That's a little odd, but maybe it's a service call thing - i.e. they know most cards, even ones that do DVI, also support VGA but the reverse is true, and by pre-plugging the VGA cables in they save $X amount each year from customers who lack DVI-out and have just picked the wrong cable out of the box.
No, the image has to be not misleading taking the whole thing into account. You can't simply disclaimer your responsibility away so easily. If a reasonable person would be fooled by the image then they're liable (that's why obviously silly claims like the "Lynx Effect" are fine, even though clearly untrue, because no reasonable person would believe them).
A lot of people were upset that they were now expected to pay for something that they previously got for free, but what really turned that disappointment into anger was the condescending way that they played the PR game. "Sure, our prices have gone up, but only by the cost of a couple of coffees", suggesting that people's complaints were warrantless. What they should have done was played it straight, pointed out what people had been getting for free, pointed out all the costs involved on their side, the non-viability of that business model etc - it would still have gone down like a lead balloon but there would have been far less genuine disgust on the part of their customers. We're used to prices going up, what we don't like is smug CEOs telling us to stop whining and take it (note, I'm not a Netflix customer, they've only just appeared over here, but this is what I observed of the situation at the time).
There's a trade off for a lot of people though - the convenience of getting content at a price you're happy with versus the hassle of getting the torrent for free. Mess around with the price of the former and the hassle of the latter suddenly starts to look like less of a barrier. If the MPAA succeed in killing off Netflix they'll just foster a whole new bunch of downloaders (conversely they could try dropping prices still further and see if their uptake soars as people feel it's less risky to take a punt on their content, but that seems like far too radical thinking for the MPAA).
Same thing seems to be happening in the UK - there was some story about the cap on price increases for first class stamps being removed a couple of weeks back. We already had a change in pricing schemes in the last few years so that postage is no longer a flat rate for envelopes but is based on the size as well as the weight of the envelope. As more retail business moves online I predict we'll see more of this - partly to deal with increased costs (fuel, primarily I guess) but also as more retail stores move their business online the people who deliver the packages have a strong hold on a potentially lucrative sector.
Being out in the cold does have some affect on your immune system. Not generally enough to affect a normally healthy person, but I'd guess the combination of the new school years introducing lots of new virus carrying people to everyone, coupled with the fact that people tend to visit relatives etc over the holiday period means that you're exposed to more risk at the point when you're most likely to catch something. There's also the fact that the colder weather and shorter days psychologically make you feel more ill if you do catch something. A cold you write off as nothing during the summer my have you feeling very sorry for yourself during the winter, and over time it's the winter illnesses that stick in the mind. You're right that there's absolutely no reason to believe just going for a brisk walk in a cold park will give you a cold or flue, though.
This is pretty absurd logic. Travel is a pretty basic need in today's world (unless you want to go live on a farm somewhere and be fully self sufficient), crystal meth is not. By your logic we might also say thousands of people choke to death on their food everyday so let's ban food. Not to mention the government does collect taxes on legalised recreational drugs (tobacco and alcohol), so if getting rich was their aim why would they spend money playing whack a mole with meth labs instead of legalising it and collecting the taxes?
Exactly, if we spent less time arguing about the promises of politicians and more time answering the question of how we get them to stand by their promises once they're in power we might have a better world. We might also have an electorate who are more engaged with the process if they realise that what politicians say before the election actually matters more than as a showcase for their TV presence.
I understand where you're coming from, but it's actually counter productive. If everyone just rants about them on general principle, it's easy for the government to dismiss concerns as general rantings. If they are being criticised for specific behaviours time and again, it's going to be easier to argue that those behaviours need to be remedied.
We're pretty close - colleges and universities tell us that schools aren't teaching basic reading and arithmetic to the standard they'd expect and they're having to fill in the gaps. Now the UK has seen a hike in university fees which has already started to reflect in lower uptake for university courses meaning those essential skills won't be taught in higher education. Soon education will be the exclusive province of the rich once more.
I know it may be hard to imagine, but even in the affluent west there are people who will struggle to pay their energy bills this winter - and that's for the relatively cheap fossil fuel energy they're currently using. Disregarding the cost factor of energy is the pipe dream - it's not only energy companies that lose out if the price is too high.
Indeed - and we all know the media would never skew people's views to push an agenda. After all, the media told us they're only interested in the truth.
Going after the likes of Samsung and Nokia might be seen as just as foolish though, considering the vastness of their cumulative patent portfolios compared to Apple's relatively small offering. If G turn off Maps on iPhones A can buy in a replacement, N and S both have the means to go after A where it hurts far more - the hardware where A make all their money.
I take your point that there's a lot of hysteria whenever patents are mentioned, but do you honestly think, considering how hot a topic location services are right now (look at the investment the likes of Google are making with street view and WiFi location gathering) that 7 years of either not being able to use, or having to license the technology wouldn't leave Apple's competitors at a disadvantage?
