By coincidence? Are you really that daft? The kidnappers weren't stupid. They KNEW there was a blindspot there.
And you actually think Reality TV has any bearing on reality? Most of it controlled, and the rest, merely because they KNOW they are on camera, is altered. And if you're talking about those 'Scariest Police Chase' shows, the narrator makes up most of his 'facts' on the spot. They're even less truthful than the evening news.
If you do something ILLEGAL outside your home, you DESERVE to get caught. If not, WHY do we have laws in the first place?
These cameras will not create new laws all by themselves. They will only serve to enforce the ones that exist. Don't ban cameras, ban crooked politicians. Ban crooked laws.
I have no idea why you assumed 'dave420' smokes pot at all, but I have a feeling you think everyone does. There are only a tiny minority of you pot smokers out there. Most of the people out their value either their body or the law enough to stay away from it.
I never said to lie to the judge. I said to lie to the buyer. If the buyer doesn't know there's anything wrong, he won't sue. If you said 'It didn't pass inspection and I can't legally sell it now' he's not likely to argue at all.
On the other hand, it IS possible for the buyer to back out on EBay. They'll get a visible strike on their record (oh noes!) and that's it. They are not forced to conclude the sale. Why should the seller be any different?
At this point, the dumbest thing the seller did was tell the truth. He should have claimed the aircraft failed an inspection, then realized his 'mistake' and continued the sale with the second buyer. He'd have been free and clear.
In a perfect world, neither side would ever back down from an agreement. This isn't a perfect world.
Side note: I'm not an advocate of lying, but if you're going to do 1 nasty thing (break the agreement) don't try to make yourself feel better by doing something proper (telling the truth about why.) It's just plain dumb.
That was my first thought as well. People -can- get all the latest Britney Spears stuff free (illegally, but they don't care) and yet they still continue to buy her albums and go to her concerts as well. Any band that can only give their music away obviously isn't good enough.
There are even artists online that give significant portions of their music away for free, like Jonathan Coulton. You can listen to ALL of his music, in full, from his website and download quite a few of the songs in MP3 format for free. I liked it well enough that I paid the $70 and got the entire collection. This is by far the most music I've bought in a long time. Do I like 100% of it? No. But I like the majority of it.
I see -nowhere- that Google has said these advertisements will be audible or will be played before a call. That's just FUD by the article writer. Until Google has said -anything- we don't know what their plans are.
In fact, Google has not even said the phones WILL be ad-revenue supported, as far as I can tell. There's a couple quotes from Google on there, but they only deal with Google apps on the phones, not the calling plans.
Oh come on. That's no proof of intent at all. You haven't proved that they never intended to tape more than 20 seconds. You've only proved that they only DID tape more than 20 seconds. I guarantee you that the employee set to watch the crowd for video cameras CAN get to her in 20 seconds.
1) See red light. 2) Rush to seat. 3) Stop camera.
Yeah, even from the other side of the theatre, this is possible.
And that's assuming they didn't stop as soon as they knew they were being watched.
No, all -we- know is that they weren't allowed to tape, they KNOW they weren't allowed to tape, and they taped. Then we have a bunch of people's words on what happened and why. We aren't nearly close enough to the incident to have any fscking clue what actually happened.
It occurs to me, though, that if are taping 20 seconds of a film to show a sibling (torture a sibling? 'I saw it and you didn't!') then doing it in the MIDDLE of a day's fun at the mall seems rather odd. They surely aren't going to want to watch the rest of your nauseating tape of you playing with your boyfriend in the mall.
Unlike any other? I dunno, sounding a LOT like Fable 1 so far. Free-roaming so vast that one of the devs got lost, for example... Yeah, sure it was.
You'd think PM would have learned his lesson on Fable 1 about opening his mouth, and I think I remember him SAYING he learned his lesson (Why did I believe him?) but here he goes again.
Wrong. If the next MS Office didn't support Word.docs, it wouldn't be popular at all. It's the same with any other commonly used format in business. People choose an application first because it does what they need, and second because it does what they want.
At the moment, nothing. But that's the same as when XP launched and there's plenty that works on XP but not 98/ME now. Or even 2000, despite how similar it is.
Just the general differences will end up 'forcing' lazy developers to make their software 'Vista only'. The big-name software is almost always compatible with older versions of Windows, it's the little stuff that trips you up.
