However, the news reporters didn't even blink... as if that was a valid reason for not voting for him.
I was appalled when I heard those comments, but the journalist was not there to pass judgment on the views of those he or she was interviewing; he or she was there to report those views in an unbiased manner. (Perhaps unfortunately) one of things about democracy is that I don't get to decide what reasons others should use to vote for or against someone. If those individuals want to display their ignorance and bigotry, they are free to do so, even if I personally wish someone would put them out of my misery.
Depends. As the other posters mentioned, varying yields across different regions affect how farmers are doing. Even in areas where yields are good, though, farmers who raise livestock (hogs especially) are suffering because animal feed costs are rising just like they are for you and me.
Our family's farm business just got out of the hog market because next to impossible to turn a profit. I blogged recently about the National Pork Producer's recent "Swine Industry Crisis" white paper. While the crop side of the business is doing quite well, that only accounts for about half of our gross income in normal years.
Also, consider that most farmers don't own all the land they farm, nor do they exist independently. Input prices are going up across the board as suppliers realize that farmers are seeing increased incomes. Seed, fertilizer, rents, pesticides, fuel, machinery, etc.; all are quickly going up. Things will come back to a temporary equilibrium but the soaring prices we're seeing for corn, soybeans, etc, are unlikely to be permanent (especially since there appears to be a significant speculative impact on prices right now, which has not traditionally been an important factor in the price of this type of commodity). While input prices generally go up when output prices rise, the inverse is not (as) true.
Yes, yes, very interesting, because we're all going to go back to pre-"Green Revolution" agriculture techniques. </sarcasm> If you're really advocating that we all go back to that type of agriculture, fine, I guess we can agree to disagree. If not, try reading about so-called High-yielding varieties, which are generally F1 hybrids. Using F1 hybrids, due to their genetic makeup, results in much higher yields than one could obtain using subsequent generations. Thus the "need" to continually repurchase seed from the producers: the need arises from wanting to realize the higher yields! Note that this has nothing to do with the GM debate, and has been true for years. Monsanto's new BT seed may not have that limitation, for example if the traits were put in place using GM instead of selective breeding, which may be why they resort to contractual obligations and patents to protect their revenue streams (which of course is what allows them to continually develop new, higher-yielding seed).
As far as Monsanto's claims of higher yields, I can only say that in test plots on our farm, the triple-stack BT corn has substantially outperformed the competitors. We've had good experiences with their products. Despite the seed being initially more expensive, the increased yields and reduced inputs make the difference more than worth it. If there was no ROI, we would use the less expensive seed.
I'm not personally familiar with Indian cotton, but I am generally skeptical of the claims of in articles using words like "betrayed" in their titles. After reading the article, it doesn't appear that the author tried to contact Monsanto for comment. There is also no link to the scientific study that was performed, which seems suspect to me. The organizations that were contacted have also been known to exaggerate to make a point.
That said, it appears that there was significant agricultural mismanagement going on. Many were sold BT seed that turned out to not be BT. (Interestingly, the author appears to argue that this is an injustice; however, if the BT seed performed as badly as is made out, these fraudsters may actually have been doing their victims a favor!) The article goes on to say,
Similarly, there is a general lack of enforcement of 20 percent non-Bt refugia, designed to slow the evolution of pest resistance. The several generations of bollworm that live annually on a crop can lead to 60 percent resistance in a single year.
If the proper management techniques to avoid pest resistance buildup aren't being used, it isn't surprising that the crops suffered or increased pesticide use was required. (By the way, without further explanation, the statistics that farmers didn't realize significant pesticide cost reduction are not compelling. For example, there are pesticides that are designed for use in corn and soybeans that must be applied before a pest problem becomes apparent, because by that time it is too late to effectively apply the pesticide. So, it's certainly possible that the farmers in question simply over-applied the pesticide.)
Finally, the article mentions that the BT cotton was designed to fight pests that are prevalent in the cotton fields of the United States:
The Bt cotton is genetically engineered to produce the Cry1Ac toxin that kills the main cotton pests in the US, the tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens) and the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella), but is not particularly toxic to the Indian pests, cotton bollworms (Helicoverpa zea and Helicoverpa armigera).
