For comparison, I remember a while ago hearing about No Sweat Apparel, another charity-like organization that tries to replace current clothing production with (supposely) that produced under non-exploitative conditions. They explain here why they want to be for-profit -- access to more capital, rewards for those who risked a lot, and to promote a viable industry model.
(Of course, they do use child labor for their advertising, so take it for what it's worth...)
Hehe, that reminds me, on workingforchange.com (a stupid kind of woe-is-me left-wing site) there's a promotion for fund-raising where you buy some phone service, and they get some of the revenues, and you get a free pint of Ben and Jerry's as a bonus. I "signed up" for it by putting entries into the fields that spelled out a message like this:
"Great idea luring left-wing money through ice cream. Liberals never understand personal responsibility, so unhealthy foods are sure to draw them in"
Assuming this is a response to my post and not the parent of my post... what?
The MPAA doesn't claim that there's a risk you'll see a fake movie when you sneak into a real theater. The BSA, however, does claim that you may be using fake software (i.e., non-functional) if you pirate. So the MPAA couldn't call a campaign against sneaking into movies a "Genuine Movie Initiative", while MS could claim that a campaign against pirating software is a "Genuine Software Initiative". That was my point.
I would also add that, since one of the commonly given(though not necessarily true) reasons the Business Software Alliance et. al. will tell you not to use illegal copies is that it might not be a *genuine* copy of the real thing, and thus not work properly. Thus, from MS's perspective, trying to make sure everyone using it has a licensed copy would constitute a "Genuine Software Initiative" in that they believe it will ensure people use the "genuine" version. So the linguist really is making a hissy-fit over nothing. I generally don't object to a usage unless I can think of *no* usage that would fit, or that usage causes confusion, rather than object the moment it doesn't fit the one I'm thinking of.
Looks like I hit a little too close to home for one moderator. Sorry man, a Literature PhD doesn't entitle you to a job better than that of a fry cook.
Oh? English majors learn how to make these kinds of critiques? Well, excuse the hell out of me. I would never question the judgment of a McDonald's cashier!
Actually, I remember surfing for Swiss banks (shut up) one time and the ones I saw specifically said they don't offer services to US cusomters. Not "non-Swiss", I mean, specifically, the US. Probably because of some disagreement a while back.
I've even seen shareware, complete with nag screen and feature limitation, released under the GPL since it probably won't occur to anyone to recompile it and redistribute it themselves
I've always thought that one way to generate FireFox users would be to sell it in a box for $34.99 at Best Buy. That's within the GPL, or whatever license FF uses, and like you say, not a lot of people are going to distribute it to others *who would only buy it because they saw it in Best Buy*. Being on a shelf with a semi-steep price would give it an aura of credibility. You'd be showing them where to get the source code -- they just wouldn't care.
You know, you bring up a good point I don't think a lot of people fully appreciate:
- and this should mean that the full-price games will be a lot cheaper, too, since Nintendo doesn't need to claw back money lost on the hardware.
Since Sony/MS are trying to claw that money back, it means that perfectly legal things that hurt their software license revenue will probably be targeted by them with lawyers who should know better. Imagine that because of the expensive PS3 titles, some kids in a dorm or the same college set up a system whereby the share their games with each other. Not copy -- just share the individual game. That's 100% legal. But then Sony will probably find some way to sue them on the grounds that it interferes with their business model.
I stopped reading at that point. You're pretty much beyond hope.
Smokeable nicotine stick non-smoking aides
on
Wii to be Region Free
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Kaplan implied there might be a region lock that publishers would be able to flip on, but it doesn't sound like the first-party titles from Nintendo will be restricted."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this like telling people they can stop smoking by transitioning to smokeable nicotine sticks? If a developer can arbitrarily flip on region restrictions (which are, of course, keyed to region codes that *are* sold on this "region-free" device), then anyone who wants to restrict regions can. And before you pop a blood vessel, I think it's great that first party games will be like this, and I'm definitely getting a Wii, but this victory seems a tad hollow. I just don't think it's going to lead to "omg! I can get the Japan-only release and play it on my regular system!"
Really? Government intervention is mainly to the benefit of corporations? What about the corporate tax? What about Social Security? What about rampant inflation? What about triple-and-quadruple taxation of investment on the grounds that "only rich people invest"? What about the rampat jury awards, completely disconnected from any harm or liability? What about taxation of foreign-earned profits? What about tariffs of their inputs? What about forced "negotiation" with strikers they'd rather fire? What about non-recognition of constituional rights of those acting in the interests of a corporation on the grounds that "coporations don't have rights"? What about mandatory audits of records without suspicion of wrongdoing? What about the blanket right to veto personnel decisions on grounds of "discrimination"? Wha...
Oh, I forgot -- you only consider evidence that affirms your prejudices.
