Common Law contract law that advertising something as being for sale is an invitation to treat, which doesn't put any obligation on the seller to provide anything.
In Australia selling stuff generally comes under the Trade Practices Act, or in the cases where the Federal Government cannot legislate, individual state Fair Trading laws.
Educate them. You don't need to teach them advanced computer concepts, just teach them safe browsing habits and a healthy paranoia of the vectors used for social engineering attacks. Users may still get worms and such from not having up-to-date systems, but user misaction is a bigger cause of problems than user inaction.
There's enough people needing said education that you could run basic one hour classes for them. And the regularly spurted 'cost to the economy' figures for the fruits of stupid behaviour could easily justify making it free for them if they want to continue to have an internet connection
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in Australia the olympics is big business for the athletes. Get a gold medal and you get heaps of money for product endorsement. Sports that make it onto TV are pretty much all professional these days
If the police want security tapes from a local business, for example, they have always just asked for them. The business isn't obligated to hand them over in that situation, but often does anyway, to be helpful.
The thing is that surveillance tapes are used solely for surveillance. They exist to be used as evidence of any crime that they bear witness to.
But if the police want to review the surveillance tapes, or look at a computer, or question the staff... then it is, and should be up to the library staff whether they feel like requiring the police to bring in a warrant before cooperating.
I agree that it should be up to the library staff whether the police question them or look at surveillance tapes or at computers in the absence of a warrant. But they didn't look at the computers in question. They removed them from the library, depriving the public of their use. It's an unreasonable deprivation of property unless there's a warrant issued for it.
Then if people find out about it you may expect a class-action lawsuit fighting whether that is reasonable notice. It might not be as obviously damaging as a utilities bill hypothetically changing the contract to let themselves bill you extra money, but in this age of mass identity theft it may be interesting to see where such a case would go
Some of the DMCA takedowns are user comments on posts that quote other articles. I'm pretty sure that I'm not attempting journalism by posting this comment on slashdot
Handsets probably require a large investment for set up costs, but besides some outsourced components the variable costs would be cheap, yes. But the one thing I really don't get is how you're confusing the cell phone manufacturers with the cell phone service companies. Unless Nokia is a service provider somewhere, they didn't purchase any broadcast monopoly, though they might have had to pay to have their device certified to use the spectrum. But that's different.
With cell phones we have the same situation we have with television. With television the advertiser is the customer and the captive audience is the product. With cell phones in the instance of fixed term contracts, the service providers are the actual customer to the manufacturer. The manufacturers would be competing for what the service providers wanted, which would have been to lock down phones to keep consumers in contracts and maybe to force additional revenue streams by the arbitrary crippling of handset features. If the manufacturer didn't do that, the service provider would just have gone with a different manufacturer.
Sure it wouldn't reverse what has already happened, but since Apple ships computers with MacOS preinstalled wouldn't they be able to get around this just by making retail copies of MacOS "upgrade" licenses, requiring an existing MacOS license?
...put a virtual image that looks real in front of a jury, and if they can't tell the difference, they may put an innocent person in prison. So they cut out the possibility of an innocent person and make virtual images mean the same thing in the eyes of the law as the real deal. So much for thinking of victims.
The way I imagined program access control was that each user program would be confined to a sandbox where it only had access to its application directory, a (system configured) data directory for that application and basic OS API functionality. If an application wants network access, it can request it from the OS and the OS will ask the user whether to grant the application the access it seeks. The user could be informed by the system what the implications of granting access would be. It could prompt a single time and only prompt again for all privileges if the application is changed.
Such settings would also be configurable in a system control panel outside the application sandbox. Administrative users could set application access permissions and deny non-admin users from ever configuring them. And as far as basic functionality like read/write access to a file, the OS would ask the user which file and the application would have the desired access to that file so long as the file existed, user permissions notwithstanding.
I don't think that inedible sugar would cut into food supplies in the US. It is likely that the sugar is rendered inedible so that it isn't subject to tariffs on importation into the US. But if demand goes up, it's going to raise the price of the edible sugar in Mexico and elsewhere. Like corn-derived ethanol is making corn and corn-derived foodstuffs more expensive, so will this with sugar.
