Said the anonymous coward, who is a complete dumbass. If I am unwell, what does it say about you, who is too much of a coward to even stand behind your words?
I quoted the submitter verbatim. There is nothing dangerous with this lawsuit. Perhaps you should read Slashdot's history, especially when it comes to lawsuits.
claiming that they are still actively selling netbooks despite also revealing sales figures showing a minuscule market share.
So, what the submitter is saying is that because Psion has a small player with "minuscule market share", the big guys should be able to ignore Psion's trademarks.
So, it is ok to break the law as long as said law will no exist in a future time?
In the future, there will come a time when the United States, the countries of the Earth, and the Earth itself will not exist. Therefore, if someone were to kill you or a loved one of yours, you should be OK with that because it will eventually not be illegal to do so.
There goes you stupid argument that it is ok to do something illegal because one day it may not be illegal.
This is not about free speech. this is about hiding speech to facilitate crime. Is that any clearer, shithead? Oh, and I notice you completely ignored the fact that your entire argument was based on a fallacy.
. Now, I know that you are going to claim this as a false equivalency, and that's okay, because it is. It, however, serves at the foundation for the next step of our argument.
You have just admitted that your argument is based on a fallacy. If it is a false equivalency, then any argument based on it is also false.
Congratulations, you are an even greater dumbass than most.
That does not change the fact that any system that generates a $30,000 cell phone bill must be considered broken.
That is a false statement.
The system generates the phone bill indicated by usage under the contract. You may as well say that little teenage girls who have 500 free text messages with each extra message being $.10, then send 10,000 messages in a month, should not be charged the $950.00 they have racked up.
You think the system is broken because it created a $30,000 bill. Apparently you are a fucking idiot because a $30,000 phone bill is a possible correct outcome. I say the problem is the user and his failure to know how to use his phone.
Just because you do not like the result, it does not follow that the result is wrong. Now, stop being a whiny shithead who has a limited world-view and a victim mentality.
Re:why would a woman want to be a geek goddess ??
on
How To Be A Geek Goddess
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Hundreds--maybe thousands--of innocent people have had their 4th amendment rights violated in the RIAA's attempts to stop file sharing.
Sounds like you are saying the RIAA is volating people's 4th amendments rights. Maybe you should learn to communicate or was misrepresentation your goal?
The fact that you say or imply one thing then state that is not what you said or mean shows you to be intentionally disingenuous.
This article is a total crock of shit. This case does not put all admins in danger unless the author believes all admins are arrogant assholes. But, that might be the case as the author certainly appears to be one himself.
The fact is that by withholding the password, he denied access to the systems. ANY admin with integrity would have turned the passwords over to his boss when he left the company.
Every handset I have ever seen (and I have seen many as I have worked in various parts of the wireless industry for years) has a roaming indicator, therefore he knew he was doing business with a different company. It is his responsibility to know the cost of roaming. His ignorance is no excuse.
It is not that it is unlikely. You oversimplify the situation because you are ignorant of the technology then ask why can't something that is not feasible.
You are doing the equivalent of saying "Why can't I run whatever program I want on whatever computer I want. They are all programs and all computers, what is so hard about that?"
Or, suggesting that all car parts should be interchangeable, regardless of make, model, or origin.
It is also possible that all the air in the room your are in will gather in a single corner and you will die of asphyxiation. It is just extremely improbable.
It is possible to build a tower out of the atmosphere, it is just difficult.
Stop thinking about the way the system we have today is designed. Imagine designing a wireless telephone system from the ground up.
Ah. You suggest that reality does not matter. Interesting argument you make. May as well suggest that we stop thinking about the way things are today and imagine a would where cars run on salt water.
What you conveniently overlook is that it is not one system. It is a conglomeration of many systems, some of which are barely compatible, which are controlled by as many different entities.
Now, dig your head out of your ass and deal with the reality of the situation and not what you want the situation to be.
I notice you didn't say anything about all the other file sharing technologies out there.
