Lawsuits and probably retaliatory banning of itunes from all Win devices. MS isn't some shoestring app. developer.
Whatever caused this to happen would be a good thing, even if it involved the sacrifice of babies and the rule for a thousand generations of the legions of Hell..
And I think Apple are just rich and cocky enough now to risk it.
"t's a case of only having to outrun your neighbour and not the bear."
Grizzlies alone can run up to an hour at 30MPH, no way in hell any human outrun a bear. Just needed to point that one out.
Er, the point is that if the grizzly catches your neighbur, he will presumably stop and have a bit of quality snack time, by which time you have a head start, and can find shelter, a big gun or something.
I would suggest not having your offices in a (bizarrely) trendy and expensive part of London if you want to be able to live close to the office. Seriously, why do you feel you should be immune from having to commute like everyone else?
Freedom of speech is, like any freedom, a matter of utility, or the greater good of the greater number of people.
Whatever people from the US may think, there is no such thing as a god-given right to anything. If society deems that something is unacceptable to the extent that it is a punishable crime, then your freedom to do that thing is curtailed. There is no absolute freedom to murder gay people (or whoever) because you disapprove of them, and in most civilised countries there is no absolute freedom to encourage others to do the same.
Taxes are pretty high. So are typical wages. Makes getting a startup started harder.
Why? You only get taxed if you make a profit, and you only pay wages (to other people) once you are big enough that you can justify them, by which stage you should be making a profit.
Unless you want to rely on rich kids or retards, I don't see that you're ever going to have a startup employing people for very low or no wages.
This sort of "red tape and government interference is stopping me from starting up my own business" talk is just right wing bollocks.
The weather in the UK is awful more often than not.
It's a fuck sight worse in most of the US (for example). We don't get winters with twenty or thirty degrees of frost, summer heatwaves over forty celsius that kill old people and droughts that wipe out crops, hurricanes, tornadoes or major floods.
And the nanny state tendencies of the wonderfully fascist UK government
Get your ridiculous right wing political nursery-level cliches right. The good thing about the UK is its remnants of socialism, the bad thing is its adoption of US political values (e.g. cutting taxes for rich fucktards).
I wish someone would pay me gardening leave for a few years (say, until I retire). I'd even promise not to work for any competitors for as long as they wanted.
The work ethic is just another opium for the people.
Both the US and Russia/USSR more or less failed at containing Afghanistan.
But Afghanistan never had warlike intentions towards other countries in the first place. It's just situated at an unfortunate geographical point that allows it to be used as a conduit by other countries.
Containment is what you would have wanted to do with Hitler.
The whole post 9/11 justification for "containing the al Qaeda threat" from Afghanistan has always been nonsense.
I know what my fucking argument is, thanks very much, you are the one who seems to be struggling with the English language.
You said: "The thing is, they didn't take anything, but merely copied it"
This means in English that copying something is inherently trivial in comparison to physically stealing it. Whether that is true or not, that is what your sentence means in normal English.
"They didn't take anything, they copied it" is a statement of fact which no one is disagreeing with, because it is true by definition that copying something does not equate to physical theft. Your "merely" turns it into a value judgement.
Malice doesn't excuse stupidity, any more than stupidity excuses malice. If a thief is caught, you don't accept the excuse "the back door was unlocked, if I hadn't ripped him off, somebody else would have" That's lame. Also lame: "Why should I have to lock my back door? People should know better than to steal."
It may surprise you to know that in many places and times in the world you don't or didn't have to lock your back door. People SHOULD know better than to steal, the fact that they find an open door is simply not an excuse.
We know they're not the same thing. The point is that because it's not physical theft, people try to handwave it away as "just copying" as though there is no possible harm involved, and it is all just as trivial as a child tracing a picture of their favourite cartoon character from a comic.
Regardless, I blame the people who take the money. If a bank or a shop or some other business has a pile of money sitting out the front (say in an armored car), and it's unguarded, I won't take it. It's not my money. This is one of those few instances which really is black and white.
Sure. The thing is, they didn't take anything, but merely copied it.
This is this point at which analogies that compare tangible things to intangible things always fall apart. They're not at all the same type of thing, and any argument rooted in the presumption that they are the same thing is inherently logically fallacious.
No, this is the point at which defenders of Lulzsec, copyright violation or whatever drag out the "copying is not theft" line as though there is only one crime in the world (physical theft) and therefore anything else is somehow OK, conveniently forgetting that copying is not murder, rape or arson either, with equal irrelevance.
If you think there is no harm in someone copying your bank details, medical history or whatever and publishing it to the world, you're living in a different world than me.
Or how about stealing sensitive, insecure data and then publicly posting proof of the vulnerability?
