I seriously hope you're only playing devil's advocate. If not, I wish upon you the most horrible life imaginable for being such a backwards and idiotic piece of garbage.
You are trying to argue that selling a tape player is the same as selling a pre-recorded tape.
You are ignoring (group) psychology. No one is going to rant on how the media supports them. The only noise is going to come from the complainers who feel biased against. That any party who finds itself in charge feels biased against shows that no one considers the BBC to be with them. Assuming the leadership at the BBC has a lower turn-over rate than the Government.
Neutrality from humans is impossible anyway. The best you can hope for is equal bias.
The behavior of the function keys is selectable in the Keyboard Preference pane. The default actually makes much more sense when you realize that most Mac software does not make heavy use of the function keys. I suppose software like Office might, as it comes from the Windows world, or maybe Photoshop, which may just need zillions of shortcut keys. I don't use either, so I wouldn't know.
I hope you are killed by a stalker. Really, you have no idea what-so-ever what pains such people will do to harm their chosen victim. They live only to cause misery.
And sometimes you have to contact them anyway, for legal reasons. Change the laws before you go spouting off about things you know nothing about.
I don't think anyone has a right to assume anonymity when making a phone call. But to assume that no one would have a reason to keep such details private is simply disgusting, given the circumstances under discussion.
Then change the laws in this country. Oh, and provide free legal services to every abused spouse. Or do you think lawyers will act as go-betweens for free? Same goes for police officers. They usually have more important work to do.
To be fair, the iPhone uses a Unix filesystem, and is not intended to be modified by end-users. Both of these would cause support problems that Apple would be better off without.
That said, I'd love if my iPod Touch would expose at least one partition as a regular flash/USB drive.
There's a difference between offensive and libelous speech. I agree that there should not be any particular legal consequences for offensive speech, but I disagree that libel should be treated the same. Part of the legal definition or condition for libel is that harm is caused and that such harm is demonstrated to the Court.
Again, punishment is for the harm, not the speech.
You are free to speak your mind. You are not free to harm someone. Any damages levied against you are for harm. That it was done through speech or through a fist to the face is immaterial.
It is all moot anyway, as in 20 years time, the people who grew up pirating music will be in Government.
This line of reasoning is utter nonsense. The vast majority of people who download copyrighted materials (songs, movies, etc) do so because they are free. That is, they receive a direct benefit from doing so (no capital expenditure). When they are in government, they will receive a direct benefit for legislating against. That is, they will receive bribes and kickbacks for doing so.
This has nothing to do with a change in the morality of the culture. This is about simple self-interest.
1) I have no obligation to provide incentives to anyone else to create anything. If they feel its worth their time, that's great. If not, I don't care.
2) If you back out of a promise or contract to pay for services after the services have been rendered, you have stolen. Ever hear the phrase "time is money"? You have stolen time. The harm is not physical, but it is certainly financial.
When it comes to copyright, I have never entered into a contract with any producers of copyrighted materials to provide me with said materials. I have never promised them payment for their works. They have no practical expectation that I should ever pay them in any way for any service or product, which they provide whether or not I consume it.
And this is what I hate most about Vista. I would have thought that by now Microsoft would realize that people are no longer "unnetworked", even at home.
Why do Vista Home versions leave out basics such as telnet?! I don't use it for remote access, I use it for debugging network problems. Why can't Vista Home versions participate in a domain? Compared to XP Pro, Vista Home is completely crippled and totally useless. On Home Premium, non-admins can't even watch DVDs by default. In 2008 (now 2009)!
Performance is completely secondary when there's nothing to run anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, that's a breach of contract. It's not theft.
I seriously hope you're only playing devil's advocate. If not, I wish upon you the most horrible life imaginable for being such a backwards and idiotic piece of garbage.
You are trying to argue that selling a tape player is the same as selling a pre-recorded tape.
The Mac has been doing that since at least OS X. Once again, an OSS project steals, er copies, a (good) idea from a proprietary system.
You are ignoring (group) psychology. No one is going to rant on how the media supports them. The only noise is going to come from the complainers who feel biased against. That any party who finds itself in charge feels biased against shows that no one considers the BBC to be with them. Assuming the leadership at the BBC has a lower turn-over rate than the Government.
Neutrality from humans is impossible anyway. The best you can hope for is equal bias.