That's the idiot-speak, not the actual claim. It bears only superficial resemblance to the claim, which is also just as invalid, but for other reasons.
Nowhere in the actual claim does it state that the computer does the breaking, only that 'partition'ed programs can be run in parallel and gives a graphic of this. And it only says this in the background info, not the description of the claim.
They're forcing me to submit to it if I wish to enjoy my plans for the day. It's like saying you aren't forced to submit to a search at an airport, as you can choose the alternate: Time in jail. It's force.
And oddly enough, since they've been less crazy with the 'no outside food!' policy, I've bought -more- of their food, not less.
"each of said processors further including local memory, whereby one or more of said processors processes data in its local memory before, after, and during a phase of processing;"
Yes, further including the local memory, which means it is NOT the multi-access memory they are stating.
The PS3 does apparently use 4 RAM chips, but they don't appear to be multi-access. Elpida makes them, and I couldn't find ANY of their offerings that were 'multi-access'.
2 - "2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the number of processors is equal to the number of multi-access memory modules."
Ouch, pretty sure there's 7 cores to that Cell processor, and NOT 7 RAM chips. (There's 4.)
6 - "including a plurality of multi-access memory modules,"
Too bad, guys, you lost your lawsuit before you started. The others are all based on 1 or 6, and losing both of those kills the whole thing for sure.
"Prolonged inhalation of excessive amounts of any dust may cause lung damage. Use of this product as intended does not result in inhalation of excessive amounts of dust."
They rate it as low risk mainly BECAUSE it's not airborne during normal use. This study says that it is. It also says it's a possible carcinogen.
I just picked a cartridge at random, so there may be some out there that are much worse, but this pretty much shows that they didn't spend much time dealing with the effects of airborne toner, because they didn't think it would be a problem.
As for the 'big city' 'pollution is common' statement... I instantly got an image of Neo-Tokyo where everyone was wearing masks because the smog was so hazardous that day. -sigh- I'm starting to consider it myself, and I don't even work/live in a big city.
You haven't actually shown any statistics, and there are a few obvious reasons why 'losses' don't necessarily have anything to do with 'leaks'. Losses has a lot to do with having too big a budget for how good a movie actually is, for one.
It also occurs that your definition of 'losses' is probably 'money they would have made' and we have -no- idea what that number is. Until you can provide concrete proof of what they would have grossed the first weekend had it not been leaked, you haven't got much to stand on there. You're dangerously close to parroting the MPAA and RIAA, actually, and their numbers have been proven to be horribly skewed.
It didn't manage to invalidate this one! Why would they think it would work -for- them, if it didn't prevent them from getting this patent?
We don't know WHY they chose to try to patent this. They could be money-grubbing assholes, or slimey lawyers, or patent trolls... Or they could be a company that wanted to make absolutely sure that nobody could patent this later and take it from them. So they submit a patent and 1 of 2 things happens:
1) They don't get the patent, but they've got a legal document preventing anyone else from getting it, covering their asses nicely.
2) They get the patent, covering their asses nicely.
If they truly plan to make money on this, the little money they spent on the patent was worth it, no matter the outcome.
They are using the 'mobility fee' as a way to get the car's price down to manageable levels. If you simply think of it as a $50k car, but with lifetime batteries (which are insanely expensive), the real cost of the car comes clear. ($34k battery and ~$16k car.) In addition, when viewed as monthly fee, they can't charge you interest on the $34k, but only the $16k for the car. For anyone who can afford this car, this is a very good deal indeed.
For the rest of us, no. It's insane. I want to spend ~$8k-$10k on a car, max. (My last 2 were ~$4k each.) It gets me to work and back, and serves very little other real use. I never underestood paying so much for just a car, no matter how fancy.
While there are those that would watch a pirate version of the movie instead of pay the theatre, there are also those that wouldn't see it in the theatre at any price, and only getting it free is worth it. You can't even draw a line between them, since each movie is of different value to each person.
Yes, rampant piracy would increase prices, but there's no proof of that happening. Someone above cited a verified study that says that isn't happening, and it's the only legit one, according to them. (I haven't bothered looking into it.)
But wait! You then tell people to not pay for the theatre, but wait until it's on DVD and buy it then instead of pirating. That would STILL raise your theatre prices that you were complaining about.
