It seems like better developer outreach from Apple would help here, but I think the lack of such cooperation is somewhat symptomatic of Apple's movement away from the Mac as its central business to consumer electronics (iPhone and iPod). Apple just does not care as much about the Mac in the iPhone era, which is an unfortunate market reality. They really need to take a page from the Microsoft monkey - Developers, developers, developers!!!
As a previous poster noted, it will be interesting to see if Apple can drag major developers on to the Cocoa bandwagon as the sole solution for 64-bit API support. It really seems like Apple pulled the rug out from under developers when it suddenly cancelled Carbon 64-bit. The Carbon APIs were originally produced because the major developers weren't willing to move to Cocoa. Apple may feel that it's in such a strong position that it can now force the Cocoa switch, but I don't think that in terms of developer appeal of Cocoa much has changed between OS X's launch and now. Sure OS X is established, and making Cocoa the only game in town for 64-bitness may help its adoption to some degree, but other developers clearly won't see it worth the cost.
Hopefully this will free up Nvidia to continue innovating in the integrated GPU arena. Intel's best attempt at competing against the year-old 9400M apparently only matches half of its performance at best. And wasn't Intel actively preventing Nvidia from competing for inclusion in the newest motherboard designs by failing to license certain Core iX chipset components?
But it took until 1984 for him to see what the real desktop computing revolution would look like, and it took him more than a decade after that in order to make a Mac knock-off that didn't completely suck donkey balls.
Mod me down or flame me all you want Gates fans, but you know I'm right.
I completely agree with you, RenderSeven - I've been very happy with Godaddy. I don't like their cluttered control panel that's declined in usability in recent years (although they've been making it more usable recently), and I don't like their mass market, transparent up sale practices when buying products. Other than that the service delivers what it promises, the tech support is generally good, has short wait times, and is in the United States, and I feel confident when I purchase their services. I had one potentially serious problem with them threatening to cancel a key domain name in a short time frame based on a frivolous contact record complaint, but other than that I've been very pleased.
Whatever you do though, if you need to choose between Godaddy and NetSol, choose Godaddy every time. Godaddy is head and shoulders far above NetSol, based on very bad personal experience with NetSol and very good experience over the exact same issue with Godaddy.
Socialism is about working class owning the means of production (for example workers of a car factory all own equal amount of shares of the car manufacturer).
You mean like the federal government handing out majority ownership rights over the new GM to the unions that help destroyed it (Obama's loyal supporter base) and shafting the secured bond holders who were legally first in line to be compensated? Sounds a whole lot like your definition.
The mini doesn't have a built-in tuner of any kind, nor does Apple provide TV software. The AppleTV doesn't even have a tuner. Thus, as an Apple fan, i don't really know what you're talking about.
The last season was Season 5, and I came off overly harsh. There are great episodes (arguably some of the best, like The Devil's Hands and Jurassic Bark, but two real stinkers stand out: Bend Her and A Taste of Freedom. I don't care for a gay Bender personally; while he's great in a supporting role, any Zoidberg-centric episode stinks out loud.
A new season of the show could represent good news, assuming that the writers still have sufficient material not yet exhausted. The movies had a lot of potential but just seemed not to translate to movie length well. Part of the problem with having movie length episodes was that it constrained the writers to working with overarching plots. Less comedic punch, under utilized, diluted characters and greater reliance on cheap gimmicks. The show just works better in 23 minutes. On the downside, the last season of the show had some really poor episodes (bordering close to average Family Guy episode on the crap scale), so if it turns out that those kinds of episodes are the best the creators can do, count me only reluctantly and perhaps inconsistently in.
The perjury clause is so useless as to be limited. I could send a DMCA request to anyone's provider, claiming that file X on their website infringed my copyright on work Y, and as long as I actually owned work Y, I would not have committed perjury -- even if I knew damn well file X had nothing to do with it.
And if you did that you would not be able to confirm that the site in question actually was violating your copyright, and assuming the host wasn't incompetent your take down notice would be rejected. Unless I'm misreading the scenario you're depicting.
Congratulations, your organization is a DMCA abuser. DMCA takedowns are for copyright violation, not trademark violation.
Ah good catch. I will note, however, that all the instances to which I previously referred also were instances of copyright violations, and in addition, I think that most (if not all) service providers treat trademark violations in the same manner they treat copyright violations under the DMCA. I think it's proper for registered trademarks - which involve more work to obtain and keep than do copyrights - to be respected just as much copyrights are online. You may counter that that is not technically a part of the DMCA, which is true. However, web hosts as private companies do have the right to refuse service (like any other private business), so I don't think it's problematic for them to set in place policies that logically complement the DMCA's provisions.
Indeed, it is helpful -- for abusers. The people abused, on the other hand, are shut down with no recourse other than to involve lawyers at substantial cost; the counternotice basically says "Meet me at high noon in Federal Court". Furthermore, if the abuser does sue, the DMCA provides the equivalent of an automatic restraining order, which, given the length of court cases, means the abuser essentially wins regardless of the outcome.
