. . . of a democracy degenerated by the infilitration of capitalism into government is demonstrated by the mere idea of the acceptability of the death penalty for a property crime.
Now that people can (ahem) compare apples to apples, and see that Apple will want $2,000 for a P4 3 GHz with 512 MB of RAM that Dell is selling for $800, they'd better hope they can make cash selling OS X for generic x86.
Dell could probably use some overpriced x86 Macs in the lineup as a foil for their pricing--it would let Dell raise prices some while still looking inexpensive alongside Apple's offerings.
Corporations live forever--holding a corporation accountable for actions in its past is not the same as "persecuting the families of crazed lunatics," etc.
With enough call home and DRM to satisfy even the needs of Draconian governments and corporations. Look forward to having to give an SSN to read product manuals soon!
The concept of "public property" becomes blurred in cases like malls or airports or what have you that while privately owned, offer services to the general public. There are restrictions on their private property rights, including, for example, their right to exclude non-whites.
The point is that they don't do anything about blatantly false contact information. Thus, my statement stands that this will only affect law-abiding people who heretofore have been able to keep their domain registration out of the hands of vindictive spammers, crackpots, stalkers, and the like.
Please, as if the non-US addresses and fake telephone numbers aren't still going to be placed in whois by spammers. This is all window dressing that will only serve to kill GoDaddy's proxy business (the real reason they suddenly care about "free speech") and impinge on the long-established right of Americans to publish anonymously.
What's really interesting is how they let Neustar stop maintaining the locality domains, as they are required to do under their contract. Why isn't the Commerce department on their asses about that?
"Fair and reasonable" digital restrictions management is only the camel's nose underneath the tent. It's better to hit the content "industry" with the fact that this just plain can't work now, rather than be frog-boiled into tighter an tighter restrictions (as already happened with iTMS and the number of playlist burns, for example).
Apple's not going to sue someone who stripped the DRM from a few songs. It's very unlikely they'll turn away a paying customer, despite his or her not having followed the rental "agreement." And even if the account is revoked, that's the beauty of having the songs one (supposedly) bought without DRM: they'll play in other things than the iTunes/iPod monopoly.
Re:When will X-Chat's GPL Violation be scrutinized
on
Tracking GPL Violators
·
· Score: 1
If one's going to run closed source shareware on Win32 either way, why wouldn't one just run mIRC over X-Chat?
Some prick with a web site of railroad memorabilia tried the same crap awhile back, even to the extent of claiming downloading a picture agreed with some draconian EULA.
After having been Slashdotted, I'm sure he realized it was unenforcable.
This guys an opportunistic asshole trying to couch what is at best an attempt to eliminate competition in a market in which no one's hands are clean, including his.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . of a democracy degenerated by the infilitration of capitalism into government is demonstrated by the mere idea of the acceptability of the death penalty for a property crime.
They could do a joint commercial (get it, joint?) with the Dell Dude and Ellen Feiss. Dude, it was like Beep, beep, beep . . .
Dell could probably use some overpriced x86 Macs in the lineup as a foil for their pricing--it would let Dell raise prices some while still looking inexpensive alongside Apple's offerings.
. . . for the Sarge in Toy Story to have become a Major General in the amount of time it took.
Corporations live forever--holding a corporation accountable for actions in its past is not the same as "persecuting the families of crazed lunatics," etc.
With enough call home and DRM to satisfy even the needs of Draconian governments and corporations. Look forward to having to give an SSN to read product manuals soon!
The concept of "public property" becomes blurred in cases like malls or airports or what have you that while privately owned, offer services to the general public. There are restrictions on their private property rights, including, for example, their right to exclude non-whites.
It's a hook. And people stupid enough to bite are going to get hauled in. I'll be sticking with xpdf, thank you very much.
The point is that they don't do anything about blatantly false contact information. Thus, my statement stands that this will only affect law-abiding people who heretofore have been able to keep their domain registration out of the hands of vindictive spammers, crackpots, stalkers, and the like.
Right to anonymous speech
Ooh, overrated. That's nice. I have more karma than God. Bring it on.
Or you file a baseless lawsuit, use discovery to find the name, then drop the suit having gotten what you wanted.
Please, as if the non-US addresses and fake telephone numbers aren't still going to be placed in whois by spammers. This is all window dressing that will only serve to kill GoDaddy's proxy business (the real reason they suddenly care about "free speech") and impinge on the long-established right of Americans to publish anonymously.
What's really interesting is how they let Neustar stop maintaining the locality domains, as they are required to do under their contract. Why isn't the Commerce department on their asses about that?
Customer: How much is it?
Salesman: How much do you have?
"Fair and reasonable" digital restrictions management is only the camel's nose underneath the tent. It's better to hit the content "industry" with the fact that this just plain can't work now, rather than be frog-boiled into tighter an tighter restrictions (as already happened with iTMS and the number of playlist burns, for example).
Apple's not going to sue someone who stripped the DRM from a few songs. It's very unlikely they'll turn away a paying customer, despite his or her not having followed the rental "agreement." And even if the account is revoked, that's the beauty of having the songs one (supposedly) bought without DRM: they'll play in other things than the iTunes/iPod monopoly.
If one's going to run closed source shareware on Win32 either way, why wouldn't one just run mIRC over X-Chat?
Cities don't have the authority to regulate WiFi--control of the specturm is solely the domain of the FCC, at least in the U.S.
No, you don't get it. It's about not letting anyone else take control.
It is. And people who don't agree with the GPL are free to write their own code and license it however they like.
of being a sharecropper. Sometimes the landlord decides he doesn't want you on his land anymore.
After having been Slashdotted, I'm sure he realized it was unenforcable.
This guys an opportunistic asshole trying to couch what is at best an attempt to eliminate competition in a market in which no one's hands are clean, including his.