"I suppose you could assume that I was only writing about non-tape media when I wrote that but it's a bit of an odd conclusion to jump to."
"Redundant copies of cheap media gets the job done if the volume is not huge and you are prepared to do a format shift every few years, or if the data doesn't need to last many years."
Seems like the right conclusion to me. You go on to talk about tape which is not cheap media, is made for high volumes, and per your needs is needed to last for many years.
This all varies from state to state. Federal law is at least one person party to the conversation needs to be aware of the recording. Some state make it clear that all parties need to be aware of the recording.
Unless the end user has a habit of talking to their laptop, Aaron's would pretty clearly be in violation of the federal law.
Selling at MSRP is hardly "overpriced" and they regularly gave out coupons for large discounts and had sales.
Outside of technical books, I generally prefer going to a brick and mortar for books over a site like Amazon even if it does cost me 20% more. It is much easier to search through a topic or genre for a book that interests me when there is a huge shelf full of actual books then trying to do searches on the internet. I tend to buy books for pleasure reading on impulse, so again, the internet model does not fit my buying habits very well.
My understanding is that they are trying to update the warheads themselves as well as the delivery systems. This is both due to the fact that the existing ones are aging and becoming less reliable and because newer ones are more efficient, thus requiring fewer of them. This in turn also means lower maintenance costs going forward.
They certainly aren't trying to build new warheads to boost the count. We have treaties in place that prevent that.
Nah...for 95% of users, it'd be a dumb phone. Most users don't need anything that a smart phone does over a plain old phone.
But for those that do, there are several viable options and I wouldn't necessarily say that iOS is #1 on the list for the normal user. WebOS is easier to use, more user friendly, and has a bunch of features that iOS can't match (like synergy.) The lack of apps relative to iOS isn't a major problem as all of the important apps are there. You just don't have 1,000 fart apps and a lot of the other shovelware that iOS and Android do. Sure, there are a few real apps missing, but the average user probably doesn't download that many apps anyway.
But as you rightly indicate, hardware also plays a role and not everyone appreciates the vertical slider and hard keyboard. This is where Android is really strong. There are a lot of hardware choices for Android. iOS, on the other hand, only has one (two if you want to be technical about it, but the form factor is exactly the same) and WebOS has three at the moment (a fourth is due sometime soon) but really just two form factors and a couple of different sizes.
And if the phone is going to be used heavily for texting and email, you can't leave RIM out. The Blackberry keyboards are unequaled. The devices may not be much good for watching movies on them (I don't know why that would be important anyway) but they're top notch for text functions.
So for the *average* user, I'd probably put the iPhone 4th behind Blackberry, WebOS, and Android. Blackberry because it excels at texting which is really all the average person needs after making phone calls. WebOS because it is just an extremely friendly phone. And Android because the OS is roughly equivalent to iOS but there are a ton of hardware choices to tailor the experience to the user.
Sure you did. You helped to elect the jackwagons that approved the use of that software and hired the administrative people that put it into use. They have school board meetings where these types of things can be discussed before they lead to lawsuits. But that requires people like yourself to involve yourself in what is happening with your elected officials and thus your money.
Why would anyone want a 500W+ chip? In a laptop? That's just stupid. Even in a desktop, I wouldn't necessarily want a top end CPU/GPU chip on one die. That's a lot of heat and power concentrated in one spot. Ever wonder why there isn't a 6GHz CPU? That's why they didn't do this with top end parts. These integrated chips (no matter who is making them) are not intended to be top end products. It is simply not feasible.
AMD set their sights on the netbook/low end laptop market with their first release because that is a huge and growing market and it gives them a little more wiggle room in their designs. The product that they released was excellent for what they intended it to be. I'm sure that if someone bothered to dig up numbers, we'd see that significantly more netbooks were sold last year than $5000 gaming systems. You don't get market share by selling a dozen or two units of product.
As far as giving the competition an unsurmountable lead...hardly...Intel can't build a GPU worth a damn and Nvidia's ARM based CPU technology isn't exactly going to be much of a threat to anyone outside of the tablet market segment. Yeah, AMD is in real trouble there.
You are absolutely correct! 3,443 separate incidents per year is a much greater threat than a single incident...not a single incident per year, mind you, but a single incident period. Could a similar incident happen again? It is possible, but even less likely than before. So, should we worry more about something that is pretty much a once in a lifetime event (if that) or something that happens over 3,400 times every year?
I'm not saying to ignore the threat, but to keep it within perspective.
Don't make the mistake of looking at what it does to other people.
But that is the whole point of law.
Nevertheless, it is the act of taking something which does not belong to you which makes it theft.
