Randal Monroe pretty much has this to say about the "freedom of speech" argument: "... but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
I will never take an argument like yours seriously ever again. I will defend free speech, but I will not side with folks who use it to be jerks, which is what cyberbullying is.
This will be one of the few times you'll hear this, but Microsoft did too good a job creating XP.
Correction: They did a good job *FIXING* Windows XP.
If you recall the "instant infection" days where you couldn't install XP and run updates without getting infected. I had a people I helped over the phone who followed the procedure: 1. Install XP 2. Download the SP2 ISO 3. Burn the ISO to disk 4. Start over because they were compromised while downloading the ISO. 5. Install XP, then SP2 via CD.
If I was able to get them a CD I would, but many of my friends where college were in different states, or even different countries, and this was quicker than waiting for a CD in the mail.
Their terms of service say that after 180 days of NO CHARGES, you lose any balance on your skype account. So if someone has been using skype for occasional short local long distance calls, they will lose their entire balance in six months. If they are making a 10 minute call every week to mom/dad, then it SHOULD take 60 weeks to use up a $10 deposit (they give a bonus for paypal deposits). If all of those calls suddenly are free, and you make no international calls, then, your $10 only lasts until december 31.
You lose $4-$5 of balance that would have been available on 01/01/2007.
But they are afraid that after all this waiting it will be looked over and scrutinized very carefully by the entire community (go figure). So they hide it from us. The truth will come out, and when it does I suspect that SCO will have even more egg on their face.
Why is it so dangerous? IMO shutting down a site that is knowingly breaking the law should be shutdown, even if it is a stupid or unfair law. I will agree that the MPAA and RIAA get way too much money for re-selling what amounts to digital data, but this is not that different from entrepreneurs: buy some product and sell it for profit.
The maker of the physical product does bother with advertising/distribution of the original product. He/she give up the right/responsibility to do that to sell their product. because of this, the maker does not get as much per item, but gets the adavange of volume. If one buyer is ripping them off, they should try to get a different supplier, or sell themselves. But WHAT HAS THE ENTREPRENEUR ADDED? Absolutly nothing. The product hasn't changed, at best they moved it, and advertised it. It is still a couch or television or left handed monkey wrench. America applauds this behavior, and now we don't like it when a few entrepreneurs get too big.
The problems here are that there is only one GIANT buyer for movies/music, and that the laws are not too good for the end user.
Just because an 800 pound gorilla shows up with a copy of the rules doesn't mean you wern't breaking them.
... to see a bully (RIAA) to get handed a defeat. While it is terrorizing College students @ MIT threatening them with multibillion dollar lawsuits, I am glad to see it lose a court case that it might have had a chance at winning (even morally).
Secondary to that I am also happy to see my favorite networks stay alive and running.
There is a little known marketing strategy that Apple started but never took to market. The ad campain was comparing mammals vs. dinosaurs, and the tagline was along the lines of "A computer for the smarter animal". They even went so far as to cybersquat at www.mammals.org.
It is clear that Apple has had their eye on darwinism for a while now and I am not surprised by the name of Darwin as the Core of Mac os X.
However I disagree with the idea that "clearly" Apple is Satanic or any of the other remarks in the article.
IMHO If you do know what a cookie is and you don't want them, then you should know/learn enough to turn them off.
I do not think that anyone should have the right to complain about persistant cookies collecting info about them. Cookies are simple to turn off, and in the time it takes to complain you could have just as easily turned them off.
Slashdot Mirror
http://xkcd.com/1357/
Randal Monroe pretty much has this to say about the "freedom of speech" argument: "... but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express ."
I will never take an argument like yours seriously ever again. I will defend free speech, but I will not side with folks who use it to be jerks, which is what cyberbullying is.
This will be one of the few times you'll hear this, but Microsoft did too good a job creating XP.
Correction: They did a good job *FIXING* Windows XP.
If you recall the "instant infection" days where you couldn't install XP and run updates without getting infected. I had a people I helped over the phone who followed the procedure:
1. Install XP
2. Download the SP2 ISO
3. Burn the ISO to disk
4. Start over because they were compromised while downloading the ISO.
5. Install XP, then SP2 via CD.
If I was able to get them a CD I would, but many of my friends where college were in different states, or even different countries, and this was quicker than waiting for a CD in the mail.
Their terms of service say that after 180 days of NO CHARGES, you lose any balance on your skype account. So if someone has been using skype for occasional short local long distance calls, they will lose their entire balance in six months. If they are making a 10 minute call every week to mom/dad, then it SHOULD take 60 weeks to use up a $10 deposit (they give a bonus for paypal deposits). If all of those calls suddenly are free, and you make no international calls, then, your $10 only lasts until december 31.
You lose $4-$5 of balance that would have been available on 01/01/2007.
But they are afraid that after all this waiting it will be looked over and scrutinized very carefully by the entire community (go figure). So they hide it from us. The truth will come out, and when it does I suspect that SCO will have even more egg on their face.
As they said: "Blame Canada". Who could argue with intelectual giants such as them?
try typing a line into google in quotes with the word lyrics and you can find just about any song .
Why is it so dangerous? IMO shutting down a site that is knowingly breaking the law should be shutdown, even if it is a stupid or unfair law. I will agree that the MPAA and RIAA get way too much money for re-selling what amounts to digital data, but this is not that different from entrepreneurs: buy some product and sell it for profit.
The maker of the physical product does bother with advertising/distribution of the original product. He/she give up the right/responsibility to do that to sell their product. because of this, the maker does not get as much per item, but gets the adavange of volume. If one buyer is ripping them off, they should try to get a different supplier, or sell themselves. But WHAT HAS THE ENTREPRENEUR ADDED? Absolutly nothing. The product hasn't changed, at best they moved it, and advertised it. It is still a couch or television or left handed monkey wrench. America applauds this behavior, and now we don't like it when a few entrepreneurs get too big.
The problems here are that there is only one GIANT buyer for movies/music, and that the laws are not too good for the end user.
Just because an 800 pound gorilla shows up with a copy of the rules doesn't mean you wern't breaking them.
... to see a bully (RIAA) to get handed a defeat. While it is terrorizing College students @ MIT threatening them with multibillion dollar lawsuits, I am glad to see it lose a court case that it might have had a chance at winning (even morally).
Secondary to that I am also happy to see my favorite networks stay alive and running.
Apple started but never took to market. The ad campain was comparing mammals vs. dinosaurs, and the tagline was along the lines of "A computer for the smarter animal". They even went so far as to cybersquat at www.mammals.org.
It is clear that Apple has had their eye on darwinism for a while now and I am not surprised by the name of Darwin as the Core of Mac os X.
However I disagree with the idea that "clearly" Apple is Satanic or any of the other remarks in the article.
IMHO If you do know what a cookie is and you don't want them, then you should know/learn enough to turn them off.
I do not think that anyone should have the right to complain about persistant cookies collecting info about them. Cookies are simple to turn off, and in the time it takes to complain you could have just as easily turned them off.
Just my 4 cents (adusted for enflation)