known that consumers could modify and alter the game's content using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game could be modified and altered, if they thought this possible. Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of purchase.
What's to fear? Getting a cease-and desist in the mail that you infringed a patent? Calling the other party to negotiate terms? Seriously, Vonage just got a worst case "your whole business plan is based on stolen IP" verdict, and it's not the end of the world. They made a deal and the creator of Vonage goes on to make more money. Most patent awards are based on either REASONABLE royalties, the rest on lost profit. No big deal.
I think "fear of infringing a patent" is a BS excuse not to get to work and make something.
Your logic runs in circles to rationalize the outcome you are looking for: for-profit healthcare is bad, other for-profit endeavors are not. Central to your latest point seems to be the idea that a drug company should give away the "science" which they just spent money discovering, developing and testing. If not for the chance of a return on investment, that money WOULD NOT BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Sure, one could make a system solely dependant on altruistic donors for research money. Go ahead and start seeking donations for yours. Our system is much better funded and more productive, as it generates prosperity from a force much more powerful than altruism... for lack of a better word: greed.
Patents are good for 20 years, and drug testing usually chews up 10 of those, leaving just 10 to recoup costs and only then, if the marketplace demands your new drug, make a return. Innovation is encouraged by awarding patent protection to inventions, and prosperity is spread to all through the expiration of those patents in a free-market economy which benefits the most efficient producer.
I call BS that you can make a shelter anything like what our for-profit system can sell you at a price you are willing to pay. You could make a hut. If you are gifted you could make a log cabin. You could not make a modern house, especially not with the modern comforts (fridge, A/C, TV) all provided by FOR-PROFIT industries.
I call BS that the Amish "live that way." When the native americans encountered the militarily superior europeans, they lost everything. The amish are freeloading on national security provided by sophisticated weapons funded by taxpayers. Freeloading isn't "producing your own."
Innovation and subsequent efficient production are both necessary to maximize prosperity. A system that rewards innovators and efficient producers necessarily leaves the others unrewarded. The rewarded can shop for fantastic creations, while the unrewarded are left to their jealousy. In some, jealousy is motivation to develop marketable skills and the loop is closed. In the others, jealousy leads to socialist rhetoric.
I'll be modded down for this, but how does for-profit food production and distribution sit with you? What about for-profit home building? What about whatever you do for a living? Don't you sell your labor to your employer at a profit, or have you been a volunteer all your life?
Here's a thought experiment... what if doctors and drug scientists UNIONIZED? Then whose side would you be on? You're not anti-union, are you?
I know I'll get modded down for this but, if anyone from comcast is following this thread, I'd like to add my voice to others replying to this message and say this guy's use is far greater than anything I'd consider normal. If sending him a warning letter makes my (and my neighbor's) internet better, please do.
From TFA: "When Danny sneaks up on an enemy, gamers can hold the A button down, at which point they will be given the option to pick from three different murder animations (on Wii, they get to act them out with Nintendo's motion-sensitive controllers). "
I remember hearing the USSR sucked because there was no incentive to work harder or smarter... you couldn't reap the benefit of your own labor. Property wasn't yours. Making a better product that your fellow man wanted at a price he thought was fair didn't pay off for you, so innovation could only come from the gov't. The only way to improve your own standard of living in that system was to rise in politics.
As far as your statement about us not being like the USSR yet, well, the political left is working on it, just be patient.
I hooked a hose to my local grocer's restroom faucet for my car washing business. They told me to stop. I was like WTF!?! Your restroom policy doesn't forbid it. What's the hidden limit? Can I pay to hook up my hose? What if I use buckets? My business plan roxxers because I can exploit your bathroom policy. The manager suggested I buy water from the water company and I was all F-THAT.
...We'd all pay the same subscription price, regardless of how much we used. We'd all hog it to the point of rationing to prevent delivery system collapse.
The sensible solution to the information bandwith problem is the same as the solution we have in place for our fully utilized energy grid: make users pay more at times of full utilization. Run bittorrent at night only and you might stave off that day a bit.
Approximately $3040 is spent on AIDS research for every one death caused by the disease. In comparison, only $37 is spent on cardiovascular disease per death caused by the disease.
I'm curious what viewpoint you feel is being shut out. I regularly see news shows have 2 people on them, one "for" and one "against." The only viewpoints I've seen shut out of mainstream media in recent years are: 1) people who think the 9/11 "attacks" were accomplished with demolition incendiaries (shut out after several months of debate) 2) people who think the price of gasoline was manipulated for the 2006 elections (shut out by repeated market explanations) , and 3) people who think Barry Bonds didn't take performance enhancing drugs (maybe they couldn't find any believers of this for a counterpoint).
