Okay so half the Itunes will play on a non-apple device, and half won't. Still bad IMHO.
but it isn't a random 1/2. Songs without DRM are identified with the words "Itunes Plus". If the song you are looking for is Itunes Plus, what difference does it make if another song you weren't looking for has DRM on it?
I treat itunes like an online legal source of DRM free music. All the songs on there with the DRM simply don't exist to me.
It makes no sense to boycott the good 1/2 just because of the bad half. You have indie labels who want to sell DRM free music. Go support them. The label gets most of the money anyway.
I buy lots of music off itunes. And I only buy Itunes Plus. 256kbps, no DRM.
I wonder what percentage of sales is itunes vs itunes plus, and how that compares to their percentage of inventory. Do itunes plus songs sell better than DRMed songs?
There are lots of convicted criminals who never sold a bootleg. I guess they should be pardoned, since obviously their has been a miscarriage of justice here.
Two, "reasonable doubt" is determined by a dozen members of the unwashed masses, who hopefully stayed awake for and believed the confusing ramblings of your expert witness on encryption.
child porn is not a civil matter. And if your jury didn't stay awake or understand the evidence, it is a mistrial.
the issue is that most people don't have enough money to defend themselves at trial. But that has nothing to do with whether you are innocent or guilty.
If you are innocent and you are worried about being taken to court, then trying to be MORE innocent isn't going to make any difference. Obviously someone has either made a serious mistake, or you are being framed.
But this was a whole LOT of fuel in an enclosed space, so as the fuel burnt, the steel could keep getting hotter and hotter.
Are you saying the temperature of the steel exceeded the temperature of the burning fuel?
what about the majority of the fuel that wasn't burning at any given time? only fuel mixed with AIR can burn. In any volume of fuel, only surface fuel is burning and thus producing heat. The rest of the fuel is not creating any heat.
By your own argument the fire was in an enclosed space and therefore there was a lack of air to support combustion.
this fact is also born out by the tremendous amount of black smoke. black smoke is evidence of incomplete combustion and a lack of oxygen.
The only way to get that fuel to burn at the maximimum temperature would be to force air into the fire with an airpump the way its done to forge metal.
as the fuel burns, the steel would indeed get hotter and hotter, until it reached the same average temperature as the TOTAL body of liquid fuel (burning and non-burning from lack of air). The steel could get no hotter than that.
If you're spinning theories here, you need to stick to WTC building 7, the collapse of which was thoroughly studied, and concluded that fire alone was the result of it's collapse.
If you take the position that tower 7 was a planned demolition, then it strains credulity to think that it just so happens that a random terrorist attack took place on towers 1 and 2 that day to cover it up.
Do you really think that *our* government, which has shown such massive ineptitude in the past 8 years, could not only plan such a conspiracy but keep it secret? I don't think so.
what ineptitude are you referring to? Everything is going according to plan.
And when the public has been systemically educated to refuse to believe bad things about wealth and power, you don't need to keep it a secret. No one believes it anyway.
if Capitalism was working as "designed" you wouldn't have enough idle time in the day to post to slashdot to complain about it. Then again you probably wouldn't have the education necessary to contemplate such blasphemy as Capitalism not working, since all education would be tied directly to your trade and not 1 minute would be wasted training children to do anything not immediately job related as the market demanded.
You'd either be passed out from sheer exhaustion, or working furiously away lest your employer get the idea he could get slightly more production at less cost from some desperate member of the surplus population.
text messaging would be the last thing on your mind unless it was to impress your employer to value your contribution to *his* capital more.
And of course I don't have receipts for either card at this point, but if there's a chance at recouping some of my investment, I'd sign up.
Except you didn't invest in NVIDIA, you purchased a graphics card made by NVIDIA. This lawsuit is by shareholders.
Re:you can't stop the doomsayers
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
When you are dealing with the level of brain dead reasoning that produces such spurious and inaccurate statements about things like the LHC, you can't hope to succeed. Honestly, even if you come up with good reasons, it automatically becomes a cover up to those people, thus excusing even wilder claims.
