Is there some evidence for this? To the best of my knowledge, it could have been changed by the committee, by Adams, by Franklin, or by Jefferson himself.
An advantage on Linux is of course that you get generic video grabbing devices that any application can use without realizing what type of camera it is
How is that an advantage for Linux, considering that Windows does the exact same thing, and has been doing it for over a decade?
But it *should* be. It is unjust to hold someone accountable for violations of rules they were unaware of.While I agree that modern law is overly complex, an exception for ignorance would create a severe moral hazard by encouraging people to purposefully remain willfully ignorant of the law, while penalizing the well-informed good citizen, which is a highly undesirable outcome.
Of course! That's no moon, it's a space station. Its defenses are designed
around a direct large-scale assault. A small unmanned probe should be
able to penetrate the outer defense.
Unless she decides that she wants to stop playing (which she apparently hasn't) there is nothing you can do to make her stop. Your only hope is to persuade her to voluntarily alter her behavior. Maybe an intervention is in order.
Remember how Adobe got the DoJ involved in arresting him for writing software that broke DRM in eBooks so that text-to-speech readers for the blind could read them?
Key words there: "got the DOJ involved". It wasn't Adobe who arrested him - only the government can do that. It's not the same thing to say that since corporations have influence over the government, it's the same thing as them wielding force directly. It is not. The government is the sole wielder of force; it is its responsibility (really its only responsibility) and it is its failure if that power is used improperly.
Or how about search and seizure of your computer any time the RIAA gets a John Doe file sharing lawsuit turned into a real name? In the more traditional realm of failure to repay your debts, how about evictions by the local sheriff for failure to pay rent?
Even accepting for the sake of argument that these are not actually uses of force initiated by the government (which they clearly are), these are circumstances where the individual has arguably initated the use of force themselves, by stealing what is not theirs.
And what will really blow your mind is the knowledge that right at this moment, those stars are probably no longer in that configuration, if they even all still exist.
I think you missed the next sentence, where the parent was clearly analyzing two possible scenarios without speculating on the likelihood of either, hence the word "if."
If anyone is trespassing, it's corporations who presume to tell me what I can do with MY physical property in my own home, or to tell me who I may talk to and what I can (not) say to them
Whatever the desires of the corporations, the only power that can reach into your own home is the government's criminal code.
The court filing leads to a summons. Ignore the summons, and a nice man with a gun and a badge will eventually show up to PHYSICALLY escourt you to the court.
In order for this to happen, they have to at least present a good faith basis that you are the one who initiated the use of force, by abrogating their property rights. (And if they don't, you can be compensated).
In a free market, the government is not willing to interfere in that manner.So, what, in a truly capitalist country, there is no civil court? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Well, that's a neat rhetorical device, but you're begging the question by not having a consistent definition of "control," by which capitalists tend to mean, "coercive force." Say what you want about corporations, but at the end of the day, they can't legally initiate the use of force against you.
I presume you are also using the two independent axes of control and a high-resolution display interface, so it's a little more than just "two buttons."
It's the little things you only notice on second or third viewings that are such a pleasure, e.g. in a two-second setup to the interior of a prison, a sign which reads: "COMMANDER RIKER'S ISLAND"
IS Microsoft really, REALLY saying it cannot write a piece of OS software for a hardware product like ipod?
No, they're saying that they MAY not - legally, that is, because they cannot sell the music without DRM, and the only DRM the ipod supports is Apple's Fairplay, and Apple will not permit Microsoft to license their patent for it.
It's not a technical problem at all, it's an IP issue.
I don't dispute that. All the more reason your point doesn't make sense. Let's assume I buy 5 GB's worth of music. At a rough average of, say three megabytes to a song, that's about 1,706 songs. At $.99/song, that's almost $1,700, which spent on an all-you-can-eat service, should get you service for well over a decade. That's not even taking into account that the subscription cost is amortized over time, and the depreciated future value of future payments. What is the utility of music for most people? Not to own it, since stocks of copyrighted music in a fixed medium is not a particularly sound investment. No, the utility is listening, to it. Since most people's musical tastes change throughout their lives, the subscription model is a better value, because it lets them listen to whatever they want, as much as they want, for a nominal surcharge (and quite reasonable, compared to what people pay for things like Cable TV, or even satellite radio).
that doesn't mean I want my entire music collection that I've already paid for to stop working.
See, under this model, I don't consider myself to have paid for the music collection. I've paid for the privelege of using someone else's music collection, and I wouldn't expect that use to be permitted once I stopped paying. I don't think of it like albums that I have purchased, I think of it more like Satellite Radio that I control the programming of.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there some evidence for this? To the best of my knowledge, it could have been changed by the committee, by Adams, by Franklin, or by Jefferson himself.
