You mean we should have actually THOUGHT about this and responded according to facts and logic, rather than just blindly assuming one side is right because it feels good?
Next you'll be telling us to use proper spelling and grammer.
Hell, they'll probably set up a few darknets of their own, as "loss leaders" in their quest to fuck as many people out of as much money as possible.
How are they 'fucking' people out of money by selling CDs? Jesus, you'd think they were going round to people's houses robbing them rather than just doing business. All they're doing is closing down illegal trading.
In case you weren't aware, piracy is illegal, selling CDs is legal, the RIAA aren't doing anything wrong. If people understood and respected the law, there wouldn't be any need for all this hassle.
Some people on this site seem to think piracy is acceptable, rather than a petty crime, and think pirates are noble crusaders against the evil corporations, rather than just cheapskates.
Driving it underground is probably beneficial. The harder it is to do something, the fewer people there are who'll go to the trouble. Eventually only hardcore hackers will bother with piracy, most people will switch to legal means of getting their music/films.
That's what most of this discussion sounds like to me: a load of nerds droning on and on about something else that 99% of people don't give a damn about.
It strikes me as funny how Slashdot whines when computer game developers concentrate on graphics rather than gameplay.
Now Nintendo comes along and concentrates on gameplay, and Slashdot whines about the graphics. Make your minds up!
Outside of a very small segment of people in America and Japan, the rest of the world doesn't have and doesn't care about HDTV. Most people have probably never heard of it.
Have you ever considered that people might buy one to PLAY GAMES on it, rather than think about the resolution?
Nintendo has the only profitable console because they're more interested in making it enjoyable to play, not aiming it at anorak-wearing geeks who spend their entire lives tweaking FPSs to get higher framerates.
but why would anybody even consider buying a non-HD TV for their main living room set these days?
Why would anyone even consider buying a HD TV? Absolutely no-one has them, no-one broadcasts in it, what's the point? It's just more expense. Cheaper to get a digital box thing, or Sky digital.
It defeats the whole point of a school uniform if you're allowed to ignore it because you're in a cult. If that's the case then maybe I should have joined a cult where you have to wear trainers rather than proper shoes, but I don't think I'd have been allowed to get away with it.
Seems if you're muslim you can get away with anything because people are too scared to tell you not to, because it's not politically correct. I know that if I for instance went into a bank dressed as a ninja I'd be arrested.
Ever thought that some of these patents are on inventions that wouldn't have been invented without a patent system to protect the often large investment?
It's easy to karma-whore by spouting the party rhetoric, but actually THINKING rather than REACTING would make the comments on this site interesting and insightful rather than predictable and formulaic.
Unfortuanately OSX is more expensive and runs on proprietary hardware, and doesn't run a lot of necessary software, thereby making it an unsuitable alternative.
and a more socially responsible business model
More socially responsible how? IBM are no better than Microsoft, neither are Apple. This is just another vague MS-bashing post with zero substance but gets modded up because it plays to the crowd.
Why should Microsoft have to pay? They haven't done anything wrong. He's the one in the wrong, not them. If someone starts using my trademark, I'm going to stop them using it, I'm not going to pay them off.
It's not about the money, it's about the principle. People shouldn't be allowed to steal trademarks, whether you're a big corporation or not. Good on Microsoft, I'm behind them all the way on this.
Go on, call me a shill and mod me down because you can't believe that someone could possibly not hate Microsoft and everything they do, even when they're right.
What a nice way to treat your customers
If you own a shop, and someone comes in and pisses all over the floor, will you throw them out, or would you consider it a bad way to treat your customers?
The first ammendment doesn't guarantee free speech, it stops the government passing laws against it. As far as I'm aware, the government has passed no law here, so the constitution does not apply.
This is like my company firing me for being in a pub brawl.
That happens. For example people have been sacked for being photographed in the newspapers engaging in football hooliganism.
This whole article is a massive troll. The Supreme Court has NOTHING at all to do with a school's policies. The constitution is irrelevent. What is it with these questions at the end of article summaries? As if we're not capable of thinking up our own discussions.
Seems every time someone anywhere in the world is restricted from doing anything they want, if the Internet or computers are remotely involved, Slashdot will whine about it.
Public transport can get you to many places quickly and easily.
Except cars get you to many more places, and many more times of the day, and they get you there quicker and more easily. If you live on a busroute and are going to somewhere on a busroute, and only travel at specific times, and the weather's fine, and you're not carrying anything, yeah public transport's OK.
There are bike roads virtually everywhere, making cycling efficient and safe.
Except when you live more than a few miles away, and when it's not pissing it down with rain. And again when you're not carrying anything. And when you're fully fit with no injuries or strains.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean we should have actually THOUGHT about this and responded according to facts and logic, rather than just blindly assuming one side is right because it feels good?
Next you'll be telling us to use proper spelling and grammer.
Hell, they'll probably set up a few darknets of their own, as "loss leaders" in their quest to fuck as many people out of as much money as possible.
How are they 'fucking' people out of money by selling CDs? Jesus, you'd think they were going round to people's houses robbing them rather than just doing business. All they're doing is closing down illegal trading.
In case you weren't aware, piracy is illegal, selling CDs is legal, the RIAA aren't doing anything wrong. If people understood and respected the law, there wouldn't be any need for all this hassle.