The point is that is the customers who will potentially suffer here, not Sony. It is not the customers' faults, so why reveal sensitive information publicly?
Or do you think that perhaps Lulzsec wanted to punish them just for being customers of Sony in the first place?
That is nonsense. if I walked into a shop with an open till and helped myself while the cashier's back was turned, I would be committing the crime. The shop might want to look at their security procedures, but they are NOT guilty of anything, and you can't use their sloppiness as a mitigating factor in your crime.
Speaking as a circumcised male, I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin. Most of the women I've talked to about it say they find foreskins to be "ooky" anyways, particularly the ones that enjoy fellatio.
But of course this is just one mans opinion, and those of his partners over the years.
Well it would be a bit cruel (and pointless) of them to say how much they missed your having a foreskin wouldn't it?
You seem to be using "ignorance" in a different way than the rest of us. But maybe you will come to your senses if your kid decides to forgo education in order to seek out a Jedi temple to learn the Force...
I wish more Americans would understand and be embarrassed by this, instead of hiding behind the "well at least we have the freedom to be total fucking idiots unlike you socialists in Europe" argument.
Catholicism officially recognizes evolution to be correct. They're still having trouble with realizing there isn't a god, but you can see why that one is a bit harder for them.
I think they could work around the god thing as long as they kept the pope.
I hear you and I logically agree with you. But I've witnessed many examples that show this not to be the case.
For example, when I was in engineering school the most brilliant of my fellow students was a strong believer in creationism. He once lent me one of his creationism textbooks. I dutifully read it and found it to be nonsensical and completely illogical. Yet he was firmly convinced this was the truth. I never have understood how someone who was getting straight A+ marks while taking a double course load could at the same time believe such nonsense.
There must, presumably, have been a lot of otherwise clever people who voted for nutsacks like George W Bush and Ronald Regan. Human beings are seldom good at everything.
Having a belief as an adult in fairy tales is probably no great handicap, just as long as the subject of said fairy tales doesn't come up too often at work. If you're constructing skyscrapers, you're probably safe unless you take the whole Tower of Babel think too literally.
Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuits and probably retaliatory banning of itunes from all Win devices. MS isn't some shoestring app. developer.
Whatever caused this to happen would be a good thing, even if it involved the sacrifice of babies and the rule for a thousand generations of the legions of Hell..
And I think Apple are just rich and cocky enough now to risk it.
"t's a case of only having to outrun your neighbour and not the bear."
Grizzlies alone can run up to an hour at 30MPH, no way in hell any human outrun a bear. Just needed to point that one out.
Er, the point is that if the grizzly catches your neighbur, he will presumably stop and have a bit of quality snack time, by which time you have a head start, and can find shelter, a big gun or something.
I would suggest not having your offices in a (bizarrely) trendy and expensive part of London if you want to be able to live close to the office. Seriously, why do you feel you should be immune from having to commute like everyone else?
Freedom of speech is, like any freedom, a matter of utility, or the greater good of the greater number of people.
Whatever people from the US may think, there is no such thing as a god-given right to anything. If society deems that something is unacceptable to the extent that it is a punishable crime, then your freedom to do that thing is curtailed. There is no absolute freedom to murder gay people (or whoever) because you disapprove of them, and in most civilised countries there is no absolute freedom to encourage others to do the same.
I'd consider Scandinavian countries,
Taxes are pretty high. So are typical wages. Makes getting a startup started harder.
Why? You only get taxed if you make a profit, and you only pay wages (to other people) once you are big enough that you can justify them, by which stage you should be making a profit.
Unless you want to rely on rich kids or retards, I don't see that you're ever going to have a startup employing people for very low or no wages.
This sort of "red tape and government interference is stopping me from starting up my own business" talk is just right wing bollocks.
The weather in the UK is awful more often than not.
It's a fuck sight worse in most of the US (for example). We don't get winters with twenty or thirty degrees of frost, summer heatwaves over forty celsius that kill old people and droughts that wipe out crops, hurricanes, tornadoes or major floods.
And the nanny state tendencies of the wonderfully fascist UK government
Get your ridiculous right wing political nursery-level cliches right. The good thing about the UK is its remnants of socialism, the bad thing is its adoption of US political values (e.g. cutting taxes for rich fucktards).
Most of the Hoxton "silicon roundabout" types are just wankers who've done a media studies and web design course at college.
I wish someone would pay me gardening leave for a few years (say, until I retire). I'd even promise not to work for any competitors for as long as they wanted.
The work ethic is just another opium for the people.
Both the US and Russia/USSR more or less failed at containing Afghanistan.
But Afghanistan never had warlike intentions towards other countries in the first place. It's just situated at an unfortunate geographical point that allows it to be used as a conduit by other countries.
Containment is what you would have wanted to do with Hitler.