The mere fact that there will be doomsayers forces scientists proposing any experiment to really prove it's completely safe. Thus the doomsayers actually help to insure the safety of science experiments.
Doomsayers serve the same purpose as QA people in computer science.
I'm sure you realize that it doesn't at all stop private people or entities from abridging "freedom of speech" (sometimes called 'freedom of speach') all they want?
The government is nothing but the representative of a collection of private parties. If you believe private parties have the freedom to violate your rights, you should not flinch if they collectively appoint representatives in congress to violate your rights on their behalf. In fact the bill of rights should strike you as an absurdity.
The founding fathers did not believe human rights are created or destroyed by legal decrees.
By that theory the American colonies had no right to independence in the first place, since legally colonists did not have any rights save what the King in his generosity pleased himself to grant from time to time.
Your position that private people have the right to abridge each others rights "all they want" flies in the face of the most important principles the Nation was founded on.
The creation of the United States was nothing more than an attempt to correct a wrong.
By your way of thinking congress does not enact statutes to prevent or correct wrongs, but statues are written in order to CREATE wrongs.
As if the nation is founded on the ideal that sovereign people would collectively work together and elect a congress in order to create wrongs. And the bill of rights is nothing but a document to limit what kind of wrongs congress is permitted to get away with.
bottom line, your rights are inalienable and exist because you are a human being, not because of what some law says. And what a private party does might be legal but that doesn't mean it can't be wrong.
* There are 9 planets orbiting the sun. Turns out Pluto isn't even a planet.
'Planet' is a word. It has no essential definition, that exists outside of how it is used. Pluto didn't change, they just redefined the word 'planet' to exclude Pluto. Not a scientific discovery.
Even if your work is not even remotely related just mentioning that one day maybe you will possibly contribute a tiny little bit then everybody will give you all the news coverage you could possibly want.
Because making rat brain controlled robots isn't newsworthy?
You don't know what you're fucking talking about, and I find you offensive. Maybe this happened to you, or somebody you know, and it's gotten you irked. But I guarantee that I know more cops than you do, and *never* -- not once -- has this happened in my personal experience as an ex-police officer.
he didn't say merely 'anyone'. He said 'anyone.. who doesn't meet a cop's standard of humanity.
I've had cops harass me and attempt to start fights with me, without any cause. They weren't even arresting me. They were trying to create a situation that didn't exist.
I know people who did nothing and had guns pointed at their heads by cops. I know someone who spent months in jail because the cops mixed up his name, before the witness at trial flat out saying 'that isn't the guy!' and then being threatened by police not to try to take them to court for compensation. I know of people who were flat out beaten up by cops and then never arrested or charged with any crime. I know someone who argued against a speeding ticket only to watch the cop smash his windshield and then give him a ticket for having a broken windshield as a warning of what would happen if he continued to argue.
it is unfortunate that a minority of cops who are petty tyrants and bullies, who take the law into their own hands, bring shame on all cops everywhere.. but if cops did more to police themselves and stop trying to protect each other like some clique, and did more to APOLIGIZE when they treat an innocent person with force and violence, then not only would more crime be solved, but people would feel lees inclined to actually fight the police and less cops would be injured on the job.
as long as police tolerate thuggery in their own ranks and refuse to believe that any cops are less than angels of mercy and grace, and persist in treating non cops like criminals who simply haven't been caught yet, police will be seen as thugs to be distrusted.
cops have a tough job, but it is THEIR JOB. They should act like professionals or find another line of work.
If I publish libel, and you republish MY libel without ensuring its veracity, then you are ALSO liable for libel. Liability does not solely rest with the very first publisher. Each and every copy of defamatory material put into the public causes additional damage.
When you publish something that might tend to damage someones reputation you have an obligation to ensure what you are saying is TRUE and that you are not acting out of malice. No one forced the newspapers to republish a story they didn't even investigate.
