I think installing multiple copies of software is still illegal because in effect your computer copies the code from the cd-rom which is covered by copyright. You can use copyrighted material but just not copy. This is why its called copyright.
Actually copyright has more to do with distribution than with the physical act of copying. But I don't think this has ever been tested in court, so who knows?:)
I would say it's unethical if Apple didn't issue a warning to you before you installed the firmware.
Um, no. The only unethical behavior would be on the part of Real, if they told their customers that their files would work on a compeditors device, when that compeditor was very opposed to the idea. And if you knew better, its your own dumb fault as well.
What's Microsoft-like about changing their own damn hardware, which they never said would be open for others to hack? You neocon fag everything-Apple-does-is-wrong are just fickle snobs.
...the RIAA isn't worried about the online music store sky falling on their heads anymore. Even if Apple hadn't updated the firmware, the RIAA wouldn't up and pull out of online stores. They couldn't do it at the drop of a hat anyway, because they signed long term contracts, at least with Apple. Besides, I doubt they even care, as the labels are still getting their cut through Real if people buy from their store and stick it on the iPod.
It's the same idiocy with people saying Bush is stupid.
Except he is stupid. I don't fault him for his rampant verbal dyslexia, but I *do* fault him for his consistent struggle just to piece together a coherent thought.
Why couldn't Gore have said "I pushed through the legislation that funded the internet" or "I helped fund the startup of the internet" if you want a shorter quote. It would have been true. And if misquoted, he would have had a case....Gore was misquoted. But I suspect he wanted to be-he wanted his accomplishments to be seen as more impressive than they were. But he got burned. I think this is a good thing. I just wish it would happen more often.
Wrong. Did the Internet of today spring forth, with its petabytes of data and millions of hosts, from scratch in 1967? Was turning an internet (just two or more networks connected together) into the Internet an overnight process or did it take a few decades? Was making the Internet the work of a single person or organization, or was it the combined efforts of the government, universities and private businesses? Now, given the fact that Gore has done more work on the Internet than any other elected official (don't think so? name one), his claim was 100% solid.
No, the OP was correct. To know the facts and still think Gore was "embellishing" means you are either guilty of intellectual dishonesty, or dumb as a bag of hammers.
So yes, Al Gore didn't claim to "invent" the internet... but his claim of "I took the initiative in creating the internet" is pretty shaky.
No, its not. In fact, the claim is as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar. Even Bob Kahn and Vince Cerf said as much. You quoted: it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet." (emphasis yours)
The problem is that somebody at CNN obviously didn't bother to do any research, because "In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation." Spank spank, CNN.
And who is opposing tort reform because it would mean less money for the parasites? It's the lawyers, dumbass.
And any employee or consumer with an ounce of common sense, because tort reform would leave them open to total buttfucking by companies. All the rights of individuals for companies + none of the responsiblities of an individual + no criminal charges for harming consumers or employees + extremely limited liability = BAD NEWS.
Hey, it has been only two days. You're skipping your meds, and you know that's dangerous.
I'm not the one with SDHAD.
You sure do show a lot of interest in my rear end and what I might do in the shower. I worry about you.
Did I say anything about your rear end? You aren't by any chance the great nephew of J. Edgar Hoover, are you? You know, the one who was a militant homophobe with the FBI but in private was gayer than RuPaul and all the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy boys put together?
...by any measure that justifies the use of the word. The problem with you right wingers, is that you are A) sissies, B) sissies who can dish it out but can't take it, the worst kind of sissies, and C) total hypocrites with no standards or consitency. Common, Clinton couldn't so much as fart in an elevator without the media turning it into a scandal. Just look at how much Genrich hyperventilated for "being force to exit form the rear of the plane." How many investigations were there into Vince Foster and Whitewater. How many of those turned up dirt on the Clintons. Out of all the journalists who went after that story and were wrong (100% of them), how many appologized?
Now, lets move on to your boy. Where's the media facination in Bush's stock deals that brought a government investigation? Where was the scandal surrounding Bush after he sat in a classroom reading a book when he knew our nation was under an attack? Where were all the decency & morals obsessed Republicans when the Vice President was telling a Democratic senator to fuck off on the senate floor?
You know the whole Dan Rather story or were you under a rock during that week?
Yep, Rather got a black eye for that one, nevermind that it was just one piece of evidence in an otherwize solid program. But remember what I said about you guys being total hypocrites? Bush. Nigerian. Yello. Cake. It was even in a memo. Go find me a single mainstream media source that demanded Bush to resign after that debacle. For that matter, where's the media pundits decrying Iraq war, calling it the greatest deciteful clusterfuck by any president since the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
And yes this bias does in fact exist.