Nothing was taken though. If I make a copy of something, be it a car, brownie, program, song, or whatever, the original is still right where the owner left it. What, exactly, did I take other than the brownie which was too tasty to pass up? Certainly not the idea as the original creator still has that as well.
You can argue that I deprived the original's owner of potential income that he could have requested either in return for my making a copy or for a copy he had made available himself, but in order for that argument to hold water, the original's owner would have had to make an offer that was acceptable and I would have needed to have had the intention to enter into such a deal. Otherwise, there was no potential income and thus it was not lost. There is no right to all mythical potential income. If I make weather rocks and try to sell them for a billion dollars each, I'm not automatically entitled to that money. If you make a copy of one of my weather rocks, you don't owe me a billion dollars.
It doesn't have nearly as many fart apps at the moment, but it is a much better OS IMHO. The hardware is ok, though not outstanding but it is improving with each release. Very healthy homebrew/hack community too and you don't have to root your phone to access those tweaks. Personally, I feel hamstrung whenever I use an iPhone, Android, or Blackberry device.
If nobody wanted to watch those shows for free, I don't see how charging people to watch them would have improved the audience. It isn't like SyFy is Apple or something.
You are assuming that the FBI would admit to having data that exonerated you and would be willing to turn it over. I find it more likely that they would deny it existed for as long as possible and then slap "State Secrets" on it so you can't have it anyway.
You assume that there are "a bunch of hackers" instead of just one or a small team working together. I don't think that is the case here.
You assume that this is a revenge hack, but the evidence does not support your contention. If it was a revenge hack, why was there no noise about it? We didn't get anything until Sony released some information. If it was a revenge hack, I would have expected to see data plastered all over the net before Sony even knew they were compromised. A revenge hack also wouldn't go as deep as this one obviously has or be as hard to trace. These guys have taken care to cover the extent of their intrusion (that or the people Sony brought in to investigate it are morons) and that wouldn't make sense if it was revenge. Revenge would also be something like taking the SOE game servers down, not quietly lifting all of the user data.
Taking all of the user data and hoping nobody notices hurts a lot of people, but not Sony. I don't see the revenge angle in that.
We also don't know when or how Sony was compromised. We only know when it was supposedly discovered.
Not exactly. The Constitution outlines how the government is supposed to act and what protections people have from the government. Unless a particular protection is specifically limited to citizens, it is universal. Things like the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence are universal. Military targets (and it is arguable whether Bin Laden should be considered a military target or a criminal...he wasn't acting on behalf of a foreign government) also fall under the Geneva Convention which could only serve to increase his protections, not diminish them (unless of course we chose to ignore that treaty or rules lawyer around it which is essentially the same thing.)
That said, they presumably went in to capture him and a firefight broke out. As much as bringing him to trial would have been a much better outcome, there isn't a whole lot that can be done about that.
And no, you are not responsible for what other people do. Your example would make landlords responsible for what their tenants do which is silly.
That said, you may be caught up in the investigation until you can be cleared, but that is really the point. These internet related crimes are not being investigated prior to there being a violent military style raid conducted. What should be happening is they gather real and comprehensive evidence and get a warrant based upon that, then serve the warrant in a civilized manner. We're talking about white collar types of crimes and not violent acts that warrant a 2am no-knock raid. They don't even really need to take the equipment off site since drives and cell phones can all be duplicated on the spot.
People are going to get killed because of these ridiculous raids...innocent people and police officers that are quite honestly just doing their jobs in most cases. Nobody wants that, especially over some of the areas that this kind of stuff is being expanded into. Pretty soon it will be no knock raids for file sharers and birthers.
It started even earlier than that. Microsoft had a guaranteed revenue stream from MS-DOS. Funnily enough, Novell was in a position at one time to cripple Microsoft by killing off their main source of revenue, but they never pulled the trigger and did it. Right about when MS-DOS 6 was released, Novell owned DR-DOS which was a superior version of DOS. DR-DOS didn't mean much of anything to Novell, certainly not to their bottom line. Had they given it away, sales of MS-DOS would have plummeted and Microsoft would have lost a huge chunk of their revenue just as they were releasing Windows NT. It would have been a tough blow to recover from, especially since Windows 95 was still two years out and their Office products were still fighting an uphill battle yet.
Slashdot Mirror
"I suppose you could assume that I was only writing about non-tape media when I wrote that but it's a bit of an odd conclusion to jump to."
"Redundant copies of cheap media gets the job done if the volume is not huge and you are prepared to do a format shift every few years, or if the data doesn't need to last many years."
Seems like the right conclusion to me. You go on to talk about tape which is not cheap media, is made for high volumes, and per your needs is needed to last for many years.
This all varies from state to state. Federal law is at least one person party to the conversation needs to be aware of the recording. Some state make it clear that all parties need to be aware of the recording.