The parties that are abused can file counter-notices and get their service reinstated (theoretically) according to the terms of the DMCA, unless and until further legal action is taken by the accusing party. If no court order is subsequently sought against the alleged infringer, the material is supposed to be restored. Only high quality providers will abide by the counter-notice provisions of the DMCA, but that's not the fault of the Act but rather those required to abide by it that fail to do so. The law does not provide "for an automatic restraining order, either." IIRC, without a court order mandating a suspension of service, service to the allegedly infringing party is supposed to be restored during the pendency of a court proceeding over the dispute. Again, I do realize that few providers will actually abide by the law to that extent, but that's their fault for violating federal law.
That's a good question. I think the penalty of perjury clause serves as a mild deterrent, and I think to an extent it does work. It takes a pretty dishonest person to sign on the dotted line, under the penalty of perjury, things to which the person is attesting falsely. Of course, that doesn't stop unscrupulous individuals who use the same logic - that the penalty is really not enforced.
I don't hate the DMCA like the vast majority of/. members do. I think legitimate copyrights, trademarks and patents deserve reasonable protection in an information-based economy. Yes, the Act went far too far with the anti-circumvention clauses that obviously thwart innovation. However, in the electronic world where bad actors can instantly steal and widely disseminate other people's work and pass it off as their own - and even masquerade as the owner of the work maliciously, it is very helpful to have a method within the law for protecting ownership rights short of always involving lawyers at substantial and on-going costs. Every once in a while my organization has to send out a DMCA take down notice against those who are using our trademarks to sell counterfeit merchandise. If the DMCA were not in force and we had to file a lawsuit over every small act of infringement, we would not be able to afford to protect our rights. On the other hand, we once also faced a scum bag lawyer who fraudulently abused the DMCA (under the penalty of perjury) and caused us huge problems because of the incompetence of Network Solutions. We had to remedy that situation in court.
The DMCA is a legal tool that can either be used properly or misused. The most important thing for web hosts and other service providers to do is to abide by the protocol established by the Act for handling take-downs and counter-notices and to publish a DMCA policy that recognizes that protocol. Unfortunately, in hotly contested situations many web hosts will be more responsive to the threats of abusive lawyers than to the letter of the federal law and their own stated policies. A lot of providers don't publish any information on how they handle DMCA notices, and that is a problem. YMMV.
Unfortunately I agree with the parent poster. Judaism has it's ugly sides.
You may think there are ugly sides. I don't. You seem to be preoccupied with a belief that there is widespread teaching of domination in Judaism. The problem is, you also miss the point and didn't recognize the distinction I pointed to, which is unfortunate because it's very easy to understand. As I told that Jew-hater Plutonite, there is only one part of the world where Jews are allowed and commanded religiously to be dominant, and that is the Land of Israel. Jews cannot be domineering anywhere else in the world according to the Torah, only that relatively small portion of land. In contrast, Muslims are told to spread Islamic domination across the entire world. I know that I'm repeating myself, but until people like you and Plutonite bother to put your biases aside and look at the truth of what I'm presenting instead of ignoring it, I'll continue to repeat myself.
The Jews, ever so scholarly (which is a really good thing) have numbered all their laws, or "mitzvot".
That's correct, 613 of them.
And I'm truly sorry to be asking this, but, dear "Apple Acolyte", have you done your 355'th law justice lately ? The one about burning cities ? There are certainly enough cities that deserve burning according to Judaism's conditions.
Um, actually, you're misinformed as to your numbering. The 355th Mitzvah, according to Maimonides's list, is to carry out of the procedure of the guilt offering. You're right that there is a Mitzvah calling for the burning down of cities that revert to idolatry, but again that only applies to Jewish cities in the Land of Israel that are openly disobeying the Torah. And, there are a number of Mitzvot such as that one that by design must be carried out by the authority of the country's religious assembly, once referred to as the Sanhedrin. If I were to list all of the Mitzvot concerning charity, compassion for the widow and the orphan, regard for the well-being of others, including even one's enemies, would that make any difference to you? If I were to mention that Christianity did not invent "Love your neighbor," that that's also a Torah mitzvah, would that have any effect on your view?
I realise that Israel has very good behavior, and you're obviously right, racism based on genes does not exist in Israel. There are so many good things about Israel that numbering them would not be possible.
Thank you very much for recognizing that fact. Of course, there will probably be some degree of racism in the dark corners of any society on earth, but those who claim there's a class system separating Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in Israel is absolutely wrong.
Racism based on religion, although certainly nowhere near as cruel as the muslim racism, is alive and well in Israel. And yes I realise why this is, and I would not want Israel to change this, because the consequences are to dire to discuss.
I would say you're probably thinking of the term discrimination instead of racism when speaking about religion, but again I have to disagree with you. Arab citizens of Israel have more rights than their cousins in Arab countries, including full voting rights. They get to elect Arabs to Israel's parliament, the Knesset, who routinely denounce the existence of Israel in its own national assembly. Arabs build new towns in Israel without getting government permits; when Jews do the same thing the towns get torn down. (Israel is afraid to enforce its laws against its Arabs but not against its Jews.) Arabs even have much wider free speech rights than Jews. Jews get thrown into jail for simple free speech rights that Israel is afraid will incite Arab passions, but Arabs get to defame Jews and the Jewish state without similar fear of arrest. Jews employ Arabs in their businesses, often for the cheaper labor, but they still do it, while many Jews there can't find
Ah, more ignorance, from Plutonite, and this time it's ignorance and hatred disguised as knowledge. I'm surprised you're a friend of a friend because you're no friend of mine, you narrow-minded Jew-hating prick. You've been reading far too much Jew-hating propaganda from miserable excuses for human beings like Jeff Rense. You're just a foolish miscreant parroting Jew-hating content, and I'll prove that fact below.
