Always the innovator, Apple is rumored to be developing a two button mouse!
How cute:)
Oh and trying to configure airport is a pain - been trying to fix my g/fs airport (i am a pc guy not a mac guy) and man, what I wouldn't give for a command shell prompt on a mac:D
Just because an organization allows people to view their copyrighted material for free does not invalidate the copyright. If it does in some part of the world, please let us know where.
Did you mean to say, that by purposfully putting their copyright material for free download it remove's their ability to sue if someone else gives it for free also? That is possible - though it depends on the TOS. If they put an read-me-first document saying "you may view this, but under no circumstances give it out to anyone" then their butts are covered in case they want to sue someone else who gave it out.
Normally - if a company is making a work available to the public they are probably hoping everyone will view it to increase awareness, which is probably their primary goal.
It would be interesting, and kind of funny, *IF* a media company leaked out its proprietary information to claim a loss of revenue, was founded to have leaked the information on its own (and I am not referring to rogue employees).
When you said "duking it out" first thing that came to mind was "duke nukem forever" - and then i thought "i guess he really doesn't want to see this happen"
I would think, overall, wired would win out - not just from sheer bandwidth, but also the ability to not lose as many data packets - especially if your in a "noisy" area. My girlfriend and her roomates all use macs (blah) and they have a mac airport device...they also live a block away from Love park in Philly where they setup wifi - and now their airport is useless...i gave them an old netgear router i had (i want to help them with the airport, but that would probably require me to play with a mac)....
So to answer your question...i would think wired will still win - - though not in the portability "ahh yes, i feel like playing counterstrike from my porch today"
True I was thinking of that...and that is why there are clauses in the law where the american company can work with the gov't to curtail these call centers. But you are correct - and this kind of stuff happens already when companies defraud people using other companies' names.
I suppose this is fundamentally different from dropping kiloton bombs onto cities and decimating the homes of tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan? I suppose this is not at all the same as the wholesale murder of countless Iraqi citizens fighting their own civil war (the ones U.S. media labels "insurrectionists")?
And I was called naive about this situation? You haven't dealt with muslim fanatics very often - very convenient...oh wait let me guess you have grown up with terrorists less then a mile from you all your life haven't you? These "innocents" have a convenient habit of sheltering their sons, husbands, fathers, uncles, nephews in their homes acting as human shields. So if a terrorists relative wants to act as a human shield - she can take the brunt of the damage - she is aware of what a bullet and a bomb can do.
Saddam supported terrorists --> these terrorists have been causing US citizens grief around the world for many years --> hence these terrorists have been oppressing US citizens.
The people there, with the exception of the few elite, were happy saddam was gone...the US was there - well they couldn't have done it on their own as they did not have the money, oil, weapons to overthrow those in the military.
Right we had no reason to go fight Iraq. Your entire post has been getting more and more silly. You are arguing to try and save face. No warning? No reason? I guess you never watch C-Span, practically telling Saddam the date of the attacks.
Yea the US went to Iraq and comitted war crimes. Did the UN declare that the US comitted war crimes? or crimes against humanity? Did he comitt genocide? Please - show me this UN report. And do not tell me the US has the UN in its pocket - the UN still votes and it has many Muslim council members.
It is not an issue, really, of freedom of speech. To be honest - when one consititutional right infringes on another then that infringing right is in the wrong.
Ignoring that for an instant - the legislation will really only impact US based companies, and nations that have trade agreements that respect the laws of our country. So when India/China call to sell you something - you are hosed. Technology is the way to beat this...unfortunately - joe average will not know what to do and they will hope for that "firewall router" which the VoIP companies will sell for a convenient price.
What would be nice is if a foreign spam company calls to advertise that American company - the American company has to suffer the penalty - even if they say "we didn't know" - because in all honesty - what company is going to try and make sales call for a company that isn't paying them to do so? Maybe something along the lines "Mr. American Company CEO you have two weeks to fire your foreign based spammer...if not, get ready to pay big big fines."
Yes and that ringing is the emergency room doctor calling to inform you that your parent/child/significant other is in the emergency room and they need to know if your loved one is allergic to penicillin.
It is not always possible to just say "turn it off" or "ignore it".
I am more likely to ignore a phone call from a recognized number then a strange number. If my brother calls me - and I am busy with my girlfriend - then I might ignore the call. If it is a strange number it might be something that requires my immediate attention.
Really? I use the latest firefox and it doesn't display correctly at all. You can get by, but it does not look like it should. I do not know how you do it.
and then there are all those lame websites that only support IE (www.citizensbank.com) or companies that use MS proprietary programs like MS Web Outlook, MS CRM, etc. Which require you to have IE. I tried using firefox on MS Web outlook - yea, not so good there.
