Indeed - the point is that they've already committed copyright infringement, releasing source code after the fact is irrelevant. This is the equivalent to someone getting sued for filesharing, and then offering to pay for the CD they copied. Does that get them off the hook? Of course not.
So perhaps they should be sued for a few million dollars. Maybe they ought to be disconnected from the Internet too...
It doesn't - but do you think it's wise for him to wait until he is sued? Personally I'd rather avoid the risk altogether. Especially if that may be years later, when Google's language has become far more popular, and proving that his was around earlier may be much harder?
...and as for "whole town", again you are misrepresenting it. As long as the town only has one public WiFi, then it's true to say that it's the entire town's municipal WiFi. The extent of the coverage is neither here nor there.
If a town had a library which got shut down, it would be perfectly accurate to refer to it being the entire town's library. Or would you be quibbling that if the library isn't physically the size of the entire town? Or if we referred to the entire country's gold supply, would you be saying it doesn't count because the gold is only located at Fort Knox, and doesn't cover the entirety of the USA?
The Slashdot Headline and Doctorow Blog:MPAA shut down entire town's Municipal WiFi against their will.
Neither TFS nor TFA say it was shut down against their will - so you're the one guilty of misrepresentation.
The connection was shut down in response to an action by the MPAA - yes, it's ambiguous as to whether they were forced, but it's still factually correct. And since the MPAA don't have the power to shut down people's connection themselves, it ought to be obvious that that meaning wasn't intended.
Perhaps a better summary might be "Town's Municipal WiFi Shut Down After MPAA Complain Over 1 Download", but that's still a worrying event.
God, the tosser mods really walk into this one so predictable:
"As always, subjective assertions without evidence get modded up simply because they are pro-Apple, whilst I bet I - even though I give clear examples and evidence - will get modded down, simply because these facts do not fit with an Apple moderator's worldview (how does moderation work these days, anyway? I haven't had any for years, and it seems they're only given out to those who mod up pro-Apple posts these days...)"
Proof that moderation on Apple stories just doesn't work.
How about you respond with arguments and evidence, instead of foaming at the mouth and reaching for the moderation button, to abuse the overabundance of mod points that you unfairly get?
Most mobile platforms adopted a common standard - there are something like 2 billion Java smartphones out there. I can download an app from anywhere, and run it on my Motorola with no hassles.
Unfortunately Apple have decided to go with an incompatible phone, but that's only about 1% of the market anyway, so hopefully we won't return to the bad old days of the 80s where there were millions of platforms all incompatible with each other.
Microsoft wants things to be orthogonal, logical, menu driven, hierarchical, and otherwise fully featured. Apple takes the approach that the user doesn't want to fuss with all sorts of menus and submenus (no two button mouse for years!)
MS have dropped the menu approach (think Office) - but personally I prefer the menu approach. And Apple's OSs have had menus for years, anyway.
Apple applications still make use of two buttons, which you have to clumsily press a control key to access.
applications which do not necessarily have any UI themes in common with each other.
No, it's Apple who are the worst offenders here - just look at how Quicktime and Itunes on Windows completely fail to comply with the Windows UI standards.
In my experience, Quicktime and Itunes are the worst UIs I've encountered - anything but elegant. I have trouble finding out how to do simple tasks in Itunes (e.g., getting it to recognise updated mp3 ID tags). Only yesterday, I plugged someone's Ipod into my computer so we could watch something - only to find the software had renamed files into random garbage, distributed across randomly named folders in no apparent logical order. We had to guess via file sizes, and try every single one until we came across it. Apple, it Just Works!
And what does "elegant" even mean? What's your objective definition, and your evidence for this assertion?
As always, subjective assertions without evidence get modded up simply because they are pro-Apple, whilst I bet I - even though I give clear examples and evidence - will get modded down, simply because these facts do not fit with an Apple moderator's worldview (how does moderation work these days, anyway? I haven't had any for years, and it seems they're only given out to those who mod up pro-Apple posts these days...)
Microsoft is doing a lot to emulate Apple. And frankly, it's about time.
God, I hope not. And with "Macs" these days being Apple branded PCs, I'd say the reverse is true.
I was referring to "If person "A" is just some random creep that doesn't know person "B", it is most likely the case that the claim is libelous", which is different to what you wrote in your new reply.
When I think of abuse that people give out in public - no, I don't.
The Internet at least levels the playing field. In public, people can be intimidating, and that's backed up with the fear of violence, so that other people are scared to even respond.
I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Right, you first: back up your statement that "one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy".
Wait, do you have a source for this? That if someone says something that is proven to be true, they can still be found guilty of libel on the grounds that they probably didn't have proof of it themselves at the time that they said it?
I think it's funny when people think "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and they can't stop me." You're very mistaken if you believe this.
It's a good thing he didn't say that. He talked about making a joke, which is reasonably covered under freedom of speech.
(And most probably, also very immature)
Oh, so you think it's okay for you to say whatever insults you like?
