long live the internet. allowing crackpot internet types to choose the troll candidate for presidency since 2007 long live corporate media: deciding votes of the uninformed and easily swayed since 1948
any seem to think there's some massive conspiracy keeping Ron Paul away from the public discussion, when there's a far simpler explanation - he's not going to win In a fair world, the media's only responsibility in this election would be to distribute the views and values of all candidates, not just the popular ones. It is up to the voters, at election time, to decide who wins. It most certainly is not the responsibility of the media to decide who will win and who will loose.
Its that sort of mentality that limits your choices as well as your freedoms.
Furthermore, anyone who can't see the media bias against Ron Paul is blind. I remember watching the SC GOP debate from fox. This was before i was a ron paul supporter, and i was just stunned at how on the second round, where they were talking about how the republicans had strayed from the Reagan alliance, when it came to ron paul, they just changed the question and instead asked him to denounce his supporters as 9/11 nuts.
That just left me stunned. For what was supposed to be an unbiased debate, they deliberately tried throwing him a lose/lose question, as well trying to squander his debate time.
They have also specifically left him out of state GOP debates when Paul was both bigger in votes and finical support then others they invited, from that very state they were debating in.
Now i don't care what you think about Ron Paul. If you understand what he stands for and still don't want him for president, thats 100% fine with me. But to say that there isn't media bias against him (especially on fox news*) is just wishful thinking.
*the democrats have banded together and agreed to not do any political debates from fox, that perhaps shows you just how biased that network is.
I'll also add, that Ron Paul never started his run for office on the idea that he might win. He did so to spread his message. If you believe that its either good or fair for media to censor what we see and hear during the presidential elections, as well as believing what you media tells you on tv, i can only have pity on that vote your able to cast.
Sarcasm is apparently lost on you. The parent was clearly referring to the many wars and bloodshed, known as the crusades. All launched in the name of Christianity.
and that Bush probably wasn't lying about WMDs so much as our intelligence services have sucked since the 50s. He plunged America into a war, and other nations with his warmongering ("Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.") He justified attacking Iraq solely based on the fact that Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction and that they had decisive evidence. But they also couldn't show anyone the evidence because it was a "secret".
And all of their facts turned out to be incorrect, and you want to shift the blame away from his decision (And it was his alone, not congresses) to the intelligence agencies, which until Bush got his hands on them, stated that Iraq wasn't likely to be a threat.
The result leading to a huge smear on the international reputation of America, fallout with friendly nations, the souring national debt, and looming economic crisis Right... Well if you want to let your leader off the hook for the biggest fuck up both nationally and globally in easily the last 20 years, that either makes you a bigger man then i am or irresponsible.
Now heres two quotes of yours, from two different posts in this same thread.
Most voters, with the exception of the Ron Paul supporters who also are white supremacists...
Idiot trolls crawl out of the woodwork to attack Romney's entire moral system for reasons utterly irrelevant, I call them on being single-issue-selfish. Lets start off with the white supremacists line... Heres the link that i think works at it up nicely http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/27/011749.php http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-connected-to-white.html
Reading through it, the only thing the articles are able to prove, is that there are white supremacists who support Paul, but that it appears to be a one way relationship. So i consider the issue to be irrelevant.
Now i'm going to do some conjecturing here.
The white supremacists issue is irrelevant
You've attacked the supporters of Dr Paul, but because you also loaded the sentence with "...you're going to have to try to reason with these people if you want their votes.", you've linked the attack to the candidate himself, implying that Dr Paul panders to white supremacists for their votes.
You said, "Idiot trolls crawl out of the woodwork to attack Romney's entire moral system for reasons utterly irrelevant, I call them on being single-issue-selfish."
If that applies to Romney, does that not also apply to Ron Paul? If thats the case, can you explain why you yourself, by your own standards, is not an "Idiot Troll" that is "single-issue-selfish".
To the moderators, the later half might be a a flamebait in nature, but the fact remains that he inserted bogus, unrelated, and off-topic information in his post, but it still needs correcting. The "single-issue-selfish" is just me pointing out an obvious contradiction in his earlier post about stupid condemning people's morals for irrelevant matters.
