Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.
"Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal". You're implying that Apple is ok with Jailbreaking. If you didn't imply that, what point were you trying to make? If you want to nitpick, I can say that your sentence is a tautology because Apple isn't a lawmaker and can't make anything legal or illegal!
You may believe that, but you'd be wrong.
That's for a court of law to decide.
Absolutely not. Straw Man #2a.
...
Depends on the context. Straw Man #2b.
On the one hand you claim that I'm bound by an objectionable TOS. On the other hand you claim it depends on the circumstances. Can you enlighten us as to what exactly these circumstances are that determine whether or not I'm bound by a TOS?
Moreover, I believe that any TOS stripping people of their right to use a product legally bought in any way they wish without hurting others is legally questionable. Are you saying Apple can write anything in their TOS and that if I bought the product I'm legally bound by it? What if they insert a clause saying I have to pay them $10,000 whenever they want?
I'm well aware of apple's TOS restrictions...but I'll ignore them anyway. And if I ever get taken to court, I have faith in the judiciary at some level upholding my right to do what I want with my device as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
But once I buy it its mine. After buying the hardware and software it's not apple's anymore and I want nothing more to do with apple. By making jailbreaking illegal, apple is messing with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.
But I look at it this way: The App Store is a billboard. Other app stores are possible, but apple wants everyone to use only their particular app store and then goes ahead and dictates what can be shown on it. So it's like having the only billboard and making all other billboards illegal.
I'd like to posit that Apple doesn't have complete control over what content is available for the iPhone/iPad, because it has a web browser.
Does freedom of speech require me to let you publish whatever you want on my webpage, or my billboard, or on my TV/radio show? Is the iPad your one and only source of media?
It's my hardware and my iPad/iPhone/iPod! I should be able to use whatever I want on it. If Apple doesn't want to host certain applications in their store, that's just fine. But they shouldn't block all other sources of applications. That's forcing people to use your particular billboard and qualifies as censorship.
In fact, they've also claimed that jailbreaking is illegal. Another example of how they don't allow us to do whatever we want with our devices.
Though my wife and I start off by cuddling, we (I) eventually drift apart while sleeping. I sleep on my stomach and I don't like anything or anyone even a little bit on top of any part of me since it cuts off my blood supply and I can't sleep on my side. My wife doesn't like this since she would like to cuddle throughout the night, but what to do?
No. As professional historians, it's their job to write history based on the documentary evidence alone and put their personal feelings aside. You know, the way it's supposed to be done. The way it's usually done. Why should this be any different?
Here's something you should have figured out for yourself:
There are lots of theories that we take for granted and which we rely on scientists to tell us the truth. Take the General theory of relativity for example. Even though I have a background in physics, I still don't have the math expertise to prove it. Yet I "believe" in it. Why? Because all the scientists claim that it's true. They say they've proved it and over the last 100 years, no scientist has challenged it. So I take their word for it. I have to. I accept the general theory of relativity even though I haven't personally proved it for myself. The same holds true for the overwhelming majority of fields in science, maths, geology etc etc.
So can you say I'm blindly accepting the general theory of relativity? If by "blindly" you mean have it proved it for myself? Then yes. I'm blindly accepting it. But if you mean do I have reasons to believe it's true, then no it's not blind acceptance. I have very good reasons to "believe" it's true. Those reasons are that scientists believe in it. I can do no better and I challenge you to find another way (Hint: You can't go around studying for years to be able to prove something for every single field. I'll need a couple of thousand years for that).
In fact, I'm willing to bet you can't prove or apply the principles of aerodynamics for yourself. Yet you believe the scientists and engineers when they tell you so right? If you didn't, you would never set foot in an airplane.
The same is even more true with an interdisciplinary science like climate change. It's very easy for amateurs like me to pick up some jargon here and there and using it to prove either side of a debate. But unless we're pros, we don't know the half of it. Every theory has ifs, buts, and exceptions. And since there's no way in hell I'm ever going to reach a stage where I can prove or disprove it for myself, I'll have to take the second best option and listen to those who are in a position to do it. And when the overwhelming majority of such people say that human caused climate change is real, I believe them - savvy? Just like I believe those scientists who say that the general theory of relativity is true.
