Really, can you be held accountable for breaking a law of one jurisdiction when you are only breaking it outside of that jurisdiction?
If so, then why is legal for Californians to go to Nevada and gamble and return, when it isn't legal to gamble in California?
And if not, then this is a glaringly obvious loophole that I'm quite certain could possibly spell a profitable opportunity for somebody who would not ever even have to break any laws.
I don't even *remember* where I first heard that we need sleep to form memories, but I've known it for at least 3 decades now.... certainly long before I graduated high school.
Agreed. Touch is only intuitive if there is something you can see, or something you can feel. If neither are applicable, a touch interface can be as complex a task as typing commands on a command line. The former may possess an illusion of being simpler only because it is faster to experiment with techniques that do not work than a command line is.
1- there's not much that Touch can do intuitively that a mouse can't do intuitively too
Using a mouse involves manipulating a foreign object... pointing and touching involves using gestures that we learned how to do before we even learned how to walk or talk. Even with *ZERO* previous exposure to a computer before, a touch screen device is going to be more likely to be usable without training than a mouse. As I said, I've even seen my cat interact with my ipad (I even wrote a small cat-toy app for him once, while I was first learning how to program the device, and it was amusing to watch him try to corner on the assorted objects on the screen as they reacted to where his paws were). How do you get more intuitive than that? Are you seriously going to argue that a mouse is just as intuitive as something that even an animal can use without *ANY* training at all?
But of course, the limit on touch screens practicality is such that it is really only practical in very specific circumstances, where you aren't doing something any much more complex than locating something on the screen or perhaps trying to move something elsewhere on screen.
Whenever it happens that some legal protections are created for certain concepts or a particular business model, the law is unavoidably creating an implicit incentive for people with commercial interests to migrate towards utilizing those concepts or that business model, so that they can reap whatever benefits those protections might offer, which will, in turn, reduce the availability to consumers of alternative or competing resources elsewhere.
This, at its heart, is the core problem with laws that outlaw circumvention of locked content under the premise that the consumer allegedly has freedom to choose content which has not been locked.
Touching only breaks the flow when what you are trying to do doesn't intuitively translate to a touch gesture. Which, admittedly, is generally going to be the the case if you are doing something much more sophisticated than tapping the screen at certain places, or dragging icons from place to place on screen.
Pointing and touching may be the single most intuitive user interface that will ever be developed... as it connects directly with how we, as human beings, first learn to interact with the world... even before we have learned how to speak. Heck, even my *CAT* can use our iPad (to an admittedly limited extent, but it's invariably funny to watch him try to interact with what he sees on the screen).
Of course, as a sole input system, touch input is quite weak, and I'll agree certainly does break the flow for much more complicated tasks. But I find that the argument that it requires learning another way to handle a PC to be specious.
Smudges on the screen is a non-problem.... and should be no more of an issue than, say, smudges on plastic card protectors that some people use to increase the longevity their card games. It is easily wiped off when it becomes an issue.
I know that... I was just wondering if it only applied to locked devices that were still under contract. Not because the DMCA has any sort of statute, but i was wondering if devices that are no longer under contract wouldn't have been applicable to the law in the first place.
The Phantom Menace was quite striking in its overt caricatures of Japanese (Trade Federation), blacks (Jar-Jar), Jews (the flying blue dude who was Anakin's master).
I think that those racial stereotypes are only obvious when one is actively trying to look for them. Or.... you could just sit back and enjoy the story. Because you know, it's actually quite entertaining when you aren't trying to overanalyze it to pieces.
And hire the original actors as VA's. It'd be far preferable to recasting the characters that we know, or advancing the timeline so far that we can't identify with the characters like we did.
"North Korea is not believed to have the technology to deliver a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the continental United States"
Uh... talk about denial.
Didn't NK only just last month just make an attempt to launch a satellite?
Granted, its orbit wasn't stable and they lost control of it within only 24 hours, but if they even do that much, how on earth do they think that NK does not have a delivery system capable of hitting a country the size of the USA?
Slashdot Mirror
Because I'm a pedantic ass, duh.
Really, can you be held accountable for breaking a law of one jurisdiction when you are only breaking it outside of that jurisdiction?
If so, then why is legal for Californians to go to Nevada and gamble and return, when it isn't legal to gamble in California?
And if not, then this is a glaringly obvious loophole that I'm quite certain could possibly spell a profitable opportunity for somebody who would not ever even have to break any laws.
But what about when you reach the end of that contract?
And remember, I'm asking about what's legal.... not what's enforceable.
Cite examples please. As far as I am aware, you are always expected to follow the laws of whatever country you are in, not the country of your origin.