I don't think thats the ideal moderation for your first post. I'd of picked "Horrible grammatical structure with ambiguous statements", but since that doesn't exist, troll is the closest.
You refer to the war. But there are two wars, the war on terror and the war on drugs. I'm unable to work out which your talking about.
"One affects hundreds of millions of people, the other affects very few people" Another vague expression, both wars affect millions, as does marijuana.
Finally, you end your post with what i can only call trollbait "Who is your candidate that meets your standard? I can find something inhuman about them if I really wanna."
You've willingly or otherwise, started fishing for a response which will inherently lead to negative feedback. Thats the definition of trolling.
I'll also add about this post of yours... "Romney's embracing of technology is seen as an invitation to attack" No, its just that a discussion of a politician, for whatever reason, is reason to gossip, because it seems gossip is human nature.
If you want official information about a politician, go to some informative website. Not very many people care about researching what a politician stands for and don't find it interesting. Gossip can go everywhere else however
You can rebuke this post and its author all you want, but keep in mind this post is to point out why you got troll, and preferably, to stop mods voting up your original post out of sympathy.
It may be a little twisted, and I don't know completely where I stand on the issue, but if it's good for the bottom line then presumably that will lead to growth, which will create more and better jobs. Which directly influences the American populace It also has the potential to lead to the creation of an elite upper-class society. Did you know that Mexico is incredibly rich. Per capita it has the highest GDP of Latin America, yet half of their citizens live in poverty. ( http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/mexicoisrich.html )
I consider Mexico an economic-social failure because the upper-class got what they wanted, and now have all the power. They want what most rich people want, more profits with less expenses. (If someone from mexico wants to rebuke me on this point, I'm all ears)
No, I'm against allowing companies from donating money, it allows companies to consolidate both financial and political power.
Understand that I'm for restricting companies from funding campaigns, but i wouldn't restrict any private personal donations. A CEO is going to be more then happy to throw the COMPANY'S money under the rugs to popular candidates, i don't see any CEO doing it with their personal funds.
Companies don't have the right to vote, yet they can donate? The US doesn't allow non US Citizens to donate, yet they let companies do so?
I hate to be so cynical, but a large company doesn't care about whats good for the country, only whats good for its bottom line, as such, they donate expecting political favors for their "donations"
Still, its not easy to draw the line in where money for elections can come from. The government can't be expected to sponsor startup parties/candidates There also the fact that as long as the funds are spent on political education/advertising, more money to publish more information about what a party stands for is a good thing. Its just when money comes attached with strings, that things get awry.
A point of interest I'll point out, is that in my country New Zealand, we recently passed the Electoral Finance Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Finance_Act which basically puts limits on anonymous donations, and how much can be spent by both companies and individuals political advertising without registering.
I'm considering the controversial act a work in progress, but a decisive step forwards... perhaps one day it'll spread to other countries, especially America...
I could hardly believe what i read
We will be writing checks to campaigns by the end of this quarter," Mr. Gallagher said. "This is an important step in the political maturation process of the industry that we are ready to take now. This is about identifying and supporting champions for the game industry on Capitol Hill so that they support us. I personally cannot understand why companies are allowed to give political donations. It doesn't make sense, because the net result is that it leads to bribing political orgiziations for their own agenda
I don't expect it to ever change anytime soon however. What politician would bite the hand that feeds them.
Its obvious that only demo's can be copied over via wifi. If i'm not mistaken, the DS has 4MB ram, which can be shared for storage of wifi games.
With modern ds cartridges using up-to 64MB games, it'd be impossible to copy them into the DS, let alone having remaining space left to run them.
Then theres the fact that most people would find it annoying, having to to wait 2-3 minutes for even the smallest of games to load a 3MB game over wifi.
It'll be fun for downloading DS demo's, but actual games are only practical with a cartridge behind them.
Going through the list of disasters, I'm left wondering where the Indonesian mud volcano is.
