They actually do, surprisingly. I would say in my HS there are about as many BB's as iPhones. They don't buy it BECAUSE its a blackberry, but because they have generally nice full keyboards for the texting they love to do.
How do these thinks MS does affect you in any way? Who CARES if they get some sub-par file standard through? Its not making anyone use it, if it sucks no one will use it. If no one uses it, then at most MS wasted their money. I don't care if MS spreads FUD about linux, I use linux when I need to anyway. I don't care if they sue people over linux patents, I haven't seen any of these suits result in a hampering of linux development AT ALL. Companies sue over patents so they can SETTLE and set up a patent sharing agreement, you very rarely see any company axe a product as a result of a patent suit. As for copying Apple, great! I like Apple's stuff, why not copy it and sell it to me cheaper and make it PC compatible. I am all about that.
Its so silly when geeks get worked up over MS and the stuff they do, stuff that doesn't affect you at all.
This same "unintended acceleration" issue happened in the 80's and after much hullabaloo it was determined that the cause of this is people hotting the gas when they mean to break. People have the occasional brain misfire which causes them to hit the gas instead of the break (maybe while "breaking" just as they are about to shift into reverse), this causes them to push harder on what they believe is already the break (but actually the accelerator) and thus a certain lurch through a storefront window. Possibly also on the interstate where they mean to tap on their break in response to sudden stimulus (car in front breaks or swerves) and hit the gas and lurch, and lurch again when they try to hit the break harder.
I would bet anyone $1 (im poor) that this will be found out to be the case and that the recalls were totally unnecessary.
Or we could simply reenact a lot of the regulations which were already in place 80 years ago.
A new tax system is a non-starter. Its not going to happen and it merely allows people and pols to avoid talking about an actual issue (as in, reforming the tax system that exists rather than arguing about a hypothetical tax system).
Ah but no other country in the world can consume like we can.
You can't sell a $500 iPad in China, no one will buy it. In fact, most Asian consumers DEMAND extremely low margins on the products they buy. Thats why advertising isn't big there like it is here, advertising there is just having the best price.
Good point, and I might add "They are legally required to be amoral and self-serving." This is also a relatively new requirement, it used to be corporations were legally required to serve the public good. This was not seen as a socialist measure as it was seen as an anti-capitalist measure. Under current law, if Steve Jobs wanted to make the world a better place and move all manufacturing to the US (at a loss to his company) he couldn't do that, it would be illegal for him to act against his shareholder's interests. If though there was an exemption for acts contributing to the public good, he might be able to.
Seems though Republicans have convinced us all that whats in the public good is allowing people to get really really rich. Not making it EASIER to get rich mind you, just making it easier to go from rich to OMG Rich.
Exactly. Libertards and Paultards seem to think that companies should be given wide discretion in their operations because of "freedom" but actually, once companies are totally unrestricted they BECOME to gov't.
If Ron Paul (or any hard libertarian) had his way, the gov't would be reduced to little more than an army. You may think that army can protect us. What happens though when Lockheed/Boeing/Blackwater Megacorp says "We aren't selling you supplies anymore." What can the US army do?
Heres a promise: Elect me president, and on my first day I will sign an executive order that coorporations in the US can't write down losses to subsidiaries, international or otherwise.
I would close that hole with extreme prejudice.
This place is so lucky I am not omnipotent.
The problem is that a lot of this copyrighted work vanishes. Out of print orphaned works molder away and our culture decays.
I'd be for copyright lasting only the life of its original creator. If the goal is to encourage creativity then that would suffice. We should not encourage creativity to the point we end up denying our cultural products to our society. Imagine if no one could read Shakespeare because it was copyrighted and the published decided to quit printing it. Copyright, if too extreme, ends up denying a society the benefits of such work, and their should be a societal interest in balancing creative incentive (copyrights) and cultural dissemination (making something open).
Fortunately, the internet makes this irrelevant. As bandwidth and storage increase, copyright will have no meaning. Either everyone will be huge pirates (bittorrent) or companies will start giving things away for free as incentive for some other monetization scheme (Hulu).
Also, as more and more artists take note of open access pioneers (like Coulton and Doctorow) they will realize that giving something away is a financially sustainable business model.