The only thing that's different about climate change is that scientist's positions can inconvenience vested interests. The government, big businesses and others who suddenly find they may have to change the way they live. So this has suddenly come up. Take all that out, and we would never have had this "denialist" charade.
Moral of the story: Just believe the majority of the scientists. They've no axe to grind and that's why they're there. If year after year, group after group of scientists from various disciplines, backgrounds, countries and agencies claim that anthropogenic global warming is really happening, then you'd be a fool to listen to anything else from TV, politicians or businesses. Q.E.D
But there's more than enough carbon to go around - no danger of us running out, know what I mean? The problem is one of excess. Life was getting on just fine before man came and decided to pull age old carbon out.
I probable reason is that when you compost your paper it releases either carbon dioxide (aerobic composting) or worse - methane (anerobic composting) into the atmosphere. Having the carbon safely locked up in trees is the best form of natural carbon sequestering.
Ideally of course, the carbon would be locked into oil and other fossil fuels deep inside the earth where it can't harm anyone. But we bring that stuff out and don't know how to put it back again.
It wouldn't be so good for them either. If they want to colonize the planet, destroying all life forms and making Earth radioactive would hardly be the best way to go about it.
Even now, any Indian would wet themselves at the prospect of being able to work in America
You obviously don't know too many Indians. I'm an Indian and stayed in the US for over a year. My wife and I had to fight to return to India - she almost had to threaten to quit her job unless she was sent back. So no - not everyone wants to go and settle in a foreign land.
OTOH, the Chinese classic - the "Tao teh Ching" positively prohibits cunning and urges people to stop being too smart. It also talks about how the government should never interfere with the people and never to make too much of a commotion about anything.
And it's older than the art of war...
It goes without saying that the current Chinese government has completely forgotten the Tao teh ching and doesn't give a shit about its own culture.
Your hypothesis fails the falsification test. Basically no matter what Google does, people like you are going to say they did it for their direct advantage.
To make it a scientific opinion, you have to give an example of an action that Google will take that will convince you they were not evil. Sometime ago, slashdotters were saying that if Google open sources VP8, that would be proof enough. Apparently you want more. So tell us. What do you want?
I'm not sure how many of my readers have Google toolbar installed. Guess I can install it myself and visit my site for Google to get the page load speed data...
I'm reading Asimov's works and I'm always surprised that he never predicted:
1. The Internet - he had scientists creating an "Encyclopedia Galactica" when it was feared that all science knowledge would be lost. We just use Wikipedia!
2. Cellphones - Trimensional viewing is horribly inconvenient. Often the characters don't know where others are. Now we just give them a call
3. Ebooks - He predicted film strips which are inconvenient and need to be borrowed from a library. Nuff said.
But my dear chap, you fail to understand that in the current context, we're talking about privacy in India viz a viz the rest of the world (and specifically the US).
Even the US doesn't have an explicit right to privacy. It's only "implied" by the constitution, and in this respect, seems to be on the same footing as India.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate and even advisable to look at the entire thread of discussion before inserting a comment that, not to put too fine a point on it, exposes a certain crude, aggressive mentality that is significantly out of sync with accepted standards of mature discussion on the Internet, notwithstanding the somewhat flippant and perhaps not entirely cohesive nature of the average comments on the present forum.
Slashdot Mirror
Please quote where I said otherwise. Straw Man #1.
"Apple hasn't made jailbreaking illegal". You're implying that Apple is ok with Jailbreaking. If you didn't imply that, what point were you trying to make? If you want to nitpick, I can say that your sentence is a tautology because Apple isn't a lawmaker and can't make anything legal or illegal!
You may believe that, but you'd be wrong.
That's for a court of law to decide.
Absolutely not. Straw Man #2a.
Depends on the context. Straw Man #2b.
