Seriously though, if they couldn't even handle a switch from IE to Firefox, you think they're not going to raise holy hell if you swap out the entire OS?
I'd like to see citations regarding this. It seems to me that as long as you're not quoting the work in its entirety, then the resulting work would be transformative and fair use. Is it really necessary to quote every single sentence in order to refute it?
Unsuspecting? Are people who infringe on IP ever 'expecting' a lawsuit? Is it suddenly unfair to sue them just because they are ignorant of the law?
You assume that the defendants are always guilty. Given that Righthaven has already lost one of these lawsuits because the act in question was a valid fair use situation, then yes, "unsuspecting" is applicable.
You know what's ironic? (And I'm surprised nobody's called me out on it yet...) I realize after review that I put a sentence in that post without a verb. I have met the enemy, and he is me.
What is unacceptable in a university paper can be acceptable in a forum posting.
Well, the quote specifically says "I doubt websites will exist", not "I doubt today's websites will exist". Nevertheless, I think you're right. Either he was misquoted, or he misspoke, because I think what he was really intending to say was indeed what you suggested.
"In five years' time or so, I doubt websites will exist and I expect the vast majority of sites from the first twenty years of the web to be gone forever," says Jim Boulton, curator of Digital Archaeology.
This seems a pretty bold prediction. I know things in The Land Of The Tubes change pretty quickly, but no more websites in five years? Am I misreading that?
And yet if you walked into a store and stole those 24 songs off the shelf you could probably get away with a warning, maybe with some community service.
I'm not agreeing with any of the damage amounts that have been awarded, but just to be clear, she's not being charged with stealing 24 songs, she's being charged with distributing 24 songs.
Obviously you fail to understand how my superior browser makes me a better human being than you. As such, I will disregard the rest of your post. It is likely just to bore me, or possibly even lead to a headache. When you realize the error of your ways, and are willing to admit that I am right in this and all things, I will once again indulge you.
"Superior browser" is an oxymoron. If you were truly a better human being, you would simply download web pages as a stream of binary data and render them in your mind, like I do.
Such as the location that they are able to resolve via your IP address? I bet that has a huge effect on the rates they provide.
Actually, they ask for a ZIP code, which they use to determine rates. I entered 90210 in all three browsers, because I actually live in Canada and am not eligible for any rate at all.
I just tried this with the three browsers I currently have installed. Firefox and Chrome both offered me 3.50%, while IE8 offered me 2.30%. Firefox also used a completely different style sheet than both IE8 and Chrome.
It's entirely possible that it originally came from a costume warehouse where all the Vader costumes were stored, and none of them had labels indicating which movie they were from. This would mean it's known to be an original costume, but not known for certain which movie it was used in.
Ya know, you don't even have to click on any of the links in the summary, but rather just hover over the first link to learn that XMarks is a bookmark synchronizer.
More specifically, it's a centralized service plus a plugin for all major browsers so that you can have the same bookmarks in every browser on every machine you use. Further, it lets you create profiles for your bookmarks, so that you can have slightly different bookmarks on different machines based on what you use that machine for (ie. your "home" bookmarks don't show up on your "work" machine). And for those who don't trust the centralized bookmark repository, you can even set up your own XMarks server (albeit slightly limited in functionality) and not have to trust them.
Seriously...is there any other film franchise out there that blatantly squeezes more money out of its fans?
I don't know if I'd call it "squeezing". The thing with many Star Wars fans is that they want more Star Wars, any way they can get it. If that's what the fans want, why shouldn't Lucas give it to them?
Myself, I'm a Star Wars fan, but not quite a fanatic like some, so I'm not actually interested in more Star Wars. Therefore, I won't go see the 3D versions, and consequently I don't feel "squeezed" by Lucas at all.
They weren't protesting the war, they were protesting the president under the guise of protesting the war. Now that their guy is in office, code pink is all but gone and where is Cyndi Sheehan? How come she isn't camping out in front of Obama's vacation houses?
Are you referring to the Cindy Sheehan who protested at Martha's Vineyard when Obama was staying there in August of 2009? The same Cindy Sheehan who was arrested last October while protesting Obama's continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan outside the White House? The very same person who went to Norway to protest Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, and who was arrested again this past March outside the White House?
Yeah, you're right. It's all about Bush, and has nothing to do with the war.
The study shows that, immediately following an action gaming session, gamers were quicker to respond. However, it does not indicate whether this actually lasts. They could just be on an adrenaline rush (or something similar), which could wane eventually. It doesn't seem to indicate that they have actually been "trained" to make decisions more quickly.
It may be the case, but it isn't clear, at least not from the article.
However, I consider it wrong to interfere with people's freedom of expression. As a major company, that ethical position requires me to treat all customers equally and not cut off those whose views conflict with me own.
