Sorry. 'hippies' are NOT smarter than I am. Just because you think you care about things more than I do does not mean that you're smarter than I am. If anything, hippies are idealists, who don't understand the intricacies of a real system, governmental, fiscal, legal or otherwise.
And what exactly is wrong with being an idealist? At the end of my life I'd rather look back and be able to say that I was living for things I truly believed in instead of having thrown out my ideals and settled for living the same pathetic, empty existance as everyone else in our modern society.
Actually, it is quite common to copyright instances of books. Take sheet music of classical pieces, for example. It is not at all uncommon for subtle errors to be introduced intentionally and copyright placed upon those newer editions so that the company can make money if anyone uses their edition as a source for creating a new edition.
Yes, yes. Maps too. We all know that, but you're still talking about the content. They want to copyright the paper and ink.
I feel your pain! Skip to the top ten reasons why the rules are teh suck. It gave me that instant "god i hate lawyers" feeling that I find so comforting these days.
It gives broadcasters the option to copyright their particular transmission of a work. They do not gain any retereospective copyright over works in the public domain as a whole, simply their transmission of it.
Really this isn't much different from a record company deciding to produce a CD of work so old that it is out of copyright. They would have copyright on the arrangement of bit on the CD, but not on the underlying work. This treaty seems to be an attempt to bring things into line with this, to be honest.
So what's the point? Broadcasts are by their nature transient. If I record something from the radio then rebroadcast it, it isn't their particular transmission of the work anymore. Their transmission ended 5 minutes ago. This one is mine.
Or alternatively you can take a copy of a Dickens novel and reproduce the words (since they are out of copyright) but you can't simply photocopy a recently printed copy of the novel and distribute that without breaching copyright.
I don't think that's quite right. I think it's more like them copyrighting a particular instance of a printing of the book, i.e. the physical book. Clearly that's a stupid and useless idea.
Spam costs the USA billions of dollars last year (I have no idea of the impact other places, feel free to point to a source or drop some numbers). Obviously that diminished the quality of a lot of lives; I'd bet that you could trace deaths to it as well.
I can personally vouch for the deaths of 11 spammers that can be directly traced back to spam.
Ok, before anyone calls the cops I'm just kidding. It really wasn't any more than 7.
OTOH, at least the obligatory jokes are enjoyable to people who haven't seen them before. Rants about the pointlessness of obligatory jokes are never enjoyable to anyone but the author.
Actually it does mean that. POW status includes a number of benefits and immunities that are granteed in return for obeying the laws of war. To grant those benefits and immunities to people who deliberately break the laws of war would be to reward people for such violations. That would itself be a reprehensible act.
You're missing the point. If you truly believe in human rights than you believe that everyone who is human is entitled to them. It is not something that can be legislated, bartered or reneged.
I agree we don't want to encourage people to violate the rules of war. In America we also don't want to encourage citizens to be murders and rapists yet we still manage to uphold the rights of those who are accused of such things.
There are two views of the status of the prisoners at Guantanamo. Either they are POWs or they are unlawful combatants. If they are POWs then it would be illegal to try them for anything other than war crimes, and they may be held until the end of the war (and needless to say the war ain't over). If they are illegal combatants then they have no rights under international law.
So explain again what basic human rights are being violated here?
Basic human rights are not dictated by law. Just because there are no legal rights guarenteed to "illegal combatants" (ones held by illegal captors?) that does not mean they shouldn't be entitled the same fair treatment that a POW or a criminal captured in the US would be given.
I'd be interested in the metric you use to compute danger, seeing as how there have been exactly zero terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.
And I'd be interested in the metric you use. Tell me, how often did we have terrorist attacks on US soil before 9/11? Well let's see, there was Oklahoma city, but that was an American so it doesn't really apply does it. So that leaves The first WTC bombing as the most recent attack preceding 9/11. 8 years lie between those two attacks.
If we take the extremely generous assumption that foreign terrorists attack the US every 8 years, for you to make an even remotely reality based assessment of our relative security since 9/11 I'd say you need to wait at least 12 years without any attacks.
Granted, the grandparent would have difficulty proving his assertion that we are in much greater danger now, but I'm sure it could be proven that we have many more enemies. That's not exactly comforting.
It's not about whether I trust Google's intentions. So long as Google is an American company, or more precisely so long as its headquarters exist in *any* country, there's a danger that the government of said country can bully them into giving up all the information they have on anybody.
This is very true. Fortunately google is currently working to address these concerns.
Was that supposed to be insightful? Do you get regular updates from google about what i've been searching for recently? I just don't see what you're getting at. Sure google could be forced to turn private information over to the government, but so could any company. All that means is that the US gov has some major privacy concerns to address.
