First, they came for the paedophiles; and I didn't speak, for I was not a paedophile. Then, they came for the hoodies; and I didn't speak, for I was not a hoodie. Then, they came for the problem families; and I didn't speak, for I was not a problem family. Then, they came for me. But I was in Canada by then (please?!)
Finally, on a personal note, I would like to ask yttrstein why he feels compelled to burden the rest of us with his un-informed opinions on this topic. He could have easily researched the issue, in about 5 or 10 minutes, and perhaps contributed something worth reading.
Yahoo has always been the swinger of the search engine party. For a while it was even powered by Google. When Bing gets old and fat Yahoo will move onto some other nubile young thing.
Considering they'll be owned by Microsoft, I doubt it.
Australians must be relieved, the government's censorship software is working just fine. Personally, I wanted this experiment to be a complete failure. The fact that censoring the internet is technically feasible is hardly "good" news.
In Britain, NONE of the mainstream press decided to reprint the Mohammed cartoons. That includes the precious BBC that so many here on/. seem to idolize. That says something about British culture.
Hmm, until you got to the part where you mentioned meeting nice girls, that feels exactly like my life right now. What was this 'dating club' you joined? Another thing; did you live in a major metropolitan area? Northampton seems to be a veritable desert when it comes to available female talent.
You don't think that might have happened anyway, without OKcupid?
I've been on OKcupid for years and literally all of the women I've talked to on there have been more interested in other women, or just suddenly stopped talking to me after a week or so for no apparent reason.
(Remember, under US copyright law, anyone can make a cover version of any song and just pay the statutory royalty to the songwriter, a modest fee. The songwriter cannot refuse.)
Um, ok... how long until US copyright law gets changed?
You lost a book. They refunded the price. You have no loss.
I don't think giving people Amazon.com credit is the same as refunding the price. What if I changed my mind and don't want to buy anything from Amazon now after the shit they pulled? What if I want to save the refund in the bank? Bank refund, or it's not a proper refund.
First, it would deprive the author's heirs of their rightful claim to the income generated from the late author's work.
I strongly disagree with your use of the word 'rightful'. Copyright should only be able to be held as long as the author is alive, and either by the author, or by someone the author transfers it to.
As a society, we don't say that a person's physical property becomes "public property" as soon as they die, so why should their financial interest in intangible property end when they die?
Because a financial interest in intangible property is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from physical property. It's not inherently held by anybody, once it is 'out there' and copyable; its distribution being very much artificially restricted by government as it is, and I see absolutely no inherent reason to consider it to be like physical property.
I could just as easily say that a house a builder builds no longer belongs to him once he's sold it. Why doesn't he and his family get to keep profiting from it for years and years? Because it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing from the physical property he owns, so stop drawing silly analogies.
Slashdot Mirror
First, they came for the paedophiles; and I didn't speak, for I was not a paedophile.
Then, they came for the hoodies; and I didn't speak, for I was not a hoodie.
Then, they came for the problem families; and I didn't speak, for I was not a problem family.
Then, they came for me. But I was in Canada by then (please?!)
You suc*.
Finally, on a personal note, I would like to ask yttrstein why he feels compelled to burden the rest of us with his un-informed opinions on this topic. He could have easily researched the issue, in about 5 or 10 minutes, and perhaps contributed something worth reading.
You must be new here.
That was Alan's contention, and if true then it would be better to fix emacs than to keep the tty layer broken or crufty for emacs' lazy benefit.
Anyway, I think emacs has its own tty layer, doesn't it?
You know, if the default behavior of typical FTP clients were to make the files on your hard-disk publicly sharable
And P2P clients do do this? I think you're confusing them with trojans.
Yahoo has always been the swinger of the search engine party. For a while it was even powered by Google. When Bing gets old and fat Yahoo will move onto some other nubile young thing.
Considering they'll be owned by Microsoft, I doubt it.
Can iPhone users buy the app in another store?
No; but the great thing is, there's an app for that.
Yup. Can't see any legal ramifications there.
If you hate anything so much that you injure yourself or your cause in the process of avoiding it, then yes, you have a disease.
Actually, using and developing Linux is more like trying to stand up to MS's dominance. So, your assertion should really read:
If you hate anything so much that you injure yourself or your cause in the process of standing up to it, then yes, you have a disease.
So, everyone who fought against the Nazis in WW2 had a disease, then?
MS aren't a successful merkin company. This is a successful merkin company.
Australians must be relieved, the government's censorship software is working just fine. Personally, I wanted this experiment to be a complete failure. The fact that censoring the internet is technically feasible is hardly "good" news.
Good news everybody!
John Prescott eats virtually anything, so I'm sure he craps some money.
I'd still lurrrrve to see properties in Java.
I don't buy this. You went to the effort to learn Chinese, but couldn't be bothered to spend 5 minutes installing some RAM in a PC???
You obviously don't buy Apple.
... is about 54 degrees Celsius, by the way.
C'mon, America. Catch up with the world's weights and measures. ;-D
In Britain, NONE of the mainstream press decided to reprint the Mohammed cartoons. That includes the precious BBC that so many here on /. seem to idolize. That says something about British culture.
Does "Religion is the opium of the people" ring any bell?
I thought that was Guinness.
Are you a Christian? eHarmony, when I last looked at it, seemed to have a nastily religious bent.
Hmm, until you got to the part where you mentioned meeting nice girls, that feels exactly like my life right now. What was this 'dating club' you joined? Another thing; did you live in a major metropolitan area? Northampton seems to be a veritable desert when it comes to available female talent.
You don't think that might have happened anyway, without OKcupid?
I've been on OKcupid for years and literally all of the women I've talked to on there have been more interested in other women, or just suddenly stopped talking to me after a week or so for no apparent reason.
(Remember, under US copyright law, anyone can make a cover version of any song and just pay the statutory royalty to the songwriter, a modest fee. The songwriter cannot refuse.)
Um, ok... how long until US copyright law gets changed?
Actually, I'd prefer if they did the later. Like Star Trek, Futurama's premise could work if told from a different perspective.
It worked well with Family Guy -> American Dad. :-P
You lost a book. They refunded the price. You have no loss.
I don't think giving people Amazon.com credit is the same as refunding the price. What if I changed my mind and don't want to buy anything from Amazon now after the shit they pulled? What if I want to save the refund in the bank? Bank refund, or it's not a proper refund.
First, it would deprive the author's heirs of their rightful claim to the income generated from the late author's work.
I strongly disagree with your use of the word 'rightful'. Copyright should only be able to be held as long as the author is alive, and either by the author, or by someone the author transfers it to.
As a society, we don't say that a person's physical property becomes "public property" as soon as they die, so why should their financial interest in intangible property end when they die?
Because a financial interest in intangible property is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from physical property. It's not inherently held by anybody, once it is 'out there' and copyable; its distribution being very much artificially restricted by government as it is, and I see absolutely no inherent reason to consider it to be like physical property.
I could just as easily say that a house a builder builds no longer belongs to him once he's sold it. Why doesn't he and his family get to keep profiting from it for years and years? Because it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing from the physical property he owns, so stop drawing silly analogies.