Fine, as long as you stop calling someone from the United States of Mexico a "Mexican". You can use either USian, with a pro-English bias, or EUian (for Estados Unidos). Either one is likely to get confused with your other terms, but hey, that's life.
Re:Maybe some truth there
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Your logic is wonderful; I'm convinced.
I'm waiting for Procter & Gamble's search engine, though. It's going to completely destroy both Google and MSN.
If you need more than 2 GB of RAM, you're probably not in the target market for the iMac. You're probably getting close to the target market for the Xserve cluster nodes, actually.
No iMac released before today supports Quartz 2D Extreme, which is a new feature in Tiger. It supports Quartz Extreme, which isn't the same thing, quite well.
If older than 1 day is "pretty old" to you, I bow before your superior source of funding.
I can't put a Quartz 2D Extreme-capable graphics card in my iMac. That makes the lack of upgradability important to me. The fact that I can now buy a new iMac that does support the new technology, but won't be upgradable when they come up with some even cooler graphics acceleration that needs a better video card doesn't make it any less of a factor now.
I'm happy to use the word "stealing", or any other word for that matter, to mean any of the various things it's taken to mean by speakers of the English language.
I believe any native speaker will understand "you stole my idea" to mean that I had an idea and they used it, too, not that they committed the crime of larceny or the tort of conversion. I understand "you stole that movie" can mean, in context, either that a copy of the movie was copied in contravention of copyright law, or that a DVD of the movie was shoplifted from a store. It doesn't bother me in the least.
Furthermore, I wasn't claiming MS stole a product feature from Apple; rather I was humorously comparing Microsoft's marketing practice with the practice of political operatives in hiring bloggers to espouse their views and/or endorse their candidacies. In either case (stealing features or stealing ideas), I don't think Microsoft's behavior is particularly bad qua stealing. In the latter case, however, I think that the actual idea they're stealing is unethical for both a corporation and a politician, and I wish they'd both stop. In the former case, I have no problem with Microsoft using features found in Apple's software.
As for you anonymous morons who lump alol slashdot readers together and assume we all share the same opinions: you're reading slashdot. therefore, you must also share the same opinions, and are being quite hypocritical when you denounce people who, by your logic, you must agree with on every imaginable topic.
It's paid-for advertising maskerading as opinion. It's misleading and unethical, and incredibly stupid of them to admit they're going to do it.
I, for one, after reading this, wouldn't trust the opinion of anyone who says in their blog that they like Longhorn; who's to say whether they actually used it and thought it was good, or if Microsoft paid them to lie about it?
All this does is create an environment where you can assume that bad reviews are probably objective, and that good reviews are quite possibly just advertising.
You must hate Linux then. It's totally against what you consider to be the Unix philosophy to replace a microkernel (like the one used by OS X, by the way), with the bloated Linux kernel.
And I bet you'd never use the Gimp, because it's more Unix-like to have a separate command-line tool to make each modification to an image instead of having one biug program that can do them all.
That's not "exactly" what Apple's doing; it's not even remotely similar.
What Microsoft did was take a programming language that was supposed to be truly cross-platform, and change it so that programs written to run on their interpreter wouldn't run on any non-Microsoft JVMs. Allowing this to happen would make Java completely worthless, or at least would make Sun's implementation worthless after Microsoft used its OS monopoly to make its form of what it called "Java" the de facto standard.
KHTML just renders web pages. If Apple was making changes such that pages written to look good in Safari stopped working in Konqueror, your analogy might hold water. And in that case, Apple truly would be doing exactly what MS did, but what they did with IE, not with their Java implementation. Quite frankly, though, I don't think anyone at Apple is dumb enough to think web designers are going to start coding specifically for Safari, with its tiny market share, the way they did for IE. And I'd hope they're not dumb enough to want to break the web even more than it is by trying to move people away from standards even if they could.
...and, one would assume, an underpaid library clerk who got yelled at for overriding the "don't circulate this rare item" message if their software and management is at all competent.
