It's actually the earth that "provided" the info by having the various elevations that it has. Ohhh lets sue the earth. What a cop out statement. The town could not feasibly be sued for this and you know it. The information is already available from commercial sources; all this is is ignorance.
Quick time most definitely IS a format. Are you suggesting that AVI is not a format? Neither are codecs but they are definitely FORMATS. Format is a rather general term and you just made yourself look like an ass with your lame "ROFL."
Re:Need Game Boxes and Mac to Run Linux
on
Does Linux Have Game?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Change 'the' to 'an' and you may have a point. The PS2 doesn't use linux as the operating system in the same respect as microsoft uses a windows based kernel as the operating system on the xbox. Linux on the PS2 is confined to the linux kit, its not like when you are playing a game on the PS2 it's running on top of linux. It's not.
Yes it may well involve a font in the program code. What I was trying to say was an action which to the user in no way involves a font, I can for instances make a square selection on a brand new file and then try and drag the selection; bam I get the crash.
You can't return it because of the pixel. The monitor companies subscribe to ANSI standards published on the packaging of the product you are buying. Go read the standards and you will find the various pixel tolerances. If I buy a 5000 hour lightbulb from walmart and it only lasts 4999 hours I have NO grounds to sue because if you look at the packaging the lightbulb simply met (once again) ANSI testing standards saying that the bulbs had a mean life of 5000 hours and that there was acceptable deviance of x percent etc. etc. etc. How about instead of ruining credit cards for everyone by abusing your chargeback powers and thus making stores have to pay more to be able to accept credit cards you start FINDING OUT WHAT IT IS YOU ARE BUYING BEFORE BUYING IT. Jesus people like you piss me off.
Archive.org can't exactly mirror the dynamic code that generated barcodes which used to be on their site. It was server side code, you gave it an item, it returned an image of the barcode.
This isn't entrapment or a sting. If a copyright holder or an agent acting on their behalf gets on to a peer to peer network and offers up copyrighted content and you download it, it's yours. Legally they can do nothing, they owned the rights to it and they offered it up and you took it. Thats why ALL the RIAA suits against traders were against uploaders. If you disable uploading you'll kill the networks (you won't kill emule/bittorrent but you won't get much benefit from them either) but you'll be protected from suits. IANAL.
Anyway, I was saying, this isn't entrapment or a sting. What this is is a malicious attack on a user's machine. A rights holder is offering up a file that it owns the rights to and the user is taking them up on it; the fact that they don't know it's a rights holder is irrelevant. Then, included in this they are using exploits and loopholes to install unwanted software on a user's machine designed to hurt the user's experience with their computer. Spyware that doesn't tell the user it's being installed and give them a license agreement and the option to disagree and not install is illegal just like computer viruses are illegal, infact there is no differentiating factor between this and a virus.
That's not the difference. That the register has a lot of cash is not published by the defendent in the newspaper, it's given to the person in privacy for the express purpose of committing crime; in fact if the information were public, which lokitorrent certainly is, it would be useless. If lokitorrent is an automated webpage where users post torrents there should be no problem whatsoever. If they review the torrent submissions personally I agree, they probably will have some legal troubles (ok, I admit they already have legal problems..).
The operative word there is "ex." If you want to prove your point you'll have to give a better example and the only thing you can apply "ex" to is US.
Re:Right on the fucking torrent page
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You just told me that if I want those files I can find links to them over there. You have now committed contributory infringement if the MPAA gets its way in the suit against LokiTorrent. At least your post was right about one thing, this has everything to do with your rights. Oh wait, you didn't say that did you? Perhaps you should reconsider.
That they are a tracker means little. Legally though I belive this all depends on the way their site functions. Basically, do they let users post torrents through some automated system or do they manually accept each of them. If its an automated system they have a strong argument of basically being merely facilitators of communication in general which while this service may allow pirated information so might other methods of general communication, for instance the telephone. If they have received torrent requests from people and they look at it and go ok this is a copyrighted movie we'll manually chunk that in our movies section and put it on our site then you have some contributory copyright infringement problems even though they never ever touch the files themselves.
However take everything I've said with a grain of salt because in the napster case all they were doing is essentially hosting an automated database of everyone's files with not manual interaction themselves. It's really shakey legal ground and different circuits are giving someone contradictory rulings on this and numerous contradictory rulings are what usually make something go all the way up to the land of The Supreme Court. Anyway, I have my doubts about this $30,000 but we'll see if this actually goes to trial.
But what do you get in exchange? If you are level 30 in the game and it's so non-fun that you would pay money to advance, what are you advancing to? You hit things for bigger numbers and they hit you for bigger numbers--its still going to be non-fun.
He said it blocked everything. You tried to correct by saying "no, I know it at least blocked this one thing." He already said that in the first place, he just said it also blocked local apps from using the computer's ports.
First off, barely 10% of surfers know how or at least have the balls to turn anything on or off. To suggest that of those that do almost all of them have javascript turned off is kind of crazy. Second off...there is no second off.
