We'll sidestep the issue of administrators searching facebook to find this, which is not their job, and quite frankly is completely fucking ridiculous.
I think it's wise to sidestep that issue because, if you'd bothered to read the article instead of going off half-cocked like the moron you are, you'd already know that the photos were anonymously mailed to the school's administration.
What you seem to have trouble distinguishing is the difference between a one-time fine or even a one-time jail/community service sentence, and the loss of a scholarship which might adversely affect the rest of someone's life.
When did "scholarships" become "entitlements?"
Maybe if you want to get a scholarship or keep one, you shouldn't engage in behavior you know is illegal.
A bricked Mac was back when there was that audio CD with the copy-protection scheme, that crashed the OS as soon as the disk was inserted, and on all subsequent reboots. Since the Mac doesn't have a physical eject button for the CD, the whole system unit had to be shipped to a repair depot where they could eject the offending CD.
1) Power on the computer. 2) Wait for the chime (don't have to do this on Intel, but I always did with PPC). 3) Hold down mouse/trackpad button until CD ejects.
I'd like to see something similar to the Symbian Signed design, but with one critical change: a free cert should be available that would allow you to sign binaries on your individual phone with no restrictions on what the binary can do.
No.
No, no, no.
No.
If it's set up like that, all iPhoneMalware.pkg has to do is go through the motions of signing (or prompting you to sign, which most people will do, because they're so accustomed to doing whatever installers tell them to to) the binary, et voila, we're right back where we started.
His use of the clip was absolutely Fair Use. Viacom's use of the clip absolutely was not Fair Use. Hint: The fact that Viacom MADE MONEY from the use of the clip is a strong indicator that it was not Fair Use.
The words are there, but it's like you don't even read them.
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting
Viacom was reporting the news and providing commentary on the advertisement. They made money on it. Great. News gathering and dissemination is a for-profit enterprise! Stop the goddamned presses!
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
Tell me how Viacom's coverage of his campaign ad diminishes the ad's potential market or devalues it.
Listen moron - you cannot take someone elses work and do anything with it unless the author of such work agrees to it. That is theft pure and simple. There is no such thing as "Fair Use" for any material.
Yeah, I'm a real moron. Let's go look at US Code, shall we?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Are you certain that Viacom didn't use reasonable excerpts? I know I'm not, since I haven't seen the video.
He does, however, seem to admit to having put the VH1 segment, in its entirety, on YouTube. He's not allowed to infringe on somebody else's copywritten work, even if the work is derived from his own under the doctrine of fair use.
Viacom used his video as part of a report that included commentary on it. That's fair use.
He then used Viacom's derivative work, but, it seems, didn't provide any commentary on the clip you uploaded to YouTube. Instead, he just made a direct copy. That's copyright infringement.
Yeah, you're supposed to be looking at the iPhone screen but you shouldn't be looking at the keys you press. Without tactile feedback, some people might have a hard time typing without looking at the keys.
Maybe you should get checked out for tunnel vision. I've used the iPhone keyboard. It's not hard or particularly demanding.
No, it isn't the speed difference, it is the impatient asshole gabbing on his cellphone while driving that causes the accidents.
You sure it isn't the impatient asshole on the bicycle who passes me on the right at stoplights and then glares at me when I try to pass him on the left as he eats up almost the entire lane?
You aren't seriously putting remote controls up as an example of why buttons are good are you?
Why not? The TiVo remote comes to mind as one of my favorites. It's instantly intuitive. I wouldn't see it working nearly as well as a touchscreen without tactile feedback....
Why not? I'll tell you why not.
The TiVo remote control is just that. A device that remotely controls another device. You're paying attention to your TV. You shouldn't need to take your eyes off it to change the volume.
The iPhone isn't a remote control. It's the device you're using, so there's the presumption that you'll be looking at it with some sort of regularity while you use it.
If you installed a sucky app, or tweak the OS to your preference, you know you did it, you know who to blame -- either yourself or the provider of the app. This notion that Apple's image is so fragile that it can't be allowed to co-mingle with bits written by third parties is totally absurd.
Apple likely evaluated the following two possibilities:
1) People complaining about poor-quality third-party software that might fuck up their iPhones. 2) People complaining about not being able to run third-party software on their iPhones.
And figured that #2 was a lot more acceptable given the device's target market--people who want a device that accomplishes a given set of tasks out of the box and does so with a UI that reinforces how miserable smartphone UI has been to this point.
So you can't run Skype on an iPhone to turn your expensive cell phone into a free mobile VOIP calling platform. Is that user unfriendly? No. Is it crippled? Yes. That's what I'm saying. FUDding that Skype might crash AT&T's network or make people hate Apple because of some Skype fuckup is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that Apple and AT&T don't want people making calls without paying hugely inflated prices for the privilege.
We have different definitions of "crippled."
Also, a completely-open-in-the-FSF-sense iPhone would allow people to broadcast garbage over the GSM/WiFi antennae if they wanted to. It might not take down AT&T's entire west coast network, but it can make life difficult for people in the neighborhood.
People could hack up an Extensions file that would extend the OS in some fashion. There were a lot of good ones. Some were crappy. They often caused problems. But no one forced you to make use of them; you could if you wanted, if you found it useful.
