Or not comply and possible be sued by the government, loose contracts
I don't quite see how they could be sued by the government. It's one thing if the gov't had the proper warrants, but in this case it's just giving in. Legally, they'd be in the right to not comply.
As far as losing contracts...well...who ELSE would the government go to? It's not like a NASA contract and they have between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. They can't choose between phone providers. "Well, gee, AT&T won't let us tap their lines. But they own the lines. Oh well, we're boned."
Since when, outside of Wrath of Khan, was there ever a *real* threat on ANY Star Trek: TOS character? (No, I don't count Generations...that was just ass.)
Hell, Spock even had his brain removed and he got over that fine.
Showing my bias here, but I think the sole reason the PSP sold as much as it did was because of the FF7 game. Final Fantasy game, Japan, come on, instant #1 position!
a phone that it is designed to work for t-Mobil and only.
That in of itself is fallacy. A CDMA phone will work on CDMA networks, GSM on GSM, (and assuming you're within whatever bandwidth the phone supports). Phones are network independent and not really designed for one company*
*For the sake of argument I'm conveniently leaving out all the fancy dandy special features like 3G or whatever other bullshit that networks may offer on TOP of that, but that's more comparing feature sets rather than base functionality. Phone calls are phone calls.
Personally, I don't see why I can't unlock my phone even it I stay within the contract. Who cares if I get myself a SIM for some other network while still paying my current network?
I'll admit my economic theory knowledge has degraded since I last took the class. Although I don't expect it to be well in our interests to just print off money to pay off called in debts either. I mean, if they're getting a weak dollar, we still have to deal with a weak dollar.
Either way, we've got a weak dollar situation.
And at this point I should stop myself before I hit the water table...big enough hole as it is...
The USA is a sovereign nation and we have a right to ban gambling if we choose to do so.
Exactly. We have the right to ban gambling if we choose to do so. We can also ban internet gambling if we choose to do so.
But we have not. Simply looking at Nevada and Atlantic City should be proof enough that gambling, in the US, is legal. Online gambling is legal too.
But we're trying to be clever and ban OFFSHORE internet gambling while keeping ONSHORE gambling legal. This is against the foundation of the WTO.
Take alcohol as an example. We could (and for a period, did) ban alcohol nationwide. When we did, it became illegal to import it into the US. Now that alcohol is legal again, it would be *illegal* to prevent importing from countries we otherwise have a good trade relationship with.
Welcome to the world of global [b]economy[/b] and politics. (Economy bolded because that's what this is more about than politics. Politics wouldn't have been in play if we played by the treaty properly.) Sure, we can take our ball and go home, but then expect other nations to play as fair as we do. Check out your home and find out, exactly, how many items have 'Made in USA' on it...and how many don't.
Well, with the EU and India filing notices to seek compensation, I'm sure they could wreak some economic havoc on us if they so desired. Furthermore, if countries start calling in debts, we could be in a real pickle, especially given how low the dollar is.
We don't need to be stopped militarily. Economic war would be much more devastating.
What the US is saying is it's legal for its citizens to gamble in places hosted inside the country, but illegal outside the country in places we have an otherwise unfettered trade relationship with. (i.e., if the place was hosted in Cuba, it'd be illegal regardless.)
This is different than cocaine because cocaine is an illegal substance throughout the US, imports and domestic distribution is prohibited, period.
It's blatent hypocrisy and the exact sort of thing the WTO was created to prevent.
I'm not quite sure where you're getting the idea that the daughter had no problems with Vista. She saw a friend use Vista and liked one of the features, so she wanted it at home.
Sounds like her mother installed Vista ok, they used it for two days, then reverted back to XP. Who exactly initiated the move back to XP is unclear.
As far as the remark about Ballmer installing Vista SP1, I'd imagine that was the mom's way of washing her hands of the Vista topic.
Therein lies the rub. FTTP is simpleish compared to tearing up streets like Wilshire in downtown L.A. and laying down new fiber.
IMO, the best solution would be to strip AT&T of all services, leaving them with just the fiber, so they don't have conflict of interest carrying both the lines and the services on the lines. (Note: We could also strip the fiber from AT&T making a new company, the end result is one company manages the lines...like a utility.)
And they're going to sue Linux users because of patent infringements. Could just as well have been trying to keep up appearances after paying off some startup Linux company.
The rest of the deal was Microsoft paying $20 mil to Linspire and Linspire giving MS the Lindows trademark. I did end up getting curious.
Except Lindows DID beat them, in the sense that Microsoft would've ended up losing 'Windows' if it went to trial. The rename was part of a deal they hashed out. I forget the rest of the details.
It's probably on the Wiki page if you care enough. I don't.
