Don't worry, man. It will only be a couple more years before video is available to people without Flash. Just wait a couple years and you can see the vid.
You nailed it: it is not the technology per se, but the advertising bit that is so offensive. For the benefits of easier captcha to outweigh annoying advertising, the captcha would have to make me bacon and eggs after sucking me off. I literally can't imagine a captcha so easy to use that I'd tolerate an ad for it.
Also, "video with meaningful message" is not tantamount to "advertisement" except for meaninglessly expansive definitions of "advertisement".
I don't happen to know. I bought mine without trying one first, but like you I do typically like to touch before I purchase. FWIW, I find it to be imperfect but satisfactory. It meets my basic criteria, which were to play music (iPod replacement) and browse the web. Of course, it does a bunch of other stuff too, but those were my primary concerns. I know that it is open enough that lots of people have put other operating systems on it, so if you are handy enough you should be able to get it to do what you want.
I can't quite tell which side of this issue you are on, but I think the phrase would be this: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. So, my understanding is that Apple is making it difficult to make copies and redistribute their version of VLC, and thus it would be a violation of that clause.
Exactly. It could be considered a "mistake" until the first person complained about it, which was absolutely positively on the first day of the first billing cycle. Every single day after that, it was intentional fraud, and I can imagine no compelling counterargument.
I'm not sure I exactly understand the question, but the GPL only applies when distributing works, so the answer must be no, the GPL could not apply to simply looking at the page. Also, I'm not sure what it means that "you have no right to copy the page down onto your computer and read it"; I think it's obvious that you do have the right to copy down webpages to your computer and read them, similar to reading signs put up in public, or reading books that you order from the store, or listening to a person who is conversing with you.
Anyway my point to that person was that he was trying to say that one contract was valid and the other wasn't, but I disagree with him: neither contract is valid.
1. Yes, this is drivel. 2. But if the person were from the future, I can certainly imagine their phones working without nearby cell towers. Maybe it's a phone that can transmit through time. What are you saying, that the technology is indistinguishable from magic?
You are right. Both contracts are worthless, because neither of them meet the requirements for a legal agreement. Neither contract is any more valid than the other; they are both exactly equally unenforceable and nonbinding.
I had an AlphaGrip. It was pretty much exactly what you would imagine. My problem with it was that it was build for medium-to-small hands, and I have big manhands, so my fingers overshot all the keys and it was hard to pull them back into place. Also, in the end, the keyboard arrangement was odd, with most letters under your fingers but a few under your thumb. It was weird, but I was able to compose on it. I would never replace a normal keyboard for work purposes, but it's not sold for that, it's sold for situations where a normal keyboard is not useful, such as away from a desk. It had several flaws of a first-run device. For instance, you couldn't set it down without pressing some buttons, and that could be solved by molding some little legs into the plastic enclosure.
Thank you! I've been searching for that keyboard for years, wondering why nobody ever made it. I have one of those old Fingerworks keyboards with dozens of input gestures, and it is sort of great, but actually typing on it was difficult -- a bad characteristic for a keyboard. I usually type on a regular craptastic Dell keyboard. Now, here it is, a mechanical keyboard which has the obvious features of a new standard keyboard, many of which are found in the Fingerworks:
Line the keys in columns; don't stagger them. This is so obvious it makes me cry that the whole world hasn't done it yet.
Lose the numeric keyboard. What a waste of space.
Move the shift key into the obvious best spot for it
Split the keyboard in a natural way, and use the in-between space for a few useful keys (I can actually think of better choices than they made)
Move the delete key where it belongs: near the thumbs. I prefer the actual backspace key there, so I hope that can be configured.
I will buy it for those great enhancements over a common keyboard, but I have one more feature I always thought keyboards should have, and it is obvious:
Symbol shift -- a shift key which turns all the keys into symbol keys. If we did this, both numbers and symbols could be shifted in this way, saving a row of keys and bringing other useful keys into those locations, perhaps making the whole keyboard smaller. You could also fit a lot more symbols onto the keyboard, without having to resort to the alt key or to multi-key combinations.
