well, carry around a small faraday cage and you don't have to worry about #3
now as far as being required to use it, since this is a theme park (ok this is important, everyone pay attention) YOU AREN"T REQUIRED TO USE IT!!! if you don't want to, then DON"T GO TO THE EFFING PARK. Xerxes, it's not you making me mad, it's this 50% of posts saying OMGz0r5!! MAI RIGHTS R b3in6 t4k3n aw4y!!11!oneone! when you step onto someone's private property, you must abide by their rules. Don't like it? Then boycott, complain and DON"T GO TO THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
i'd link to a whole buncha case studies on this, but i'm on slower-than-ass internet right now...
i tell you what, grandparent is damn right, and you're damn wrong...
this has nothing to do with becoming a theme park's private property...it has everything to do with you having to abide by their rules while you're on their private property...if you won't follow their rules, then you aren't allowed in!
if i want you to wear a green shirt when you come to my house, you'd better, or you won't be allowed in!
this is not making you my property, it is disallowing you entrance to my property which you have no right to enter unless GIVEN PERMISSION.
remember, theatres make you pay, and not bring cameras in; airlines require you check your knives and not bring them on board the plane...is this making you their property? NO. It's merely the rules private citizens have imposed on visitors to their private property.
actually i'm sure you would find that women DID in fact compete in the original olympics...but they had to be unmarried, and virgin. in addition, i'm sure the guys here would have enjoyed watching these games, as the women had one exposed breast in their uniforms for competition:
i don't know if they could do yah00.com for instance...wouldn't this be VERY close to cybersquatting? i mean, if the ppl behind Lindows/spire could get sued by MS, wouldn't it even be a VERY valid case for yahoo.com to sue someone for doing yah00.com, unless they could VERY much demonstrate they had a right, such as Yukon Architectural Horde 2000 Inc needing yah00.com or something ^_^ ok...that was a bit of a stretch...but i digress...
"maybe because it's not vapor anymore ?
it's already evaporated !"
see, but when something EVAPORATES, it becomes VAPOR! ^_^
eg ice--melt-->water--evaporate-->watervapor--condens e-->water--freeze-->ice
I'm going to start with an assertion of my beliefs: Everyone has the right to run their own SMTP server.
Following from this, everyone would be able to send email.
Following this, everyone would be able to send spam.
How do you stop the spam, without removing something you might argue is a right? You stop peoples ability to run SMTP servers, then you stop some people from using the email of their choice. Slashdotters, how many of you HAVE your own SMTP servers? I'm pretty sure a lot of you do.
Also, remember that there are ISPs that don't provide email, so you either turn to some crappy MSNesque online email, or you host your own SMTP.
Now, you might say "well what about that verification thing so we KNOW who is sending the email?"
well, why can't i write a trojan that is a spam-sending trojan? just write a trojan that creates its own SMTP server, and voila!
yeah, the duck and cover movies weren't from WWII, were they? i thought they were nuclear-blast response videos, and if grandparent recalls, there were no nuclear weapons until the END of ww2...so i think the duck and cover vids were from Teh Cold War (which includes the korean conflict/war, as parent said)
the apartments belong to UTD, so therefore they have complete rights to enact whatever wireless policies they want on their own property
additionally, regardless of what i just claimed, my university (Univ of Texas at AUSTIN) has banned wireless in the dorms for at least two years (before that, i cannot say, as i didn't live in the dorms before that), and there has never been a suit brought against them...no case whatsoever
if for no other reason than to deflate your ego, i reply that yes, i too got the reference...you just beat me to reading it, or i would have posted the same thing you did...
"What if he'd been using the WiFi inside the building, placed his still running TiBook in his bag and walked out? Would he become a criminal at the door? It just doesn't wash."
well, couldn't you say "what if he'd been using the library book inside the building, placed it in his bag and walked out?" that's the same thing, but we all know this is obviously stealing unless he checked the book out...
so really the argument becomes must you get explicit permission from the library to use something that -is- available outside their walls, that -is- publicly funded...well, come to think of it, this is like having a statue in a museum window, and arresting someone after museum hours for looking through the glass at the statue...
can you legally do something like that? if a museum doesn't want you looking at the stuff through windows after hours, they close the blinds...so shouldn't the library TURN OFF the wifi after hours?!? for chrissake, they turn the computers off at -my- public library, why not have an automated script that turns the transmitters off after hours?
until that time, i think that the access outside the building should be allowed...
also, i think someone else had mentioned "if i leave my door open, but you come in, you're still breaking the law"
the problem is, a public library is PUBLIC, and if a PUBLIC library has an open door, going inside ISN'T illegal...no a PRIVATE wifi network is something else entirely...
however, neko no ongaeshi (return of the cat) if you're <john stewart> on weeeed</john stewart> is the most hilarious thing ever...hell, i don't even smoke weed and that was the funniest thing ever at 4 am
i agree you can parody more than one thing at a time...but i am merely saying that the hard part of this case was showing that the flash was actually parodying the -song-, which is what is required under fair use...
