It's definitely overused. Back when the tag only applied to the dumbing down of our children's education, it made some sense. but now, it's completely irrelevant.
What exactly does it mean? Does it mean that anything with an active helpful community is open? That makes practically anything that's distributed to the public "open".
Making sure Hitler made it into art school would have stopped the war. That is, if you subscribe to the theory that Hitler was the key factor in causing the war and not that it was inevitable given the situation in Germany after the Treaty of Versailles.
Or, how about we realize that a work of art cannot possibly have a negative value? If you don't want to read it, you can ignore it and let those who do get whatever enjoyment they can out of it.
We gave Apple a (theoretically) temporary monopoly on distribution of their product. In exchange, they lose their right to make whatever contract they want (as in the first sale doctrine).
The same way they appeal a traffic ticket? So in a fake court which doesn't have many basic due process rights? Traffic court is for $40 tickets, and even then I don't support it. Disconnecting one's internet can cause tens of thousands of dollars of damage to some people. And I can't think of anything that can replace the ability to look anything up on Wikipedia in 5 seconds. Sure, disconnecting driver's licenses will be similarly deleterious to some people but not only is it much easier to live without a car than without the internet, taking away someone's license requires a serious offense confirmed in an actual court of law.
So you're agreeing with me that there will be addicts regardless of the drug policy? Well, I'm glad you understand why drug criminalization is a stupid waste of money that does nothing but cause judges to give actual bad people like murderers house arrest because they don't feel like adding to the overcrowded prisons.
Why does all land need to be restored? Land is just like any other resource - you need to buy it and if you destroy it that's nobody else's business. Damaging land you don't own, however is another issue.
There are lots of good reasons to hate this law beyond being anti-copyright. It basically spits on the concept of innocent before proven guilty, denies the basic human right to knowledge and culture and is probably unconstitutional in multiple ways. Doctorow is not "creating reasons", he's giving perfectly valid reasons that people who have never even heard of Doctorow independently thought of.
So the account holder could be oblivious while his data is being searched and he would thus have no way of contesting the privacy infringement that he doesn't even know exists.
I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't apply to corporations with whom you willingly have a relationship (ie. you can be fired for making a speech that is perfectly legal under the first amendment)
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, we don't even know if Osama is still alive.
It's definitely overused. Back when the tag only applied to the dumbing down of our children's education, it made some sense. but now, it's completely irrelevant.
Like a cutting edge CAD packages, games, financial management and office suites?
Like a hex editor, text adventures, a hex editor, cat, and did I forget to mention a hex editor?
What exactly does it mean? Does it mean that anything with an active helpful community is open? That makes practically anything that's distributed to the public "open".
Making sure Hitler made it into art school would have stopped the war. That is, if you subscribe to the theory that Hitler was the key factor in causing the war and not that it was inevitable given the situation in Germany after the Treaty of Versailles.
Or, how about we realize that a work of art cannot possibly have a negative value? If you don't want to read it, you can ignore it and let those who do get whatever enjoyment they can out of it.
We gave Apple a (theoretically) temporary monopoly on distribution of their product. In exchange, they lose their right to make whatever contract they want (as in the first sale doctrine).
Pay per mouth? What kind of sick, twisted payment scheme for an operating system is this?
Microsoft offloads much of the support to the OEMs. Redhat can afford to support everything because people are paying them $80/year/machine to do so.
A lot of people are making the internet a basic human right.
58 / 23 ~= 2.52. Saying that's almost 3 is deep in marketing speak territory but it's not outright false.
Or, even worse, bankofamerica.com where the o in com is actually a Cyrillic o.
The same way they appeal a traffic ticket? So in a fake court which doesn't have many basic due process rights? Traffic court is for $40 tickets, and even then I don't support it. Disconnecting one's internet can cause tens of thousands of dollars of damage to some people. And I can't think of anything that can replace the ability to look anything up on Wikipedia in 5 seconds. Sure, disconnecting driver's licenses will be similarly deleterious to some people but not only is it much easier to live without a car than without the internet, taking away someone's license requires a serious offense confirmed in an actual court of law.
You just wait until we have solar-powered laptops.
So you're agreeing with me that there will be addicts regardless of the drug policy? Well, I'm glad you understand why drug criminalization is a stupid waste of money that does nothing but cause judges to give actual bad people like murderers house arrest because they don't feel like adding to the overcrowded prisons.
Why does all land need to be restored? Land is just like any other resource - you need to buy it and if you destroy it that's nobody else's business. Damaging land you don't own, however is another issue.
There are lots of good reasons to hate this law beyond being anti-copyright. It basically spits on the concept of innocent before proven guilty, denies the basic human right to knowledge and culture and is probably unconstitutional in multiple ways. Doctorow is not "creating reasons", he's giving perfectly valid reasons that people who have never even heard of Doctorow independently thought of.
No drug affects anyone other than the imbiber. Therefore all drugs should have the same legal framework - none at all.
So the account holder could be oblivious while his data is being searched and he would thus have no way of contesting the privacy infringement that he doesn't even know exists.
The GP was talking about copyright and the DMCA, not privacy.
I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't apply to corporations with whom you willingly have a relationship (ie. you can be fired for making a speech that is perfectly legal under the first amendment)
If you remove a thief the amount of theft goes down. If you remove pirate site the amount of piracy will not go down. That's the difference.
Elaborate please? Even twitter lets you post more than 12 characters.
Sure, Y not?
Ok gene boy, be prepared to pay your new mathematically calculated 25% higher insurance premium.