I'm looking for ANY decent mud client that has a separate output box and input box (so what the mud sends is displayed in one box, what I type in another). I don't know why I can't find a single one in a repository. But I got close to installing something called XpertMUD but it needs some library and I'm incapable of finding out which library it is.
Its certainly something to consider in the future. For now I'll stick with openSUSE (I only just installed it and the cost in download is quite significant for me on my current ISP plan unfortunately), but thanks for the recommendation.
If you want a toaster that deep fries your sunday roast with all the trimmings, give Linux a go.:) If you want something that can install most programs you'll want to install, don't go Linux. I'm enjoying my Linux, but I am having trouble installing things that I can't find in a repository (although repositories do make it damn easy to install and update programs).
And a legal privilege is... a right, right? No, rights are irrevocable. Copyright however is revocable (as works eventually enter the public domain, once upon a time they did this within the creators own lifetime).
What was the point of your post, again? To point out that Capitol is not defending its rights here.
yet where it's pretty obvious that a substantial amount of damage is being done But there is no evidence a substantial amount of damage is being done. No admissible or inadmissible evidence. In fact given how much some people infringe on the copyright of others, its impossible for all of it to be representative of how much damage that one person has done the copyright holders by infringing on their copyright.
That part yes. Sorry I was only responding to the bolded bit. Although again she wasn't convicted. She was found to have made available someone's copyright without permission from the copyright holder. The difference is if she were convicted the RIAA wouldn't be making a dime (unless they sued separately) and she would be facing a fine and/or jail time. Which is simply ridiculous, but a separate issue.
She was guilty, clearly, obviously and transparently. she got caught. WTF is going through her head? "I shouldn't have to pay $222,000 when I only uploaded it to 5 people"? Not such an unreasonable thing to think.
The [RIAA] spokesman told Ars., "We will continue to defend our rights." Copyright is not a right (despite its name). It is a legal privilege given to certain people for a finite amount of time. Unfortunately big business and Congress have forgotten this.
If they include legal fees, and what they spend tracking down file sharers, it just might be more than she has to pay. In other countries this is true, but not in America. In America you have to pay your own attorney's fees regardless of if you win or lose. This is good in some instances (and absolutely terrible in others) as it would stop people from suing someone for an infinitesimal amount, like the actual provable damages incurred by Thomas making the music illegally available.
Agreed. At the absolute most the RIAA should have to prove how many people actually downloaded from her and then multiply that with the retail cost of the music. That's an absolute most (a better way would be to prove the people who downloaded from her would otherwise buy the actual song if they couldn't illegally download it. Given the amount of digital piracy that goes on its quite impossible for most to buy all of what they illegally pirate).
Isn't creating a law with the purpose of using it for one thing (going after commercial pirates) and then using it for something else (going after people who pirate for no money and instead personal uses) something we hate here at slashdot? And yet we have another clear example of it and hail it as if it were the best thing to ever happen, simply by misappropriating the term "organized crime." Isn't that something else we complain about as well (after pirates don't steal, they simply infringe).
I guess the end truly does justify the means. At least here at/.
Considering Sun refuses to incldue open source code into OOo without owning the copyright, this will be an interesting move. Although how will bundling Thunderbird help add functionality to OOo rather then simply installing the two separately?
One could say the same about any office product, but at the very least they share the "Recent Documents" and can launch each other's applications (which is quite a nifty side-benefit). I'm not seeing even that advantage to the Thunderbird bundling. Although I'm sure it will be useful for those not knowledgeable enough to be able to install both separately.
AC - I can't believe people are willing to have e-mails stored online. You - "I find it amazing how people strive to have the most menial things secure. I don't honestly care." Me - "If you don't care about security, post your e-mails publicly." You - "I care about security, just the level of security shouldn't be that high" Me - "How is having stuff stored locally instead of online a high amount of security?"
Now you might be confused about that last point however if you see the OP's point about how e-mails shouldn't be stored online. The only other option is to store it locally.
Who even wants to use something else than Gmail? Me. If you read Google's Privacy Policy (who does that? I know, simply shocking) they've given themselves permission to create profiles based on every single e-mail that has ever gone through your inbox (as well as information form any other services you use with your Gmail account). They can then use this to send even more ads to you or even sell it. Personally I value my privacy a bit more then that, so I'm phasing out my use of Google.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm looking for ANY decent mud client that has a separate output box and input box (so what the mud sends is displayed in one box, what I type in another). I don't know why I can't find a single one in a repository. But I got close to installing something called XpertMUD but it needs some library and I'm incapable of finding out which library it is.
Problem is if a program isnt' in any of these repositories then I have a lot of trouble downloading and installing it.
Its certainly something to consider in the future. For now I'll stick with openSUSE (I only just installed it and the cost in download is quite significant for me on my current ISP plan unfortunately), but thanks for the recommendation.
If you take a gander at my sig you'll see I'm not using Ubuntu ;)
You don't really understand why they're called the Dark Ages do you?
Then please point to some of this evidence. I give a reasoned and logical reasoning for my response. You on the other hand resort to name-calling.
Guess her first thought then was "I shouldn't have to pay $3,000 when I only uploaded it to 5 people." Still sounds reasonable to me.
That part yes. Sorry I was only responding to the bolded bit. Although again she wasn't convicted. She was found to have made available someone's copyright without permission from the copyright holder. The difference is if she were convicted the RIAA wouldn't be making a dime (unless they sued separately) and she would be facing a fine and/or jail time. Which is simply ridiculous, but a separate issue.
This isn't a fine. This is an award for her infringing on somebody's copyright. Unfortunately that part of the constitution wouldn't apply (IANAL).
Agreed. At the absolute most the RIAA should have to prove how many people actually downloaded from her and then multiply that with the retail cost of the music. That's an absolute most (a better way would be to prove the people who downloaded from her would otherwise buy the actual song if they couldn't illegally download it. Given the amount of digital piracy that goes on its quite impossible for most to buy all of what they illegally pirate).
Shame they had to add some flamebait into thei post.
Isn't creating a law with the purpose of using it for one thing (going after commercial pirates) and then using it for something else (going after people who pirate for no money and instead personal uses) something we hate here at slashdot? And yet we have another clear example of it and hail it as if it were the best thing to ever happen, simply by misappropriating the term "organized crime." Isn't that something else we complain about as well (after pirates don't steal, they simply infringe).
/.
I guess the end truly does justify the means. At least here at
he used his Governor powers to terminate a privacy bill. Was there ever a time more appropriate to call him the Governator?
Those damn bank fees really suck.
Considering Sun refuses to incldue open source code into OOo without owning the copyright, this will be an interesting move. Although how will bundling Thunderbird help add functionality to OOo rather then simply installing the two separately?
One could say the same about any office product, but at the very least they share the "Recent Documents" and can launch each other's applications (which is quite a nifty side-benefit). I'm not seeing even that advantage to the Thunderbird bundling. Although I'm sure it will be useful for those not knowledgeable enough to be able to install both separately.
While not news, it is a shame that opinion and free speech has been infringed upon by bad policies backed up by draconian IP laws.
Here's the conversation laid out for you easily:
AC - I can't believe people are willing to have e-mails stored online.
You - "I find it amazing how people strive to have the most menial things secure. I don't honestly care."
Me - "If you don't care about security, post your e-mails publicly."
You - "I care about security, just the level of security shouldn't be that high"
Me - "How is having stuff stored locally instead of online a high amount of security?"
Now you might be confused about that last point however if you see the OP's point about how e-mails shouldn't be stored online. The only other option is to store it locally.
And how is having e-mail stored locally instead of on an online account high security?