Are you just being a wag or are you actually ignorant of the historical origin and enduring significance of the "PC" moniker?
You said it well enough yourself: a PC is a Personal Computer, not a personal computer. "Personal Computer" was a trademarked term, having greater significance than the term would in common usage, referring to specific computer hardware and software. The term lives on as the PC community has lived on.
Yes, the BBC is an uncomfortable anomaly for us Americal Libertarians. We don't like the government getting mixed up in private-market stuff, because on our side of the pond government always fucks up everything it touches. Let me bold that so it stands out as the operative phrase: on our side of the pond government always fucks up everything it touches. So, we get really confused when we look over at your crazy tax-driven public-TV system. It makes our skin crawl. If our government did that we'd end up with a mixture of C-SPAN, The 700 Club, and FOX News. But in England, you miraculously ended up with the BBC, which you rightly claim is one of the world's premier media organizations.
Please, don't blame us when we criticize your form of television distribution, because when we think about it we drag along our American preconceptions of what government programming would be. My only rejoinder is whether you could have the BBC cheaper and better as a private organization, but given what (little) I know about it, the answer would be no -- if you privatized the BBC, you'd end up with crappy commercial TV like we do, where the shows are reasonably good but the commercials are so frequent, so jarring, and so annoying that it makes the shows themselves unwatchable.
Thanks a lot for the links though. Now I can enjoy BBC programming without paying for it.
You're telling me that the MP3 file is either "authorized" or "unauthorized" based on its logical location on the drive?
Yes. When the file is in the shared folder it is available for download. Current law decisions uphold the argument that a shared file is a copyright violation. (We all might think that's a bad decision, but it is the current state of the law.)
I assume you're just being a wag and in fact are intelligent enough to understand that. (I award you zero points, and may God have mercy on your soul.)
WTO formed in 1995, so it didn't exactly have a lot of time to ramp up and start issuing decisions against the USA in the short amount of time before Bush was elected.
But, Bush still qualifies as an nitwit, so if that was your point, I don't disagree with that.
I'm not really following you. Courts do that all the time. Let me rephrase your hypothetical: "Judge: You see, we know this guy owes you money and doesn't want to pay it, but he has the damn money. In return we issue a court order allowing you to seize his assets in proportion to the debt he owes you."
yeah, i've heard biatches about all the editors from time to time, but kdawson definitely has a different approval style than the other editors, and that difference is, imho, a bad difference.
Well, the claim would be that the government used evidence improperly collected. There is a different standard for such evidence, which is in between the stricter standard for evidence collected directly by the government and the lesser standard of "anything goes".
Circuit City violated the guy's privacy, but not the Constitutional right, just the general civil right. You are correct that CC can't violate Constitutional rights. However, the government might violate the Constitution for using evidence collected via the civil violation. -Or, as this judge things in this case, they might not.
The idea with torts is that if you harm someone financially, they can pursue a tort against you and recover damages. That's the basic idea, and of course we have several centuries of law defining how that can happen. IANAL so I don't know the specifics of trade secret law, but yes basically the law extends obligations of secrecy to a person who receives the secret knowing that it is a secret, and publishes it knowing that it will do damage to the company (or person). There are lots of exceptions and lots of qualifications.
I don' think it's unreasonable for you to think it's dumb that the information recipient would be held liable instead of the person who transmits the secret.
I just read the Wiki on trade secrets but it wasn't very informative. I bet other sources could answer your questions better than I did, though.
I'm not positive about this, but I don't think not installing the BSD subsystem is tantamount to completely eliminating BSD from OS X. I could be wrong.
So when someone -now- says "Unix" they should mean a conforming implementation of the Open Group's Single Unix Standard. That includes POSIX conformance. And it should mean that the vendor has the certificate to prove it.
I think that's fair. I won't object, though, when people say Linux "is" UNIX. But I also won't object when you do.
Luckily, and shockingly, unlike most market situations where consumers just sit back, receive bad service and products, and pay for them anyway, in this case (the larger case of DRM) it seems that consumers are doing the right thing and not buying it. That's all libertarians like me ask: if a product sucks, don't buy it, and tell your friends not to buy it, either. If we all did that we'd have a market with astronomically higher standards.
So music playback prevention technology seems to be a market loser, thank God. I only wish DVD playback prevention technology were a similar market loser.
How is that different than the situation before, where you had products labeled PLAYS FOR SURE but the media did not, in fact, play for sure? How can anything be more confusing than by being named the opposite of what it does?
(As an aside, that's how Bush got the Every Child Left Behind act, the Dirty Air And Water act, the UNPATRIOTIC act, etc.)