Let's acknowledge that a 5 year old's opinion on a topic outside their grasp isn't worthy of news broadcast, then acknowledge that some adults aren't much smarter about certain things, but a lot more biased. What kind of viewpoint does an ignorant, biased person come to? Nothing there's much of a market for.
Although the summary says the method will fill arbitrary holes, at the link that claim is not made, and in their examples they delete specific picture elements.
It is interesting to note that in the slashdot thread today about printer companies engaging in customer-unfriendly ink-lockout, the answers modded up are "use the free market, don't buy those brands."
Yet in this thread, health insurance companies are lumped as a group, and they are all "evil." That America is the one country where you can sue for just about anything, including denial of coverage, gets no mention. That the problem of being locked into your employer's plan was caused by Gov't wage controls passed in WWII is not mentioned, nor that the health insurance free market would work better if Gov't undid their damage by temporarily forbidding employer lock-in to one health insurance provider.
There are those who want to nationalize everything, those wanting to nationalize nothing, and those wanting to nationalize some things. The nationalize-some-things people get into spittle spraying, name-calling arguments over where the right place to draw the line is, and some even want to shut down the speech of others. Grow up. If you don't like google helping the speech of some corporations, do what the printer ink people are doing and stop using google.
What is this health insurance speech which is so horrible? Is it the question that if I'm entitled to national health care, and thus the labor and output of health care professionals and band-aid factory workers, am I also not entitled to a nationalized food production and distribution system? Certainly I need food more than health care. Those evil farmers work for profit. John Deere makes tractors for profit. Isn't that wrong? What about nationalized clothing production? Housing? Printer ink? IT services? Your job?
Slashdot Mirror
OJ? Is that you?
Here's the full terms, note sections B, C, and D.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to claim benefits if they swear that they: (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas before July 20, 2005; (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to modify and alter the game's content using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; (c ) would not have bought the game had they known that consumers could modify and alter the game's content using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game could be modified and altered, if they thought this possible. Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of purchase.
I'll bet a responsible party for the chemical substitution is fingered and executed within a month or two.
Jesus, that sounds like work, not fun.
The victims, +5 modded:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=341919&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=21139759
Just as advertising is all over the real world, so will it be all over the virtual one.
What's to fear? Getting a cease-and desist in the mail that you infringed a patent? Calling the other party to negotiate terms? Seriously, Vonage just got a worst case "your whole business plan is based on stolen IP" verdict, and it's not the end of the world. They made a deal and the creator of Vonage goes on to make more money. Most patent awards are based on either REASONABLE royalties, the rest on lost profit. No big deal.
I think "fear of infringing a patent" is a BS excuse not to get to work and make something.
Your logic runs in circles to rationalize the outcome you are looking for: for-profit healthcare is bad, other for-profit endeavors are not. Central to your latest point seems to be the idea that a drug company should give away the "science" which they just spent money discovering, developing and testing. If not for the chance of a return on investment, that money WOULD NOT BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Sure, one could make a system solely dependant on altruistic donors for research money. Go ahead and start seeking donations for yours. Our system is much better funded and more productive, as it generates prosperity from a force much more powerful than altruism... for lack of a better word: greed.
Patents are good for 20 years, and drug testing usually chews up 10 of those, leaving just 10 to recoup costs and only then, if the marketplace demands your new drug, make a return. Innovation is encouraged by awarding patent protection to inventions, and prosperity is spread to all through the expiration of those patents in a free-market economy which benefits the most efficient producer.
I call BS that you can make a shelter anything like what our for-profit system can sell you at a price you are willing to pay. You could make a hut. If you are gifted you could make a log cabin. You could not make a modern house, especially not with the modern comforts (fridge, A/C, TV) all provided by FOR-PROFIT industries.
I call BS that the Amish "live that way." When the native americans encountered the militarily superior europeans, they lost everything. The amish are freeloading on national security provided by sophisticated weapons funded by taxpayers. Freeloading isn't "producing your own."
Innovation and subsequent efficient production are both necessary to maximize prosperity. A system that rewards innovators and efficient producers necessarily leaves the others unrewarded. The rewarded can shop for fantastic creations, while the unrewarded are left to their jealousy. In some, jealousy is motivation to develop marketable skills and the loop is closed. In the others, jealousy leads to socialist rhetoric.
They do, as does medicaid.
I'll be modded down for this, but how does for-profit food production and distribution sit with you? What about for-profit home building? What about whatever you do for a living? Don't you sell your labor to your employer at a profit, or have you been a volunteer all your life?
Here's a thought experiment... what if doctors and drug scientists UNIONIZED? Then whose side would you be on? You're not anti-union, are you?
