If he were he subject to his own law, Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something.
Does it really?
Because it doesn't appear that the internet was used to illegally distribute that copyrighted material. And I don't think HADOPI is that stupid (or smart, if you lean that way).
Also note: If you understand statistics you would _never_ use the phrase 'statistically impossible'
If you understood thermodynamics, you'd know that 'statistically impossible' is why the world doesn't go crazy. Like sudden appearance of vacuum when you try to breathe or random melting of spoon when stirring your coffee.
The actions the telecoms took were legal under the PATRIOT act, which was the law of the land at the time. You can't just go back and make them illegal now, that's blatantly unconstitutional (and a much graver assault on all of our liberties than unwarranted wiretaps).
Bollock! It was unconstitutional and illegal, until they passed a law to make it retroactively legal. They knew where they were going, they should pay the price.
"Encrypted twice" doesn't mean anything. A composed encryption scheme is a single function, same as y = (2x + 1)^2 - 4.
As stated below, steganography is the stopping problem here. Is the secret meaning hidden in typos and word order, or do the words have a second meaning?
They're teaching young people how to use computers in school but, with few exceptions, they're not teaching them how to use them safely. In many schools it would be the blind leading the blind in security education. Most teachers don't know enough about PC security to make any relevant contribution to solving the bigger problem. Ultimately, it's like trying to fight a fully involved house fire with a garden hose.
Moreover, and this is silly in a machiavellian way, mastering safe computing would help them a few years down the line. Can you teach sex ed without talking about sex? Yes, you can!
Have the proxies pay the NYT 2-3 month in advance. Cancel the contract and keep the money whenever this shit happens. They'll learn pretty fast to check before releasing it.
The letter also stated that, in accepting the money, Mr Stanborough was to "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential", and that any breach of confidentiality "may result in Apple seeking injunctive relief, damages and legal costs against the defaulting persons or parties".
Gag?! Sensationalism ftw!
Where I come from we call that buying silence. Everyone tries for that stuff, if there wasn't Apple nobody would care.
The real story here is that we have an exploding iPod and pictures of the result.
would remove the freedom users have to gain access to source code by eventually allowing its inclusion in proprietary products
1. Steal underpants.
This is not freedom, this is a possibility. Labeling possibilities as freedoms is essentially a marxist trick.
2. ???
If I download GPL code without the GPL license from a torrent, I am not agreeing to any restriction on my freedom, I am not signing anything. The GPL uses a copyright to force me to disclose source code if I distribute derivative products, yet I never agreed to the GPL in the process.
3. Profit!!
The pirate party is right to oppose copyright, and Stallman understands correctly that this is a danger for the GPL. The GPL uses copyright to force people to disclose source code while traditional copyright uses copyright to force people not to disclose information. Both of them restrict freedom.
I really don't understand your step 2. Copyright has the same effect on closed-source and GPL. Yet you seem to say that GPL restricts you even if you never agreed to it. Could you clarify?
Look at the top 20 games on www.boardgamegeek.com. If you haven't played any, don't tell me you "have a lot of experience with games". As a mere coder, that could pass. But as a designer you would need to understand the mechanics that makes each game ticks.
It is happening right now. I received a week ago a "think of the children!" pamphlet from those right-wing nuts.
I so wish the Conservative hadn't assploded when Mulroney took off. I'd rather have double-dipping crooks than self-righteous nutjobs, at least those need to get paid to shaft us.
But is Gnutella a "limited network"? Any person who has 1) A computer 2) Access to the Internet 3) A Gnutella "servent" (Limewire, Bearshare, etc., which can be downloaded for free from the net.) has access to Gnet. Since pretty much anybody can obtain all of the three, I would consider that public. (Whether the law does or not is, of course, another matter entirely)
Fine. Then let the RIAA argue why it should be "to the public". Don't give it to them without a fight.
The first Mac had no arrow keys to force users to learn the mouse. That had much bigger impact than the 1-button mouse.
None of those are flaws per se, they are just decisions that go against our technocratic bias. I'm always surprised how many people cannot deal with multiple buttons. Or cannot distinguish the monitor from the computer. All these terrible choices are made to cater to the mass.
It's just economics: things are worth only what people will pay for them.