Evidently, they aren't even convincing anyone to buy anything. Do you know anyone who has ever bought a DRM music file? I don't, not even one person. The only DRM I know of that was successful in the market is DVD CSS, but I think that only really survived because it was broken early on. Dude, I'm not worried about DRM. Eventually, it will go away, because consumers don't buy it (literally).
I should say, though, that everyone should stop buying DVDs until they drop the CSS. I've never bought a DVD.
My take on it is that Microsoft's offerings are worse because they called them "PlaysForSure" when, in fact, they don't play for sure. Now Microsoft is now rebranding PlaysForSure to be Zune-like, but it won't play on a Zune? I feel like that's worse, not better. Apple calls theirs "FairPlay", which at least hints at the goal of the software, even if you disagree on what "fair" means.
I'm not following you. Which one "is" UNIX? The one developed from original BSD code (I count BSD as "is" UNIX), or the one that was re-implemented using similar paradigms? I think each one "is" UNIX, and if you insisted on comparing them, Mac would be slightly more UNIX than Linux (because it actually runs BSD underneath) but only slightly.
Interesting take on things. When someone says "UNIX" to me that means one of two things: most likely, the old original AT&T UNIX, and its progeny; if not, then BSD, which is so old, old school, and original gangsta that it counts as UNIX proper.
Linux is not UNIX. Linux is UNIX-like. Linux is modeled after UNIX, and could be said to be "based on UNIX" if by "based on" you mean "intended to function similarly", but not, of course, "based on" the code from either AT&T UNIX or from BSD.
Mac, however, *is* UNIX, seeing as how BSD counts as UNIX (to me). I'm not clear on how you deny that. You can boot straight into a standard BSD command line, or access one any time. Most importantly, it meets both definitions of "based on UNIX": it works like UNIX and was also developed from the same code.
Windows meets neither of the definitions for based on. It's not UNIX.
Slashdot Mirror
I had to look this up: a DVD hire shop is a movie rental store. Apparently the old-worlders use "hire" to mean "rent".
Are you just being a wag or are you actually ignorant of the historical origin and enduring significance of the "PC" moniker?
You said it well enough yourself: a PC is a Personal Computer, not a personal computer. "Personal Computer" was a trademarked term, having greater significance than the term would in common usage, referring to specific computer hardware and software. The term lives on as the PC community has lived on.
Yes, the BBC is an uncomfortable anomaly for us Americal Libertarians. We don't like the government getting mixed up in private-market stuff, because on our side of the pond government always fucks up everything it touches. Let me bold that so it stands out as the operative phrase: on our side of the pond government always fucks up everything it touches. So, we get really confused when we look over at your crazy tax-driven public-TV system. It makes our skin crawl. If our government did that we'd end up with a mixture of C-SPAN, The 700 Club, and FOX News. But in England, you miraculously ended up with the BBC, which you rightly claim is one of the world's premier media organizations.
Please, don't blame us when we criticize your form of television distribution, because when we think about it we drag along our American preconceptions of what government programming would be. My only rejoinder is whether you could have the BBC cheaper and better as a private organization, but given what (little) I know about it, the answer would be no -- if you privatized the BBC, you'd end up with crappy commercial TV like we do, where the shows are reasonably good but the commercials are so frequent, so jarring, and so annoying that it makes the shows themselves unwatchable.
Thanks a lot for the links though. Now I can enjoy BBC programming without paying for it.
You're telling me that the MP3 file is either "authorized" or "unauthorized" based on its logical location on the drive?
Yes. When the file is in the shared folder it is available for download. Current law decisions uphold the argument that a shared file is a copyright violation. (We all might think that's a bad decision, but it is the current state of the law.)
I assume you're just being a wag and in fact are intelligent enough to understand that. (I award you zero points, and may God have mercy on your soul.)
WTO formed in 1995, so it didn't exactly have a lot of time to ramp up and start issuing decisions against the USA in the short amount of time before Bush was elected.
But, Bush still qualifies as an nitwit, so if that was your point, I don't disagree with that.
I'm not really following you. Courts do that all the time. Let me rephrase your hypothetical: "Judge: You see, we know this guy owes you money and doesn't want to pay it, but he has the damn money. In return we issue a court order allowing you to seize his assets in proportion to the debt he owes you."
Unlikely. They'll probably want euros.
$21 Million in copyright infringement. At the current rate, that would be... what... like a half dozen CDs?
Somebody I don't know is trying to enlist me in the search for someone else I don't know.
You don't know who the US Government is? Maybe what you mean is that someone you don't trust is enlisting you.
Most jurisdictions allow the copyright of both geometrical shapes as well as numbers.
It's not up to YOU to decide what I can or cannot see as an adult taxpaying citizen who subsidizes your child.