No match for Robotic Frog countermeasure
(metallic ribbit sound)
they need a Metro Bus system that doesn't scare away everyone but those with no choice
Any idea how to do this without getting the ACLU all worked up?I know I'll get modded down for this but, if anyone from comcast is following this thread, I'd like to add my voice to others replying to this message and say this guy's use is far greater than anything I'd consider normal. If sending him a warning letter makes my (and my neighbor's) internet better, please do.
Sincerely,
your other kind of customer
From TFA: "When Danny sneaks up on an enemy, gamers can hold the A button down, at which point they will be given the option to pick from three different murder animations (on Wii, they get to act them out with Nintendo's motion-sensitive controllers). "
I hope this is 1300 cases of FBI administered misery.
I remember hearing the USSR sucked because there was no incentive to work harder or smarter... you couldn't reap the benefit of your own labor. Property wasn't yours. Making a better product that your fellow man wanted at a price he thought was fair didn't pay off for you, so innovation could only come from the gov't. The only way to improve your own standard of living in that system was to rise in politics.
As far as your statement about us not being like the USSR yet, well, the political left is working on it, just be patient.
I hooked a hose to my local grocer's restroom faucet for my car washing business. They told me to stop. I was like WTF!?! Your restroom policy doesn't forbid it. What's the hidden limit? Can I pay to hook up my hose? What if I use buckets? My business plan roxxers because I can exploit your bathroom policy. The manager suggested I buy water from the water company and I was all F-THAT.
Officer: "How many people had access to the key for an hour or more?"
reply: "Here's the short list."
...We'd all pay the same subscription price, regardless of how much we used. We'd all hog it to the point of rationing to prevent delivery system collapse.
The sensible solution to the information bandwith problem is the same as the solution we have in place for our fully utilized energy grid: make users pay more at times of full utilization. Run bittorrent at night only and you might stave off that day a bit.
Presumably you can change your lifestyle to mitigate heart disease when you're at risk, but with AIDS you're entirely dependant on medicine
A bias has to be deeply entrenched for anyone to say something this stupid.We wouldn't have this:
s _too_much_money_allocated_to_aids.html
Approximately $3040 is spent on AIDS research for every one death caused by the disease. In comparison, only $37 is spent on cardiovascular disease per death caused by the disease.
Source:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/152003/i
Wasn't this precident set when tobacco companies were sued for lung cancer?
and fast food for obesity?
and gun dealers for crime?
I'm curious what viewpoint you feel is being shut out. I regularly see news shows have 2 people on them, one "for" and one "against." The only viewpoints I've seen shut out of mainstream media in recent years are:
1) people who think the 9/11 "attacks" were accomplished with demolition incendiaries (shut out after several months of debate)
2) people who think the price of gasoline was manipulated for the 2006 elections (shut out by repeated market explanations) , and
3) people who think Barry Bonds didn't take performance enhancing drugs (maybe they couldn't find any believers of this for a counterpoint).
Let's acknowledge that a 5 year old's opinion on a topic outside their grasp isn't worthy of news broadcast, then acknowledge that some adults aren't much smarter about certain things, but a lot more biased. What kind of viewpoint does an ignorant, biased person come to? Nothing there's much of a market for.
Although the summary says the method will fill arbitrary holes, at the link that claim is not made, and in their examples they delete specific picture elements.
It is interesting to note that in the slashdot thread today about printer companies engaging in customer-unfriendly ink-lockout, the answers modded up are "use the free market, don't buy those brands."
Yet in this thread, health insurance companies are lumped as a group, and they are all "evil." That America is the one country where you can sue for just about anything, including denial of coverage, gets no mention. That the problem of being locked into your employer's plan was caused by Gov't wage controls passed in WWII is not mentioned, nor that the health insurance free market would work better if Gov't undid their damage by temporarily forbidding employer lock-in to one health insurance provider.
There are those who want to nationalize everything, those wanting to nationalize nothing, and those wanting to nationalize some things. The nationalize-some-things people get into spittle spraying, name-calling arguments over where the right place to draw the line is, and some even want to shut down the speech of others. Grow up. If you don't like google helping the speech of some corporations, do what the printer ink people are doing and stop using google.
What is this health insurance speech which is so horrible? Is it the question that if I'm entitled to national health care, and thus the labor and output of health care professionals and band-aid factory workers, am I also not entitled to a nationalized food production and distribution system? Certainly I need food more than health care. Those evil farmers work for profit. John Deere makes tractors for profit. Isn't that wrong? What about nationalized clothing production? Housing? Printer ink? IT services? Your job?