While I won't argue that if true, these specific hybrids should not have been sold in the Indian market, failure there is not a strong argument against GM agriculture in general. It is unsurprising that genes designed to protect against one species of pest don't work particularly well against other species; indeed, focusing on specific pests is one of the points of GM!
That's not true, unless you mean "paid once per year." For many years, farmers have been buying "seed" corn, soybeans, etc., year after year, because they genuinely get higher yields by doing so! The higher yields are more than sufficient to make the additional cost worth it. Even when talking about non-GM seed, this is true. I think the idea of signing agreements to this effect is relatively new, but the big seed companies couldn't have grown to where they are today without farmers buying seed from them every year.
Disclaimer: my cousin works for Monsanto, my family has grown corn and soybeans for over 100 years, and we currently use Monsanto seed for about 40% of our land.
You're being facetious, but isn't the built-in FTP client standards compliant? I haven't heard of anyone having to change their FTP sites to work around issues in Microsoft's FTP implementation.
... and you end up with an animal that suffers many of the same problems a human does. It... doesn't taste as good.
Now, I completely agree with what you're trying to say (my family owns a hog farm and I've seen firsthand the kinds of conditions in which these animals are being raised), but the way in which you said it struck me as funny.:-)
From the Apple Store page for preordering Leopard:
* The Family Pack Software License Agreement allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home, or condominium, including student members who are primary residents of that household but reside at a separate on-campus location. This license does not extend to business or commercial users.
I don't think they consider dorms to be households, especially since they mention students as potential members of other primary residencies. It would be interesting to see what they have to say about fraternities or other similar housing clubs. I suppose it's not entirely clear. Their SLA page doesn't have any additional detail that adds to the information from the footnote I quoted above.
Well, in theory, the law should be the same for everyone ? So if you speed in your <$1000 rustbucket, it'll get crushed too.
It seems to me that under the current system, the law is the same for everyone. Crushing cars as a punishment is meant to add additional deterrent to those that are wealthy enough to disregard your average speeding ticket fine. The problem is that I'm thinking anyone wealthy enough to be able to afford a supercar is going to have a number of slightly less supercars at their disposal, or at the very least enough cash to pay someone else to drive them around in style. Your driver of the $1000 rustbucket probably can't afford to replace it, so he's taking the bus. Once again, the law has disproportionate impact on the less wealthy.
If you're going to do this, why not just pirate it outright? Either way you're violating the terms of the license agreement. Not that I'm advocating copyright infringement...
Their caretakers (parents, legal guardians, what have you) are allowed oversight to make exception (for example, your parents can let you drive on private property, drink, etc. as a minor. But as a minor you can not purchase these things, must be purchased by an adult and done under the consent/monitoring of a parent. This extends very readily to the consumption and purchase of movies, pornography and - oh my - software).
I don't think that's entirely true, at least not in all jurisdictions. You correctly point out that minors can drive on private property, but that's because drivers' licensing laws don't restrict who can operate a vehicle, they restrict who can operate a vehicle on public roads. They don't have anything to say about driving on private property.
OTOH, I'm fairly certain that alcohol laws (at least in Illinois, where I'm from) forbid the possession of alcohol by minors, regardless of where they're located (i.e., even if they're on their parents' property), who gave it to them, or who they're with. I'm not sure if they specifically forbid consumption, but it's fairly difficult to consume something without possessing it first, and in any event I do think that consumption is forbidden as well.
Parents/legal guardians are not necessarily allowed to overrule these guidelines for their kids. It may be unlikely that they'll be caught, but that doesn't mean that they're actually allowed to do it.
Well, it's one of those things where if I have two stores right next to one another, no cash, and I'm in a hurry, I'll pick the one where I don't have to show ID just so I don't have to dig it out of my wallet. About the only time I have to use my ID these days is when a new guy starts working at the liquor store where I buy beer (they have an excellent selection and good prices, so I almost always go there unless I have a good reason not too), and they don't recognize me (and they're being extra careful). Otherwise, it's just an annoyance.
You're probably right that I shouldn't actively avoid merchants that ask for ID, and it's not exactly that...
Besides, it's not like it's hard to get a fake ID these days, and the type of person who could print a fraudulent card could just as easily print a fraudulent ID. I'm pretty careful with my wallet, so maybe if I got pickpocketed there's a small window during which someone could try to use my real credit cards, but otherwise I think I'd report them stolen before too much damage was done.
