How the court can even consider comparing stationary technology with something that is 149,600,000 kilometres away that is travelling at a relative speed of 107,000 km/h is beyond me.
I'm pretty sure that denying that you committed a crime, even if you did commit it, is not perjury or contempt of anything. Otherwise, everyone who pleads not guilty but is found guilty would be in very big trouble.
I'm depriving the owner of a sale regardless of whether or not I use it. The consequences to the owner are exactly the same regardless of whether or not I use it. The owner's situation does not change based on how I benefit (unless the owner's a sadist).
"Fuck Amazon!!! Nevar 4get 1984!!!111" is a perfectly legitimate reason to hate Amazon and to refuse to support their barely legal anti-consumer business practices, and that alone is reason enough (for me) not to buy one.
Jets are controlled and operated by teams of intelligent people that know what they're doing. Cars are controlled by the irrational masses who will try to get computers on cars banned when one of them causes a fatality. In an Onstar system, a human is still controlling it.
Of course, you ignored the fact that other e-book readers have access to a bookstore, and the Kindle does not (the one it has access to is unacceptable, we established that 10 posts ago). That factor makes other e-book readers more attractive than the kindle.
The first fatality from a computer-driven car will put the technology away for years, even if the death rate is one third of the death rate in human-driven cars. Sadly, the illusion of safety through physical control trumps logic.
I would also suggest that if you compared the Kindle to the other boys on the block, relevant features for relevant features and price for price, you'd discover it wasn't that bad of a deal.
I'll probably never own one either, but that's because I find it ridiculous to pay a hair under what my PS3 cost for a black and white hand held device.
By default everyone has the right to do anything. The onus is on who disagrees with this to justify his position, not the other way around. It's very easy to argue against the right to murder someone, and I will: the gain that the murderer enjoys by murdering is so much less than the loss that the victim suffers that the act of murder always causes a net harm to society (unless the victim is an evil criminal himself, but that's another issue). Now you have to argue that society does NOT have a right to an individual's creative output.
You traded the power of owning the book outright for the convenience of being able to download the book from wherever, whenever.
And I find the trade of ownership for convenience UNACCEPTABLE. Would you agree to rent an apartment where the only cost is a $100,000 upfront fee but the landlord can kick you out at any time? Because that's what you're doing when you buy a Kindle e-book.
Also, if you want me to buy a Kindle and ignore its main feature, why shouldn't I instead buy another e-book reader that does what I want? That way I can still read my own materials but I could get access to another book store that respects my rights.
Patents steal the ability to make inventions based on the latest and greatest technology from the public. Patents ARE stealing. Laws against murder only steal the murderer's right to enjoy stabbing a guy and watching him scream to death, a right that falls far behind the victim's right to life.
Slashdot Mirror
How the court can even consider comparing stationary technology with something that is 149,600,000 kilometres away that is travelling at a relative speed of 107,000 km/h is beyond me.
Running over people is illegal regardless of traffic laws, and will be handled in a normal criminal court.
I'm pretty sure that denying that you committed a crime, even if you did commit it, is not perjury or contempt of anything. Otherwise, everyone who pleads not guilty but is found guilty would be in very big trouble.
And Russia is the United States SR.
Wait, what does KFC have to do with actual birds?
At least it's not a Microsoft Bo(m)b.
If we're allowed that, then I suggest Windows, on an abacus.
Linux is too mainstream to be man. Try OpenSolaris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability
If you repel something that's already on the antipode, are you actually attracting it?
with dupe jokes, and dupe +5 mods.
and finally a dupe commenting on all the dupes from top to bottom.
surely there must be something original....
"You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's DUPES all the way down!"
I'm depriving the owner of a sale regardless of whether or not I use it. The consequences to the owner are exactly the same regardless of whether or not I use it. The owner's situation does not change based on how I benefit (unless the owner's a sadist).
"Fuck Amazon!!! Nevar 4get 1984!!!111" is a perfectly legitimate reason to hate Amazon and to refuse to support their barely legal anti-consumer business practices, and that alone is reason enough (for me) not to buy one.
This really is getting a bit old
As for the Linux port, Firefox seems to be slightly faster on Wine than the native Linux version.
And a clock going backwards is right 48 times a day (ie. twice as accurate!)
Jets are controlled and operated by teams of intelligent people that know what they're doing. Cars are controlled by the irrational masses who will try to get computers on cars banned when one of them causes a fatality. In an Onstar system, a human is still controlling it.
Of course, you ignored the fact that other e-book readers have access to a bookstore, and the Kindle does not (the one it has access to is unacceptable, we established that 10 posts ago). That factor makes other e-book readers more attractive than the kindle.
The first fatality from a computer-driven car will put the technology away for years, even if the death rate is one third of the death rate in human-driven cars. Sadly, the illusion of safety through physical control trumps logic.
I would also suggest that if you compared the Kindle to the other boys on the block, relevant features for relevant features and price for price, you'd discover it wasn't that bad of a deal.
I'll probably never own one either, but that's because I find it ridiculous to pay a hair under what my PS3 cost for a black and white hand held device.
So it is a bad deal or it isn't one?
By default everyone has the right to do anything. The onus is on who disagrees with this to justify his position, not the other way around. It's very easy to argue against the right to murder someone, and I will: the gain that the murderer enjoys by murdering is so much less than the loss that the victim suffers that the act of murder always causes a net harm to society (unless the victim is an evil criminal himself, but that's another issue). Now you have to argue that society does NOT have a right to an individual's creative output.
I timed it, and I got mine down from ~103 to ~93 by rewriting the readahead and disabling a few services.
http://www.saveie6.com/
You traded the power of owning the book outright for the convenience of being able to download the book from wherever, whenever.
And I find the trade of ownership for convenience UNACCEPTABLE. Would you agree to rent an apartment where the only cost is a $100,000 upfront fee but the landlord can kick you out at any time? Because that's what you're doing when you buy a Kindle e-book.
Also, if you want me to buy a Kindle and ignore its main feature, why shouldn't I instead buy another e-book reader that does what I want? That way I can still read my own materials but I could get access to another book store that respects my rights.
Patents steal the ability to make inventions based on the latest and greatest technology from the public. Patents ARE stealing. Laws against murder only steal the murderer's right to enjoy stabbing a guy and watching him scream to death, a right that falls far behind the victim's right to life.