I call bullshit on you. Please state how people had their 4th amendment rights trampled on by a non-governmental agency when the 4th amendment only applies to the government doing the searching and seizing. Non-governmental organizations are governed by common law and as the RIAA is not a governmental organization, they are bound by common law. The RIAA can be guilty of a number of things, but violating the 4th amendment is not one of them.
Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, violated the righs of those that are represented by the RIAA. I don't see you calling for an end to that. Or, does protecting rights only matter when it is convenient for you?
And, I call bullshit on your "I own copyrighted works". I seriously doubt you have any copyrighted works worth mentioning, let alone copying.
The issue is not in the nature electromagnetic radiation, but rather in the way the billing data is collected and collated. Remember, there is not just one system involved but rather multiple systems with multiple contracts and millions of people using them at one time. Tell you what you do, you design a system that is acceptable to over 100 companies each with 10 or more customer service contracts, and agreements between the companies which may only cover some areas and some services, that can calculate in real time the billing data for 100 million people simultaneously.
Then, convince them it is better than their home grown systems or every other vendor out there.
And, also the inter-carrier providers.
And, server resellers.
And, then, convince the international providers to use it too.
You are off on a tangent. Once again, you can not argue the actual point and try to change it to something else.
Your right to do something in secret or in private is limited to doing legal things. A private murder is still illegal. Money laundering is illegal precisely because it supports illegal activities.
The only use for this is to support illegal activity.
False analogy. This is not going to the bathroom, which is an inherently private act in our society.
This is not planning a surprise party, which requires the ignorance of a single person.
This is not sharing how you did something stupid and are warning others not to do it, and your anonymity invalidates your claims because you could be malicious, incompetent, or just lying.
This is not exposing corruption in law enforcement agencies. Your anonymity works against you here as well. Why should anyone believe you and what you have to say? You could be just a disgruntled criminal and there is no way to check the source if we don't know who you are. And, in the end, you are better served by providing the information to the proper groups and agencies than spreading it via something like OneSwarm. News agencies, other law enforcement agencies, even foreign governments and news organizations are a better vehicle than this specifically because they have a better reach and more clout than you and the other people who would use such a thing as OneSwarm.
This is simply and obviously an attempt to make it safer to violate other people's rights and break the law. There is literally no other need for what OneSwarm provides.
I don't own a cell phone because I am a responsible consumer who doesn't agree to pay for things without getting a price quoted up front. If I don't know exactly what X is going to cost, I don't do X. End of story.
If you would bother to educate yourself instead of living in laziness and ignorance, then (falsely) claiming the information you want is not available, you would be more credible.
If you want my money, quote me a price, don't whine about how it's too hard.
Seems to me you are the one who is whining it is too hard for you to go out and actually educate yourself.
I don't believe for a second either that it's impossible to send pricing data to the end user. It's all just bits. It may be infeasible with the system we have today. If that's the case, the system is unusably broken, and needs to be rebuilt.
I see you are again arguing that, even though you do not know how the system is designed and how the system works, it must be an easy thing to do. You are like the PHB in a Dilbert strip, "I don't know anything about it so it must be easy."
Tell you what, lazy-ass, go out and learn what is involved in simply allowing data roaming between say Sprint and Verizon and how and when the billing information is collected. Then, come and talk to me and I will tell you if you are right, because I am one of the people who actually knows that information. It is part of my job to know that information. I am talking from experience, unlike you and your talking out your ass about what you think should be possible.
Apparently, you are too stupid to read what I wrote and your argument falls flat because you are claiming that sharing files in a hidden manner is vital to your religious freedom.
Tell me, when was the last time you were threatened with death or injury because of your religious beliefs? And, what exactly are those beliefs?
It is not "if you are not doing anything wrong", it is "You would not feel the need to hide what you are doing in this manner if you weren't doing anything wrong". There is a subtle and important difference. People who feel they are not doing anything wrong or shameful do not go out of their way to hide what they are doing if it is not what is considered a "private" act, such as sex, etc.
