Mmm... then what DID you say? "If you know what torrent you are looking for, and the torrent is legally redistributable, you should probably also know where to download the torrent file from."
In other words, if you want a torrent, you're supposed to simply intuit its location without any help from a search engine. You're simply supposed to "know" where they are.
But, ever mind. I think you're right. Searching for what you specifically want is asinine. Google should also get rid of its map only search, its image only search, its text search, and its newgroup search.
We shouldn't be able to search for email, in folders, and in documents on our computers.
We should have generic searches with no specificity. That'd make life SO much easier.
Some states allow citizens to block use of their credit report. Thus, even if someone steals your SSN, your birth certificate, and your drivers license, they're unable to obtain any new credit in your name, because no one is going to give credit without first getting a credit report.
Sure, it doesn't solve all problems with ID theft, but it certainly helps.
And one more important question, do we get to pick our new bodies?! Because next time, Lord, I want to be good looking AND smart!
the process will be only available to the wealthy
on
Download Your Brain
·
· Score: 0
Is Professor Frink in charge of this project?
"I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them."
Who's talking about barbarians?! I'm not. I'm talking about the original posting dealing with a CHRISTIAN destroying KNOWLEDGE. Something CHRISTIANS have been doing since their formation.
Are Christians the only group to destroy knowledge? Nope. Did I ever say that in your wildest dreams? Nope.
Once again, every thing I've said is irrefutably true, so what are you bitching about? I have no idea.
Why do you think you have any right to talk about trademark law? First, it appears you know nothing about it. Second, if you did, you'd know that trademarks only apply to specific markets. Thus, Hormel's trademark on "spam" only applies to food.
In my town we have a McDonalds diary and a McDonalds pharmacy and they are completely legal under the law, because they cover different markets from the famous restaurant chain.
Exactly what does the market for the prevention of unwanted email have to do with the market for meat byproducts sold in a can?!
...Christians have been consistent throughout the ages. Squashing the advancement of our knowledge about the world timeandtime again. Can you imagine if Bush was in the White House during the 50s and 60s. Instead of giving the American people an amazing goal to reach, he'd have arrested scientist who were attempting to disprove the existence of the firmament!
I know that. In fact I specifically said the whole purpose was to scam investors.
All I'm saying is that it would have been real easy to make a few thousand of them. At the very least it would have enticed more investors to come on board to scam. The fact that it was vaporware for so long must have scared some investors away.
But despite of the ease of making the system, he couldn't' be bothered to even do that. It's like he's the laziest con artist in the world.
I know the Phantom was a pure investment scam. But how hard would it have been to actually make a product for sale?!
It's a PC, connected to a TV, with a server on the internet from which you can download games. If some company in China had come up with the idea, it'd have taken them a week to release a product.
A process by which imaginary problems are solved by painfully obvious methods which have previously been utilized to solve the same imaginary problem for decades.
"Patents are a good defensive strategy for any company"
That's BS. Let's assume that a company admits the patent system is screwed, so it obtains patents for defense. That makes no sense unless it is also working to change the current patent system so defensive patents are NOT necessary.
Obviously because Microsoft is not working to fix the current system, it is using these patents for offensive means, not defensive means.
When I used the pronoun "you," it referred to the P2P users getting songs without paying any money. In other words, that user got something of value for no cost. That does NOT mean that others didn't lose value. In fact, I agree that others do.
Slashdot Mirror
"I never said it wasn't."
Mmm... then what DID you say? "If you know what torrent you are looking for, and the torrent is legally redistributable, you should probably also know where to download the torrent file from."
In other words, if you want a torrent, you're supposed to simply intuit its location without any help from a search engine. You're simply supposed to "know" where they are.
But, ever mind. I think you're right. Searching for what you specifically want is asinine. Google should also get rid of its map only search, its image only search, its text search, and its newgroup search.
We shouldn't be able to search for email, in folders, and in documents on our computers.
We should have generic searches with no specificity. That'd make life SO much easier.
