You should have stopped with "No you cannot buy a Macbook for $400".
But then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to make the joke about putting a "Mac" in a "book" to make a "Macbook".
But if you insist on being serious, I did buy my PowerBook G4 Titanium for under $400. I don't think I could find someone willing to sell an early MacBook for that price though. You could try some local pawn shops, or a Computer Renaissance maybe.
I'd still say any MacBook will be able to do more than any $400 machine you buy at Staples or Wal*mart, including be able to run the PC equivalent of Final Cut Pro (after removing MRCheckPro.Bundle).
After all, a P-P-P-Powerbook costs $2200 plus $550 in duty taxes.
Well, they are out of refurbished Mac Minis right now, but you could hack a $199 Apple TV refurb into being usable as a computer, get a small LCD display for under $100, a $50 keyboard with touchpad, and stick it all in a hollowed-out $40 unabridged dictionary (or The Complete Works of Shakespeare if you prefer). I'm not sure about finding a suitable battery for under $10 though. You might have to trade off a normal keyboard and mouse or a less expensive book or other assembly method.
Where will it stop? If you say sites can't aggregate news, next you'll be saying individuals can't relate to someone what they read; they'll have to buy their own copy. How long until the press equivalent of the PRS says you can't repeat news to another person as that counts as an unauthorized verbal re-performance of a copyrighted story?
I read the news today, oh boy! You can find it at this URL. I can't tell you what it's about. You must go there yourself. If I were to tell you they say they would put me in a cell! I love to turn you on.
What's the state of copyright law in Panama? Did Noriega have to pay license fees for his music torture?
Perhaps the PRS should be given the Noriega treatment. Maybe then they'll reconsider whether being subjected to music in a public place is a "value-add".
* Tell the girls you have a small notebook because you have no reason to compensate for anything else.
Really, the possibilities are endless.
Depending on the girl, you might get away with saying you love having something small and cute to keep your lap warm. Then again, you might come across as a pedophile.
I'm a nerd. I have no muscles to hold-up my arm. Pushing a mouse across a pad is about all the effort I can muster.
Lay your touch screen flat. If it's uncomfortable to have your head looking down all the time, have the contents of the touch display be mirrored to a vertical screen.
I've never used such a device but I can see where a computer may become confused. When we touch the screen and move our fingers, we would more than likely change the distance between our fingers unintentionally when rotating in a circle. Maybe the solution is simple.
I have a simple solution: stop trying to separate them into two discrete commands and just do both. Why is this even an issue?
If you're trying to do precise manipulations, then don't use your fingers. Fingers are clumsy; that's why we invented tools, even if it's a virtual tool. You wouldn't want your doctor performing surgery using just his fingers to rip you open. Even with a mouse, if you want to drag out a circle, you use the circle tool and hold down a key to tell the software to constrain the result to circles and exclude ellipses. With that modifier, your inability to drag out a perfect circle becomes an ability to fine tune amongst possible perfect circles at subpixel accuracy.
I know it's nitpicking, but it's important as you can never steal intellectual property.
Yes, that's why I was referencing the illegality aspect only and deliberately not using the words "steal", "stolen", or "theft". I did not want this to devolve into another tired argument over definitions and just acknowledge the illegality.
The whole argument is weak bullshit of course. Bittorrent can be used for piracy just as much as it can be used to distribute free information. Where it is weak is claiming that only one piece at a time is sent, which is not infringing in of itself (The letter A is not copyrighted), but failing to recognize the ultimate purpose is to receive 100% of the data. Not 70, 80, or 90. 100%.
Agreed. As I was intending to reply to posting #27363715 (but got distracted by my followups), the intent is still the same: to assist in making a copy, and if the rights aren't there, it's infringing. It becomes a conspiracy in aggregate to infringe the copyright.
But if even one of the people torrenting the file actually owns or has been assigned the right to copy it by the owner of the copyright, the whole swarm becomes immune to prosecution. But that's not hard for the prosecution to prove: they don't need to know everyone who has ever been in the swarm; they just need to have the relevant rights holders and assignees testify under oath that they weren't participating in the swarm. Then it's left to the defense to discredit the testimony to the satisfaction of the court/jury.