The only reason Judaism isn't as active on the conversion issue is because of the clear tendency towards racism in the old testament. Even today the ashkenazi and sephardi divisions persist. And the people who are "chosen", in the central theme of the faith, do not have to worry so much about the goyyim, who largely don't matter, and are inferior in the most literal of ways.
Actually, there was conversion practiced in the time of the Torah account. Abraham converted many to proto-Judaism. Ashkenazi and Sephardi divions may persist to some degree in certain insular communities in the exile, but the distinction is largely disappearing in Israel. I'm in love with a Sephardic Israeli girl, and I'm Ashkenazi. You're just a pathetic Jew-hater.
What you have to understand is that you are talking about books written millenia ago. Do not try to make any of them appear civilized or rational, because they are not. The Torah contains some of the most sickening passages of bloodshed and massacre in the entire biblical history - the God of the new testament is actually known to be more 'merciful'.
Uh huh. You don't substantiate any of those very vitriolic claims. There was bloodshed in Biblical times just as there is bloodshed today. So what? If you had a verse or a teaching from the Torah that you could point to that you find so objectionable, you would have referenced it directly. You're full of it. Judaism has done more to civilize the world than any other single force.
There is no rationality in the tales of religion. The muslim fanatics can kill in the name of religious hegemony, and the jewish nutjobs can kill in the name of their superiority and their divine rights and chosen blood.
You'll point it out to me when right-wing Jews blow themselves up to kill "infidels," teach their children to be murderers and martyrs, hijack planes in order to fly them into buildings, and pass out candy in celebration of the death of the "infidel." Funny, that kind of thing doesn't occur. There's no way to draw any equivalence between Islamic barbarism and anything at all comparable on the Jewish side, you fool.
Ask yourself why the more religious right wing Jews are the ones who are warmongering, disgusting war criminals, whereas the secular ones have always called for peace.
Uh huh. Just who would those war criminals be? I suppose you think Arafat, YM"SH, was a hero, right? Israel has always pursued peace. Senile old war hero Ariel Sharon's master plan to disengage from Gaza (by ethnically cleansing Israelis there) was sold to Israel as a way to gain peace with Gaza, and he was one of the most right-wing Israeli leaders.
Who killed Isaac Rabin?
Most likely the Israeli government, based on what's known about the assassination, and it was blamed on Yigal Amir, who appears to be a patsy. And no one in the public, not even what you'd call the extreme Jewish right-wing, wanted that to happen.
Do you think you know more about these wars and this mess than they do?
Yeah, I actually do. I do know for a fact that I know more than some jerk-off Arabist toady who has most likely never been to the country he denounces and has only a Jew-hater's understanding of Judaism.
There wouldn't be a single practising jew today if 'disbelieving' had no consequences.
What? That statement makes absolutely no sense. Those who don't believe in Judaism don't practice it. A huge portion of Je
If it's a financial document, a record that may have tax reporting ramifications, or some other substantial document, it should be available indefinitely. I can accept having to make a request for an older record that has been archived by the system; as long as it's available within a week or so then I'm fine. But if we're going to rely on online billing and statements, we have to have a reasonable expectations that those important documents will be available for retrieval in the event we need them at some point a number of years down the line. If not, the company providing the documents should, at the very least, let customers know up front that the documents will only be available for a certain amount of time and that those documents should be backed up by their clients. All statements should be available in PDF form for easy archiving, in addition to whatever other native browser form they may be found in. For non-essential documents, much shorter retention time frames can be acceptable, as long as the company's retention policies are clearly explained to customers.
"the light focused by the mirrors' perfectly curved surfaces provides a major advantage over other fish."
I guess that's evolution for you, with all of its perfectly curved surfaces. One hell of a design for having no designer other than selection and millions of years of trial and error, right? That's how one perfects complex genetic encoding, right? Really makes a lot of sense to so many of you, doesn't it?:-D
The problem with lumping all religions together in the fashion you do is that not all religions are guilty of what you accuse them all of. For instance, while your statement that religions foster in their adherents an, "unconditional feeling of enmity towards all others who don't follow their version of The One Way" certainly applies to a great degree to Islam, it certainly does not apply to Judaism. Judaism has always taught that there are many paths to God and salvation, and while Judaism does teach that its views are the correct ones and proper for Jews to hold, it also acknowledges that the other nations of the world have their own wisdom; Judaism specifically prohibits its adherents from actively seeking converts or in any way pressuring others to discard their religions in favor of Judaism.
In contrast, Islam teaches that the whole world is divided into the world of submission (to Islam) against the world of war (which is against Islam) and that Muslims have certain obligations to wage jihad and actively seek converts through violent means.
Judaism serves as much of the basis for the other two monotheistic faiths that sprang from it, Christianity and Islam. And I'm sure that if you read the holy texts of Judaism, you'd realize that even for a secular, atheistic person, the words are replete with powerful, very positive morals and standards of behavior. Judaism teaches for example, one to care for his family, to love his neighbor, to act ethically at all times, and even to act with a certain level of kindness toward one's enemies. I'm betting that you have little understanding of Judaism while assailing all religions.