The whole post 9/11 justification for "containing the al Qaeda threat" from Afghanistan has always been nonsense.
I know what my fucking argument is, thanks very much, you are the one who seems to be struggling with the English language.
You said: "The thing is, they didn't take anything, but merely copied it"
This means in English that copying something is inherently trivial in comparison to physically stealing it. Whether that is true or not, that is what your sentence means in normal English.
"They didn't take anything, they copied it" is a statement of fact which no one is disagreeing with, because it is true by definition that copying something does not equate to physical theft. Your "merely" turns it into a value judgement.
Malice doesn't excuse stupidity, any more than stupidity excuses malice. If a thief is caught, you don't accept the excuse "the back door was unlocked, if I hadn't ripped him off, somebody else would have" That's lame. Also lame: "Why should I have to lock my back door? People should know better than to steal."
It may surprise you to know that in many places and times in the world you don't or didn't have to lock your back door. People SHOULD know better than to steal, the fact that they find an open door is simply not an excuse.
We know they're not the same thing. The point is that because it's not physical theft, people try to handwave it away as "just copying" as though there is no possible harm involved, and it is all just as trivial as a child tracing a picture of their favourite cartoon character from a comic.
Sure. The thing is, they didn't take anything, but merely copied it.
This is this point at which analogies that compare tangible things to intangible things always fall apart. They're not at all the same type of thing, and any argument rooted in the presumption that they are the same thing is inherently logically fallacious.
No, this is the point at which defenders of Lulzsec, copyright violation or whatever drag out the "copying is not theft" line as though there is only one crime in the world (physical theft) and therefore anything else is somehow OK, conveniently forgetting that copying is not murder, rape or arson either, with equal irrelevance.
If you think there is no harm in someone copying your bank details, medical history or whatever and publishing it to the world, you're living in a different world than me.
Or how about stealing sensitive, insecure data and then publicly posting proof of the vulnerability?
The point is that is the customers who will potentially suffer here, not Sony. It is not the customers' faults, so why reveal sensitive information publicly?
Or do you think that perhaps Lulzsec wanted to punish them just for being customers of Sony in the first place?
That is nonsense. if I walked into a shop with an open till and helped myself while the cashier's back was turned, I would be committing the crime. The shop might want to look at their security procedures, but they are NOT guilty of anything, and you can't use their sloppiness as a mitigating factor in your crime.
Exactly. They're both guilty, Lulzsec doing the crime doesn't absolve sony of responsibility however.
Alleged negligence over your security isn't a crime, at worst it's a civil matter.
Speaking as a circumcised male, I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin. Most of the women I've talked to about it say they find foreskins to be "ooky" anyways, particularly the ones that enjoy fellatio.
But of course this is just one mans opinion, and those of his partners over the years.
Well it would be a bit cruel (and pointless) of them to say how much they missed your having a foreskin wouldn't it?
You seem to be using "ignorance" in a different way than the rest of us. But maybe you will come to your senses if your kid decides to forgo education in order to seek out a Jedi temple to learn the Force...
Not a great example to use on slashdot...
the world laughs at us
I wish more Americans would understand and be embarrassed by this, instead of hiding behind the "well at least we have the freedom to be total fucking idiots unlike you socialists in Europe" argument.
Catholicism officially recognizes evolution to be correct. They're still having trouble with realizing there isn't a god, but you can see why that one is a bit harder for them.
I think they could work around the god thing as long as they kept the pope.
I hear you and I logically agree with you. But I've witnessed many examples that show this not to be the case.
For example, when I was in engineering school the most brilliant of my fellow students was a strong believer in creationism. He once lent me one of his creationism textbooks. I dutifully read it and found it to be nonsensical and completely illogical. Yet he was firmly convinced this was the truth. I never have understood how someone who was getting straight A+ marks while taking a double course load could at the same time believe such nonsense.
There must, presumably, have been a lot of otherwise clever people who voted for nutsacks like George W Bush and Ronald Regan. Human beings are seldom good at everything.
Having a belief as an adult in fairy tales is probably no great handicap, just as long as the subject of said fairy tales doesn't come up too often at work. If you're constructing skyscrapers, you're probably safe unless you take the whole Tower of Babel think too literally.
You and your old professor just got lucky that the bible is fairly quiet on missile systems and superstrings.
I'm sure they're there in metaphorical form somewhere if you look hard enough.
I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on.
No, it just gives people two reasons not to want to invite you to their parties.
You are creating an artificial model, so by definition there is an artificer.
That says precisely nothing about the real world.
Rational means that things have a reason; Naturalism says that God cannot be a reason, rationalism has no such limits.
If you don't have to worry about annoying details like conforming to the observed laws of nature or basic plausibility, then anything is "rational".