No, they don't. I have been using Mandrake for at least 4 years and it's had a full GUI installation for the last 3 of those years for sure and possibly even before that. I also know that SUSE has a full GUI installation and I am sure many other Linux distros do too.
Partioning in Mandrake at least was very easy and it is very helpful about what partitions to create and what to do in case you have an existing Windows installation you don't wish to overwrite. In all the cases I have seen the original suggestion the installer makes for partitioning is the correct one so in effect the user just has to click on 'OK'.
All of that is no doubt true and just as bad for the people involved as you say it is however if you consider China as being in a similar position as places like the UK or the USA were 100 - 150 years ago then it seems fairly comparable.
For example how many people died building the Brooklyn Bridge, the Forth Rail Bridge, working in Cotton Mills and other types of factory ?
Hopefully this will change in the same way it has changed in the UK and the USA and elsewhere and hopefully it can happen more quickly in China now they have an example to follow but it's still a process they are going through which is common to every one of todays industrialised societies during the industrialisation period.
Your argument hinges on your theory that you are not allowed to make copies of anything without the copyright holders express consent and that should you be permitted to make any copies you can use parts of those copies according to the fair use guidelines.
( This is obviously different from the accepted theory that you can make copies of anything without the copyright holders express permission provided you use your copy in accordance with the fair use guidelines. )
According to your theory all internet search engines are illegal since they all make copies of copyrighted material without the owners express permission and then make use of that copied material in accordance with fair use guidelines.
So perhaps you can explain how Search Engines in general are not breaking the law ?
I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land with your index idea. You can easily create such an index without copying anything about the game, unless you have some very sophisticated software you've written yourself you are going to be able to tell very little about a game by examining the executable file. The same applies to your music, just what exactly will people be searching for which you can determine from an MP3 file ? So what you are actually doing is erecting a very flimsy cover story to engage in piracy and quite rightly this would be illegal.
Your second paragraph is simply wrong, the act of copying is not copyright infringement if you are making the copy for purposes covered by the fair use clauses. You cannot seperate the act of copying and the use to which the copy will be put because to do so simply makes no sense whatsoever.
Lastly, it is highly unlikely that Google would even consider this project without taking legal advice, clearly their legal advisors have given them the go ahead so they must believe that what they are doing is arguably legal.
I agree with you but I don't see this as really being the fault of the Police. If I was the Police ideally I'd like to lock people up for as long as it took for me to prove they were guilty, in fact my life would be a lot easier if I could just lock everyone up and eradicate crime in one fell swoop.
Luckily the Police don't get to write the laws they operate under, that's the job of the Government and right now it seems like Tony Blair is simply saying - "... the police tell me this new law would make their lives easier so why not implement it right now".
Ideally the Government should be considering wider objectives than simply making life easier for the Police, they should be considering the rights of people who are detained without any cause, the rights of society in general and the wish of the general public. The fact that the Government ( or the leadership and it's sycophantic hangers on at least )aren't taking any of this into account is entirely their fault and not the fault of the Police.
For example hopsitals are asking for more money to buy vital lifesaving drugs and equipment but I haven't as yet seen Mr Blair say anything like "... the hospitals need more money so I am going to do exactly what they say without any further consideration and divert the governments entire budget this year to the NHS"
Lastly I think that a Judge does get a say every week or so as to whether the detention is still justified so there would be some judicial oversight.
"Who has said that? They are copying books. Period."
If you read what I wrote I have said that Google are copying the books, we both agree that that is the case.
What you don't seem to realise is that what you can and cannot do with that copy is precisely the issue here. Provided you can demonstrate a fair use you are allowed to:
1) Make commercial use of the copy 2) Copy as much of the original work as you like
Were you copy books, copy the cover and sell your copy in bookshops then there is no way on earth you could claim this constituted fair use.
If you were to copy the books, index them and make a website allowing people to search the books for specific text and then provide a further small sample of the book then you can argue very convincingly that this is a fair use of the work.
There is nothing preventing from copying entire books provided you make a fair use of those copies, nothing you have quoted so far contradicts this.
"Cool,so I will start copying music, games and such. In addition, I will create a small index so people can search it, for the purpos of science. Great! Since I make money on it all, it is probably even more 'fair use'."
Once again you are totally missing the point here, if you are copying music, games etc to sell to other people then that is clearly not a fair use of your copy. If you are simply allowing people to search for some text in that music or those games then that probably does constitute a fair use of your copies.