Did you even bother to read the article summary? The law allows them to turn over the information with a court order. CRIA has requested a court order, and the other 4 major ISPs are fighting the request. The law doesn't require a company to fight to quash a request; if the request is illegal, it's the court's responsibility to not issue the order.
Well, it helps that an open source project doesn't need to feed and protect millions of people while its leaders enjoy almost godlike powers and responsibilities. That kind of makes things a bit trickier.
"I could convert everyone on the planet to their component atoms" has a way of inflating the ego and leading to corruption that "Wow, lots of people like this software I wrote" can't match.
It's still not a license for software. It's a legal contract by which you're agreeing not to break confidentiality or distribute pre-release software. It's an NDA, not a EULA.
The individual software packages come with their own licenses, which are considerably more detailed than the little clauses in the ADC agreement.
The bill doesn't make reference to release in a particular market; I'd assume if a work was released at all, this provision doesn't apply to it.
Any derivative work created by a fansubber is already a violation of copyright law, however, and distributing a large number of files is almost certainly criminal infringement even without this bill.
What it's going to do to the fansubbers is kind of irrelevant; at worst it increases the maximum possible jail time for their behavior. The increase in potential fine for criminal infringement is kind of meaningless, since the amount of statutory damages the copyright holders could get if they sued is already enormous.
Have you looked at it? It presents no terms having to do with end users of software or anything else. It's a membership agreement, which doesn't include any software.
It doesn't even matter if you were going to release it commercially.
If you created the work, you hold the copyright. If someone else releases it on a computer network without your consent, with the knowledge that it hasn't been released by you, it's a felony.
Now, if you called the FBI about it, they'd probably tell you to stop wasting their time and file a civil suit.
To be criminally liable, it has to be reasonable that you'd be aware the copyrighted content was not released yet. The admins of a webserver probably don't meet that standard; they're unlikely to be aware there's copyrighted material there at all if they're not reviewing all of the content.
If you've got a CD of the music, obviously it was released. This bill criminalizes violation of copyright on unreleased works, not copyright violation in general.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine, as long as you stop calling someone from the United States of Mexico a "Mexican". You can use either USian, with a pro-English bias, or EUian (for Estados Unidos). Either one is likely to get confused with your other terms, but hey, that's life.
I'm waiting for Procter & Gamble's search engine, though. It's going to completely destroy both Google and MSN.
Somehow I doubt any localities' theft statutes are compatible with such an agreement.
Why even bother releasing the source at all?
If you need more than 2 GB of RAM, you're probably not in the target market for the iMac. You're probably getting close to the target market for the Xserve cluster nodes, actually.
If older than 1 day is "pretty old" to you, I bow before your superior source of funding.
I can't put a Quartz 2D Extreme-capable graphics card in my iMac. That makes the lack of upgradability important to me. The fact that I can now buy a new iMac that does support the new technology, but won't be upgradable when they come up with some even cooler graphics acceleration that needs a better video card doesn't make it any less of a factor now.
I'm happy to use the word "stealing", or any other word for that matter, to mean any of the various things it's taken to mean by speakers of the English language.
I believe any native speaker will understand "you stole my idea" to mean that I had an idea and they used it, too, not that they committed the crime of larceny or the tort of conversion. I understand "you stole that movie" can mean, in context, either that a copy of the movie was copied in contravention of copyright law, or that a DVD of the movie was shoplifted from a store. It doesn't bother me in the least.
Furthermore, I wasn't claiming MS stole a product feature from Apple; rather I was humorously comparing Microsoft's marketing practice with the practice of political operatives in hiring bloggers to espouse their views and/or endorse their candidacies. In either case (stealing features or stealing ideas), I don't think Microsoft's behavior is particularly bad qua stealing. In the latter case, however, I think that the actual idea they're stealing is unethical for both a corporation and a politician, and I wish they'd both stop. In the former case, I have no problem with Microsoft using features found in Apple's software.