I'm absolutely sick of all the people who say 'they still have the item' and claim that means they didn't steal it. They simply use it as an excuse to make themselves feel better about taking something that they have no right to.
It's also important when dealing with little things like the US Code.
Funny thing, though, if it WAS actually stealing, the fines would be a lot lower. It would actually be in a P2P sharer's benefit for downloading "stolen" music to be classified as theft.
Just more proof that the scare tactic is working. Stealing: effective social scare tactic, tiny fine. Copyright infringement: pathetic social scare tactic, huge fine.
At least if it was only the companies, you would have been justified in saying it's Capitalism at its finest. When there's a government entity involving itself, the purity of capitalism is diluted.
What you're seeing is Capitalism at its most uninterrupted... do you like it, Ms. Rand?
Umm, I fail to see how the British Board of Film Classification is in any way a capitalist entity. What do they sell? What do they produce? What are their quarterly net profits? What do they stand to gain or lose in the market by banning this game?
They're actually quoting directly from the PDF. 2nd to last paragraph.
While you don't have to register for a copyright, it gives you much better legal footing if you decide to pursue claims against infringement on that copyright. Plus, registration is required to get any statuatory damages, so if Direct Buy sues, they couldn't get any cash from the infringment.
There are hundreds of countries in the world with thousands of oversight entities. Every single hour/minute, some company gets this sort of "parking ticket." But, feels good when you are a UPS driver and you see that parking ticket on a Fed-Ex truck when you pull up. Right?
True, but those 'parking tickets' tend to be addressed before they're given out a second time and the office gets closed.
Herein lies the crux. I believe Apple is well within their bounds to refuse warranty on modded iPhones, however they should not be deliberately breaking them. Insert stupid analogy here.
Unfortunatly, I'm not familiar enough with the relevant U.S. Code or the iPhone warranty to make any judgment on how far their reach goes. I'd imagine this would be an interesting read.
Slashdot Mirror
Or not comply and possible be sued by the government, loose contracts
I don't quite see how they could be sued by the government. It's one thing if the gov't had the proper warrants, but in this case it's just giving in. Legally, they'd be in the right to not comply.
As far as losing contracts...well...who ELSE would the government go to? It's not like a NASA contract and they have between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. They can't choose between phone providers. "Well, gee, AT&T won't let us tap their lines. But they own the lines. Oh well, we're boned."
Since when, outside of Wrath of Khan, was there ever a *real* threat on ANY Star Trek: TOS character? (No, I don't count Generations...that was just ass.)
Hell, Spock even had his brain removed and he got over that fine.
Showing my bias here, but I think the sole reason the PSP sold as much as it did was because of the FF7 game. Final Fantasy game, Japan, come on, instant #1 position!
Tongue position: firmly in cheek.
a phone that it is designed to work for t-Mobil and only.
That in of itself is fallacy. A CDMA phone will work on CDMA networks, GSM on GSM, (and assuming you're within whatever bandwidth the phone supports). Phones are network independent and not really designed for one company*
*For the sake of argument I'm conveniently leaving out all the fancy dandy special features like 3G or whatever other bullshit that networks may offer on TOP of that, but that's more comparing feature sets rather than base functionality. Phone calls are phone calls.
Personally, I don't see why I can't unlock my phone even it I stay within the contract. Who cares if I get myself a SIM for some other network while still paying my current network?
So they package "Wii Sports" in with the system (or "Wii Play", I can't remember which one Japan got)
Japan didn't come with a bundled game.
Point.
I'll admit my economic theory knowledge has degraded since I last took the class. Although I don't expect it to be well in our interests to just print off money to pay off called in debts either. I mean, if they're getting a weak dollar, we still have to deal with a weak dollar.
Either way, we've got a weak dollar situation.
And at this point I should stop myself before I hit the water table...big enough hole as it is...
Gambling is NOT legal in most of the US, unless one counts the stock market.
Or state lotteries. Or on Indian reservations.
The USA is a sovereign nation and we have a right to ban gambling if we choose to do so.
Exactly. We have the right to ban gambling if we choose to do so. We can also ban internet gambling if we choose to do so.
But we have not. Simply looking at Nevada and Atlantic City should be proof enough that gambling, in the US, is legal. Online gambling is legal too.
But we're trying to be clever and ban OFFSHORE internet gambling while keeping ONSHORE gambling legal. This is against the foundation of the WTO.
Take alcohol as an example. We could (and for a period, did) ban alcohol nationwide. When we did, it became illegal to import it into the US. Now that alcohol is legal again, it would be *illegal* to prevent importing from countries we otherwise have a good trade relationship with.