I wonder what it's like to be you. Demanding ever more government powers, wondering why they get hijacked... You must be one of those guys who's like "Jeez, why doesn't Frodo just use the ring?"
Most companies operating in the world have to pay off government officials in one way or another in order to operate successfully. Why should it be any different here?
Just a guess -- maybe because "is" is not the same as "ought"?
I just love how innovative companies like Google are forced to spend all this money on lobbyists just so Congress doesn't screw them over. Why isn't it all spent on making a better product? Because some people gave the government so much power beyond its strict Constitutional limits, which given enough time would mean lobbyists would be fighting over all that juicy government money and to shackle their competitors. "It's okay though, we can give the government all this power, we just have to, you know, limit the lobbyists!" YOU CAN'T. With that much money at stake, they will steamroll over whatever petty contributions limits and ethics rules you set up.
Companies can compete on the market, or in lobbying ability. Thanks, voters, for making the latter so ripe.
Why did they choose to launch is so briefly after the PS3? They're basically ceding copycat Sony the honor of "first console with a motion sensing controller as a standard feature". (other than the one you know about that no one's heard of, of course) Did they really need an extra week or so to get their act together? I doubt it.
If they announced finding a new large prime number, and then later realized the number was even, and they hadn't noticed that. (I know, this one is one less than a power of two, but just hypothetically.)
Not when you want to use OpenOffice and Firefox. I am not sure if they really want to, but todays applications simply require quite a bit more CPU and RAM then yesterdays applications, even for the very same jobs.
Yeah, good point, they are pretty poorly-designed software.
I seem to recall that 200 MHz and an 8 Gig hard drive was top of the line, some time during the 90's. Such computers seemed to handle word processing, web browsing, email, etc. just fine. What would those components cost now? Not very much because of miniaturization. A $125 computer should be no big deal right?
So how's that $100 PC coming along? WHAT?? Why do you need those kinds of specs?
What exactly is a blade server? Is that what they were talking about on that dumbed-down uncreative commercial where the two guys are like "What's a blade server?" "This is." "This is a blade?" "Uh, yeah."
Slashdot Mirror
For comparison, I remember a while ago hearing about No Sweat Apparel, another charity-like organization that tries to replace current clothing production with (supposely) that produced under non-exploitative conditions. They explain here why they want to be for-profit -- access to more capital, rewards for those who risked a lot, and to promote a viable industry model.
(Of course, they do use child labor for their advertising, so take it for what it's worth...)
Hehe, that reminds me, on workingforchange.com (a stupid kind of woe-is-me left-wing site) there's a promotion for fund-raising where you buy some phone service, and they get some of the revenues, and you get a free pint of Ben and Jerry's as a bonus. I "signed up" for it by putting entries into the fields that spelled out a message like this:
"Great idea luring left-wing money through ice cream. Liberals never understand personal responsibility, so unhealthy foods are sure to draw them in"
Assuming this is a response to my post and not the parent of my post ... what?
The MPAA doesn't claim that there's a risk you'll see a fake movie when you sneak into a real theater. The BSA, however, does claim that you may be using fake software (i.e., non-functional) if you pirate. So the MPAA couldn't call a campaign against sneaking into movies a "Genuine Movie Initiative", while MS could claim that a campaign against pirating software is a "Genuine Software Initiative". That was my point.
I would also add that, since one of the commonly given(though not necessarily true) reasons the Business Software Alliance et. al. will tell you not to use illegal copies is that it might not be a *genuine* copy of the real thing, and thus not work properly. Thus, from MS's perspective, trying to make sure everyone using it has a licensed copy would constitute a "Genuine Software Initiative" in that they believe it will ensure people use the "genuine" version. So the linguist really is making a hissy-fit over nothing. I generally don't object to a usage unless I can think of *no* usage that would fit, or that usage causes confusion, rather than object the moment it doesn't fit the one I'm thinking of.
On top of that, what's the risk? How many have exploded? Something like one in a million? And how bad are the explosions?
Something tells me it's a lot riskier to let pilots fly without a blood test.
Oh well, *now* I understand it. Thanks!
Looks like I hit a little too close to home for one moderator. Sorry man, a Literature PhD doesn't entitle you to a job better than that of a fry cook.
Oh well, *now* I understand it. Thanks!
Oh? English majors learn how to make these kinds of critiques? Well, excuse the hell out of me. I would never question the judgment of a McDonald's cashier!
No way, we *really* would stand to gain from some Marxist critiques of Katamari.
"When you roll over items and get bigger, that's like how capitalism squashes the little guy and gets bigger and more powerful..."
"Deep stuff, man."
Actually, I remember surfing for Swiss banks (shut up) one time and the ones I saw specifically said they don't offer services to US cusomters. Not "non-Swiss", I mean, specifically, the US. Probably because of some disagreement a while back.