People keep saying he can't use a browser, but from my understanding he couldn't even use any computer that has user logins, which is all modern operating systems. Don't they all keep passwords in an encrypted file? He'll have to go back to Mac System 7 to find an OS without user logins. Luckily, System 7 didn't have web browsers, either, so he'll have a bitchin' time playing Lemmings to his heart's content.
If you were talking about America, I would suggest skipping the squirt gun and get a gun with bullets. When someone breaks into your car, shoot them in the head. Done and done -- only one story to tell in court, that the punk was killed during the commission of theft.
But yeah, people in the UK don't have the legal right to self defense, much less defense of property, so over there it's probably best to go out to your car, thank the robber kindly, and offer him some extra money before he goes on his merry way. Some US states are that way, too, but not the free ones.
It's not? I'm an adult and I find it hard to understanding the criminal basis of blowing bubbles. In fact, I think blowing bubbles is a pretty excellent example of a thing that is nearly impossible to consider assault.
We might agree that those are bad policies, but they are clearly constitutional. The way to oppose bad-but-constitutional policies is by voting for different policies -- or to jump over the significant hurdle of amendment, if regular voting isn't a strong enough hedge. Perhaps what the conservatives need to do is to pass one simple amendment:
"The Federal government shall not have the power to promote the general welfare, nor to regulate interstate commerce. All laws previously justified by those powers are null and void two years after the passing of this amendment."
Heh, well yeah I didn't mod you troll; I would have gone with flamebait anyway. And I wasn't the AC who called you a cancer. Anyway, yeah, I don't find it difficult to opposte the War on Drugs and the PATRIOT Act as bad policy, without them being unconstitutional.
Actually I do think parts of the PATRIOT act are unconstitutional, but sadly the war on drugs is a perfectly constitutional set of terrible policies.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, man. It will only be a couple more years before video is available to people without Flash. Just wait a couple years and you can see the vid.
You nailed it: it is not the technology per se, but the advertising bit that is so offensive. For the benefits of easier captcha to outweigh annoying advertising, the captcha would have to make me bacon and eggs after sucking me off. I literally can't imagine a captcha so easy to use that I'd tolerate an ad for it.
Also, "video with meaningful message" is not tantamount to "advertisement" except for meaninglessly expansive definitions of "advertisement".
The answer, obviously, is because that doesn't work as well. And that is sad.\
Keep on blockin' ads, brother. The only time I see ads online is when I have the displeasure of using someone else's browser.
I don't happen to know. I bought mine without trying one first, but like you I do typically like to touch before I purchase. FWIW, I find it to be imperfect but satisfactory. It meets my basic criteria, which were to play music (iPod replacement) and browse the web. Of course, it does a bunch of other stuff too, but those were my primary concerns. I know that it is open enough that lots of people have put other operating systems on it, so if you are handy enough you should be able to get it to do what you want.
I can't quite tell which side of this issue you are on, but I think the phrase would be this: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. So, my understanding is that Apple is making it difficult to make copies and redistribute their version of VLC, and thus it would be a violation of that clause.
Hello, friend. Last week I bought an Archos 5, and all week I've been describing it as an "Android pod touch". I got mine for $200. Good luck.
Exactly. It could be considered a "mistake" until the first person complained about it, which was absolutely positively on the first day of the first billing cycle. Every single day after that, it was intentional fraud, and I can imagine no compelling counterargument.
I'm not sure I exactly understand the question, but the GPL only applies when distributing works, so the answer must be no, the GPL could not apply to simply looking at the page. Also, I'm not sure what it means that "you have no right to copy the page down onto your computer and read it"; I think it's obvious that you do have the right to copy down webpages to your computer and read them, similar to reading signs put up in public, or reading books that you order from the store, or listening to a person who is conversing with you.