Yes, it does. Its just 180 degrees opposite of the way you think it is.
The only people really worried about tort reform are lawyers, and that would be because . . . ? I know it's hard, but try to think it through.
And who is proposing, and pushing for, tort reform? Its not the lawyers dumbass.
A three-day-old article on Slashdot is ancient. You're responding to a three-day-old response?
Somebody forget to take his Ritalin?
"Anchient"? Even after I spelled it for you, you couldn't get it right. What a hoot.
Okay, you can have the title of the Best Slashdot Poster, Ever, for the next time you're in the shower. You can say to yourself, "ahh, I'm such a much better speller than that dude on Slashdot, oh yeahhhh"
Think about that real hard. Yes, yes it could be a fact.
Are you English or retarded? No, it can't be. The definition of a fact is that it can be backed up by evidence. No evidence, no fact. This is why you don't see Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster because there is zero proof of their existence.
Not when it comes to enforcement, its not. Either you broke the law or not. And another whole problem with the completely arbitrary enforcement by the FCC is, nobody knows whats safe. Just look at all the tv stations that refused to air Saving Private Ryan because they might be fined by the FCC.
I dont know about you but before I address congress I woudl make it my busines to know everything about the statistics I am about to present.
Its not just that he doesn't care about the demographics, its that he lumps ALL letters about an issue into the 'complaint' department. Like after Nipplegate.
Parents, think about that the next time you're lobbying for new additions to the local school, or for speed bumps every 10 feet because you're afraid your kid will get run over, etc. We child-free folks pay just as much as you do for those items
Well, sure, but why should these folks pay to have the street in front of your road maintained, or police and fire protection your neighborhood? They aren't getting anything out of those, either. And you can draw an easy corollary between the quality of education, and crime rates, teen pregnancy, quality of jobs etc.
I don't have to prove the changes would be bad, you have to prove the changes would be good. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Did your grandparents say the same thing to mixed race couples that wanted to marry? The arguments against gay marriage are the same ones used against inter-racial marriage. More to the point, this country does not and never has operated with a system of banning everything in sight until its worth has been proved. With the exception of some consumer products, its been the exact opposite. But, okay: gay couples would have the same marriage benefits that heterosexual couples do. Also, other issues can be a pain in the ass if you aren't married: inheritance if one partner dies, making medical decisions in case of incapacitation, and making legal choices for their children.
There, that was easy. Okay, now how is homosexual marriage going to be a negative affect on anyone? Is it going to make you start beating your wife? Is it going to make your wife start beating your kids?
Two things put the big lie to all this "marriage protection" bullshit: arranged marriages and the divorce rate. Okay, they didn't have gay marriage in Greece, BFD. But far from being the "bedrock of civilization", throughout history and in cultures throughout the world, marriage often wasn't for love, it wasn't for children, it was a business deal between two families. Next: over half of all marriages end in divorce. Even if every homosexual couple got married and that marriage failed, there still would be far more failed heterosexual marriages than homosexual ones. The fact that all "marriage protection" laws either passed or proposed start and stop with denying marriage to gays, and do nothing to lower the divorce rate, proves that this isn't about protecting marriage at all. Its about hating homosexuals.
You aren't, as Bush said, ensuring a "good and decent society", you're engaging in xenophobia in the tradition of Jim Crow, the Chinese Exclusion Act and Executive Order 9066. And history will judge you as such.
In America these channels with the exception of Fox are biased to the left.
Nonsense. The "biased liberal media" never existed. Seriously, the press was facinated by Whitewater for YEARS, but no Bush scandal in the media lasts longer than a couple weeks. My Pet Goat, Abu Garib, Valerie Plume, Cheney's pottymouth on the Senate floor, and do on. The press will have fogotten all about vehicle body armor by next Friday.
Slashdot Mirror
I think installing multiple copies of software is still illegal because in effect your computer copies the code from the cd-rom which is covered by copyright. You can use copyrighted material but just not copy. This is why its called copyright.
:)
Actually copyright has more to do with distribution than with the physical act of copying. But I don't think this has ever been tested in court, so who knows?
Ouch, well clearly whats good for your small community is good for everyone!
Did he say that it would? No, but way to go with the sarcastic sneering.
I would say it's unethical if Apple didn't issue a warning to you before you installed the firmware.
Um, no. The only unethical behavior would be on the part of Real, if they told their customers that their files would work on a compeditors device, when that compeditor was very opposed to the idea. And if you knew better, its your own dumb fault as well.
In this case people trying to play Real's songs on an iPod are Apple's customers.
