Umm, no. Apple has never made a DV camera, digital camera, or bluetooth cellphone. They haven't made a printer in years. They don't make a mouse that any serious user is going to use, and they don't make a tablet for the more artistic users. They don't come CLOSE to making 90% of the peripherals. But the ones made by other people tend to just work when you plug them in.
I haven't read their EULA, but all of those people probably would need to sue in the corporations home jurisdiction because they waived their rights to sue somewhere else by accepting the license. They've probably also got a lawyer on retainer to handle the appeal, which will cost the customer a lot more than the $100 judgement from the small claims court.
And when Linux-zealot Slashbots attack SCO and Microsoft, is that because of a position of fear and weakness too, or is there some magical reason why your generalization only applies to people you don't like?
Jobs doesn't care that much about the server market, and he doesn't see Linux as a threat in either the consumer market (where it's Apple's hardware, not OS X, that makes the big money) or among creative professionals who aren't about to switch from Photoshop CS to the Gimp any time soon.
Being attacked by your competitors doesn't mean you're doing something right. It just means they're competing eith you.
Your browser's cache is filled with copyright violations if you've ever visited any website with any copyrighted content recently
Umm, no. If they site you were browsing had the right to distribute the materials, they're not violations. If the site's TOS doesn't allow caching, and they make use of HTTP headers that are supposed to forbid caching, and you knowingly modified your browser to ignore those headers, it might possibly be a violation. Even then it would most likely fall under Fair Use. I doubt anyone's going to try suing someone for caching legally obtained contenet anytime soon, to allow the courts to decide if that is fair use or not.
"Citizen" does not mean "one who can vote". Felons aren't (usually) stripped of their citizenship, and they can't vote. Citizens who didn't own land, or have the right color skin, or a penis also in the past couldn't vote. They were still citizens.
You have to be a real idiot to expect that you can define terms however you want to and that anyone will accept arguments based on those terms.
I notice that you conveniently don't mention the other half of my comment, where I point to the law that says you're completely and utterly wrong. Have a nice day.
Actually, I know that to get a passport, you have to fill out a form that states that you're a US citizen, and sign a statement acknowledging that you understand that any false statements on that form constitute perjury, and also explaining the punishments for perjury.
I also know very well that Title 8 of the US Code states that a person born in the United States is a citizen at birth. Dumbass.
It would be a good business plan if the logistical/technological problems behind providing on-demand access to anything a viewer wants to watch could be solved. I think right now, after the distribution company took their cut to pay for the system to do it (and to make a profit comparable to what a cable company makes now), and the content provider took a cut to make the same profit they make from advertising, the cost-per-show would be high enough that no one would want to pay.
The business doing this would have to be willing to take big losses to provide shows at a good price point, in order to build up enough volume to eventually make the system profitable. I don't really see many media industry compaies being willing to make short-term sacrifices like that in the near future.
Ok, fine. The voice actors no one has ever heard of, except one of them, who has been in a bunch of bad movies and who no one would remember as an actress if she wasn't really attractive. Fine.
Just as likely, the legislators who wrote the bill need that lesson instead.
Do you think they care if it's actually possible to do what they require you to do? Hell no. They just make the laws; it's up to everyone else to bend over backwards to comply with them.
I wouldn't be surprised if Eisner manages to convince the board to completely dump the animation and theme park businesses to concentrate on running ABC and ESPN, before he actually leaves. They should have fired him years ago instead of giving him another 2 years before retirement to run the company into the ground.
And if they take Lilo & Stitch as their example, they'll follow it up with a really horrible Toy Story TV show.
Of course, with Lilo & Stitch, at least they could get the voice actors no one has ever heard of to do their series. Somehow I doubt Tom Hanks and Tim Allen would want to do the voices for a bad TV cartoon. Especially after they see how crappy the third movie turns out.
Do you mind if we complain that this showed up in the Apple section with claims that it's "OS Independent", when no one's actually gotten it to run on Apple hardware?
Evangelicals who believe in Old Testament Justice(tm) are one thing, but it's incredibly hypocritical that Catholic bishops would call voting for someone who disagrees with the Church on abortion or stem cells a sin, while not mentioning the Church's stands on the death penalty and war.
It's a shame some bishop didn't announce that anyone who votes for any of the candidates would be automatically excommunicating themselves one way or another, to show how stupid the whole idea was. I'm fairly certain that there wasn't a single candidate on most states' ballots whose positions were fully in line with church doctrine.
Ummm.... As a philosophy major, I'm happy to discuss the relative merits of Rationalism vs. Empiricism all day long, but I think even Descartes would have a problem with a statement like that.
It's also a bad idea to have leaders who build a cult of personality so strong that you can't get rid of them even when they're unable to keep doing their job. Without the 22nd amendment, Bush Sr. would have just taken office when Reagan finally died.
