Even if it were about protecting sources (which it isn't) no one has yet to provide me with a good answer as to why giving a certain sub-class of citizens immunity from the law is a good thing for democracy? If a cop gets a tip that your mother is dealing drugs and comes in and arrests her, does the cop have the right to hide his sources? If not, what makes the cop different from the journalist?
do you believe it's an effective use of Federal money to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating a broken taillight? Head over to Ford and pay fifty bucks and move on...
Failure to uphold the law in any case (regardless of the circumstances) because of the cost to uphold that law is a just use of funds. A crime is a crime is a crime and failure to enforce the law in one instance because "it costs too much" will cost society far more than just $50.
And what good will that do when Josh and his attornies have the whole tape? It will make the prosecutor look like a dumbass and weaken his entire case. That's the reason evidence should be open to all, so that this sort of editing does nothing but weaken a case.
Yeah, it doesn't matter if we go backwards, as long as we have a slightly higher level of wealth than Somalia, we're doing great!
Our poor enjoy a standard of living which rivals the middle class in many countries, not just third world shit holes. Our poor own homes, cars, TVs, AC, computers and have cable TV subscriptions.
CHOKE. We are living off debt, engaging in ridiculous wars, have lost any kind of real value to life apart from money, are dying from pollution and junk food, we are losing our cultural and intellectual leadership, and you think we have never been better? That's some serious crack-addicted nonsense right there.
You know, it's kind of contradictory that in one sentence you scream about how the poor have no money, and then in the next talk about how our problem is we only value life in money.
Now if we want to follow your tangent regarding sound business decisions, then we can say the same for Microsoft squashing the competition while not being evil. I don't care if either company is evil or not, just that we judge both by the same set of rules.
In general, I find very little offensive in what microsoft did. In fact, microsoft did almost everything everyone else did too, microsoft's problem was they were too big. The rules of the game change when you're a (near) monopoly. But let us not delude ourselves, squashing the competition through any legal means possible is always a sound business decision.
Apple has a long history of screwing independent dealers. I'm referring to over a decade of history, not merely your personal experience.
I wasn't refering to my personal experience, just what I read. By contrast, my personal experience suggests that apple treated it's good* independants very well and the apple retail market has proven to be more boon rather than bane.
Then make it the responsibility of the owner to carry in accordance to local laws, just like it's the responsibility of the driver to drive in accordance with local laws.
But, if you posses a legitimate drivers license (a permit) from another state, you may legaly drive in any other state. This is not the case with a carry permit. What is the major difference?
You must have missed the Apple clone era where Apple licensed, and then shut down all the cloners because they turned out to be competitors.
Imagine that, a company shuts down what turns out to be a money sink hole rather than a profit generator. I hardly see that as evil, and in fact were I a share holder, I would see that as a very good decision.
You must have missed Apple's long standing abuse of independent dealers, culminating with Apple retail stores that killed off the independents for the most part.
Which independents were killed off? The only one seems to be MacAdam or whatever the fuck it was called and anyone who shopped there agreed it was a shitty place to shop.
Sabotage? Unlikely. I recently had the misfortune of installing vista. After finally coercing the installer to install (it won't unless all the installed hardware in the machine is supported, and apparently vista doesn't like the IDE controllers that XP likes) I finally managed to get vista running, only to discover that despite supporting my sound card (a CL Soundblaster something or other) I still have no sound, and various tiny applications seem buggy at best (VLC for example runs about half the time, and still no sound). Also, Vista managed to blue screen itself simply by me changing my monitor's refresh rate. Sure some of what I experienced so far may be unique, but if I were a developer, I wouldn't be annoucing official vista support with what I've seen until vista is stable.
The answer is obvious. The moment jobs waivers from the hardline all music exactly the same is the moment that along with un DRMed indie music, you see single songs for $60 / track, songs that you can't burn, songs that you can't transfer to an iPod, whole albums that are only availible on the third tuesday of the eigth month of the year.
Interestingly, a good reading of constitutional history (and indeed even the language of the amendments) suggestst that they did not believe that any one right was more important than another, but that all rights were inailiable to the people. Every amendment speaks of the right of the people as a pre-existing element and then outlines what the government can NOT do with that right. Interestingly, the fears of the founders came to pass as people think of the bill of rights as an ennumeration of rights, rather than a restriction on the actions of the government. Indeed, the very wording "bill of rights" is a misnomer.