The better question would be what happens to the person who buys the knockoff cam from a street corner. The buyer is not reproducing the work in the way that a downloader is, but it's also not a stolen good.
The person who buys the knockoff cam is registering a demand in a market that cams movies to produce more product. He's not necessarily punished like someone who (I'm probably going to regret making this analogy) buys child pornography (because the crimes and consequences are disproportionally different) even though both have a similar effect on the production of new product, but the justification for prosecution is there.
(Oh, I don't like making this analogy at all. Please don't read anything inflammatory into it. I'm not intending to equate, inflate, excuse, or belittle any crime here. I acknowledge the disproportionality of this comparison, particularly in the victimology, but the point is apt.)
(My spell checker is flagging "disproportionality" and "victimology".)
Well, except for that pesky little thing of being in receipt of infringing goods.
I'm not aware that this is actually against (U.S.) law.
Its usually only used against pawn shops that buy hot goods and don't finger(print) their customers, or against someone who buys something that "fell off the back of a truck". They don't tend to prosecute those duped into buying the merchandise (ignorance of the crime isn't ignorance of the law), but neither do they remunerate the duped for relinquishing the evidence either--that would be a civil matter between customer and illegal vendor.
There happen to be two main criteria that most ethicists agree on for determining whether a living creature has the capacity to suffer and so has genuine interests that it may or may not be our moral duty to consider. One is how much of the neurological hardware required for pain-experience the animal comes equipped with--nociceptors, prostaglandins, neuronal opioid receptors, etc. The other criterion is whether the animal demonstrates behavior associated with pain. And it takes a lot of intellectual gymnastics and behaviorist hairsplitting not to see struggling, thrashing, and lid-clattering as just such pain-behavior.
Except there's a third criteria: is the animal tasty enough to disregard the other two criteria.
"Now, either you all give yourselves up now and let us beat you up a bit, though not very much of course because we are firmly opposed to needless violence, or we blow up this entire planet and possibly one or two others we noticed on our way out here!"
GamePolitics asked a First Amendment rights expert for his opinion on the matter, and the National Coalition Against Censorship spoke out against the bill, urging Governor Jon Huntsman to strike it down. Fortunately, it appears he took their advice (or that of many lobbying retailers), as the bill has now been vetoed.
It wasn't all that. All they had to do was just sound the Horn of Urgency.
It is almost tempting to try to hijack the side volume switch for fire, but the ergonomics aren't quite right, and it would be very un-Apple-like, and wouldn't be available on the iPod touch (plus I couldn't figure out how...).
Holly: Listen, Kryten, you had a virus, okay? Kryten: Yes? Holly: And, you started to play MP3s, all right? Kryten: Yes? Holly: Only your MP3s... were lossless. Kryten: What do you mean, "lossless?" Holly: I mean they were realistic, accurate, lossless. Kryten: Lossless? Holly: Lossless. Kryten: What do you mean, "they were lossless?" Holly: Okay, I'll put it another way. You played MP3s, all right? Kryten: Yes? Holly: And they were lossless. I told you it wasn't ordinary computer virus! I told you it was mutated! I knew something like this would happen.
[Meanwhile, in the Drive Room, stand two characters: one of them is named Peter, and the other is a wolf]
The only reason I could think of this being considered reasonable is that she would have had to have had threatened someone known by her to have a rare ibuprofen allergy and that threat substantiated before she could be subjected to any such search.
Is her accuser or a friend of her accuser allergic to ibuprofen?
Slashdot Mirror
You could design a proprietary drive that only functions within that laptop
That's a lot of R&D to put into proprietary interfaces when whole-disk encryption with off-the-shelf components is a lot easier to deploy.
You should have stopped with "No you cannot buy a Macbook for $400".
But then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to make the joke about putting a "Mac" in a "book" to make a "Macbook".
But if you insist on being serious, I did buy my PowerBook G4 Titanium for under $400. I don't think I could find someone willing to sell an early MacBook for that price though. You could try some local pawn shops, or a Computer Renaissance maybe.
