They might not like it, but that's the way that the court system works. If you don't include the pleading then you can't later add it if more evidence turns up. Or at least that's my understanding of it. You have to file that paperwork in order to get to the discovery phase of the trial and at that point you get to subpoena records and depose witnesses and such. Prior to that you're just giving it your best shot with the evidence in hand, it's quite possible that discovery will turn up more information.
Bad idea, you get caught doing that or they even suspect you've done that and you're in real trouble. Not sure what precisely it comes under but you're definitely going to be in more trouble than just owning up to it and paying the fine they offer you.
Because we all know that nobody ever gets sued for somebody else's piracy. I mean seriously, given the sloppy investigative methods and the lack of rigor in making sure that the person sued is who they think they are, it's a wonder that any of them are actually liable for infringing on anything.
There is no right to make a living. Or at least that's the conclusion I take from the right's war on the living wage they've been waging for the last 30 or so years. Which makes me wonder if there is no right to a living wage, then why the hell is there suddenly a right to make money for some people but not the ones that actually produce wealth?
Creative industries are necessary for the soul and the spirit, but nobody ever starved to death for failing to watch enough crappy movies. Seems to me that perhaps the corporations that produce them might want to consider pricing the materials in a way which is affordable and adhering to the laws in place.
Sure that doesn't make it OK to pirate materials, but it's much less likely that people would pirate if the corporations didn't make it inevitable. Why should people pay for a piece of software or music with no assurance that in the future they'll even be able to use it?
Also, considering how screwed over young people are, I'm not exactly sure how we're the bad guys when it's the old farts that will get their full social security checks as they vote to lower their taxes at our expense. Somebody has to pay for that, and if we can't get living wage jobs, on what basis do you expect us to have money to pay for your yearly COLAs?
I wouldn't say that. Uwe Boll is capable of putting together a perfectly respectable film, it's just that he usually takes the projects too seriously. As a director of parody film he's much better. Postal was actually a pretty good film. Probably because the subject matter forced him to make the film as more of a parody than as something serious. The fact that he was able to get a good cast probably didn't hurt.
The scene where he's making fun of himself is in and of itself worth the watch.
Honestly, in the long term the best way is probably just buying items from businesses they don't represent. Just about anything else just gives them ammunition for decrying teh evil pirates.
A couple of things, one the Republicans are not the Democrats. And the Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the 50s. Secondly, The Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail against whatever the President has wanted to do since their exile. It's got nothing to do with what's good for the country it's about screwing over the Democrats. That didn't happen during the Bush administration. You can claim that however like, but the reality doesn't fit the facts. President Bush made precisely zero effort at including the Democrats and regularly went out of his way to pick a fight with them. In spite of that he regularly got votes from Democratic politicians even on controversial items like the Patriot Act.
I realize that a lot of people on the right have a hard time understanding things, but President Bush got 6 years of softball questions from the press, nearly a full year before anybody blamed him for anything. And you're full of it if you're seriously suggesting that Obama has gotten even a small fraction of that support. The more realistic observation is that the Republicans don't love this country or are at least so mind blowingly incompetent as to believe that screwing over the citizens is the best way of expressing ones patriotism.
At least in recent years the Democrats have been trying to do the right thing, the Republicans at this point aren't even bothering to pretend like they care about the country, it's more important to screw over the Democrats and win the Presidency in 2012 than it is to enact good legislation. It's really, troubling that it's coming out of their own mouths without any prompting by left wing operatives.
She never does. And neither do those Tea Party idiots for that matter. But then again, what can you expect? I mean they did name themselves after an event that had nothing to do with taxation. The only reason anybody in the media talks about her is that people think she's pretty. Other than that, she's just like all the other whack jobs on the right that comment on things they don't understand.
Not likely, folks around here also get upset when this sort of thing is done for security reasons because it frequently ends up being used for other things. Sort of like the GPS built into handsets for 911 use which is now all of a sudden available for law enforcement surveillance. And how Onstar can initiate a session where they listen in to whatever you're doing in your car. Sure it doesn't have to happen, but in practice the spineless cowards demanding more safety tend to drown out the individuals who want a bit of balance.
Since iOS 4.0, that's several years after MS made it available for Win XP. It's something that should've been in iOS 1.0 or whatever the first release was. Which is why I inquired about that.