The point of the law (like most laws) is not to prevent the crime in the first place, but for establishing reason to punish after the crime has been comitted. Consider:
Joe Rapist is convicted, jailed and then released on parole.
As part of his release, he is required to register with the sex offender database, check in with his parole officer and register his online identities.
Now instead, Joe Rapist goes and rapes Mary Sue Victim.
With the laws in place, now Joe Rapist faces charges not only for the rape, but for failure to register with the database (twice) and failure to check in with his parole officer. All of a sudden, the prosecution can paint him as a severe danger to society has he clearly has no respect for any of the laws of the land, regardless of how small.
It's all ammunition to use against repeat offenders.
I don't suggest that the law is a good one or well thought out, but comments like yours miss the point entirely and actualy just fuel the false sense of security such a law would provide by framing the argument around security rather than punishment.
The key word you're missing in your oft wrongly quoted cliche is "essential". With out that very important key word (and good ol Ben was a smart man, who chose his words carefully) that same argument could be used against EVERYTHING.
Prisons?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Federal Government?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Local government?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Contract law?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Health laws?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Emmisions regulations?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Gun control?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Kyoto?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
The US Constitution?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Why would this not scale to a larger country with more inhabitants?
NIMBY and states rights. As much as the federal government would like to convince people otherwise, the states still do have a rather large amount of room to set and define laws within their borders, so what could be a perfectly legal cell tower in one state might not be in the next state over. Add NIMBY to that and you have a lot of resistance to expand cell technology on a scale to match any one subset of the country.
But that's the point people are trying to make here. What is the "truth(TM)"?
Did Apple sell 802.11n hardware? If so, they're in trouble for selling an unfinished product.
Did they sell 802.11g hardware? If so, then even though this is a mere software patch, they're adding new hardware as far as the law is concerned and need to account for that.
or
Did Apple sell 802.11g hardware with the promise or implication of a future upgrade to 802.11n? If so, then they could be in trouble for accounting for all the revenue from the computer sale last quarter as opposed to holding some of that until the 11n update was pushed out.
So what is the truth?
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm no accounting expert, but from what I understand from what I've read on this, it's a real dillema and if I had federal invesigators up my ass over accounting issues already, I wouldn't be playing fast and loose with accounting laws.
No, a citizen from Brazil would be a South American, and specifically a Brazilian.
A person from Canada would be a North American, and specifically a Canadian.
A person from the USA would be a North American, and specifically an American.
This is so because citizens are generally refered to by their country, not their continent.
Or to put it another way, when was the last time to heard anyone in Europe refer to themselves directly as European rather than French, or Spanish, or Brittish or Irish? Likewise, when was the last time you heard a Canadian self identify as an American?
Old it may be, but a lesson that should be taught in all schools. During my time in college I had to take a public speaking course. As part of said course, we needed a persuasive speech. I gave one on the dangers of DHMO and convinced all but two people in my class to sign a petition to regulate the presence of DHMO in the local city. This was only a few years ago, and the class consisted of people from age 20 to 50. Don't always believe fancy double talk. As the person who didn't sign said to me "You told me everything it does, but didn't actually tell me what it was."
While we may not be entirely responsible and there may very well be natural forces causing the Earth's weather to act in a drunken manner, that does not mean we can not change it!
Doesn't this seem awfuly contradictory to you? If we're not causing "global warming" you're suggesting that we should attempt to change the natural process of the earth. What about all that jazz about humans fucking up the environment? If we're not causing global warming then we should try to cause global cooling? That seems like it would have a lot of unintended consequences.
he fact that they've been trying to license the name for years proves that they acknowledge Cisco's trademark as valid.
Wasn't there a recent ruling whereby someone paying royalties on a patent could still challenge the validity of said patent? Seems like you could apply it similarly in this case.
If you need to make a waranty claim on a product and can't find the reciept, and don't remember what credit card bank you purchased it on, how do you provide proof of purchase? Now you're just being a dick about things. If your memory is so bad you can't remember your password, or your username or your email address AND you change email providers so often that you won't be able to find an email from apple, maybe you shouldn't be buying music online.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it were about protecting sources (which it isn't) no one has yet to provide me with a good answer as to why giving a certain sub-class of citizens immunity from the law is a good thing for democracy? If a cop gets a tip that your mother is dealing drugs and comes in and arrests her, does the cop have the right to hide his sources? If not, what makes the cop different from the journalist?
do you believe it's an effective use of Federal money to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating a broken taillight? Head over to Ford and pay fifty bucks and move on...