I'd still say any MacBook will be able to do more than any $400 machine you buy at Staples or Wal*mart, including be able to run the PC equivalent of Final Cut Pro (after removing MRCheckPro.Bundle).
After all, a P-P-P-Powerbook costs $2200 plus $550 in duty taxes.
Show me a Macbook that I can buy for just $400.
Well, they are out of refurbished Mac Minis right now, but you could hack a $199 Apple TV refurb into being usable as a computer, get a small LCD display for under $100, a $50 keyboard with touchpad, and stick it all in a hollowed-out $40 unabridged dictionary (or The Complete Works of Shakespeare if you prefer). I'm not sure about finding a suitable battery for under $10 though. You might have to trade off a normal keyboard and mouse or a less expensive book or other assembly method.
Where will it stop? If you say sites can't aggregate news, next you'll be saying individuals can't relate to someone what they read; they'll have to buy their own copy. How long until the press equivalent of the PRS says you can't repeat news to another person as that counts as an unauthorized verbal re-performance of a copyrighted story?
I read the news today, oh boy!
You can find it at this URL.
I can't tell you what it's about.
You must go there yourself.
If I were to tell you they say they would put me in a cell!
I love to turn you on.
Related Stories (chronological order):
What's the state of copyright law in Panama? Did Noriega have to pay license fees for his music torture?
Perhaps the PRS should be given the Noriega treatment. Maybe then they'll reconsider whether being subjected to music in a public place is a "value-add".
* Tell the girls you have a small notebook because you have no reason to compensate for anything else.
Really, the possibilities are endless.
Depending on the girl, you might get away with saying you love having something small and cute to keep your lap warm. Then again, you might come across as a pedophile.
Liking Unicorns doesn't make me gay, does it?
Ask the members of S.M.U.T.L.U.V. (Strong Men Unafraid To Love Unicorns Visibly).
I'm a nerd. I have no muscles to hold-up my arm. Pushing a mouse across a pad is about all the effort I can muster.
Lay your touch screen flat. If it's uncomfortable to have your head looking down all the time, have the contents of the touch display be mirrored to a vertical screen.
Two screens solves 1,2,4,5. 3 is only solvable by personal cloaking device...
Two screens also solves 3:
While your hand isn't transparent, it also can't be in two places at once, so display what you're touching on two different screens.
I've never used such a device but I can see where a computer may become confused. When we touch the screen and move our fingers, we would more than likely change the distance between our fingers unintentionally when rotating in a circle. Maybe the solution is simple.
I have a simple solution: stop trying to separate them into two discrete commands and just do both. Why is this even an issue?
If you're trying to do precise manipulations, then don't use your fingers. Fingers are clumsy; that's why we invented tools, even if it's a virtual tool. You wouldn't want your doctor performing surgery using just his fingers to rip you open. Even with a mouse, if you want to drag out a circle, you use the circle tool and hold down a key to tell the software to constrain the result to circles and exclude ellipses. With that modifier, your inability to drag out a perfect circle becomes an ability to fine tune amongst possible perfect circles at subpixel accuracy.
I know it's nitpicking, but it's important as you can never steal intellectual property.
Yes, that's why I was referencing the illegality aspect only and deliberately not using the words "steal", "stolen", or "theft". I did not want this to devolve into another tired argument over definitions and just acknowledge the illegality.
The whole argument is weak bullshit of course. Bittorrent can be used for piracy just as much as it can be used to distribute free information. Where it is weak is claiming that only one piece at a time is sent, which is not infringing in of itself (The letter A is not copyrighted), but failing to recognize the ultimate purpose is to receive 100% of the data. Not 70, 80, or 90. 100%.
Agreed. As I was intending to reply to posting #27363715 (but got distracted by my followups), the intent is still the same: to assist in making a copy, and if the rights aren't there, it's infringing. It becomes a conspiracy in aggregate to infringe the copyright.
But if even one of the people torrenting the file actually owns or has been assigned the right to copy it by the owner of the copyright, the whole swarm becomes immune to prosecution. But that's not hard for the prosecution to prove: they don't need to know everyone who has ever been in the swarm; they just need to have the relevant rights holders and assignees testify under oath that they weren't participating in the swarm. Then it's left to the defense to discredit the testimony to the satisfaction of the court/jury.