Would that ethical position require you to treat all customers, including customers who don't pay, equally? Would you continue to provide service perpetually to those who refuse to pay for that service?
Paying for the service is a term of the agreement. If you violate that term, you will have your service cut off. There are other terms of this particular agreement. One of them is that you don't post hate speech. This Church violated that term, so they had their service cut off.
Pick any religious group you like, from Catholic to Luciferian to Ba'ahi and tell me it's okay for companies to turn their money away purely on the basis of that belief, and I'll say that it's wrong.
That is not what Rackspace is doing. The Church was accepted as a customer until they violated the terms of the agreement— an agreement the Church willingly entered into. If they didn't like those terms, they should've gone with a different provider. There are plenty of providers out there who do not have that particular clause in their policies.
The problem here is that you're hung up on ideology. I'm looking at pure practicality.
I didn't say I bought a product called "Theatrical Release". I said I bought the theatrical release on DVD. I bought a legal, legitimate, LucasFilm released DVD that contained the original, unmodified, theatrical release. And anyone else who wants the theatrical release on DVD, legitimately, can get it as well, apparently for as low as $12.49 (according to the Amazon link someone else provided above).
There was nothing dishonest in my post. I bought the theatrical release on DVD. It happened to come in a two-disc set, with the butchered version on the extra disc. Which disc is the "main" disc and which one is the "bonus" is entirely arbitrary, so to me the disc containing the theatrical release is the one I paid for, and the other was a free "extra feature" (the price for two versions of the movie was no more than a regular movie that doesn't come in two versions).
As for any implication that I don't own any other version, I intended no such implication. In fact, as I've never inserted the disc containing the butchered version into my DVD player, I had all but forgotten I even had it.
What's dishonest is suggesting you can't buy the theatrical release on DVD. You can. So what if you get additional useless crap with it. That's true of almost all DVDs— I've seen very few that come with "bonus features" that are anything more than useless filler.
Slashdot Mirror
I found that they had gone back to Explorer (Firefox "didn't look the same")
Get them this.
Seriously though, if they couldn't even handle a switch from IE to Firefox, you think they're not going to raise holy hell if you swap out the entire OS?
I'd like to see citations regarding this. It seems to me that as long as you're not quoting the work in its entirety, then the resulting work would be transformative and fair use. Is it really necessary to quote every single sentence in order to refute it?
Unsuspecting? Are people who infringe on IP ever 'expecting' a lawsuit? Is it suddenly unfair to sue them just because they are ignorant of the law?
You assume that the defendants are always guilty. Given that Righthaven has already lost one of these lawsuits because the act in question was a valid fair use situation, then yes, "unsuspecting" is applicable.
You know what's ironic? (And I'm surprised nobody's called me out on it yet...) I realize after review that I put a sentence in that post without a verb. I have met the enemy, and he is me.
What is unacceptable in a university paper can be acceptable in a forum posting.
Well, the quote specifically says "I doubt websites will exist", not "I doubt today's websites will exist". Nevertheless, I think you're right. Either he was misquoted, or he misspoke, because I think what he was really intending to say was indeed what you suggested.
From TFA:
"In five years' time or so, I doubt websites will exist and I expect the vast majority of sites from the first twenty years of the web to be gone forever," says Jim Boulton, curator of Digital Archaeology.
This seems a pretty bold prediction. I know things in The Land Of The Tubes change pretty quickly, but no more websites in five years? Am I misreading that?
This just in. Kids with a social life have more sex. Film at 11.
And yet if you walked into a store and stole those 24 songs off the shelf you could probably get away with a warning, maybe with some community service.
I'm not agreeing with any of the damage amounts that have been awarded, but just to be clear, she's not being charged with stealing 24 songs, she's being charged with distributing 24 songs.
Obviously you fail to understand how my superior browser makes me a better human being than you. As such, I will disregard the rest of your post. It is likely just to bore me, or possibly even lead to a headache. When you realize the error of your ways, and are willing to admit that I am right in this and all things, I will once again indulge you.
"Superior browser" is an oxymoron. If you were truly a better human being, you would simply download web pages as a stream of binary data and render them in your mind, like I do.
Such as the location that they are able to resolve via your IP address? I bet that has a huge effect on the rates they provide.
Actually, they ask for a ZIP code, which they use to determine rates. I entered 90210 in all three browsers, because I actually live in Canada and am not eligible for any rate at all.
What the interest rate for IE was?
I just tried this with the three browsers I currently have installed. Firefox and Chrome both offered me 3.50%, while IE8 offered me 2.30%. Firefox also used a completely different style sheet than both IE8 and Chrome.
It's entirely possible that it originally came from a costume warehouse where all the Vader costumes were stored, and none of them had labels indicating which movie they were from. This would mean it's known to be an original costume, but not known for certain which movie it was used in.
