Typically a scam artist in another country like Nigeria
I gathered that, but there isn't the slightest proof it is from another country. If anyone actually daed to install the app, maybe there are more clues in it. Until then it seems an unwarranted conclusion.
Answering myself:
the submitter seems to have ineptly reworded somthing from one of the sources PacketFour:
The company behind it all, RockSoftDevelopment, has a very unprofessional website and interestingly enough, has its domain WHOIS information masked. Its domain servers are registered as NS1.DOWNLOADFILES.ORG and NS2, and www.downloadfiles.org is just a picture of a Israeli star. (star of David) Looks like someone overseas is tryin' to make a few bucks off good ol' Mike!
The use of "oversea", aside from being a rather antique Britush usage, is a big assumption, seemingly based on the single clue of the website having a Star of David. I realise Americans are getting more xenophobic by the day, but try not to blame those scheming furriners without some proof. (I'm manfully resisting making analogies with your president's actions.)
Lets sell a hobbled, half assed version of an operating system when the person can buy the same thing for less than what they're going to charge for the half assed version.
I'd guess the target market is not home users, but small businesses, who mostly just need to run one or two apps, and don't care about gaming-quality graphics.
And such businesses can have the licensed Cheapo-XP boxes prominently displayed, and actually have the real thing installed. It wouldn't stand up to close comparison, but I doubt the checks in Thailand will be very thorough, especially if you have a few purple notes to slip the inspectprs.
> don't know what, aside from a few very old printers and modems, you'd really miss as far as ADB serial goes
A good Kensington trackball will last a decade, and a good-sized Wacom table can easily be worth as much as your computer.
Well, if the many ADB-USB converters have problems, I read of a guy who networked an old Mac to use as a bridge to connect old peripherals to a new Mac. Certainly worked for SCSI, can't remember if ADB as well.
Otherwise I suppose the usual answer is to sell the old peripherals and buy new ones. The prices for old Mac hardware is still high, lots of people sticking with old Macs.
Except I'm not asking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, just a single instance where you can say an interview was probably denyed because of who footage was given to. As you can't even meet this increadibly low threshold, I'll put the theory in the same category as the fake Moon landing and the communist plot to flourinate our water supply. Nah, make that lower; those conspiracy theorist actually try to back up their accusations.
Well, you've certainly convinced me. Four More Years!
Bush's interview with NBC is NOT a public statement, that's why NBC was allowed...
Correct in a narrow legal sense. But nevertheless, he wasn't chatting with a reporter off the record, or in a private meeting, he was performing knowing it was going to be broadcast. It was certainly a statement to the public, and should be considered part of the public record. As the article said, ifit came to court NBC probably would fail to prevent the use of a clip from that, but they still tried to use legal intimidation to keep it from being used.
>Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."
That's not true. John Kerry is anti-offshoring.
And in the link referenced, all it says is that Marc Andreessen (Formerly Netscape, now an offshoring advocate amongst other things) supports Kerry DESPITE Kerry's stated opposition to offshoring, because "Bush no longer represents a better alternative on trade and globalization issues".
If it can't be proven then the position is simply a matter of faith and has no real place in rational discussion (and certainly no place as an article on a news site), don't you think?
No.
This isn't a news site, it's a site for commenting on the news.
There's a large difference between legal standards of proof, and "knowing", on the balance of probabilities, what is happening. See for instance OJ Simpson.
Political choices are a matter of judging character and motives, neither of which are subject to concrete proof. Since I have a pretty low opinion of Bush's character already, naturally I lean towards explanations supporting that point of view.
No, but surely you can at least show a causal link somewhere, right?
No, it's unprovable. The point is that if he continues to give interviews preferentially to "news" shows with such policies, he endorses their actions. But you're free to interpret this in other ways, and surely it's not him personally and directly but his staff who do this unbidden.
GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.
Not Moore: "In August, Robert Greenwald will release an updated version of his award-winning film, Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War. Greenwald has added a clip of President George W. Bush's February interview..."
Yes, but you fail to explain how it's GWB who is using Copyright law to censor when NBC is denying the footage. I honestly don't think the submiter got past the first couple sentences of the article before he rushed off to do the write up.