You would be correct, except the patent in that case was a design patent, therefore the design is all that's important, not the functionality. A movie prop should be sufficient prior art even if the actual tablet doesn't work, this is not the same as saying nobody can patent a fully functioning time machine because of HG Wells, taking a sci-fi idea and making it work in the real world is much, much different to taking a sci-fi design and using it on a real world product.
Because insurance companies have the money to fight back against their riduclous "every infringement is costing us $X hundred thousand" claims, whereas the average John Doe will find it cheaper to settle for a few grand than pay for the legal representation to fight it in court.
The labels have spent the last decade telling us how downloading is theft. Insurance policies won't pay out for liability arising from a criminal act. Mixed messages from music labels about the nature of the "crime"? Say it ain't so:)
The only thing that the copying proves is that they want the product when it's free. For all we know, even if copying wasn't an option and the price was only a penny, they might still not want it. Of course, conversely if copying was not an option people might be willing to pay ten times what music sells for online now. We just simply can't say with the data we have. If someone offered me a free coffee right now, I'd probably take it, I'm a little thirsty but it's close enough to leaving time that it's not worth me making one myself. If they wanted to charge me a pound for the coffee, I'd refuse because I don't want one enough right now to pay even that reasonable amount - that doesn't prove that I "want the product", just that I'm happy to accept it when it's free.
Indeed, it seems that a lot of music is "pirated" and shared by kids and students. When they grow up, those are the same people who will be buying your expensive show tickets/merchandise/hits albums. Pursuing them in the courts (when they demonstrably don't have the money anyway - people who have the disposable income seem more than happy to pay for their downloads) is just going to alienate tomorrow's profit streams. This just boils down to greed - the labels realise they're already earning lots, but they want to earn lots more. Even drug dealers are smart enough to figure out free samples are the best way to guarantee a future income, you'd think music execs (who by all accounts mix in similar circles) could get there with a little help.
GP said copyright law as it stands, not the very idea of copyright law. Most people don't have a problem with artists being rewarded for their efforts, since the public benefits from their work, but a lot of people increasingly feel copyright law is now weighted too far against the public good. I can see the appeal in doing a piece of work today and wanting to get paid for it over and over for my lifetime plus seventy years, unlike the RIAA I can also see how that's perhaps a little unfairly weighted. I know a lot of people just want free stuff, but there are also a lot of other people who are happy to have a system of copyright for a sane period, don't assume that someone saying the current system is broken is automatically in the former camp, there still exist a few voices of reason holding the middle ground of the debate.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a little odd, but maybe it's a service call thing - i.e. they know most cards, even ones that do DVI, also support VGA but the reverse is true, and by pre-plugging the VGA cables in they save $X amount each year from customers who lack DVI-out and have just picked the wrong cable out of the box.
No, the image has to be not misleading taking the whole thing into account. You can't simply disclaimer your responsibility away so easily. If a reasonable person would be fooled by the image then they're liable (that's why obviously silly claims like the "Lynx Effect" are fine, even though clearly untrue, because no reasonable person would believe them).
A lot of people were upset that they were now expected to pay for something that they previously got for free, but what really turned that disappointment into anger was the condescending way that they played the PR game. "Sure, our prices have gone up, but only by the cost of a couple of coffees", suggesting that people's complaints were warrantless. What they should have done was played it straight, pointed out what people had been getting for free, pointed out all the costs involved on their side, the non-viability of that business model etc - it would still have gone down like a lead balloon but there would have been far less genuine disgust on the part of their customers. We're used to prices going up, what we don't like is smug CEOs telling us to stop whining and take it (note, I'm not a Netflix customer, they've only just appeared over here, but this is what I observed of the situation at the time).
There's a trade off for a lot of people though - the convenience of getting content at a price you're happy with versus the hassle of getting the torrent for free. Mess around with the price of the former and the hassle of the latter suddenly starts to look like less of a barrier. If the MPAA succeed in killing off Netflix they'll just foster a whole new bunch of downloaders (conversely they could try dropping prices still further and see if their uptake soars as people feel it's less risky to take a punt on their content, but that seems like far too radical thinking for the MPAA).
Same thing seems to be happening in the UK - there was some story about the cap on price increases for first class stamps being removed a couple of weeks back. We already had a change in pricing schemes in the last few years so that postage is no longer a flat rate for envelopes but is based on the size as well as the weight of the envelope. As more retail business moves online I predict we'll see more of this - partly to deal with increased costs (fuel, primarily I guess) but also as more retail stores move their business online the people who deliver the packages have a strong hold on a potentially lucrative sector.
Being out in the cold does have some affect on your immune system. Not generally enough to affect a normally healthy person, but I'd guess the combination of the new school years introducing lots of new virus carrying people to everyone, coupled with the fact that people tend to visit relatives etc over the holiday period means that you're exposed to more risk at the point when you're most likely to catch something. There's also the fact that the colder weather and shorter days psychologically make you feel more ill if you do catch something. A cold you write off as nothing during the summer my have you feeling very sorry for yourself during the winter, and over time it's the winter illnesses that stick in the mind. You're right that there's absolutely no reason to believe just going for a brisk walk in a cold park will give you a cold or flue, though.
