"the relevant and proper time at which to measure whether the Windows trademark is generic." The court said prior to 1985 is that time.
The X Window System concept first emerged in 1984, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), as a joint project between their Laboratory for Computer Science and Digital Equipment Corporation.
They're all "wastes of time" if you consider the fact that you could be doing something productive with that time. You could spend it building something or...
Microsoft's SDK will be fairly cheap, like it always is, because they are not friggin retarded and after 20 years of dominance realize that the key is having shitloads of software. But since there is no article to not read and I am not d/l'ing all that crap, and because the summary doesn't tell you shit other than that MS apparently wants to be the dominant player in the game market, i really don't know WTF I am talking about.
Copyright deals with half an assload of different things. Distribution is one of them, but only one of them.
The biggies are reproduction, creation of derivatives, distribution, and certain public performances or displays. Read 17 USC 106.
This is, of course, true, but it could be argued that all of the things you listed are forms (or aspects in the case of reproduction) of distribution. Regardless, taken in the context of the comment I was replying to my statement makes sense. The GP argued that Apple could revoke your rights to listen to the song and so you would be ingaging in copyright violation. I was saying that copyright laws do not apply since you are not reproducing, distributing, deriving, or publicly performing the work. I was trying to get my point accross without having to make a full paragraph response(I apparently should have just done the paragraph in the first place)
I will not debate you on the legality or binding-ness of a EULA as they have almost always been upheld by the courts.
Crap, I said I wasn't going to but This decision certainly didn't.
Now, for the sake of argument lets take an edge case. You purchased the songs on iTunes and burnt them to CD. After doing ghis you break the EULA. Do you think a court would allow Apple to confiscate that CD (assuming they could). I seriously doubt it, especially considering the above decision, the fact it was in California, and the TOS specifically mentions that it is governed by California law. How is having it on your MP3 player any different?
Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal (lets not even debate whether an EULA actually counts as a contract)
The S in TOS stands for service. The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service. Basically they say we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who breaks our terms. The only thing Apple could do to you for breaking this "contract" is ban you. (of course the DMCA could possibly come into play somehow, but it is relatively untested)
I got my ti-89 new about 4 years ago for less than $150. Are there really PDA's for that cheap? Plus, the 89 does symbolic calculations which is always fun and a must for any higher level math class these days.
Isn't it amazing how the solution to so many Windows problems is to jump through hoops, restrict what you can do, and generally make your life a hassle.
Funny, but that is what I thought was supposed to make Mac and Linux more secure!!!
wow...an eye icon for a browse function...that is so...non-trivial and non-obvious....eesh, give me a break. Can I patent using a musical note icon for doing something related to music?
When did the parent say anything about pirating music? He said the OPPOSITE! He said he would pay a buck if it was unencumbered with DRM. That sounds like exactly the market forces we WANT on our side, right?
You obviously think DRM is OK, that is fine for you. Many of us think it is very bad, and boycotting is the only way we have of telling anybody. It seems pretty retarded to say don't boycott because at least this DRM isn't that bad. You just wait...
BTW, any DRM war will be won by the hackers and script kiddies. As the restricions become tighter there will be more people willing to work on these projects and spread them throughout the net.
Except for that one line that says all rights not specifically limited remain with the people. There is no law against p2p just as there is no law for it. Therefore the right to p2p remains with the people.
Upon re-reading the statement I realize that you weren't saying that christains funds are the overwhelming majority but that poverty is an overwhelming problem. I still would like to see some numbers breaking down the beliefs behind the different funds though.
The international slaughter of Christians continues unabated,...Furthermore, the primarily Christian aid associations worldwide bear the overwhelming burden of trying to care for, protect and feed the worlds impoverished.
I cut the middle because I am not going to argue about who says what is who's fault.
I would, however, like to see evidence of the other two major claims.
1: some cases of people recently being slaughtered for being Christian and possibly some numbers backing up the statement that they are being singled out.
2: Some evidence that Christian funds are bearing the "overwhelming" burden of charity. And that better be a hell of a lot more than 50% of charities!
hmmm...you don't believe the parent's first hand experience? When were you ever in China? Do you know anybody who lived there? So we are to disregard the parent's primary source and go with your...what...tertiary...quaternary...saw it on tv or read it on slashdot source?
Slashdot Mirror
"the relevant and proper time at which to measure whether the Windows trademark is generic." The court said prior to 1985 is that time.
The X Window System concept first emerged in 1984, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), as a joint project between their Laboratory for Computer Science and Digital Equipment Corporation.
Also, there was a Twilight Zone based on or written by Bradbury. It was about some robot grandma. I didn't like it all that much....
Sweet! I knew it!! I am not addicted to alcohol because I have never tried to quit!!!
So we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because Al-Qaeda wouldn't like it?
Are you kidding me, Al-Qaeda LOVES it. Free anti-american press and lines around the block at the terrorist signup station.
And it was okay that Saddam tried to hide and create WMDs, just as long as he wasn't successful?
yes it is because guess what, reason aside, he had no WMD's and was no threat!
And we're losing a guerilla war where we're killing 20 times more of the guerillas than they are of us (at least)?
We managed to kill 20 times more vietnamese people than they killed americans and we lost that one too.
