Registering a domain name is something that you do as soon as you've decided on the name, so someone doesn't grab it. In fact, checking to see if the name is available is something almost always done before you even pick a name in the first place these days.
Are you serious? Maybe they had other priorities in choosing a name? If Microsoft for example were more worried about checking that a domain name was available than checking that the trademark was available (this is a registered trademark) then they only have themselves to blame for any problems / expense it causes them.
Whether you believe in God or not, who are you to judge and question the architecture of the Universe?
He's here, it's affecting him, he's part of it. Accepting that you could be wrong is good, refusing to form a judgment at all out of fear that it's wrong or that it's just 'not for me to judge' is just cowardice.
In court, you would have to prove beyond a balence of probability that everyone knows it's not osx.
Is this right?
No. In court Apple would have to prove that, on
the balance of probabilities, people would be confused into thinking that it was OSX.
In a civil suit the plaintif has to prove his case on the balance of probabilities, just as in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove their case beyond resasonable doubt. It is never the defendant's job to prove his case, just to establish that the prosecution/plaintif has failed to prove theirs.
This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand. Either it is potentially dangerous to drive at that speed or the speed limit is appropriate.
Obviously I meant to say "or the speed limit is not appropriate"
This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand. Either it is potentially dangerous to drive at that speed or the speed limit is appropriate.
If the speed limit is set too low then that is a separate issue to whether technological means should be used to enforce it.
If the speed limit is appropriate (i.e. driving in excess of that speed is dangerous) then having a pregnant woman in the car about to give birth is a particularly stupid time to consider exceeding it. Especially when we consider that this is probably not the time when you are most calm, clear headed, and focused purely on driving.
There isn't even any pretense that these sort of measures are aimed at large scale commercial pirates. They're very clearly pushed as being a way to stop people in general from getting what we want.
This is a big mistake.
The marketing message that content producers should want to send is that people want their product, that their product with the packaging, the assurance of quality and knowing that you are supporting the artists etc. is something that you/me/everyone wants.
The message they're actually sending to the public at large is that people don't want to buy thier product and want to get a copy instead, but that they will use technology to stop us getting what we want so that we'll have to get their product as a second best.
This seems to be incredibly ill advised. If people are sold on the idea by the content producers themselves that the product isn't really something they want just something they have to accept because they can't get the free copies they do want then of course they're going to go running to the download sites every time a scheme gets cracked.
The music industry seems to be marketing against itself.
You made the exact same point that I was trying to. I'm still trying to work out how you could read my post in such a way as to think I meant the opposite.
Speed limits are measured in miles per hour in Britain. I should think this is because of the safety implications of people having to adjust to a new system and the inevitable mistakes that would arise, don't know for sure though.
Relistically, metric has no real advantages when applied in this situation. It's very good for conversions between units like converting meters into kilometers or whatever but that has no bearing on speed which would always be measured in whole miles or whole kilometers anyway.
Personally, I'm not so paranoid that I'll gladly allow this type of cellphone. I would much rather have my cellphone company be able to tell where I am for whatever inane reason than be lying in a ditch somewhere in the middle of nowhere while I freeze, bleed, or be eaten alive while drifting in and out of conscienceness.
And you're the one who ISN'T paranoid? I don't even have a cell phone and I'm not losing sleep over the possibility being eaten alive.
If this is a real risk in... well, whatever it is you're into, then I can see why you might take steps to have your whereabouts monitored, but advocating extending that monitoring to everyone else with a cell phone seems a little slefish.
3. As telephone and computer networks have been doing FOR DECADES, activity by client-machines is logged and can be produced at any time.
If you send a signal to them then of course they can log it. Now, what would that have to do with GPS? It RECEIVES sattelite signals and works out your location based on the signals.
Well I wish you would because nobody seems to have explained it so far and I don't see the problem.
I can understand objections on practical and safety grounds (need to speed to avoid collision, doubting the reliability of the device etc.).
I could sort of understand objecting to a speed limit on principle. I think that having laws that pace speed limits is acceptable and desirable but I can see that someone with fairly extreme views might think otherwise.
I can certainly understand someone thinking that the speed limits are set wrongly, whether they think they're too high or too low.
What I don't understand is what using a device that limits speed has to do with rights. If placing legal limits on speeding is itself acceptable, i.e. you have no "right to speed" then I don't understand why preventing cars from exceeding the speed limit would be thought to infringe any rights.