Of course, now that I say all this I'll probably have something bad happen to me tomorrow. Such is life...
Most customers do not mind this, and some are actually glad we do it. The ones who get angry and walk out are usually using a frauded card.
I'm not the type that will get upset with the person at the till if they ask for ID for a credit card transaction (actually, I'll either avoid that merchant in the future or make sure I have the cash to cover the transaction before entering the store, just because of the inconvenience), but how do you know that the angry ones are using fraudulent cards? Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just your assumption?
Yes and no... The biggest thing Napster had going for it was the easy ability to search through everyone's libaries to find what that for which you were looking. The file transfer portion was not the important bit. What was shut down was the centralized index of everyone's library, which caused everyone to switch to distributed P2P like Kazaa, etc.
If the courts were trying to shut down the "searching other random people's libraries" portion of P2P traffic, then fine, my argument doesn't apply. But this acoustic fingerprinting method doesn't try to stop the searching part, it tries to stop the file transfer part. Once the file is in transit I don't see how one can infer intent. Searching others' libraries and then downloading could show some kind of implied intent, but just the file transfer could mean any number of things, many of which could be legitimate.
Many people have been commenting that acoustic fingerprinting is how ISPs can differentiate between legal and illegal traffic. What I'm confused by, though, is why files that match are automatically determined to be illegal traffic. Are MP3 files I ripped myself from CDs I purchased and still own considered to be illegal? If not, how can an ISP know whether a particular transfer is between me and some random P2P person, or between me and another machine under my control? If the transfer is between two machines I control, is that actually an illegal transfer?
The problem is that there is no way to know, simply by inspecting packets or analysing traffic flow, whether the users involved have the appropriate licenses to perform the action they're performing.
While all of the phones I have received from them are locked to only work with Cingular service, I have had complete control over what I do with the phone in terms of ringtones, java mini-apps, etc
This isn't entirely true. I thought the same thing when I signed up with Cingular about a year and a half ago, when I got a Sony Ericsson W600i from them. It was sold to me as being able to run all my Java apps, etc, that worked on the phone. Then I tried to run one of the various SSH clients on it. It failed because it wasn't signed (by either SE or Cingular, didn't matter, I think) and Cingular sets up their phones to requiring signed apps to access data ports other than 80 (which goes through their proxy). Cingular's developer site has the specifics of what needs manufacturer signing, carrier signing, and what will work unsigned using their firmware.
Now, if you buy an unbranded GSM phone, you can certainly use it with all its features on their network. I got fed up and bought a SE K550i online, and it works without any hassle. I was really upset originally because I had intended to start writing my own apps for my W600i that would take advantage of the internet connectivity. Not much point to that if you have to pay them to sign the application... which is far too expensive for a homebrewer.
On the other hand, my work phone is from Verizon, and that one is completely locked down. I had heard that the RAZR is a pretty cool phone... Not at all with Verizon's firmware. Oh well.
How is it that they think they can judge intent? Even if they're only going to look at major Hollywood productions, how do they know that a given transmission is pirated, and not the exact same transmission, but with license agreements in place to allow the distribution? What's the difference between a download from iTunes Store and a download from another host online? Are they going to maintain a whitelist of "legitimate" sites that can distribute copyrighted material?
Nevermind the fact that if they're going to start protecting the interests of the major studios, why aren't they going to "protect" the interests of the rest of us? How do they know the difference between me uploading my photography to my website and someone else sending copies around that infringe on my copyrights?
The entire concept is ridiculous. There is technically no difference between a legal and an illegal transfer. It's all in the offline licenses and agreements that have (or have not) been made.
Surely the shop owner can download the source code, as per GPLv3 requirements, and compile it for any hardware.
Actually, I don't think it's required that the source be distributed to just anyone; my understanding is that the source must be distributed to those to whom a binary has been distributed. So if the only way to get the binary is to buy the hardware, I hope no one is suggesting that the customer just toss the hardware for which they paid, so that they can run the software on different hardware with their modifications? Surely that doesn't make sense.
Most of the access points at the coffee shops around here don't mention anything of "Free Wi-Fi access with purchase!". While it could be argued that the "with purchase" is implied in those situations, I think it could be easily argued in a court that since there was no specific mention of it, patronage of the establishment was not required.
