I am sure they were treating college as an ISP in the motion. Let's not confuse form over function.
Well, you're either a moron or a person with reading comprehension problems.
Actually, if you read the judgement, they weren't treating them like an ISP. The statute they were attempting to claim authorized their motion was a statute authorizing said motions by the government against a cable company.
The judge basically tells them "There's a DMCA for this sort of thing, and it doesn't authorize this behavior either."
Actually, it's been reported that the iPhone doesn't require signed binaries. You can swap and modify them at will.
There's a restore image, and they have managed to decrypt, extract, and modify said image before sending it to the phone. The executables aren't encrypted or signed on the device; however, the restore image has a password. They have the password.
I'm in the middle of building a music store for my company; however, we produce multimedia software instead of being "professional middleman".
Let me see if I can convince management (of which I'm a part, fortunately) to open-source a "lite" version. Enough to easily sell your own music (and possibly partners - I do enjoy doing web services), but not functional (or complicated) enough to bother running a large music store with.
You have to have iTunes to activate the phone. Apparently it's "simpler" to include the sim card in the phone (not user accessable), require you to install a new version of iTunes on your computer, _and_ give it your credit card for the new $60+ service plan (or extend your existing AT&T plan to 2 yeas and add $40/mo.).
If you don't, the phone is unusable. Personally, I suspect they do it that way to ensure that you have iTunes installed, making it more likely you are going to buy songs.
KROQ, "the nation's top rock station", would owe $1.4 _billion_ in royalties in 2010, if they paid the new internet rates. Their annual revenue is around $67 million. They are a highly successful radio station, and don't have to pay the per-user bandwidth fees that internet stations do (economies of scale). See the problem?
Would you trade your five hours in a police station for a lifetime living in a place where IDs are not checked
I certainly would. I would gladly spend a month in Jail to live in a nation where "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" was more than just words on paper.
ID is about verifying who you are. Laws concern behavior, not identity. Police should act when they see illegal or behavior likely to be illegal, or when they have reasonable suspicion, supported by oath or affirmation and signed by a judge.
Police are Law Enforcement Officers, and there is no higher law (in the US) than the Constitution. As such, when police check ID in a manner inconsistent with the fourth amendment, they are in fact violating the law, and not doing their jobs.
You imply that Somalia is like it is solely because IDs aren't checked. Such argument is intellectually dishonest, and neglects differences in culture, and corruption in government. The United States, if less IDs were checked, would have fewer people in jail. It would, on the other hand, be more free - reading the writings of some of the founding fathers will quickly show that this is by design. The government's job in obtaining convictions and performing surveillance is difficult by design.
Well, apparently Lexar, HP, and Epson all do it on some of their printers.
As for me, I got a pretty nice $400 networked HP inkjet, added a momentary off "push to reset" button to the side (interrupts battery power, resetting the stored "last ink level" and "insertion time" in the printer), and went on with life. I print a few photos a year, and rarely need color. It works for me.
For real printing, I use an old B&W HP LaserJet 4L (cost $500 when we bought it, a long time ago). It's been through over 20k pages without a hitch (I think it's on it's 3rd cartridge now), and is the most reliable printer I've ever owned. I also like the fact that I can print without the need for biderectional communications; heck, I can do copy con LPT1 under DOS and talk to it.
If you want free internet access you should access the internet from outside the university network, it's better for both you and the university since the university can't be held responsible anymore.
I would, except the university requires me to use their internet and phone service, and will not allow other providers in the building. My only options are "pay for internet" or "don't pay for (and don't get) internet". I have no choice in whether or not to pay for the phone, as they want to be able to reach me.
Of course, anyone calling me on the landline is someone I didn't give my phone # to, and as such don't want to talk to (I have a cell), so the phone is disconnected anyway, but I still have no choice but to pay for it.
Copyright law deals with the right to Make and Distribute copies.