Let's talk about these people with cameras, though. How many do you think there are? Do you think each theatre sees 1 per movie? Maybe every 10 or 100 theatres? I would be willing to bet that only 1 in 1000 theatres has someone with a camera for any given movie, if that many. Since each theatre has hundreds or thousands of customers per movie, they are inconveniencing customers for a 1 in a million shot at catching someone, and IF they catch that person, there's probably someone in a another theatre that doesn't get caught.
All they are doing is pissing off legit customers. Just like DRM, this is pointless and only serves to piss off legit customers.
So imposing additional restrictions after you've paid for you ticket is okay by you? I don't call that voluntary if it means losing a couple hours of my life and ruining my plans for fun for the day.
At that point, if I -really- had to see the movie, I'd submit to it. (I'm having a hard time naming any movie that fits this category.)
If I didn't, I'd be yelling up a storm, letting everyone in hearing range know exactly what I thought about their bullshit searches. I might even demand that they call the police and get this settled once and for all. If they wouldn't, I would. "Hello, Police? Yes, I'm being forced to submit to an illegal search." That should get some attention.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to sue, as I really don't like the court system, but I'd sure let everyone I talked to for the next few years know about it.
And lastly, it'd be a long damned time before I set foot in that theatre ever again.
The theatre I go to here (in central Florida) used to bad all food and drink, then went ot just banning food, then non-candy food. They used to ask to look inside your shopping bag -IF- they could see something through it that they didn't allow. They don't bother with that at all, and only twice in the last year did they say anything at all, and that was only 'It's just candy right? We can't allow other food in.' They didn't ask to see it.
Ticket prices are low, the food is always good, and the theatres and bathrooms are almost always very clean. (At least to the eye.) And they promptly refund your money if you walk out of a movie and ask for it. That's how to run a theatre, not this 'everyone is a criminal' attitude.
Slashdot Mirror
By coincidence? Are you really that daft? The kidnappers weren't stupid. They KNEW there was a blindspot there.
And you actually think Reality TV has any bearing on reality? Most of it controlled, and the rest, merely because they KNOW they are on camera, is altered. And if you're talking about those 'Scariest Police Chase' shows, the narrator makes up most of his 'facts' on the spot. They're even less truthful than the evening news.
How the FUCK did this get modded insightful?
If you do something ILLEGAL outside your home, you DESERVE to get caught. If not, WHY do we have laws in the first place?
These cameras will not create new laws all by themselves. They will only serve to enforce the ones that exist. Don't ban cameras, ban crooked politicians. Ban crooked laws.
I have no idea why you assumed 'dave420' smokes pot at all, but I have a feeling you think everyone does. There are only a tiny minority of you pot smokers out there. Most of the people out their value either their body or the law enough to stay away from it.
I never said to lie to the judge. I said to lie to the buyer. If the buyer doesn't know there's anything wrong, he won't sue. If you said 'It didn't pass inspection and I can't legally sell it now' he's not likely to argue at all.
On the other hand, it IS possible for the buyer to back out on EBay. They'll get a visible strike on their record (oh noes!) and that's it. They are not forced to conclude the sale. Why should the seller be any different?
At this point, the dumbest thing the seller did was tell the truth. He should have claimed the aircraft failed an inspection, then realized his 'mistake' and continued the sale with the second buyer. He'd have been free and clear.
In a perfect world, neither side would ever back down from an agreement. This isn't a perfect world.
Side note: I'm not an advocate of lying, but if you're going to do 1 nasty thing (break the agreement) don't try to make yourself feel better by doing something proper (telling the truth about why.) It's just plain dumb.
That was my first thought as well. People -can- get all the latest Britney Spears stuff free (illegally, but they don't care) and yet they still continue to buy her albums and go to her concerts as well. Any band that can only give their music away obviously isn't good enough.
There are even artists online that give significant portions of their music away for free, like Jonathan Coulton. You can listen to ALL of his music, in full, from his website and download quite a few of the songs in MP3 format for free. I liked it well enough that I paid the $70 and got the entire collection. This is by far the most music I've bought in a long time. Do I like 100% of it? No. But I like the majority of it.
I see -nowhere- that Google has said these advertisements will be audible or will be played before a call. That's just FUD by the article writer. Until Google has said -anything- we don't know what their plans are.
In fact, Google has not even said the phones WILL be ad-revenue supported, as far as I can tell. There's a couple quotes from Google on there, but they only deal with Google apps on the phones, not the calling plans.
"Protip: the vast majority of generalisations are horribly flawed."