The better question would be what happens to the person who buys the knockoff cam from a street corner. The buyer is not reproducing the work in the way that a downloader is, but it's also not a stolen good.
The person who buys the knockoff cam is registering a demand in a market that cams movies to produce more product. He's not necessarily punished like someone who (I'm probably going to regret making this analogy) buys child pornography (because the crimes and consequences are disproportionally different) even though both have a similar effect on the production of new product, but the justification for prosecution is there.
(Oh, I don't like making this analogy at all. Please don't read anything inflammatory into it. I'm not intending to equate, inflate, excuse, or belittle any crime here. I acknowledge the disproportionality of this comparison, particularly in the victimology, but the point is apt.)
(My spell checker is flagging "disproportionality" and "victimology".)
Mmm... Popplers.
Well, except for that pesky little thing of being in receipt of infringing goods.
I'm not aware that this is actually against (U.S.) law.
Its usually only used against pawn shops that buy hot goods and don't finger(print) their customers, or against someone who buys something that "fell off the back of a truck". They don't tend to prosecute those duped into buying the merchandise (ignorance of the crime isn't ignorance of the law), but neither do they remunerate the duped for relinquishing the evidence either--that would be a civil matter between customer and illegal vendor.
someone who only downloads and doesn't seed back is entirely innocent of [copyright infringement].
Well, except for that pesky little thing of being in receipt of infringing goods.
There happen to be two main criteria that most ethicists agree on for determining whether a living creature has the capacity to suffer and so has genuine interests that it may or may not be our moral duty to consider. One is how much of the neurological hardware required for pain-experience the animal comes equipped with--nociceptors, prostaglandins, neuronal opioid receptors, etc. The other criterion is whether the animal demonstrates behavior associated with pain. And it takes a lot of intellectual gymnastics and behaviorist hairsplitting not to see struggling, thrashing, and lid-clattering as just such pain-behavior.
Except there's a third criteria: is the animal tasty enough to disregard the other two criteria.
'If your advertising giveth and your EULA taketh away, don't be surprised if the FTC comes calling.'
Does this include, "Own it on DVD"?
sparks flew from terminals and ignited telegraph paper on fire.
Isn't that redundant? Or are you suggesting the sparks traveled back in time to pre-ignite the paper?
"Now, either you all give yourselves up now and let us beat you up a bit, though not very much of course because we are firmly opposed to needless violence, or we blow up this entire planet and possibly one or two others we noticed on our way out here!"
GamePolitics asked a First Amendment rights expert for his opinion on the matter, and the National Coalition Against Censorship spoke out against the bill, urging Governor Jon Huntsman to strike it down. Fortunately, it appears he took their advice (or that of many lobbying retailers), as the bill has now been vetoed.
It wasn't all that. All they had to do was just sound the Horn of Urgency.
How do you install apps on the touch?
Through the App Store?
And also available for the iPod Touch:
It is almost tempting to try to hijack the side volume switch for fire, but the ergonomics aren't quite right, and it would be very un-Apple-like, and wouldn't be available on the iPod touch (plus I couldn't figure out how...).
Holly: Listen, Kryten, you had a virus, okay?
Kryten: Yes?
Holly: And, you started to play MP3s, all right?
Kryten: Yes?
Holly: Only your MP3s... were lossless.
Kryten: What do you mean, "lossless?"
Holly: I mean they were realistic, accurate, lossless.
Kryten: Lossless?
Holly: Lossless.
Kryten: What do you mean, "they were lossless?"
Holly: Okay, I'll put it another way. You played MP3s, all right?
Kryten: Yes?
Holly: And they were lossless. I told you it wasn't ordinary computer virus! I told you it was mutated! I knew something like this would happen.
[Meanwhile, in the Drive Room, stand two characters: one of them is named Peter, and the other is a wolf]
The only reason I could think of this being considered reasonable is that she would have had to have had threatened someone known by her to have a rare ibuprofen allergy and that threat substantiated before she could be subjected to any such search.
Is her accuser or a friend of her accuser allergic to ibuprofen?