It is not a defense to the publisher of libel that another party is ALSO guilty.
even if, in the jurisdiction in question, parents are responsible for damages their children caused. The child was not the one who published the newpapers. Newpapers are autonomous and CHOOSE to publish certain stories, and as a result they caused additional damage well above and beyond what the blog would have done if they simply left it alone.
Slashdot Mirror
I accidentally bought a DRMed file from Itunes, and I got a refund when I asked for it.
Okay so half the Itunes will play on a non-apple device, and half won't. Still bad IMHO.
but it isn't a random 1/2. Songs without DRM are identified with the words "Itunes Plus". If the song you are looking for is Itunes Plus, what difference does it make if another song you weren't looking for has DRM on it?
I treat itunes like an online legal source of DRM free music. All the songs on there with the DRM simply don't exist to me.
It makes no sense to boycott the good 1/2 just because of the bad half. You have indie labels who want to sell DRM free music. Go support them. The label gets most of the money anyway.
you can convert non DRMed AAC files into MP3 right inside itunes if necessary. Not to mention you can burn directly to audio CD.
I buy lots of music off itunes. And I only buy Itunes Plus. 256kbps, no DRM.
I wonder what percentage of sales is itunes vs itunes plus, and how that compares to their percentage of inventory. Do itunes plus songs sell better than DRMed songs?
If the baker isn't willing to sell me a cake at the price I'm willing to pay, I don't have the right to go and bake my own cake to the same recipe
bake? silly anarchist. You'll need a license for that too.
Criminals, by definition sell bootlegs.
There are lots of convicted criminals who never sold a bootleg. I guess they should be pardoned, since obviously their has been a miscarriage of justice here.
It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities.
It's also common knowledge that knocking on wood brings good luck.
I wonder if Ray can keep his blog entries up if he simply stated the line in contention as in my opinion.
"in my opinion" is not a magic word that lets you defame people with impunity.
mod parent UP!
you can mount an ipod like a normal USB hard drive. I've done it on Mac, windows and linux.
you can even access the mp3s stored within.
Two, "reasonable doubt" is determined by a dozen members of the unwashed masses, who hopefully stayed awake for and believed the confusing ramblings of your expert witness on encryption.
child porn is not a civil matter. And if your jury didn't stay awake or understand the evidence, it is a mistrial.
the issue is that most people don't have enough money to defend themselves at trial. But that has nothing to do with whether you are innocent or guilty.
If you are innocent and you are worried about being taken to court, then trying to be MORE innocent isn't going to make any difference. Obviously someone has either made a serious mistake, or you are being framed.
"No, really your honor, it wasn't my data. I was just sharing storage space with people online." Is not going to fly in court.
sure... and I guess if you were charged with murdering a cop 20 years ago, the fact that you are only 16 years old today, also wouldn't fly in court.
I'd hate to live in your jurisdiction. But in most places its called "presumption of innocence" and "reasonable doubt".
But this was a whole LOT of fuel in an enclosed space, so as the fuel burnt, the steel could keep getting hotter and hotter.
Are you saying the temperature of the steel exceeded the temperature of the burning fuel?
what about the majority of the fuel that wasn't burning at any given time? only fuel mixed with AIR can burn. In any volume of fuel, only surface fuel is burning and thus producing heat. The rest of the fuel is not creating any heat.
By your own argument the fire was in an enclosed space and therefore there was a lack of air to support combustion.
this fact is also born out by the tremendous amount of black smoke. black smoke is evidence of incomplete combustion and a lack of oxygen.
The only way to get that fuel to burn at the maximimum temperature would be to force air into the fire with an airpump the way its done to forge metal.
as the fuel burns, the steel would indeed get hotter and hotter, until it reached the same average temperature as the TOTAL body of liquid fuel (burning and non-burning from lack of air). The steel could get no hotter than that.
If you're spinning theories here, you need to stick to WTC building 7, the collapse of which was thoroughly studied, and concluded that fire alone was the result of it's collapse.
If you take the position that tower 7 was a planned demolition, then it strains credulity to think that it just so happens that a random terrorist attack took place on towers 1 and 2 that day to cover it up.