Just so you know, "legislating from the bench" means a judge rules that something is already covered by existing law, they don't make new law. They can't just make things up. If lawmakers don't like it they should write more specific laws.
It sets the bar so low that now the users of such devices ARE allowed to have a "callous disregard for safety."
Its funny, because every now and then a fairly serious injury will happen in one of the university labs I work in or near. No one ever sues, and they say "yeah I was a dumbass for not being more careful with." They are often embarrassed at their carelessness.
In fact, this reminds me of another issue. So we have lots of random chemicals around, all have safety info on the label nearly all of them (even harmless things like our $50 can of table salt) will say something like "Wear safety goggles when using, can cause skin irritation, toxic, warning warning!" Even particularly dangerous chemicals will have the same warnings. Companies put this on the label to protect against lawsuits, but the effect is that unless you have experience its difficult to know how dangerous a chemical is. The result is, inexperienced people are often careless. Once an undergrad was working with THF, which is normally done in the hood, but it was being used so she decided to do it at her bench since based on her experience most things we do in the hood are because its smelly, not because its particularly toxic. Naturally everyone knew (by smell) what was up and stopped her, but the warnings on the bottle were no more severe than whats on a bottle of acetone, acetic acid, ethanol etc.
The point is, people don't respect hazardous disciplines. Our litigious society makes this worse with "safety exhaustion" (people learning to ignore warnings on things which we all do, how many people use a stepladder alone?), and the result is more injury.
Cutting timber is another thing untrained people try to do and hurt themselves. Usually its when they are cutting up a felled tree and get their teeth knocked out when they cut through it and release hidden tension.
Or rednecks who decide to do the wiring on their house themselves, or inexperienced people who want to keep cattle/horses/pigs/chimpanzees as pets.
Or my favorite example, dumbasses who blow themselves up cooking meth. Ether is flammable y'all!
Speaking of, Breaking Bad starts Sunday!!
You're being dumb. Yes, in the US you can't copyright facts (you can in Australia though). However, if I write a biography of Jeffrey Dahmer, composed entirely of dry dry facts, that doesn't mean you can distribute my book without my permission. The copyright applies to the arrangement of words, not to their meaning or content.
So yeah, your argument is stupid.
Never meant to be published?
It WAS published. MS "published" it when they wrapped it up in a pdf and sent it to people. You need not sell something to publish it. I can publish a book with an inkjet, paper, and a stapler. I can write "copywrite me 2010" on it and you can't distribute it.
I am pretty sure all you have to do to copyright something is just to put it in a fixed form and maybe say "Hey this is copyrighted."
There is no "filing" for copyright.
You sound like a complete ass.
The Sims is not an MMORPG.
In fact, the very fact that this guy doesn't know of an UO-like RPG which is out now is because there isn't one, because people don't want to do that.
If they did, they could play Second Life, its still around, and its still free.
1) Getting your shit stolen isn't fun.
2) A game has to be pretty lame if you're spending time in your virtual "house." I don't need to log on to sit around my house.
Since when is your fingerprint (even an image of it) private information? Is your hair color private? Eye color? What other publicly visible morphology is private?
If fingerprints are so private how come you don't wear gloves everywhere? You're putting your fingerprints on everything! Would you put your SSN on everything you touched?
Also, the mere fact that the university does this, and no one cares, indicated that, well, no one cares.
I think the deeper issue with publisher's hating ebooks is not fixed price points, but the idea that with an ebook a publisher is just unnecessary. Sure a lot of authors are still going to want editors and proofreaders, but there is no need for the integration of all of that into a giant inefficient publishing house which is only going to limit you in the digital world (by deciding say, they won't sell through the biggest book retailer online).
Publishers hate ebooks because when they get really popular authors are going to start just publishing things themselves, and cut the publisher out.
The record companies feel the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
They actually do, surprisingly. I would say in my HS there are about as many BB's as iPhones. They don't buy it BECAUSE its a blackberry, but because they have generally nice full keyboards for the texting they love to do.
Most HS kids I interact with don't have (or want) an iPhone. In fact, they told me yesterday my iPad was lame and I was lame for buying it.