What about non-humans? I'm assuming computers do "read" every single email that goes through gmail and computers can do a lot more than relate email content to ads.
How is gmail different here from any other webmail service, nay, any email application of any type? It's not. Email programs all "read" your email. Many of them with spam filters even parse and analyse the body of the message. What google has stated they are doing is no worse than what any other email application already does.
Excuse me? Am I just imagining it, or does Apple use the word "fixes" in every update listed on that page you gave.
* CUPS Printing:
Fixes CAN-2004-0382 to improve the security of the printing system. This is a configuration file change that does not affect the underlying Printing system. Credit to aaron@vtty.com for reporting this issue. * libxml2: Fixes CAN-2004-0110 to improve the handling of uniform resource locators. * Mail: Fixes CAN-2004-0383 to improve the handling of HTML-formatted email. Credit to aaron@vtty.com for reporting this issue.... ... ...
Just because the ad a mail provider shows you is related to words in your email doesn't mean they are "watching" you or invading your privacy in any way.
Just because the ad a mail provider shows you is unrelated to words in your email doesn't mean they aren't "watching" you or invading your privacy in any way.
Adwords by themselves imply nothing relating to personal privacy.
But then again, no telescope on earth can see around the planet's curve and back to itself, so could a telescope in space see around the universe's curve (if it's there)?
In theory yes. The curvature of the universe is far different from the curvature of the earth. If the universe is curved (and contrary to what a previous poster said, I though that was currently very much in doubt) than that means everything within it is curved also. Including physical objects and the path of radiation through space. So if space does loop back on itself, the light would follow the curvature of space and loop back with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel your pain! Skip to the top ten reasons why the rules are teh suck. It gave me that instant "god i hate lawyers" feeling that I find so comforting these days.
Ok, before anyone calls the cops I'm just kidding. It really wasn't any more than 7.
Last year at least.
Maybe 8.
OTOH, at least the obligatory jokes are enjoyable to people who haven't seen them before. Rants about the pointlessness of obligatory jokes are never enjoyable to anyone but the author.
Actually it does mean that. POW status includes a number of benefits and immunities that are granteed in return for obeying the laws of war. To grant those benefits and immunities to people who deliberately break the laws of war would be to reward people for such violations. That would itself be a reprehensible act.
You're missing the point. If you truly believe in human rights than you believe that everyone who is human is entitled to them. It is not something that can be legislated, bartered or reneged.
I agree we don't want to encourage people to violate the rules of war. In America we also don't want to encourage citizens to be murders and rapists yet we still manage to uphold the rights of those who are accused of such things.
There are two views of the status of the prisoners at Guantanamo. Either they are POWs or they are unlawful combatants. If they are POWs then it would be illegal to try them for anything other than war crimes, and they may be held until the end of the war (and needless to say the war ain't over). If they are illegal combatants then they have no rights under international law.
So explain again what basic human rights are being violated here?
Basic human rights are not dictated by law. Just because there are no legal rights guarenteed to "illegal combatants" (ones held by illegal captors?) that does not mean they shouldn't be entitled the same fair treatment that a POW or a criminal captured in the US would be given.
Nice try dude. Metaformat means a format for creating formats. In other words, a metaformat is a format. Therefore you're a karma whore. QED.
If we take the extremely generous assumption that foreign terrorists attack the US every 8 years, for you to make an even remotely reality based assessment of our relative security since 9/11 I'd say you need to wait at least 12 years without any attacks.
Granted, the grandparent would have difficulty proving his assertion that we are in much greater danger now, but I'm sure it could be proven that we have many more enemies. That's not exactly comforting.
That would be great. I remember on Mac OS most of the browsers put the URL of downloads in the files comment field. That is a very helpful feature.
You aren't supposed to think about what you are being brainwashed into believing.
Of course I see the "to improve" part, it's right after the word "Fixes" that I was only pointing out because you said they never used it.
Apple has at times used corporate doublespeak for things that really pissed me off. This is not one of those times. This is nothing.
Just because the ad a mail provider shows you is related to words in your email doesn't mean they are "watching" you or invading your privacy in any way.
Just because the ad a mail provider shows you is unrelated to words in your email doesn't mean they aren't "watching" you or invading your privacy in any way.
Adwords by themselves imply nothing relating to personal privacy.
FYI, that joke should be attributed to Steven Wright.
Yes, except that you would see yourself as you were 30 billion years ago. You'd probably have a hard time recognizing yourself ;-)
Cooler? Than Klingon you say? Please tell me you're joking.