Muslims control 99% of the lands referred to as the Middle East. Israel controls a bit less than 1% of that land. Muslims are in control of 52 sovereign countries, 22 of which are ethnically Arab by majority. There is only one Jewish country Israel, a country so tiny that you could easily miss it on a map. Israel is on a small percentage of a greater area of land that some of us religious Jews refer to as Greater Israel, which is closer in area to the original Palestine Mandate that Lord Balfour declared should be set aside as a whole as the Jewish homeland, in recognition of the historical bond between the land of Israel and the Jewish people. (The Land of Israel was the land of the ancient Biblical Commonwealths of Israel.)
The religion of Islam does not place any restrictions on the level of conquest of its adherents. In fact, Islam commands its subjects to bring the entire world to subjugation to Islam. Judaism, on the other hand, normally seeks peace with the other powers of the world. Jews pray for peace constantly. While in exile, Jews are commanded to be loyal to the country they live in, and religious Jews are taught not to engage in the politics of the foreign country they reside in but rather to let non-Jews rule over them. But there is one exception: The Land of Israel. Judaism teaches the Jew to love and value the Land of Israel. It is one of the most important aspects of Judaism. It is a land grant that Jews believe is their possession, an eternal grant from God, is of supreme importance. That small area of the world is the only place on earth where Jews are religiously entitled to live. There is no possibility of having a homeland for the Jewish people anywhere else, and Jews would never make a religious claim to any other piece of land than the land of their forefathers.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, even non-religious Jews saw the great value of restoring Jewish sovereignty over the ancient homeland. And just as prophesied in the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish people, after a long and crushing exile, began to return home to the land of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, of King David, of King Solomon, etc, etc.
Israel today is a country very tired of war, literally traumatized by it in many ways, since it has been forced to fight for its survival perpetually ever since it gained statehood in modern ti
They have. 550 so far and counting... Or are you one of these retards who thinks that Israel, as the invader and military occupier of Palestine for 40 years, is somehow not the aggressor?
Are you one of these retards who thinks that Israel still has any presence in Gaza? Israel quit Gaza years ago, removing its military installations and making it Juden-rein by eliminating Jewish homes like Gush Katif in 2005. That's right, Israel ethnically cleansed Jews out of Gaza (part of the land of Israel), based on the false promise of the Israeli left that doing so would lead to peace with Gazans. But instead of fostering peace by ending the so-called Israeli "occupation of Gaza" (a misnomer because Israel can't be occupying land technically and morally its own), the overtly terroristic, antagonistic Hamas (which vows never to recognize Israel) was elected by the "poor, oppressed" Arabs of Gaza, and Hamas launched thousands of rockets on Israeli civilians - 7,500 from 2001-2009. Rockets were fired even when there was a supposed cease-fire. How long was Israel supposed to quietly endure open warfare from Hamas on its citizens? How long was Israel supposed to neglect is obligation as a sovereign country to protect the lives and property of its citizens? Apparently, according to radical Muslim-lovers like you, the answer would be never. Learn this: Jews will not willingly march into ovens or go in front of machine guns, submissively accepting another Holocaust.
You tarnish an otherwise reasonable post by saying down with Judaism and every other religion, since you betray your ignorance of religion. You don't have any appreciation for religion. You don't know why Jews believe what they believe, or why any other religious group holds to its beliefs, yet you condemn them all in a blanket fashion. Such blatant provincial ignorance from a haughty atheist. As a religious Jew, I have strong religious differences with religious Christians, but I also have respect for many Christian beliefs and the right Christians have to their beliefs. I also have huge problems with Arabs and Muslims due to the immense amount of Jew-hatred produced by the Arab/Muslim world (that often turns violent), and additionally I have strong religious differences with Islam, but even then I also have respect for many Islamic beliefs as well as the right of Muslims to practice their religion - as long as they do not unjustly threaten others in the process. I feel sorry for you due to your excessive narrow-mindedness and inability to appreciate beliefs divergent from your own.
Gazans can vote for a party that calls for the destruction of Israel. They can justify it by claiming that they voted that way due to local issues and as a vote against Fatah's corruption. They can accept Hamas using their civilian infrastructure (mosques, schools, machine shops, etc.) to make and store weapons of war. They can allow Hamas to launch rockets with impunity from said civilian centers. They can launch 7500 rockets into Israel between 2001-2009. Yes, they can do all of those things. But in turn, Israel has the right and the obligation to protect its citizens from attack. If that means a very costly air campaign, then that's Israel's decision. If that means a costly ground incursion, that's Israel's choice, too. Hamas started the war and kept it going for years while Israel did nothing. Now Israel will hopefully finish the war on its terms. If I were in charge, I would make Gaza into a parking lot, but that's just my opinion. And btw, not all Muslims are terrorists, but no Muslim I've heard from yet wants to lay the responsibility for this war where it belongs: on his/her fellow Arabs. I know they're out there, but it seems the vast majority at least condone Arab/Muslim terrorism.
