The idea of giving away a high-quality product for free is completely alien to Hollywood (and therefore, to Hollywood attorneys.) They are used to producing some of the lowest-quality stuff imaginable and then charging you up the ying-yang for it. Two different schools of thought.
The guy's still an idiot, of course, but at least we can understand why.:)
and europa is _rilly, rilly_ tiny compared to Jupiter
Not that tiny.
Bet you a fiver you wont see a thing....
I don't know just how in the hell you claim to tell me what I can and cannot see. I've seen Europa. I've also seen Io, Callisto, and Ganymede. So knock it off. And clean up your act before I ask Jesus to smite you.
The implications of this ruling still have my head spinning even days after its release. What Kaplan is essentially saying is that operators of Web sites are not only legally responsible for the content that they are hosting, but that they are legally responsible for any content that they link to. Okay, Rob.. let's open up a can of worms here.
There. Now, according to Kaplan, Slashdot is legally responsible for all material that is currently being hosted on CNN.com. Christ, if Kaplan had taken the time to go over this with somebody with a bit of a clue, he would have realized that he really does have his head up his ass.
Here's a question: Is it illegal to link to a site that is linking to "illegal material?" For example, if I have a link to 2600 on my homepage, and 2600 has a link to DeCSS, am I breaking the law? What about if some guy I don't even know has a link to the homepage of a former college instructor of mine, who has a "former students" section with a link to my homepage, which has a link to 2600, which has a link to DeCSS? Are the MPAA cops going to show up and cuff-n-stuff this guy for his Five Degrees of HTML Separation from Illegal Things?
To break out of Anti-Microsoft dimension, it's important to note that Apple has always had a unique view of the "operating system", and those views are still harbored by the userbase today.
I didn't mean to suggest that Microsoft is the only party that is guilty of stretching the definition of "operating system" to meet whatever criteria that is convenient to them. All that I'm saying is that if you use the definition of "operating system" that you find in a typical Computer Science textbook, you're going to find that it differs wildly from what Microsoft, Apple, and (to address the other reply) GNU say.
--
Depends on the definition
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 2
I think part of this stems from the fact that Microsoft, in recent years, has tried to extend the definition of "operating system" to mean "everything that we include with Windows." This includes a Web browser, a calculator, a calendar, a notepad, etc. etc. ad nauseum. And if that is your definition of "operating system", then obviously the traditional UNIX basic arrangement of a kernel and perhaps a shell clearly does not meet the criteria.
But that's Microsoft-speak. And Microsoft-speak aside, the traditionally-accepted definition of "operating system" is a set of software that allows programs to communicate with and use the computer's low-level resources (i.e., memory, disk space and other online storage, network, printers, modems, etc.) By this standard, the traditional UNIX kernel does qualify as an "operating system" by the virtue of the services that it provides to applications through applicable APIs (POSIX, ISO C, etc.)
In the end, I guess it depends on what definition you use. Personally, I've always thought it's a bit silly to suggest that a "media player" should be considered part of the OS proper. As another respondent to this post said, if you think that's part of the OS, then exactly what the hell constitutes an application?:)
.. that would mean that all WE CONSUMERS would have to spend extra money..
So be it. There are few causes more noble.
Corporations don't eat added costs (or added taxes, or...) - they pass them on.
Two words: Price Controls
Oh yeah.. there again we have the "gummint" interfering with the rights of Extremely Rich White Men to become Ridiculously Rich White Men. Praise Jesus, pass the ammo, and drink a Pepsi!:)
What in the bloody blue Jesus H. Mother Fuck are you talking about? Where did I blame the US for "the world's problems?" The text in the article expressed some doubt about whether mankind had the power to alter the environment, the climate, and the weather. I pointed out that Los Angeles and Houston have bad smog problems that cause severe health problems in people and stated that this is a pretty obvious case of mankind altering the environment for the worse (which was the point of my post.)
So what do you do? You demonstrate that it is even worse in foreign countries. If anything, you have only added to my point, not refuted it. Recall that my only point was that people have the power to influence the weather in a negative manner. As I said, I don't know that global warming is a human-caused problem, but there are plenty of real human-caused problems, and your list has added innumerable weight to my argument. Your laughable assertation that the air in LA is "pristine" compared to elsewhere in the world is tantamount to claiming that getting kicked in the ass is better than getting kicked in the balls.
Thank you for your insightful augmentation of my original point.