IMHO, if an access point is unsecured and available, it should be fair game for public use without any implied fine print.
Furthermore, unless the "with purchase" stipulation is visible from wherever the Wi-Fi can be accessed, I don't think restrictions should apply. How is the person sitting in his car in the parking lot to know that there is a restriction on the (otherwise completely unprotected) Wi-Fi he's able to pull in from outside the establishment? What about the person who can pull in the signals using a directional attenna from a farther distance?
Personally, I think that since Wi-Fi uses shared, unlicensed frequencies, that part of the network should be available to all regardless how it's restricted. Now, if you want to put a firewall of some sort to prevent unauthorized users from getting past the bridge from Wi-Fi to ethernet (or whatever), that's certainly your business because at that point you're no longer using shared resources.
I think this is pretty ridiculous. When I was in high school, I created a Doom level based on the actual blueprints of the high school. (My dad was/is on the school board and he had copies at home due to a proposed addition being discussed at the time.) Many people at the school knew of and saw the completed project, and no one found it to be a big deal. I even used a school-owned digital camera to create textures based on the actual classrooms and hallways. This was right around the same time as Columbine, but luckily for me the administration was level-headed (possibly due to the support of my father, I don't know).
Without RTFA, I don't know if there were additional indicators beyond just creating the map in this case, but if he simply created the school's layout I think this is a huge overreaction. It takes a lot of work and talent to create good maps, and I don't see how it is an indicator of violence at all.
MS has been sucking up to the RIAA and giving in to whatever they want. Remember, MS agreed to give $1 from the sale of each Zune to Universal "because we all know these things are just repositories for stolen music." (Sorry, I don't remember which music exec said that quote, and it's mostly from memory.) Of course, if you buy a Red iPod Nano, $10 goes to the fund to fight AIDS in Africa... (OK, maybe I shouldn't have added that last part.)
Microsoft should market the Zune similarly to the RED marketing campaign (of which the red Nano is just a part), except instead of fighting AIDS, the Zune is fighting poverty amongst major record label execs! If that's not a good cause, I don't know what is.
(to which the appropriate response is, "Pasty-skinned enginerds... get out of our bars!" There was an argument to this effect in the DI when I was at UIUC 2-3 years ago...)
I don't think it does... It wouldn't be very convenient since it doesn't have a keyboard, although it's possible that one could be plugged into the USB ports.
Your point was correct, though. The Wii and the 360 can do most of those things, so the PS3 would look under-featured if it couldn't as well. Still, it's not like playing videos and MP3s should be expensive, and if Sony is really using that as an excuse as to why the PS3 is so expensive, that's fairly insulting to our intelligence.
We don't need to watch movies, listen to MP3s, view images, surf the web, do our dishes, and drive to work using the same machine.
Can't really fault Sony on that. The Xbox 360 does four of those and the Wii does three of them.
I haven't figured out how to surf the web on my 360, so I can only assume that I'm woefully underestimating either its ability to do my dishes or drive me to work. It doesn't look very comfortable to sit on, so I guess I'm leaning towards it being able to do my dishes. On the other hand, I already have a dishwasher and my car doesn't have heated seats, so maybe driving me to work would be better. Decisions, decisions....
In all seriousness, though, the ability to play MP3s is pretty awesome. I've really enjoyed being able to blow away baddies in Gears of War and the new Splinter Cell while listening to my own soundtrack. (Yes, I know that this was available on the last generation, at least sometimes, but I think that Microsoft may have made it mandatory this time around.)
Slashdot Mirror
I was appalled when I heard those comments, but the journalist was not there to pass judgment on the views of those he or she was interviewing; he or she was there to report those views in an unbiased manner. (Perhaps unfortunately) one of things about democracy is that I don't get to decide what reasons others should use to vote for or against someone. If those individuals want to display their ignorance and bigotry, they are free to do so, even if I personally wish someone would put them out of my misery.
Depends. As the other posters mentioned, varying yields across different regions affect how farmers are doing. Even in areas where yields are good, though, farmers who raise livestock (hogs especially) are suffering because animal feed costs are rising just like they are for you and me.
Our family's farm business just got out of the hog market because next to impossible to turn a profit. I blogged recently about the National Pork Producer's recent "Swine Industry Crisis" white paper. While the crop side of the business is doing quite well, that only accounts for about half of our gross income in normal years.