Thats a very interesting take on apps. Apps are just features that aren't built in and you have to pay for.
How do these thinks MS does affect you in any way? Who CARES if they get some sub-par file standard through? Its not making anyone use it, if it sucks no one will use it. If no one uses it, then at most MS wasted their money. I don't care if MS spreads FUD about linux, I use linux when I need to anyway. I don't care if they sue people over linux patents, I haven't seen any of these suits result in a hampering of linux development AT ALL. Companies sue over patents so they can SETTLE and set up a patent sharing agreement, you very rarely see any company axe a product as a result of a patent suit. As for copying Apple, great! I like Apple's stuff, why not copy it and sell it to me cheaper and make it PC compatible. I am all about that. Its so silly when geeks get worked up over MS and the stuff they do, stuff that doesn't affect you at all.
This same "unintended acceleration" issue happened in the 80's and after much hullabaloo it was determined that the cause of this is people hotting the gas when they mean to break. People have the occasional brain misfire which causes them to hit the gas instead of the break (maybe while "breaking" just as they are about to shift into reverse), this causes them to push harder on what they believe is already the break (but actually the accelerator) and thus a certain lurch through a storefront window. Possibly also on the interstate where they mean to tap on their break in response to sudden stimulus (car in front breaks or swerves) and hit the gas and lurch, and lurch again when they try to hit the break harder. I would bet anyone $1 (im poor) that this will be found out to be the case and that the recalls were totally unnecessary.
Or we could simply reenact a lot of the regulations which were already in place 80 years ago. A new tax system is a non-starter. Its not going to happen and it merely allows people and pols to avoid talking about an actual issue (as in, reforming the tax system that exists rather than arguing about a hypothetical tax system).
Ah but no other country in the world can consume like we can. You can't sell a $500 iPad in China, no one will buy it. In fact, most Asian consumers DEMAND extremely low margins on the products they buy. Thats why advertising isn't big there like it is here, advertising there is just having the best price.
Good point, and I might add "They are legally required to be amoral and self-serving." This is also a relatively new requirement, it used to be corporations were legally required to serve the public good. This was not seen as a socialist measure as it was seen as an anti-capitalist measure. Under current law, if Steve Jobs wanted to make the world a better place and move all manufacturing to the US (at a loss to his company) he couldn't do that, it would be illegal for him to act against his shareholder's interests. If though there was an exemption for acts contributing to the public good, he might be able to. Seems though Republicans have convinced us all that whats in the public good is allowing people to get really really rich. Not making it EASIER to get rich mind you, just making it easier to go from rich to OMG Rich.
Exactly. Libertards and Paultards seem to think that companies should be given wide discretion in their operations because of "freedom" but actually, once companies are totally unrestricted they BECOME to gov't. If Ron Paul (or any hard libertarian) had his way, the gov't would be reduced to little more than an army. You may think that army can protect us. What happens though when Lockheed/Boeing/Blackwater Megacorp says "We aren't selling you supplies anymore." What can the US army do? Heres a promise: Elect me president, and on my first day I will sign an executive order that coorporations in the US can't write down losses to subsidiaries, international or otherwise. I would close that hole with extreme prejudice. This place is so lucky I am not omnipotent.
Google should just delist all Viacom internet properties from its search engine. See how they like that.
The problem is that a lot of this copyrighted work vanishes. Out of print orphaned works molder away and our culture decays. I'd be for copyright lasting only the life of its original creator. If the goal is to encourage creativity then that would suffice. We should not encourage creativity to the point we end up denying our cultural products to our society. Imagine if no one could read Shakespeare because it was copyrighted and the published decided to quit printing it. Copyright, if too extreme, ends up denying a society the benefits of such work, and their should be a societal interest in balancing creative incentive (copyrights) and cultural dissemination (making something open). Fortunately, the internet makes this irrelevant. As bandwidth and storage increase, copyright will have no meaning. Either everyone will be huge pirates (bittorrent) or companies will start giving things away for free as incentive for some other monetization scheme (Hulu). Also, as more and more artists take note of open access pioneers (like Coulton and Doctorow) they will realize that giving something away is a financially sustainable business model.