Failure to uphold the law in any case (regardless of the circumstances) because of the cost to uphold that law is a just use of funds. A crime is a crime is a crime and failure to enforce the law in one instance because "it costs too much" will cost society far more than just $50.
And what good will that do when Josh and his attornies have the whole tape? It will make the prosecutor look like a dumbass and weaken his entire case. That's the reason evidence should be open to all, so that this sort of editing does nothing but weaken a case.
Yeah, it doesn't matter if we go backwards, as long as we have a slightly higher level of wealth than Somalia, we're doing great!
Our poor enjoy a standard of living which rivals the middle class in many countries, not just third world shit holes. Our poor own homes, cars, TVs, AC, computers and have cable TV subscriptions.
CHOKE. We are living off debt, engaging in ridiculous wars, have lost any kind of real value to life apart from money, are dying from pollution and junk food, we are losing our cultural and intellectual leadership, and you think we have never been better? That's some serious crack-addicted nonsense right there.
You know, it's kind of contradictory that in one sentence you scream about how the poor have no money, and then in the next talk about how our problem is we only value life in money.
Now if we want to follow your tangent regarding sound business decisions, then we can say the same for Microsoft squashing the competition while not being evil. I don't care if either company is evil or not, just that we judge both by the same set of rules.
In general, I find very little offensive in what microsoft did. In fact, microsoft did almost everything everyone else did too, microsoft's problem was they were too big. The rules of the game change when you're a (near) monopoly. But let us not delude ourselves, squashing the competition through any legal means possible is always a sound business decision.
Apple has a long history of screwing independent dealers. I'm referring to over a decade of history, not merely your personal experience.
I wasn't refering to my personal experience, just what I read. By contrast, my personal experience suggests that apple treated it's good* independants very well and the apple retail market has proven to be more boon rather than bane.
Then make it the responsibility of the owner to carry in accordance to local laws, just like it's the responsibility of the driver to drive in accordance with local laws.
So why is it that my license which demonstrates my right to drive a car in pennsylvania is valid in California despite the states not overlaping?
But, if you posses a legitimate drivers license (a permit) from another state, you may legaly drive in any other state. This is not the case with a carry permit. What is the major difference?
You must have missed the Apple clone era where Apple licensed, and then shut down all the cloners because they turned out to be competitors.
Imagine that, a company shuts down what turns out to be a money sink hole rather than a profit generator. I hardly see that as evil, and in fact were I a share holder, I would see that as a very good decision.
You must have missed Apple's long standing abuse of independent dealers, culminating with Apple retail stores that killed off the independents for the most part.
Which independents were killed off? The only one seems to be MacAdam or whatever the fuck it was called and anyone who shopped there agreed it was a shitty place to shop.
Sabotage? Unlikely. I recently had the misfortune of installing vista. After finally coercing the installer to install (it won't unless all the installed hardware in the machine is supported, and apparently vista doesn't like the IDE controllers that XP likes) I finally managed to get vista running, only to discover that despite supporting my sound card (a CL Soundblaster something or other) I still have no sound, and various tiny applications seem buggy at best (VLC for example runs about half the time, and still no sound). Also, Vista managed to blue screen itself simply by me changing my monitor's refresh rate. Sure some of what I experienced so far may be unique, but if I were a developer, I wouldn't be annoucing official vista support with what I've seen until vista is stable.
The answer is obvious. The moment jobs waivers from the hardline all music exactly the same is the moment that along with un DRMed indie music, you see single songs for $60 / track, songs that you can't burn, songs that you can't transfer to an iPod, whole albums that are only availible on the third tuesday of the eigth month of the year.
Interestingly, a good reading of constitutional history (and indeed even the language of the amendments) suggestst that they did not believe that any one right was more important than another, but that all rights were inailiable to the people. Every amendment speaks of the right of the people as a pre-existing element and then outlines what the government can NOT do with that right. Interestingly, the fears of the founders came to pass as people think of the bill of rights as an ennumeration of rights, rather than a restriction on the actions of the government. Indeed, the very wording "bill of rights" is a misnomer.
The point of the law (like most laws) is not to prevent the crime in the first place, but for establishing reason to punish after the crime has been comitted. Consider:
Joe Rapist is convicted, jailed and then released on parole.
As part of his release, he is required to register with the sex offender database, check in with his parole officer and register his online identities.