"The homework for the course..." -- That marks about the half point through the article, and that is just a segway into making everyone feel sorry for you. I would agree that the majority of the article was not "please feel sorry for me, slashdot," but I wouldn't say that the majority of it was really about security holes either. I don't think that criticism of an aspect of your writeup somehow requited that that aspect hold a majority anyway--I don't care how great you think your writeup was, it isn't a damn congress of its own.
I like the crazy inferences. " that would mean that 19 million Americans don't have wired phone lines available to them." Presuming the main problem most people have with this statement isn't really what the poster meant--that is "19 million americans don't have...available" just means they don't have a landline phone with service in their house right now they can pick up and make a call with (from the context of the article though it would seem he's implying that service isn't even offered to them...)--there is still a major major problem with this. X% of homes is NOT X% of people. Therefore if 6.2% of homes have no service you can most definitely not assume that 6.2% of people do not have landline service available in there home. You see, homes contain multiple people, when you have a factor such as this you can not assume that the average amount of people in a home that does not have phone service available is the same as the average amount of people in a home that does.
There are other problems with this assertion (no consideration of, for instance, the homeless). It is one thing that a statement like this is in a slashdot writeup but the sad thing is I see inferences like this all the time in the media.
Please see the title of my post. Boohoo. Probably the professor is just shitting around, the submitter hasn't even gotten his grades. If he goes to a half reasonable university this kind of shit doesn't happen, but if he happens not to he doesn't have to come on slashdot and host a big pity party--we don't care.
But did he actually change his mind? He stated numerous times that the law wasn't bad it was just the attorney general who was enforcing it and that the only damn thing he would really have to do is replace the general. He hinted that he would weaken it in some respects but that means about jack shit when he crafted some of the earlier bills which were used to take away similar basic rights from "inhuman" drug dealers and he isn't claiming to do anything about them.
"There is no right to a telephone call, only to have someone contacted which can be on your behalf if the police choose." Caveat: it's not exactly a right if it's only when the police choose. I agree there is no right to a phone call, but there is a right to have a lawyer contacted, if the police choose or not. Unless we are talking about certain drug cases (most of the laws allowing this for drug cases was heavily supported by Kerry.. a strong "critic" of the PATRIOT act who also supported it being passed) or cases covered in specific parts of the PATRIOT act.
I took the time to read your post with its lack of paragraphs and all.. as I said, the least of its problems was the lack of paragraphs. Could you respond to the main point I brought up in my post?
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually the earth that "provided" the info by having the various elevations that it has. Ohhh lets sue the earth. What a cop out statement. The town could not feasibly be sued for this and you know it. The information is already available from commercial sources; all this is is ignorance.
Quick time most definitely IS a format. Are you suggesting that AVI is not a format? Neither are codecs but they are definitely FORMATS. Format is a rather general term and you just made yourself look like an ass with your lame "ROFL."
Change 'the' to 'an' and you may have a point. The PS2 doesn't use linux as the operating system in the same respect as microsoft uses a windows based kernel as the operating system on the xbox. Linux on the PS2 is confined to the linux kit, its not like when you are playing a game on the PS2 it's running on top of linux. It's not.
Yes it may well involve a font in the program code. What I was trying to say was an action which to the user in no way involves a font, I can for instances make a square selection on a brand new file and then try and drag the selection; bam I get the crash.
You can't return it because of the pixel. The monitor companies subscribe to ANSI standards published on the packaging of the product you are buying. Go read the standards and you will find the various pixel tolerances. If I buy a 5000 hour lightbulb from walmart and it only lasts 4999 hours I have NO grounds to sue because if you look at the packaging the lightbulb simply met (once again) ANSI testing standards saying that the bulbs had a mean life of 5000 hours and that there was acceptable deviance of x percent etc. etc. etc. How about instead of ruining credit cards for everyone by abusing your chargeback powers and thus making stores have to pay more to be able to accept credit cards you start FINDING OUT WHAT IT IS YOU ARE BUYING BEFORE BUYING IT. Jesus people like you piss me off.
Archive.org can't exactly mirror the dynamic code that generated barcodes which used to be on their site. It was server side code, you gave it an item, it returned an image of the barcode.
This isn't entrapment or a sting. If a copyright holder or an agent acting on their behalf gets on to a peer to peer network and offers up copyrighted content and you download it, it's yours. Legally they can do nothing, they owned the rights to it and they offered it up and you took it. Thats why ALL the RIAA suits against traders were against uploaders. If you disable uploading you'll kill the networks (you won't kill emule/bittorrent but you won't get much benefit from them either) but you'll be protected from suits. IANAL.
Anyway, I was saying, this isn't entrapment or a sting. What this is is a malicious attack on a user's machine. A rights holder is offering up a file that it owns the rights to and the user is taking them up on it; the fact that they don't know it's a rights holder is irrelevant. Then, included in this they are using exploits and loopholes to install unwanted software on a user's machine designed to hurt the user's experience with their computer. Spyware that doesn't tell the user it's being installed and give them a license agreement and the option to disagree and not install is illegal just like computer viruses are illegal, infact there is no differentiating factor between this and a virus.
