Hey, I *did* try to disclaim this by saying I was playing devil's advocate...
But let me ask you in what way does an "opportunity" itself qualify as something physical? Yeah there's only one of them, but if a domestic worker doesn't actually have that job yet, then how is it really being "stolen" from them, when by the same token, pirates aren't really stealing any money out of publisher's hands by engaging in those practices, since the publisher in that case doesn't have the money yet either.
Ignoring other arguments about why piracy might not be stealing (eg, making a copy doesn't destroy the original), and just looking at the issue of how it allegedly doesn't actually deprive the publisher of the money they could have received if the person actually bought the product, I think it's interesting that somehow foreign workers taking jobs that *COULD HAVE* been filled by domestic workers is somehow still taking jobs away from the latter, when they don't actually have them yet.
If software piracy isn't really stealing from the publishers because they don't already have the money for the product, how is a foreigner getting a job stealing it from a domestic worker who doesn't yet have the job?
Actually, no... I don't believe that they *should* be able to do that... But that is nonetheless my understanding of exactly what the judge told them to do. The way things ought to be do not always jive with the way things actually are.
They acknowledged *THAT* the court decided what they did, they do not actually acknowledge *WHAT* the court decided.
And yes, I realize that it effectively orders Apple to either publicly admit to lying in court, or else lie on their own website, which is why I was astonished that this court order would have ever been upheld.
Apple was told to acknowledge the court's decision.
Rather than acknowledge *WHAT* the court decided, however, all Apple really did was acknowledge *THAT* the court had decided it, and then specifically spelled out what it was that the court decided. I'm not entirely sure that a mere recitation of what all the court had decided, since this is spelled out in the court decision that is linked to anyways, could reasonably be interpreted as an actual acknowledgement of it.
I guess it remains to be seen if that sort of thing will satisfy a UK judge. Also, I'm pretty sure that's not 14 pt text (14 pixels, yes, but not 14pt).
The words "sorry" or "apologize" are not anywhere in the text that Apple posted. It was merely a recitation of the fact that the court had concluded the things that it did.
Apple didn't even follow the letter of what the judge told them to do (and it was not a request, it was a court order) The judge told them to acknowledge that Samsung did not infringe. Rather than do that, all they did was acknowledge that *court* had determined that Samsung did not infringe. This is a mere recitation of historically verifiable facts, and not an acknowledgement that Samsung did not infringe, which is what the judge told Apple to do.
Actually, they do not actually acknowledge non-infringement at all. All they acknowledge is the court decision that Samsung did not infringe. This so-called apology is merely a recitation of the fact that the court had concluded the things that they did. They do not even hint at acknowledging that this decision was in any way, shape, or form, a genuine assessment of reality.
The fact that Linux has dozens of other perfectly legitimate uses seems to me to be largely irrelevant in light of this, since the concept of copying something for strictly personal use is traditionally seen as an exemption to copyright infringement anyways, since when the use is genuinely personal, nobody else would ever even know that it had occurred in the first place, nor would anybody else in any way, shape, or form, ever hope to be affected by it (at least if you distribute to somebody else, an argument exists that somebody else is being affected by the copy, but even this modest impact doesn't apply when the use is *entirely* personal).
But in my opinion, the strongest argument that copying for personal use should always be an exemption to copyright infringement lies in the concept of human memories, which can be not unreasonably interpreted as a type of copy of our experiences. If personal use is not an exception to copyright infringement, then simply remembering your experience of seeing a copyrighted work performed could also be seen as infringing on copyright. The fact that nobody else is affected by such recollection would be just as irrelevant as the fact that nobody else is affected by any other form of personal use copying.
"... controls were necessary to prevent software piracy"
That is biggest effing load of bullshit I've read all week... possible even all month.
If they want to prevent software piracy, they should start by actually enforcing the law when infringement is actually detected. Obviously, they won't catch the people who know how to cover their tracks enough to know how to not get caught, but to be sure, it's a safe bet that most people don't fit that category. And, if they catch enough people, then the punishment has at least a chance of acting as much like a deterrent as fines for speeding act are a deterrent for that activity.
Imposing such restrictions *might* stop a handful of would-be "casual" pirates, but the far bigger effect is that it still creates an inconvenience for perfectly legitimate users, who might even then be given incentive into actually having a reason to pirate a work where they would not have otherwise.
It's generally not a good business plan to make it inconvenient for your legitimate customers to continue to do business with you.... all you will do is lose customers.
