But.... doesn't the Patriot Act allow people to be thrown into jail without a warrant, without a timelimit and without due process? What does an information sharing law have to do with allowing certain people to get locked up?
It makes you wonder whether or not people will take offense to their tools being used by such agencies and whether or not they'll develop licenses to ban them from using them. If they do, would they be enforceable (assuming the person somehow found out). And if it was enforceable, is there absolutely any way to find out legally? Whistle blower? If the government breaks license agreements and classifies that information, shouldn't that be illegal?
I actually don't use any of extensions. I'm also not lying and I don't appreciate being called a liar. I used it for 6months and then I tried Firefox for a day and realised Firefox was much faster.
I actively chose Firefox because it has all of the features I use (I switched to Opera and it had no features on it that I used that Firefox lacked. And I was using Opera for a good time, probably about 6 months). However the big reason I moved (just because Opera had features I didn't use didn't mean I had to stop using Opera) was speed with Opera being slower then Firefox.
It is unlikely that will ever happen unless the backers of Firefox resort to illegal behaviour. The day that happens is the day I'll concede you your point. Until then its pointless to talk about it, as the likelihood of it happening is so far remote its like talking about me getting hit by a meteorite in five seconds time.
Google claims to act in a moral way, and then they proceed to act in an (to many people) immoral way. If they want to claim they're following their own morals. That's their prerogative. Just as its mine to claim "bullshit" when they claim not to be evil. Google is welcome to disagree with me, just as I'm free to come to slashdot and tell others what I think of their actions.
I find Google's behaviour appalling, but not very surprising.
Good to see your comprehension of English doesn't outweigh your knee jerk abilities. Otherwise you would have seen that was only one fact that was considered, along with at least 1 other fact accompanying it (more likely many more facts).
Is Ford responsible for every accident on the road? Funny, I thought cars had to meet a minimum amount of safety requirements that the government has drawn up before they can be used. If Microsoft wants to submit to a similar requirement I'm sure Iowa will be willing to drop the antitrust case. Although they will have to cease distributing all versions of Windows that have an unapproved version of Internet Explorer.
I'd say Hitler's prosecution of the Jews and other minorities led to greater acceptance of minorities. Does that mean Nazi war criminals shouldn't be prosecuted when found?
Or you can even interpret that to mean that the raccoons are eating the garage door. If so the judge is a fucking moron whose ruling should be overturned and re-judged. There is no way someone with two brain cells to rub together would think moving a sensor would fix the problem, if it was the door itself getting eaten.
The justices surely didn't give any insight into what the proper test for obviousness should be, they only said they didn't like the current test. They're waiting for someone to patent a new system and then they'll deem the patent invalid as it was obvious.
This, no matter what bumps might arise, will help to even out the patent trolls, and stop stupid patents. Only if people who file the patent are fined along with those accepting the patent. Otherwise they'll just keep filing patents. Just as spammers keep sending spam mail. On the level of the businesses that file these ridiculous patents, the cost is as financially burdening as it is for an Indian spammer to send spam.
I think that a swing too far in the opposite direction would be just as harmful as the (current) swing in the direction of extreme patentism (hah, I just made up a word). I disagree. I think having no patents is much more preferable to extreme patent giving.
Cnn's Dr. Sanjay Gupta has a blog entry on a new study done by the American Academy of Pediatrics which says there is a correlation between violent video games and violent behavior.Of course there is. Violent people like to play violent video games. That doesn't mean a violent video game will make someone violent, they're violent before they play the video game.
It's really quite simple. There hasn't been violent video games since the year dot and yet times past were much more violent then now. Or are people going to try to claim that Ghengis Khan and Adolf Hitler played violent video games? Now myself, I play violent video games and yet you'll be hard pressed to find someone less violent then me. I imagine there are many people like myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a question: Which is more stupid, the kid getting a stern talking to or the parent being sued for a ridiculous amount of money?
But.... doesn't the Patriot Act allow people to be thrown into jail without a warrant, without a timelimit and without due process? What does an information sharing law have to do with allowing certain people to get locked up?
It makes you wonder whether or not people will take offense to their tools being used by such agencies and whether or not they'll develop licenses to ban them from using them. If they do, would they be enforceable (assuming the person somehow found out). And if it was enforceable, is there absolutely any way to find out legally? Whistle blower? If the government breaks license agreements and classifies that information, shouldn't that be illegal?
I actually don't use any of extensions. I'm also not lying and I don't appreciate being called a liar. I used it for 6months and then I tried Firefox for a day and realised Firefox was much faster.
I actively chose Firefox because it has all of the features I use (I switched to Opera and it had no features on it that I used that Firefox lacked. And I was using Opera for a good time, probably about 6 months). However the big reason I moved (just because Opera had features I didn't use didn't mean I had to stop using Opera) was speed with Opera being slower then Firefox.
It is unlikely that will ever happen unless the backers of Firefox resort to illegal behaviour. The day that happens is the day I'll concede you your point. Until then its pointless to talk about it, as the likelihood of it happening is so far remote its like talking about me getting hit by a meteorite in five seconds time.
Google claims to act in a moral way, and then they proceed to act in an (to many people) immoral way. If they want to claim they're following their own morals. That's their prerogative. Just as its mine to claim "bullshit" when they claim not to be evil. Google is welcome to disagree with me, just as I'm free to come to slashdot and tell others what I think of their actions.
I find Google's behaviour appalling, but not very surprising.
Simply saying "Godwin's law" is such an easy way to ignore any points someone was making. Bravo *golf clap*
Good to see your comprehension of English doesn't outweigh your knee jerk abilities. Otherwise you would have seen that was only one fact that was considered, along with at least 1 other fact accompanying it (more likely many more facts).
But I don't own a CD, I pirate all of my software.
They can't easily go to other restaurants if the one of them has a monopoly.
I'd say Hitler's prosecution of the Jews and other minorities led to greater acceptance of minorities. Does that mean Nazi war criminals shouldn't be prosecuted when found?
Now if only you could get a president that was smarter then one.
I know I was. What is this Thanksgiving you speak of? Is it some pagan holiday?
But I didn't steal software today. I merely pirated it.
Cnn's Dr. Sanjay Gupta has a blog entry on a new study done by the American Academy of Pediatrics which says there is a correlation between violent video games and violent behavior.Of course there is. Violent people like to play violent video games. That doesn't mean a violent video game will make someone violent, they're violent before they play the video game.
It's really quite simple. There hasn't been violent video games since the year dot and yet times past were much more violent then now. Or are people going to try to claim that Ghengis Khan and Adolf Hitler played violent video games? Now myself, I play violent video games and yet you'll be hard pressed to find someone less violent then me. I imagine there are many people like myself.
Why should a judge even have to bother stopping this?Because your politicians have bought into Thompson's propaganda.
Whether or not they do I believe is unimportant. Is there a law forcing EB or games wizards to enforce the ratings?