Clearly. Loss leaders themselves are not a violation of free market capitalism per se, but the things that they do to make it work are. Adam Smith was completely opposed to any sort of monopoly over anything. No exceptions at all. And in order for loss leaders to work in most cases you have to have some sort of monopoly. Even if it is just requiring the users to buy products that are licensed for it by producers that pay a licensing fee for the privilege.
Specifically what you're missing is that the definition you're using is wrong. A market like that would not and could not exist. That's going back to Adam Smiths initial writings. A free market of that sort will always end up in a single supplier monopoly over everything. It's just a question of how long it takes and whether people get fed up early enough to do something about it.
Because they're simultaneously undermining the foundation of making money as a writer. Creative professionals often make a pittance compared with the parasites that get the stuff to the public, and consequently they do need the copyright terms in order to keep working. A single major blockbusting book can fund several lesser books in terms of not having to count on getting an advance in order to work full time on it. Anything like this which undermines that also undermines the ability of writers to actually write full time.
Unfortunately, in many parts of the world the copyright laws go way above and beyond what's necessary to encourage people to work on art full time to the point where it becomes counterproductive. It's not unreasonable for somebody who was born in say the 1920s to have something published in the 1940s and still be alive today, although that is getting to be more unusual as time goes by.
No, it's not. PG doesn't have the right to distribute the materials without permission unless they fall under the public domain. And that can be either because the time ran out on the copyright or the owner placed it into the public domain. It's not a good practice to distribute things and count on somebody catching them to fix it. That policy has always been more about catch errors than about making publishers prove that the material isn't public domain.
Unfortunately, many governments have gone overboard in terms of protection IP, but that doesn't really make it OK to pirate the material.
Not really, the question is who owns it, consequently it's not up to PG to decide that as somebody does own it. At bare minimum they have a legal responsibility to not distribute the materials without permission. It's an unfortunate situation in that it takes a lot of work to determine who in fact owns the rights, but if they don't want to get sued, it's the right way of doing it.
Plus, it looks bad when a project like this oversteps the law that far. If they stick to waiting until the copyright expires that's a lot easier. They still have to distribute only in countries where it has expired, or at least make an effort at it.
He's right they should've fallen into the public domain a long time ago. Unfortunately they haven't, which makes it really hard. By the time a lot of that work will fall into the public domain, the odds are good that much of it will be unrecoverable in one form or another. And it's a lot harder to preserve this sort of stuff if you're not able to redistribute it.
Except that they aren't actually using that kind of precision. If it isn't accurate to within 1/16" or so it's not really good enough for that, and anybody competent isn't going to take those measurements for granted anyways.
It's not so much inefficiency as it is that they weren't expecting IPv4 to still be in use all these years later. Which is how some of those corporations got gigantic ranges that they're probably still using only a fraction of.
Considering that IPv6 is supported in Win XP since SP1, I don't think there's many people that are going to need their OS updated. And most of those ought not to be connecting to the internet anyways due to vulnerabilities.
A lot of apps don't work very well if at all under NAT. And it just gets worse when you consider all the PAT solutions that are being passed off as NAT. Some protocols are robust enough to handle it, but any application which depends upon a 1:1 mapping is going to have issues with it.
More than that a lot of applications really want to have the same IP or at least some predictability in it, and with NAT, it can be a real challenge to identify the correct IP and get there and back traversing through several levels of NATs.
I'm curious why Apple chose not to include support. I mean after all MS offers support for IPv6 since SP1. Is it a resources thing like Flash or is it something that Steve hates, like Flash.
Worse, they're encounters that were consensual then turned non-consensual later when the women he was sleeping with met each other. Which is why the charges were completely dropped at one point as it turned out that you can't declare sex rape ex post facto, it's either rape at the time or it's not. It's not like one of those corner cases where somebody's not able to consent for one reason or another.
Considering that she's accused him of purposefully breaking the condom after finding out that he was having sex with somebody else, I think she doesn't deserve a whole lot of respect.
Honestly, a good suggestion is that if you don't want to be treated like trash, perhaps you ought not to act like trash.
She accused him of breaking the condom on purpose. Which you don't hear about much in any of these articles because quite frankly it makes her look insane and vengeful. Almost like she consented then decided she didn't after finding out that he was sleeping with somebody else.