Uh, no, not unless Real is giving Apple a cut. As they aren't, Apple would be supporting a compeditors customers, not their own.
pull Microsoft-like actions
What's Microsoft-like about changing their own damn hardware, which they never said would be open for others to hack? You neocon fag everything-Apple-does-is-wrong are just fickle snobs.
...the RIAA isn't worried about the online music store sky falling on their heads anymore. Even if Apple hadn't updated the firmware, the RIAA wouldn't up and pull out of online stores. They couldn't do it at the drop of a hat anyway, because they signed long term contracts, at least with Apple. Besides, I doubt they even care, as the labels are still getting their cut through Real if people buy from their store and stick it on the iPod.
You're new here, aren't you?
:)
No...check the user number.
There was immediate threat of him killing others.
Not when he went out of his way to avoid people. Moreso since the tank was STUCK when they shot him, much less about to run over someone.
It's the same idiocy with people saying Bush is stupid.
Except he is stupid. I don't fault him for his rampant verbal dyslexia, but I *do* fault him for his consistent struggle just to piece together a coherent thought.
Why couldn't Gore have said "I pushed through the legislation that funded the internet" or "I helped fund the startup of the internet" if you want a shorter quote. It would have been true. And if misquoted, he would have had a case....Gore was misquoted. But I suspect he wanted to be-he wanted his accomplishments to be seen as more impressive than they were. But he got burned. I think this is a good thing. I just wish it would happen more often.
Wrong. Did the Internet of today spring forth, with its petabytes of data and millions of hosts, from scratch in 1967? Was turning an internet (just two or more networks connected together) into the Internet an overnight process or did it take a few decades? Was making the Internet the work of a single person or organization, or was it the combined efforts of the government, universities and private businesses? Now, given the fact that Gore has done more work on the Internet than any other elected official (don't think so? name one), his claim was 100% solid.
No, the OP was correct. To know the facts and still think Gore was "embellishing" means you are either guilty of intellectual dishonesty, or dumb as a bag of hammers.
but said it in a poorly worded way that made it sound like he was making a crazy claim.
Actually it wasn't crazy at all. Its just the scope of the screwjob that Gore got from the media that makes it look like he worded it poorly.
So yes, Al Gore didn't claim to "invent" the internet... but his claim of "I took the initiative in creating the internet" is pretty shaky.
No, its not. In fact, the claim is as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar. Even Bob Kahn and Vince Cerf said as much. You quoted: it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet." (emphasis yours)
The problem is that somebody at CNN obviously didn't bother to do any research, because "In 1991, Vice President Al Gore, then a U.S. senator, proposed widening the architecture of NSFNET to include more K-12 schools, community colleges, and 2-year colleges. The resulting legislation expanded NSFNET and renamed it NREN (National Research and Educational Network). This bill also allowed businesses to purchase part of the network for commercial uses. The mass commercialization of today's Internet is the direct result of this legislation." Spank spank, CNN.
No, it decidedly is not.
Okay, I say I assert that I rammed your mom in the ass last night. I offer no proof of this, you are just supposed to accept it as fact.
idiot.
And who is opposing tort reform because it would mean less money for the parasites? It's the lawyers, dumbass.
And any employee or consumer with an ounce of common sense, because tort reform would leave them open to total buttfucking by companies. All the rights of individuals for companies + none of the responsiblities of an individual + no criminal charges for harming consumers or employees + extremely limited liability = BAD NEWS.
Hey, it has been only two days. You're skipping your meds, and you know that's dangerous.
I'm not the one with SDHAD.
You sure do show a lot of interest in my rear end and what I might do in the shower. I worry about you.
Did I say anything about your rear end? You aren't by any chance the great nephew of J. Edgar Hoover, are you? You know, the one who was a militant homophobe with the FBI but in private was gayer than RuPaul and all the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy boys put together?
...by any measure that justifies the use of the word. The problem with you right wingers, is that you are A) sissies, B) sissies who can dish it out but can't take it, the worst kind of sissies, and C) total hypocrites with no standards or consitency. Common, Clinton couldn't so much as fart in an elevator without the media turning it into a scandal. Just look at how much Genrich hyperventilated for "being force to exit form the rear of the plane." How many investigations were there into Vince Foster and Whitewater. How many of those turned up dirt on the Clintons. Out of all the journalists who went after that story and were wrong (100% of them), how many appologized?
Now, lets move on to your boy. Where's the media facination in Bush's stock deals that brought a government investigation? Where was the scandal surrounding Bush after he sat in a classroom reading a book when he knew our nation was under an attack? Where were all the decency & morals obsessed Republicans when the Vice President was telling a Democratic senator to fuck off on the senate floor?