The point is this, you can copy anything you like provided you have a fair use for the copy but you cannot copy anything or distribute the copies if you are making fair use of your copies.
I think you may be misunderstanding this to say that fair use does not apply to uses of a commercial nature whereas it is clearly stating that such commercial uses are included but that the nature of the use is what should be considered when deciding if the use is a fair use or not.
Google aren't copying the books in order to put the entire book on the web, from what I understand they will let you search for text in the book and will then display the relevant excerpt of text from that book. I agree this will involve copying the entire work into a database or whatever but provided their use of this copy falls into the fair use provisions there seems to be nothing preventing Google from doing this.
Fair use of copyrighted works seems to protect Googles right to do this since they are providing the text for the purposes of, amongst other things, research. For example it would be easy to find quotes from particular books using this service and place them into a slightly wider context.
I don't think fair use has anything to do with whether you are doing it for commercial purposes or not since newspapers, magazines and books all make use of these fair use provision to quote other copyrighted works. Obviously they charge for their newspapers, magazines and books.
By the looks of it Google has a good claim to be making copies for the purposes of either news or reporting purposes. As I said this issue is not as cut and dried as the original poster was making out.
So far as I am aware you are allowed to make copies of copyrighted works if you like. You get into trouble if you decide to distribute these works to other people.
On the face of it Google is then only making snippets of the work available to the public and not distributing the whole work ( which is illegal ).
Obviously this is a somewhat grey and very arguable area but it's not as cut and dried as you have made it out to be.
"All it takes is an idea. I know some people who, as children were watching the Star Wars trilogy and fantasising about being able to drive around in a hovercraft or using a lightsaber as a weapon. They have grown up to became scientists or technology professionals, but did not let go of those "wouldn't it be cool if we could beam holograms or fly at warp speeds" kind of ideas. They have devoted their grown-up lives to trying to scientifically realise fantastical ideas. Many of them have found solutions. It's like the chicken and the egg. Did George plant the seed and then the kids grew up and made it real? We don't know, but it is an interesting question."
For goodness sake, this is making me sick - could George be . . . God ?
In the previous paragraph this sycophant is explaining how Star Wars invented all this new amazing technology and really opened peoples eyes for the first time to the potential wonders of technology ( and uses as an example the Star Trek communicator and mobile phones ).
So has anyone been inspired by anything they have seen on Star Wars ( as opposed to the 100 years of material in Sci-Fi books ) to make ground breaking, revolutionary scientific or engineering breakthroughs ? Do you know anyone who has or can you point to anything new or amazing you saw in Star Wars and was subsequently invented by a Star Wars fan ?
I don't especially have anything against the star wars movies but I think that there are probably around a million and one other films which are more entertaining, have better plots, are better acted, and are far better films. Seriously if I had a choice of a star wars film ( any of them - the originals included ) or any other film the other film would have to be pretty generally crappy for me to choose star wars, maybe one of the later Matrix films and I have might have trouble deciding.
What does annoy me is the constant whining on about how great, ground breaking, amazingly uniquely concieved star wars is when clearly it's none of those things. Honestly, rather than investing so much time in your love for star wars go out and watch some other films or read some real sci fi books.
Absolutely, good point - if there's no proof anything like a 'god' exists then anything claiming to know it's mind, who it's children were and what it wants is standing on very very shaky ground indeed.
If this is an indication that the government is going to bite the bullet and actually make a commitment to nuclear power at some point then this sort of work can be a good thing. Thanks to years of CND and anti nuclear propoganda most peoples knee jerk reaction to hearing about new nuclear reactors being built is not a positive one and some kind of propoganda campaign pointing out the benefits and saftey of nuclear power certainly wouldn't go amiss.
If on the other hand his is the government testing public opinion to determine it's energy policy then this is not a good thing.
Evolution is a fact, there is as much evidence for evolution as their is for gravity but in the case of Evolution there is a better theory explaining how and why it should work.
Ideas are themselves neither scientific nor unscientific. If people explore those ideas using scientific principles then an idea can become an accepted part of science, the problem here is that ID is being explored in the media rather than using scientific methods and could therefore be said to be unscientific.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they don't. I have been using Mandrake for at least 4 years and it's had a full GUI installation for the last 3 of those years for sure and possibly even before that. I also know that SUSE has a full GUI installation and I am sure many other Linux distros do too.
Partioning in Mandrake at least was very easy and it is very helpful about what partitions to create and what to do in case you have an existing Windows installation you don't wish to overwrite. In all the cases I have seen the original suggestion the installer makes for partitioning is the correct one so in effect the user just has to click on 'OK'.