Slashdot Mirror
They might not like it, but that's the way that the court system works. If you don't include the pleading then you can't later add it if more evidence turns up. Or at least that's my understanding of it. You have to file that paperwork in order to get to the discovery phase of the trial and at that point you get to subpoena records and depose witnesses and such. Prior to that you're just giving it your best shot with the evidence in hand, it's quite possible that discovery will turn up more information.
Bad idea, you get caught doing that or they even suspect you've done that and you're in real trouble. Not sure what precisely it comes under but you're definitely going to be in more trouble than just owning up to it and paying the fine they offer you.
Because we all know that nobody ever gets sued for somebody else's piracy. I mean seriously, given the sloppy investigative methods and the lack of rigor in making sure that the person sued is who they think they are, it's a wonder that any of them are actually liable for infringing on anything.
There is no right to make a living. Or at least that's the conclusion I take from the right's war on the living wage they've been waging for the last 30 or so years. Which makes me wonder if there is no right to a living wage, then why the hell is there suddenly a right to make money for some people but not the ones that actually produce wealth?
Creative industries are necessary for the soul and the spirit, but nobody ever starved to death for failing to watch enough crappy movies. Seems to me that perhaps the corporations that produce them might want to consider pricing the materials in a way which is affordable and adhering to the laws in place.
Sure that doesn't make it OK to pirate materials, but it's much less likely that people would pirate if the corporations didn't make it inevitable. Why should people pay for a piece of software or music with no assurance that in the future they'll even be able to use it?
Also, considering how screwed over young people are, I'm not exactly sure how we're the bad guys when it's the old farts that will get their full social security checks as they vote to lower their taxes at our expense. Somebody has to pay for that, and if we can't get living wage jobs, on what basis do you expect us to have money to pay for your yearly COLAs?
I wouldn't say that. Uwe Boll is capable of putting together a perfectly respectable film, it's just that he usually takes the projects too seriously. As a director of parody film he's much better. Postal was actually a pretty good film. Probably because the subject matter forced him to make the film as more of a parody than as something serious. The fact that he was able to get a good cast probably didn't hurt.
The scene where he's making fun of himself is in and of itself worth the watch.
Honestly, in the long term the best way is probably just buying items from businesses they don't represent. Just about anything else just gives them ammunition for decrying teh evil pirates.
You're right, we need to find a new name for those sea going guys, people might think they're doing something serious and antisocial.
A couple of things, one the Republicans are not the Democrats. And the Democrats of today are not the Democrats of the 50s. Secondly, The Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail against whatever the President has wanted to do since their exile. It's got nothing to do with what's good for the country it's about screwing over the Democrats. That didn't happen during the Bush administration. You can claim that however like, but the reality doesn't fit the facts. President Bush made precisely zero effort at including the Democrats and regularly went out of his way to pick a fight with them. In spite of that he regularly got votes from Democratic politicians even on controversial items like the Patriot Act.
I realize that a lot of people on the right have a hard time understanding things, but President Bush got 6 years of softball questions from the press, nearly a full year before anybody blamed him for anything. And you're full of it if you're seriously suggesting that Obama has gotten even a small fraction of that support. The more realistic observation is that the Republicans don't love this country or are at least so mind blowingly incompetent as to believe that screwing over the citizens is the best way of expressing ones patriotism.
At least in recent years the Democrats have been trying to do the right thing, the Republicans at this point aren't even bothering to pretend like they care about the country, it's more important to screw over the Democrats and win the Presidency in 2012 than it is to enact good legislation. It's really, troubling that it's coming out of their own mouths without any prompting by left wing operatives.
She never does. And neither do those Tea Party idiots for that matter. But then again, what can you expect? I mean they did name themselves after an event that had nothing to do with taxation. The only reason anybody in the media talks about her is that people think she's pretty. Other than that, she's just like all the other whack jobs on the right that comment on things they don't understand.
Not likely, folks around here also get upset when this sort of thing is done for security reasons because it frequently ends up being used for other things. Sort of like the GPS built into handsets for 911 use which is now all of a sudden available for law enforcement surveillance. And how Onstar can initiate a session where they listen in to whatever you're doing in your car. Sure it doesn't have to happen, but in practice the spineless cowards demanding more safety tend to drown out the individuals who want a bit of balance.
Since iOS 4.0, that's several years after MS made it available for Win XP. It's something that should've been in iOS 1.0 or whatever the first release was. Which is why I inquired about that.