Perhaps, if you are so paranoid, you should seek professional help.
Slashdot Mirror
The "news" article is by " Vivek Wadhwa". Sounds like the only people who are worried are those that have a vested interest in said aliens being here.
I guess you should create your own original art instead of using other people's art.
Oh, wait, that would require you to actually CREATE something instead of just taking other people's work for free.
Said the anonymous coward, who is a complete dumbass. If I am unwell, what does it say about you, who is too much of a coward to even stand behind your words?
I quoted the submitter verbatim. There is nothing dangerous with this lawsuit. Perhaps you should read Slashdot's history, especially when it comes to lawsuits.
So, what the submitter is saying is that because Psion has a small player with "minuscule market share", the big guys should be able to ignore Psion's trademarks.
More hypocrisy from the /. crowd.
Then "she" is not a woman.
So, it is ok to break the law as long as said law will no exist in a future time?
In the future, there will come a time when the United States, the countries of the Earth, and the Earth itself will not exist. Therefore, if someone were to kill you or a loved one of yours, you should be OK with that because it will eventually not be illegal to do so.
There goes you stupid argument that it is ok to do something illegal because one day it may not be illegal.
Are you done being a shithead yet?
If so, please provide a profitable business model that they can follow.
But, "you" DIDN'T, and still DON'T, respect their copyrights, which is why DRM exists.
This is not about free speech. this is about hiding speech to facilitate crime. Is that any clearer, shithead? Oh, and I notice you completely ignored the fact that your entire argument was based on a fallacy.
Now shut the fuck up.
I wouldn't fear your displeasure or wrath.
You have just admitted that your argument is based on a fallacy. If it is a false equivalency, then any argument based on it is also false.
Congratulations, you are an even greater dumbass than most.
That is a false statement.
The system generates the phone bill indicated by usage under the contract. You may as well say that little teenage girls who have 500 free text messages with each extra message being $.10, then send 10,000 messages in a month, should not be charged the $950.00 they have racked up.
You think the system is broken because it created a $30,000 bill. Apparently you are a fucking idiot because a $30,000 phone bill is a possible correct outcome. I say the problem is the user and his failure to know how to use his phone.
Just because you do not like the result, it does not follow that the result is wrong. Now, stop being a whiny shithead who has a limited world-view and a victim mentality.
Three words:
Low. Hanging. Fruit.
Sounds like you are saying the RIAA is volating people's 4th amendments rights. Maybe you should learn to communicate or was misrepresentation your goal?
The fact that you say or imply one thing then state that is not what you said or mean shows you to be intentionally disingenuous.
This article is a total crock of shit. This case does not put all admins in danger unless the author believes all admins are arrogant assholes. But, that might be the case as the author certainly appears to be one himself.
The fact is that by withholding the password, he denied access to the systems. ANY admin with integrity would have turned the passwords over to his boss when he left the company.
Your reasoning collapsed at "doubtful".
Every handset I have ever seen (and I have seen many as I have worked in various parts of the wireless industry for years) has a roaming indicator, therefore he knew he was doing business with a different company. It is his responsibility to know the cost of roaming. His ignorance is no excuse.
It is not that it is unlikely. You oversimplify the situation because you are ignorant of the technology then ask why can't something that is not feasible.
You are doing the equivalent of saying "Why can't I run whatever program I want on whatever computer I want. They are all programs and all computers, what is so hard about that?"
Or, suggesting that all car parts should be interchangeable, regardless of make, model, or origin.
So, you argue by appeal to fear, slippery slope, and cherry picking. You argue using fallacies, therefore you fail.
It is also possible that all the air in the room your are in will gather in a single corner and you will die of asphyxiation. It is just extremely improbable.
It is possible to build a tower out of the atmosphere, it is just difficult.
Ah. You suggest that reality does not matter. Interesting argument you make. May as well suggest that we stop thinking about the way things are today and imagine a would where cars run on salt water.
What you conveniently overlook is that it is not one system. It is a conglomeration of many systems, some of which are barely compatible, which are controlled by as many different entities.