If I created a botnet, then used it to force all the computers to run Folding@Home. Would I still be evil?
Yes.
It's my computer, not yours. Keep your frickin' hands off of it.
What if it was Microsoft?
It is. They're mentioned in the article as well.
Ya know, you don't even have to click on any of the links in the summary, but rather just hover over the first link to learn that XMarks is a bookmark synchronizer.
More specifically, it's a centralized service plus a plugin for all major browsers so that you can have the same bookmarks in every browser on every machine you use. Further, it lets you create profiles for your bookmarks, so that you can have slightly different bookmarks on different machines based on what you use that machine for (ie. your "home" bookmarks don't show up on your "work" machine). And for those who don't trust the centralized bookmark repository, you can even set up your own XMarks server (albeit slightly limited in functionality) and not have to trust them.
In short: it's pretty damn cool.
Seriously...is there any other film franchise out there that blatantly squeezes more money out of its fans?
I don't know if I'd call it "squeezing". The thing with many Star Wars fans is that they want more Star Wars, any way they can get it. If that's what the fans want, why shouldn't Lucas give it to them?
Myself, I'm a Star Wars fan, but not quite a fanatic like some, so I'm not actually interested in more Star Wars. Therefore, I won't go see the 3D versions, and consequently I don't feel "squeezed" by Lucas at all.
With 10^100 winners it brings a whole new meaning to 'everyone's a winner!'
Woohoo! I won 1.47058824 × 10^93 times!
They weren't protesting the war, they were protesting the president under the guise of protesting the war. Now that their guy is in office, code pink is all but gone and where is Cyndi Sheehan? How come she isn't camping out in front of Obama's vacation houses?
Are you referring to the Cindy Sheehan who protested at Martha's Vineyard when Obama was staying there in August of 2009? The same Cindy Sheehan who was arrested last October while protesting Obama's continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan outside the White House? The very same person who went to Norway to protest Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, and who was arrested again this past March outside the White House?
Yeah, you're right. It's all about Bush, and has nothing to do with the war.
The study shows that, immediately following an action gaming session, gamers were quicker to respond. However, it does not indicate whether this actually lasts. They could just be on an adrenaline rush (or something similar), which could wane eventually. It doesn't seem to indicate that they have actually been "trained" to make decisions more quickly.
It may be the case, but it isn't clear, at least not from the article.
If I downloaded and listened to Poker Face which I don't have a license to, that would be illegal.
Actually, even that is not illegal. That falls under "Private Copying", which is legal, thanks to the blank media levy.
However, I consider it wrong to interfere with people's freedom of expression. As a major company, that ethical position requires me to treat all customers equally and not cut off those whose views conflict with me own.
Would that ethical position require you to treat all customers, including customers who don't pay, equally? Would you continue to provide service perpetually to those who refuse to pay for that service?
Paying for the service is a term of the agreement. If you violate that term, you will have your service cut off. There are other terms of this particular agreement. One of them is that you don't post hate speech. This Church violated that term, so they had their service cut off.
Pick any religious group you like, from Catholic to Luciferian to Ba'ahi and tell me it's okay for companies to turn their money away purely on the basis of that belief, and I'll say that it's wrong.
That is not what Rackspace is doing. The Church was accepted as a customer until they violated the terms of the agreement— an agreement the Church willingly entered into. If they didn't like those terms, they should've gone with a different provider. There are plenty of providers out there who do not have that particular clause in their policies.
Hokey religions and ancient relics are no match for a good blaster at your side.
Wake me when he builds one of these.
The problem here is that you're hung up on ideology. I'm looking at pure practicality.
I didn't say I bought a product called "Theatrical Release". I said I bought the theatrical release on DVD. I bought a legal, legitimate, LucasFilm released DVD that contained the original, unmodified, theatrical release. And anyone else who wants the theatrical release on DVD, legitimately, can get it as well, apparently for as low as $12.49 (according to the Amazon link someone else provided above).
There was nothing dishonest in my post. I bought the theatrical release on DVD. It happened to come in a two-disc set, with the butchered version on the extra disc. Which disc is the "main" disc and which one is the "bonus" is entirely arbitrary, so to me the disc containing the theatrical release is the one I paid for, and the other was a free "extra feature" (the price for two versions of the movie was no more than a regular movie that doesn't come in two versions).
As for any implication that I don't own any other version, I intended no such implication. In fact, as I've never inserted the disc containing the butchered version into my DVD player, I had all but forgotten I even had it.
What's dishonest is suggesting you can't buy the theatrical release on DVD. You can. So what if you get additional useless crap with it. That's true of almost all DVDs— I've seen very few that come with "bonus features" that are anything more than useless filler.
Not all of us have the beautiful anamorphic laserdiscs.
Laserdiscs? What's wrong with the OT DVD release?
Han shoots first on my DVD copy. Same on my VHS copy.