Unless the end user has a habit of talking to their laptop, Aaron's would pretty clearly be in violation of the federal law.
Selling at MSRP is hardly "overpriced" and they regularly gave out coupons for large discounts and had sales.
Outside of technical books, I generally prefer going to a brick and mortar for books over a site like Amazon even if it does cost me 20% more. It is much easier to search through a topic or genre for a book that interests me when there is a huge shelf full of actual books then trying to do searches on the internet. I tend to buy books for pleasure reading on impulse, so again, the internet model does not fit my buying habits very well.
My understanding is that they are trying to update the warheads themselves as well as the delivery systems. This is both due to the fact that the existing ones are aging and becoming less reliable and because newer ones are more efficient, thus requiring fewer of them. This in turn also means lower maintenance costs going forward.
They certainly aren't trying to build new warheads to boost the count. We have treaties in place that prevent that.
Nah...for 95% of users, it'd be a dumb phone. Most users don't need anything that a smart phone does over a plain old phone.
But for those that do, there are several viable options and I wouldn't necessarily say that iOS is #1 on the list for the normal user. WebOS is easier to use, more user friendly, and has a bunch of features that iOS can't match (like synergy.) The lack of apps relative to iOS isn't a major problem as all of the important apps are there. You just don't have 1,000 fart apps and a lot of the other shovelware that iOS and Android do. Sure, there are a few real apps missing, but the average user probably doesn't download that many apps anyway.
But as you rightly indicate, hardware also plays a role and not everyone appreciates the vertical slider and hard keyboard. This is where Android is really strong. There are a lot of hardware choices for Android. iOS, on the other hand, only has one (two if you want to be technical about it, but the form factor is exactly the same) and WebOS has three at the moment (a fourth is due sometime soon) but really just two form factors and a couple of different sizes.
And if the phone is going to be used heavily for texting and email, you can't leave RIM out. The Blackberry keyboards are unequaled. The devices may not be much good for watching movies on them (I don't know why that would be important anyway) but they're top notch for text functions.
So for the *average* user, I'd probably put the iPhone 4th behind Blackberry, WebOS, and Android. Blackberry because it excels at texting which is really all the average person needs after making phone calls. WebOS because it is just an extremely friendly phone. And Android because the OS is roughly equivalent to iOS but there are a ton of hardware choices to tailor the experience to the user.
If you don't have the time or inclination to pay attention to it, why do you bitch about it?
Sure you did. You helped to elect the jackwagons that approved the use of that software and hired the administrative people that put it into use. They have school board meetings where these types of things can be discussed before they lead to lawsuits. But that requires people like yourself to involve yourself in what is happening with your elected officials and thus your money.
Very "A Scanner Darkly"
Why would anyone want a 500W+ chip? In a laptop? That's just stupid. Even in a desktop, I wouldn't necessarily want a top end CPU/GPU chip on one die. That's a lot of heat and power concentrated in one spot. Ever wonder why there isn't a 6GHz CPU? That's why they didn't do this with top end parts. These integrated chips (no matter who is making them) are not intended to be top end products. It is simply not feasible.
AMD set their sights on the netbook/low end laptop market with their first release because that is a huge and growing market and it gives them a little more wiggle room in their designs. The product that they released was excellent for what they intended it to be. I'm sure that if someone bothered to dig up numbers, we'd see that significantly more netbooks were sold last year than $5000 gaming systems. You don't get market share by selling a dozen or two units of product.
As far as giving the competition an unsurmountable lead...hardly...Intel can't build a GPU worth a damn and Nvidia's ARM based CPU technology isn't exactly going to be much of a threat to anyone outside of the tablet market segment. Yeah, AMD is in real trouble there.
I'm sure that they mean this game:
http://www.arcade-museum.com/game_detail.php?game_id=6769
The Pinballs games with 1943 in the title were Victorious 1943 and World Series 1943 and I don't think either would be referred to as simply 1943.
You are absolutely correct! 3,443 separate incidents per year is a much greater threat than a single incident...not a single incident per year, mind you, but a single incident period. Could a similar incident happen again? It is possible, but even less likely than before. So, should we worry more about something that is pretty much a once in a lifetime event (if that) or something that happens over 3,400 times every year?
I'm not saying to ignore the threat, but to keep it within perspective.
Don't make the mistake of looking at what it does to other people.
But that is the whole point of law.
Nevertheless, it is the act of taking something which does not belong to you which makes it theft.
Nothing was taken though. If I make a copy of something, be it a car, brownie, program, song, or whatever, the original is still right where the owner left it. What, exactly, did I take other than the brownie which was too tasty to pass up? Certainly not the idea as the original creator still has that as well.
