But, I would like to know, what exactly about a video game, shopping experience or some other fluffy adventure that entitles you as a software developer to violate people's rights to privacy, for your own ends, when you would deny that same efficiency to everyone else?
Can we start with not being able to put anybody in jail, torture, or ruin their reputation and/or credit rating? The corridors of societal power are a completely different context than game company marketing and conflating the two is just lazy thinking.
Sure. You can pass that to Obama once you are done with it.
Try reading it yourself dickhead, you don't even know the first thing about it. You're just a troll with an Amazon affiliate account but that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
So if they don't have mechanical rights, they can't record it.
Which does not happen because mechanical licenses are compulsory, meaning they have to grant permission to everybody in exchange for royalty payments. The scale of the royalty is set by law and changes every so often. This is indeed a cutout in copyright law, but to combat inefficiencies of excludability and transferability in the market for cover songs. These versions can be sold.
Unfortunately, if they're not remotely tech savvy and/or simply afraid of technology, it may take some prodding.
It would be nice if you elaborated on this point. People know how to call the cops but they don't necessarily know what to do when they're blown off by the clueless.
"There should be a way to send words to another computer about things that I would like to know more about. I bet someone could make a lot of money by inventing a service such as this."
(with the possible exception of that crazy lunatic in charge of Iran, who is about as representative of Iranians as the Saudi royals are of the Saudi people)
They executive branch was using legislation like the original FISA, passed by congress, to justify their spying.
I dare you to find a citation where the Bush Administration uses FISA as a rationale behind warrantless domestic surveillance. I think you should look up what the "F" in "FISA" stands for.
This only creates whole new markets for domain squatters. Who gives a crap about.MOBI? I certainly don't. I don't see any major wireless carriers using it on a regular basis. The mobile blackberry website I go to is still a.COM
I believe that it will completely destroy the entire market for domain squatters and that this movement is actually about abolishing the traditional TLDs completely, possibly by demand of the companies who have to buy their trademark domains under all of the current TLDs under the sun. Think about it, do you think that if arbitrary TLDs can be registered that a company won't register ".warnerbrothers?" They will point their catchall @ DNS to "warnerbrothers." and you will read about a movie via "http://warnerbrothers/newmovie" in your browser. The only thing after that left to do is to get rid of the "http://" protocol specifier so that everybody only needs to type the company name into the browser's address field.
He may well be against all titles- including Doctor, Professor, Mr and Mrs... I myself sympathize with the view, though I can see it's not practical to try and eliminate them.
So you guys are all worrying about Bush wiretapping a few conversations so you can sue AT&T, while the government just grabbed all the financial data.
If you weren't such a crabapple you might realize that this is a way to expand opposition to the bill. There may be people who are OK (or ignorant or apathetic) with the spying but not so OK with the proto-taxgrab.
If the only penalty is having to open up the source once a suit is filed (and the SFLC or associated copyright owners proceed to drop the suit) then there isn't a downside to closing the source and violating the license.
Right, and what they appear to be doing by making the source available once the suit is filed is to set a limit on damages. It prevents the SFLC from alleging ongoing distribution.
Not irrational at all. Kosovo and Iraq both involved a rejection of diplomatic options that were far from exhausted, in order to launch a military attack that had gruesome consequences for civilian populations.
What about all the other stuff that distinguishes the two? Occupying the country, setting up shop in the capitol, torturing opposition in the same places the US decried, hanging their President by flashlight and cellphone camera on Christmas Eve?
Kosovo lasted a few months, provided some embarrassing issues, and did not involve US ground forces.
The only way Bush and Clinton can be equated on the basis of Iraq vs. Kosovo is by ignoring the substance of both of these conflicts. Taking them into account, Bush is much worse. Of course, if you don't care about the differences then all of this reasoning goes out the window. Hence, "irrational."
Ah yes. If only the US hadn't been waterboarding vietnamese POWs, John McCain wouldn't have been tortured for 5 years. American POWs have been -- and will be -- tortured regardless.
You might want to read the Convention Against Torture and brush up on the concept of "erga omnes." In short, we don't get to choose.
