Yeah, except that I think this system allows you to register as many of your own personal devices as you want.
I'll be interested to see if they follow through with their "goals"...but it's still going to be DRM, so the best-case scenario is still a bad case in my book.
Why do you insist on harping on this car analogy? We're not talking about hardware, so your "brake tax" analogy doesn't fit. And as for your reference to the car's internal computer: let me know when a viable alternative to the car's internal software is produced and readily available. The car won't even function without the very specific computer and very specific hardware. If you produced one and really didn't want...
You know what, never mind. You think I'm wrong along with a large chunk of the tech community, I think you're wrong along with a large chunk of the tech community, and I can see that neither one of us is going to switch positions any time soon.
Feel free to respond, but I'm done with this for now.
If you really think that Ford makes it own cars with all components inside it, including all the software that runs in it, you're really very very naive.
No, I don't really think that Ford makes all of the parts. Thanks for that vote of confidence; much appreciated.
If i buy an apple, how do i get rid of the OSX/Apple tax?
If I buy a ford, how do i put a Mazda engine it it from the getgo and not pay the Ford tax?
Apple makes the computers. Ford makes the cars. So there really isn't a way to not pay them in some way (unless you stole their products...but that's beside the point)
Microsoft, on the other hand, does not manufacture the computers. So if I want to buy a computer I shouldn't have to pay them as well if I don't want their product to come with it.
p2p = illegal is not their only argument. If it were, it could fail as you describe.
I didn't say it was their only argument. I was pointing out that p2p in and of itself is not illegal. I thought that was clear.
Therefore, your argument is both a non-sequiteur and a strawman.
No and no: it is not a non-sequitur and since I was not attempting to oversimplify the entire case or restate their opinion in a way that was easier to refute (it was a public statement!) it is not a straw man.
Why do they insist on calling p2p itself illegal? Do they actually understand the law at all, or are they relying on public ignorance to keep them justified?
The Bible, which stands up textual criticism at least with its many corroborating MS, claims that hundreds saw Jesus alive after his execution and while no secular sources confirm this, at least none give evidence to deny it.
I've got a few stinkers that stopped holding their charge after only about a dozen cycles of light duty operation.
Of course. Battery manufacturers bank on people buying replacement batteries, and since so many people misplace rechargeables long before they go bad or simply do not realize they are supposed to recharge hundreds of times, there is no incentive to produce a better product (except in the precision/high-tech market, but that's a different story). Toyota would likely do the same if they entered the AA market.
People would certainly take notice if their cars only went 1000 miles before they crapped out.
What does that have to do with anything? Either free software is dumping, because people are underpricing their product in order to drive out competition, or it's not.
It has everything to do with determining whether or not something is anti-competitive. Linux cannot be anti-competitive under U.S. law as more than one entity is contributing to the freely released product, and it also does not fall under the restrictions placed on joint ventures because a large chunk of the work is unpaid, voluntary, and not at all commissioned by the monetary contributors. Likewise, free software that is built like Linux is not dumping.
All I'm pointing out is that the vast majority of Google's products are developed by Google alone and then released for free, while the funding comes from an alternate stream. So I can understand where some of Google's enemies are coming from.
So much for Linux, then, which is funded by, among other companies, Redhat, Oracle, etc.
This doesn't quite fall under the way of thinking I described, since there are many companies that contribute to Linux, not to mention the countless developers.
Although one could argue that releasing products for free was akin to underselling the competition, driving other companies out of business by funding these products with alternate revenue streams. Not my opinion, but I can see where they are coming from.
I'm also getting the feeling that this is nothing more than a probe. I guess time will tell on that one.
Why is this flamebait? Hacker != Criminal, even if all of them are in this article. The news media typically portrays all hackers as such, but that doesn't mean that we should.
The new dual-core processor is E5200, which has a core clock speed of 2.5GHz, 2MB of cache memory, and an 800MHz front-side bus. It costs US$84 per thousand.
Am I reading this price right? These can't possibly be 5 cents each...
Were they planning on doing something illegal? I doubt it.