Also, consider that most farmers don't own all the land they farm, nor do they exist independently. Input prices are going up across the board as suppliers realize that farmers are seeing increased incomes. Seed, fertilizer, rents, pesticides, fuel, machinery, etc.; all are quickly going up. Things will come back to a temporary equilibrium but the soaring prices we're seeing for corn, soybeans, etc, are unlikely to be permanent (especially since there appears to be a significant speculative impact on prices right now, which has not traditionally been an important factor in the price of this type of commodity). While input prices generally go up when output prices rise, the inverse is not (as) true.
Yes, yes, very interesting, because we're all going to go back to pre-"Green Revolution" agriculture techniques. </sarcasm> If you're really advocating that we all go back to that type of agriculture, fine, I guess we can agree to disagree. If not, try reading about so-called High-yielding varieties, which are generally F1 hybrids. Using F1 hybrids, due to their genetic makeup, results in much higher yields than one could obtain using subsequent generations. Thus the "need" to continually repurchase seed from the producers: the need arises from wanting to realize the higher yields! Note that this has nothing to do with the GM debate, and has been true for years. Monsanto's new BT seed may not have that limitation, for example if the traits were put in place using GM instead of selective breeding, which may be why they resort to contractual obligations and patents to protect their revenue streams (which of course is what allows them to continually develop new, higher-yielding seed).
As far as Monsanto's claims of higher yields, I can only say that in test plots on our farm, the triple-stack BT corn has substantially outperformed the competitors. We've had good experiences with their products. Despite the seed being initially more expensive, the increased yields and reduced inputs make the difference more than worth it. If there was no ROI, we would use the less expensive seed.
I'm not personally familiar with Indian cotton, but I am generally skeptical of the claims of in articles using words like "betrayed" in their titles. After reading the article, it doesn't appear that the author tried to contact Monsanto for comment. There is also no link to the scientific study that was performed, which seems suspect to me. The organizations that were contacted have also been known to exaggerate to make a point.
That said, it appears that there was significant agricultural mismanagement going on. Many were sold BT seed that turned out to not be BT. (Interestingly, the author appears to argue that this is an injustice; however, if the BT seed performed as badly as is made out, these fraudsters may actually have been doing their victims a favor!) The article goes on to say,
If the proper management techniques to avoid pest resistance buildup aren't being used, it isn't surprising that the crops suffered or increased pesticide use was required. (By the way, without further explanation, the statistics that farmers didn't realize significant pesticide cost reduction are not compelling. For example, there are pesticides that are designed for use in corn and soybeans that must be applied before a pest problem becomes apparent, because by that time it is too late to effectively apply the pesticide. So, it's certainly possible that the farmers in question simply over-applied the pesticide.)
Finally, the article mentions that the BT cotton was designed to fight pests that are prevalent in the cotton fields of the United States:
While I won't argue that if true, these specific hybrids should not have been sold in the Indian market, failure there is not a strong argument against GM agriculture in general. It is unsurprising that genes designed to protect against one species of pest don't work particularly well against other species; indeed, focusing on specific pests is one of the points of GM!
That's not true, unless you mean "paid once per year." For many years, farmers have been buying "seed" corn, soybeans, etc., year after year, because they genuinely get higher yields by doing so! The higher yields are more than sufficient to make the additional cost worth it. Even when talking about non-GM seed, this is true. I think the idea of signing agreements to this effect is relatively new, but the big seed companies couldn't have grown to where they are today without farmers buying seed from them every year.
Disclaimer: my cousin works for Monsanto, my family has grown corn and soybeans for over 100 years, and we currently use Monsanto seed for about 40% of our land.
Cygwin?
But I do agree with the rest of your comment.
British prawns go to China to be shelled
Not milk and pasteurization, but a fairly similar concept.
You're being facetious, but isn't the built-in FTP client standards compliant? I haven't heard of anyone having to change their FTP sites to work around issues in Microsoft's FTP implementation.
Now, I completely agree with what you're trying to say (my family owns a hog farm and I've seen firsthand the kinds of conditions in which these animals are being raised), but the way in which you said it struck me as funny. :-)
From the Apple Store page for preordering Leopard:
I don't think they consider dorms to be households, especially since they mention students as potential members of other primary residencies. It would be interesting to see what they have to say about fraternities or other similar housing clubs. I suppose it's not entirely clear. Their SLA page doesn't have any additional detail that adds to the information from the footnote I quoted above.