Anyway my point to that person was that he was trying to say that one contract was valid and the other wasn't, but I disagree with him: neither contract is valid.
Maybe he tried to change the timeline so that the Nazis would win, but failed.
1. Yes, this is drivel.
2. But if the person were from the future, I can certainly imagine their phones working without nearby cell towers. Maybe it's a phone that can transmit through time. What are you saying, that the technology is indistinguishable from magic?
You are right. Both contracts are worthless, because neither of them meet the requirements for a legal agreement. Neither contract is any more valid than the other; they are both exactly equally unenforceable and nonbinding.
I had an AlphaGrip. It was pretty much exactly what you would imagine. My problem with it was that it was build for medium-to-small hands, and I have big manhands, so my fingers overshot all the keys and it was hard to pull them back into place. Also, in the end, the keyboard arrangement was odd, with most letters under your fingers but a few under your thumb. It was weird, but I was able to compose on it. I would never replace a normal keyboard for work purposes, but it's not sold for that, it's sold for situations where a normal keyboard is not useful, such as away from a desk. It had several flaws of a first-run device. For instance, you couldn't set it down without pressing some buttons, and that could be solved by molding some little legs into the plastic enclosure.
That's better than a retirement account.
Thank you! I've been searching for that keyboard for years, wondering why nobody ever made it. I have one of those old Fingerworks keyboards with dozens of input gestures, and it is sort of great, but actually typing on it was difficult -- a bad characteristic for a keyboard. I usually type on a regular craptastic Dell keyboard. Now, here it is, a mechanical keyboard which has the obvious features of a new standard keyboard, many of which are found in the Fingerworks:
I will buy it for those great enhancements over a common keyboard, but I have one more feature I always thought keyboards should have, and it is obvious:
Some people will need to be told about the joke.
Forget about browsers, he can't use any computer with an encrypted user password file.
People keep saying he can't use a browser, but from my understanding he couldn't even use any computer that has user logins, which is all modern operating systems. Don't they all keep passwords in an encrypted file? He'll have to go back to Mac System 7 to find an OS without user logins. Luckily, System 7 didn't have web browsers, either, so he'll have a bitchin' time playing Lemmings to his heart's content.
Figures...
The ramifications make perfect sense if this all happened in THE MATRIX!
s/yet/thus/
This fool sounds like she has a ton to waste and deserves what she gets.
Yeah, a mansion on a beautiful hillside. What a total loser she is, huh?
Oh, you are talking about the UK.
If you were talking about America, I would suggest skipping the squirt gun and get a gun with bullets. When someone breaks into your car, shoot them in the head. Done and done -- only one story to tell in court, that the punk was killed during the commission of theft.
But yeah, people in the UK don't have the legal right to self defense, much less defense of property, so over there it's probably best to go out to your car, thank the robber kindly, and offer him some extra money before he goes on his merry way. Some US states are that way, too, but not the free ones.
It's not? I'm an adult and I find it hard to understanding the criminal basis of blowing bubbles. In fact, I think blowing bubbles is a pretty excellent example of a thing that is nearly impossible to consider assault.
We might agree that those are bad policies, but they are clearly constitutional. The way to oppose bad-but-constitutional policies is by voting for different policies -- or to jump over the significant hurdle of amendment, if regular voting isn't a strong enough hedge. Perhaps what the conservatives need to do is to pass one simple amendment:
"The Federal government shall not have the power to promote the general welfare, nor to regulate interstate commerce. All laws previously justified by those powers are null and void two years after the passing of this amendment."
Simple enough.
Heh, well yeah I didn't mod you troll; I would have gone with flamebait anyway. And I wasn't the AC who called you a cancer. Anyway, yeah, I don't find it difficult to opposte the War on Drugs and the PATRIOT Act as bad policy, without them being unconstitutional.
Actually I do think parts of the PATRIOT act are unconstitutional, but sadly the war on drugs is a perfectly constitutional set of terrible policies.