This is pretty absurd logic. Travel is a pretty basic need in today's world (unless you want to go live on a farm somewhere and be fully self sufficient), crystal meth is not. By your logic we might also say thousands of people choke to death on their food everyday so let's ban food. Not to mention the government does collect taxes on legalised recreational drugs (tobacco and alcohol), so if getting rich was their aim why would they spend money playing whack a mole with meth labs instead of legalising it and collecting the taxes?
Exactly, if we spent less time arguing about the promises of politicians and more time answering the question of how we get them to stand by their promises once they're in power we might have a better world. We might also have an electorate who are more engaged with the process if they realise that what politicians say before the election actually matters more than as a showcase for their TV presence.
I understand where you're coming from, but it's actually counter productive. If everyone just rants about them on general principle, it's easy for the government to dismiss concerns as general rantings. If they are being criticised for specific behaviours time and again, it's going to be easier to argue that those behaviours need to be remedied.
We're pretty close - colleges and universities tell us that schools aren't teaching basic reading and arithmetic to the standard they'd expect and they're having to fill in the gaps. Now the UK has seen a hike in university fees which has already started to reflect in lower uptake for university courses meaning those essential skills won't be taught in higher education. Soon education will be the exclusive province of the rich once more.
Does that mean urine gets confiscated, or are you taking the piss? (sorry)
For deserts where there is year round sun. I don't think France qualifies for either of those statements.
I know it may be hard to imagine, but even in the affluent west there are people who will struggle to pay their energy bills this winter - and that's for the relatively cheap fossil fuel energy they're currently using. Disregarding the cost factor of energy is the pipe dream - it's not only energy companies that lose out if the price is too high.
Indeed - and we all know the media would never skew people's views to push an agenda. After all, the media told us they're only interested in the truth.
Going after the likes of Samsung and Nokia might be seen as just as foolish though, considering the vastness of their cumulative patent portfolios compared to Apple's relatively small offering. If G turn off Maps on iPhones A can buy in a replacement, N and S both have the means to go after A where it hurts far more - the hardware where A make all their money.
I take your point that there's a lot of hysteria whenever patents are mentioned, but do you honestly think, considering how hot a topic location services are right now (look at the investment the likes of Google are making with street view and WiFi location gathering) that 7 years of either not being able to use, or having to license the technology wouldn't leave Apple's competitors at a disadvantage?
You would be correct, except the patent in that case was a design patent, therefore the design is all that's important, not the functionality. A movie prop should be sufficient prior art even if the actual tablet doesn't work, this is not the same as saying nobody can patent a fully functioning time machine because of HG Wells, taking a sci-fi idea and making it work in the real world is much, much different to taking a sci-fi design and using it on a real world product.
Yes, we've progressed from not having invented it to having solved some interesting research problems. Next stage is cancelation.
Not only are they increasing the capacity, they're increasing the charge speed. That's all we need, millions of super fast lions :(
Because insurance companies have the money to fight back against their riduclous "every infringement is costing us $X hundred thousand" claims, whereas the average John Doe will find it cheaper to settle for a few grand than pay for the legal representation to fight it in court.
The labels have spent the last decade telling us how downloading is theft. Insurance policies won't pay out for liability arising from a criminal act. Mixed messages from music labels about the nature of the "crime"? Say it ain't so :)
The only thing that the copying proves is that they want the product when it's free. For all we know, even if copying wasn't an option and the price was only a penny, they might still not want it. Of course, conversely if copying was not an option people might be willing to pay ten times what music sells for online now. We just simply can't say with the data we have. If someone offered me a free coffee right now, I'd probably take it, I'm a little thirsty but it's close enough to leaving time that it's not worth me making one myself. If they wanted to charge me a pound for the coffee, I'd refuse because I don't want one enough right now to pay even that reasonable amount - that doesn't prove that I "want the product", just that I'm happy to accept it when it's free.
Indeed, it seems that a lot of music is "pirated" and shared by kids and students. When they grow up, those are the same people who will be buying your expensive show tickets/merchandise/hits albums. Pursuing them in the courts (when they demonstrably don't have the money anyway - people who have the disposable income seem more than happy to pay for their downloads) is just going to alienate tomorrow's profit streams. This just boils down to greed - the labels realise they're already earning lots, but they want to earn lots more. Even drug dealers are smart enough to figure out free samples are the best way to guarantee a future income, you'd think music execs (who by all accounts mix in similar circles) could get there with a little help.
GP said copyright law as it stands, not the very idea of copyright law. Most people don't have a problem with artists being rewarded for their efforts, since the public benefits from their work, but a lot of people increasingly feel copyright law is now weighted too far against the public good. I can see the appeal in doing a piece of work today and wanting to get paid for it over and over for my lifetime plus seventy years, unlike the RIAA I can also see how that's perhaps a little unfairly weighted. I know a lot of people just want free stuff, but there are also a lot of other people who are happy to have a system of copyright for a sane period, don't assume that someone saying the current system is broken is automatically in the former camp, there still exist a few voices of reason holding the middle ground of the debate.
Only if we the public do it.