The same would happen as if any other part of the car malfunctioned in such a way as to make the car inoperable. Presumably you'd get someone to come to you and repair it or you'd get the car towed to them to be repaired.
Or am I incorect in thinking that the UK is an island?
Yes, you are. Great Britain is an island. The United Kingdom includes both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The two are separated by the Irish Sea. Okay, so that doesn't affect your point at all but you did ask:)
this is why the outcome of the antitrust case may become at least partially irrelevant.
People keep saying this and I stil don't get it. Microsoft will (or may) be split into two companies. So far as I can tell this is an operating systems company and an applications company.
Obviously the OS company is better off with a strong server OS than if just the strong desktop OS but I don't see how the split between that company and the applications company becomes (even partially) irrelevant.
Well, the impression I get from US law, being a US citizen, is this: given some action X, if X is not prohibited by law and I have not legally agreed not to do X, then I can do X without expecting any legal repercussions. It doesn't matter how absurd X sounds; it's still within my rights
What is absurd is the notion that you can sue Everquest for enforcing the rules of their game. It is the people allegedly intending to bring a law suit that are trying to bring about "legal repercusions" and they don't stand a chance.
You can (without legal repercussions) play Everquest.
Sony can (without legal repercussions) make a rule that says "no selling characters/eq/your time involved in geting eq/whatever silly rationale you want to apply.
You can (without legal repercussions except in truly extreme instances) cheat at the game.
Sony can (without legal repercussions) delete your character when they catch you cheating.
Right. So, to take an example, it permits Everquest from having rules to their game like "you can't sell characters". It also permits Everquest enforcing these rules. There really isn't anything difficult to understand here.
IMO - these people are total idiots hoping that the publicity their lawsuit recieves (from being posted on places like/.) will make Sony settle the lawsuit.... Sheesh...
It's actually worse than that. There is no law suit, from what it says on their web page it doesn't sound as though they've even taken legal advice. They are hoping that putting up a web page saying that they intend to bring a law suit will bring Sony (who let's face it are more likely to benefit from the publicity than to be hurt by it) to their knees. It's laughable.
Don't be absurd. This is like me entering a chess tournament, then just when I have an advantage over an opponent offering to sell the 'time I spent getting to that stage in the game' to another player, who can take over and win.
It doesn't work. It isn't even remotely plausible.
That doesn't remove my right to enter into any contract I please. If I enter into a contract and can't provide the consideration I offer (e.g. a character in Everquest or a good position in a game of chess) then I am in default. My problem. No obligation is thus created on the part of the people running Everquest or the chess tournament.
We are allready in the process of destroying the earth. What right Do we have to destroy another planet?
Hardly. I don't think it's remotely in the range of current human technologies to destroy the erath or any other planet. It's a lot of work just to make a fair size scratch in the surface.
We MIGHT be able to do something as extreme, say, as wiping out all life on the planet. Still not at all likely (life is pretty resilient stuff), but difficult to say it's actually impossible.
We almost certainly can cause, and indeed have caused, some big impacts on the eco system. We can wipe out whole species for example, we could certainly wipe out ourselves if only we'd all cooperate in the effort:) and maybe even if we didn't, hard to say though - again life is pretty resilient stuff and people are a good example of that.
Wiping out planets though? For the time being, leave it for the sci-fi movies. Chances are Earth and Mars will both be here long after the last human dies.
That's not to say experiments are without risk, there MIGHT be some form of life on mars and it'd be a tragedy to just wipe it out. Even withotu any life there, there is almost certainly much that we ould want to study without first changing the environment so drastically. Also, any mistakes in early attempts might make eventual success in terraforming harder or impossible but that would be no reason to put off trying forever.
Ywah, you're right:) the point remains, however, that it is not illegal to receive and view the satelite broadcasts in this case and, even for interception of signals that *is* illegal such as cell phones it isn't theft or anything like it that you would be charged with.
Try telling that to a judge. I'm sure he'd have a good laugh before throwing you in jail.
If you're aware of a case in which anyone has been found guilty of any offense (let alone theft!) for receiving a signal on their own property, or having received it for processing it any way they chose then please cite it.
Slashdot Mirror
Registering a domain name is something that you do as soon as you've decided on the name, so someone doesn't grab it. In fact, checking to see if the name is available is something almost always done before you even pick a name in the first place these days.