Just so you know, "legislating from the bench" means a judge rules that something is already covered by existing law, they don't make new law. They can't just make things up. If lawmakers don't like it they should write more specific laws.
Imagine if Apple or MS or a Linux distro company were required to implement patented "netnanny" software to keep kids away from porn.
It sets the bar so low that now the users of such devices ARE allowed to have a "callous disregard for safety." Its funny, because every now and then a fairly serious injury will happen in one of the university labs I work in or near. No one ever sues, and they say "yeah I was a dumbass for not being more careful with ." They are often embarrassed at their carelessness.
In fact, this reminds me of another issue. So we have lots of random chemicals around, all have safety info on the label nearly all of them (even harmless things like our $50 can of table salt) will say something like "Wear safety goggles when using, can cause skin irritation, toxic, warning warning!" Even particularly dangerous chemicals will have the same warnings. Companies put this on the label to protect against lawsuits, but the effect is that unless you have experience its difficult to know how dangerous a chemical is. The result is, inexperienced people are often careless. Once an undergrad was working with THF, which is normally done in the hood, but it was being used so she decided to do it at her bench since based on her experience most things we do in the hood are because its smelly, not because its particularly toxic. Naturally everyone knew (by smell) what was up and stopped her, but the warnings on the bottle were no more severe than whats on a bottle of acetone, acetic acid, ethanol etc.
The point is, people don't respect hazardous disciplines. Our litigious society makes this worse with "safety exhaustion" (people learning to ignore warnings on things which we all do, how many people use a stepladder alone?), and the result is more injury.
Cutting timber is another thing untrained people try to do and hurt themselves. Usually its when they are cutting up a felled tree and get their teeth knocked out when they cut through it and release hidden tension.
Or rednecks who decide to do the wiring on their house themselves, or inexperienced people who want to keep cattle/horses/pigs/chimpanzees as pets.
Or my favorite example, dumbasses who blow themselves up cooking meth. Ether is flammable y'all!
Speaking of, Breaking Bad starts Sunday!!
How about not using a table saw if you don't know how to not stick your thumb in the blade?
You're being dumb. Yes, in the US you can't copyright facts (you can in Australia though). However, if I write a biography of Jeffrey Dahmer, composed entirely of dry dry facts, that doesn't mean you can distribute my book without my permission. The copyright applies to the arrangement of words, not to their meaning or content. So yeah, your argument is stupid.
Never meant to be published? It WAS published. MS "published" it when they wrapped it up in a pdf and sent it to people. You need not sell something to publish it. I can publish a book with an inkjet, paper, and a stapler. I can write "copywrite me 2010" on it and you can't distribute it.
I am pretty sure all you have to do to copyright something is just to put it in a fixed form and maybe say "Hey this is copyrighted." There is no "filing" for copyright. You sound like a complete ass.
The Sims is not an MMORPG. In fact, the very fact that this guy doesn't know of an UO-like RPG which is out now is because there isn't one, because people don't want to do that. If they did, they could play Second Life, its still around, and its still free.
1) Getting your shit stolen isn't fun. 2) A game has to be pretty lame if you're spending time in your virtual "house." I don't need to log on to sit around my house.
Since when is your fingerprint (even an image of it) private information? Is your hair color private? Eye color? What other publicly visible morphology is private? If fingerprints are so private how come you don't wear gloves everywhere? You're putting your fingerprints on everything! Would you put your SSN on everything you touched? Also, the mere fact that the university does this, and no one cares, indicated that, well, no one cares.
Can we not post so called "articles" from British "newspapers" anymore? Except maybe The Economist?
The guy dropped out of high school. Geeky is more than awkward.
I think the deeper issue with publisher's hating ebooks is not fixed price points, but the idea that with an ebook a publisher is just unnecessary. Sure a lot of authors are still going to want editors and proofreaders, but there is no need for the integration of all of that into a giant inefficient publishing house which is only going to limit you in the digital world (by deciding say, they won't sell through the biggest book retailer online). Publishers hate ebooks because when they get really popular authors are going to start just publishing things themselves, and cut the publisher out. The record companies feel the same way.
Conscience? Really? Do the gays in Saudi Arabia have faulty conscience? Is it morally wrong to smoke pot? Why do you equate law with morality?