Clearly. Loss leaders themselves are not a violation of free market capitalism per se, but the things that they do to make it work are. Adam Smith was completely opposed to any sort of monopoly over anything. No exceptions at all. And in order for loss leaders to work in most cases you have to have some sort of monopoly. Even if it is just requiring the users to buy products that are licensed for it by producers that pay a licensing fee for the privilege.
Specifically what you're missing is that the definition you're using is wrong. A market like that would not and could not exist. That's going back to Adam Smiths initial writings. A free market of that sort will always end up in a single supplier monopoly over everything. It's just a question of how long it takes and whether people get fed up early enough to do something about it.
Because they're simultaneously undermining the foundation of making money as a writer. Creative professionals often make a pittance compared with the parasites that get the stuff to the public, and consequently they do need the copyright terms in order to keep working. A single major blockbusting book can fund several lesser books in terms of not having to count on getting an advance in order to work full time on it. Anything like this which undermines that also undermines the ability of writers to actually write full time.
Unfortunately, in many parts of the world the copyright laws go way above and beyond what's necessary to encourage people to work on art full time to the point where it becomes counterproductive. It's not unreasonable for somebody who was born in say the 1920s to have something published in the 1940s and still be alive today, although that is getting to be more unusual as time goes by.
No, it's not. PG doesn't have the right to distribute the materials without permission unless they fall under the public domain. And that can be either because the time ran out on the copyright or the owner placed it into the public domain. It's not a good practice to distribute things and count on somebody catching them to fix it. That policy has always been more about catch errors than about making publishers prove that the material isn't public domain.
Unfortunately, many governments have gone overboard in terms of protection IP, but that doesn't really make it OK to pirate the material.
Not really, the question is who owns it, consequently it's not up to PG to decide that as somebody does own it. At bare minimum they have a legal responsibility to not distribute the materials without permission. It's an unfortunate situation in that it takes a lot of work to determine who in fact owns the rights, but if they don't want to get sued, it's the right way of doing it.
Plus, it looks bad when a project like this oversteps the law that far. If they stick to waiting until the copyright expires that's a lot easier. They still have to distribute only in countries where it has expired, or at least make an effort at it.
He's right they should've fallen into the public domain a long time ago. Unfortunately they haven't, which makes it really hard. By the time a lot of that work will fall into the public domain, the odds are good that much of it will be unrecoverable in one form or another. And it's a lot harder to preserve this sort of stuff if you're not able to redistribute it.
Except that they aren't actually using that kind of precision. If it isn't accurate to within 1/16" or so it's not really good enough for that, and anybody competent isn't going to take those measurements for granted anyways.
It's not so much inefficiency as it is that they weren't expecting IPv4 to still be in use all these years later. Which is how some of those corporations got gigantic ranges that they're probably still using only a fraction of.
You're mistaken. That would be Port Address Translation.
Considering that IPv6 is supported in Win XP since SP1, I don't think there's many people that are going to need their OS updated. And most of those ought not to be connecting to the internet anyways due to vulnerabilities.
A lot of apps don't work very well if at all under NAT. And it just gets worse when you consider all the PAT solutions that are being passed off as NAT. Some protocols are robust enough to handle it, but any application which depends upon a 1:1 mapping is going to have issues with it.
More than that a lot of applications really want to have the same IP or at least some predictability in it, and with NAT, it can be a real challenge to identify the correct IP and get there and back traversing through several levels of NATs.
I'm curious why Apple chose not to include support. I mean after all MS offers support for IPv6 since SP1. Is it a resources thing like Flash or is it something that Steve hates, like Flash.
Worse, they're encounters that were consensual then turned non-consensual later when the women he was sleeping with met each other. Which is why the charges were completely dropped at one point as it turned out that you can't declare sex rape ex post facto, it's either rape at the time or it's not. It's not like one of those corner cases where somebody's not able to consent for one reason or another.
Considering that she's accused him of purposefully breaking the condom after finding out that he was having sex with somebody else, I think she doesn't deserve a whole lot of respect.
Honestly, a good suggestion is that if you don't want to be treated like trash, perhaps you ought not to act like trash.
She accused him of breaking the condom on purpose. Which you don't hear about much in any of these articles because quite frankly it makes her look insane and vengeful. Almost like she consented then decided she didn't after finding out that he was sleeping with somebody else.