How is that an advantage for Linux, considering that Windows does the exact same thing, and has been doing it for over a decade?
But it *should* be. It is unjust to hold someone accountable for violations of rules they were unaware of.While I agree that modern law is overly complex, an exception for ignorance would create a severe moral hazard by encouraging people to purposefully remain willfully ignorant of the law, while penalizing the well-informed good citizen, which is a highly undesirable outcome.
Of course! That's no moon, it's a space station. Its defenses are designed around a direct large-scale assault. A small unmanned probe should be able to penetrate the outer defense.
I think you nailed it.
Unless she decides that she wants to stop playing (which she apparently hasn't) there is nothing you can do to make her stop. Your only hope is to persuade her to voluntarily alter her behavior. Maybe an intervention is in order.
Key words there: "got the DOJ involved". It wasn't Adobe who arrested him - only the government can do that. It's not the same thing to say that since corporations have influence over the government, it's the same thing as them wielding force directly. It is not. The government is the sole wielder of force; it is its responsibility (really its only responsibility) and it is its failure if that power is used improperly.
Or how about search and seizure of your computer any time the RIAA gets a John Doe file sharing lawsuit turned into a real name? In the more traditional realm of failure to repay your debts, how about evictions by the local sheriff for failure to pay rent?
Even accepting for the sake of argument that these are not actually uses of force initiated by the government (which they clearly are), these are circumstances where the individual has arguably initated the use of force themselves, by stealing what is not theirs.
Ahh, you're right. I mis-read the distance from us, which is "only" something over 400 light-years.
And what will really blow your mind is the knowledge that right at this moment, those stars are probably no longer in that configuration, if they even all still exist.
I think you missed the next sentence, where the parent was clearly analyzing two possible scenarios without speculating on the likelihood of either, hence the word "if."
Whatever the desires of the corporations, the only power that can reach into your own home is the government's criminal code.
Vulcans.
In order for this to happen, they have to at least present a good faith basis that you are the one who initiated the use of force, by abrogating their property rights. (And if they don't, you can be compensated).
In a free market, the government is not willing to interfere in that manner.So, what, in a truly capitalist country, there is no civil court? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Well, that's a neat rhetorical device, but you're begging the question by not having a consistent definition of "control," by which capitalists tend to mean, "coercive force." Say what you want about corporations, but at the end of the day, they can't legally initiate the use of force against you.
Um...is that a joke, or are you unaware that MS already patched this?
I presume you are also using the two independent axes of control and a high-resolution display interface, so it's a little more than just "two buttons."
If it's a true DVR, though, the "Live Tv" mode also needs pause, rewind, fast-forward, and catch-up-to-live, at a minimum.
The rate of growth is already slowing. UN Report
It's the little things you only notice on second or third viewings that are such a pleasure, e.g. in a two-second setup to the interior of a prison, a sign which reads: "COMMANDER RIKER'S ISLAND"
No, they're saying that they MAY not - legally, that is, because they cannot sell the music without DRM, and the only DRM the ipod supports is Apple's Fairplay, and Apple will not permit Microsoft to license their patent for it.
It's not a technical problem at all, it's an IP issue.
I don't dispute that. All the more reason your point doesn't make sense. Let's assume I buy 5 GB's worth of music. At a rough average of, say three megabytes to a song, that's about 1,706 songs. At $.99/song, that's almost $1,700, which spent on an all-you-can-eat service, should get you service for well over a decade. That's not even taking into account that the subscription cost is amortized over time, and the depreciated future value of future payments. What is the utility of music for most people? Not to own it, since stocks of copyrighted music in a fixed medium is not a particularly sound investment. No, the utility is listening, to it. Since most people's musical tastes change throughout their lives, the subscription model is a better value, because it lets them listen to whatever they want, as much as they want, for a nominal surcharge (and quite reasonable, compared to what people pay for things like Cable TV, or even satellite radio).
See, under this model, I don't consider myself to have paid for the music collection. I've paid for the privelege of using someone else's music collection, and I wouldn't expect that use to be permitted once I stopped paying. I don't think of it like albums that I have purchased, I think of it more like Satellite Radio that I control the programming of.
Do not confuse the two.
You would store the .ini file (or more likely, the .conf XML file) in //C/Documents and Settings/%USER%/Application Data/App Name/
Yes. Don't ask Slashdot. Ask a lawyer.