On the one hand you claim that I'm bound by an objectionable TOS. On the other hand you claim it depends on the circumstances. Can you enlighten us as to what exactly these circumstances are that determine whether or not I'm bound by a TOS?
Apple is certainly trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
Moreover, I believe that any TOS stripping people of their right to use a product legally bought in any way they wish without hurting others is legally questionable. Are you saying Apple can write anything in their TOS and that if I bought the product I'm legally bound by it? What if they insert a clause saying I have to pay them $10,000 whenever they want?
I'm well aware of apple's TOS restrictions...but I'll ignore them anyway. And if I ever get taken to court, I have faith in the judiciary at some level upholding my right to do what I want with my device as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
But once I buy it its mine. After buying the hardware and software it's not apple's anymore and I want nothing more to do with apple. By making jailbreaking illegal, apple is messing with my right to do what I want with my device - no matter what the DMCA says.
But I look at it this way: The App Store is a billboard. Other app stores are possible, but apple wants everyone to use only their particular app store and then goes ahead and dictates what can be shown on it. So it's like having the only billboard and making all other billboards illegal.
Does freedom of speech require me to let you publish whatever you want on my webpage, or my billboard, or on my TV/radio show? Is the iPad your one and only source of media?
It's my hardware and my iPad/iPhone/iPod! I should be able to use whatever I want on it. If Apple doesn't want to host certain applications in their store, that's just fine. But they shouldn't block all other sources of applications. That's forcing people to use your particular billboard and qualifies as censorship.
In fact, they've also claimed that jailbreaking is illegal. Another example of how they don't allow us to do whatever we want with our devices.
I'm curious about beheadings and rape and murder and BDSM.
Though my wife and I start off by cuddling, we (I) eventually drift apart while sleeping. I sleep on my stomach and I don't like anything or anyone even a little bit on top of any part of me since it cuts off my blood supply and I can't sleep on my side. My wife doesn't like this since she would like to cuddle throughout the night, but what to do?
No. As professional historians, it's their job to write history based on the documentary evidence alone and put their personal feelings aside. You know, the way it's supposed to be done. The way it's usually done. Why should this be any different?
Here's something you should have figured out for yourself:
There are lots of theories that we take for granted and which we rely on scientists to tell us the truth. Take the General theory of relativity for example. Even though I have a background in physics, I still don't have the math expertise to prove it. Yet I "believe" in it. Why? Because all the scientists claim that it's true. They say they've proved it and over the last 100 years, no scientist has challenged it. So I take their word for it. I have to. I accept the general theory of relativity even though I haven't personally proved it for myself. The same holds true for the overwhelming majority of fields in science, maths, geology etc etc.
So can you say I'm blindly accepting the general theory of relativity? If by "blindly" you mean have it proved it for myself? Then yes. I'm blindly accepting it. But if you mean do I have reasons to believe it's true, then no it's not blind acceptance. I have very good reasons to "believe" it's true. Those reasons are that scientists believe in it. I can do no better and I challenge you to find another way (Hint: You can't go around studying for years to be able to prove something for every single field. I'll need a couple of thousand years for that).
In fact, I'm willing to bet you can't prove or apply the principles of aerodynamics for yourself. Yet you believe the scientists and engineers when they tell you so right? If you didn't, you would never set foot in an airplane.
The same is even more true with an interdisciplinary science like climate change. It's very easy for amateurs like me to pick up some jargon here and there and using it to prove either side of a debate. But unless we're pros, we don't know the half of it. Every theory has ifs, buts, and exceptions. And since there's no way in hell I'm ever going to reach a stage where I can prove or disprove it for myself, I'll have to take the second best option and listen to those who are in a position to do it. And when the overwhelming majority of such people say that human caused climate change is real, I believe them - savvy? Just like I believe those scientists who say that the general theory of relativity is true.
The only thing that's different about climate change is that scientist's positions can inconvenience vested interests. The government, big businesses and others who suddenly find they may have to change the way they live. So this has suddenly come up. Take all that out, and we would never have had this "denialist" charade.
