Possibly because you can make impressions in asphalt with the flesh on your finger on a hot day, and probably with something harder (such as a thumbnail) on any day.
Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.
That means you're not allowed to look into private data at ALL.
That may or may not apply, I don't know to what lengths they went to to gather evidence against her. But their attitude has always been, "we'll do what we want".
I never said there was a default. I never said that it wouldn't be good to have a default. That's a straw man set up by a few commenters who have trouble with reading comprehension.
My point was that you don't have to sacrifice chioce in order to get consistency. I agree with you, we don't have consitency now, it's a good thing, but choice and usability are not mutually exclusive.
Who said we had a standard desktop? No one. At no point did I question the need for a standard desktop. What we don't need is to excise choice from the equation.
Choice IS NOT incompatible with usability. I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing this bullshit from idiot usability "experts".
Let me cluse you in assholes. You can have a standard desktop that everyone uses by default, but it completely customizable/replaceable for those who have the desire and ability.
... in case you've got corporate drones scanning/.. We are all out to get you. We all want to see you go down in flames. You're a waste of sperm and egg. You brought this on yourselves and increasingly wild accusations are only increasing the opposition against you.
So us all a favor. Drop the suit, dissolve the company, and walk off with your ill-gotten public opinion manipulated profits.
Nice try, but no. Zealotry is all well and good from an individual users view. They can get as many false positives as they're willing to handle.
When a corporation is blocking legitimate email under the pretext that it's spam, it becomes a competition issue. AOL can block anyone they don't like and claim it's to cut down on spam.
The reason the internet has done as well as it has is it's openness. Block all you want on an individual level, but allowing companies to indiscriminately block is bad news.
then gets shot by the house's owner who grabbed the gun from the thief: "
In that case, the owner would go to jail, most likely, for a long time. In most states at least.
There's a difference between someone's voluntary words being admissable as evidence, and their words being forced out of them to prove guilt. Spyware on my system regardless of it's origin, is forcing me to say things I don't want to.
Exactly, and when software uses my resources to convey evidence against me without my permission, it is forcing me to bear witness against myself.
Thank you for backing up my point.
Nice definition... too bad it's wrong. The data sent doesn't matter. If software is using my resources to send back my information to a company it's spyware. It doesn't matter what that information is.
This is almost like a Lojak system - the car is stolen, then the security system reports back to the police exactly where the car is. What if you stole the car and it's parked in your garage with the door closed? Yes, I understand that this example doesn't exactly parallel that of the article, but it is similar. The Lojak system doesn't check around the house to see if there are any other stolen things there...it's just concerned about one thing - the car. Much like the software that is described in this article.
Except that it's using MY resources to do so. Not only is the software stealing from me, bandwidth, CPU, and memory, it's forcing me to incriminate myself. Guess what... that's un-constitutional.
Follow me here telemarketers: The people on the Do Not Call list will not buy anything from you. That's why they're on the list. So by contesting the list you're essentially saying that you want the ability to try and annoy people into buying your product. Which is probably exactly how your type of company stays in business. You count on some people not wanting to deal with you, signing up for the free trial to get off the phone, and forgetting to cancel.
I've got news for you. We are under no obligation to protect your business model.
I have this fantasy where I hang a bag of large round rocks on my handle bars and toss them backwards into the windshields of those idiots. No signals (one hand is occupied) and absolutely no conception of the traffic around them. They feel entitled to do whatever they want apparently.
It's bad enough that people pull out on me all the time (no sense of speed) without cell phones. But I seriously feel the urge to kill when they're using a phone, putting on make up, reading or doing something else equally inappropriate while driving.
Slashdot Mirror
for using a scapegoat for their poor parenting and screwing up the game industry.
That struck me as odd too. You have the right to know what you're charged with. That's a relatively basic right.
I'm going with the former. She's not attractive enough to sell t-shirts.
That means you're not allowed to look into private data at ALL.
That may or may not apply, I don't know to what lengths they went to to gather evidence against her. But their attitude has always been, "we'll do what we want".
Nice nipple shot on the chunky chick in the picture.
I think we're on the same page then. It would be silly to oppose a default. It doesn't limit choice in any way.
I never said there was a default. I never said that it wouldn't be good to have a default. That's a straw man set up by a few commenters who have trouble with reading comprehension.
My point was that you don't have to sacrifice chioce in order to get consistency. I agree with you, we don't have consitency now, it's a good thing, but choice and usability are not mutually exclusive.
Who said we had a standard desktop? No one. At no point did I question the need for a standard desktop. What we don't need is to excise choice from the equation.
Let me cluse you in assholes. You can have a standard desktop that everyone uses by default, but it completely customizable/replaceable for those who have the desire and ability.
So us all a favor. Drop the suit, dissolve the company, and walk off with your ill-gotten public opinion manipulated profits.
When a corporation is blocking legitimate email under the pretext that it's spam, it becomes a competition issue. AOL can block anyone they don't like and claim it's to cut down on spam.
The reason the internet has done as well as it has is it's openness. Block all you want on an individual level, but allowing companies to indiscriminately block is bad news.
In that case, the owner would go to jail, most likely, for a long time. In most states at least.
There's a difference between someone's voluntary words being admissable as evidence, and their words being forced out of them to prove guilt. Spyware on my system regardless of it's origin, is forcing me to say things I don't want to.
Thank you for backing up my point.
Except that it's using MY resources to do so. Not only is the software stealing from me, bandwidth, CPU, and memory, it's forcing me to incriminate myself. Guess what... that's un-constitutional.
I've got news for you. We are under no obligation to protect your business model.
Err yeah you do. You obviously don't understand the reason for and nature of a copyright.
I probably wouldn't actually do it. But I'm completely certain I can outrun an SUV, much less any other car.
step in and edit this thing before others who might want to read the book have it spoiled.
Actually I'm counting on it. Which is why I'd toss them over my shoulder.
It's bad enough that people pull out on me all the time (no sense of speed) without cell phones. But I seriously feel the urge to kill when they're using a phone, putting on make up, reading or doing something else equally inappropriate while driving.