You're not just buying the thing being offered in many cases though. With advertising and PR you're also buying into the image that comes with it. iPods that make you part of the trendy crowd, shoes that make you a super basketball player or a car that attracts all the babes. Sure, it may be a good product but how many people would be willing to buy the equivalent product that has little or no image / cool factor attached to it?
On the gripping hand, if you buy the same "bad product" as your neighbor, then you can bitch together. If you buy a different one, with different colors of "bad", cognitive dissonance kicks in. You don't want to be the one who bought the wrong product, so you minimize your problems while magnifying your neighbor's.
People are buying iPods for the same reason they are buying Windows : everyone is doing it.
It improves the way developers want, not the way users do. Let me explain...
I am a pure "keyboard" developer. I work with a "mouser". Whenever I use some user interface he wrote, I hit inconsistencies in navigation, group selection, etc. Of course his answer is "fix it yourself!", which is ok since I know the product well enough to fix it.
Now what will happen when I try to use some application that has been created by a bunch of "mouser" developers? How many will say : "just use the mouse"?
In a way, it is cognitive dissonance. If it is not important for me it cannot be important for others. And I totally understand that as I keep feeling that way.
Your users are your responsibility. Giving away the course code does not help them use your software. Open Source has to be more than just that.
Stop saying that. I found a coworker under my desk. He was curled into a ball and kept mumbling "Oh my God!". It took 3 moccachinos and a bagel to tempt him out of there.
The only time a crime has been committed is if the photo shows penetration or oral gratification, and only if the person is younger than 18, since minors are not allowed to have sex.
So, I guess neither masturbation nor spread eagle are abuse of minor in your book.
Moreover, judges are not supposed to "take side". This means they must only "know" what they are told in the courtroom. If the other side does not challenge the creationist definition of science, the judge takes this "science" as a fact. Of course, a smart judge will poke holes at the kooky definition to make it un-credible, but hey!
Slashdot Mirror
If he were he subject to his own law, Mr. Sarkozy would be subject to having his Net disconnected the next time he pirates something.
Does it really?
Because it doesn't appear that the internet was used to illegally distribute that copyrighted material. And I don't think HADOPI is that stupid (or smart, if you lean that way).
Also note: If you understand statistics you would _never_ use the phrase 'statistically impossible'
If you understood thermodynamics, you'd know that 'statistically impossible' is why the world doesn't go crazy. Like sudden appearance of vacuum when you try to breathe or random melting of spoon when stirring your coffee.
The actions the telecoms took were legal under the PATRIOT act, which was the law of the land at the time. You can't just go back and make them illegal now, that's blatantly unconstitutional (and a much graver assault on all of our liberties than unwarranted wiretaps).
Bollock!
It was unconstitutional and illegal, until they passed a law to make it retroactively legal. They knew where they were going, they should pay the price.
"Encrypted twice" doesn't mean anything. A composed encryption scheme is a single function, same as y = (2x + 1)^2 - 4.
As stated below, steganography is the stopping problem here. Is the secret meaning hidden in typos and word order, or do the words have a second meaning?
They're teaching young people how to use computers in school but, with few exceptions, they're not teaching them how to use them safely. In many schools it would be the blind leading the blind in security education. Most teachers don't know enough about PC security to make any relevant contribution to solving the bigger problem. Ultimately, it's like trying to fight a fully involved house fire with a garden hose.
Moreover, and this is silly in a machiavellian way, mastering safe computing would help them a few years down the line. Can you teach sex ed without talking about sex? Yes, you can!
whooosh!
Have the proxies pay the NYT 2-3 month in advance. Cancel the contract and keep the money whenever this shit happens. They'll learn pretty fast to check before releasing it.
The letter also stated that, in accepting the money, Mr Stanborough was to "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential", and that any breach of confidentiality "may result in Apple seeking injunctive relief, damages and legal costs against the defaulting persons or parties".
Gag?! Sensationalism ftw!
Where I come from we call that buying silence. Everyone tries for that stuff, if there wasn't Apple nobody would care.
The real story here is that we have an exploding iPod and pictures of the result.
1. Steal underpants.
This is not freedom, this is a possibility. Labeling possibilities as freedoms is essentially a marxist trick.
2. ???
If I download GPL code without the GPL license from a torrent, I am not agreeing to any restriction on my freedom, I am not signing anything. The GPL uses a copyright to force me to disclose source code if I distribute derivative products, yet I never agreed to the GPL in the process.