I am about as anti-government as one will come across, but I'm pretty sure that the FCC's technical regulation of the broadcast spectrum falls within Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. It's the content restrictions that are questionable on 1st Amendment grounds.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems like better developer outreach from Apple would help here, but I think the lack of such cooperation is somewhat symptomatic of Apple's movement away from the Mac as its central business to consumer electronics (iPhone and iPod). Apple just does not care as much about the Mac in the iPhone era, which is an unfortunate market reality. They really need to take a page from the Microsoft monkey - Developers, developers, developers!!!
As a previous poster noted, it will be interesting to see if Apple can drag major developers on to the Cocoa bandwagon as the sole solution for 64-bit API support. It really seems like Apple pulled the rug out from under developers when it suddenly cancelled Carbon 64-bit. The Carbon APIs were originally produced because the major developers weren't willing to move to Cocoa. Apple may feel that it's in such a strong position that it can now force the Cocoa switch, but I don't think that in terms of developer appeal of Cocoa much has changed between OS X's launch and now. Sure OS X is established, and making Cocoa the only game in town for 64-bitness may help its adoption to some degree, but other developers clearly won't see it worth the cost.
Hopefully this will free up Nvidia to continue innovating in the integrated GPU arena. Intel's best attempt at competing against the year-old 9400M apparently only matches half of its performance at best. And wasn't Intel actively preventing Nvidia from competing for inclusion in the newest motherboard designs by failing to license certain Core iX chipset components?
Even the seemingly frivolous Twitter environment can have real world consequences, but is that really shocking news to anyone?
A more interesting situation would be one in which an aggrieved party sues over comments made online by someone masquerading as someone else.
But it took until 1984 for him to see what the real desktop computing revolution would look like, and it took him more than a decade after that in order to make a Mac knock-off that didn't completely suck donkey balls.
Mod me down or flame me all you want Gates fans, but you know I'm right.
Sounds like this is confirmation of one's spirit, or chi (life force) in the eastern parlance.
I completely agree with you, RenderSeven - I've been very happy with Godaddy. I don't like their cluttered control panel that's declined in usability in recent years (although they've been making it more usable recently), and I don't like their mass market, transparent up sale practices when buying products. Other than that the service delivers what it promises, the tech support is generally good, has short wait times, and is in the United States, and I feel confident when I purchase their services. I had one potentially serious problem with them threatening to cancel a key domain name in a short time frame based on a frivolous contact record complaint, but other than that I've been very pleased.
Whatever you do though, if you need to choose between Godaddy and NetSol, choose Godaddy every time. Godaddy is head and shoulders far above NetSol, based on very bad personal experience with NetSol and very good experience over the exact same issue with Godaddy.
You mean like the federal government handing out majority ownership rights over the new GM to the unions that help destroyed it (Obama's loyal supporter base) and shafting the secured bond holders who were legally first in line to be compensated? Sounds a whole lot like your definition.
The mini doesn't have a built-in tuner of any kind, nor does Apple provide TV software. The AppleTV doesn't even have a tuner. Thus, as an Apple fan, i don't really know what you're talking about.
Maybe a Commodore 64's 800 baud modem can handle the size of a single tweet transmission if you strip out the HTML.
The last season was Season 5, and I came off overly harsh. There are great episodes (arguably some of the best, like The Devil's Hands and Jurassic Bark, but two real stinkers stand out: Bend Her and A Taste of Freedom. I don't care for a gay Bender personally; while he's great in a supporting role, any Zoidberg-centric episode stinks out loud.
A new season of the show could represent good news, assuming that the writers still have sufficient material not yet exhausted. The movies had a lot of potential but just seemed not to translate to movie length well. Part of the problem with having movie length episodes was that it constrained the writers to working with overarching plots. Less comedic punch, under utilized, diluted characters and greater reliance on cheap gimmicks. The show just works better in 23 minutes. On the downside, the last season of the show had some really poor episodes (bordering close to average Family Guy episode on the crap scale), so if it turns out that those kinds of episodes are the best the creators can do, count me only reluctantly and perhaps inconsistently in.
America is supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy. Do you know the difference between the two?
The perjury clause is so useless as to be limited. I could send a DMCA request to anyone's provider, claiming that file X on their website infringed my copyright on work Y, and as long as I actually owned work Y, I would not have committed perjury -- even if I knew damn well file X had nothing to do with it.
And if you did that you would not be able to confirm that the site in question actually was violating your copyright, and assuming the host wasn't incompetent your take down notice would be rejected. Unless I'm misreading the scenario you're depicting.
Congratulations, your organization is a DMCA abuser. DMCA takedowns are for copyright violation, not trademark violation.
Ah good catch. I will note, however, that all the instances to which I previously referred also were instances of copyright violations, and in addition, I think that most (if not all) service providers treat trademark violations in the same manner they treat copyright violations under the DMCA. I think it's proper for registered trademarks - which involve more work to obtain and keep than do copyrights - to be respected just as much copyrights are online. You may counter that that is not technically a part of the DMCA, which is true. However, web hosts as private companies do have the right to refuse service (like any other private business), so I don't think it's problematic for them to set in place policies that logically complement the DMCA's provisions.
Indeed, it is helpful -- for abusers. The people abused, on the other hand, are shut down with no recourse other than to involve lawyers at substantial cost; the counternotice basically says "Meet me at high noon in Federal Court". Furthermore, if the abuser does sue, the DMCA provides the equivalent of an automatic restraining order, which, given the length of court cases, means the abuser essentially wins regardless of the outcome.