They're all "wastes of time" if you consider the fact that you could be doing something productive with that time. You could spend it building something or...
What?........like LEGOs?
agh...cynical and retarded...great combo! FOr anybody that reads as well as I do there is actually a transcript on the site
My original point stands...kinda....
Microsoft's SDK will be fairly cheap, like it always is, because they are not friggin retarded and after 20 years of dominance realize that the key is having shitloads of software. But since there is no article to not read and I am not d/l'ing all that crap, and because the summary doesn't tell you shit other than that MS apparently wants to be the dominant player in the game market, i really don't know WTF I am talking about.
Copyright deals with half an assload of different things. Distribution is one of them, but only one of them.
The biggies are reproduction, creation of derivatives, distribution, and certain public performances or displays. Read 17 USC 106.
This is, of course, true, but it could be argued that all of the things you listed are forms (or aspects in the case of reproduction) of distribution. Regardless, taken in the context of the comment I was replying to my statement makes sense. The GP argued that Apple could revoke your rights to listen to the song and so you would be ingaging in copyright violation. I was saying that copyright laws do not apply since you are not reproducing, distributing, deriving, or publicly performing the work. I was trying to get my point accross without having to make a full paragraph response(I apparently should have just done the paragraph in the first place)
I will not debate you on the legality or binding-ness of a EULA as they have almost always been upheld by the courts.
Crap, I said I wasn't going to but This decision certainly didn't.
Now, for the sake of argument lets take an edge case. You purchased the songs on iTunes and burnt them to CD. After doing ghis you break the EULA. Do you think a court would allow Apple to confiscate that CD (assuming they could). I seriously doubt it, especially considering the above decision, the fact it was in California, and the TOS specifically mentions that it is governed by California law. How is having it on your MP3 player any different?
Except that at this point you are no longer copying them since they are already on your computer. Copyright only deals with distribution.
Breaking a contract is not necissarily illegal (lets not even debate whether an EULA actually counts as a contract)
The S in TOS stands for service. The contract stiplulates the penalty for breaking the contract: refusal of service. Basically they say we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who breaks our terms. The only thing Apple could do to you for breaking this "contract" is ban you. (of course the DMCA could possibly come into play somehow, but it is relatively untested)
I got my ti-89 new about 4 years ago for less than $150. Are there really PDA's for that cheap? Plus, the 89 does symbolic calculations which is always fun and a must for any higher level math class these days.
Isn't it amazing how the solution to so many Windows problems is to jump through hoops, restrict what you can do, and generally make your life a hassle.
Funny, but that is what I thought was supposed to make Mac and Linux more secure!!!
As usual, here it is [yahoo.com]. Down US$.15 as of posting this.
Alright, so the score is!
1 day: down
5 day: down
3 month: down
6 month: down
1 year: about even
2 year: up
5 year: down(hehe) a lot
...partially evolved Chimp...
You obviously have absolutely no idea of how the THEORY of evolution works.
faith" is merely belief based on your understanding of evidence
or of what faith means
Yes, we do need the massive complexity of Diebold or similar systems to run American elections.
no, we need something simple yet scalable. The two are not mutually exclusive. Anything built on top of Windows is needlessly complex.
You would have to be able to swap the HD out I think to do anything fun on it. I guess you could wait for really big USB finger drives....
Software patents are OK this week since Apple did it???
wow...an eye icon for a browse function...that is so...non-trivial and non-obvious....eesh, give me a break. Can I patent using a musical note icon for doing something related to music?
When did the parent say anything about pirating music? He said the OPPOSITE! He said he would pay a buck if it was unencumbered with DRM. That sounds like exactly the market forces we WANT on our side, right?
You obviously think DRM is OK, that is fine for you. Many of us think it is very bad, and boycotting is the only way we have of telling anybody. It seems pretty retarded to say don't boycott because at least this DRM isn't that bad. You just wait...
BTW, any DRM war will be won by the hackers and script kiddies. As the restricions become tighter there will be more people willing to work on these projects and spread them throughout the net.
Except for that one line that says all rights not specifically limited remain with the people. There is no law against p2p just as there is no law for it. Therefore the right to p2p remains with the people.
Upon re-reading the statement I realize that you weren't saying that christains funds are the overwhelming majority but that poverty is an overwhelming problem. I still would like to see some numbers breaking down the beliefs behind the different funds though.
this one in particular:
...Furthermore, the primarily Christian aid associations worldwide bear the overwhelming burden of trying to care for, protect and feed the worlds impoverished.
The international slaughter of Christians continues unabated,
I cut the middle because I am not going to argue about who says what is who's fault.
I would, however, like to see evidence of the other two major claims.
1: some cases of people recently being slaughtered for being Christian and possibly some numbers backing up the statement that they are being singled out.
2: Some evidence that Christian funds are bearing the "overwhelming" burden of charity. And that better be a hell of a lot more than 50% of charities!
hmmm...you don't believe the parent's first hand experience? When were you ever in China? Do you know anybody who lived there? So we are to disregard the parent's primary source and go with your...what...tertiary...quaternary...saw it on tv or read it on slashdot source?
Also, to add to the above:
China's economy is going through a massive boom right now.