Your notion of convenience clearly seems to be one not shared by a ton of people otherwise the iPad wouldn't have sold 4 million units in under 6 months. It's amusing how those like you continually talk about how the iPod, iPhone and iPad weren't going to succeed because it didn't meet the niche requirements of a bunch of nerds and yet every single one of them have been smashing successes.
Since when do you buy e-books from a music service? I'm failing to see how your whining about e-books has any relevance on to the specific claim and counterpoint to a talk of "DRM-laden music services".
When brand new e-books from Amazon are as easy to preserve as 15 my year old ones, then you'll have a point.
They are. What is hard about preserving an e-book from Amazon? The DRM is easily stripped and you can make unlimited bit-perfect digital copies. You can even (in the case of the Topaz format) OCR them so that you can get a searchable text format that can be saved as e-pub, as a word doc or as a PDF.
So then you'd have no problem showing the statutory law that defines "copyleft", no? The only reason that "copyleft" has any force is due to copyright law.
Yes, but the treaties still need to be ratified by a majority vote of both houses of Congress to be valid on the United States.
Actually you would be quite wrong. The House has no say at all when it comes to the ratification of treaties. The advice and consent power is endowed to the Senate. If your going to try to claim things about the Constitution it might actually help to actually read it.
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
I was not aware the right to privacy was an inherent right
And it's statements like this that do nothing but prove those founders who were wary of the Bill of Rights true. The people possess all rights and powers that are not explicitly enumerated to the federal government or reserved by the states.
As other posters have stated, one of the many other tablets that are a fraction of the price using Android OS seem like a much better choice.
Why do they seem like a much better choice? Most of the reviews of those tablets show them to be mostly junk. The Galaxy S tablet is the only thing in the league of the iPad and going to be just as much if not more than the iPad is.
It's up to us as a country to make sure we don't disappoint the wonderfully insightful gentlemen who included those provisions as part of the nation's Constitution by allowing them to fade on our watch.
Actually many of the founders were against the Bill of Rights on the grounds that they saw that it could be used by some future generation to try to deny rights to the people because they weren't explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. This perversion that they foresaw has been shown to be true in such examples as how right-wingers try to claim there is no right to privacy since it isn't explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Why do you assume that ACTA won't be given the consent of Congress? Did you miss the fact that the DMCA passed with unanimous support of the Senate and virtually no opposition in the House when it was passed?
Except that the President is endowed with the power under Article 2 section 2 to make treaties which according to Article 6 are the "supreme Law of the Land." You can't just quote the parts you like and ignore the rest.
And trickle-down isn't bullshit, when you consider that it's the rich who hire the workers. If the government takes away all the rich person's money (say 100% income over 1 million) then the rich can't hire anyone.
Except that neither of these CEOs are going to be using their personal income to hire new workers. You might have something of a point if this was a corporate tax initiative, but it's not. Secondly, trickle-down is voodoo economics no matter how much the right tries to spin it.
Since when did either of those two people hire people using their own personal income? The people that Amazon and Microsoft hire come from the corporate revenue not from the CEO's income.
And based on Ubuntu's history of poor packaging when you try to remove this it will most likely try to claim that you need to remove your entire DE as well.
Maybe because it's hilarious to see a bunch of people who claim they are going to dethrone Facebook and give us this highly-secured social networking framework but instead that it is full of amateur-level security issues?
Jobs never was a programmer. Torvalds had help from other experienced programmers and Gates didn't single-handedly write all the software Microsoft put out and also hired experienced programmers. So I'm failing to see what analogous situation you are trying to build.
I think people forget that it's open source, so it's easily modified.
It's "easy to modify" but not "easy to modify" and make sure that you don't break other things or introduce bugs. That is unless all the open source software you deal with is extremely trivial in nature.
Able to code, and spot a vulnerability? Fix it yourself!
It's being judged so harshly probably due to the all the hype about how it's going to be unseating Facebook, etc. If you are going to hype yourself that much any misstep is going to be hounded on mercilessly.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless it's developed as a Facebook game perhaps.
It's being developed to run on Cry Engine2 so that's probably highly unlikely.
Don't forget about trying to buy the skeleton of the elephant man.
The problem is the GP is wrong and these aren't punitive damages. This is purely the statutory damages for copyright infringement.
Your notion of convenience clearly seems to be one not shared by a ton of people otherwise the iPad wouldn't have sold 4 million units in under 6 months. It's amusing how those like you continually talk about how the iPod, iPhone and iPad weren't going to succeed because it didn't meet the niche requirements of a bunch of nerds and yet every single one of them have been smashing successes.