While the home user "typically" can get away with only Firefox, there are times they are forced to go to IE.
Except if you were running Linux, and a permission box came up and said "do we have authorization to access your machine" and you blindly clicked yes - then would you consider it a security flaw of linux? I would consider it more of a social engineering tactic- not a highly sophistacted one - but one that works none-the-less.
I would wager a terrorist is - someone who blows up a sky scraper full of civilians by crashing a couple of planes into it killing thousands of lives, more if possible, who have never done anything to the person or his organization.
These terrorists are not trying to overthrow our gov't because we are oppressing them - they are trying to destroy it and it's people because we are different and they hate our way of life because we do not give them everything they want when they want it.
I didn't realize the formal declaration of war by congress was needed to legitmize our actions in the Gulf....that formal declaration is used as a quality control of sorts, but the lack of it does not make for a war that is wrong in the first place. You know, just as well as everyone here, that Congress declaring war is very much a political ploy as anything else...and if congress wanted to - they could have stopped Bush after the first 60 (or 90) days...they didn't stop him, they gave him more money.
The Patriot Act was approved by Congress. While we may not like it - it is hardly the sole blame of our President - blame the senators - not the the president for this one.
At first read, I thought this meant: *my own thoughts mind you* "If you create anything using an AIM product then it is the property of aim, but if you are just transmitting it via AIM then it remains your property." On second read, well ouch --- though, it kind of contradicts itself.
In one area it says "You or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product..."
Then it goes to say that "AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating..." - This i understand - they are saying if they make something from your copyright (probably with permission, as to the statement above it) they retain that property (i.e. making a remix of your song).
But then....
"By posting Content on an Aim Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to..." rape you.
This last part just seems to contradict my first quote...now while I assume they do this in some attempt to protect themselves, they should really acknowledge this TOS. I mean it literally states they can take ownership of anything you make and post there (assuming you are the owner...I would think AOL would have a hard time laying claim to Metallica's music if Metallica never actually posted their music through AIM).
Isn't the guitmo base down there, the US military guitmo base, on US soil? I would think any US base, in any country would have been negotiated as US soil.
True, while only Congress can "declare war" the president can have a 60-90 day field parade. Also, the War powers act has been ignored in many instances in the past while presidents were able to get away with this by quoting clauses.
I believe also, that the law allows the president to recognize a "state of war" in a national emergency caused by a foreign body. I think this is what has been used. (a href="http://www.monad.com/sdg/Journal/warpowers.h tml" Here
Officially Congress has not declared war since WWII - but lets look at Vietnam war, Korean war, Gulf War, Gulf War II
Anyone have any other insight? There are so many articles, so many standpoints - it gets mind boggling:)
I am sure a democrat run oversight comittee would like to take any jabs at the republicans by finding faults in the patriot act and our lovable president. If there is abuse, someone with a political agenda will want this to come out into the public. It may not come out for the "right" reasons, but it will come out.
Hmm, aren't the prisoners held in Guitmo in US war prisons and as such on US "soil." Sort of like our embassys in other countries considered on US soil.
I also thought the prisoners there were there as prisoners of war? As such they do not get the US civil liberties, they get treated under the Geneva Convention.
While the attrocities are "unfortunate" (actually I hold zero sympathy for terrorists, I am just going by "popular" belief) I believe they were done by rogue soldiers and this was not a directive of HQ.
the media doesn't just report conclusive facts that arrive after proving their case? I mean, what is the liklihood that the media will report information to get ratings. Geez and here I thought that everything the media said was gospel.
Come on folks, we already know that the media will report everything. While I do not mind this and think it is a valuable tool - I also realize that an allegation is an allegation. Sometimes the news goes out of their way and reiterates "this is just an allegation" but most of the time those needed words are quickly glossed over...so the person hears "bla blah blah was accused of committing this crime", but the persons mind registers "blah blah blah committed this crime."
Please cite the line(s) that state this...please use the entire passage (meaning, do not use choice sentences/words). I would like to see where AOL has full unfettered rights to any information sent over its system. Especially for those people who pay to use AOL e-mail, I want to see where it says that AOL owns the copyright to the information and can use it as it see's fit including making a profit from it without permission or compensation to the author.
Slashdot Mirror
Always the innovator, Apple is rumored to be developing a two button mouse!
:)
:D
How cute
Oh and trying to configure airport is a pain - been trying to fix my g/fs airport (i am a pc guy not a mac guy) and man, what I wouldn't give for a command shell prompt on a mac
Just because an organization allows people to view their copyrighted material for free does not invalidate the copyright. If it does in some part of the world, please let us know where.