And when an errant Extension caused the system to get hosed, the Extension itself was not always the first to receive the blame.
"Goddamned Mac, why do you keep crashing? God, Macs suck."
You really think that the average cellphone user has the technical aptitude necessary to distinguish between a "core OS problem" and a "third-party functionality problem?" All he or she knows is that their iPhone doesn't work anymore and GOD APPLE SUCKS I WILL TELL ALL MY FRIENDS.
The intent of my point was - FSF wasn't indulging in a greenpeace style sabre rattle. They merely wondered if there was any (L)GPLd software on the iPhone.
No, if they'd meant "(L)GPL," they would have said "(L)GPL." The press release very plainly did not include "(L)," so it's obvious they're trying to cast suspicion on Apple as being a potential GPL violator.
On a more personal note, I know you like looking at pictures of naked women, so it would be interesting to determine the extent to which you have child pornography on your hard drive. Surely you don't mind if we take a quick look.
From what I can see, not having firsthand experience, the iPhone sets a new standard (not a perfect standard, but definitely a higher one than had existed prior) for user friendliness in UI in the things that it does,
Correct.
but still lacks certain features.
Also correct.
If the platform were open, it would be no big deal for someone else to come along and hack those features in. But it isn't, and they can't.
And, chances are, they wouldn't even if they could or else iPhone wouldn't have a raison d'être.
"Someone else" had a chance to step up to bat and make Phone UI not be a miserable pile of half-baked, hard-to-use shit. "Someone else" failed to do so. What reason do I or Apple have to think that "someone else" will be able to add functionality to iPhone without ruining the UI?
Just because there's an article about the FSF & Apple, doesn't mean its endorsed by Apple or the FSF.
The only quote in the article from the FSF is a (rather general) statement about the iPhone being proprietary & DRM laden. Nothing about licensing at all.
Is that so?
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work--it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software."
Re:is this the license that bans DRM?
on
GPLv3 Released
·
· Score: -1, Troll
See, what you view as "the real world" will soon become "the corporation-dominated world". But we'll live in whatever's left of the free world.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe if you want to get a scholarship or keep one, you shouldn't engage in behavior you know is illegal.
Either that or you're suggesting that the school's administrators suggested that the kids upload those photos to Facebook.
Incidentally, what are your thoughts on internet content filtering software being used at schools?
2) Wait for the chime (don't have to do this on Intel, but I always did with PPC).
3) Hold down mouse/trackpad button until CD ejects.
No, no, no.
No.
If it's set up like that, all iPhoneMalware.pkg has to do is go through the motions of signing (or prompting you to sign, which most people will do, because they're so accustomed to doing whatever installers tell them to to) the binary, et voila, we're right back where we started.
He does, however, seem to admit to having put the VH1 segment, in its entirety, on YouTube. He's not allowed to infringe on somebody else's copywritten work, even if the work is derived from his own under the doctrine of fair use.
Viacom used his video as part of a report that included commentary on it. That's fair use.
He then used Viacom's derivative work, but, it seems, didn't provide any commentary on the clip you uploaded to YouTube. Instead, he just made a direct copy. That's copyright infringement.
What "boonies" are you talking about? ZIP codes, please.
1) People who have been with him since Texas.
2) People who have been in Republican administrations back to Nixon.
Because I'm pretty sure it is.
The TiVo remote control is just that. A device that remotely controls another device. You're paying attention to your TV. You shouldn't need to take your eyes off it to change the volume.
The iPhone isn't a remote control. It's the device you're using, so there's the presumption that you'll be looking at it with some sort of regularity while you use it.
So. Apple buying the rights to CUPS and hiring its lead developer is proof that Apple uses open-sourced software for zero-cost development?
The only thing you're missing is "Soviet Russia."
1) People complaining about poor-quality third-party software that might fuck up their iPhones.
2) People complaining about not being able to run third-party software on their iPhones.
And figured that #2 was a lot more acceptable given the device's target market--people who want a device that accomplishes a given set of tasks out of the box and does so with a UI that reinforces how miserable smartphone UI has been to this point.We have different definitions of "crippled."
Also, a completely-open-in-the-FSF-sense iPhone would allow people to broadcast garbage over the GSM/WiFi antennae if they wanted to. It might not take down AT&T's entire west coast network, but it can make life difficult for people in the neighborhood.
"Goddamned Mac, why do you keep crashing? God, Macs suck."
You really think that the average cellphone user has the technical aptitude necessary to distinguish between a "core OS problem" and a "third-party functionality problem?" All he or she knows is that their iPhone doesn't work anymore and GOD APPLE SUCKS I WILL TELL ALL MY FRIENDS.
On a more personal note, I know you like looking at pictures of naked women, so it would be interesting to determine the extent to which you have child pornography on your hard drive. Surely you don't mind if we take a quick look.
"Someone else" had a chance to step up to bat and make Phone UI not be a miserable pile of half-baked, hard-to-use shit. "Someone else" failed to do so. What reason do I or Apple have to think that "someone else" will be able to add functionality to iPhone without ruining the UI?
The G in Gmail doesn't stand for GNU, by the way.