The parties that are abused can file counter-notices and get their service reinstated (theoretically) according to the terms of the DMCA, unless and until further legal action is taken by the accusing party. If no court order is subsequently sought against the alleged infringer, the material is supposed to be restored. Only high quality providers will abide by the counter-notice provisions of the DMCA, but that's not the fault of the Act but rather those required to abide by it that fail to do so. The law does not provide "for an automatic restraining order, either." IIRC, without a court order mandating a suspension of service, service to the allegedly infringing party is supposed to be restored during the pendency of a court proceeding over the dispute. Again, I do realize that few providers will actually abide by the law to that extent, but that's their fault for violating federal law.
That's a good question. I think the penalty of perjury clause serves as a mild deterrent, and I think to an extent it does work. It takes a pretty dishonest person to sign on the dotted line, under the penalty of perjury, things to which the person is attesting falsely. Of course, that doesn't stop unscrupulous individuals who use the same logic - that the penalty is really not enforced.
/. members do. I think legitimate copyrights, trademarks and patents deserve reasonable protection in an information-based economy. Yes, the Act went far too far with the anti-circumvention clauses that obviously thwart innovation. However, in the electronic world where bad actors can instantly steal and widely disseminate other people's work and pass it off as their own - and even masquerade as the owner of the work maliciously, it is very helpful to have a method within the law for protecting ownership rights short of always involving lawyers at substantial and on-going costs. Every once in a while my organization has to send out a DMCA take down notice against those who are using our trademarks to sell counterfeit merchandise. If the DMCA were not in force and we had to file a lawsuit over every small act of infringement, we would not be able to afford to protect our rights. On the other hand, we once also faced a scum bag lawyer who fraudulently abused the DMCA (under the penalty of perjury) and caused us huge problems because of the incompetence of Network Solutions. We had to remedy that situation in court.
I don't hate the DMCA like the vast majority of
The DMCA is a legal tool that can either be used properly or misused. The most important thing for web hosts and other service providers to do is to abide by the protocol established by the Act for handling take-downs and counter-notices and to publish a DMCA policy that recognizes that protocol. Unfortunately, in hotly contested situations many web hosts will be more responsive to the threats of abusive lawyers than to the letter of the federal law and their own stated policies. A lot of providers don't publish any information on how they handle DMCA notices, and that is a problem. YMMV.
. . . is fine with me, even if the headline was substantially inaccurate. Be sure to check out the full MST3K 135GB torrent!
Unfortunately I agree with the parent poster. Judaism has it's ugly sides.
You may think there are ugly sides. I don't. You seem to be preoccupied with a belief that there is widespread teaching of domination in Judaism. The problem is, you also miss the point and didn't recognize the distinction I pointed to, which is unfortunate because it's very easy to understand. As I told that Jew-hater Plutonite, there is only one part of the world where Jews are allowed and commanded religiously to be dominant, and that is the Land of Israel. Jews cannot be domineering anywhere else in the world according to the Torah, only that relatively small portion of land. In contrast, Muslims are told to spread Islamic domination across the entire world. I know that I'm repeating myself, but until people like you and Plutonite bother to put your biases aside and look at the truth of what I'm presenting instead of ignoring it, I'll continue to repeat myself.
The Jews, ever so scholarly (which is a really good thing) have numbered all their laws, or "mitzvot".
That's correct, 613 of them.
And I'm truly sorry to be asking this, but, dear "Apple Acolyte", have you done your 355'th law justice lately ? The one about burning cities ? There are certainly enough cities that deserve burning according to Judaism's conditions.
Um, actually, you're misinformed as to your numbering. The 355th Mitzvah, according to Maimonides's list, is to carry out of the procedure of the guilt offering. You're right that there is a Mitzvah calling for the burning down of cities that revert to idolatry, but again that only applies to Jewish cities in the Land of Israel that are openly disobeying the Torah. And, there are a number of Mitzvot such as that one that by design must be carried out by the authority of the country's religious assembly, once referred to as the Sanhedrin. If I were to list all of the Mitzvot concerning charity, compassion for the widow and the orphan, regard for the well-being of others, including even one's enemies, would that make any difference to you? If I were to mention that Christianity did not invent "Love your neighbor," that that's also a Torah mitzvah, would that have any effect on your view?
I realise that Israel has very good behavior, and you're obviously right, racism based on genes does not exist in Israel. There are so many good things about Israel that numbering them would not be possible.
Thank you very much for recognizing that fact. Of course, there will probably be some degree of racism in the dark corners of any society on earth, but those who claim there's a class system separating Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in Israel is absolutely wrong.
Racism based on religion, although certainly nowhere near as cruel as the muslim racism, is alive and well in Israel. And yes I realise why this is, and I would not want Israel to change this, because the consequences are to dire to discuss.