Welcome to the world of global [b]economy[/b] and politics. (Economy bolded because that's what this is more about than politics. Politics wouldn't have been in play if we played by the treaty properly.) Sure, we can take our ball and go home, but then expect other nations to play as fair as we do. Check out your home and find out, exactly, how many items have 'Made in USA' on it...and how many don't.
Well, with the EU and India filing notices to seek compensation, I'm sure they could wreak some economic havoc on us if they so desired. Furthermore, if countries start calling in debts, we could be in a real pickle, especially given how low the dollar is.
We don't need to be stopped militarily. Economic war would be much more devastating.
Because gambling is LEGAL in the US.
What the US is saying is it's legal for its citizens to gamble in places hosted inside the country, but illegal outside the country in places we have an otherwise unfettered trade relationship with. (i.e., if the place was hosted in Cuba, it'd be illegal regardless.)
This is different than cocaine because cocaine is an illegal substance throughout the US, imports and domestic distribution is prohibited, period.
It's blatent hypocrisy and the exact sort of thing the WTO was created to prevent.
I'm not quite sure where you're getting the idea that the daughter had no problems with Vista. She saw a friend use Vista and liked one of the features, so she wanted it at home.
Sounds like her mother installed Vista ok, they used it for two days, then reverted back to XP. Who exactly initiated the move back to XP is unclear.
As far as the remark about Ballmer installing Vista SP1, I'd imagine that was the mom's way of washing her hands of the Vista topic.
Maybe more fiber being laid,
Therein lies the rub. FTTP is simpleish compared to tearing up streets like Wilshire in downtown L.A. and laying down new fiber.
IMO, the best solution would be to strip AT&T of all services, leaving them with just the fiber, so they don't have conflict of interest carrying both the lines and the services on the lines. (Note: We could also strip the fiber from AT&T making a new company, the end result is one company manages the lines...like a utility.)
[citation needed]
And they're going to sue Linux users because of patent infringements. Could just as well have been trying to keep up appearances after paying off some startup Linux company.
The rest of the deal was Microsoft paying $20 mil to Linspire and Linspire giving MS the Lindows trademark. I did end up getting curious.
Except Lindows DID beat them, in the sense that Microsoft would've ended up losing 'Windows' if it went to trial. The rename was part of a deal they hashed out. I forget the rest of the details.
It's probably on the Wiki page if you care enough. I don't.
I'm absolutely sick of all the people who say 'they still have the item' and claim that means they didn't steal it. They simply use it as an excuse to make themselves feel better about taking something that they have no right to.
It's also important when dealing with little things like the US Code.
Funny thing, though, if it WAS actually stealing, the fines would be a lot lower. It would actually be in a P2P sharer's benefit for downloading "stolen" music to be classified as theft.
Just more proof that the scare tactic is working. Stealing: effective social scare tactic, tiny fine. Copyright infringement: pathetic social scare tactic, huge fine.
At least if it was only the companies, you would have been justified in saying it's Capitalism at its finest. When there's a government entity involving itself, the purity of capitalism is diluted.
What you're seeing is Capitalism at its most uninterrupted... do you like it, Ms. Rand?
Umm, I fail to see how the British Board of Film Classification is in any way a capitalist entity. What do they sell? What do they produce? What are their quarterly net profits? What do they stand to gain or lose in the market by banning this game?
'Never' is misleading. Not required, but helpful. Especially if you intend to make money off your work.
I don't plan to register any of my school essays, but if I ever get around to writing the great American novel, I'd probably consider registering it.
They're actually quoting directly from the PDF. 2nd to last paragraph.
While you don't have to register for a copyright, it gives you much better legal footing if you decide to pursue claims against infringement on that copyright. Plus, registration is required to get any statuatory damages, so if Direct Buy sues, they couldn't get any cash from the infringment.
Preferably one that can lock down stabilizer units when asked to.
Send inquiries to L. Skywalker, Endor National Hospital.
Why get a bootleg season of X-Files for $56 when you can get a legit season for $45?
There are hundreds of countries in the world with thousands of oversight entities. Every single hour/minute, some company gets this sort of "parking ticket." But, feels good when you are a UPS driver and you see that parking ticket on a Fed-Ex truck when you pull up. Right?
True, but those 'parking tickets' tend to be addressed before they're given out a second time and the office gets closed.
This is Alameda County, CA. Home of the People's Republic of Berkeley. Believe me, nothing would've changed if they redid 'that' vote.
Herein lies the crux. I believe Apple is well within their bounds to refuse warranty on modded iPhones, however they should not be deliberately breaking them. Insert stupid analogy here.
Unfortunatly, I'm not familiar enough with the relevant U.S. Code or the iPhone warranty to make any judgment on how far their reach goes. I'd imagine this would be an interesting read.