Hey asshole -- I didn't patent a "wheel". I patented a "rotary device for facilitation of translational motion". That's totally different.
I've even seen shareware, complete with nag screen and feature limitation, released under the GPL since it probably won't occur to anyone to recompile it and redistribute it themselves
I've always thought that one way to generate FireFox users would be to sell it in a box for $34.99 at Best Buy. That's within the GPL, or whatever license FF uses, and like you say, not a lot of people are going to distribute it to others *who would only buy it because they saw it in Best Buy*. Being on a shelf with a semi-steep price would give it an aura of credibility. You'd be showing them where to get the source code -- they just wouldn't care.
Or the RIAA can ...
nah, that's too easy.
You know, you bring up a good point I don't think a lot of people fully appreciate:
- and this should mean that the full-price games will be a lot cheaper, too, since Nintendo doesn't need to claw back money lost on the hardware.
Since Sony/MS are trying to claw that money back, it means that perfectly legal things that hurt their software license revenue will probably be targeted by them with lawyers who should know better. Imagine that because of the expensive PS3 titles, some kids in a dorm or the same college set up a system whereby the share their games with each other. Not copy -- just share the individual game. That's 100% legal. But then Sony will probably find some way to sue them on the grounds that it interferes with their business model.
With the PS3,
I stopped reading at that point. You're pretty much beyond hope.
Kaplan implied there might be a region lock that publishers would be able to flip on, but it doesn't sound like the first-party titles from Nintendo will be restricted."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this like telling people they can stop smoking by transitioning to smokeable nicotine sticks? If a developer can arbitrarily flip on region restrictions (which are, of course, keyed to region codes that *are* sold on this "region-free" device), then anyone who wants to restrict regions can. And before you pop a blood vessel, I think it's great that first party games will be like this, and I'm definitely getting a Wii, but this victory seems a tad hollow. I just don't think it's going to lead to "omg! I can get the Japan-only release and play it on my regular system!"
Really? Government intervention is mainly to the benefit of corporations? What about the corporate tax? What about Social Security? What about rampant inflation? What about triple-and-quadruple taxation of investment on the grounds that "only rich people invest"? What about the rampat jury awards, completely disconnected from any harm or liability? What about taxation of foreign-earned profits? What about tariffs of their inputs? What about forced "negotiation" with strikers they'd rather fire? What about non-recognition of constituional rights of those acting in the interests of a corporation on the grounds that "coporations don't have rights"? What about mandatory audits of records without suspicion of wrongdoing? What about the blanket right to veto personnel decisions on grounds of "discrimination"? Wha...
Oh, I forgot -- you only consider evidence that affirms your prejudices.
I wonder what it's like to be you. Demanding ever more government powers, wondering why they get hijacked... You must be one of those guys who's like "Jeez, why doesn't Frodo just use the ring?"
Most companies operating in the world have to pay off government officials in one way or another in order to operate successfully. Why should it be any different here?
Just a guess -- maybe because "is" is not the same as "ought"?
I just love how innovative companies like Google are forced to spend all this money on lobbyists just so Congress doesn't screw them over. Why isn't it all spent on making a better product? Because some people gave the government so much power beyond its strict Constitutional limits, which given enough time would mean lobbyists would be fighting over all that juicy government money and to shackle their competitors. "It's okay though, we can give the government all this power, we just have to, you know, limit the lobbyists!" YOU CAN'T. With that much money at stake, they will steamroll over whatever petty contributions limits and ethics rules you set up.
Companies can compete on the market, or in lobbying ability. Thanks, voters, for making the latter so ripe.
Why did they choose to launch is so briefly after the PS3? They're basically ceding copycat Sony the honor of "first console with a motion sensing controller as a standard feature". (other than the one you know about that no one's heard of, of course) Did they really need an extra week or so to get their act together? I doubt it.
If they announced finding a new large prime number, and then later realized the number was even, and they hadn't noticed that. (I know, this one is one less than a power of two, but just hypothetically.)
Not when you want to use OpenOffice and Firefox. I am not sure if they really want to, but todays applications simply require quite a bit more CPU and RAM then yesterdays applications, even for the very same jobs.
Yeah, good point, they are pretty poorly-designed software.
I seem to recall that 200 MHz and an 8 Gig hard drive was top of the line, some time during the 90's. Such computers seemed to handle word processing, web browsing, email, etc. just fine. What would those components cost now? Not very much because of miniaturization. A $125 computer should be no big deal right?
So how's that $100 PC coming along? WHAT?? Why do you need those kinds of specs?
What exactly is a blade server? Is that what they were talking about on that dumbed-down uncreative commercial where the two guys are like "What's a blade server?" "This is." "This is a blade?" "Uh, yeah."