I would say you're probably thinking of the term discrimination instead of racism when speaking about religion, but again I have to disagree with you. Arab citizens of Israel have more rights than their cousins in Arab countries, including full voting rights. They get to elect Arabs to Israel's parliament, the Knesset, who routinely denounce the existence of Israel in its own national assembly. Arabs build new towns in Israel without getting government permits; when Jews do the same thing the towns get torn down. (Israel is afraid to enforce its laws against its Arabs but not against its Jews.) Arabs even have much wider free speech rights than Jews. Jews get thrown into jail for simple free speech rights that Israel is afraid will incite Arab passions, but Arabs get to defame Jews and the Jewish state without similar fear of arrest. Jews employ Arabs in their businesses, often for the cheaper labor, but they still do it, while many Jews there can't find
The only reason Judaism isn't as active on the conversion issue is because of the clear tendency towards racism in the old testament. Even today the ashkenazi and sephardi divisions persist. And the people who are "chosen", in the central theme of the faith, do not have to worry so much about the goyyim, who largely don't matter, and are inferior in the most literal of ways.
Actually, there was conversion practiced in the time of the Torah account. Abraham converted many to proto-Judaism. Ashkenazi and Sephardi divions may persist to some degree in certain insular communities in the exile, but the distinction is largely disappearing in Israel. I'm in love with a Sephardic Israeli girl, and I'm Ashkenazi. You're just a pathetic Jew-hater.
What you have to understand is that you are talking about books written millenia ago. Do not try to make any of them appear civilized or rational, because they are not. The Torah contains some of the most sickening passages of bloodshed and massacre in the entire biblical history - the God of the new testament is actually known to be more 'merciful'.
Uh huh. You don't substantiate any of those very vitriolic claims. There was bloodshed in Biblical times just as there is bloodshed today. So what? If you had a verse or a teaching from the Torah that you could point to that you find so objectionable, you would have referenced it directly. You're full of it. Judaism has done more to civilize the world than any other single force.
There is no rationality in the tales of religion. The muslim fanatics can kill in the name of religious hegemony, and the jewish nutjobs can kill in the name of their superiority and their divine rights and chosen blood.
You'll point it out to me when right-wing Jews blow themselves up to kill "infidels," teach their children to be murderers and martyrs, hijack planes in order to fly them into buildings, and pass out candy in celebration of the death of the "infidel." Funny, that kind of thing doesn't occur. There's no way to draw any equivalence between Islamic barbarism and anything at all comparable on the Jewish side, you fool.
Ask yourself why the more religious right wing Jews are the ones who are warmongering, disgusting war criminals, whereas the secular ones have always called for peace.
Uh huh. Just who would those war criminals be? I suppose you think Arafat, YM"SH, was a hero, right? Israel has always pursued peace. Senile old war hero Ariel Sharon's master plan to disengage from Gaza (by ethnically cleansing Israelis there) was sold to Israel as a way to gain peace with Gaza, and he was one of the most right-wing Israeli leaders.
Who killed Isaac Rabin?
Most likely the Israeli government, based on what's known about the assassination, and it was blamed on Yigal Amir, who appears to be a patsy. And no one in the public, not even what you'd call the extreme Jewish right-wing, wanted that to happen.
Do you think you know more about these wars and this mess than they do?
Yeah, I actually do. I do know for a fact that I know more than some jerk-off Arabist toady who has most likely never been to the country he denounces and has only a Jew-hater's understanding of Judaism.
There wouldn't be a single practising jew today if 'disbelieving' had no consequences.
What? That statement makes absolutely no sense. Those who don't believe in Judaism don't practice it. A huge portion of Je
Uh, like what? And please don't say Video Toaster.
If it's a financial document, a record that may have tax reporting ramifications, or some other substantial document, it should be available indefinitely. I can accept having to make a request for an older record that has been archived by the system; as long as it's available within a week or so then I'm fine. But if we're going to rely on online billing and statements, we have to have a reasonable expectations that those important documents will be available for retrieval in the event we need them at some point a number of years down the line. If not, the company providing the documents should, at the very least, let customers know up front that the documents will only be available for a certain amount of time and that those documents should be backed up by their clients. All statements should be available in PDF form for easy archiving, in addition to whatever other native browser form they may be found in. For non-essential documents, much shorter retention time frames can be acceptable, as long as the company's retention policies are clearly explained to customers.
"the light focused by the mirrors' perfectly curved surfaces provides a major advantage over other fish."
:-D
I guess that's evolution for you, with all of its perfectly curved surfaces. One hell of a design for having no designer other than selection and millions of years of trial and error, right? That's how one perfects complex genetic encoding, right? Really makes a lot of sense to so many of you, doesn't it?
The problem with lumping all religions together in the fashion you do is that not all religions are guilty of what you accuse them all of. For instance, while your statement that religions foster in their adherents an, "unconditional feeling of enmity towards all others who don't follow their version of The One Way" certainly applies to a great degree to Islam, it certainly does not apply to Judaism. Judaism has always taught that there are many paths to God and salvation, and while Judaism does teach that its views are the correct ones and proper for Jews to hold, it also acknowledges that the other nations of the world have their own wisdom; Judaism specifically prohibits its adherents from actively seeking converts or in any way pressuring others to discard their religions in favor of Judaism.
In contrast, Islam teaches that the whole world is divided into the world of submission (to Islam) against the world of war (which is against Islam) and that Muslims have certain obligations to wage jihad and actively seek converts through violent means.
Judaism serves as much of the basis for the other two monotheistic faiths that sprang from it, Christianity and Islam. And I'm sure that if you read the holy texts of Judaism, you'd realize that even for a secular, atheistic person, the words are replete with powerful, very positive morals and standards of behavior. Judaism teaches for example, one to care for his family, to love his neighbor, to act ethically at all times, and even to act with a certain level of kindness toward one's enemies. I'm betting that you have little understanding of Judaism while assailing all religions.