Gnnm Humpurless ! U kujw rgR QIES,
Hey is it true you are going for the Worlds Most Humpurless man competition again this year ? I think you're in with a real shot this year.
All of that is no doubt true and just as bad for the people involved as you say it is however if you consider China as being in a similar position as places like the UK or the USA were 100 - 150 years ago then it seems fairly comparable.
For example how many people died building the Brooklyn Bridge, the Forth Rail Bridge, working in Cotton Mills and other types of factory ?
Hopefully this will change in the same way it has changed in the UK and the USA and elsewhere and hopefully it can happen more quickly in China now they have an example to follow but it's still a process they are going through which is common to every one of todays industrialised societies during the industrialisation period.
Your argument hinges on your theory that you are not allowed to make copies of anything without the copyright holders express consent and that should you be permitted to make any copies you can use parts of those copies according to the fair use guidelines.
( This is obviously different from the accepted theory that you can make copies of anything without the copyright holders express permission provided you use your copy in accordance with the fair use guidelines. )
According to your theory all internet search engines are illegal since they all make copies of copyrighted material without the owners express permission and then make use of that copied material in accordance with fair use guidelines.
So perhaps you can explain how Search Engines in general are not breaking the law ?
That would be Newcastle.
I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land with your index idea. You can easily create such an index without copying anything about the game, unless you have some very sophisticated software you've written yourself you are going to be able to tell very little about a game by examining the executable file. The same applies to your music, just what exactly will people be searching for which you can determine from an MP3 file ? So what you are actually doing is erecting a very flimsy cover story to engage in piracy and quite rightly this would be illegal.
Your second paragraph is simply wrong, the act of copying is not copyright infringement if you are making the copy for purposes covered by the fair use clauses. You cannot seperate the act of copying and the use to which the copy will be put because to do so simply makes no sense whatsoever.
Lastly, it is highly unlikely that Google would even consider this project without taking legal advice, clearly their legal advisors have given them the go ahead so they must believe that what they are doing is arguably legal.
I agree with you but I don't see this as really being the fault of the Police. If I was the Police ideally I'd like to lock people up for as long as it took for me to prove they were guilty, in fact my life would be a lot easier if I could just lock everyone up and eradicate crime in one fell swoop.
Luckily the Police don't get to write the laws they operate under, that's the job of the Government and right now it seems like Tony Blair is simply saying - "... the police tell me this new law would make their lives easier so why not implement it right now".
Ideally the Government should be considering wider objectives than simply making life easier for the Police, they should be considering the rights of people who are detained without any cause, the rights of society in general and the wish of the general public. The fact that the Government ( or the leadership and it's sycophantic hangers on at least )aren't taking any of this into account is entirely their fault and not the fault of the Police.
For example hopsitals are asking for more money to buy vital lifesaving drugs and equipment but I haven't as yet seen Mr Blair say anything like "... the hospitals need more money so I am going to do exactly what they say without any further consideration and divert the governments entire budget this year to the NHS"
Lastly I think that a Judge does get a say every week or so as to whether the detention is still justified so there would be some judicial oversight.
If they truly are innocent then they will have nothing to fear and will enjoy eternity in the Kingdom Of Heaven.
"Who has said that? They are copying books. Period."
,so I will start copying music, games and such. In addition, I will create a small index so people can search it, for the purpos of science. Great! Since I make money on it all, it is probably even more 'fair use'."
If you read what I wrote I have said that Google are copying the books, we both agree that that is the case.
What you don't seem to realise is that what you can and cannot do with that copy is precisely the issue here. Provided you can demonstrate a fair use you are allowed to:
1) Make commercial use of the copy
2) Copy as much of the original work as you like
Were you copy books, copy the cover and sell your copy in bookshops then there is no way on earth you could claim this constituted fair use.
If you were to copy the books, index them and make a website allowing people to search the books for specific text and then provide a further small sample of the book then you can argue very convincingly that this is a fair use of the work.
There is nothing preventing from copying entire books provided you make a fair use of those copies, nothing you have quoted so far contradicts this.
"Cool
Once again you are totally missing the point here, if you are copying music, games etc to sell to other people then that is clearly not a fair use of your copy. If you are simply allowing people to search for some text in that music or those games then that probably does constitute a fair use of your copies.
The point is this, you can copy anything you like provided you have a fair use for the copy but you cannot copy anything or distribute the copies if you are making fair use of your copies.