As mentioned earlier here You have the right to make copies necessary for the utilization of the software, and as such no license is required to use it. For one thing, it would be stupid to buy software, and have the author claim it didn't come with an (implied, at least) license to use it. Fortunately, you don't need one anyway.
There doesn't exist any proper reason for someone at a university to boot up Kazaa does it?
Sure there is. As a student, I am the "customer" of the university. I paid for my internet connection, like I paid for my food, and my books, and my classes. As a common carrier, they should be passing the packets I have paid them to pass, without regard to protocol, contents, or destination. The university should be accountable to the students, not the other way around.
There doesn't exist any proper reason for someone at a university to use packet-shaping software to allow them to effectively spy on me, and slow the internet connection _I_ paid them to provide _me_ when I pass certain packets?
Also, I produce music, and have been known to distribute them on Kazaa and other P2P networks. It's an effective way to distribute files when one lacks the bandwidth to fully handle distribution on your own. This isn't by any means a bad thing.
[Ron Paul is] the sort of "libertarian" who hates free trade and who would restrict a woman's right to choose. I'll leave the "hates free trade" comment to someone else, but I will take a crack at the "woman's right to choose".
It is a libertarian principle that people should not enforce their will on others through coercion (this is a lot of why Libertarians hate government as much as they do - it is, in fact a system of organized coercion, taking what people have - essentially at gunpoint - to provide services for the "common good").
An extension of this principle is why murder is bad, and as such why society has an interest in preventing it - it is, fundamentally, the ultimate extension of coercion. By murdering someone, you have permanently ended all freedom, all will, all "right to choose" of the individual you murder. Personally, I feel that if I saw someone being unjustly attacked (little old lady getting mugged, for example), I would have an ethical right (and obligation) to intercede if possible, to the maximum amount I could safely do so. I recognize this as a fundamental truth, and consider police intervention in such crime an extension of this principle.
When trying to apply this principle to abortion, people draw different results. It is, in fact, a point of much contention in the Libertarian party.
Ethically speaking, however, we do a disservice by pretending it has anything at all to do with mothers rights. Bear with me, as that statement needs explaining:
Nobody (as far as I have encountered) says that they are in favor of killing children. I have never heard anyone argue such, and would question the mental state of anyone who did. As such, the real question has as little to do with "mothers rights" as "attacker's rights" has to do with murders. Either the unborn fetus is a person worthy of legal protection, or it's an unborn mass of cells that isn't. If it's a person, it's (probably) murder. If it's not a person, then how is it any different from disposing of any other foreign human cells inside your body?
As for me, I was born significantly premature. It would have been perfectly legal, and possible, to have me aborted the day I was born. I've seen pictures which explained some ways abortions were performed, and it sickened me greatly. There are no people more helpless than unborn children, and it's undeniable that an abortion ends the life of someone who potentially would have lived a long, full, productive life. I also worked for an adoption web site, and I know of a good number of families who paid a lot of money to advertise to try to reach birth mothers, hoping to adopt. Mothers have a lot of options for family placement, and the option of severing all ties if desired. I have a hard time seeing most abortion as anything more than a senseless waste of life. Women who sleep around run the risk of pregnancy. It's a natural, biological consequence of sleeping around. The pain ends in 9 months, and you don't have to keep the child. It could be worse - AIDS lasts a lifetime.
I feel that abortion should be treated as the premeditated killing of another human being, or perhaps the "potential" premeditated killing of another human being. Figure out what percentage of non-aborted fetuses die before birth, and base it off that. "There's a 95% chance you killed another person, so here's 95% of a murder conviction."
As for rape, I can certainly see a case for abortion. It's a form of self defense. It's justifiable homicide, but homicide nonetheless.
The GPL and the BSD license both aim to "maximize" freedon - however, the difference is not about communities, or developers vs users.
The GPL is designed to maximize freedom for all recipients - the first user to get the source must offer the same abilities to anyone he chooses to distribute to. The BSD license is designed to maximize freedom of those who get the software from the original author - almost carte blanche. On the other hand, users of derivative works only have as much freedom as the developers along the chain decide to allow them to have.