Are you serious? Maybe they had other priorities in choosing a name? If Microsoft for example were more worried about checking that a domain name was available than checking that the trademark was available (this is a registered trademark) then they only have themselves to blame for any problems / expense it causes them.
Whether you believe in God or not, who are you to judge and question the architecture of the Universe?
He's here, it's affecting him, he's part of it. Accepting that you could be wrong is good, refusing to form a judgment at all out of fear that it's wrong or that it's just 'not for me to judge' is just cowardice.
In court, you would have to prove beyond a balence of probability that everyone knows it's not osx.
Is this right?
No. In court Apple would have to prove that, on
the balance of probabilities, people would be confused into thinking that it was OSX.
In a civil suit the plaintif has to prove his case on the balance of probabilities, just as in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove their case beyond resasonable doubt. It is never the defendant's job to prove his case, just to establish that the prosecution/plaintif has failed to prove theirs.
This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand. Either it is potentially dangerous to drive at that speed or the speed limit is appropriate.
Obviously I meant to say "or the speed limit is not appropriate"
This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand. Either it is potentially dangerous to drive at that speed or the speed limit is appropriate.
If the speed limit is set too low then that is a separate issue to whether technological means should be used to enforce it.
If the speed limit is appropriate (i.e. driving in excess of that speed is dangerous) then having a pregnant woman in the car about to give birth is a particularly stupid time to consider exceeding it. Especially when we consider that this is probably not the time when you are most calm, clear headed, and focused purely on driving.
There isn't even any pretense that these sort of measures are aimed at large scale commercial pirates. They're very clearly pushed as being a way to stop people in general from getting what we want.
This is a big mistake.
The marketing message that content producers should want to send is that people want their product, that their product with the packaging, the assurance of quality and knowing that you are supporting the artists etc. is something that you/me/everyone wants.
The message they're actually sending to the public at large is that people don't want to buy thier product and want to get a copy instead, but that they will use technology to stop us getting what we want so that we'll have to get their product as a second best.
This seems to be incredibly ill advised. If people are sold on the idea by the content producers themselves that the product isn't really something they want just something they have to accept because they can't get the free copies they do want then of course they're going to go running to the download sites every time a scheme gets cracked.
The music industry seems to be marketing against itself.
You made the exact same point that I was trying to. I'm still trying to work out how you could read my post in such a way as to think I meant the opposite.
Speed limits are measured in miles per hour in Britain. I should think this is because of the safety implications of people having to adjust to a new system and the inevitable mistakes that would arise, don't know for sure though.
Relistically, metric has no real advantages when applied in this situation. It's very good for conversions between units like converting meters into kilometers or whatever but that has no bearing on speed which would always be measured in whole miles or whole kilometers anyway.
Trying to get pregnant wife to the hospital makes perfect sense. Suggesting that this is a good time to be speeding doesn't.
Personally, I'm not so paranoid that I'll gladly allow this type of cellphone. I would much rather have my cellphone company be able to tell where I am for whatever inane reason than be lying in a ditch somewhere in the middle of nowhere while I freeze, bleed, or be eaten alive while drifting in and out of conscienceness.
And you're the one who ISN'T paranoid? I don't even have a cell phone and I'm not losing sleep over the possibility being eaten alive.
If this is a real risk in... well, whatever it is you're into, then I can see why you might take steps to have your whereabouts monitored, but advocating extending that monitoring to everyone else with a cell phone seems a little slefish.
3. As telephone and computer networks have been doing FOR DECADES, activity by client-machines is logged and can be produced at any time.
If you send a signal to them then of course they can log it. Now, what would that have to do with GPS? It RECEIVES sattelite signals and works out your location based on the signals.
I won't even get into how this violates rights.
Well I wish you would because nobody seems to have explained it so far and I don't see the problem.
I can understand objections on practical and safety grounds (need to speed to avoid collision, doubting the reliability of the device etc.).
I could sort of understand objecting to a speed limit on principle. I think that having laws that pace speed limits is acceptable and desirable but I can see that someone with fairly extreme views might think otherwise.
I can certainly understand someone thinking that the speed limits are set wrongly, whether they think they're too high or too low.
What I don't understand is what using a device that limits speed has to do with rights. If placing legal limits on speeding is itself acceptable, i.e. you have no "right to speed" then I don't understand why preventing cars from exceeding the speed limit would be thought to infringe any rights.
And of course anyone who managed to do it would probably have worse things than a speeding offense to worry about.
