An eight month suspended sentence (so all he has to do is not commit crimes for eight months)
That's not how that works. He needs to not commit crimes for the duration of his probation, which is likely significantly longer than eight months, under the threat of having to serve those eight months.
People are stupid, and it isn't limited to this kind of "conservation". How many times have you heard someone talk about how much money they "saved" by buying something on sale that they would not have paid full price for?
Interesting that parent was rated "Funny" - it's also insightful that the attempt to stop information can actually make things worse - a lot worse.
Read the other posts. The Streisand effect mention would be insightful. The Kaupthing effect mention is humor through the (intentional) appearance of ignorance.
If all other things are pretty much equal, I would consider these two things:
1) If you aren't already including it in "how happy you are with either job", consider how much you have to put up with other peoples crap. Since you say that you enjoy management, do you really already understand how much more other people's ignorance and attitudes you will have to DEAL with (as opposed to just LIVING with it as non-management)?
2) Where are you more needed? Often times management has more underqualified individuals in it. Or just people who are otherwise qualified but just lack the management skills. Or are you that good at the techie stuff that you are the one that really makes stuff happen most of the time? How many others are there that easily could fill your spot in either position, should you not take it? I don't mean this in a "for the good of the business sense" way, but rather in the sense that making a bigger difference in either role could add additional "happiness" to the basic aspects of the jobs themselves.
The point is that what you quoted is not the purpose of the law, it is the method by which the purpose is to be achieved. Once the method BECOMES the purpose, then the law is no longer constitutional (as the stated purpose is the only one that Congress has the authority to legislate this issue by).
I never said that the law didn't originally do that, I said that it wasn't the purpose of it. Thus, what I said WAS entirely correct.
And that is ignoring the ignorance behind calling it "stealing".:p
Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution lists the "enumerated powers", one of those being "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;".
If a copyright or patent law is not designed for that purpose, then it is unconstitutional. (I.e. our intellectual property laws have been expanded unconstitutionally.)
Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas, and NOT to be used as a legal weapon against other companies.
Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and NOT to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas.
"The rest of us" meaning people who are trying to talk about monopolies in a reasonable sense (like Microsoft) without people getting ignorantly technical about it (you) and needing to have the basics of communication explained to them on the side (by me).
So you succeed at definitions but fail at reading comprehension. By your argument, everyone has a monopoly on everything since it is possible to arbitrarily define any product market narrow enough to make it so. When you are able to understand the context of the rest of the discussion, then you can come back and join the discussion the rest of us are having instead of misapplying semantics.
So you are one of those people who thinks satellite radio doesn't compete with over-the-air radio? [/sarcasm] I understand the necessity of properly defining the market to determine whether or not one has a monopoly, but that is no reason to start throwing around intentionally (I hope) obtuse examples like the two you threw out there. Apple does not have a monopoly with OS X.
See, you yourself say that IE is "primarily just a shell". So how is removing that IE shell not removing IE? Those shared libraries left behind are most definitely not IE.
So by your logic, if two programs share any libraries then the two programs are actually the same?
"Everything having solely to do with IE" is what IE is. IE is to Explorer like an extension is to Firefox. If you remove the extension, it's gone. That fact that what it was built on top of remains does not change the fact that it is gone.
That's a horrible idea, and you pointed out why in your own post.
A better idea would be to team up with a store like EB/Gamestop and allow people to turn in physical copies of the game in exchange for a download voucher. They could even let you download it in the store, through a method also open for regular new purchases so that people with crappy internet connections could do the same. You could have the digital games stored locally, giving you great download speeds.
This wouldn't be free, of course, and a small fee would be charged for these services. That way the store has some incentive to do this, and Sony still gets to double dip like you know they want to. But it is better than them asking you to pay full price a second time around.
Also, there was no failure by the lid to hold onto the cup. It actually sounds like the lid was on too well for her to handle it. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.
So on the negligent packaging claim, I'm going to say probably not.
iPhones (at least when bought through AT&T for a lower subsidized price) require that you also get an unlimited data plan for $30 (labeled as "DATA PLAN IPHONE" - implying to me that it is different than their other data plans) - so the minimum is actually about $70. (The data plan used to be $20, but was raised to $30 when the iPhone with 3G was rolled out.)
Do other carriers require similar things for Android phones? To be clear, this is a serious question, as I don't know. I'm not knocking the iPhone - I own one. My last bill was just under $84. That is the minimum plan plus the lowest (200 texts) $5 texting plan (again, labeled as "IPHONE TXT MSG 200" - implying to me that it is different than their other texting plans) plus all taxes and other regular monthly charges. How does that compare to Android phones minimums, even with unlimited data on other carriers?
I don't have an iphone due to all the restrictions on the device, but whenever I see brilliantly made apps like this, I really want to go out and get one.
The lame part is that it requires a prop. As you may or may not know, you can't just do that with any rolled up dollar bill, as the touch-screen uses conductivity instead of pressure. You have to stick something in the end of the dollar bill for it to register the touching. (Look closely in the video and you can see it.) The site makes no mention of this. I wonder how many people buy that app then get pissed off when their "snorting" doesn't register. (Also, as they are clearly British (even beyond charging in pounds instead of dollars), why are they using American money for their snorting?)
Slashdot Mirror
Parody is fair use.
An eight month suspended sentence (so all he has to do is not commit crimes for eight months)
That's not how that works. He needs to not commit crimes for the duration of his probation, which is likely significantly longer than eight months, under the threat of having to serve those eight months.
People are stupid, and it isn't limited to this kind of "conservation". How many times have you heard someone talk about how much money they "saved" by buying something on sale that they would not have paid full price for?
All this hype about omgz Google is so innovative. Let's take a step back and see what they have actually created shall we?l
...