Please stop repeating this nonsense. The iPhone can multitask. however it does not allow third party apps to run in the background. It has a full UNIX-like operating system and, by default, runs around half a dozen daemon processes.
Then by that definition, any feature phone can multitask. The important distinction is running more than one third party application - I didn't explicitly state that, because I thought it was obvious.
But it can pair with a bluetooth keyboard if you need one.
So can loads of other phones.
It runs the same core OS as Macs
It uses the same kernel. Big deal. I don't see what that has to do with hand-picking someone arbitrary sub-section of the entire market, just to artifically inflate market share.
I mean, you might as well say "Apple are the market leader in phones that run the same core OS as Macs". So?
Indeed - IIRC, in the phone market they're about 1%. God knows why they get so much attention, whilst market leaders like Nokia and Samsung are ignored.
The Iphone isn't a smartphone, so they don't exist in that market.
Agreed - and it's debatable whether the Iphone is a smartphone anyway. It can't multitask, it doesn't have a keyboard, and doesn't use a standard off-the-shelf OS, which are the only ways one can plausibly separate smartphones from feature phones. Things like Internet access or running apps are bog-standard for "feature phones".
The only definition it satisfies is being in the high end cost segment. So the Iphone doing better in that market is like that news we had a while ago that Apple were the best selling PC manufacturer in computers costing over $1,000. All that tells us is that Apple are expensive!
Victimless crimes (including crimes that have merely potential victims, think: drug importation, traffic offences etc.) form the overwhelming majority of crimes.
Traffic offences have a risk of harm to a victim - so yes, I agree that it's reasonable to include the risk, as well as what actually happens (e.g., we have laws like attempted murder, which applies even if no one is actually harmed). This doesn't apply to cartoon images.
Drugs shouldn't be illegal either.
In any case, you are in a tiny minority in not being offended by child pornography.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Fair enough it's newsworthy that their batshit policies banned it, but now they finally allow it isn't newsworthy.
Just because there are some things we don't understand, doesn't mean "God did it" is an answer, any more than "magic did it" or "pixies did it".
If a diety exists, then you also have to answer how the diety, with its "aliveness" or "conscience" (you mean consciousness?) came about.
there is something magical about being alive, and cause to be "spiritual".
There's no magic in it, unless you define magic to include it by definition.
Okay, let's have an example?
Indeed - the point is that they've already committed copyright infringement, releasing source code after the fact is irrelevant. This is the equivalent to someone getting sued for filesharing, and then offering to pay for the CD they copied. Does that get them off the hook? Of course not.
So perhaps they should be sued for a few million dollars. Maybe they ought to be disconnected from the Internet too...
It doesn't - but do you think it's wise for him to wait until he is sued? Personally I'd rather avoid the risk altogether. Especially if that may be years later, when Google's language has become far more popular, and proving that his was around earlier may be much harder?
...and as for "whole town", again you are misrepresenting it. As long as the town only has one public WiFi, then it's true to say that it's the entire town's municipal WiFi. The extent of the coverage is neither here nor there.
If a town had a library which got shut down, it would be perfectly accurate to refer to it being the entire town's library. Or would you be quibbling that if the library isn't physically the size of the entire town? Or if we referred to the entire country's gold supply, would you be saying it doesn't count because the gold is only located at Fort Knox, and doesn't cover the entirety of the USA?
The Slashdot Headline and Doctorow Blog:MPAA shut down entire town's Municipal WiFi against their will.
Neither TFS nor TFA say it was shut down against their will - so you're the one guilty of misrepresentation.
The connection was shut down in response to an action by the MPAA - yes, it's ambiguous as to whether they were forced, but it's still factually correct. And since the MPAA don't have the power to shut down people's connection themselves, it ought to be obvious that that meaning wasn't intended.
Perhaps a better summary might be "Town's Municipal WiFi Shut Down After MPAA Complain Over 1 Download", but that's still a worrying event.
God, the tosser mods really walk into this one so predictable:
"As always, subjective assertions without evidence get modded up simply because they are pro-Apple, whilst I bet I - even though I give clear examples and evidence - will get modded down, simply because these facts do not fit with an Apple moderator's worldview (how does moderation work these days, anyway? I haven't had any for years, and it seems they're only given out to those who mod up pro-Apple posts these days...)"
Proof that moderation on Apple stories just doesn't work.
How about you respond with arguments and evidence, instead of foaming at the mouth and reaching for the moderation button, to abuse the overabundance of mod points that you unfairly get?
Exactly my point - so the OP's claim of "no two button mouse" is false from the outset.
To add to that, you have the complication that some Macs have two button mice, and others don't, leading to inconsistency.
Most mobile platforms adopted a common standard - there are something like 2 billion Java smartphones out there. I can download an app from anywhere, and run it on my Motorola with no hassles.