I have, however, been previous chastised numerous times... most often by my wife, but occasionally by certain other friends of mine, for using words that "not everybody knows", even though the vocabulary that I'm using is quite natural for me, and I'm not intending to speak down to anybody either, but simply trying to say what I am thinking. That some of the people listening may not be as familiar with the terminology I'm using isn't something that always crosses my mind until after it's been pointed to me, but it's something I have been making an increasing effort to be consciously aware of in recent years.
I remember becoming arrogant in 4th grade because my teacher insisted that the plural of deer was deers
I think that the politest way to approach might have been something to effect of "That doesn't sound right to me, mr/mrs [insert teacher's name here]. Would you mind if we Iooked up that word in a dictionary to check?"
If they said "yes, they would mind", then you've exposed the teacher's own arrogance to everybody, and shown in very a public way that the teacher cares more about telling their students what they believe than about education. In all probability, that sort of response could have even earned the teacher a reprimand if the incident made it back to the principal (it's worth noting that the teacher's attitude, not lack of correctness, would have been cause for the reprimand).. If they acquiesce to looking up the word, then it would be the teacher's opportunity to receive some education, and everybody wins.
Because it's been my experience that "normal" people don't talk like that. I know it's a perfectly legitimate English word, but I've met no end of people who find that people who use longer words when a shorter one would do (eg: "fix") are being snobbish, or trying to talk down to people who might not be as familiar with the term.
All very well and good, except that the encoded representation of the starting position may take up more space than the length of data you are wanting to send.
I suppose it depends how you read the sentence, but I understood that they were talking about the gas being heated to those temperatures, and the x-rays were the accompanying emitted EM radiation as a result, not the x-rays themselves being that temperature.
Only utter idiots would try to communicate with a god
Only if there was some possibility that our knowledge of such a deity could actually present some sort of threat. But really, if there is a god that is as transcendent beyond us as we are beyond daydreams and fiction, I think that's unlikely to be the case.
Of course there's physical components involved in data transfer...
But my original point was about how data bandwidth is a limited resource, and it is because of limitations on technology to pump more information into a given unit of time that limits that bandwidth, forcing it to be finite, not because of how much physical space the physical components which are involved might take up.
That said, there is a mathematically calculable theoretical maximum bandwidth for any data transmission that is a function of the wavelengths used, but technology isn't anywhere close to being able to make that a factor.
No... the subject at hand was paying for something that doesn't have any physicality to it. Bandwidth is related to the rate at which we can sample the em waves that we receive, and is a limited commodity that is entirely unrelated to the physical space that those EM waves actually occupy, which is what the poster who had responded to me appeared to be asserting.
I'd agree with you on this point, and while certainly a limited resource, I'm having a hard time seeing how you'd call it something that has a physical component to it.
Slashdot Mirror
But let me ask you in what way does an "opportunity" itself qualify as something physical? Yeah there's only one of them, but if a domestic worker doesn't actually have that job yet, then how is it really being "stolen" from them, when by the same token, pirates aren't really stealing any money out of publisher's hands by engaging in those practices, since the publisher in that case doesn't have the money yet either.
Ignoring other arguments about why piracy might not be stealing (eg, making a copy doesn't destroy the original), and just looking at the issue of how it allegedly doesn't actually deprive the publisher of the money they could have received if the person actually bought the product, I think it's interesting that somehow foreign workers taking jobs that *COULD HAVE* been filled by domestic workers is somehow still taking jobs away from the latter, when they don't actually have them yet.
If software piracy isn't really stealing from the publishers because they don't already have the money for the product, how is a foreigner getting a job stealing it from a domestic worker who doesn't yet have the job?
I did check the actual notice. I also examined the css, and it is set to Arial, 14px. 14px is *NOT* 14pt.
I already checked that. Comparing 14pt with 14px fonts looks substantially different even on Safari.
More like about 8.
And on an iphone retina display, it's even tinier.
Examining their CSS, the font size they specified is actually 14px, not 14pt.
Actually, no... I don't believe that they *should* be able to do that... But that is nonetheless my understanding of exactly what the judge told them to do. The way things ought to be do not always jive with the way things actually are.
And yes, I realize that it effectively orders Apple to either publicly admit to lying in court, or else lie on their own website, which is why I was astonished that this court order would have ever been upheld.
Apple was told to acknowledge the court's decision.
Rather than acknowledge *WHAT* the court decided, however, all Apple really did was acknowledge *THAT* the court had decided it, and then specifically spelled out what it was that the court decided. I'm not entirely sure that a mere recitation of what all the court had decided, since this is spelled out in the court decision that is linked to anyways, could reasonably be interpreted as an actual acknowledgement of it.
I guess it remains to be seen if that sort of thing will satisfy a UK judge. Also, I'm pretty sure that's not 14 pt text (14 pixels, yes, but not 14pt).