I RTFA. The point was that Bush does very few interviews, and so media are so concerned about losing that privilege that they will self-censor and not allow reuse of interviews that put him in a bad light. Bush doesn't have to say anything, but by only offering interviews with companies that toe the line, he is endorsing their attempts to intimidate using copyright. This would be fair enough if he was a movie star concerned about controlling his image, but as a paragon of American values, including free speech, he should hold to a higher standard, and should explicitly allow free use of his public statements.
When Apple eliminated onboard SCSI, Serial and ADB they made ALL of my peripherals obsolete.
For all desktops, (except the later iMacs), you could buy a SCSI card. I don't know what, aside from a few very old printers and modems, you'd really miss as far as ADB serial goes, but there were converters for most of these if you really wanted. Anyway, before then ethernet was already standard, and much easier and cheaper to use than other protocols.
If anything, this is a good reason to have a policy of ALWAYS deleting email after a short amount of time.
A few years ago I took my former employer to court for late payment of wages. Against his claims that I had agreed to being paid late I produced printouts of emails I had sent over a period of two years complaining about this. So it would have been a good company policy, but not necessarily in the interests of the staff when they are in any dispute with the company, or are being set up to be the scapegoat for some transgressions of the bosses. If any of your team are caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self-destruct in 10 seconds.
Actually I had backed up my entire email correspondence for almost 10 years into one zip file of about 20 MB. That's lot of correspondence. The average message comes in at about 2-4 kb. I think now with the current fashion of using HTML mail, or even worse, attached DOC files, the average is at least 10 and perhaps 100 times that now. I understand Outlook stores all your mail in one single binary file of undocumented structure, mine is in Unix MBX format. Given all that I'd guess that the vast proportion of email storage is huge slabs of [div][font Arial Helvetica size=2] [/font][/div] and so on. These days for my personal email I strip it back to plain text before archiving it.
Have you seen one of these cables? They are actually quite thick and strong, so wirecutters would not have any effect other than slicing the outer skin.
I've cut a few cable locks, usually when the lock has jammed or rusted. First strip away the plastic sheath with a sharp knife, a few inches. You may find that the steel cable is actually quite thin, especially cheap light cables are mostly plastic, and the clear plastic magnifies the apparent thickness.
If you have wire or cable cutters, just keep gnawing away at it, cutting one strand at a time. Or a hacksaw, though that's hard unless you can rest the cable on a flat surface. Another possibility is a plumber's pipe cutter, which come in pocket sizes. Clamp it on, spin it around the cable a few times, tighten, repeat. With all of these once you've got a few strands cut it's much easier, and flexing it repeatedly may then snap those you've partially cut.
>Bradbury,.... Basically, I think he just hates Moore.
Yes, since Bradbury didn't want any confusion to lead to him being associated with an extreme political view, he must therefore hold personal hate in his heart for Michael Moore.
I assume you're trying to be ironic. Actually, I looked that up before I posted and it appears, to my surprise, to be true.
Ray Bradbury: "Michael Moore is an asshole"
"Michael Moore is a screwed asshole, that is what I think about that case. He stole my title and changed the numbers without ever asking me for permission."
However, this is a translation from a Swedish interview, and as it was made by a right-wing blogger, may not be a neutral representation of Bradbury's views.
Anyway, in my opinion, it'd be absurd for anyone, including Bradbury, to argue that there would be "confusion" associating him with Moore's views. Anyone who gets the reference is aware that it's primarily a pun. Refer to the titles of Bradbury's books Something Wicked This Way Comes (Shakespeare); I Sing The Body Electric! (Whitman), Golden Apples of the Sun (Yeats). Bradbury didn't need anyone's permission to use these (even if the authors had been alive), and no one is thinking that Shakespreare endorses his books.
As Ray Bradbury (author of Fahrenheit 451) recently found out, he could not prevent "Fahrenheit 9-11" from being titled as such because one cannot copyright a title.
