Pelosi is one of the reasons I can't respect the Democratic Congress. She's an utter failure and a moron, and there are so many candidates for Speaker that they should have looked at before her. She is basically an affirmative action choice, and a poor one at that.
Yeah, man, expanding their market is a horrible idea!
I mean why would they want a small, but growing, sector to be able to use their hardware? It probably takes half of a full time employee to make this shit work! That's outrageous!
I also hate that lots of downloaded files are chopped into rar files...
I almost never download anything if it shows up as being in a rar file, for one reason: A bunch of dicks have decided to rar something up and inside the first rar set, they have another rar that is passworded and a text file with a web address to get the password. I simply refuse to go to some site that wants to show me ads to give me a password for a rar I spent a long time downloading.
I don't know how easy it is to crack a.rar password, so I simply refuse to waste my bandwidth unless there's no other option or I've heard from someone that there isn't a PW (or they have the PW already).
Nonono, please don't think I'm saying we need to repeal all the laws in that area. But the judgments should be a lot closer to reality, not in the millions of dollars for simple copyright infringement. People that did real harm suffer less than that.
I was just pointing out that not everyone that is attacked and suffers because of the RIAA did something wrong, and can be put in a situation where they have to pay for years and their lives are wrecked over this. The RIAA is basically blackmailing people. "Hey, you can pay some huge fine or risk a HUGE legal process that will dominate your life and take years to resolve. Your choice."
I think the limit for sharing a song should be a buck per completed file transfer, provable by the RIAA, and not from them or their agents (otherwise they're just jacking up the fine themselves). If they can't prove someone is distributing enough songs for that to be worth pursuing then they're SOL. And I wouldn't ever let the RIAA get lawyers fees reimbursed. Not because they're the big-bad-corporation but because they've acted in bad faith to abuse the system and fought hard not to have to reimburse lawyers fees when they were obviously and maliciously in the wrong.
You'd pretty much have to be running a piracy ring to fall under this -- because you'd have to share enough music to cover their lawyer and research costs, which is nearly impossible on our current series of tubes.
I said there's a problem with them going after people that might not be guilty. And in many cases it appears they go after people too poor to defend themselves. Their surrogate, Media Defender, is committing crimes.
Also, infringing their copyright is in no way worth the judgments they get -- I'm sorry, but it just isn't and never will be. They know it, too. But they want to bully people into paying their fine without seeing a day in court. Probably because they have such a shitty record.
I'm one of the few on/. that believes in copyright, so don't get me wrong here. But I think it has gotten out of control and they're abusing the system and in many cases using their money to facilitate illegal and immoral behavior.
Yeah, but that's the risk people knowingly take when they decide to infringe the **AA's copyrights. They had to consciously think "I know I can get a huge fine for this, but I'm going to do it anyway." Is it really too much to expect people to take responsibility for their actions?
Except there have been cases where the person did not violate their copyrights. They don't prove someone did it before threatening or suing them, and those people who are innocent still have to fight to prove they're innocent. Then the RIAA holds up paying damages in court for years -- like the case where they tried to claim they shouldn't be liable for attorney's fees. I can't recall the specifics but they were found to be wrong and the defendant then sued them for costs and they called her claimed attorney's fees "outrageous" then refused to publish their own lawyer fees*. It was on Slashdot a few months ago.
* "Objection, your honor!" "On what grounds?" "...It's extremely damaging to my case!"
Except by performing another person's copyrighted work, Prince is creating a derivative of that work.
And as far as I'm aware, the copyright owner also owns the rights to decide who can make derivatives. If Prince did the song at a concert where people paid money, without Radiohead's permission, then he's put himself in a bind.
IANAL, but that's my understanding. You can't just go out and perform someone else's protected works. I know covers are common but generally people doing a cover either have some sort of permission or they're not being dicks about doing it. Prince didn't have permission and he's being a dick about it.
Sorry, I don't use a blackberry and assumed they had some sort of specific-to-them messaging abilities since India is singling them out. It would seem silly to have to route traffic back to Canada considering the nature of intercontinental internet transfer if this were the case.
Oh, and to answer your question: No, I've never heard of the internet. What is it?
They have to maintain law and order in a society where more than half the population is functionally illiterate.
If the illiterate people are causing problems (which is implied here), I doubt very seriously that spying on blackberry e-mails is going to help the government.
Just a thought. People who are functionally illiterate aren't going to produce messages worth reading. I know this because I have idiot friends with cellphones.
If this is true, it sounds like a kind of stupid design flaw on their part. If they're being used world wide they should probably have servers world wide.
Slashdot Mirror
That really doesn't make me like her any more, but rather, less. That basically means she bought/bribed her way to being speaker.
Pelosi is one of the reasons I can't respect the Democratic Congress. She's an utter failure and a moron, and there are so many candidates for Speaker that they should have looked at before her. She is basically an affirmative action choice, and a poor one at that.
But that's just my opinion.
"Growing" is not the same as "displacing the OS installing on 90%+ of desktops."
Linux is a small but growing market -- and this is probably very little effort on their part. In other words, not damaging to their stocks at all.
Yeah, man, expanding their market is a horrible idea!
I mean why would they want a small, but growing, sector to be able to use their hardware? It probably takes half of a full time employee to make this shit work! That's outrageous!
Chicago is a big city. Big cities always cost more to live in.