Really, ethanol should not be made from foodstuffs, only waste. And if we're wasting foodstuffs, we should be reducing that waste, not making ethanol out of it. And the idea of poisoning a foodstuff just to get around import duties should be considered abhorrent.
The lack of supply that caused the rolling blackouts wasn't due to a lack of capacity, it was due to "...a poorly designed system that was manipulated by traders and marketers. Enron traders were revealed as intentionally encouraging the removal of power from the market during California's energy crisis by encouraging suppliers to shut down plants to perform unnecessary maintenance, as documented in recordings made at the time." Wikipedia link So they were just playing on the free market to raise prices by artificially reducing supply, much like DeBeers with diamonds. So they were in fact "increasing rates".
Perhaps they could divide up advertising revenue or a portion of the revenue amongst all of the players viewing advertisements to reduce the monthly subscription fee. So in the end players are "paying" the same amount. The more people viewing the ads, the greater the overall revenue, and perhaps more people would subscribe to playing
In a year, the 15" Macbook Pro will be a slow Macbook Pro assuming Apple keep up with Intel.
As opposed to the PPC G4s that were going nowhere? That wasn't something that Apple wanted, that was IBM not keeping up with Apple. As long as Intel's marketing department doesn't again seize control of development chanting "Gigahertz!" or some other singular aspect of chip design, there shouldn't be a repeat of this problem for Apple.
While there haven't been any nightly CVS builds that I could find (though I haven't been trying hard at all), a few months ago I did come across a third party that was posting the occasional CVS build at http://www.haque.net/software/mplayerosx/cvs/.
No, it's not officially sanctioned. I've been using these builds. If you don't trust them, don't use them.
Otherwise I'd have to thank an AC for linking an updated RC on MacUpdate, which is apparently more current than the CVS builds available on the previous link.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL
Common Law contract law that advertising something as being for sale is an invitation to treat, which doesn't put any obligation on the seller to provide anything.
In Australia selling stuff generally comes under the Trade Practices Act, or in the cases where the Federal Government cannot legislate, individual state Fair Trading laws.
Educate them. You don't need to teach them advanced computer concepts, just teach them safe browsing habits and a healthy paranoia of the vectors used for social engineering attacks. Users may still get worms and such from not having up-to-date systems, but user misaction is a bigger cause of problems than user inaction.
There's enough people needing said education that you could run basic one hour classes for them. And the regularly spurted 'cost to the economy' figures for the fruits of stupid behaviour could easily justify making it free for them if they want to continue to have an internet connection
I guess this spells the demise of sneakernet
Lawyers are like geeks, except they hack laws instead of code
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in Australia the olympics is big business for the athletes. Get a gold medal and you get heaps of money for product endorsement. Sports that make it onto TV are pretty much all professional these days
No, I'd blame both parties. The police shouldn't have asked for that much without a warrant and the librarian shouldn't have consented
If the police want security tapes from a local business, for example, they have always just asked for them. The business isn't obligated to hand them over in that situation, but often does anyway, to be helpful.
The thing is that surveillance tapes are used solely for surveillance. They exist to be used as evidence of any crime that they bear witness to.
But if the police want to review the surveillance tapes, or look at a computer, or question the staff... then it is, and should be up to the library staff whether they feel like requiring the police to bring in a warrant before cooperating.
I agree that it should be up to the library staff whether the police question them or look at surveillance tapes or at computers in the absence of a warrant. But they didn't look at the computers in question. They removed them from the library, depriving the public of their use. It's an unreasonable deprivation of property unless there's a warrant issued for it.
Then if people find out about it you may expect a class-action lawsuit fighting whether that is reasonable notice. It might not be as obviously damaging as a utilities bill hypothetically changing the contract to let themselves bill you extra money, but in this age of mass identity theft it may be interesting to see where such a case would go
If they can't prove the distribution, then how do they know the copyright infringement is happening?
The same method they use to come up with the imaginary losses they suffer due to copyright infringementSome of the DMCA takedowns are user comments on posts that quote other articles. I'm pretty sure that I'm not attempting journalism by posting this comment on slashdot
Handsets probably require a large investment for set up costs, but besides some outsourced components the variable costs would be cheap, yes. But the one thing I really don't get is how you're confusing the cell phone manufacturers with the cell phone service companies. Unless Nokia is a service provider somewhere, they didn't purchase any broadcast monopoly, though they might have had to pay to have their device certified to use the spectrum. But that's different.