Did you mean to say, that by purposfully putting their copyright material for free download it remove's their ability to sue if someone else gives it for free also? That is possible - though it depends on the TOS. If they put an read-me-first document saying "you may view this, but under no circumstances give it out to anyone" then their butts are covered in case they want to sue someone else who gave it out.
Normally - if a company is making a work available to the public they are probably hoping everyone will view it to increase awareness, which is probably their primary goal.
It would be interesting, and kind of funny, *IF* a media company leaked out its proprietary information to claim a loss of revenue, was founded to have leaked the information on its own (and I am not referring to rogue employees).
Please explain to me the logic of your statement.
overrated how? Because i made a joke with my answer? God forbid - idiot.
and soon I can have my ultraviolet bullets to take care of those pesky vampires.
Hmmm nutella chocolate...or yummy elite chocolate (elite is an israeli brand).
Does depressing the ALT key and then the left arrow key work?
When you said "duking it out" first thing that came to mind was "duke nukem forever" - and then i thought "i guess he really doesn't want to see this happen"
I would think, overall, wired would win out - not just from sheer bandwidth, but also the ability to not lose as many data packets - especially if your in a "noisy" area. My girlfriend and her roomates all use macs (blah) and they have a mac airport device...they also live a block away from Love park in Philly where they setup wifi - and now their airport is useless...i gave them an old netgear router i had (i want to help them with the airport, but that would probably require me to play with a mac)....
So to answer your question...i would think wired will still win - - though not in the portability "ahh yes, i feel like playing counterstrike from my porch today"
Luckily for you, then, that we can do research on more then one field/topic at any given point and time so we have multiple technologies and choices.
True I was thinking of that...and that is why there are clauses in the law where the american company can work with the gov't to curtail these call centers. But you are correct - and this kind of stuff happens already when companies defraud people using other companies' names.
I suppose this is fundamentally different from dropping kiloton bombs onto cities and decimating the homes of tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan? I suppose this is not at all the same as the wholesale murder of countless Iraqi citizens fighting their own civil war (the ones U.S. media labels "insurrectionists")?
And I was called naive about this situation? You haven't dealt with muslim fanatics very often - very convenient...oh wait let me guess you have grown up with terrorists less then a mile from you all your life haven't you? These "innocents" have a convenient habit of sheltering their sons, husbands, fathers, uncles, nephews in their homes acting as human shields. So if a terrorists relative wants to act as a human shield - she can take the brunt of the damage - she is aware of what a bullet and a bomb can do.
Saddam supported terrorists --> these terrorists have been causing US citizens grief around the world for many years --> hence these terrorists have been oppressing US citizens.
The people there, with the exception of the few elite, were happy saddam was gone...the US was there - well they couldn't have done it on their own as they did not have the money, oil, weapons to overthrow those in the military.
Right we had no reason to go fight Iraq. Your entire post has been getting more and more silly. You are arguing to try and save face. No warning? No reason? I guess you never watch C-Span, practically telling Saddam the date of the attacks.
Yea the US went to Iraq and comitted war crimes. Did the UN declare that the US comitted war crimes? or crimes against humanity? Did he comitt genocide? Please - show me this UN report. And do not tell me the US has the UN in its pocket - the UN still votes and it has many Muslim council members.
It is not an issue, really, of freedom of speech. To be honest - when one consititutional right infringes on another then that infringing right is in the wrong.
Ignoring that for an instant - the legislation will really only impact US based companies, and nations that have trade agreements that respect the laws of our country. So when India/China call to sell you something - you are hosed. Technology is the way to beat this...unfortunately - joe average will not know what to do and they will hope for that "firewall router" which the VoIP companies will sell for a convenient price.
What would be nice is if a foreign spam company calls to advertise that American company - the American company has to suffer the penalty - even if they say "we didn't know" - because in all honesty - what company is going to try and make sales call for a company that isn't paying them to do so? Maybe something along the lines "Mr. American Company CEO you have two weeks to fire your foreign based spammer...if not, get ready to pay big big fines."
Yes and that ringing is the emergency room doctor calling to inform you that your parent/child/significant other is in the emergency room and they need to know if your loved one is allergic to penicillin.
It is not always possible to just say "turn it off" or "ignore it".
I am more likely to ignore a phone call from a recognized number then a strange number. If my brother calls me - and I am busy with my girlfriend - then I might ignore the call. If it is a strange number it might be something that requires my immediate attention.
What is this thing, answering machine, that you speak of?