You know the whole Dan Rather story or were you under a rock during that week?
Yep, Rather got a black eye for that one, nevermind that it was just one piece of evidence in an otherwize solid program. But remember what I said about you guys being total hypocrites? Bush. Nigerian. Yello. Cake. It was even in a memo. Go find me a single mainstream media source that demanded Bush to resign after that debacle. For that matter, where's the media pundits decrying Iraq war, calling it the greatest deciteful clusterfuck by any president since the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
And yes this bias does in fact exist.
Yes, it does. Its just 180 degrees opposite of the way you think it is.
Probably because you posted the same info half a dozen times.
The only people really worried about tort reform are lawyers, and that would be because . . . ? I know it's hard, but try to think it through.
And who is proposing, and pushing for, tort reform? Its not the lawyers dumbass.
A three-day-old article on Slashdot is ancient. You're responding to a three-day-old response?
Somebody forget to take his Ritalin?
"Anchient"? Even after I spelled it for you, you couldn't get it right. What a hoot.
Okay, you can have the title of the Best Slashdot Poster, Ever, for the next time you're in the shower. You can say to yourself, "ahh, I'm such a much better speller than that dude on Slashdot, oh yeahhhh"
Think about that real hard. Yes, yes it could be a fact.
Are you English or retarded? No, it can't be. The definition of a fact is that it can be backed up by evidence. No evidence, no fact. This is why you don't see Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster because there is zero proof of their existence.
Context is everything.
Not when it comes to enforcement, its not. Either you broke the law or not. And another whole problem with the completely arbitrary enforcement by the FCC is, nobody knows whats safe. Just look at all the tv stations that refused to air Saving Private Ryan because they might be fined by the FCC.
I dont know about you but before I address congress I woudl make it my busines to know everything about the statistics I am about to present.
Its not just that he doesn't care about the demographics, its that he lumps ALL letters about an issue into the 'complaint' department. Like after Nipplegate.
You mean a term of no less than four years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Parents, think about that the next time you're lobbying for new additions to the local school, or for speed bumps every 10 feet because you're afraid your kid will get run over, etc. We child-free folks pay just as much as you do for those items
Well, sure, but why should these folks pay to have the street in front of your road maintained, or police and fire protection your neighborhood? They aren't getting anything out of those, either. And you can draw an easy corollary between the quality of education, and crime rates, teen pregnancy, quality of jobs etc.
I don't have to prove the changes would be bad, you have to prove the changes would be good. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Did your grandparents say the same thing to mixed race couples that wanted to marry? The arguments against gay marriage are the same ones used against inter-racial marriage. More to the point, this country does not and never has operated with a system of banning everything in sight until its worth has been proved. With the exception of some consumer products, its been the exact opposite. But, okay: gay couples would have the same marriage benefits that heterosexual couples do. Also, other issues can be a pain in the ass if you aren't married: inheritance if one partner dies, making medical decisions in case of incapacitation, and making legal choices for their children.
There, that was easy. Okay, now how is homosexual marriage going to be a negative affect on anyone? Is it going to make you start beating your wife? Is it going to make your wife start beating your kids?
Two things put the big lie to all this "marriage protection" bullshit: arranged marriages and the divorce rate. Okay, they didn't have gay marriage in Greece, BFD. But far from being the "bedrock of civilization", throughout history and in cultures throughout the world, marriage often wasn't for love, it wasn't for children, it was a business deal between two families. Next: over half of all marriages end in divorce. Even if every homosexual couple got married and that marriage failed, there still would be far more failed heterosexual marriages than homosexual ones. The fact that all "marriage protection" laws either passed or proposed start and stop with denying marriage to gays, and do nothing to lower the divorce rate, proves that this isn't about protecting marriage at all. Its about hating homosexuals.
You aren't, as Bush said, ensuring a "good and decent society", you're engaging in xenophobia in the tradition of Jim Crow, the Chinese Exclusion Act and Executive Order 9066. And history will judge you as such.
The whole point of marriage is that it affects people beyond the couple.
Could you expand on that? Are you talking about kids, relations with the in-laws or what?
In America these channels with the exception of Fox are biased to the left.
Nonsense. The "biased liberal media" never existed. Seriously, the press was facinated by Whitewater for YEARS, but no Bush scandal in the media lasts longer than a couple weeks. My Pet Goat, Abu Garib, Valerie Plume, Cheney's pottymouth on the Senate floor, and do on. The press will have fogotten all about vehicle body armor by next Friday.