He's fast at pushin the button as well.
That's not the difference. That the register has a lot of cash is not published by the defendent in the newspaper, it's given to the person in privacy for the express purpose of committing crime; in fact if the information were public, which lokitorrent certainly is, it would be useless. If lokitorrent is an automated webpage where users post torrents there should be no problem whatsoever. If they review the torrent submissions personally I agree, they probably will have some legal troubles (ok, I admit they already have legal problems..).
The operative word there is "ex." If you want to prove your point you'll have to give a better example and the only thing you can apply "ex" to is US.
You just told me that if I want those files I can find links to them over there. You have now committed contributory infringement if the MPAA gets its way in the suit against LokiTorrent. At least your post was right about one thing, this has everything to do with your rights. Oh wait, you didn't say that did you? Perhaps you should reconsider.
That they are a tracker means little. Legally though I belive this all depends on the way their site functions. Basically, do they let users post torrents through some automated system or do they manually accept each of them. If its an automated system they have a strong argument of basically being merely facilitators of communication in general which while this service may allow pirated information so might other methods of general communication, for instance the telephone. If they have received torrent requests from people and they look at it and go ok this is a copyrighted movie we'll manually chunk that in our movies section and put it on our site then you have some contributory copyright infringement problems even though they never ever touch the files themselves.
However take everything I've said with a grain of salt because in the napster case all they were doing is essentially hosting an automated database of everyone's files with not manual interaction themselves. It's really shakey legal ground and different circuits are giving someone contradictory rulings on this and numerous contradictory rulings are what usually make something go all the way up to the land of The Supreme Court. Anyway, I have my doubts about this $30,000 but we'll see if this actually goes to trial.
Wheelchairs don't roll in sand.
But what do you get in exchange? If you are level 30 in the game and it's so non-fun that you would pay money to advance, what are you advancing to? You hit things for bigger numbers and they hit you for bigger numbers--its still going to be non-fun.
He said it blocked everything. You tried to correct by saying "no, I know it at least blocked this one thing." He already said that in the first place, he just said it also blocked local apps from using the computer's ports.
Yeah I get that too. The errors are almost always involving a font for an operation that has nothing to do with a font, like moving a selection.
First off, barely 10% of surfers know how or at least have the balls to turn anything on or off. To suggest that of those that do almost all of them have javascript turned off is kind of crazy. Second off...there is no second off.
"The homework for the course..." -- That marks about the half point through the article, and that is just a segway into making everyone feel sorry for you. I would agree that the majority of the article was not "please feel sorry for me, slashdot," but I wouldn't say that the majority of it was really about security holes either. I don't think that criticism of an aspect of your writeup somehow requited that that aspect hold a majority anyway--I don't care how great you think your writeup was, it isn't a damn congress of its own.
I like the crazy inferences. " that would mean that 19 million Americans don't have wired phone lines available to them." Presuming the main problem most people have with this statement isn't really what the poster meant--that is "19 million americans don't have...available" just means they don't have a landline phone with service in their house right now they can pick up and make a call with (from the context of the article though it would seem he's implying that service isn't even offered to them...)--there is still a major major problem with this. X% of homes is NOT X% of people. Therefore if 6.2% of homes have no service you can most definitely not assume that 6.2% of people do not have landline service available in there home. You see, homes contain multiple people, when you have a factor such as this you can not assume that the average amount of people in a home that does not have phone service available is the same as the average amount of people in a home that does.
There are other problems with this assertion (no consideration of, for instance, the homeless). It is one thing that a statement like this is in a slashdot writeup but the sad thing is I see inferences like this all the time in the media.
Please see the title of my post. Boohoo. Probably the professor is just shitting around, the submitter hasn't even gotten his grades. If he goes to a half reasonable university this kind of shit doesn't happen, but if he happens not to he doesn't have to come on slashdot and host a big pity party--we don't care.
But did he actually change his mind? He stated numerous times that the law wasn't bad it was just the attorney general who was enforcing it and that the only damn thing he would really have to do is replace the general. He hinted that he would weaken it in some respects but that means about jack shit when he crafted some of the earlier bills which were used to take away similar basic rights from "inhuman" drug dealers and he isn't claiming to do anything about them.
This seems like a call to the world for pity as if that will somehow change the professor's mind.
"There is no right to a telephone call, only to have someone contacted which can be on your behalf if the police choose." Caveat: it's not exactly a right if it's only when the police choose. I agree there is no right to a phone call, but there is a right to have a lawyer contacted, if the police choose or not. Unless we are talking about certain drug cases (most of the laws allowing this for drug cases was heavily supported by Kerry.. a strong "critic" of the PATRIOT act who also supported it being passed) or cases covered in specific parts of the PATRIOT act.
I took the time to read your post with its lack of paragraphs and all.. as I said, the least of its problems was the lack of paragraphs. Could you respond to the main point I brought up in my post?
Firefox was based on the Mozilla Suite.