.. nobody in their right mind can suggest that "mankind does not have an effect on the weather." To anybody who would say otherwise, I would extend an invitation to gaze at the skyline over Los Angeles or Houston. Or maybe you might want to tune into the Weather Channel and see the periodic reports on air quality and pollutant levels. There are thousands of people in our urban areas who have to make a daily choice as to whether or not it's safe for them to leave their homes.
Is global warming a product of mankind's industrialization, or is it just the natural cycle of things, brought on by such factors as the Earth's orbital precession and the like? To be honest, I don't know. Here's what I do know. We are doing things that impact our environment negatively, and they are affecting the health of real, live people. To say that we should scale back environmental restrictions because Rush Limbaugh thinks we're heading for a new Ice Age is ridiculous. What about cleaning up our factories and vehicles because it's the right thing to do?
Oh, wait.. that would mean that large corporations would have to spend extra money to clean themselves up, and that would mean that the CEO couldn't buy himself that new fleet of Mercedes that he wants. Silly me.
Slashdot Mirror
The guy's still an idiot, of course, but at least we can understand why.
--
Not that tiny.
Bet you a fiver you wont see a thing....
I don't know just how in the hell you claim to tell me what I can and cannot see. I've seen Europa. I've also seen Io, Callisto, and Ganymede. So knock it off. And clean up your act before I ask Jesus to smite you.
--
It is, however, easily visible in binoculars and with the smallest, flimsiest, and least powerful of telescopes.
--
--
http://cnn.com
There. Now, according to Kaplan, Slashdot is legally responsible for all material that is currently being hosted on CNN.com. Christ, if Kaplan had taken the time to go over this with somebody with a bit of a clue, he would have realized that he really does have his head up his ass.
Here's a question: Is it illegal to link to a site that is linking to "illegal material?" For example, if I have a link to 2600 on my homepage, and 2600 has a link to DeCSS, am I breaking the law? What about if some guy I don't even know has a link to the homepage of a former college instructor of mine, who has a "former students" section with a link to my homepage, which has a link to 2600, which has a link to DeCSS? Are the MPAA cops going to show up and cuff-n-stuff this guy for his Five Degrees of HTML Separation from Illegal Things?
Does Kaplan grok recursion? I'll bet not.
--
I didn't mean to suggest that Microsoft is the only party that is guilty of stretching the definition of "operating system" to meet whatever criteria that is convenient to them. All that I'm saying is that if you use the definition of "operating system" that you find in a typical Computer Science textbook, you're going to find that it differs wildly from what Microsoft, Apple, and (to address the other reply) GNU say.
--
But that's Microsoft-speak. And Microsoft-speak aside, the traditionally-accepted definition of "operating system" is a set of software that allows programs to communicate with and use the computer's low-level resources (i.e., memory, disk space and other online storage, network, printers, modems, etc.) By this standard, the traditional UNIX kernel does qualify as an "operating system" by the virtue of the services that it provides to applications through applicable APIs (POSIX, ISO C, etc.)
In the end, I guess it depends on what definition you use. Personally, I've always thought it's a bit silly to suggest that a "media player" should be considered part of the OS proper. As another respondent to this post said, if you think that's part of the OS, then exactly what the hell constitutes an application?
--
Ball
Sit
E
Chair
E
Point
(discard Ball)
Pinball City or Cherry Point?
You make the call!
--
So be it. There are few causes more noble.
Corporations don't eat added costs (or added taxes, or
Two words: Price Controls
Oh yeah
--
So what do you do? You demonstrate that it is even worse in foreign countries. If anything, you have only added to my point, not refuted it. Recall that my only point was that people have the power to influence the weather in a negative manner. As I said, I don't know that global warming is a human-caused problem, but there are plenty of real human-caused problems, and your list has added innumerable weight to my argument. Your laughable assertation that the air in LA is "pristine" compared to elsewhere in the world is tantamount to claiming that getting kicked in the ass is better than getting kicked in the balls.
Thank you for your insightful augmentation of my original point.
--
Is global warming a product of mankind's industrialization, or is it just the natural cycle of things, brought on by such factors as the Earth's orbital precession and the like? To be honest, I don't know. Here's what I do know. We are doing things that impact our environment negatively, and they are affecting the health of real, live people. To say that we should scale back environmental restrictions because Rush Limbaugh thinks we're heading for a new Ice Age is ridiculous. What about cleaning up our factories and vehicles because it's the right thing to do?
Oh, wait
--