The words "sorry" or "apologize" are not anywhere in the text that Apple posted. It was merely a recitation of the fact that the court had concluded the things that it did.
Apple didn't even follow the letter of what the judge told them to do (and it was not a request, it was a court order) The judge told them to acknowledge that Samsung did not infringe. Rather than do that, all they did was acknowledge that *court* had determined that Samsung did not infringe. This is a mere recitation of historically verifiable facts, and not an acknowledgement that Samsung did not infringe, which is what the judge told Apple to do.
Actually, they do not actually acknowledge non-infringement at all. All they acknowledge is the court decision that Samsung did not infringe. This so-called apology is merely a recitation of the fact that the court had concluded the things that they did. They do not even hint at acknowledging that this decision was in any way, shape, or form, a genuine assessment of reality.
The fact that Linux has dozens of other perfectly legitimate uses seems to me to be largely irrelevant in light of this, since the concept of copying something for strictly personal use is traditionally seen as an exemption to copyright infringement anyways, since when the use is genuinely personal, nobody else would ever even know that it had occurred in the first place, nor would anybody else in any way, shape, or form, ever hope to be affected by it (at least if you distribute to somebody else, an argument exists that somebody else is being affected by the copy, but even this modest impact doesn't apply when the use is *entirely* personal).
But in my opinion, the strongest argument that copying for personal use should always be an exemption to copyright infringement lies in the concept of human memories, which can be not unreasonably interpreted as a type of copy of our experiences. If personal use is not an exception to copyright infringement, then simply remembering your experience of seeing a copyrighted work performed could also be seen as infringing on copyright. The fact that nobody else is affected by such recollection would be just as irrelevant as the fact that nobody else is affected by any other form of personal use copying.
As do I... and neither am I.
I have, however, been previous chastised numerous times... most often by my wife, but occasionally by certain other friends of mine, for using words that "not everybody knows", even though the vocabulary that I'm using is quite natural for me, and I'm not intending to speak down to anybody either, but simply trying to say what I am thinking. That some of the people listening may not be as familiar with the terminology I'm using isn't something that always crosses my mind until after it's been pointed to me, but it's something I have been making an increasing effort to be consciously aware of in recent years.
I think that the politest way to approach might have been something to effect of "That doesn't sound right to me, mr/mrs [insert teacher's name here]. Would you mind if we Iooked up that word in a dictionary to check?"
If they said "yes, they would mind", then you've exposed the teacher's own arrogance to everybody, and shown in very a public way that the teacher cares more about telling their students what they believe than about education. In all probability, that sort of response could have even earned the teacher a reprimand if the incident made it back to the principal (it's worth noting that the teacher's attitude, not lack of correctness, would have been cause for the reprimand).. If they acquiesce to looking up the word, then it would be the teacher's opportunity to receive some education, and everybody wins.
Because it's been my experience that "normal" people don't talk like that. I know it's a perfectly legitimate English word, but I've met no end of people who find that people who use longer words when a shorter one would do (eg: "fix") are being snobbish, or trying to talk down to people who might not be as familiar with the term.
Why not? The show lasted one more season than the original series did.
All very well and good, except that the encoded representation of the starting position may take up more space than the length of data you are wanting to send.
I suppose it depends how you read the sentence, but I understood that they were talking about the gas being heated to those temperatures, and the x-rays were the accompanying emitted EM radiation as a result, not the x-rays themselves being that temperature.
That's a key word there...
No point in getting excited about this yet.
Who knows how long it will be, if ever, that they actually follow through with it?
Only if there was some possibility that our knowledge of such a deity could actually present some sort of threat. But really, if there is a god that is as transcendent beyond us as we are beyond daydreams and fiction, I think that's unlikely to be the case.
What false premises? Be specific.
Of course there's physical components involved in data transfer... But my original point was about how data bandwidth is a limited resource, and it is because of limitations on technology to pump more information into a given unit of time that limits that bandwidth, forcing it to be finite, not because of how much physical space the physical components which are involved might take up.
That said, there is a mathematically calculable theoretical maximum bandwidth for any data transmission that is a function of the wavelengths used, but technology isn't anywhere close to being able to make that a factor.
No... the subject at hand was paying for something that doesn't have any physicality to it. Bandwidth is related to the rate at which we can sample the em waves that we receive, and is a limited commodity that is entirely unrelated to the physical space that those EM waves actually occupy, which is what the poster who had responded to me appeared to be asserting.
I'd agree with you on this point, and while certainly a limited resource, I'm having a hard time seeing how you'd call it something that has a physical component to it.