:D
Last time I had a bonifide answering machine was around 1997 or 1998 when I got my first authorized cell phone
Really? I use the latest firefox and it doesn't display correctly at all. You can get by, but it does not look like it should. I do not know how you do it.
and then there are all those lame websites that only support IE (www.citizensbank.com) or companies that use MS proprietary programs like MS Web Outlook, MS CRM, etc. Which require you to have IE. I tried using firefox on MS Web outlook - yea, not so good there.
While the home user "typically" can get away with only Firefox, there are times they are forced to go to IE.
Except if you were running Linux, and a permission box came up and said "do we have authorization to access your machine" and you blindly clicked yes - then would you consider it a security flaw of linux? I would consider it more of a social engineering tactic- not a highly sophistacted one - but one that works none-the-less.
I would wager a terrorist is - someone who blows up a sky scraper full of civilians by crashing a couple of planes into it killing thousands of lives, more if possible, who have never done anything to the person or his organization.
These terrorists are not trying to overthrow our gov't because we are oppressing them - they are trying to destroy it and it's people because we are different and they hate our way of life because we do not give them everything they want when they want it.
I didn't realize the formal declaration of war by congress was needed to legitmize our actions in the Gulf....that formal declaration is used as a quality control of sorts, but the lack of it does not make for a war that is wrong in the first place. You know, just as well as everyone here, that Congress declaring war is very much a political ploy as anything else...and if congress wanted to - they could have stopped Bush after the first 60 (or 90) days...they didn't stop him, they gave him more money.
The Patriot Act was approved by Congress. While we may not like it - it is hardly the sole blame of our President - blame the senators - not the the president for this one.
At first read, I thought this meant: *my own thoughts mind you* "If you create anything using an AIM product then it is the property of aim, but if you are just transmitting it via AIM then it remains your property." On second read, well ouch --- though, it kind of contradicts itself.
In one area it says "You or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product..."
Then it goes to say that "AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating..." - This i understand - they are saying if they make something from your copyright (probably with permission, as to the statement above it) they retain that property (i.e. making a remix of your song).
But then....
"By posting Content on an Aim Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to..." rape you.
This last part just seems to contradict my first quote...now while I assume they do this in some attempt to protect themselves, they should really acknowledge this TOS. I mean it literally states they can take ownership of anything you make and post there (assuming you are the owner...I would think AOL would have a hard time laying claim to Metallica's music if Metallica never actually posted their music through AIM).
Isn't the guitmo base down there, the US military guitmo base, on US soil? I would think any US base, in any country would have been negotiated as US soil.
h tml" Here
:)
True, while only Congress can "declare war" the president can have a 60-90 day field parade. Also, the War powers act has been ignored in many instances in the past while presidents were able to get away with this by quoting clauses.
I believe also, that the law allows the president to recognize a "state of war" in a national emergency caused by a foreign body. I think this is what has been used. (a href="http://www.monad.com/sdg/Journal/warpowers.
Officially Congress has not declared war since WWII - but lets look at Vietnam war, Korean war, Gulf War, Gulf War II
Anyone have any other insight? There are so many articles, so many standpoints - it gets mind boggling
I am sure a democrat run oversight comittee would like to take any jabs at the republicans by finding faults in the patriot act and our lovable president. If there is abuse, someone with a political agenda will want this to come out into the public. It may not come out for the "right" reasons, but it will come out.
Hmm, aren't the prisoners held in Guitmo in US war prisons and as such on US "soil." Sort of like our embassys in other countries considered on US soil.
I also thought the prisoners there were there as prisoners of war? As such they do not get the US civil liberties, they get treated under the Geneva Convention.
While the attrocities are "unfortunate" (actually I hold zero sympathy for terrorists, I am just going by "popular" belief) I believe they were done by rogue soldiers and this was not a directive of HQ.
the media doesn't just report conclusive facts that arrive after proving their case? I mean, what is the liklihood that the media will report information to get ratings. Geez and here I thought that everything the media said was gospel.
Come on folks, we already know that the media will report everything. While I do not mind this and think it is a valuable tool - I also realize that an allegation is an allegation. Sometimes the news goes out of their way and reiterates "this is just an allegation" but most of the time those needed words are quickly glossed over...so the person hears "bla blah blah was accused of committing this crime", but the persons mind registers "blah blah blah committed this crime."
Please cite the line(s) that state this...please use the entire passage (meaning, do not use choice sentences/words). I would like to see where AOL has full unfettered rights to any information sent over its system. Especially for those people who pay to use AOL e-mail, I want to see where it says that AOL owns the copyright to the information and can use it as it see's fit including making a profit from it without permission or compensation to the author.