Man, I hope you don't live somewhere with the death sentence for contempt of court...
And good schools cause property values to go up.
Which causes property tax income to increase. Which goes toward schools.
Poor schools cause property values to go down, and taxes revenues go down, and the schools have less.
It's a vicious cycle.
Pretty much everywhere and easy to use?
If you keep calling him a girl you might hurt Breyer's feelings...
I was just checking -- I honestly wasn't sure.
I have a cheap Acer and the internal wifi card works with ndiswrapper or whatever it's called -- have you tried that? It might help.
Ninja Gaiden II is based on a movie?
I also hate that lots of downloaded files are chopped into rar files...
.rar password, so I simply refuse to waste my bandwidth unless there's no other option or I've heard from someone that there isn't a PW (or they have the PW already).
I almost never download anything if it shows up as being in a rar file, for one reason: A bunch of dicks have decided to rar something up and inside the first rar set, they have another rar that is passworded and a text file with a web address to get the password. I simply refuse to go to some site that wants to show me ads to give me a password for a rar I spent a long time downloading.
I don't know how easy it is to crack a
AND ticket prices are way too high for one viewing of a movie.
Nonono, please don't think I'm saying we need to repeal all the laws in that area. But the judgments should be a lot closer to reality, not in the millions of dollars for simple copyright infringement. People that did real harm suffer less than that.
I was just pointing out that not everyone that is attacked and suffers because of the RIAA did something wrong, and can be put in a situation where they have to pay for years and their lives are wrecked over this. The RIAA is basically blackmailing people. "Hey, you can pay some huge fine or risk a HUGE legal process that will dominate your life and take years to resolve. Your choice."
I think the limit for sharing a song should be a buck per completed file transfer, provable by the RIAA, and not from them or their agents (otherwise they're just jacking up the fine themselves). If they can't prove someone is distributing enough songs for that to be worth pursuing then they're SOL. And I wouldn't ever let the RIAA get lawyers fees reimbursed. Not because they're the big-bad-corporation but because they've acted in bad faith to abuse the system and fought hard not to have to reimburse lawyers fees when they were obviously and maliciously in the wrong.
You'd pretty much have to be running a piracy ring to fall under this -- because you'd have to share enough music to cover their lawyer and research costs, which is nearly impossible on our current series of tubes.
I never said it did -- that is not my argument.
/. that believes in copyright, so don't get me wrong here. But I think it has gotten out of control and they're abusing the system and in many cases using their money to facilitate illegal and immoral behavior.
I said there's a problem with them going after people that might not be guilty. And in many cases it appears they go after people too poor to defend themselves. Their surrogate, Media Defender, is committing crimes.
Also, infringing their copyright is in no way worth the judgments they get -- I'm sorry, but it just isn't and never will be. They know it, too. But they want to bully people into paying their fine without seeing a day in court. Probably because they have such a shitty record.
I'm one of the few on
Yeah, but that's the risk people knowingly take when they decide to infringe the **AA's copyrights. They had to consciously think "I know I can get a huge fine for this, but I'm going to do it anyway." Is it really too much to expect people to take responsibility for their actions?
Except there have been cases where the person did not violate their copyrights. They don't prove someone did it before threatening or suing them, and those people who are innocent still have to fight to prove they're innocent. Then the RIAA holds up paying damages in court for years -- like the case where they tried to claim they shouldn't be liable for attorney's fees. I can't recall the specifics but they were found to be wrong and the defendant then sued them for costs and they called her claimed attorney's fees "outrageous" then refused to publish their own lawyer fees*. It was on Slashdot a few months ago.
* "Objection, your honor!"
"On what grounds?"
"...It's extremely damaging to my case!"
If they cannot provide it then they should not sell it to me. I expect things to work as advertised for the advertised price.
Otherwise I'm being lied to and cheated out of my money and time.
It's as simple as that.
How about Knickers? Imagine the possibilities of software named after underwear. (Still an improvement over GIMP, though.)
Except by performing another person's copyrighted work, Prince is creating a derivative of that work.
And as far as I'm aware, the copyright owner also owns the rights to decide who can make derivatives. If Prince did the song at a concert where people paid money, without Radiohead's permission, then he's put himself in a bind.
IANAL, but that's my understanding. You can't just go out and perform someone else's protected works. I know covers are common but generally people doing a cover either have some sort of permission or they're not being dicks about doing it. Prince didn't have permission and he's being a dick about it.
Man I wish I'd thought of that.
Sorry, I don't use a blackberry and assumed they had some sort of specific-to-them messaging abilities since India is singling them out. It would seem silly to have to route traffic back to Canada considering the nature of intercontinental internet transfer if this were the case.
Oh, and to answer your question: No, I've never heard of the internet. What is it?
I believe there's a hard push in the GNU world to crap up product names with a G similar to the way KDE craps up names with a K.
The only name I ever remember liking that came out of that was "Killustrator" and I think they had to change it because Adobe are wankers.
They have to maintain law and order in a society where more than half the population is functionally illiterate.
If the illiterate people are causing problems (which is implied here), I doubt very seriously that spying on blackberry e-mails is going to help the government.
Just a thought. People who are functionally illiterate aren't going to produce messages worth reading. I know this because I have idiot friends with cellphones.
If this is true, it sounds like a kind of stupid design flaw on their part. If they're being used world wide they should probably have servers world wide.