The same would happen as if any other part of the car malfunctioned in such a way as to make the car inoperable. Presumably you'd get someone to come to you and repair it or you'd get the car towed to them to be repaired.
Or am I incorect in thinking that the UK is an island?
:)
Yes, you are. Great Britain is an island. The United Kingdom includes both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The two are separated by the Irish Sea. Okay, so that doesn't affect your point at all but you did ask
this is why the outcome of the antitrust case may become at least partially irrelevant.
People keep saying this and I stil don't get it. Microsoft will (or may) be split into two companies. So far as I can tell this is an operating systems company and an applications company.
Obviously the OS company is better off with a strong server OS than if just the strong desktop OS but I don't see how the split between that company and the applications company becomes (even partially) irrelevant.
Well, the impression I get from US law, being a US citizen, is this: given some action X, if X is not prohibited by law and I have not legally agreed not to do X, then I can do X without expecting any legal repercussions. It doesn't matter how absurd X sounds; it's still within my rights
What is absurd is the notion that you can sue Everquest for enforcing the rules of their game. It is the people allegedly intending to bring a law suit that are trying to bring about "legal repercusions" and they don't stand a chance.
You can (without legal repercussions) play Everquest.
Sony can (without legal repercussions) make a rule that says "no selling characters/eq/your time involved in geting eq/whatever silly rationale you want to apply.
You can (without legal repercussions except in truly extreme instances) cheat at the game.
Sony can (without legal repercussions) delete your character when they catch you cheating.
Where is your problem?
Right. So, to take an example, it permits Everquest from having rules to their game like "you can't sell characters". It also permits Everquest enforcing these rules. There really isn't anything difficult to understand here.
IMO - these people are total idiots hoping that the publicity their lawsuit recieves (from being posted on places like /.) will make Sony settle the lawsuit.... Sheesh...
It's actually worse than that. There is no law suit, from what it says on their web page it doesn't sound as though they've even taken legal advice. They are hoping that putting up a web page saying that they intend to bring a law suit will bring Sony (who let's face it are more likely to benefit from the publicity than to be hurt by it) to their knees. It's laughable.
Don't be absurd. This is like me entering a chess tournament, then just when I have an advantage over an opponent offering to sell the 'time I spent getting to that stage in the game' to another player, who can take over and win.
It doesn't work. It isn't even remotely plausible.
That doesn't remove my right to enter into any contract I please. If I enter into a contract and can't provide the consideration I offer (e.g. a character in Everquest or a good position in a game of chess) then I am in default. My problem. No obligation is thus created on the part of the people running Everquest or the chess tournament.
We are allready in the process of destroying the earth. What right Do we have to destroy another planet?
:) and maybe even if we didn't, hard to say though - again life is pretty resilient stuff and people are a good example of that.
Hardly. I don't think it's remotely in the range of current human technologies to destroy the erath or any other planet. It's a lot of work just to make a fair size scratch in the surface.
We MIGHT be able to do something as extreme, say, as wiping out all life on the planet. Still not at all likely (life is pretty resilient stuff), but difficult to say it's actually impossible.
We almost certainly can cause, and indeed have caused, some big impacts on the eco system. We can wipe out whole species for example, we could certainly wipe out ourselves if only we'd all cooperate in the effort
Wiping out planets though? For the time being, leave it for the sci-fi movies. Chances are Earth and Mars will both be here long after the last human dies.
That's not to say experiments are without risk, there MIGHT be some form of life on mars and it'd be a tragedy to just wipe it out. Even withotu any life there, there is almost certainly much that we ould want to study without first changing the environment so drastically. Also, any mistakes in early attempts might make eventual success in terraforming harder or impossible but that would be no reason to put off trying forever.
So, to paraphrase the Walrus, planet means exactly what we choose it to mean, no more and no less.
I think you're thinking of Humpty Dumpty, not the walrus.
Just look at all the movie warez sites out there
:( Could you give me any URLs?
I have been trying to but without success
Ywah, you're right :) the point remains, however, that it is not illegal to receive and view the satelite broadcasts in this case and, even for interception of signals that *is* illegal such as cell phones it isn't theft or anything like it that you would be charged with.
Try telling that to a judge. I'm sure he'd have a good laugh before throwing you in jail.
If you're aware of a case in which anyone has been found guilty of any offense (let alone theft!) for receiving a signal on their own property, or having received it for processing it any way they chose then please cite it.