In the house that had just been raided, those inside described how a team of roughly 25 officers had barged into their homes with masks and black swat gear, holding large semi-automatic rifles, and ordered them to lie on the floor, where they were handcuffed and ordered not to move. The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant. They were forced to remain on the floor for 45 minutes while the officers took away the laptops, computers, individual journals, and political materials kept in the house. One of the individuals renting the house, an 18-year-old woman, was extremely shaken as she and others described how the officers were deliberately making intimidating statements such as "Do you have Terminator ready?" as they lay on the floor in handcuffs.
What matters is your record. In the case of these douchebags, it's their voting record.
Voting records apply to people, not parties. A party is a collection of people with similar (read: not necessarily the same) views. And the difference reinforces my point that the parties have shifted. Those that call themselves and are Democrats in this day and age mostly vote against Bush and against the war, etc. Not all, but most. And so if you assess the views of the party based on its members, as is the only way to judge a party, then it holds that the Democratic party has these views.
You do realize that's bullshit, right?
No, actually. Anyone can easily see that the parties have virtually switched places when it comes to social issues.
This holds for the Republicans as well. If you want to know how a party leans, don't look in the history books. Look at its members.
As has been stated, the fact that New Orleans is below sea level makes any hurricane extremely dangerous. I also saw this morning that the levees aren't exactly up at full strength, and so the people near them were evacuated.
If you want an overreaction, look at how Florida handled the recent tropical storm. We got rain, and that's about it.
I have a feeling you live in an area not affected by hurricanes. If you did, you'd likely be singing a different tune about this one. I'm usually fairly complacent when it comes to big storms hitting Florida (we're pros at this by now), but given the circumstances, I think the evacuation was a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I find that extremely offensive to the hardworking female lawyers of the RIAA and MPAA. You, sir, are a sexist.
I demand a formal apology.
Yeah, except that I think this system allows you to register as many of your own personal devices as you want.
I'll be interested to see if they follow through with their "goals"...but it's still going to be DRM, so the best-case scenario is still a bad case in my book.
Why do you insist on harping on this car analogy? We're not talking about hardware, so your "brake tax" analogy doesn't fit. And as for your reference to the car's internal computer: let me know when a viable alternative to the car's internal software is produced and readily available. The car won't even function without the very specific computer and very specific hardware. If you produced one and really didn't want ...
You know what, never mind. You think I'm wrong along with a large chunk of the tech community, I think you're wrong along with a large chunk of the tech community, and I can see that neither one of us is going to switch positions any time soon.
Feel free to respond, but I'm done with this for now.
If you really think that Ford makes it own cars with all components inside it, including all the software that runs in it, you're really very very naive.
No, I don't really think that Ford makes all of the parts. Thanks for that vote of confidence; much appreciated.
If i buy an apple, how do i get rid of the OSX/Apple tax? If I buy a ford, how do i put a Mazda engine it it from the getgo and not pay the Ford tax?
Apple makes the computers. Ford makes the cars. So there really isn't a way to not pay them in some way (unless you stole their products...but that's beside the point)
Microsoft, on the other hand, does not manufacture the computers. So if I want to buy a computer I shouldn't have to pay them as well if I don't want their product to come with it.
Greg goes through a thorough design process when building his projects.
Unless you're building something from a kit, who doesn't?
p2p = illegal is not their only argument. If it were, it could fail as you describe.
I didn't say it was their only argument. I was pointing out that p2p in and of itself is not illegal. I thought that was clear.
Therefore, your argument is both a non-sequiteur and a strawman.
No and no: it is not a non-sequitur and since I was not attempting to oversimplify the entire case or restate their opinion in a way that was easier to refute (it was a public statement!) it is not a straw man.
Why do they insist on calling p2p itself illegal? Do they actually understand the law at all, or are they relying on public ignorance to keep them justified?
Wait....nevermind...
The Bible, which stands up textual criticism at least with its many corroborating MS, claims that hundreds saw Jesus alive after his execution and while no secular sources confirm this, at least none give evidence to deny it.
Hundreds? Try about a dozen.
I've got a few stinkers that stopped holding their charge after only about a dozen cycles of light duty operation.