Plays just fine on my Macbook, and my Dual Core Athlon 64 laptop - the latter downclocks itself down to 1GHz when not plugged in, and can play 1080p files without too much difficulty (_really_ high motion scenes cause it to jitter a bit). The only downside is the 40 minute battery life. What software are you using to play these?
Slashdot Mirror
How is this for a thought?
Salon has agreement to sell in-store only, not online.
eBay seller walks into store, buys products, sells online.
Who is breaking any contracts? The salon in this case has upheld their end of the bargain.
Microsoft:
Here's this OS. You see, it's a $1200 OS. You have 2 choices:
1) $600 + adware. See, you get a discount, so it's OK for us to spy on you.
2) $1200, without adware.
Ethically, it's no different from what google is doing. You are selling your privacy to them.
Let's take this a different way:
Here's this OS. You see, it's a $600 OS (with adware). You have 2 choices:
1) $600
2) $600 + $600 adware removal fee
Why is it that people who would think the first version is a good idea, would be incensed at the second?
Well, you're either a moron or a person with reading comprehension problems.
Actually, if you read the judgement, they weren't treating them like an ISP. The statute they were attempting to claim authorized their motion was a statute authorizing said motions by the government against a cable company.
The judge basically tells them "There's a DMCA for this sort of thing, and it doesn't authorize this behavior either."
Actually, it's been reported that the iPhone doesn't require signed binaries. You can swap and modify them at will.
There's a restore image, and they have managed to decrypt, extract, and modify said image before sending it to the phone. The executables aren't encrypted or signed on the device; however, the restore image has a password. They have the password.
Given the iPhone doesn't do anything until activated (including iPod/wifi functionality), it is essentially a brick.
By hacking the activation process, it's now useful for iPod/wifi functionality. In other words, no longer a brick.
Not a bad idea at all.
I'm in the middle of building a music store for my company; however, we produce multimedia software instead of being "professional middleman".
Let me see if I can convince management (of which I'm a part, fortunately) to open-source a "lite" version. Enough to easily sell your own music (and possibly partners - I do enjoy doing web services), but not functional (or complicated) enough to bother running a large music store with.
With HP printers, you can remove the battery, and the printer forgets about your cartridge.
Perhaps the same is possible with a canon?
Nope.
You have to have iTunes to activate the phone. Apparently it's "simpler" to include the sim card in the phone (not user accessable), require you to install a new version of iTunes on your computer, _and_ give it your credit card for the new $60+ service plan (or extend your existing AT&T plan to 2 yeas and add $40/mo.).
If you don't, the phone is unusable. Personally, I suspect they do it that way to ensure that you have iTunes installed, making it more likely you are going to buy songs.
For those of us with receivers (and a TV/Monitor that doesn't pass it through), that can be a good thing.
Personally, I run all my audio optically (at least as far as I can - haven't seen optical speakers yet).
This is the crux of why everyone is so upset - it's impossible to grow to any significant size and be ad-supported under the new rates.
An example:
KROQ, "the nation's top rock station", would owe $1.4 _billion_ in royalties in 2010, if they paid the new internet rates. Their annual revenue is around $67 million. They are a highly successful radio station, and don't have to pay the per-user bandwidth fees that internet stations do (economies of scale). See the problem?
Would you trade your five hours in a police station for a lifetime living in a place where IDs are not checked
I certainly would. I would gladly spend a month in Jail to live in a nation where "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" was more than just words on paper.
ID is about verifying who you are. Laws concern behavior, not identity. Police should act when they see illegal or behavior likely to be illegal, or when they have reasonable suspicion, supported by oath or affirmation and signed by a judge.
Police are Law Enforcement Officers, and there is no higher law (in the US) than the Constitution. As such, when police check ID in a manner inconsistent with the fourth amendment, they are in fact violating the law, and not doing their jobs.