Uh, yeah, because all of the enforcement people and the actual commissioners aren't allowed to do any other work until they're done reading the department's email.
A couple of weeks ago on NPR they mentioned how pointless it is to get a bunch of people all to email a government official or department with nearly identical comments. All it does is reduce the influence of public comment at the department, because they see that no one has any original input to add, and they pretty much ignore all of the comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, no. Apple has never made a DV camera, digital camera, or bluetooth cellphone. They haven't made a printer in years. They don't make a mouse that any serious user is going to use, and they don't make a tablet for the more artistic users. They don't come CLOSE to making 90% of the peripherals. But the ones made by other people tend to just work when you plug them in.
You can defer taxes on more money, but not getting matching contributions from your employer is a big negative.
I haven't read their EULA, but all of those people probably would need to sue in the corporations home jurisdiction because they waived their rights to sue somewhere else by accepting the license. They've probably also got a lawyer on retainer to handle the appeal, which will cost the customer a lot more than the $100 judgement from the small claims court.
Very few people who file a 1040A need to amend their tax returns.
Get over it already. Or at least stop complaining about Microsoft ripping everyone else off and getting away with it.
Jobs doesn't care that much about the server market, and he doesn't see Linux as a threat in either the consumer market (where it's Apple's hardware, not OS X, that makes the big money) or among creative professionals who aren't about to switch from Photoshop CS to the Gimp any time soon.
Being attacked by your competitors doesn't mean you're doing something right. It just means they're competing eith you.
Umm... you could always have taken a more specialized American History course instead (or in addition).
Umm, no. If they site you were browsing had the right to distribute the materials, they're not violations. If the site's TOS doesn't allow caching, and they make use of HTTP headers that are supposed to forbid caching, and you knowingly modified your browser to ignore those headers, it might possibly be a violation. Even then it would most likely fall under Fair Use. I doubt anyone's going to try suing someone for caching legally obtained contenet anytime soon, to allow the courts to decide if that is fair use or not.
You have to be a real idiot to expect that you can define terms however you want to and that anyone will accept arguments based on those terms.
Whatever you personally might think of these people or how seriously you take their beliefs, there are a lot of them, and they control the nukes.
I notice that you conveniently don't mention the other half of my comment, where I point to the law that says you're completely and utterly wrong. Have a nice day.
I also know very well that Title 8 of the US Code states that a person born in the United States is a citizen at birth. Dumbass.
The business doing this would have to be willing to take big losses to provide shows at a good price point, in order to build up enough volume to eventually make the system profitable. I don't really see many media industry compaies being willing to make short-term sacrifices like that in the near future.
Ok, fine. The voice actors no one has ever heard of, except one of them, who has been in a bunch of bad movies and who no one would remember as an actress if she wasn't really attractive. Fine.
Children are not citizens now? Guess they'd better start throwing all the ones with passports in jail for falsifying government documents, then.
Do you think they care if it's actually possible to do what they require you to do? Hell no. They just make the laws; it's up to everyone else to bend over backwards to comply with them.
I wouldn't be surprised if Eisner manages to convince the board to completely dump the animation and theme park businesses to concentrate on running ABC and ESPN, before he actually leaves. They should have fired him years ago instead of giving him another 2 years before retirement to run the company into the ground.
Of course, with Lilo & Stitch, at least they could get the voice actors no one has ever heard of to do their series. Somehow I doubt Tom Hanks and Tim Allen would want to do the voices for a bad TV cartoon. Especially after they see how crappy the third movie turns out.
Do you mind if we complain that this showed up in the Apple section with claims that it's "OS Independent", when no one's actually gotten it to run on Apple hardware?
It's a shame some bishop didn't announce that anyone who votes for any of the candidates would be automatically excommunicating themselves one way or another, to show how stupid the whole idea was. I'm fairly certain that there wasn't a single candidate on most states' ballots whose positions were fully in line with church doctrine.
Something being a "proven fact, in theory" is what I was objecting to.
Ummm.... As a philosophy major, I'm happy to discuss the relative merits of Rationalism vs. Empiricism all day long, but I think even Descartes would have a problem with a statement like that.
It's also a bad idea to have leaders who build a cult of personality so strong that you can't get rid of them even when they're unable to keep doing their job. Without the 22nd amendment, Bush Sr. would have just taken office when Reagan finally died.
A couple of weeks ago on NPR they mentioned how pointless it is to get a bunch of people all to email a government official or department with nearly identical comments. All it does is reduce the influence of public comment at the department, because they see that no one has any original input to add, and they pretty much ignore all of the comments.
Oh please. The average evangelical Christian in the US would be more than happy to join a mob to stone prostitutes.