Since both Bush and Clinton are pretty much at zero when it comes to principles, it's not really accurate to say "least principled man to run for president from either major party since Nixon."
Actually it is. That you equate Kosovo with Iraq is irrational.
This is about control of the "difficult" people in the population and making an example of them for all to see.
Your Foucault is a little off, you might want to send it in for repair.
The kind of "control" you mention is not to make an example for all to see, it's to make interlopers and the rights they would like to stand up for invisible. The TSA is effectively saying (contrary to the headline and summary) that if you don't want to prove your identity don't bother showing up to the airport.
so I'm really curious if there are any examples of a tech-strong defendant really calling their bluff and demaning fine-grained specific evidence while at court or at some plea bargaining procedure.
Sure, just tell them you don't understand what they're looking for. Make them describe it in detail over multiple replies, up to and possibly including their flying and/or hiring someone to tell you how to do it on-site. Just play dumb.
On the other hand, Vista is really slow and buggy, it really needs some reworking.
Um, no. You're going to get a couple of new computers over the next couple of years, and by the time everything doubles in speed around then and by the time MS puts out a few service packs, Vista is going to be the coolest thing on the block. People will be mad when Vista support is pulled in 2015.
To be sure, even the existing usurious cancellation fees should work out to only about 3-4 months of service (depending on your plan). It'd be a small price to pay for not giving them your money for the next year and a half anyway.
Later, MD's lawyer will do their damned best to find anyone, anywhere, where I've said, "I'm fine." The goal is to make it look like I've suffered less than I actually have.
I don't know what kind of case you're imagining here, but saying "I'm fine" does not change the fact that this person stabbed you.
Slashdot Mirror
But, I would like to know, what exactly about a video game, shopping experience or some other fluffy adventure that entitles you as a software developer to violate people's rights to privacy, for your own ends, when you would deny that same efficiency to everyone else?
Can we start with not being able to put anybody in jail, torture, or ruin their reputation and/or credit rating? The corridors of societal power are a completely different context than game company marketing and conflating the two is just lazy thinking.
Sure.
You can pass that to Obama once you are done with it.
Try reading it yourself dickhead, you don't even know the first thing about it. You're just a troll with an Amazon affiliate account but that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
As bad as this is, it is likely necessary. It is called moving to the center.
No, it's called moving to the right.
So if they don't have mechanical rights, they can't record it.
Which does not happen because mechanical licenses are compulsory, meaning they have to grant permission to everybody in exchange for royalty payments. The scale of the royalty is set by law and changes every so often. This is indeed a cutout in copyright law, but to combat inefficiencies of excludability and transferability in the market for cover songs. These versions can be sold.
Unfortunately, if they're not remotely tech savvy and/or simply afraid of technology, it may take some prodding.
It would be nice if you elaborated on this point. People know how to call the cops but they don't necessarily know what to do when they're blown off by the clueless.
Is your use of figurative literal or figurative?
Virtual.
"There should be a way to send words to another computer about things that I would like to know more about. I bet someone could make a lot of money by inventing a service such as this."
(with the possible exception of that crazy lunatic in charge of Iran, who is about as representative of Iranians as the Saudi royals are of the Saudi people)
Which crazy lunatic are you talking about?
I doubt Charles Dickens would comment on anyones last name.
Yes, how dare he besmirch the stylistic tropes of Mr. Dickens in the name of humor.
The mere thought gives me the vapors.
Thank you for doing your part to make the world right again, citizen.
Interesting test - pretty amazing how FF3 basically flatlines at around 120 MBytes for over 2 hours of usage
They should use mine, I have to restart FF3 a few times a day since it balloons to about 500MB after being open for 6hrs.
They executive branch was using legislation like the original FISA, passed by congress, to justify their spying.
I dare you to find a citation where the Bush Administration uses FISA as a rationale behind warrantless domestic surveillance. I think you should look up what the "F" in "FISA" stands for.