True that. It's not up to him, it's up to all of them -- or, it is in a democracy, at least.
+5, Insightful
yeah, i've heard biatches about all the editors from time to time, but kdawson definitely has a different approval style than the other editors, and that difference is, imho, a bad difference.
zebstash is right. calebt3 is wrong.
but, the title and the summary are somewhat confusingly stated.
Well, the claim would be that the government used evidence improperly collected. There is a different standard for such evidence, which is in between the stricter standard for evidence collected directly by the government and the lesser standard of "anything goes".
Circuit City violated the guy's privacy, but not the Constitutional right, just the general civil right. You are correct that CC can't violate Constitutional rights. However, the government might violate the Constitution for using evidence collected via the civil violation. -Or, as this judge things in this case, they might not.
The idea with torts is that if you harm someone financially, they can pursue a tort against you and recover damages. That's the basic idea, and of course we have several centuries of law defining how that can happen. IANAL so I don't know the specifics of trade secret law, but yes basically the law extends obligations of secrecy to a person who receives the secret knowing that it is a secret, and publishes it knowing that it will do damage to the company (or person). There are lots of exceptions and lots of qualifications.
I don' think it's unreasonable for you to think it's dumb that the information recipient would be held liable instead of the person who transmits the secret.
I just read the Wiki on trade secrets but it wasn't very informative. I bet other sources could answer your questions better than I did, though.
what the heck happened with the tags on this story? are they having a conversation now?
If anything more, we are valuing privacy more than we did in 1988.
Yeah, I wish.
I'm not positive about this, but I don't think not installing the BSD subsystem is tantamount to completely eliminating BSD from OS X. I could be wrong.
So when someone -now- says "Unix" they should mean a conforming implementation of the Open Group's Single Unix Standard. That includes POSIX conformance. And it should mean that the vendor has the certificate to prove it.
I think that's fair. I won't object, though, when people say Linux "is" UNIX. But I also won't object when you do.
The only solution is to not buy the crap. Period.
Luckily, and shockingly, unlike most market situations where consumers just sit back, receive bad service and products, and pay for them anyway, in this case (the larger case of DRM) it seems that consumers are doing the right thing and not buying it. That's all libertarians like me ask: if a product sucks, don't buy it, and tell your friends not to buy it, either. If we all did that we'd have a market with astronomically higher standards.
So music playback prevention technology seems to be a market loser, thank God. I only wish DVD playback prevention technology were a similar market loser.
How is that different than the situation before, where you had products labeled PLAYS FOR SURE but the media did not, in fact, play for sure? How can anything be more confusing than by being named the opposite of what it does?
(As an aside, that's how Bush got the Every Child Left Behind act, the Dirty Air And Water act, the UNPATRIOTIC act, etc.)
Evidently, they aren't even convincing anyone to buy anything. Do you know anyone who has ever bought a DRM music file? I don't, not even one person. The only DRM I know of that was successful in the market is DVD CSS, but I think that only really survived because it was broken early on. Dude, I'm not worried about DRM. Eventually, it will go away, because consumers don't buy it (literally).
I should say, though, that everyone should stop buying DVDs until they drop the CSS. I've never bought a DVD.
My take on it is that Microsoft's offerings are worse because they called them "PlaysForSure" when, in fact, they don't play for sure. Now Microsoft is now rebranding PlaysForSure to be Zune-like, but it won't play on a Zune? I feel like that's worse, not better. Apple calls theirs "FairPlay", which at least hints at the goal of the software, even if you disagree on what "fair" means.
Obviously, don't pay for either one.
I'm not following you. Which one "is" UNIX? The one developed from original BSD code (I count BSD as "is" UNIX), or the one that was re-implemented using similar paradigms? I think each one "is" UNIX, and if you insisted on comparing them, Mac would be slightly more UNIX than Linux (because it actually runs BSD underneath) but only slightly.
Interesting take on things. When someone says "UNIX" to me that means one of two things: most likely, the old original AT&T UNIX, and its progeny; if not, then BSD, which is so old, old school, and original gangsta that it counts as UNIX proper.
Linux is not UNIX. Linux is UNIX-like. Linux is modeled after UNIX, and could be said to be "based on UNIX" if by "based on" you mean "intended to function similarly", but not, of course, "based on" the code from either AT&T UNIX or from BSD.
Mac, however, *is* UNIX, seeing as how BSD counts as UNIX (to me). I'm not clear on how you deny that. You can boot straight into a standard BSD command line, or access one any time. Most importantly, it meets both definitions of "based on UNIX": it works like UNIX and was also developed from the same code.
Windows meets neither of the definitions for based on. It's not UNIX.