Considering its permanently displaced 11,000 people, over 10KM squared. I'd say thats a far larger disaster then for example, a bridge collapsing in the states, or a plane killing 300.
It's killed 200 people, and was probably caused by the gas drilling company cutting corners on its drilling.
I'd personally have that at #1 or #2, i also question having global warming as the #1 man made disaster, since i don't consider it being a disaster yet. The worst that comes to my mind is hurricane Katrina, and even then, there is no decisive link to the two.
There are a few points in your example that don't translate well unfortunately. I'll list the biggest
That would be like man deciding in 1900 to never bother with airplanes until he could build $modern_jet_airliner. It'd actually be closer to telling the wright brothers they can have funding for aeronautical development, but telling them not to build a $modern_jet_airliner.
And that would of been a good idea, because if they had been told to. At the time, they would of spent that funding, on BLIMPS. As blimps were the only technology that had the lifting power at the time.
The blimp is a dead-end technology. Its already reached its potential. What if thats the case with rocket propelled space ships as well?
We could develop new techniques related to long distance space flight. Its going to be a long distance space flight regardless of if its a manned mission. I don't see the troubleshooting required to get a man on mars of being any additional benefit for long distance space flight. What we learn traveling to Mars, we might be able to take to Venus. But why travel to Venus.
The future use of such knowledge is going to be valuable I'm sure, but thats the distant future, best left solved with future technology, with future goals in mind.
We could develop a better understanding of the long term effects on humans of space flight Spending billions of dollars NOW, to learn how humans are affected in space, when we don't use manned space travel, is not a practical use of money.
Its like learning how much paper money needs to be burnt per second, to lift a hot-air balloon. There might be *some* value in knowing, but none of it is helpful in the slightest in everyday life, yet its an extremely expensive research to perform. IE: Its not practical.
Congress isn't limiting what other people can do, they are simply giving conditions on how [b]THEIR[/b] money is not to be spent.
I don't think there is anything preventing NASA from getting private funding to do it themselves, but frankly, i can't see any private sources coming up with the billions required to research a manned mars mission.
Its Cheapest to simply let commercial interests develop a way. That IS the American way after all, Capitalism.
Also i can't honestly see the point on why we need men on mars. Emotional as it is, its just not practical. There is only 1 thing that brining a human to mars achieves, and thats a story. Does America really want to spend billions for another "One small step"?
Nothing is changing in japan. If you compare it to the DS, its failing behind.
Each year, the number of DS units shipped grows massively in japan (and worldwide). 3.7 Million in their first year, 8 Million sold in their 3 year. (20M sold to date)
Compared to the PSP, which after 3 years, is selling only marginally faster then it did at release. (2M the first year, 2.5M the 3rd year, 7M Sold to date)
The DS sales are effectively snowballing into something gigantic, meanwhile the PSP is just taking a stroll around the block.
Standards aren't compulsory or binding, they are simply a guideline to allow better interoperability between systems. Having a standard created by fiat changes nothing, its still up to each country to decide if its worth complying with.
The fact that your suggesting that having a committee be unable to do anything is better, is baffling, especially when its a committee that is very likely to try and bend over backwards to fast track any standards Microsoft propose, regardless of how useful the standard actually is.
This isn't a case where the entire community has a gained a clearer voice, its a case where the voice has been corrupted to suit the needs of private interests.
You mean delivering just the locks. the reason most people hate DRM, is because even if we legally own the product, the key to open it is in someone else's hand...
>So then you don't object to anyone buying an SUV?
I don't call companies evil when their CEO goes out and buys an SUV, no. The only difference here, is that its on a larger scale, a behemoth company, and their founders getting a behemoth SUV.
Their still two different entities, like like a parent and child, you can't blame the child for the actions of its parents. Although the reverse isn't true.
So their founders purchased an "SUV" aircraft, big deal, what they purchase with their money, and do in their spare time, is their own business.
Reflecting that onto Google itself is nothing less then clutching at straws, and hate mongering IMO.
Being weary of what "evils" they can could do is always a smart idea, but denouncing them over any little flaw is just a great way to loose good friends.