Since when do you buy e-books from a music service? I'm failing to see how your whining about e-books has any relevance on to the specific claim and counterpoint to a talk of "DRM-laden music services".
When brand new e-books from Amazon are as easy to preserve as 15 my year old ones, then you'll have a point.
They are. What is hard about preserving an e-book from Amazon? The DRM is easily stripped and you can make unlimited bit-perfect digital copies. You can even (in the case of the Topaz format) OCR them so that you can get a searchable text format that can be saved as e-pub, as a word doc or as a PDF.
Putting the firewall on the machine its meant to protect is like wearing a bulletproof vest inside your body.
So it's a second layer of defense for your internal organs? That's a bad thing, how?
It doesn't. That would be the point of an antivirus/malware scanner.
Get used to copyleft. It's a legitimate word now.
So then you'd have no problem showing the statutory law that defines "copyleft", no? The only reason that "copyleft" has any force is due to copyright law.
or DRM-laden music services
Such as? Amazon and iTunes (pretty much the only relevant online music services to the vast majority of consumers) provide DRM-free files.
Yes, but the treaties still need to be ratified by a majority vote of both houses of Congress to be valid on the United States.
Actually you would be quite wrong. The House has no say at all when it comes to the ratification of treaties. The advice and consent power is endowed to the Senate. If your going to try to claim things about the Constitution it might actually help to actually read it.
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
Well you assumed wrong. ACTA would be given pretty much the same unanimous support as the DMCA had in the Senate when it was voted on.
I was not aware the right to privacy was an inherent right
And it's statements like this that do nothing but prove those founders who were wary of the Bill of Rights true. The people possess all rights and powers that are not explicitly enumerated to the federal government or reserved by the states.
As other posters have stated, one of the many other tablets that are a fraction of the price using Android OS seem like a much better choice.
Why do they seem like a much better choice? Most of the reviews of those tablets show them to be mostly junk. The Galaxy S tablet is the only thing in the league of the iPad and going to be just as much if not more than the iPad is.
It's up to us as a country to make sure we don't disappoint the wonderfully insightful gentlemen who included those provisions as part of the nation's Constitution by allowing them to fade on our watch.
Actually many of the founders were against the Bill of Rights on the grounds that they saw that it could be used by some future generation to try to deny rights to the people because they weren't explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. This perversion that they foresaw has been shown to be true in such examples as how right-wingers try to claim there is no right to privacy since it isn't explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Why do you assume that ACTA won't be given the consent of Congress? Did you miss the fact that the DMCA passed with unanimous support of the Senate and virtually no opposition in the House when it was passed?
Except that the President is endowed with the power under Article 2 section 2 to make treaties which according to Article 6 are the "supreme Law of the Land." You can't just quote the parts you like and ignore the rest.
And trickle-down isn't bullshit, when you consider that it's the rich who hire the workers. If the government takes away all the rich person's money (say 100% income over 1 million) then the rich can't hire anyone.
Except that neither of these CEOs are going to be using their personal income to hire new workers. You might have something of a point if this was a corporate tax initiative, but it's not. Secondly, trickle-down is voodoo economics no matter how much the right tries to spin it.
Since when did either of those two people hire people using their own personal income? The people that Amazon and Microsoft hire come from the corporate revenue not from the CEO's income.
And based on Ubuntu's history of poor packaging when you try to remove this it will most likely try to claim that you need to remove your entire DE as well.
Except that blocking spam from their cell network is not the same as getting the government to tax items for you.
Maybe because it's hilarious to see a bunch of people who claim they are going to dethrone Facebook and give us this highly-secured social networking framework but instead that it is full of amateur-level security issues?
Jobs never was a programmer. Torvalds had help from other experienced programmers and Gates didn't single-handedly write all the software Microsoft put out and also hired experienced programmers. So I'm failing to see what analogous situation you are trying to build.
I think people forget that it's open source, so it's easily modified.
It's "easy to modify" but not "easy to modify" and make sure that you don't break other things or introduce bugs. That is unless all the open source software you deal with is extremely trivial in nature.
Able to code, and spot a vulnerability? Fix it yourself!
Because all users are programmers, right?
These are people fresh out of college, and haven't gotten a lot of real world experience.
So these are the people we should be trusting to make a highly secure network protocol and implementation? Really?
It's being judged so harshly probably due to the all the hype about how it's going to be unseating Facebook, etc. If you are going to hype yourself that much any misstep is going to be hounded on mercilessly.