Well, you're right that you can't copyright a title, but the two titles you mention are quite different, and the name "Fahrebheit" belongs to neither Bradbury nor Moore. I'm amazed that Bradbury thought he had a claim on it. Bradbury, like most writers, has often titled his stories with quotes from poems or other literary works. Basically, I think he just hates Moore.
Pretending for a minute that the persons were both in the US, I think that automatic copyright thing you mentioned only lasts three years. You have to file copyright in those three years.
No, wrong.
10 Big Myths about copyright explained
1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
No they don't, but if you decide not too then other people are free to use your domain name as... say... the title of a book..
1) You can't copyright a single (or two) words.
2) Copyright doesn't prevent someone using it as a book title. Notice, for instance, that there many books (and movies and songs) with the same title.
As usual in these discussions, you are thinking of trademarks. In this case the website Katie could probably challenge the trademark the author Katie has on "Katie.com", except that it'd cost her a fortune she doesn't have.
Therefore anybody was/is allowed to use the words "Katie.com" as the title of a book. (This is confirmed bt the fact that the owner of the domain never did anything against the publishers of the book.)
If you RTFA, the owner of Katie.com did bitterly complain to the publishers and author many times. But she recognised the futility and massive expense of taking a media giant to court about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I gathered that, but there isn't the slightest proof it is from another country. If anyone actually daed to install the app, maybe there are more clues in it. Until then it seems an unwarranted conclusion.
the submitter seems to have ineptly reworded somthing from one of the sources PacketFour: The use of "oversea", aside from being a rather antique Britush usage, is a big assumption, seemingly based on the single clue of the website having a Star of David. I realise Americans are getting more xenophobic by the day, but try not to blame those scheming furriners without some proof. (I'm manfully resisting making analogies with your president's actions.)
???
I'd guess the target market is not home users, but small businesses, who mostly just need to run one or two apps, and don't care about gaming-quality graphics.
And such businesses can have the licensed Cheapo-XP boxes prominently displayed, and actually have the real thing installed. It wouldn't stand up to close comparison, but I doubt the checks in Thailand will be very thorough, especially if you have a few purple notes to slip the inspectprs.
A good Kensington trackball will last a decade, and a good-sized Wacom table can easily be worth as much as your computer.
Well, if the many ADB-USB converters have problems, I read of a guy who networked an old Mac to use as a bridge to connect old peripherals to a new Mac. Certainly worked for SCSI, can't remember if ADB as well.
Otherwise I suppose the usual answer is to sell the old peripherals and buy new ones. The prices for old Mac hardware is still high, lots of people sticking with old Macs.
Well, you've certainly convinced me. Four More Years!
Correct in a narrow legal sense. But nevertheless, he wasn't chatting with a reporter off the record, or in a private meeting, he was performing knowing it was going to be broadcast. It was certainly a statement to the public, and should be considered part of the public record. As the article said, ifit came to court NBC probably would fail to prevent the use of a clip from that, but they still tried to use legal intimidation to keep it from being used.
Yeah, he's bound to get a grilling from Larry.
That's not true. John Kerry is anti-offshoring.
And in the link referenced, all it says is that Marc Andreessen (Formerly Netscape, now an offshoring advocate amongst other things) supports Kerry DESPITE Kerry's stated opposition to offshoring, because "Bush no longer represents a better alternative on trade and globalization issues".
No.
This isn't a news site, it's a site for commenting on the news.
There's a large difference between legal standards of proof, and "knowing", on the balance of probabilities, what is happening. See for instance OJ Simpson.
Political choices are a matter of judging character and motives, neither of which are subject to concrete proof. Since I have a pretty low opinion of Bush's character already, naturally I lean towards explanations supporting that point of view.
No, it's unprovable. The point is that if he continues to give interviews preferentially to "news" shows with such policies, he endorses their actions. But you're free to interpret this in other ways, and surely it's not him personally and directly but his staff who do this unbidden.
Obviously, he would never give that as a reason.
Obviously. If you read all my piece, or the orignal article, it's not about what's legal, but what's moral.
Not Moore: "In August, Robert Greenwald will release an updated version of his award-winning film, Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War. Greenwald has added a clip of President George W. Bush's February interview..."