So all you fanbois - with all the fanfare and hype - what exactly has Google really invented or developed that is so way out there?
Your problem here is clear - you don't know the difference between innovation and invention.
Really?
Interesting that parent was rated "Funny" - it's also insightful that the attempt to stop information can actually make things worse - a lot worse.
Read the other posts. The Streisand effect mention would be insightful. The Kaupthing effect mention is humor through the (intentional) appearance of ignorance.
See my sig. You are on your own. Stop expecting benevolence from you rulers.
If all other things are pretty much equal, I would consider these two things:
1) If you aren't already including it in "how happy you are with either job", consider how much you have to put up with other peoples crap. Since you say that you enjoy management, do you really already understand how much more other people's ignorance and attitudes you will have to DEAL with (as opposed to just LIVING with it as non-management)?
2) Where are you more needed? Often times management has more underqualified individuals in it. Or just people who are otherwise qualified but just lack the management skills. Or are you that good at the techie stuff that you are the one that really makes stuff happen most of the time? How many others are there that easily could fill your spot in either position, should you not take it? I don't mean this in a "for the good of the business sense" way, but rather in the sense that making a bigger difference in either role could add additional "happiness" to the basic aspects of the jobs themselves.
The point is that what you quoted is not the purpose of the law, it is the method by which the purpose is to be achieved. Once the method BECOMES the purpose, then the law is no longer constitutional (as the stated purpose is the only one that Congress has the authority to legislate this issue by).
I never said that the law didn't originally do that, I said that it wasn't the purpose of it. Thus, what I said WAS entirely correct.
And that is ignoring the ignorance behind calling it "stealing". :p
You are wrong, what I said IS entirely true.
Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution lists the "enumerated powers", one of those being "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;".
If a copyright or patent law is not designed for that purpose, then it is unconstitutional. (I.e. our intellectual property laws have been expanded unconstitutionally.)
Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas, and NOT to be used as a legal weapon against other companies.
Perhaps the idea should be to take patents back to the original purpose of them - to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and NOT to protect the inventor from other people stealing their ideas.
Fixed that for you.
"The rest of us" meaning people who are trying to talk about monopolies in a reasonable sense (like Microsoft) without people getting ignorantly technical about it (you) and needing to have the basics of communication explained to them on the side (by me).
So you succeed at definitions but fail at reading comprehension. By your argument, everyone has a monopoly on everything since it is possible to arbitrarily define any product market narrow enough to make it so. When you are able to understand the context of the rest of the discussion, then you can come back and join the discussion the rest of us are having instead of misapplying semantics.
So you are one of those people who thinks satellite radio doesn't compete with over-the-air radio? [/sarcasm] I understand the necessity of properly defining the market to determine whether or not one has a monopoly, but that is no reason to start throwing around intentionally (I hope) obtuse examples like the two you threw out there. Apple does not have a monopoly with OS X.
See, you yourself say that IE is "primarily just a shell". So how is removing that IE shell not removing IE? Those shared libraries left behind are most definitely not IE.
But lock-in doesn't equate to monopoly, which is my point here.
So by your logic, if two programs share any libraries then the two programs are actually the same?
"Everything having solely to do with IE" is what IE is. IE is to Explorer like an extension is to Firefox. If you remove the extension, it's gone. That fact that what it was built on top of remains does not change the fact that it is gone.
Are you suggesting Apple is monopolistic? I don't think that word means what you think it means...
That's a horrible idea, and you pointed out why in your own post.
A better idea would be to team up with a store like EB/Gamestop and allow people to turn in physical copies of the game in exchange for a download voucher. They could even let you download it in the store, through a method also open for regular new purchases so that people with crappy internet connections could do the same. You could have the digital games stored locally, giving you great download speeds.
This wouldn't be free, of course, and a small fee would be charged for these services. That way the store has some incentive to do this, and Sony still gets to double dip like you know they want to. But it is better than them asking you to pay full price a second time around.
Also, there was no failure by the lid to hold onto the cup. It actually sounds like the lid was on too well for her to handle it. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.
So on the negligent packaging claim, I'm going to say probably not.
She wasn't driving. She was the passenger. And the car was stopped.
Dude, reread what I wrote. I said I might be okay with that claim. But that isn't what the lawsuit claimed. They claimed it was too hot, which is BS.
Negligent packaging? Quite possibly. Coffee too hot? Not even close.
To be clear, those plan labels I mentioned are how they are labeled on my bill.
iPhones (at least when bought through AT&T for a lower subsidized price) require that you also get an unlimited data plan for $30 (labeled as "DATA PLAN IPHONE" - implying to me that it is different than their other data plans) - so the minimum is actually about $70. (The data plan used to be $20, but was raised to $30 when the iPhone with 3G was rolled out.)
Do other carriers require similar things for Android phones? To be clear, this is a serious question, as I don't know. I'm not knocking the iPhone - I own one. My last bill was just under $84. That is the minimum plan plus the lowest (200 texts) $5 texting plan (again, labeled as "IPHONE TXT MSG 200" - implying to me that it is different than their other texting plans) plus all taxes and other regular monthly charges. How does that compare to Android phones minimums, even with unlimited data on other carriers?
I don't have an iphone due to all the restrictions on the device, but whenever I see brilliantly made apps like this, I really want to go out and get one.
The lame part is that it requires a prop. As you may or may not know, you can't just do that with any rolled up dollar bill, as the touch-screen uses conductivity instead of pressure. You have to stick something in the end of the dollar bill for it to register the touching. (Look closely in the video and you can see it.) The site makes no mention of this. I wonder how many people buy that app then get pissed off when their "snorting" doesn't register. (Also, as they are clearly British (even beyond charging in pounds instead of dollars), why are they using American money for their snorting?)