This only creates whole new markets for domain squatters. Who gives a crap about .MOBI? I certainly don't. I don't see any major wireless carriers using it on a regular basis. The mobile blackberry website I go to is still a .COM
I believe that it will completely destroy the entire market for domain squatters and that this movement is actually about abolishing the traditional TLDs completely, possibly by demand of the companies who have to buy their trademark domains under all of the current TLDs under the sun. Think about it, do you think that if arbitrary TLDs can be registered that a company won't register ".warnerbrothers?" They will point their catchall @ DNS to "warnerbrothers." and you will read about a movie via "http://warnerbrothers/newmovie" in your browser. The only thing after that left to do is to get rid of the "http://" protocol specifier so that everybody only needs to type the company name into the browser's address field.
He may well be against all titles- including Doctor, Professor, Mr and Mrs... I myself sympathize with the view, though I can see it's not practical to try and eliminate them.
He's not trying to eliminate them.
So you guys are all worrying about Bush wiretapping a few conversations so you can sue AT&T, while the government just grabbed all the financial data.
If you weren't such a crabapple you might realize that this is a way to expand opposition to the bill. There may be people who are OK (or ignorant or apathetic) with the spying but not so OK with the proto-taxgrab.
If the only penalty is having to open up the source once a suit is filed (and the SFLC or associated copyright owners proceed to drop the suit) then there isn't a downside to closing the source and violating the license.
Right, and what they appear to be doing by making the source available once the suit is filed is to set a limit on damages. It prevents the SFLC from alleging ongoing distribution.
Not irrational at all. Kosovo and Iraq both involved a rejection of diplomatic options that were far from exhausted, in order to launch a military attack that had gruesome consequences for civilian populations.
What about all the other stuff that distinguishes the two? Occupying the country, setting up shop in the capitol, torturing opposition in the same places the US decried, hanging their President by flashlight and cellphone camera on Christmas Eve?
Kosovo lasted a few months, provided some embarrassing issues, and did not involve US ground forces.
The only way Bush and Clinton can be equated on the basis of Iraq vs. Kosovo is by ignoring the substance of both of these conflicts. Taking them into account, Bush is much worse. Of course, if you don't care about the differences then all of this reasoning goes out the window. Hence, "irrational."
Ah yes. If only the US hadn't been waterboarding vietnamese POWs, John McCain wouldn't have been tortured for 5 years. American POWs have been -- and will be -- tortured regardless.
You might want to read the Convention Against Torture and brush up on the concept of "erga omnes." In short, we don't get to choose.
Since both Bush and Clinton are pretty much at zero when it comes to principles, it's not really accurate to say "least principled man to run for president from either major party since Nixon."
Actually it is. That you equate Kosovo with Iraq is irrational.
This is about control of the "difficult" people in the population and making an example of them for all to see.
Your Foucault is a little off, you might want to send it in for repair.
The kind of "control" you mention is not to make an example for all to see, it's to make interlopers and the rights they would like to stand up for invisible. The TSA is effectively saying (contrary to the headline and summary) that if you don't want to prove your identity don't bother showing up to the airport.
so I'm really curious if there are any examples of a tech-strong defendant really calling their bluff and demaning fine-grained specific evidence while at court or at some plea bargaining procedure.
Sure, just tell them you don't understand what they're looking for. Make them describe it in detail over multiple replies, up to and possibly including their flying and/or hiring someone to tell you how to do it on-site. Just play dumb.
On the other hand, Vista is really slow and buggy, it really needs some reworking.
Um, no. You're going to get a couple of new computers over the next couple of years, and by the time everything doubles in speed around then and by the time MS puts out a few service packs, Vista is going to be the coolest thing on the block. People will be mad when Vista support is pulled in 2015.
And don't ever tell a judge they "don't have the authority".
Why not? It worked so well for Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.
Too bad I'm under a 2 year contract w/at&t :p
To be sure, even the existing usurious cancellation fees should work out to only about 3-4 months of service (depending on your plan). It'd be a small price to pay for not giving them your money for the next year and a half anyway.
Well, thanks for the literalism. We sure don't get enough of that around here.
Later, MD's lawyer will do their damned best to find anyone, anywhere, where I've said, "I'm fine." The goal is to make it look like I've suffered less than I actually have.
I don't know what kind of case you're imagining here, but saying "I'm fine" does not change the fact that this person stabbed you.