The behavior of the function keys is selectable in the Keyboard Preference pane. The default actually makes much more sense when you realize that most Mac software does not make heavy use of the function keys. I suppose software like Office might, as it comes from the Windows world, or maybe Photoshop, which may just need zillions of shortcut keys. I don't use either, so I wouldn't know.
OS X 10.5 is certified.
AKA, a slashdot editor?
I hope you are killed by a stalker. Really, you have no idea what-so-ever what pains such people will do to harm their chosen victim. They live only to cause misery.
And sometimes you have to contact them anyway, for legal reasons. Change the laws before you go spouting off about things you know nothing about.
I don't think anyone has a right to assume anonymity when making a phone call. But to assume that no one would have a reason to keep such details private is simply disgusting, given the circumstances under discussion.
Then change the laws in this country. Oh, and provide free legal services to every abused spouse. Or do you think lawyers will act as go-betweens for free? Same goes for police officers. They usually have more important work to do.
You aren't insightful, you are an asshole.
Because the court system in this country has no interest in preventing harm to anyone.
Since when is it illegal to lie about whose phone you are calling from?
Since when is it illegal to provide information in your possession simply because some 3rd party assumed it would not be available?
I don't understand this whole argument.
There is no right to know who is calling.
There is no right to be anonymous when calling.
If you don't know who is calling, you always may choose to ignore the call. That is most definitely a right.
That's all there is to it.
To be fair, the iPhone uses a Unix filesystem, and is not intended to be modified by end-users. Both of these would cause support problems that Apple would be better off without.
That said, I'd love if my iPod Touch would expose at least one partition as a regular flash/USB drive.
but I can understand why they wouldn't be effective against geese.
Perhaps I'm being too simplistic, but I'd guess that falcons just don't hunt geese.
There's a difference between offensive and libelous speech. I agree that there should not be any particular legal consequences for offensive speech, but I disagree that libel should be treated the same. Part of the legal definition or condition for libel is that harm is caused and that such harm is demonstrated to the Court.
Again, punishment is for the harm, not the speech.
You are free to speak your mind. You are not free to harm someone. Any damages levied against you are for harm. That it was done through speech or through a fist to the face is immaterial.
The First Amendment does not preclude punishment for what is said. It only precludes Government censorship.
So you think no one should be responsible for what they say or do, so long as they are anonymous?
Your belief is a huge part of what is wrong with society.
Der Spiegel is not a scholarly journal, either. It also cannot be taken as a primary source of information.
I take exception to the idea that only scholarly journals may be primary sources of information.
Your attitude sucks.
I'm wondering the same.
Tell that to the Germans. There's nothing about education that fundamentally creates less murderous people.
It is all moot anyway, as in 20 years time, the people who grew up pirating music will be in Government.
This line of reasoning is utter nonsense. The vast majority of people who download copyrighted materials (songs, movies, etc) do so because they are free. That is, they receive a direct benefit from doing so (no capital expenditure). When they are in government, they will receive a direct benefit for legislating against. That is, they will receive bribes and kickbacks for doing so.
This has nothing to do with a change in the morality of the culture. This is about simple self-interest.
1) I have no obligation to provide incentives to anyone else to create anything. If they feel its worth their time, that's great. If not, I don't care.
2) If you back out of a promise or contract to pay for services after the services have been rendered, you have stolen. Ever hear the phrase "time is money"? You have stolen time. The harm is not physical, but it is certainly financial.
When it comes to copyright, I have never entered into a contract with any producers of copyrighted materials to provide me with said materials. I have never promised them payment for their works. They have no practical expectation that I should ever pay them in any way for any service or product, which they provide whether or not I consume it.
There is probably enough food within the borders of the USA at this moment in time to feed every single person on the planet for a day or so.
The problem is distribution, not production. Idiot.
"...or unnetworked home computers"
And this is what I hate most about Vista. I would have thought that by now Microsoft would realize that people are no longer "unnetworked", even at home.
Why do Vista Home versions leave out basics such as telnet?! I don't use it for remote access, I use it for debugging network problems. Why can't Vista Home versions participate in a domain? Compared to XP Pro, Vista Home is completely crippled and totally useless. On Home Premium, non-admins can't even watch DVDs by default. In 2008 (now 2009)!
Performance is completely secondary when there's nothing to run anyway.