You imply that Somalia is like it is solely because IDs aren't checked. Such argument is intellectually dishonest, and neglects differences in culture, and corruption in government. The United States, if less IDs were checked, would have fewer people in jail. It would, on the other hand, be more free - reading the writings of some of the founding fathers will quickly show that this is by design. The government's job in obtaining convictions and performing surveillance is difficult by design.
Well, apparently Lexar, HP, and Epson all do it on some of their printers.
As for me, I got a pretty nice $400 networked HP inkjet, added a momentary off "push to reset" button to the side (interrupts battery power, resetting the stored "last ink level" and "insertion time" in the printer), and went on with life. I print a few photos a year, and rarely need color. It works for me.
For real printing, I use an old B&W HP LaserJet 4L (cost $500 when we bought it, a long time ago). It's been through over 20k pages without a hitch (I think it's on it's 3rd cartridge now), and is the most reliable printer I've ever owned. I also like the fact that I can print without the need for biderectional communications; heck, I can do copy con LPT1 under DOS and talk to it.
It was a reference to the really cheap HP printers, which do, in fact, automatically expire after a certain period of time.
Fortunately, there are workarounds.
Ultimately who "wins" a test is dependant on who guesses more correctly - you or him.
His assertion is that over 45% of the time, he will guess enough correct to exceed your score. A little under 55% of the time, you will win.
I would, except the university requires me to use their internet and phone service, and will not allow other providers in the building. My only options are "pay for internet" or "don't pay for (and don't get) internet". I have no choice in whether or not to pay for the phone, as they want to be able to reach me.
Of course, anyone calling me on the landline is someone I didn't give my phone # to, and as such don't want to talk to (I have a cell), so the phone is disconnected anyway, but I still have no choice but to pay for it.
Copyright law deals with the right to Make and Distribute copies.
As mentioned earlier here You have the right to make copies necessary for the utilization of the software, and as such no license is required to use it. For one thing, it would be stupid to buy software, and have the author claim it didn't come with an (implied, at least) license to use it. Fortunately, you don't need one anyway.
There doesn't exist any proper reason for someone at a university to boot up Kazaa does it?
Sure there is. As a student, I am the "customer" of the university. I paid for my internet connection, like I paid for my food, and my books, and my classes. As a common carrier, they should be passing the packets I have paid them to pass, without regard to protocol, contents, or destination. The university should be accountable to the students, not the other way around.
There doesn't exist any proper reason for someone at a university to use packet-shaping software to allow them to effectively spy on me, and slow the internet connection _I_ paid them to provide _me_ when I pass certain packets?
Also, I produce music, and have been known to distribute them on Kazaa and other P2P networks. It's an effective way to distribute files when one lacks the bandwidth to fully handle distribution on your own. This isn't by any means a bad thing.
[Ron Paul is] the sort of "libertarian" who hates free trade and who would restrict a woman's right to choose.
I'll leave the "hates free trade" comment to someone else, but I will take a crack at the "woman's right to choose".
It is a libertarian principle that people should not enforce their will on others through coercion (this is a lot of why Libertarians hate government as much as they do - it is, in fact a system of organized coercion, taking what people have - essentially at gunpoint - to provide services for the "common good").
An extension of this principle is why murder is bad, and as such why society has an interest in preventing it - it is, fundamentally, the ultimate extension of coercion. By murdering someone, you have permanently ended all freedom, all will, all "right to choose" of the individual you murder. Personally, I feel that if I saw someone being unjustly attacked (little old lady getting mugged, for example), I would have an ethical right (and obligation) to intercede if possible, to the maximum amount I could safely do so. I recognize this as a fundamental truth, and consider police intervention in such crime an extension of this principle.
When trying to apply this principle to abortion, people draw different results. It is, in fact, a point of much contention in the Libertarian party.