Unfocused:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Focused so that it reads out only what applies when we want to redistribute it under version 3
you can modify and redistribute it... under the terms... of version [3] Thats pretty clear to me. That allows me to modify the license to version 3, removing all traces of version 2. Which would make it illegal to treat any part of that distributed code as version 2. Regardless of what it was originally distributed as.
[quote]That's where 3rd party firmware can become a problem. How do you prove that the firmware was the cause and not the hardware? I'm sure it can be done, but to the satisfaction of the customer? And is it really Apple's responsibility to determine if the firmware was the cause? In the end, it may cost Apple quite a lot of money to make that determination, only to turn back to the customer and refuse the warranty claim. It's sort of a lose-lose situation.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that if your phone turns into a brick when you update it using itunes, it was the hacked firmware. If your thinking of lying to apple/at&t/whatever when you return the phone, they can simply ask how it turned into a brick, and of course, they'll then ask if you hacked it. You could lie through your teeth, but its clear at this point who's being unethical.
In the case of firmware causing damage on an arbitrary point in time, i would expect for that warranty act to enacted, the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that your firmware didn't cause the breakdown would rest on you.
But IANAL, so i could be wrong, just seems like common sense to prove your mods didn't cause harm at their expense.
If King George told AT&T to give them private information, i would expect AT&T to comply with the law and give King George the Royal Finger.
What you seem to be implying is that its ok to break the law when someone threatens you?
AT&T have expensive lawyers to decide whats right and wrong according to the law. Their lawyers should, and would of told them that they didn't need to spy for them, and that demanding court orders or use of the patriot act, was their best and only course of action.
They clearly ignored their lawyers (one way or another), and from that point on, they sold out the interests and rights of their customers, for their own interests. As such, they should be served a punitive punishment to try and ensure that it never happens again, as well as serve as a warning to other telecoms that customer privacy is never a trivial matter.
I've tried downloading/watching heroes from NBC before. Because i was accessing it from a non-american IP address, they locked me out, citing no advertisers for my region (New Zealand)
Talking of which, they previous/already offered the ability to watch previous episodes of heroes before, what exactly has changed? Isn't this just a rehash of what they already have, just with plans to turn it into an iTunes competitor later next year?
And what if there are no suspects? what if you have this piece of DNA that you strongly suspect is the culprits, but since you only have the DNA of convicted crimials, your not going to be able to find anything..
Also if your against a national DNA database, then your probably of the opinion that DNA is a personal thing, and can only be collected with your consent. How many criminals are going to consent to giving DNA if they think that will help them solve their crime.
Having a national database would solve both problems, without invading the privacy of their citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Its that sort of mentality that limits your choices as well as your freedoms.
Furthermore, anyone who can't see the media bias against Ron Paul is blind.
I remember watching the SC GOP debate from fox. This was before i was a ron paul supporter, and i was just stunned at how on the second round, where they were talking about how the republicans had strayed from the Reagan alliance, when it came to ron paul, they just changed the question and instead asked him to denounce his supporters as 9/11 nuts.
That just left me stunned. For what was supposed to be an unbiased debate, they deliberately tried throwing him a lose/lose question, as well trying to squander his debate time.
They have also specifically left him out of state GOP debates when Paul was both bigger in votes and finical support then others they invited, from that very state they were debating in.
Now i don't care what you think about Ron Paul. If you understand what he stands for and still don't want him for president, thats 100% fine with me. But to say that there isn't media bias against him (especially on fox news*) is just wishful thinking.
*the democrats have banded together and agreed to not do any political debates from fox, that perhaps shows you just how biased that network is.
I'll also add, that Ron Paul never started his run for office on the idea that he might win. He did so to spread his message. If you believe that its either good or fair for media to censor what we see and hear during the presidential elections, as well as believing what you media tells you on tv, i can only have pity on that vote your able to cast.
Sarcasm is apparently lost on you.
The parent was clearly referring to the many wars and bloodshed, known as the crusades. All launched in the name of Christianity.