With cell phones we have the same situation we have with television. With television the advertiser is the customer and the captive audience is the product. With cell phones in the instance of fixed term contracts, the service providers are the actual customer to the manufacturer. The manufacturers would be competing for what the service providers wanted, which would have been to lock down phones to keep consumers in contracts and maybe to force additional revenue streams by the arbitrary crippling of handset features. If the manufacturer didn't do that, the service provider would just have gone with a different manufacturer.
Sure it wouldn't reverse what has already happened, but since Apple ships computers with MacOS preinstalled wouldn't they be able to get around this just by making retail copies of MacOS "upgrade" licenses, requiring an existing MacOS license?
...put a virtual image that looks real in front of a jury, and if they can't tell the difference, they may put an innocent person in prison. So they cut out the possibility of an innocent person and make virtual images mean the same thing in the eyes of the law as the real deal. So much for thinking of victims.The way I imagined program access control was that each user program would be confined to a sandbox where it only had access to its application directory, a (system configured) data directory for that application and basic OS API functionality. If an application wants network access, it can request it from the OS and the OS will ask the user whether to grant the application the access it seeks. The user could be informed by the system what the implications of granting access would be. It could prompt a single time and only prompt again for all privileges if the application is changed.
Such settings would also be configurable in a system control panel outside the application sandbox. Administrative users could set application access permissions and deny non-admin users from ever configuring them. And as far as basic functionality like read/write access to a file, the OS would ask the user which file and the application would have the desired access to that file so long as the file existed, user permissions notwithstanding.
I don't think that inedible sugar would cut into food supplies in the US. It is likely that the sugar is rendered inedible so that it isn't subject to tariffs on importation into the US. But if demand goes up, it's going to raise the price of the edible sugar in Mexico and elsewhere. Like corn-derived ethanol is making corn and corn-derived foodstuffs more expensive, so will this with sugar. Really, ethanol should not be made from foodstuffs, only waste. And if we're wasting foodstuffs, we should be reducing that waste, not making ethanol out of it. And the idea of poisoning a foodstuff just to get around import duties should be considered abhorrent.
The lack of supply that caused the rolling blackouts wasn't due to a lack of capacity, it was due to "...a poorly designed system that was manipulated by traders and marketers. Enron traders were revealed as intentionally encouraging the removal of power from the market during California's energy crisis by encouraging suppliers to shut down plants to perform unnecessary maintenance, as documented in recordings made at the time." Wikipedia link So they were just playing on the free market to raise prices by artificially reducing supply, much like DeBeers with diamonds. So they were in fact "increasing rates".
Perhaps they could divide up advertising revenue or a portion of the revenue amongst all of the players viewing advertisements to reduce the monthly subscription fee. So in the end players are "paying" the same amount. The more people viewing the ads, the greater the overall revenue, and perhaps more people would subscribe to playing
Well, considering this a year ago http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/10/1752233 you don't even have to be an adult to be considered a pedophile on the internet
Does that mean that I can format shift it from the internet to my HDD? :P
Did they get their inspiration from bar fights?
Growing Diamonds for Better Information Security
Because they'll be too busy stealing the diamonds to steal the data!
Sounds like 18th century England, except those were petty crimes, and that punishment was life in a penal colony.
In a year, the 15" Macbook Pro will be a slow Macbook Pro assuming Apple keep up with Intel.
As opposed to the PPC G4s that were going nowhere? That wasn't something that Apple wanted, that was IBM not keeping up with Apple. As long as Intel's marketing department doesn't again seize control of development chanting "Gigahertz!" or some other singular aspect of chip design, there shouldn't be a repeat of this problem for Apple.
While there haven't been any nightly CVS builds that I could find (though I haven't been trying hard at all), a few months ago I did come across a third party that was posting the occasional CVS build at http://www.haque.net/software/mplayerosx/cvs/.
No, it's not officially sanctioned. I've been using these builds. If you don't trust them, don't use them.
Otherwise I'd have to thank an AC for linking an updated RC on MacUpdate, which is apparently more current than the CVS builds available on the previous link.
MacUpdate link here: http://macupdate.com/info.php/id/18580
Macs May No Longer Be Immune to Viruses Say it ain't so!