I RTFA. The point was that Bush does very few interviews, and so media are so concerned about losing that privilege that they will self-censor and not allow reuse of interviews that put him in a bad light. Bush doesn't have to say anything, but by only offering interviews with companies that toe the line, he is endorsing their attempts to intimidate using copyright. This would be fair enough if he was a movie star concerned about controlling his image, but as a paragon of American values, including free speech, he should hold to a higher standard, and should explicitly allow free use of his public statements.
For all desktops, (except the later iMacs), you could buy a SCSI card. I don't know what, aside from a few very old printers and modems, you'd really miss as far as ADB serial goes, but there were converters for most of these if you really wanted. Anyway, before then ethernet was already standard, and much easier and cheaper to use than other protocols.
A few years ago I took my former employer to court for late payment of wages. Against his claims that I had agreed to being paid late I produced printouts of emails I had sent over a period of two years complaining about this. So it would have been a good company policy, but not necessarily in the interests of the staff when they are in any dispute with the company, or are being set up to be the scapegoat for some transgressions of the bosses. If any of your team are caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self-destruct in 10 seconds.
Actually I had backed up my entire email correspondence for almost 10 years into one zip file of about 20 MB. That's lot of correspondence. The average message comes in at about 2-4 kb. I think now with the current fashion of using HTML mail, or even worse, attached DOC files, the average is at least 10 and perhaps 100 times that now. I understand Outlook stores all your mail in one single binary file of undocumented structure, mine is in Unix MBX format. Given all that I'd guess that the vast proportion of email storage is huge slabs of [div][font Arial Helvetica size=2] [/font][/div] and so on. These days for my personal email I strip it back to plain text before archiving it.
I've cut a few cable locks, usually when the lock has jammed or rusted. First strip away the plastic sheath with a sharp knife, a few inches. You may find that the steel cable is actually quite thin, especially cheap light cables are mostly plastic, and the clear plastic magnifies the apparent thickness.
If you have wire or cable cutters, just keep gnawing away at it, cutting one strand at a time. Or a hacksaw, though that's hard unless you can rest the cable on a flat surface. Another possibility is a plumber's pipe cutter, which come in pocket sizes. Clamp it on, spin it around the cable a few times, tighten, repeat. With all of these once you've got a few strands cut it's much easier, and flexing it repeatedly may then snap those you've partially cut.
So why didn't you say that? Sheez.
Yes, since Bradbury didn't want any confusion to lead to him being associated with an extreme political view, he must therefore hold personal hate in his heart for Michael Moore.
I assume you're trying to be ironic. Actually, I looked that up before I posted and it appears, to my surprise, to be true.
However, this is a translation from a Swedish interview, and as it was made by a right-wing blogger, may not be a neutral representation of Bradbury's views.
Anyway, in my opinion, it'd be absurd for anyone, including Bradbury, to argue that there would be "confusion" associating him with Moore's views. Anyone who gets the reference is aware that it's primarily a pun. Refer to the titles of Bradbury's books Something Wicked This Way Comes (Shakespeare); I Sing The Body Electric! (Whitman), Golden Apples of the Sun (Yeats). Bradbury didn't need anyone's permission to use these (even if the authors had been alive), and no one is thinking that Shakespreare endorses his books.
Which part of the page you linked said that? None that I can see.
Well, you're right that you can't copyright a title, but the two titles you mention are quite different, and the name "Fahrebheit" belongs to neither Bradbury nor Moore. I'm amazed that Bradbury thought he had a claim on it. Bradbury, like most writers, has often titled his stories with quotes from poems or other literary works. Basically, I think he just hates Moore.
No, wrong.
1) You can't copyright a single (or two) words.
2) Copyright doesn't prevent someone using it as a book title. Notice, for instance, that there many books (and movies and songs) with the same title.
As usual in these discussions, you are thinking of trademarks. In this case the website Katie could probably challenge the trademark the author Katie has on "Katie.com", except that it'd cost her a fortune she doesn't have.
If you RTFA, the owner of Katie.com did bitterly complain to the publishers and author many times. But she recognised the futility and massive expense of taking a media giant to court about it.