Some people on this site seem to think piracy is acceptable, rather than a petty crime, and think pirates are noble crusaders against the evil corporations, rather than just cheapskates.
Driving it underground is probably beneficial. The harder it is to do something, the fewer people there are who'll go to the trouble. Eventually only hardcore hackers will bother with piracy, most people will switch to legal means of getting their music/films.
Not necessarily illegal, but I hardly think they're being used primarly to trade legal files.
You could have told me, it's fucking freezing where I live.
That raises some questions:
1. How much of the carbon dioxide levels are controlled by avoidable human activity?
2. How much does the human-produced CO2 actually effect the climate?
Therefore, what are the exact numbers for which human activity is directly controlling the climate?
Or a secretary?
Read the above comment in Comic Book Guy voice.
That's what most of this discussion sounds like to me: a load of nerds droning on and on about something else that 99% of people don't give a damn about.
It strikes me as funny how Slashdot whines when computer game developers concentrate on graphics rather than gameplay.
Now Nintendo comes along and concentrates on gameplay, and Slashdot whines about the graphics. Make your minds up!
Outside of a very small segment of people in America and Japan, the rest of the world doesn't have and doesn't care about HDTV. Most people have probably never heard of it.
Have you ever considered that people might buy one to PLAY GAMES on it, rather than think about the resolution?
Nintendo has the only profitable console because they're more interested in making it enjoyable to play, not aiming it at anorak-wearing geeks who spend their entire lives tweaking FPSs to get higher framerates.
but why would anybody even consider buying a non-HD TV for their main living room set these days?
Why would anyone even consider buying a HD TV? Absolutely no-one has them, no-one broadcasts in it, what's the point? It's just more expense. Cheaper to get a digital box thing, or Sky digital.
Phantom of the Opera is just the same few seconds of music over and over again.
It defeats the whole point of a school uniform if you're allowed to ignore it because you're in a cult. If that's the case then maybe I should have joined a cult where you have to wear trainers rather than proper shoes, but I don't think I'd have been allowed to get away with it.
Seems if you're muslim you can get away with anything because people are too scared to tell you not to, because it's not politically correct. I know that if I for instance went into a bank dressed as a ninja I'd be arrested.
Religion is an anachronism.
All that shit doesn't sell.
What sells:
Crosswords
Soduko
Comics
Horoscopes
Tits
Ever thought that some of these patents are on inventions that wouldn't have been invented without a patent system to protect the often large investment?
It's easy to karma-whore by spouting the party rhetoric, but actually THINKING rather than REACTING would make the comments on this site interesting and insightful rather than predictable and formulaic.
I can give them 10 out of 10 with fewer bugs
Unfortuanately OSX is more expensive and runs on proprietary hardware, and doesn't run a lot of necessary software, thereby making it an unsuitable alternative.
and a more socially responsible business model
More socially responsible how? IBM are no better than Microsoft, neither are Apple. This is just another vague MS-bashing post with zero substance but gets modded up because it plays to the crowd.
Why should Microsoft have to pay? They haven't done anything wrong. He's the one in the wrong, not them. If someone starts using my trademark, I'm going to stop them using it, I'm not going to pay them off.
It's not about the money, it's about the principle. People shouldn't be allowed to steal trademarks, whether you're a big corporation or not. Good on Microsoft, I'm behind them all the way on this.
Go on, call me a shill and mod me down because you can't believe that someone could possibly not hate Microsoft and everything they do, even when they're right.
What a nice way to treat your customers
If you own a shop, and someone comes in and pisses all over the floor, will you throw them out, or would you consider it a bad way to treat your customers?
Not all customers are wanted.
I've used X-Windows.
No, you've used the X Window System, or just 'X'.
This article is a complete non-event. Yet again, Microsoft does something, therefore they're evil and the Slashbots are foaming at the mouth.
You know very well that if it was Google or Apple who was after someone stealing their trademark, Slashdot would be on their side.
The first ammendment doesn't guarantee free speech, it stops the government passing laws against it. As far as I'm aware, the government has passed no law here, so the constitution does not apply.
This is like my company firing me for being in a pub brawl.
That happens. For example people have been sacked for being photographed in the newspapers engaging in football hooliganism.
This whole article is a massive troll. The Supreme Court has NOTHING at all to do with a school's policies. The constitution is irrelevent. What is it with these questions at the end of article summaries? As if we're not capable of thinking up our own discussions.
Seems every time someone anywhere in the world is restricted from doing anything they want, if the Internet or computers are remotely involved, Slashdot will whine about it.
Who would pay $500 for a 0.2$ stake in a tiny satellite?
Public transport can get you to many places quickly and easily.
Except cars get you to many more places, and many more times of the day, and they get you there quicker and more easily. If you live on a busroute and are going to somewhere on a busroute, and only travel at specific times, and the weather's fine, and you're not carrying anything, yeah public transport's OK.
There are bike roads virtually everywhere, making cycling efficient and safe.
Except when you live more than a few miles away, and when it's not pissing it down with rain. And again when you're not carrying anything. And when you're fully fit with no injuries or strains.
There's a reason people like cars.
Unfortuanately, planned cities end up looking like Milton Keynes.
Of course, there were free elections in the Soviet Union, and China is a bastion of freedom and democracy.
It'll end up like IRC, and soon people will be loading up
!!!!!!!!!100%INTERNETEXPLORER
or
!!!!!!!!~f1ref0x