Moral of the story: Just believe the majority of the scientists. They've no axe to grind and that's why they're there. If year after year, group after group of scientists from various disciplines, backgrounds, countries and agencies claim that anthropogenic global warming is really happening, then you'd be a fool to listen to anything else from TV, politicians or businesses. Q.E.D
But there's more than enough carbon to go around - no danger of us running out, know what I mean? The problem is one of excess. Life was getting on just fine before man came and decided to pull age old carbon out.
I probable reason is that when you compost your paper it releases either carbon dioxide (aerobic composting) or worse - methane (anerobic composting) into the atmosphere. Having the carbon safely locked up in trees is the best form of natural carbon sequestering.
Ideally of course, the carbon would be locked into oil and other fossil fuels deep inside the earth where it can't harm anyone. But we bring that stuff out and don't know how to put it back again.
It wouldn't be so good for them either. If they want to colonize the planet, destroying all life forms and making Earth radioactive would hardly be the best way to go about it.
Even now, any Indian would wet themselves at the prospect of being able to work in America
You obviously don't know too many Indians. I'm an Indian and stayed in the US for over a year. My wife and I had to fight to return to India - she almost had to threaten to quit her job unless she was sent back. So no - not everyone wants to go and settle in a foreign land.
OTOH, the Chinese classic - the "Tao teh Ching" positively prohibits cunning and urges people to stop being too smart. It also talks about how the government should never interfere with the people and never to make too much of a commotion about anything.
And it's older than the art of war...
It goes without saying that the current Chinese government has completely forgotten the Tao teh ching and doesn't give a shit about its own culture.
Isn't your last task really two tasks in one? I mean what're your left fingers doing eh??
Ahem, a delicate observation. Of course, it could mean you used your right (as opposed to wrong) fingers, but who knows what a slashdotter means...
And here's the whole point!
If apple decides not to publish my content I don't have anywhere else to go. They've made damn sure they're the only source of iphone apps.
That's why it's censorship
Your hypothesis fails the falsification test. Basically no matter what Google does, people like you are going to say they did it for their direct advantage.
To make it a scientific opinion, you have to give an example of an action that Google will take that will convince you they were not evil. Sometime ago, slashdotters were saying that if Google open sources VP8, that would be proof enough. Apparently you want more. So tell us. What do you want?
I'm not sure how many of my readers have Google toolbar installed. Guess I can install it myself and visit my site for Google to get the page load speed data...
I'll personally take an average (or even ugly) highly intelligent woman over a dumb knockout any day
If you're talking about a one night stand, I'll believe you when I see it happen!
I'm reading Asimov's works and I'm always surprised that he never predicted:
1. The Internet - he had scientists creating an "Encyclopedia Galactica" when it was feared that all science knowledge would be lost. We just use Wikipedia!
2. Cellphones - Trimensional viewing is horribly inconvenient. Often the characters don't know where others are. Now we just give them a call
3. Ebooks - He predicted film strips which are inconvenient and need to be borrowed from a library. Nuff said.
He wrote some mind blowing stuff though...
You can examine, for example: skill and technique, fulfillment of author's intent, uniqueness, meaning, and beauty.
Citizen Kane fulfills all of these criteria (except for beauty) and it's still a crappy movie.
If people don't like a work of art, it's not a great work of art!
That goes for Citizen Kane which everyone hates as well as the horribly boring 2001: Space Odessey and Shakespeare.
But my dear chap, you fail to understand that in the current context, we're talking about privacy in India viz a viz the rest of the world (and specifically the US).
Even the US doesn't have an explicit right to privacy. It's only "implied" by the constitution, and in this respect, seems to be on the same footing as India.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate and even advisable to look at the entire thread of discussion before inserting a comment that, not to put too fine a point on it, exposes a certain crude, aggressive mentality that is significantly out of sync with accepted standards of mature discussion on the Internet, notwithstanding the somewhat flippant and perhaps not entirely cohesive nature of the average comments on the present forum.
A decision that interpreted the constitution and brought privacy within the ambit of "The right to life"