:D
Oh, that's gonna sting when you think about it.
Oh come on. That's no proof of intent at all. You haven't proved that they never intended to tape more than 20 seconds. You've only proved that they only DID tape more than 20 seconds. I guarantee you that the employee set to watch the crowd for video cameras CAN get to her in 20 seconds.
1) See red light.
2) Rush to seat.
3) Stop camera.
Yeah, even from the other side of the theatre, this is possible.
And that's assuming they didn't stop as soon as they knew they were being watched.
No, all -we- know is that they weren't allowed to tape, they KNOW they weren't allowed to tape, and they taped. Then we have a bunch of people's words on what happened and why. We aren't nearly close enough to the incident to have any fscking clue what actually happened.
It occurs to me, though, that if are taping 20 seconds of a film to show a sibling (torture a sibling? 'I saw it and you didn't!') then doing it in the MIDDLE of a day's fun at the mall seems rather odd. They surely aren't going to want to watch the rest of your nauseating tape of you playing with your boyfriend in the mall.
Unlike any other? I dunno, sounding a LOT like Fable 1 so far. Free-roaming so vast that one of the devs got lost, for example... Yeah, sure it was.
You'd think PM would have learned his lesson on Fable 1 about opening his mouth, and I think I remember him SAYING he learned his lesson (Why did I believe him?) but here he goes again.
I would volunteer if I could get original retail for all of it. (Especially since I didn't pay anywhere near that.)
Wrong. If the next MS Office didn't support Word .docs, it wouldn't be popular at all. It's the same with any other commonly used format in business. People choose an application first because it does what they need, and second because it does what they want.
At the moment, nothing. But that's the same as when XP launched and there's plenty that works on XP but not 98/ME now. Or even 2000, despite how similar it is.
Just the general differences will end up 'forcing' lazy developers to make their software 'Vista only'. The big-name software is almost always compatible with older versions of Windows, it's the little stuff that trips you up.
Yeah, I was just gonna post 'Long story short: CFS is better. -yawn-'
./ers to RTFA?
Why not just say that, instead of trying to get a bunch of
That's the idiot-speak, not the actual claim. It bears only superficial resemblance to the claim, which is also just as invalid, but for other reasons.
Nowhere in the actual claim does it state that the computer does the breaking, only that 'partition'ed programs can be run in parallel and gives a graphic of this. And it only says this in the background info, not the description of the claim.
It obviously wasn't a 'pick only one' poll. It's possible to upgrade to vista AND have linux plans AND roll out mac osx stuff all at once.
They're forcing me to submit to it if I wish to enjoy my plans for the day. It's like saying you aren't forced to submit to a search at an airport, as you can choose the alternate: Time in jail. It's force.
And oddly enough, since they've been less crazy with the 'no outside food!' policy, I've bought -more- of their food, not less.
There's 1 more piece of interest, then.
"each of said processors further including local memory, whereby one or more of said processors processes data in its local memory before, after, and during a phase of processing;"
Yes, further including the local memory, which means it is NOT the multi-access memory they are stating.
1 - "a plurality of multi-access memory modules;"
The PS3 does apparently use 4 RAM chips, but they don't appear to be multi-access. Elpida makes them, and I couldn't find ANY of their offerings that were 'multi-access'.
2 - "2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the number of processors is equal to the number of multi-access memory modules."
Ouch, pretty sure there's 7 cores to that Cell processor, and NOT 7 RAM chips. (There's 4.)
6 - "including a plurality of multi-access memory modules,"
Too bad, guys, you lost your lawsuit before you started. The others are all based on 1 or 6, and losing both of those kills the whole thing for sure.
http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/house hold/brands?tbl=brands&id=8020008&query=Toner&sear chas=type&prodcat=all
"Prolonged inhalation of excessive amounts of any dust may cause lung damage. Use of this product as intended does not result in inhalation of excessive amounts of dust."
They rate it as low risk mainly BECAUSE it's not airborne during normal use. This study says that it is. It also says it's a possible carcinogen.
I just picked a cartridge at random, so there may be some out there that are much worse, but this pretty much shows that they didn't spend much time dealing with the effects of airborne toner, because they didn't think it would be a problem.
As for the 'big city' 'pollution is common' statement... I instantly got an image of Neo-Tokyo where everyone was wearing masks because the smog was so hazardous that day. -sigh- I'm starting to consider it myself, and I don't even work/live in a big city.
