If most/a lot of people are using Firefox instead of IE, they aren't going to let future applications be IE-only. Switching away from MS/IE is never an easy job, but switching to firefox is an easier step than switching to linux.
Yeah, just like I'm allowed to walk in to the movie theater at any time because I bought a ticket but didn't show up to watch the movie. Oh wait... I'm not. If you didn't watch it when it ran on TV, its your own damn fault. Buy a VCR, rent it from a video store, get on-demand TV.
I'm not shedding any tears for the MPAA, but stop making ridiculous excuses to justify your infringement. If you think $100/month is too much, don't pay for it. Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to get cable TV.
The MPAA is well within its rights to sue people that distribute unauthorized copies of their content. It's when they try and do things like get P2P outlawed that they cross the line. That's not happening in this case though.
It's their copyrighted material... whether they do the best they can to make money from it, or shove it up their ass is their business. You can't infringe on their copyright and then justify it on grounds that that's what they ought to be doing.
Recording for your personal use is fair use. Distributing that recording over the internet is not.
Whether they are bleeding money or not is besides the point. The OP accused the MS execs of insider trading... i.e. propping up the stock while they dump their shares.
keep the stock up while the insiders unload their shares.
Do you have any evidence that this is happening, or do you just throw around accusations of crimimal activity with nothing to back it up? Wouldn't surprise me, given that ACs typically munch on babies between Slashdot posts.
Things don't have to be unanimous... you can always find a small number of counter examples to anything. And the definition of a contraversial issue has nothing to do with having companies on both sides. You're forgetting a little entity called "citizens".
Anyhow, given you're posting history, you're obviously either a troll or an idiot, so I'm not going to waste any more time responding to you.
Ah ha. So finally we get to the core of the issue. The DMCA was paid off politicians returning favors to their corporate overlords. The Clipper chip was about government paranoia regarding encryption, and fought by the industry. There's absolutely no connection between the two, and no reason why one who supported one would be likely to support the other.
Without getting into questions of whether or not this specific case has merit, your argument is meaningless. Should they wait till after their business has been hurt to file suit? If some guy was brandishing a gun at you would you wait till there's a piece of lead in your skull to take action?
You may not agree with Nazi phoilosophy (I most certainly don't) but banning someone just because they are a Nazi is an abuse of editor privilages, IMO. Of course, if they had a persistent track record of making inflamatory and/or POV edits that's a different matter.
Of course, whether or not you abused privileges on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the validity of your post here.
A lot sooner than other distros
on
GCC 4.0.0 Released
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Well, it already does, so wipe that smirk off your face and try be less ignorant in the future.
So you didn't read the article, didn't even try looking up any basic facts or numbers, or even read other peoples comments, but you find it fit to disagree with one of the top experts in the field?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry. I've got mod points. I've got you covered.
it is a little worrying though....
Only if you hold it in your mouth for days on end.
Plus I like having my mouth free of limescale.
If most/a lot of people are using Firefox instead of IE, they aren't going to let future applications be IE-only. Switching away from MS/IE is never an easy job, but switching to firefox is an easier step than switching to linux.
Yeah, just like I'm allowed to walk in to the movie theater at any time because I bought a ticket but didn't show up to watch the movie. Oh wait... I'm not. If you didn't watch it when it ran on TV, its your own damn fault. Buy a VCR, rent it from a video store, get on-demand TV.
I'm not shedding any tears for the MPAA, but stop making ridiculous excuses to justify your infringement. If you think $100/month is too much, don't pay for it. Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to get cable TV.
The MPAA is well within its rights to sue people that distribute unauthorized copies of their content. It's when they try and do things like get P2P outlawed that they cross the line. That's not happening in this case though.
Which is why the uploaders are the ones that get sued. Of course with Bittorrent everyone is an uploader
It's their copyrighted material... whether they do the best they can to make money from it, or shove it up their ass is their business. You can't infringe on their copyright and then justify it on grounds that that's what they ought to be doing.
Recording for your personal use is fair use. Distributing that recording over the internet is not.
Bill Clinton, is that you?
Oh that's right. I forgot that you can download the dead animals over the Internet these days. Sorry.
I was going to mod you down but I'm too scared
(no I really wasn't... that was the funiest thing I've read in a while)
Except most hunters don't eat the animals they hunt or utilize it in any way. Especially not when the hunting is being done over the Internet.
Whether they are bleeding money or not is besides the point. The OP accused the MS execs of insider trading... i.e. propping up the stock while they dump their shares.
keep the stock up while the insiders unload their shares.
Do you have any evidence that this is happening, or do you just throw around accusations of crimimal activity with nothing to back it up? Wouldn't surprise me, given that ACs typically munch on babies between Slashdot posts.
Things don't have to be unanimous... you can always find a small number of counter examples to anything. And the definition of a contraversial issue has nothing to do with having companies on both sides. You're forgetting a little entity called "citizens".
Anyhow, given you're posting history, you're obviously either a troll or an idiot, so I'm not going to waste any more time responding to you.
Ah ha. So finally we get to the core of the issue. The DMCA was paid off politicians returning favors to their corporate overlords. The Clipper chip was about government paranoia regarding encryption, and fought by the industry. There's absolutely no connection between the two, and no reason why one who supported one would be likely to support the other.
Nice, albeit nonsensical tagline. How does the government benefit from the DMCA?
What do the two have to do with each other besides the fact they they both use cryptography?
Large volume resellers get big discounts. Deal with it. There's nothing "unfair" about it.
What? A Slashdot poster that makes sense?! This can't be allowed to stand. You'll be banned soon enough to keep groupthink intact.
These days?
As far as i know individual firewire runs can only be 4.5m and need repeaters to operate over longer distances.
Without getting into questions of whether or not this specific case has merit, your argument is meaningless. Should they wait till after their business has been hurt to file suit? If some guy was brandishing a gun at you would you wait till there's a piece of lead in your skull to take action?
And this is why our country is racing towards mediocrity. OOh lets just drop our standards!
You may not agree with Nazi phoilosophy (I most certainly don't) but banning someone just because they are a Nazi is an abuse of editor privilages, IMO. Of course, if they had a persistent track record of making inflamatory and/or POV edits that's a different matter.
Of course, whether or not you abused privileges on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the validity of your post here.
Well, it already does, so wipe that smirk off your face and try be less ignorant in the future.
So you didn't read the article, didn't even try looking up any basic facts or numbers, or even read other peoples comments, but you find it fit to disagree with one of the top experts in the field?