Where is the respect for ownership of physical things that people buy, like iPhones. Why is it that people that purchase iPhones can not run any software they want, without jumping through hoops to jailbreak or paying a $100/year fee. Is it really respect or the law that is making Apple pull the app?
Pretend I am a iPhone owner and user, and I wanted to run VLC on my device. I don't need anyone's permission to run VLC on my desktop device, only my handheld device. Do you honestly believe it is the developer(s) that is the obstacle to running VLC on iPhone?
What credibility does Assange need? Are you implying that the any of the leaked information is false? Sure the government needs to keep secrets but when they use the top secret label for questionable activity, the people need to know and need to react accordingly.
But with opensource they can hire anyone they want to fix their software, just like they can hire any mechanic to fix their car. Are you saying that it is better that people have no choice? Most people believe the best thing about opensource is the price. They are wrong.
Do you really believe banks can recognize "funny" money but can not see that a check is fake? Most checks I have seen have security features like money.
Yes, you can do that with physical things, but not imaginary things. If I use my own time to "build" my own mp3 that is identical to some original, that seems to be illegal.
So in your example given, if the secrets are not leaked: the citizens of N. Korea know this secret, the diplomats and officials of N. Korea know this secret, and the usa diplomat and officials know this secret. The only ones left out are the american citizens.
Let the court of public opinion condemn Amazon. If Amazon is doing this because of some business decision, why did they feel the need to notify a politician?
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the respect for ownership of physical things that people buy, like iPhones. Why is it that people that purchase iPhones can not run any software they want, without jumping through hoops to jailbreak or paying a $100/year fee. Is it really respect or the law that is making Apple pull the app?
Yes, cause Apple gives their users freedom to install apps from any source ...
You ask what behavior? How about the part where you can only install stuff with Apple's permission (unless you pay $100/year or jailbreak).
rephrased, "It is suddenly Apple's fault that the iDevice user can not install GNU licensed software?". If not Apple's fault, then who.
Pretend I am a iPhone owner and user, and I wanted to run VLC on my device. I don't need anyone's permission to run VLC on my desktop device, only my handheld device. Do you honestly believe it is the developer(s) that is the obstacle to running VLC on iPhone?
What credibility does Assange need? Are you implying that the any of the leaked information is false? Sure the government needs to keep secrets but when they use the top secret label for questionable activity, the people need to know and need to react accordingly.
So traditional media is focusing their reporting on the messenger instead of the message and you blame Assange?
So wanting to show the corrupt things the government does means you want all information to be free?
The only person that exposed Manning was himself. If you got that detail wrong ...
low e glass can conduct
But with opensource they can hire anyone they want to fix their software, just like they can hire any mechanic to fix their car. Are you saying that it is better that people have no choice? Most people believe the best thing about opensource is the price. They are wrong.
Do you really believe banks can recognize "funny" money but can not see that a check is fake? Most checks I have seen have security features like money.
Yes, you can do that with physical things, but not imaginary things. If I use my own time to "build" my own mp3 that is identical to some original, that seems to be illegal.
"We have more important things to worry about. Like where are those French fries I did not ask for?"
Only legal if you do it yourself. There was a recent case of a "terrorist" that was selling jailbroken phones.
So in your example given, if the secrets are not leaked: the citizens of N. Korea know this secret, the diplomats and officials of N. Korea know this secret, and the usa diplomat and officials know this secret. The only ones left out are the american citizens.
Yes, we know breaking the DMCA is illegal, but should it be illegal?
Let the court of public opinion condemn Amazon. If Amazon is doing this because of some business decision, why did they feel the need to notify a politician?
If the reason was any of the stuff from a ToS/AUP, then WHY send a message to a Politician that a certain customer is now not being serviced.
"It was obvious these sites were ... distributing copyrighted works."
You say that like the owners of said works own them forever. What about things found at gutenberg.org ?
So those local gas stations with a BP logo don't pay any fees to the head company to use the name/brand?
Most spoken languages are not detailed tho, there is lots of ambiguity. If you want it to be short and informative, you should use Math.
Why can't it be the case that the terrorist master minds are sitting back watching USA dig deeper and deeper
One word, "Rapiscan". Actually it is a composition of two words. I will let you guess which words they are.
Are these cameras legal on the streets of USA? From this past decade of news, it seems like it is illegal in USA too.