Now instead, Joe Rapist goes and rapes Mary Sue Victim.
With the laws in place, now Joe Rapist faces charges not only for the rape, but for failure to register with the database (twice) and failure to check in with his parole officer. All of a sudden, the prosecution can paint him as a severe danger to society has he clearly has no respect for any of the laws of the land, regardless of how small.
It's all ammunition to use against repeat offenders.
I don't suggest that the law is a good one or well thought out, but comments like yours miss the point entirely and actualy just fuel the false sense of security such a law would provide by framing the argument around security rather than punishment.
The key word you're missing in your oft wrongly quoted cliche is "essential". With out that very important key word (and good ol Ben was a smart man, who chose his words carefully) that same argument could be used against EVERYTHING.
Prisons?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Federal Government?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Local government?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Contract law?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Health laws?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Emmisions regulations?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Gun control?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Kyoto?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
The US Constitution?
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
Why would this not scale to a larger country with more inhabitants?
NIMBY and states rights. As much as the federal government would like to convince people otherwise, the states still do have a rather large amount of room to set and define laws within their borders, so what could be a perfectly legal cell tower in one state might not be in the next state over. Add NIMBY to that and you have a lot of resistance to expand cell technology on a scale to match any one subset of the country.
They pretty much have. Very few mentions of the actual version number (10.5) found here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/
Even the link for Tiger has very few mentions of the version number.
These days the version number is mostly for technical reasons to know what iteration of the software is on the machine in the first place.
Which has no bearing on the point at hand except to further prove mine, that people do not self identify by their continent.
But that's the point people are trying to make here. What is the "truth(TM)"?
Did Apple sell 802.11n hardware? If so, they're in trouble for selling an unfinished product.
Did they sell 802.11g hardware? If so, then even though this is a mere software patch, they're adding new hardware as far as the law is concerned and need to account for that.
or
Did Apple sell 802.11g hardware with the promise or implication of a future upgrade to 802.11n? If so, then they could be in trouble for accounting for all the revenue from the computer sale last quarter as opposed to holding some of that until the 11n update was pushed out.
So what is the truth?
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm no accounting expert, but from what I understand from what I've read on this, it's a real dillema and if I had federal invesigators up my ass over accounting issues already, I wouldn't be playing fast and loose with accounting laws.
No, a citizen from Brazil would be a South American, and specifically a Brazilian.
A person from Canada would be a North American, and specifically a Canadian.
A person from the USA would be a North American, and specifically an American.
This is so because citizens are generally refered to by their country, not their continent.
Or to put it another way, when was the last time to heard anyone in Europe refer to themselves directly as European rather than French, or Spanish, or Brittish or Irish? Likewise, when was the last time you heard a Canadian self identify as an American?
Old it may be, but a lesson that should be taught in all schools. During my time in college I had to take a public speaking course. As part of said course, we needed a persuasive speech. I gave one on the dangers of DHMO and convinced all but two people in my class to sign a petition to regulate the presence of DHMO in the local city. This was only a few years ago, and the class consisted of people from age 20 to 50. Don't always believe fancy double talk. As the person who didn't sign said to me "You told me everything it does, but didn't actually tell me what it was."
A lesson in citizen names:
People from the United States of America = Americans
People from Canada = Canadians
People from Mexico = Mexicans
No confusion.
While we may not be entirely responsible and there may very well be natural forces causing the Earth's weather to act in a drunken manner, that does not mean we can not change it!
Doesn't this seem awfuly contradictory to you? If we're not causing "global warming" you're suggesting that we should attempt to change the natural process of the earth. What about all that jazz about humans fucking up the environment? If we're not causing global warming then we should try to cause global cooling? That seems like it would have a lot of unintended consequences.
he fact that they've been trying to license the name for years proves that they acknowledge Cisco's trademark as valid.
Wasn't there a recent ruling whereby someone paying royalties on a patent could still challenge the validity of said patent? Seems like you could apply it similarly in this case.
Besides, anyone who would be freaked out by a crash probably isn't installing obscure, untested applications.
You have clearly never worked a day of tech support in your life.
If you need to make a waranty claim on a product and can't find the reciept, and don't remember what credit card bank you purchased it on, how do you provide proof of purchase? Now you're just being a dick about things. If your memory is so bad you can't remember your password, or your username or your email address AND you change email providers so often that you won't be able to find an email from apple, maybe you shouldn't be buying music online.