He justified attacking Iraq solely based on the fact that Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction and that they had decisive evidence. But they also couldn't show anyone the evidence because it was a "secret".
And all of their facts turned out to be incorrect, and you want to shift the blame away from his decision (And it was his alone, not congresses) to the intelligence agencies, which until Bush got his hands on them, stated that Iraq wasn't likely to be a threat.
The result leading to a huge smear on the international reputation of America, fallout with friendly nations, the souring national debt, and looming economic crisis
Right... Well if you want to let your leader off the hook for the biggest fuck up both nationally and globally in easily the last 20 years, that either makes you a bigger man then i am or irresponsible.
Now heres two quotes of yours, from two different posts in this same thread. Most voters, with the exception of the Ron Paul supporters who also are white supremacists... Idiot trolls crawl out of the woodwork to attack Romney's entire moral system for reasons utterly irrelevant, I call them on being single-issue-selfish. Lets start off with the white supremacists line...
Heres the link that i think works at it up nicely
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/27/011749.php
http://lippard.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-connected-to-white.html
Reading through it, the only thing the articles are able to prove, is that there are white supremacists who support Paul, but that it appears to be a one way relationship. So i consider the issue to be irrelevant.
Now i'm going to do some conjecturing here.
You said, "Idiot trolls crawl out of the woodwork to attack Romney's entire moral system for reasons utterly irrelevant, I call them on being single-issue-selfish."
If that applies to Romney, does that not also apply to Ron Paul?
If thats the case, can you explain why you yourself, by your own standards, is not an "Idiot Troll" that is "single-issue-selfish".
To the moderators, the later half might be a a flamebait in nature, but the fact remains that he inserted bogus, unrelated, and off-topic information in his post, but it still needs correcting. The "single-issue-selfish" is just me pointing out an obvious contradiction in his earlier post about stupid condemning people's morals for irrelevant matters.
I don't think thats the ideal moderation for your first post. I'd of picked "Horrible grammatical structure with ambiguous statements", but since that doesn't exist, troll is the closest.
You refer to the war. But there are two wars, the war on terror and the war on drugs. I'm unable to work out which your talking about.
"One affects hundreds of millions of people, the other affects very few people"
Another vague expression, both wars affect millions, as does marijuana.
Finally, you end your post with what i can only call trollbait
"Who is your candidate that meets your standard? I can find something inhuman about them if I really wanna."
You've willingly or otherwise, started fishing for a response which will inherently lead to negative feedback. Thats the definition of trolling.
I'll also add about this post of yours...
"Romney's embracing of technology is seen as an invitation to attack"
No, its just that a discussion of a politician, for whatever reason, is reason to gossip, because it seems gossip is human nature.
If you want official information about a politician, go to some informative website. Not very many people care about researching what a politician stands for and don't find it interesting. Gossip can go everywhere else however
You can rebuke this post and its author all you want, but keep in mind this post is to point out why you got troll, and preferably, to stop mods voting up your original post out of sympathy.
I consider Mexico an economic-social failure because the upper-class got what they wanted, and now have all the power. They want what most rich people want, more profits with less expenses. (If someone from mexico wants to rebuke me on this point, I'm all ears)
No, I'm against allowing companies from donating money, it allows companies to consolidate both financial and political power.
Understand that I'm for restricting companies from funding campaigns, but i wouldn't restrict any private personal donations.
A CEO is going to be more then happy to throw the COMPANY'S money under the rugs to popular candidates, i don't see any CEO doing it with their personal funds.
Companies don't have the right to vote, yet they can donate?
The US doesn't allow non US Citizens to donate, yet they let companies do so?
I hate to be so cynical, but a large company doesn't care about whats good for the country, only whats good for its bottom line, as such, they donate expecting political favors for their "donations"
Still, its not easy to draw the line in where money for elections can come from. The government can't be expected to sponsor startup parties/candidates
There also the fact that as long as the funds are spent on political education/advertising, more money to publish more information about what a party stands for is a good thing. Its just when money comes attached with strings, that things get awry.