It seems to me that under the current system, the law is the same for everyone. Crushing cars as a punishment is meant to add additional deterrent to those that are wealthy enough to disregard your average speeding ticket fine. The problem is that I'm thinking anyone wealthy enough to be able to afford a supercar is going to have a number of slightly less supercars at their disposal, or at the very least enough cash to pay someone else to drive them around in style. Your driver of the $1000 rustbucket probably can't afford to replace it, so he's taking the bus. Once again, the law has disproportionate impact on the less wealthy.
If you're going to do this, why not just pirate it outright? Either way you're violating the terms of the license agreement. Not that I'm advocating copyright infringement...
I don't think that's entirely true, at least not in all jurisdictions. You correctly point out that minors can drive on private property, but that's because drivers' licensing laws don't restrict who can operate a vehicle, they restrict who can operate a vehicle on public roads. They don't have anything to say about driving on private property.
OTOH, I'm fairly certain that alcohol laws (at least in Illinois, where I'm from) forbid the possession of alcohol by minors, regardless of where they're located (i.e., even if they're on their parents' property), who gave it to them, or who they're with. I'm not sure if they specifically forbid consumption, but it's fairly difficult to consume something without possessing it first, and in any event I do think that consumption is forbidden as well.
Parents/legal guardians are not necessarily allowed to overrule these guidelines for their kids. It may be unlikely that they'll be caught, but that doesn't mean that they're actually allowed to do it.
Well, it's one of those things where if I have two stores right next to one another, no cash, and I'm in a hurry, I'll pick the one where I don't have to show ID just so I don't have to dig it out of my wallet. About the only time I have to use my ID these days is when a new guy starts working at the liquor store where I buy beer (they have an excellent selection and good prices, so I almost always go there unless I have a good reason not too), and they don't recognize me (and they're being extra careful). Otherwise, it's just an annoyance.
You're probably right that I shouldn't actively avoid merchants that ask for ID, and it's not exactly that...
Besides, it's not like it's hard to get a fake ID these days, and the type of person who could print a fraudulent card could just as easily print a fraudulent ID. I'm pretty careful with my wallet, so maybe if I got pickpocketed there's a small window during which someone could try to use my real credit cards, but otherwise I think I'd report them stolen before too much damage was done.
Of course, now that I say all this I'll probably have something bad happen to me tomorrow. Such is life...
I'm not the type that will get upset with the person at the till if they ask for ID for a credit card transaction (actually, I'll either avoid that merchant in the future or make sure I have the cash to cover the transaction before entering the store, just because of the inconvenience), but how do you know that the angry ones are using fraudulent cards? Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just your assumption?
Yes and no... The biggest thing Napster had going for it was the easy ability to search through everyone's libaries to find what that for which you were looking. The file transfer portion was not the important bit. What was shut down was the centralized index of everyone's library, which caused everyone to switch to distributed P2P like Kazaa, etc.
If the courts were trying to shut down the "searching other random people's libraries" portion of P2P traffic, then fine, my argument doesn't apply. But this acoustic fingerprinting method doesn't try to stop the searching part, it tries to stop the file transfer part. Once the file is in transit I don't see how one can infer intent. Searching others' libraries and then downloading could show some kind of implied intent, but just the file transfer could mean any number of things, many of which could be legitimate.
Many people have been commenting that acoustic fingerprinting is how ISPs can differentiate between legal and illegal traffic. What I'm confused by, though, is why files that match are automatically determined to be illegal traffic. Are MP3 files I ripped myself from CDs I purchased and still own considered to be illegal? If not, how can an ISP know whether a particular transfer is between me and some random P2P person, or between me and another machine under my control? If the transfer is between two machines I control, is that actually an illegal transfer?
The problem is that there is no way to know, simply by inspecting packets or analysing traffic flow, whether the users involved have the appropriate licenses to perform the action they're performing.