As for you anonymous morons who lump alol slashdot readers together and assume we all share the same opinions: you're reading slashdot. therefore, you must also share the same opinions, and are being quite hypocritical when you denounce people who, by your logic, you must agree with on every imaginable topic.
It's paid-for advertising maskerading as opinion. It's misleading and unethical, and incredibly stupid of them to admit they're going to do it.
I, for one, after reading this, wouldn't trust the opinion of anyone who says in their blog that they like Longhorn; who's to say whether they actually used it and thought it was good, or if Microsoft paid them to lie about it?
All this does is create an environment where you can assume that bad reviews are probably objective, and that good reviews are quite possibly just advertising.
Now Microsoft's stealing ideas from politicians, too.
Well, there's the Book of Esther, where the queen is killed for refusing to show off her hotness for the king's buddies.
And I bet you'd never use the Gimp, because it's more Unix-like to have a separate command-line tool to make each modification to an image instead of having one biug program that can do them all.
Why does the world need Mozilla? Why not just use IE and be done with it?
What Microsoft did was take a programming language that was supposed to be truly cross-platform, and change it so that programs written to run on their interpreter wouldn't run on any non-Microsoft JVMs. Allowing this to happen would make Java completely worthless, or at least would make Sun's implementation worthless after Microsoft used its OS monopoly to make its form of what it called "Java" the de facto standard.
KHTML just renders web pages. If Apple was making changes such that pages written to look good in Safari stopped working in Konqueror, your analogy might hold water. And in that case, Apple truly would be doing exactly what MS did, but what they did with IE, not with their Java implementation. Quite frankly, though, I don't think anyone at Apple is dumb enough to think web designers are going to start coding specifically for Safari, with its tiny market share, the way they did for IE. And I'd hope they're not dumb enough to want to break the web even more than it is by trying to move people away from standards even if they could.
...and, one would assume, an underpaid library clerk who got yelled at for overriding the "don't circulate this rare item" message if their software and management is at all competent.
Did you even bother to read the article summary? The law allows them to turn over the information with a court order. CRIA has requested a court order, and the other 4 major ISPs are fighting the request. The law doesn't require a company to fight to quash a request; if the request is illegal, it's the court's responsibility to not issue the order.
Does your breathing improve my web browser's performance somehow?
Do you, through breathing, disrupt Microsoft's monopoly or create world peace?
No, it does not. Your continued living is therefore pointless. Please die.
Or, you can murder someone, break into someone else's house, and leave the evidence there.
Should we abolish all laws because a malicious person could frame someone else?
"I could convert everyone on the planet to their component atoms" has a way of inflating the ego and leading to corruption that "Wow, lots of people like this software I wrote" can't match.
The individual software packages come with their own licenses, which are considerably more detailed than the little clauses in the ADC agreement.
Any derivative work created by a fansubber is already a violation of copyright law, however, and distributing a large number of files is almost certainly criminal infringement even without this bill.
What it's going to do to the fansubbers is kind of irrelevant; at worst it increases the maximum possible jail time for their behavior. The increase in potential fine for criminal infringement is kind of meaningless, since the amount of statutory damages the copyright holders could get if they sued is already enormous.
Have you looked at it? It presents no terms having to do with end users of software or anything else. It's a membership agreement, which doesn't include any software.
If you created the work, you hold the copyright. If someone else releases it on a computer network without your consent, with the knowledge that it hasn't been released by you, it's a felony.
Now, if you called the FBI about it, they'd probably tell you to stop wasting their time and file a civil suit.
You can invent bullshit stories of how you can get away with any given felony; that doesn't mean they'll work if you actually get arrested.
To be criminally liable, it has to be reasonable that you'd be aware the copyrighted content was not released yet. The admins of a webserver probably don't meet that standard; they're unlikely to be aware there's copyrighted material there at all if they're not reviewing all of the content.
If you've got a CD of the music, obviously it was released. This bill criminalizes violation of copyright on unreleased works, not copyright violation in general.