Of course. Battery manufacturers bank on people buying replacement batteries, and since so many people misplace rechargeables long before they go bad or simply do not realize they are supposed to recharge hundreds of times, there is no incentive to produce a better product (except in the precision/high-tech market, but that's a different story). Toyota would likely do the same if they entered the AA market.
People would certainly take notice if their cars only went 1000 miles before they crapped out.
What does that have to do with anything? Either free software is dumping, because people are underpricing their product in order to drive out competition, or it's not.
It has everything to do with determining whether or not something is anti-competitive. Linux cannot be anti-competitive under U.S. law as more than one entity is contributing to the freely released product, and it also does not fall under the restrictions placed on joint ventures because a large chunk of the work is unpaid, voluntary, and not at all commissioned by the monetary contributors. Likewise, free software that is built like Linux is not dumping.
All I'm pointing out is that the vast majority of Google's products are developed by Google alone and then released for free, while the funding comes from an alternate stream. So I can understand where some of Google's enemies are coming from.
So much for Linux, then, which is funded by, among other companies, Redhat, Oracle, etc.
This doesn't quite fall under the way of thinking I described, since there are many companies that contribute to Linux, not to mention the countless developers.
Although one could argue that releasing products for free was akin to underselling the competition, driving other companies out of business by funding these products with alternate revenue streams. Not my opinion, but I can see where they are coming from.
I'm also getting the feeling that this is nothing more than a probe. I guess time will tell on that one.
Why is this flamebait? Hacker != Criminal, even if all of them are in this article. The news media typically portrays all hackers as such, but that doesn't mean that we should.
This could also be a giant honeypot to try and catch intruders. Or not. Not like many of us will see this anyway (unless it all ends up on Wikileaks).
I figured, of course, but they really need to work on phrasing it correctly.
Err... 8.4 each. I was looking at the other price.
The new dual-core processor is E5200, which has a core clock speed of 2.5GHz, 2MB of cache memory, and an 800MHz front-side bus. It costs US$84 per thousand.
Am I reading this price right? These can't possibly be 5 cents each...
However I still fail to find very many racist Republicans in the part--today, or 60 years ago.
Try looking in the sticks in the south. Everyone I know there is Republican, and appalling racist.
Were they planning on doing something illegal? I doubt it.
In the house that had just been raided, those inside described how a team of roughly 25 officers had barged into their homes with masks and black swat gear, holding large semi-automatic rifles, and ordered them to lie on the floor, where they were handcuffed and ordered not to move. The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant. They were forced to remain on the floor for 45 minutes while the officers took away the laptops, computers, individual journals, and political materials kept in the house. One of the individuals renting the house, an 18-year-old woman, was extremely shaken as she and others described how the officers were deliberately making intimidating statements such as "Do you have Terminator ready?" as they lay on the floor in handcuffs.
I don't call this freedom.
What matters is your record. In the case of these douchebags, it's their voting record.
Voting records apply to people, not parties. A party is a collection of people with similar (read: not necessarily the same) views. And the difference reinforces my point that the parties have shifted. Those that call themselves and are Democrats in this day and age mostly vote against Bush and against the war, etc. Not all, but most. And so if you assess the views of the party based on its members, as is the only way to judge a party, then it holds that the Democratic party has these views.
You do realize that's bullshit, right?
No, actually. Anyone can easily see that the parties have virtually switched places when it comes to social issues.
This holds for the Republicans as well. If you want to know how a party leans, don't look in the history books. Look at its members.
As has been stated, the fact that New Orleans is below sea level makes any hurricane extremely dangerous. I also saw this morning that the levees aren't exactly up at full strength, and so the people near them were evacuated.
If you want an overreaction, look at how Florida handled the recent tropical storm. We got rain, and that's about it.
I have a feeling you live in an area not affected by hurricanes. If you did, you'd likely be singing a different tune about this one. I'm usually fairly complacent when it comes to big storms hitting Florida (we're pros at this by now), but given the circumstances, I think the evacuation was a good idea.
You do realize that the political parties have shifted, right?
That's not the only reason diesel costs more: Diesel Fuel Prices: What Consumers Should Know.
sure they can put a man into space, the problem has always been to get them back down safely once up there.
No, see, you're assuming Iran wants them back. And that they were given oxygen.