You haven't actually shown any statistics, and there are a few obvious reasons why 'losses' don't necessarily have anything to do with 'leaks'. Losses has a lot to do with having too big a budget for how good a movie actually is, for one.
It also occurs that your definition of 'losses' is probably 'money they would have made' and we have -no- idea what that number is. Until you can provide concrete proof of what they would have grossed the first weekend had it not been leaked, you haven't got much to stand on there. You're dangerously close to parroting the MPAA and RIAA, actually, and their numbers have been proven to be horribly skewed.
It didn't manage to invalidate this one! Why would they think it would work -for- them, if it didn't prevent them from getting this patent?
We don't know WHY they chose to try to patent this. They could be money-grubbing assholes, or slimey lawyers, or patent trolls... Or they could be a company that wanted to make absolutely sure that nobody could patent this later and take it from them. So they submit a patent and 1 of 2 things happens:
1) They don't get the patent, but they've got a legal document preventing anyone else from getting it, covering their asses nicely.
2) They get the patent, covering their asses nicely.
If they truly plan to make money on this, the little money they spent on the patent was worth it, no matter the outcome.
They are using the 'mobility fee' as a way to get the car's price down to manageable levels. If you simply think of it as a $50k car, but with lifetime batteries (which are insanely expensive), the real cost of the car comes clear. ($34k battery and ~$16k car.) In addition, when viewed as monthly fee, they can't charge you interest on the $34k, but only the $16k for the car. For anyone who can afford this car, this is a very good deal indeed.
For the rest of us, no. It's insane. I want to spend ~$8k-$10k on a car, max. (My last 2 were ~$4k each.) It gets me to work and back, and serves very little other real use. I never underestood paying so much for just a car, no matter how fancy.
While there are those that would watch a pirate version of the movie instead of pay the theatre, there are also those that wouldn't see it in the theatre at any price, and only getting it free is worth it. You can't even draw a line between them, since each movie is of different value to each person.
Yes, rampant piracy would increase prices, but there's no proof of that happening. Someone above cited a verified study that says that isn't happening, and it's the only legit one, according to them. (I haven't bothered looking into it.)
But wait! You then tell people to not pay for the theatre, but wait until it's on DVD and buy it then instead of pirating. That would STILL raise your theatre prices that you were complaining about.
Let's talk about these people with cameras, though. How many do you think there are? Do you think each theatre sees 1 per movie? Maybe every 10 or 100 theatres? I would be willing to bet that only 1 in 1000 theatres has someone with a camera for any given movie, if that many. Since each theatre has hundreds or thousands of customers per movie, they are inconveniencing customers for a 1 in a million shot at catching someone, and IF they catch that person, there's probably someone in a another theatre that doesn't get caught.
All they are doing is pissing off legit customers. Just like DRM, this is pointless and only serves to piss off legit customers.
So imposing additional restrictions after you've paid for you ticket is okay by you? I don't call that voluntary if it means losing a couple hours of my life and ruining my plans for fun for the day.
At that point, if I -really- had to see the movie, I'd submit to it. (I'm having a hard time naming any movie that fits this category.)
If I didn't, I'd be yelling up a storm, letting everyone in hearing range know exactly what I thought about their bullshit searches. I might even demand that they call the police and get this settled once and for all. If they wouldn't, I would. "Hello, Police? Yes, I'm being forced to submit to an illegal search." That should get some attention.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to sue, as I really don't like the court system, but I'd sure let everyone I talked to for the next few years know about it.
And lastly, it'd be a long damned time before I set foot in that theatre ever again.
The theatre I go to here (in central Florida) used to bad all food and drink, then went ot just banning food, then non-candy food. They used to ask to look inside your shopping bag -IF- they could see something through it that they didn't allow. They don't bother with that at all, and only twice in the last year did they say anything at all, and that was only 'It's just candy right? We can't allow other food in.' They didn't ask to see it.
Ticket prices are low, the food is always good, and the theatres and bathrooms are almost always very clean. (At least to the eye.) And they promptly refund your money if you walk out of a movie and ask for it. That's how to run a theatre, not this 'everyone is a criminal' attitude.
Sony's recent statements proves what their attitude towards lying is. There's no need to argue it.
Having lied in the last week, I see no problem thinking they will continue to lie in the forseeable future whenever it suits their fancy.