and i would say it very much -is- debateable by someone skilled enough to do so...if the work had not been in the public domain already, i think it's thinkable that these guys would have lost the suit to the gutherie people...
and sheesh...fuck me because i disagree? well, sir, you are a chode (can't resist a little return mud-slinging)
the problem is, for a parody to be protected, it has to parody the -song-, and one of the major things the defense would have had to show is that the flash animation was parodying the song...i don't think it is completely clear that is what was happening...aside from that, it is more making fun of the leaders, which is -not- parody...
google define:parody:
A mocking imitation of the style of a literary work or works which ridicules the stylistic habits of an author or school of writers by exaggerated mimicry. Parody is related to Burlesque in its application of serious styles to ridiculous subjects, to satire in its punishment of eccentricities, and even to criticism in its analysis of style.
"if i were to make a copy of a dvd that i can borrow for free at the library, at any time i wish, is that a crime? if i were to copy a complete book by hand to enjoy again in the privacy of my own home, is that a crime?"
the answer to both of your questions is a resounding "YES, YOU IDIOT."
Please inform me of why hacking a website is morally fine with you.
if i come into your house and break your computer, is that OK? because it is the same principle.
and yes, it would be more than an inconvenience. If it even changes ONE vote, then hacking the site is hacking the way our nation does democracy! and obviously having a website up and running does spread your platform...if it weren't for the Greens,Dems,Reps and Libs websites, i wouldn't know who to vote for this election year
this crimesinc is a douchebag who deserves to get pissed on by r kelly...wasn't he the same guy who advocated all that "civil disobedience" at defcon this year?
Slashdot Mirror
well, carry around a small faraday cage and you don't have to worry about #3
now as far as being required to use it, since this is a theme park (ok this is important, everyone pay attention) YOU AREN"T REQUIRED TO USE IT!!! if you don't want to, then DON"T GO TO THE EFFING PARK. Xerxes, it's not you making me mad, it's this 50% of posts saying
OMGz0r5!! MAI RIGHTS R b3in6 t4k3n aw4y!!11!oneone!
when you step onto someone's private property, you must abide by their rules. Don't like it? Then boycott, complain and DON"T GO TO THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
i'd link to a whole buncha case studies on this, but i'm on slower-than-ass internet right now...
i tell you what, grandparent is damn right, and you're damn wrong...
this has nothing to do with becoming a theme park's private property...it has everything to do with you having to abide by their rules while you're on their private property...if you won't follow their rules, then you aren't allowed in!
if i want you to wear a green shirt when you come to my house, you'd better, or you won't be allowed in!
this is not making you my property, it is disallowing you entrance to my property which you have no right to enter unless GIVEN PERMISSION.
remember, theatres make you pay, and not bring cameras in; airlines require you check your knives and not bring them on board the plane...is this making you their property? NO. It's merely the rules private citizens have imposed on visitors to their private property.
actually i'm sure you would find that women DID in fact compete in the original olympics...but they had to be unmarried, and virgin. in addition, i'm sure the guys here would have enjoyed watching these games, as the women had one exposed breast in their uniforms for competition:
o lymp.html
http://essay.studyarea.com/Old_Essay/history/anc_
i don't know if they could do yah00.com for instance...wouldn't this be VERY close to cybersquatting? i mean, if the ppl behind Lindows/spire could get sued by MS, wouldn't it even be a VERY valid case for yahoo.com to sue someone for doing yah00.com, unless they could VERY much demonstrate they had a right, such as Yukon Architectural Horde 2000 Inc needing yah00.com or something ^_^ ok...that was a bit of a stretch...but i digress...
"maybe because it's not vapor anymore ?
s e-->water--freeze-->ice
it's already evaporated !"
see, but when something EVAPORATES, it becomes VAPOR! ^_^
eg ice--melt-->water--evaporate-->watervapor--conden
"maybe because it's not vapor anymore ? it's already evaporated !" see, but when something EVAPORATES, it becomes VAPOR! ^_^ eg ice--melt-->water--evaporate-->watervapor--condens e-->water--freeze-->ice
I'm going to start with an assertion of my beliefs:
Everyone has the right to run their own SMTP server.
Following from this, everyone would be able to send email.
Following this, everyone would be able to send spam.
How do you stop the spam, without removing something you might argue is a right? You stop peoples ability to run SMTP servers, then you stop some people from using the email of their choice. Slashdotters, how many of you HAVE your own SMTP servers? I'm pretty sure a lot of you do.
Also, remember that there are ISPs that don't provide email, so you either turn to some crappy MSNesque online email, or you host your own SMTP.
Now, you might say "well what about that verification thing so we KNOW who is sending the email?"
well, why can't i write a trojan that is a spam-sending trojan? just write a trojan that creates its own SMTP server, and voila!