Some states allow citizens to block use of their credit report. Thus, even if someone steals your SSN, your birth certificate, and your drivers license, they're unable to obtain any new credit in your name, because no one is going to give credit without first getting a credit report.
Sure, it doesn't solve all problems with ID theft, but it certainly helps.
Thanks for proving my point. Using a search engine to find torrents IS a great idea.
Imagine I hear about a new video demo for Quake4. Without searching for the torrent, how am I supposed to "know" where it is?
Or maybe I'm just curious if there's a demo available for UT2004. How do I find if there's a torrent without looking for it?
Then again, maybe your intuition is a little better than the rest of us. Or maybe you've managed to download Google directly do your brain.
And one more important question, do we get to pick our new bodies?! Because next time, Lord, I want to be good looking AND smart!
Is Professor Frink in charge of this project?
"I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them."
... parents' basements across the nation were rocking!
Who's talking about barbarians?! I'm not. I'm talking about the original posting dealing with a CHRISTIAN destroying KNOWLEDGE. Something CHRISTIANS have been doing since their formation.
Are Christians the only group to destroy knowledge? Nope. Did I ever say that in your wildest dreams? Nope.
Once again, every thing I've said is irrefutably true, so what are you bitching about? I have no idea.
And you're forgetting the we've been calling unsolicited email "spam" WAY before 1996.
Why do you think you have any right to talk about trademark law? First, it appears you know nothing about it. Second, if you did, you'd know that trademarks only apply to specific markets. Thus, Hormel's trademark on "spam" only applies to food.
In my town we have a McDonalds diary and a McDonalds pharmacy and they are completely legal under the law, because they cover different markets from the famous restaurant chain.
Exactly what does the market for the prevention of unwanted email have to do with the market for meat byproducts sold in a can?!
Was knowlege squashed? Yes.
Was it done by a Christian? Yes.
Need I say more? Nope.
What are you bitching about?! I have no idea.
How about the right to use our own language?!
...Christians have been consistent throughout the ages. Squashing the advancement of our knowledge about the world time and time again. Can you imagine if Bush was in the White House during the 50s and 60s. Instead of giving the American people an amazing goal to reach, he'd have arrested scientist who were attempting to disprove the existence of the firmament!
And everyday drive-by shooters use cars, bank robbers use sacks, and shoplifters use pockets.
Let the banning begin!
Linux users would probably fall for this social engineering too, if it wasn't so expensive to patch Linux systems.
I know that. In fact I specifically said the whole purpose was to scam investors.
All I'm saying is that it would have been real easy to make a few thousand of them. At the very least it would have enticed more investors to come on board to scam. The fact that it was vaporware for so long must have scared some investors away.
But despite of the ease of making the system, he couldn't' be bothered to even do that. It's like he's the laziest con artist in the world.
I know the Phantom was a pure investment scam. But how hard would it have been to actually make a product for sale?!
It's a PC, connected to a TV, with a server on the internet from which you can download games. If some company in China had come up with the idea, it'd have taken them a week to release a product.
Actually, I wish they would release that cool "couch" keyboard they developed. But of course, it'd have to be wireless.
It's called the "Phantom" for godsakes! I can't believe that anyone ever believed it'd be made. I figured it was a money making scam from day one.
The Patriot Act requires libraries to turn over that sort of information to the feds when asked.
I'd call it the Can't Spam Act.
.... Walmart is opening stores there. Thus, it's only a matter of time.
Wish me luck:
A process by which imaginary problems are solved by painfully obvious methods which have previously been utilized to solve the same imaginary problem for decades.
"Patents are a good defensive strategy for any company"
That's BS. Let's assume that a company admits the patent system is screwed, so it obtains patents for defense. That makes no sense unless it is also working to change the current patent system so defensive patents are NOT necessary.
Obviously because Microsoft is not working to fix the current system, it is using these patents for offensive means, not defensive means.
When I used the pronoun "you," it referred to the P2P users getting songs without paying any money. In other words, that user got something of value for no cost. That does NOT mean that others didn't lose value. In fact, I agree that others do.