I think you may be misunderstanding this to say that fair use does not apply to uses of a commercial nature whereas it is clearly stating that such commercial uses are included but that the nature of the use is what should be considered when deciding if the use is a fair use or not.
Google aren't copying the books in order to put the entire book on the web, from what I understand they will let you search for text in the book and will then display the relevant excerpt of text from that book. I agree this will involve copying the entire work into a database or whatever but provided their use of this copy falls into the fair use provisions there seems to be nothing preventing Google from doing this.
Fair use of copyrighted works seems to protect Googles right to do this since they are providing the text for the purposes of, amongst other things, research. For example it would be easy to find quotes from particular books using this service and place them into a slightly wider context.
I don't think fair use has anything to do with whether you are doing it for commercial purposes or not since newspapers, magazines and books all make use of these fair use provision to quote other copyrighted works. Obviously they charge for their newspapers, magazines and books.
By the looks of it Google has a good claim to be making copies for the purposes of either news or reporting purposes. As I said this issue is not as cut and dried as the original poster was making out.
So far as I am aware you are allowed to make copies of copyrighted works if you like. You get into trouble if you decide to distribute these works to other people.
On the face of it Google is then only making snippets of the work available to the public and not distributing the whole work ( which is illegal ).
Obviously this is a somewhat grey and very arguable area but it's not as cut and dried as you have made it out to be.
Having watched them, no - I can't believe that would be possible.
"All it takes is an idea. I know some people who, as children were watching the Star Wars trilogy and fantasising about being able to drive around in a hovercraft or using a lightsaber as a weapon. They have grown up to became scientists or technology professionals, but did not let go of those "wouldn't it be cool if we could beam holograms or fly at warp speeds" kind of ideas. They have devoted their grown-up lives to trying to scientifically realise fantastical ideas. Many of them have found solutions. It's like the chicken and the egg. Did George plant the seed and then the kids grew up and made it real? We don't know, but it is an interesting question."
For goodness sake, this is making me sick - could George be . . . God ?
In the previous paragraph this sycophant is explaining how Star Wars invented all this new amazing technology and really opened peoples eyes for the first time to the potential wonders of technology ( and uses as an example the Star Trek communicator and mobile phones ).
So has anyone been inspired by anything they have seen on Star Wars ( as opposed to the 100 years of material in Sci-Fi books ) to make ground breaking, revolutionary scientific or engineering breakthroughs ? Do you know anyone who has or can you point to anything new or amazing you saw in Star Wars and was subsequently invented by a Star Wars fan ?
I don't especially have anything against the star wars movies but I think that there are probably around a million and one other films which are more entertaining, have better plots, are better acted, and are far better films. Seriously if I had a choice of a star wars film ( any of them - the originals included ) or any other film the other film would have to be pretty generally crappy for me to choose star wars, maybe one of the later Matrix films and I have might have trouble deciding.
What does annoy me is the constant whining on about how great, ground breaking, amazingly uniquely concieved star wars is when clearly it's none of those things. Honestly, rather than investing so much time in your love for star wars go out and watch some other films or read some real sci fi books.
Who's an ugly bastard and as fat as he can be ?
A-L-E-X-I S-A-Y-L-E
We love to watch him shout and swear on the tv
No they don't, they can pick and choose who gets charged for using their patents and who doesn't.
Absolutely, good point - if there's no proof anything like a 'god' exists then anything claiming to know it's mind, who it's children were and what it wants is standing on very very shaky ground indeed.
If this is an indication that the government is going to bite the bullet and actually make a commitment to nuclear power at some point then this sort of work can be a good thing. Thanks to years of CND and anti nuclear propoganda most peoples knee jerk reaction to hearing about new nuclear reactors being built is not a positive one and some kind of propoganda campaign pointing out the benefits and saftey of nuclear power certainly wouldn't go amiss.
If on the other hand his is the government testing public opinion to determine it's energy policy then this is not a good thing.
Evolution is a fact, it is has happened, does happen and is happening. The Theory attempts to explain how and why it is happening.
You remain a fuckwit and almsot certainly always will do.
You fuckwit.
Evolution is a fact, there is as much evidence for evolution as their is for gravity but in the case of Evolution there is a better theory explaining how and why it should work.
It may not be flamebait but it's certainly idiotic and as a result you are going on my foes list.
Ideas are themselves neither scientific nor unscientific. If people explore those ideas using scientific principles then an idea can become an accepted part of science, the problem here is that ID is being explored in the media rather than using scientific methods and could therefore be said to be unscientific.