Please someone correct me if i'm wrong in this.
yeah, the duck and cover movies weren't from WWII, were they? i thought they were nuclear-blast response videos, and if grandparent recalls, there were no nuclear weapons until the END of ww2...so i think the duck and cover vids were from Teh Cold War (which includes the korean conflict/war, as parent said)
ok yeah nevermind...UTD doesn't own the apartments...so my argument is completely void...now to make me feel better PLEASE MOD ME +5 FUNNY!!!
the apartments belong to UTD, so therefore they have complete rights to enact whatever wireless policies they want on their own property
additionally, regardless of what i just claimed, my university (Univ of Texas at AUSTIN) has banned wireless in the dorms for at least two years (before that, i cannot say, as i didn't live in the dorms before that), and there has never been a suit brought against them...no case whatsoever
why do that, when we can set up our OWN dummy corporation "InGen."
1)acquire large amounts of jurassic amber
2)use weta computers to sequence dna
3)???
4)profit!
if for no other reason than to deflate your ego, i reply that yes, i too got the reference...you just beat me to reading it, or i would have posted the same thing you did...
incidentally, MOD PARENT UP ^_^
omg how can you block the name of the effing 'president' of your country?!? (jiang zemin)
argh, this just aggravates me...you mixed up japan and china you douche, and real-life with anime at that!
_ characters.html
http://www.fact-index.com/e/ev/evangelion_general
there you can read about Naoko Akagi
but 'fittest' is used meaning a group of people who comprise a percentage known as 'the fittest'
'good enough' is relative to how everyone else stacks up, hense, being part of the percentage known as 'the fittest'
'survival of the fittest' does not mean the one fittest being
"What if he'd been using the WiFi inside the building, placed his still running TiBook in his bag and walked out? Would he become a criminal at the door? It just doesn't wash."
well, couldn't you say "what if he'd been using the library book inside the building, placed it in his bag and walked out?" that's the same thing, but we all know this is obviously stealing unless he checked the book out...
so really the argument becomes must you get explicit permission from the library to use something that -is- available outside their walls, that -is- publicly funded...well, come to think of it, this is like having a statue in a museum window, and arresting someone after museum hours for looking through the glass at the statue...
can you legally do something like that? if a museum doesn't want you looking at the stuff through windows after hours, they close the blinds...so shouldn't the library TURN OFF the wifi after hours?!? for chrissake, they turn the computers off at -my- public library, why not have an automated script that turns the transmitters off after hours?
until that time, i think that the access outside the building should be allowed...
also, i think someone else had mentioned "if i leave my door open, but you come in, you're still breaking the law"
the problem is, a public library is PUBLIC, and if a PUBLIC library has an open door, going inside ISN'T illegal...no a PRIVATE wifi network is something else entirely...
perfect blue by satoshi kon...
however, neko no ongaeshi (return of the cat) if you're <john stewart> on weeeed</john stewart> is the most hilarious thing ever...hell, i don't even smoke weed and that was the funniest thing ever at 4 am
i agree you can parody more than one thing at a time...but i am merely saying that the hard part of this case was showing that the flash was actually parodying the -song-, which is what is required under fair use...
and i would say it very much -is- debateable by someone skilled enough to do so...if the work had not been in the public domain already, i think it's thinkable that these guys would have lost the suit to the gutherie people...
and sheesh...fuck me because i disagree? well, sir, you are a chode (can't resist a little return mud-slinging)
the problem is, for a parody to be protected, it has to parody the -song-, and one of the major things the defense would have had to show is that the flash animation was parodying the song...i don't think it is completely clear that is what was happening...aside from that, it is more making fun of the leaders, which is -not- parody...
google define:parody:
A mocking imitation of the style of a literary work or works which ridicules the stylistic habits of an author or school of writers by exaggerated mimicry. Parody is related to Burlesque in its application of serious styles to ridiculous subjects, to satire in its punishment of eccentricities, and even to criticism in its analysis of style.
"if i were to make a copy of a dvd that i can borrow for free at the library, at any time i wish, is that a crime?
if i were to copy a complete book by hand to enjoy again in the privacy of my own home, is that a crime?"
the answer to both of your questions is a resounding "YES, YOU IDIOT."
in some of the local languages the name means "won't go"
heh, if by "some local languages" you mean SPANISH, one of the most commonly spoken languages in the world ^_~
Please inform me of why hacking a website is morally fine with you.
if i come into your house and break your computer, is that OK? because it is the same principle.
and yes, it would be more than an inconvenience. If it even changes ONE vote, then hacking the site is hacking the way our nation does democracy! and obviously having a website up and running does spread your platform...if it weren't for the Greens,Dems,Reps and Libs websites, i wouldn't know who to vote for this election year
this crimesinc is a douchebag who deserves to get pissed on by r kelly...wasn't he the same guy who advocated all that "civil disobedience" at defcon this year?
Except for that crazy Lucas guy
NOOOOOOO! he ain't crazy! he made EPISODE ONE!!!! BOW DOWN MORTALS BOW DOWN!!!
spaaaAAceballs?!?
oh shit, there goes the planet...
please tell me how this is funny...seriously. cuz i don't get it