How about the people who enjoy it and aren't apple fans? How are you going to try to discount our opinions, because of course only yours matters. I don't own a single Apple product other than the iphone, never have and have no plans to. That doesn't change the fact that I love the iphone over every other phone, and it is cutting edge - at least as far as UI and other usability features go.
You are partly right, but your entire argument is undermined by your lack of understanding of right/liberties 101. There is no such thing as a restrictive right. All right by definition are active. A Constitutional right must be explicitly written within the Constitution's text. Anything else is a 'liberty,' with a very different legal philosophy behind it.
Well, I think you're right, but not only for the reason you say. You must be insane if you actually still, especially after current events, believe in the ridiculous notion of the free market. Now, that's funny.
Obama is a well respected Constitutional scholar and has made it clear that he has no interest in removing the right of private citizens to own firearms. Keep spreading that bullshit though!
This was absolutely positively NOT a fair use issue. There are many legal reasons why they had no right to use that clip in the movie that went beyond the protections allowed by fair use. Yet again slashdot users don't even attempt to understand the issue.
There is a huge difference between the ipod/ipod touches and any other mp3 players, and these are good differences. If you don't recognize them you must be blind. The ipods are nothing like any other mp3 players, but off course why be logical when there is Apple hate.
You know nothing about cars. In any modern car there is not such thing as a "tune up". There's nothing to do. That is an artifact of when we had cars that had something to actually tune up. Go to a mechanic now and ask for a tune up and he'll look at you like you have 5 heads.
But while that's a kind of system that should be working, it really isn't. There are still tens of millions of Americans who either believe that it is within their "fair use" rights to freely redistribute copyrighted materials to dozens of unknown online participants, or do so fully knowing it is illegal.
Could you be more wrong? Everything you just listed is absolutely legal under U.S. copyright law. The law was meant to prevent making money from/getting credit for someone else's work. Personal sharing has ALWAYS been allowed, no matter what some organizations and corrupt lawyers would have you believe. So what's your supposed law expertise?
Why the fuck should those who use [em]less[/em] bandwidth get higher priority than those who use more. How is that a fair management of the network in any way? It is the ones who need the bandwidth who should get it.
Oh yes, because quoting an author who has something important to say on the subject is now considered "flailing inanity" by someone who has probably never had a real debate/healthy argument anywhere but on the internet.
Are you kidding me? It's an incredibly complicated machine on a scale that has never been done before in history. Things are supposed to be breaking now, that's how the scientists learn and it gets better over time.
But of course people are always there in the wings ready to criticize that everything is not completely perfect.
"Because under duress the US could force companies that do business here to sell a certain amount of that oil to the US market"
hahaha hahah, I think you've got who's in control of who a bit backwards.
The Jews took Israel from absolutely no one. It was given to them by countries which as a collective had "ownership" (for lack of a better term). It couldn't be a more legitimate state.
I have yet to see one shred of evidence that creators are getting screwed by anyone but others in the business. Blaming the consumers? Really? This is what we've come to?
So I can't go looking on the street hoping to see a book by a famous writer? That would then be illegal if I happen to find it? Your argument doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the people who enjoy it and aren't apple fans? How are you going to try to discount our opinions, because of course only yours matters. I don't own a single Apple product other than the iphone, never have and have no plans to. That doesn't change the fact that I love the iphone over every other phone, and it is cutting edge - at least as far as UI and other usability features go.
The 2nd is not the cornerstone of everything, if it was IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST.
You are partly right, but your entire argument is undermined by your lack of understanding of right/liberties 101. There is no such thing as a restrictive right. All right by definition are active. A Constitutional right must be explicitly written within the Constitution's text. Anything else is a 'liberty,' with a very different legal philosophy behind it.
You mean that history no respected actual historians agree is true?
Well, I think you're right, but not only for the reason you say. You must be insane if you actually still, especially after current events, believe in the ridiculous notion of the free market. Now, that's funny.
I find it hilarious that people still see drug importers as a "problem."
Obama is a well respected Constitutional scholar and has made it clear that he has no interest in removing the right of private citizens to own firearms. Keep spreading that bullshit though!
So we're voting things insightful that are patently untrue now?
This was absolutely positively NOT a fair use issue. There are many legal reasons why they had no right to use that clip in the movie that went beyond the protections allowed by fair use. Yet again slashdot users don't even attempt to understand the issue.
There is a huge difference between the ipod/ipod touches and any other mp3 players, and these are good differences. If you don't recognize them you must be blind. The ipods are nothing like any other mp3 players, but off course why be logical when there is Apple hate.
You know nothing about cars. In any modern car there is not such thing as a "tune up". There's nothing to do. That is an artifact of when we had cars that had something to actually tune up. Go to a mechanic now and ask for a tune up and he'll look at you like you have 5 heads.
But while that's a kind of system that should be working, it really isn't. There are still tens of millions of Americans who either believe that it is within their "fair use" rights to freely redistribute copyrighted materials to dozens of unknown online participants, or do so fully knowing it is illegal.
Could you be more wrong? Everything you just listed is absolutely legal under U.S. copyright law. The law was meant to prevent making money from/getting credit for someone else's work. Personal sharing has ALWAYS been allowed, no matter what some organizations and corrupt lawyers would have you believe. So what's your supposed law expertise?
Someone doesn't know what hyperbole is....
Why the fuck should those who use [em]less[/em] bandwidth get higher priority than those who use more. How is that a fair management of the network in any way? It is the ones who need the bandwidth who should get it.
Oh yes, because quoting an author who has something important to say on the subject is now considered "flailing inanity" by someone who has probably never had a real debate/healthy argument anywhere but on the internet.
"but he missed the boat on just how easy it has become (and is becoming!) to use computers to not merely threaten to monitor anybody at any time"
Either you're kidding, trolling, or you never read the book.
"He'll still show signs of stress, though."
So will every single person there. Have you ever been to an airport, for instance, which is conceivably where much of this would be used.
No shit if you're blind it won't be usable, it's technology not meant for blind people. Must everything cater to everyone?
Complaining about a lack of tactile sensation on what is known to be a touch screen phone is fucking ridiculous.
Are you kidding me? It's an incredibly complicated machine on a scale that has never been done before in history. Things are supposed to be breaking now, that's how the scientists learn and it gets better over time. But of course people are always there in the wings ready to criticize that everything is not completely perfect.
"Because under duress the US could force companies that do business here to sell a certain amount of that oil to the US market" hahaha hahah, I think you've got who's in control of who a bit backwards.
AND your POINT is?.
The Jews took Israel from absolutely no one. It was given to them by countries which as a collective had "ownership" (for lack of a better term). It couldn't be a more legitimate state.
I have yet to see one shred of evidence that creators are getting screwed by anyone but others in the business. Blaming the consumers? Really? This is what we've come to?
So I can't go looking on the street hoping to see a book by a famous writer? That would then be illegal if I happen to find it? Your argument doesn't make sense.