3. Profit!!
The pirate party is right to oppose copyright, and Stallman understands correctly that this is a danger for the GPL. The GPL uses copyright to force people to disclose source code while traditional copyright uses copyright to force people not to disclose information. Both of them restrict freedom.
I really don't understand your step 2. Copyright has the same effect on closed-source and GPL. Yet you seem to say that GPL restricts you even if you never agreed to it. Could you clarify?
I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders. Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.
Look at the top 20 games on www.boardgamegeek.com. If you haven't played any, don't tell me you "have a lot of experience with games". As a mere coder, that could pass. But as a designer you would need to understand the mechanics that makes each game ticks.
It is happening right now. I received a week ago a "think of the children!" pamphlet from those right-wing nuts.
I so wish the Conservative hadn't assploded when Mulroney took off. I'd rather have double-dipping crooks than self-righteous nutjobs, at least those need to get paid to shaft us.
Here's a better idea Lenovo: enlarge the: U, O, Y, K, C, U, F keys. ;)
There's pills for that.
But is Gnutella a "limited network"? Any person who has
1) A computer
2) Access to the Internet
3) A Gnutella "servent" (Limewire, Bearshare, etc., which can be downloaded for free from the net.)
has access to Gnet. Since pretty much anybody can obtain all of the three, I would consider that public.
(Whether the law does or not is, of course, another matter entirely)
Fine.
Then let the RIAA argue why it should be "to the public". Don't give it to them without a fight.
The good thing about gravel road, is you don't have to throw gravel on it during the winter.
The first Mac had no arrow keys to force users to learn the mouse. That had much bigger impact than the 1-button mouse.
None of those are flaws per se, they are just decisions that go against our technocratic bias. I'm always surprised how many people cannot deal with multiple buttons. Or cannot distinguish the monitor from the computer. All these terrible choices are made to cater to the mass.
iirc, the problem was not drinking too much water, but rather refusing to pee out the excess amount.
Not that a paid attention to that occurence.
I feel like doing a bad analogy here.
Accepting that Protestantism (d)evolved from Catholicism is like accepting that Human evolved from Monkey.
It's just economics: things are worth only what people will pay for them.
You're not just buying the thing being offered in many cases though. With advertising and PR you're also buying into the image that comes with it. iPods that make you part of the trendy crowd, shoes that make you a super basketball player or a car that attracts all the babes. Sure, it may be a good product but how many people would be willing to buy the equivalent product that has little or no image / cool factor attached to it?
On the gripping hand, if you buy the same "bad product" as your neighbor, then you can bitch together. If you buy a different one, with different colors of "bad", cognitive dissonance kicks in. You don't want to be the one who bought the wrong product, so you minimize your problems while magnifying your neighbor's.
People are buying iPods for the same reason they are buying Windows : everyone is doing it.
Your one of those gammer nazis who should stop being so pedantec.
I think you mean "you're"
Wouche, wouche!
It improves the way developers want, not the way users do. Let me explain...
I am a pure "keyboard" developer. I work with a "mouser". Whenever I use some user interface he wrote, I hit inconsistencies in navigation, group selection, etc. Of course his answer is "fix it yourself!", which is ok since I know the product well enough to fix it.
Now what will happen when I try to use some application that has been created by a bunch of "mouser" developers? How many will say : "just use the mouse"?
In a way, it is cognitive dissonance. If it is not important for me it cannot be important for others. And I totally understand that as I keep feeling that way.
Your users are your responsibility. Giving away the course code does not help them use your software. Open Source has to be more than just that.
OMGPonies!!!?
Stop saying that. I found a coworker under my desk. He was curled into a ball and kept mumbling "Oh my God!". It took 3 moccachinos and a bagel to tempt him out of there.
It's "ne [conjugated verb] pas". And it is the exact same solution in English aka "non-white".
IMNSHO, what the GGP refers to is just as bad as writing pseudo-pascal in C using #defines. I fart in the general direction of those technocrats.
The only time a crime has been committed is if the photo shows penetration or oral gratification, and only if the person is younger than 18, since minors are not allowed to have sex.
So, I guess neither masturbation nor spread eagle are abuse of minor in your book.
Moreover, judges are not supposed to "take side". This means they must only "know" what they are told in the courtroom. If the other side does not challenge the creationist definition of science, the judge takes this "science" as a fact. Of course, a smart judge will poke holes at the kooky definition to make it un-credible, but hey!