I don't even *remember* where I first heard that we need sleep to form memories, but I've known it for at least 3 decades now.... certainly long before I graduated high school.
Agreed. Touch is only intuitive if there is something you can see, or something you can feel. If neither are applicable, a touch interface can be as complex a task as typing commands on a command line. The former may possess an illusion of being simpler only because it is faster to experiment with techniques that do not work than a command line is.
Not all types of computer applications use requires that you engage in a meaningful conversation with your PC.
You know that Canada is just next door to the USA, right? And that this law only affects the USA, right?
What does being rich have to do with anything? Leaving the country might require some money for travel, but it hardly requires an unusual amount.
Right... because, you know, all that pointing that children do when they are learning what to call things can only lead to muscle strain.
Early? Sure... but influential? Not really... if they had been, why was funding for engine stopped?
Using a mouse involves manipulating a foreign object... pointing and touching involves using gestures that we learned how to do before we even learned how to walk or talk. Even with *ZERO* previous exposure to a computer before, a touch screen device is going to be more likely to be usable without training than a mouse. As I said, I've even seen my cat interact with my ipad (I even wrote a small cat-toy app for him once, while I was first learning how to program the device, and it was amusing to watch him try to corner on the assorted objects on the screen as they reacted to where his paws were). How do you get more intuitive than that? Are you seriously going to argue that a mouse is just as intuitive as something that even an animal can use without *ANY* training at all?
But of course, the limit on touch screens practicality is such that it is really only practical in very specific circumstances, where you aren't doing something any much more complex than locating something on the screen or perhaps trying to move something elsewhere on screen.
This.
Whenever it happens that some legal protections are created for certain concepts or a particular business model, the law is unavoidably creating an implicit incentive for people with commercial interests to migrate towards utilizing those concepts or that business model, so that they can reap whatever benefits those protections might offer, which will, in turn, reduce the availability to consumers of alternative or competing resources elsewhere.
This, at its heart, is the core problem with laws that outlaw circumvention of locked content under the premise that the consumer allegedly has freedom to choose content which has not been locked.
More than likely, I imagine, they'd probably go after whoever is supplying you with the unlock facility.
However, I'm sure that if you invited them to arrest you after confessing to a crime, they'd probably be quite happy to.
I believe you may be confusing enforceability with illegality.
Can you (legally) buy a locked phone in the uSA, leave the country and unlock it one where it is not illegal, then bring it back?
Touching only breaks the flow when what you are trying to do doesn't intuitively translate to a touch gesture. Which, admittedly, is generally going to be the the case if you are doing something much more sophisticated than tapping the screen at certain places, or dragging icons from place to place on screen.
Pointing and touching may be the single most intuitive user interface that will ever be developed... as it connects directly with how we, as human beings, first learn to interact with the world... even before we have learned how to speak. Heck, even my *CAT* can use our iPad (to an admittedly limited extent, but it's invariably funny to watch him try to interact with what he sees on the screen).
Of course, as a sole input system, touch input is quite weak, and I'll agree certainly does break the flow for much more complicated tasks. But I find that the argument that it requires learning another way to handle a PC to be specious.
Smudges on the screen is a non-problem.... and should be no more of an issue than, say, smudges on plastic card protectors that some people use to increase the longevity their card games. It is easily wiped off when it becomes an issue.
I know that... I was just wondering if it only applied to locked devices that were still under contract. Not because the DMCA has any sort of statute, but i was wondering if devices that are no longer under contract wouldn't have been applicable to the law in the first place.
The actor did.
In fact, so did a lot of people, until somebody first brought it up.
The *actor* was unaware of it until somebody else brought it up.
I think, perhaps, people are seeing what they want to see there, even if it's not there.
Sort of like how you can see a face in the moon when you look for it.
I think that those racial stereotypes are only obvious when one is actively trying to look for them. Or.... you could just sit back and enjoy the story. Because you know, it's actually quite entertaining when you aren't trying to overanalyze it to pieces.
.... that their objection should be with Lucasfilm (or Disney, now, I suppose)... since the concept is actually theirs. All Lego does is license it.
.... illegal to unlock a new mobile phone purchased after tomorrow 3 years later, *after* the contract has expired?
I do not think the word means what they think it means.
And hire the original actors as VA's. It'd be far preferable to recasting the characters that we know, or advancing the timeline so far that we can't identify with the characters like we did.
Uh... talk about denial.
Didn't NK only just last month just make an attempt to launch a satellite?
Granted, its orbit wasn't stable and they lost control of it within only 24 hours, but if they even do that much, how on earth do they think that NK does not have a delivery system capable of hitting a country the size of the USA?