This isn't entirely true. I thought the same thing when I signed up with Cingular about a year and a half ago, when I got a Sony Ericsson W600i from them. It was sold to me as being able to run all my Java apps, etc, that worked on the phone. Then I tried to run one of the various SSH clients on it. It failed because it wasn't signed (by either SE or Cingular, didn't matter, I think) and Cingular sets up their phones to requiring signed apps to access data ports other than 80 (which goes through their proxy). Cingular's developer site has the specifics of what needs manufacturer signing, carrier signing, and what will work unsigned using their firmware.
Now, if you buy an unbranded GSM phone, you can certainly use it with all its features on their network. I got fed up and bought a SE K550i online, and it works without any hassle. I was really upset originally because I had intended to start writing my own apps for my W600i that would take advantage of the internet connectivity. Not much point to that if you have to pay them to sign the application... which is far too expensive for a homebrewer.
On the other hand, my work phone is from Verizon, and that one is completely locked down. I had heard that the RAZR is a pretty cool phone... Not at all with Verizon's firmware. Oh well.
How is it that they think they can judge intent? Even if they're only going to look at major Hollywood productions, how do they know that a given transmission is pirated, and not the exact same transmission, but with license agreements in place to allow the distribution? What's the difference between a download from iTunes Store and a download from another host online? Are they going to maintain a whitelist of "legitimate" sites that can distribute copyrighted material?
Nevermind the fact that if they're going to start protecting the interests of the major studios, why aren't they going to "protect" the interests of the rest of us? How do they know the difference between me uploading my photography to my website and someone else sending copies around that infringe on my copyrights?
The entire concept is ridiculous. There is technically no difference between a legal and an illegal transfer. It's all in the offline licenses and agreements that have (or have not) been made.
Actually, I don't think it's required that the source be distributed to just anyone; my understanding is that the source must be distributed to those to whom a binary has been distributed. So if the only way to get the binary is to buy the hardware, I hope no one is suggesting that the customer just toss the hardware for which they paid, so that they can run the software on different hardware with their modifications? Surely that doesn't make sense.
Furthermore, unless the "with purchase" stipulation is visible from wherever the Wi-Fi can be accessed, I don't think restrictions should apply. How is the person sitting in his car in the parking lot to know that there is a restriction on the (otherwise completely unprotected) Wi-Fi he's able to pull in from outside the establishment? What about the person who can pull in the signals using a directional attenna from a farther distance?
Personally, I think that since Wi-Fi uses shared, unlicensed frequencies, that part of the network should be available to all regardless how it's restricted. Now, if you want to put a firewall of some sort to prevent unauthorized users from getting past the bridge from Wi-Fi to ethernet (or whatever), that's certainly your business because at that point you're no longer using shared resources.
I think this is pretty ridiculous. When I was in high school, I created a Doom level based on the actual blueprints of the high school. (My dad was/is on the school board and he had copies at home due to a proposed addition being discussed at the time.) Many people at the school knew of and saw the completed project, and no one found it to be a big deal. I even used a school-owned digital camera to create textures based on the actual classrooms and hallways. This was right around the same time as Columbine, but luckily for me the administration was level-headed (possibly due to the support of my father, I don't know).
Without RTFA, I don't know if there were additional indicators beyond just creating the map in this case, but if he simply created the school's layout I think this is a huge overreaction. It takes a lot of work and talent to create good maps, and I don't see how it is an indicator of violence at all.
Microsoft should market the Zune similarly to the RED marketing campaign (of which the red Nano is just a part), except instead of fighting AIDS, the Zune is fighting poverty amongst major record label execs! If that's not a good cause, I don't know what is.
Get out of our library!
(to which the appropriate response is, "Pasty-skinned enginerds... get out of our bars!" There was an argument to this effect in the DI when I was at UIUC 2-3 years ago...)
I don't think it does... It wouldn't be very convenient since it doesn't have a keyboard, although it's possible that one could be plugged into the USB ports.
Your point was correct, though. The Wii and the 360 can do most of those things, so the PS3 would look under-featured if it couldn't as well. Still, it's not like playing videos and MP3s should be expensive, and if Sony is really using that as an excuse as to why the PS3 is so expensive, that's fairly insulting to our intelligence.
In all seriousness, though, the ability to play MP3s is pretty awesome. I've really enjoyed being able to blow away baddies in Gears of War and the new Splinter Cell while listening to my own soundtrack. (Yes, I know that this was available on the last generation, at least sometimes, but I think that Microsoft may have made it mandatory this time around.)