Unfortunately Apple have decided to go with an incompatible phone, but that's only about 1% of the market anyway, so hopefully we won't return to the bad old days of the 80s where there were millions of platforms all incompatible with each other.
Microsoft wants things to be orthogonal, logical, menu driven, hierarchical, and otherwise fully featured. Apple takes the approach that the user doesn't want to fuss with all sorts of menus and submenus (no two button mouse for years!)
MS have dropped the menu approach (think Office) - but personally I prefer the menu approach. And Apple's OSs have had menus for years, anyway.
Apple applications still make use of two buttons, which you have to clumsily press a control key to access.
applications which do not necessarily have any UI themes in common with each other.
No, it's Apple who are the worst offenders here - just look at how Quicktime and Itunes on Windows completely fail to comply with the Windows UI standards.
In my experience, Quicktime and Itunes are the worst UIs I've encountered - anything but elegant. I have trouble finding out how to do simple tasks in Itunes (e.g., getting it to recognise updated mp3 ID tags). Only yesterday, I plugged someone's Ipod into my computer so we could watch something - only to find the software had renamed files into random garbage, distributed across randomly named folders in no apparent logical order. We had to guess via file sizes, and try every single one until we came across it. Apple, it Just Works!
And what does "elegant" even mean? What's your objective definition, and your evidence for this assertion?
As always, subjective assertions without evidence get modded up simply because they are pro-Apple, whilst I bet I - even though I give clear examples and evidence - will get modded down, simply because these facts do not fit with an Apple moderator's worldview (how does moderation work these days, anyway? I haven't had any for years, and it seems they're only given out to those who mod up pro-Apple posts these days...)
Microsoft is doing a lot to emulate Apple. And frankly, it's about time.
God, I hope not. And with "Macs" these days being Apple branded PCs, I'd say the reverse is true.
I was referring to "If person "A" is just some random creep that doesn't know person "B", it is most likely the case that the claim is libelous", which is different to what you wrote in your new reply.
When I think of abuse that people give out in public - no, I don't.
The Internet at least levels the playing field. In public, people can be intimidating, and that's backed up with the fear of violence, so that other people are scared to even respond.
I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Right, you first: back up your statement that "one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy".
One could instead use a mobile broadband dongle thingy that you paid for with cash.
Wait, do you have a source for this? That if someone says something that is proven to be true, they can still be found guilty of libel on the grounds that they probably didn't have proof of it themselves at the time that they said it?
I think it's funny when people think "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and they can't stop me." You're very mistaken if you believe this.
It's a good thing he didn't say that. He talked about making a joke, which is reasonably covered under freedom of speech.
(And most probably, also very immature)
Oh, so you think it's okay for you to say whatever insults you like?
The BBC is funded by a mandatory licence, so why should piracy be an issue?
And where's your evidence that DRM prevents piracy in the first place?
It was an argument against your "just don't do business with DRM-centric content creators".
Please stop repeating this nonsense. The iPhone can multitask. however it does not allow third party apps to run in the background. It has a full UNIX-like operating system and, by default, runs around half a dozen daemon processes.
Then by that definition, any feature phone can multitask. The important distinction is running more than one third party application - I didn't explicitly state that, because I thought it was obvious.
But it can pair with a bluetooth keyboard if you need one.
So can loads of other phones.
It runs the same core OS as Macs
It uses the same kernel. Big deal. I don't see what that has to do with hand-picking someone arbitrary sub-section of the entire market, just to artifically inflate market share.
I mean, you might as well say "Apple are the market leader in phones that run the same core OS as Macs". So?
Er, I'm from Britain, and I don't want this.
They already made it illegal in the UK to refuse to decrypt something they think is encrypted...
Indeed - IIRC, in the phone market they're about 1%. God knows why they get so much attention, whilst market leaders like Nokia and Samsung are ignored.
The Iphone isn't a smartphone, so they don't exist in that market.
Agreed - and it's debatable whether the Iphone is a smartphone anyway. It can't multitask, it doesn't have a keyboard, and doesn't use a standard off-the-shelf OS, which are the only ways one can plausibly separate smartphones from feature phones. Things like Internet access or running apps are bog-standard for "feature phones".
The only definition it satisfies is being in the high end cost segment. So the Iphone doing better in that market is like that news we had a while ago that Apple were the best selling PC manufacturer in computers costing over $1,000. All that tells us is that Apple are expensive!
Victimless crimes (including crimes that have merely potential victims, think: drug importation, traffic offences etc.) form the overwhelming majority of crimes.
Traffic offences have a risk of harm to a victim - so yes, I agree that it's reasonable to include the risk, as well as what actually happens (e.g., we have laws like attempted murder, which applies even if no one is actually harmed). This doesn't apply to cartoon images.
Drugs shouldn't be illegal either.
In any case, you are in a tiny minority in not being offended by child pornography.
Where did he say whether he was offended or not?
"iPhone or a similar device"
What's that word - ah, um, *thinks* ah, yes, "phone"!