You can argue that I deprived the original's owner of potential income that he could have requested either in return for my making a copy or for a copy he had made available himself, but in order for that argument to hold water, the original's owner would have had to make an offer that was acceptable and I would have needed to have had the intention to enter into such a deal. Otherwise, there was no potential income and thus it was not lost. There is no right to all mythical potential income. If I make weather rocks and try to sell them for a billion dollars each, I'm not automatically entitled to that money. If you make a copy of one of my weather rocks, you don't owe me a billion dollars.
There is no requirement to sell windows programs in their app store.
It doesn't have nearly as many fart apps at the moment, but it is a much better OS IMHO. The hardware is ok, though not outstanding but it is improving with each release. Very healthy homebrew/hack community too and you don't have to root your phone to access those tweaks. Personally, I feel hamstrung whenever I use an iPhone, Android, or Blackberry device.
I think that Amazon makes enough money in other places that they can take a loss on iOS and still manage without having to shut down operations.
If nobody wanted to watch those shows for free, I don't see how charging people to watch them would have improved the audience. It isn't like SyFy is Apple or something.
You are assuming that the FBI would admit to having data that exonerated you and would be willing to turn it over. I find it more likely that they would deny it existed for as long as possible and then slap "State Secrets" on it so you can't have it anyway.
They beat the air into submission.
Nobody on Intel with their new sockets every year or so, that's for sure.
I upgraded my AMD CPU not too long ago. No different than upgrading your video card.
They'd be right that their case would be plausible, but proof of plausibility is not enough for a conviction.
A Cisco 3825 is not a cheap router. It is also complex, large, and heavy (2U rackmount.)
And he borrowed it from the office. It would be dumb to use it for that purpose (not that it excludes the possibility.)
You assume that there are "a bunch of hackers" instead of just one or a small team working together. I don't think that is the case here.
You assume that this is a revenge hack, but the evidence does not support your contention. If it was a revenge hack, why was there no noise about it? We didn't get anything until Sony released some information. If it was a revenge hack, I would have expected to see data plastered all over the net before Sony even knew they were compromised. A revenge hack also wouldn't go as deep as this one obviously has or be as hard to trace. These guys have taken care to cover the extent of their intrusion (that or the people Sony brought in to investigate it are morons) and that wouldn't make sense if it was revenge. Revenge would also be something like taking the SOE game servers down, not quietly lifting all of the user data.
Taking all of the user data and hoping nobody notices hurts a lot of people, but not Sony. I don't see the revenge angle in that.
We also don't know when or how Sony was compromised. We only know when it was supposedly discovered.
Not exactly. The Constitution outlines how the government is supposed to act and what protections people have from the government. Unless a particular protection is specifically limited to citizens, it is universal. Things like the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence are universal. Military targets (and it is arguable whether Bin Laden should be considered a military target or a criminal...he wasn't acting on behalf of a foreign government) also fall under the Geneva Convention which could only serve to increase his protections, not diminish them (unless of course we chose to ignore that treaty or rules lawyer around it which is essentially the same thing.)
That said, they presumably went in to capture him and a firefight broke out. As much as bringing him to trial would have been a much better outcome, there isn't a whole lot that can be done about that.
Yes, he means your right to share.
And no, you are not responsible for what other people do. Your example would make landlords responsible for what their tenants do which is silly.
That said, you may be caught up in the investigation until you can be cleared, but that is really the point. These internet related crimes are not being investigated prior to there being a violent military style raid conducted. What should be happening is they gather real and comprehensive evidence and get a warrant based upon that, then serve the warrant in a civilized manner. We're talking about white collar types of crimes and not violent acts that warrant a 2am no-knock raid. They don't even really need to take the equipment off site since drives and cell phones can all be duplicated on the spot.
People are going to get killed because of these ridiculous raids...innocent people and police officers that are quite honestly just doing their jobs in most cases. Nobody wants that, especially over some of the areas that this kind of stuff is being expanded into. Pretty soon it will be no knock raids for file sharers and birthers.
It started even earlier than that. Microsoft had a guaranteed revenue stream from MS-DOS. Funnily enough, Novell was in a position at one time to cripple Microsoft by killing off their main source of revenue, but they never pulled the trigger and did it. Right about when MS-DOS 6 was released, Novell owned DR-DOS which was a superior version of DOS. DR-DOS didn't mean much of anything to Novell, certainly not to their bottom line. Had they given it away, sales of MS-DOS would have plummeted and Microsoft would have lost a huge chunk of their revenue just as they were releasing Windows NT. It would have been a tough blow to recover from, especially since Windows 95 was still two years out and their Office products were still fighting an uphill battle yet.