Muslims control 99% of the lands referred to as the Middle East. Israel controls a bit less than 1% of that land. Muslims are in control of 52 sovereign countries, 22 of which are ethnically Arab by majority. There is only one Jewish country Israel, a country so tiny that you could easily miss it on a map. Israel is on a small percentage of a greater area of land that some of us religious Jews refer to as Greater Israel, which is closer in area to the original Palestine Mandate that Lord Balfour declared should be set aside as a whole as the Jewish homeland, in recognition of the historical bond between the land of Israel and the Jewish people. (The Land of Israel was the land of the ancient Biblical Commonwealths of Israel.)
The religion of Islam does not place any restrictions on the level of conquest of its adherents. In fact, Islam commands its subjects to bring the entire world to subjugation to Islam. Judaism, on the other hand, normally seeks peace with the other powers of the world. Jews pray for peace constantly. While in exile, Jews are commanded to be loyal to the country they live in, and religious Jews are taught not to engage in the politics of the foreign country they reside in but rather to let non-Jews rule over them. But there is one exception: The Land of Israel. Judaism teaches the Jew to love and value the Land of Israel. It is one of the most important aspects of Judaism. It is a land grant that Jews believe is their possession, an eternal grant from God, is of supreme importance. That small area of the world is the only place on earth where Jews are religiously entitled to live. There is no possibility of having a homeland for the Jewish people anywhere else, and Jews would never make a religious claim to any other piece of land than the land of their forefathers.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, even non-religious Jews saw the great value of restoring Jewish sovereignty over the ancient homeland. And just as prophesied in the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish people, after a long and crushing exile, began to return home to the land of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, of King David, of King Solomon, etc, etc.
Israel today is a country very tired of war, literally traumatized by it in many ways, since it has been forced to fight for its survival perpetually ever since it gained statehood in modern ti
They have. 550 so far and counting... Or are you one of these retards who thinks that Israel, as the invader and military occupier of Palestine for 40 years, is somehow not the aggressor?
Are you one of these retards who thinks that Israel still has any presence in Gaza? Israel quit Gaza years ago, removing its military installations and making it Juden-rein by eliminating Jewish homes like Gush Katif in 2005. That's right, Israel ethnically cleansed Jews out of Gaza (part of the land of Israel), based on the false promise of the Israeli left that doing so would lead to peace with Gazans. But instead of fostering peace by ending the so-called Israeli "occupation of Gaza" (a misnomer because Israel can't be occupying land technically and morally its own), the overtly terroristic, antagonistic Hamas (which vows never to recognize Israel) was elected by the "poor, oppressed" Arabs of Gaza, and Hamas launched thousands of rockets on Israeli civilians - 7,500 from 2001-2009. Rockets were fired even when there was a supposed cease-fire. How long was Israel supposed to quietly endure open warfare from Hamas on its citizens? How long was Israel supposed to neglect is obligation as a sovereign country to protect the lives and property of its citizens? Apparently, according to radical Muslim-lovers like you, the answer would be never. Learn this: Jews will not willingly march into ovens or go in front of machine guns, submissively accepting another Holocaust.
You tarnish an otherwise reasonable post by saying down with Judaism and every other religion, since you betray your ignorance of religion. You don't have any appreciation for religion. You don't know why Jews believe what they believe, or why any other religious group holds to its beliefs, yet you condemn them all in a blanket fashion. Such blatant provincial ignorance from a haughty atheist. As a religious Jew, I have strong religious differences with religious Christians, but I also have respect for many Christian beliefs and the right Christians have to their beliefs. I also have huge problems with Arabs and Muslims due to the immense amount of Jew-hatred produced by the Arab/Muslim world (that often turns violent), and additionally I have strong religious differences with Islam, but even then I also have respect for many Islamic beliefs as well as the right of Muslims to practice their religion - as long as they do not unjustly threaten others in the process. I feel sorry for you due to your excessive narrow-mindedness and inability to appreciate beliefs divergent from your own.
Gazans can vote for a party that calls for the destruction of Israel. They can justify it by claiming that they voted that way due to local issues and as a vote against Fatah's corruption. They can accept Hamas using their civilian infrastructure (mosques, schools, machine shops, etc.) to make and store weapons of war. They can allow Hamas to launch rockets with impunity from said civilian centers. They can launch 7500 rockets into Israel between 2001-2009. Yes, they can do all of those things. But in turn, Israel has the right and the obligation to protect its citizens from attack. If that means a very costly air campaign, then that's Israel's decision. If that means a costly ground incursion, that's Israel's choice, too. Hamas started the war and kept it going for years while Israel did nothing. Now Israel will hopefully finish the war on its terms. If I were in charge, I would make Gaza into a parking lot, but that's just my opinion. And btw, not all Muslims are terrorists, but no Muslim I've heard from yet wants to lay the responsibility for this war where it belongs: on his/her fellow Arabs. I know they're out there, but it seems the vast majority at least condone Arab/Muslim terrorism.
I am about as anti-government as one will come across, but I'm pretty sure that the FCC's technical regulation of the broadcast spectrum falls within Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. It's the content restrictions that are questionable on 1st Amendment grounds.