A point of interest I'll point out, is that in my country New Zealand, we recently passed the Electoral Finance Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Finance_Act which basically puts limits on anonymous donations, and how much can be spent by both companies and individuals political advertising without registering.
I'm considering the controversial act a work in progress, but a decisive step forwards... perhaps one day it'll spread to other countries, especially America...
I don't expect it to ever change anytime soon however. What politician would bite the hand that feeds them.
I'll point out that most of the US debts are held within USA, with about 25% of the debt owed externally to Japan and China.
Its obvious that only demo's can be copied over via wifi.
If i'm not mistaken, the DS has 4MB ram, which can be shared for storage of wifi games.
With modern ds cartridges using up-to 64MB games, it'd be impossible to copy them into the DS, let alone having remaining space left to run them.
Then theres the fact that most people would find it annoying, having to to wait 2-3 minutes for even the smallest of games to load a 3MB game over wifi.
It'll be fun for downloading DS demo's, but actual games are only practical with a cartridge behind them.
Going through the list of disasters, I'm left wondering where the Indonesian mud volcano is.
Considering its permanently displaced 11,000 people, over 10KM squared. I'd say thats a far larger disaster then for example, a bridge collapsing in the states, or a plane killing 300.
It's killed 200 people, and was probably caused by the gas drilling company cutting corners on its drilling.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11025-indonesian-mud-volcano-caused-by-gas-drilling.html
I'd personally have that at #1 or #2, i also question having global warming as the #1 man made disaster, since i don't consider it being a disaster yet. The worst that comes to my mind is hurricane Katrina, and even then, there is no decisive link to the two.
I'll list the biggest That would be like man deciding in 1900 to never bother with airplanes until he could build $modern_jet_airliner. It'd actually be closer to telling the wright brothers they can have funding for aeronautical development, but telling them not to build a $modern_jet_airliner.
And that would of been a good idea, because if they had been told to. At the time, they would of spent that funding, on BLIMPS. As blimps were the only technology that had the lifting power at the time.
The blimp is a dead-end technology. Its already reached its potential. What if thats the case with rocket propelled space ships as well?
The future use of such knowledge is going to be valuable I'm sure, but thats the distant future, best left solved with future technology, with future goals in mind. We could develop a better understanding of the long term effects on humans of space flight Spending billions of dollars NOW, to learn how humans are affected in space, when we don't use manned space travel, is not a practical use of money.
Its like learning how much paper money needs to be burnt per second, to lift a hot-air balloon. There might be *some* value in knowing, but none of it is helpful in the slightest in everyday life, yet its an extremely expensive research to perform.
IE: Its not practical.
Congress isn't limiting what other people can do, they are simply giving conditions on how [b]THEIR[/b] money is not to be spent.
I don't think there is anything preventing NASA from getting private funding to do it themselves, but frankly, i can't see any private sources coming up with the billions required to research a manned mars mission.
Its Cheapest to simply let commercial interests develop a way. That IS the American way after all, Capitalism.
Also i can't honestly see the point on why we need men on mars. Emotional as it is, its just not practical.
There is only 1 thing that brining a human to mars achieves, and thats a story. Does America really want to spend billions for another "One small step"?
I've never understood why they are given in most cases.
I can understand halting the sales of a product when you have a competing product, like amazon and all the VoIP sueing.
But what do they gain when they are a patent troll? If they going to be awarded damages, wouldn't the more they have sold, inflate the settlement?
Or do they do it simlpy as bargaining chip. If thats the case, why do judges so freely give them out?
Or is there another reason to it?
Nothing is changing in japan.
If you compare it to the DS, its failing behind.
Each year, the number of DS units shipped grows massively in japan (and worldwide). 3.7 Million in their first year, 8 Million sold in their 3 year. (20M sold to date)
Compared to the PSP, which after 3 years, is selling only marginally faster then it did at release. (2M the first year, 2.5M the 3rd year, 7M Sold to date)
The DS sales are effectively snowballing into something gigantic, meanwhile the PSP is just taking a stroll around the block.