Ethically speaking, however, we do a disservice by pretending it has anything at all to do with mothers rights. Bear with me, as that statement needs explaining:
Nobody (as far as I have encountered) says that they are in favor of killing children. I have never heard anyone argue such, and would question the mental state of anyone who did. As such, the real question has as little to do with "mothers rights" as "attacker's rights" has to do with murders. Either the unborn fetus is a person worthy of legal protection, or it's an unborn mass of cells that isn't. If it's a person, it's (probably) murder. If it's not a person, then how is it any different from disposing of any other foreign human cells inside your body?
As for me, I was born significantly premature. It would have been perfectly legal, and possible, to have me aborted the day I was born. I've seen pictures which explained some ways abortions were performed, and it sickened me greatly. There are no people more helpless than unborn children, and it's undeniable that an abortion ends the life of someone who potentially would have lived a long, full, productive life. I also worked for an adoption web site, and I know of a good number of families who paid a lot of money to advertise to try to reach birth mothers, hoping to adopt. Mothers have a lot of options for family placement, and the option of severing all ties if desired. I have a hard time seeing most abortion as anything more than a senseless waste of life. Women who sleep around run the risk of pregnancy. It's a natural, biological consequence of sleeping around. The pain ends in 9 months, and you don't have to keep the child. It could be worse - AIDS lasts a lifetime.
I feel that abortion should be treated as the premeditated killing of another human being, or perhaps the "potential" premeditated killing of another human being. Figure out what percentage of non-aborted fetuses die before birth, and base it off that. "There's a 95% chance you killed another person, so here's 95% of a murder conviction."
As for rape, I can certainly see a case for abortion. It's a form of self defense. It's justifiable homicide, but homicide nonetheless.
Well, I decided to take a stab at it...
I would imagine you could use it with something like find / -exec ~/stomp.sh {} \;.
#!/bin/bash
function rand_date () {
YEAR=$[ ( $RANDOM % 100 ) + 1935]
MONTH=$[ ( $RANDOM % 12 ) + 100 ]
DAY=$[ ( $RANDOM % 28 ) + 101 ]
HOUR=$[ ( $RANDOM % 24 ) + 100 ]
MINUTE=$[ ( $RANDOM % 60 + 100 )]
SECOND=$[ ( $RANDOM % 60 + 100 ) ]
}
# Access Time
rand_date
TIME="${YEAR}${MONTH: -2}${DAY: -2}${HOUR: -2}${MINUTE: -2}.${SECOND: -2}"
echo ${TIME}
touch -caf -t ${TIME} $1
# Modification Time
rand_date
TIME="${YEAR}${MONTH: -2}${DAY: -2}${HOUR: -2}${MINUTE: -2}.${SECOND: -2}"
echo ${TIME}
touch -cmf -t ${TIME} $1
The GPL and the BSD license both aim to "maximize" freedon - however, the difference is not about communities, or developers vs users.
The GPL is designed to maximize freedom for all recipients - the first user to get the source must offer the same abilities to anyone he chooses to distribute to.
The BSD license is designed to maximize freedom of those who get the software from the original author - almost carte blanche. On the other hand, users of derivative works only have as much freedom as the developers along the chain decide to allow them to have.
Let's just shorten it to 4 words (including one contraction), and be done with it.
"I've got no sympathy."
See? Even more accurate than before, without the need for any racial discrimination.
I'll grant you Quicktime Alt and Media Player Classic - it's quite possible to use CoreAVC on a Mac. Just not with "officially released" versions. :)
I've purchased through them, they work fine.
They're cables. They pass along digital signals. The signal either gets there or it doesn't.
No practical difference between the $7 monoprice and the $70 monster.
Plays just fine on my Macbook, and my Dual Core Athlon 64 laptop - the latter downclocks itself down to 1GHz when not plugged in, and can play 1080p files without too much difficulty (_really_ high motion scenes cause it to jitter a bit). The only downside is the 40 minute battery life. What software are you using to play these?
What are it's specs? I might have some software that can handle it.