Now, dig your head out of your ass and deal with the reality of the situation and not what you want the situation to be.
I notice you didn't say anything about all the other file sharing technologies out there.
I call bullshit on you. Please state how people had their 4th amendment rights trampled on by a non-governmental agency when the 4th amendment only applies to the government doing the searching and seizing. Non-governmental organizations are governed by common law and as the RIAA is not a governmental organization, they are bound by common law. The RIAA can be guilty of a number of things, but violating the 4th amendment is not one of them.
Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, violated the righs of those that are represented by the RIAA. I don't see you calling for an end to that. Or, does protecting rights only matter when it is convenient for you?
And, I call bullshit on your "I own copyrighted works". I seriously doubt you have any copyrighted works worth mentioning, let alone copying.
You can't even argue on topic.
Ok, you want to be a dumbass, I will play.
The issue is not in the nature electromagnetic radiation, but rather in the way the billing data is collected and collated. Remember, there is not just one system involved but rather multiple systems with multiple contracts and millions of people using them at one time. Tell you what you do, you design a system that is acceptable to over 100 companies each with 10 or more customer service contracts, and agreements between the companies which may only cover some areas and some services, that can calculate in real time the billing data for 100 million people simultaneously.
Then, convince them it is better than their home grown systems or every other vendor out there.
And, also the inter-carrier providers.
And, server resellers.
And, then, convince the international providers to use it too.
Ok, dumbass, tell me again how easy it is.
You are off on a tangent. Once again, you can not argue the actual point and try to change it to something else.
Your right to do something in secret or in private is limited to doing legal things. A private murder is still illegal. Money laundering is illegal precisely because it supports illegal activities.
The only use for this is to support illegal activity.
False analogy.
This is not going to the bathroom, which is an inherently private act in our society.
This is not planning a surprise party, which requires the ignorance of a single person.
This is not sharing how you did something stupid and are warning others not to do it, and your anonymity invalidates your claims because you could be malicious, incompetent, or just lying.
This is not exposing corruption in law enforcement agencies. Your anonymity works against you here as well. Why should anyone believe you and what you have to say? You could be just a disgruntled criminal and there is no way to check the source if we don't know who you are. And, in the end, you are better served by providing the information to the proper groups and agencies than spreading it via something like OneSwarm. News agencies, other law enforcement agencies, even foreign governments and news organizations are a better vehicle than this specifically because they have a better reach and more clout than you and the other people who would use such a thing as OneSwarm.
This is simply and obviously an attempt to make it safer to violate other people's rights and break the law. There is literally no other need for what OneSwarm provides.
If you would bother to educate yourself instead of living in laziness and ignorance, then (falsely) claiming the information you want is not available, you would be more credible.
Seems to me you are the one who is whining it is too hard for you to go out and actually educate yourself.
I see you are again arguing that, even though you do not know how the system is designed and how the system works, it must be an easy thing to do. You are like the PHB in a Dilbert strip, "I don't know anything about it so it must be easy."
Tell you what, lazy-ass, go out and learn what is involved in simply allowing data roaming between say Sprint and Verizon and how and when the billing information is collected. Then, come and talk to me and I will tell you if you are right, because I am one of the people who actually knows that information. It is part of my job to know that information. I am talking from experience, unlike you and your talking out your ass about what you think should be possible.
Apparently, you are too stupid to read what I wrote and your argument falls flat because you are claiming that sharing files in a hidden manner is vital to your religious freedom.
Tell me, when was the last time you were threatened with death or injury because of your religious beliefs? And, what exactly are those beliefs?
It is not "if you are not doing anything wrong", it is "You would not feel the need to hide what you are doing in this manner if you weren't doing anything wrong". There is a subtle and important difference. People who feel they are not doing anything wrong or shameful do not go out of their way to hide what they are doing if it is not what is considered a "private" act, such as sex, etc.
Perhaps, if you are so paranoid, you should seek professional help.
You are right, they do have all their stuff online.