Its not just in japan, its worldwide as well, the PSP is slowly slipping into a footnote when compared to the success of the DS
http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=DS®1=All&cons2=PSP®2=All&cons3=X360®3=------&weeks=187
Thats an incredibly dimwitted post
Standards aren't compulsory or binding, they are simply a guideline to allow better interoperability between systems. Having a standard created by fiat changes nothing, its still up to each country to decide if its worth complying with.
The fact that your suggesting that having a committee be unable to do anything is better, is baffling, especially when its a committee that is very likely to try and bend over backwards to fast track any standards Microsoft propose, regardless of how useful the standard actually is.
This isn't a case where the entire community has a gained a clearer voice, its a case where the voice has been corrupted to suit the needs of private interests.
You mean delivering just the locks.
the reason most people hate DRM, is because even if we legally own the product, the key to open it is in someone else's hand...
>So then you don't object to anyone buying an SUV?
I don't call companies evil when their CEO goes out and buys an SUV, no.
The only difference here, is that its on a larger scale, a behemoth company, and their founders getting a behemoth SUV.
Their still two different entities, like like a parent and child, you can't blame the child for the actions of its parents. Although the reverse isn't true.
So their founders purchased an "SUV" aircraft, big deal, what they purchase with their money, and do in their spare time, is their own business.
Reflecting that onto Google itself is nothing less then clutching at straws, and hate mongering IMO.
Being weary of what "evils" they can could do is always a smart idea, but denouncing them over any little flaw is just a great way to loose good friends.
Unfocused: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version. Focused so that it reads out only what applies when we want to redistribute it under version 3 you can modify and redistribute it
That allows me to modify the license to version 3, removing all traces of version 2. Which would make it illegal to treat any part of that distributed code as version 2. Regardless of what it was originally distributed as.
[quote]That's where 3rd party firmware can become a problem. How do you prove that the firmware was the cause and not the hardware? I'm sure it can be done, but to the satisfaction of the customer? And is it really Apple's responsibility to determine if the firmware was the cause? In the end, it may cost Apple quite a lot of money to make that determination, only to turn back to the customer and refuse the warranty claim. It's sort of a lose-lose situation.[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that if your phone turns into a brick when you update it using itunes, it was the hacked firmware.
If your thinking of lying to apple/at&t/whatever when you return the phone, they can simply ask how it turned into a brick, and of course, they'll then ask if you hacked it. You could lie through your teeth, but its clear at this point who's being unethical.
In the case of firmware causing damage on an arbitrary point in time, i would expect for that warranty act to enacted, the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that your firmware didn't cause the breakdown would rest on you.
But IANAL, so i could be wrong, just seems like common sense to prove your mods didn't cause harm at their expense.
If King George told AT&T to give them private information, i would expect AT&T to comply with the law and give King George the Royal Finger.
What you seem to be implying is that its ok to break the law when someone threatens you?
AT&T have expensive lawyers to decide whats right and wrong according to the law. Their lawyers should, and would of told them that they didn't need to spy for them, and that demanding court orders or use of the patriot act, was their best and only course of action.
They clearly ignored their lawyers (one way or another), and from that point on, they sold out the interests and rights of their customers, for their own interests. As such, they should be served a punitive punishment to try and ensure that it never happens again, as well as serve as a warning to other telecoms that customer privacy is never a trivial matter.
I've tried downloading/watching heroes from NBC before.
Because i was accessing it from a non-american IP address, they locked me out, citing no advertisers for my region (New Zealand)
Talking of which, they previous/already offered the ability to watch previous episodes of heroes before, what exactly has changed?
Isn't this just a rehash of what they already have, just with plans to turn it into an iTunes competitor later next year?
And what if there are no suspects?
what if you have this piece of DNA that you strongly suspect is the culprits, but since you only have the DNA of convicted crimials, your not going to be able to find anything..
Also if your against a national DNA database, then your probably of the opinion that DNA is a personal thing, and can only be collected with your consent. How many criminals are going to consent to giving DNA if they think that will help them solve their crime.
Having a national database would solve both problems, without invading the privacy of their citizens.