Do you really think that *our* government, which has shown such massive ineptitude in the past 8 years, could not only plan such a conspiracy but keep it secret? I don't think so.
what ineptitude are you referring to? Everything is going according to plan.
And when the public has been systemically educated to refuse to believe bad things about wealth and power, you don't need to keep it a secret. No one believes it anyway.
capitalism ISN'T working as designed
if Capitalism was working as "designed" you wouldn't have enough idle time in the day to post to slashdot to complain about it. Then again you probably wouldn't have the education necessary to contemplate such blasphemy as Capitalism not working, since all education would be tied directly to your trade and not 1 minute would be wasted training children to do anything not immediately job related as the market demanded.
You'd either be passed out from sheer exhaustion, or working furiously away lest your employer get the idea he could get slightly more production at less cost from some desperate member of the surplus population.
text messaging would be the last thing on your mind unless it was to impress your employer to value your contribution to *his* capital more.
And of course I don't have receipts for either card at this point, but if there's a chance at recouping some of my investment, I'd sign up.
Except you didn't invest in NVIDIA, you purchased a graphics card made by NVIDIA. This lawsuit is by shareholders.
When you are dealing with the level of brain dead reasoning that produces such spurious and inaccurate statements about things like the LHC, you can't hope to succeed. Honestly, even if you come up with good reasons, it automatically becomes a cover up to those people, thus excusing even wilder claims.
The mere fact that there will be doomsayers forces scientists proposing any experiment to really prove it's completely safe. Thus the doomsayers actually help to insure the safety of science experiments.
Doomsayers serve the same purpose as QA people in computer science.
I'm sure you realize that it doesn't at all stop private people or entities from abridging "freedom of speech" (sometimes called 'freedom of speach') all they want?
The government is nothing but the representative of a collection of private parties. If you believe private parties have the freedom to violate your rights, you should not flinch if they collectively appoint representatives in congress to violate your rights on their behalf. In fact the bill of rights should strike you as an absurdity.
The founding fathers did not believe human rights are created or destroyed by legal decrees.
By that theory the American colonies had no right to independence in the first place, since legally colonists did not have any rights save what the King in his generosity pleased himself to grant from time to time.
Your position that private people have the right to abridge each others rights "all they want" flies in the face of the most important principles the Nation was founded on.
The creation of the United States was nothing more than an attempt to correct a wrong.
By your way of thinking congress does not enact statutes to prevent or correct wrongs, but statues are written in order to CREATE wrongs.
As if the nation is founded on the ideal that sovereign people would collectively work together and elect a congress in order to create wrongs. And the bill of rights is nothing but a document to limit what kind of wrongs congress is permitted to get away with.
bottom line, your rights are inalienable and exist because you are a human being, not because of what some law says. And what a private party does might be legal but that doesn't mean it can't be wrong.
* There are 9 planets orbiting the sun. Turns out Pluto isn't even a planet.
'Planet' is a word. It has no essential definition, that exists outside of how it is used. Pluto didn't change, they just redefined the word 'planet' to exclude Pluto. Not a scientific discovery.
Even if your work is not even remotely related just mentioning that one day maybe you will possibly contribute a tiny little bit then everybody will give you all the news coverage you could possibly want.
Because making rat brain controlled robots isn't newsworthy?
We can settle things with a boxing match.
a boxing match would be preferable to a shooting war. And the outcome would be equally just or rational.
You don't know what you're fucking talking about, and I find you offensive. Maybe this happened to you, or somebody you know, and it's gotten you irked. But I guarantee that I know more cops than you do, and *never* -- not once -- has this happened in my personal experience as an ex-police officer.
he didn't say merely 'anyone'. He said 'anyone .. who doesn't meet a cop's standard of humanity.
I've had cops harass me and attempt to start fights with me, without any cause. They weren't even arresting me. They were trying to create a situation that didn't exist.
I know people who did nothing and had guns pointed at their heads by cops. I know someone who spent months in jail because the cops mixed up his name, before the witness at trial flat out saying 'that isn't the guy!' and then being threatened by police not to try to take them to court for compensation. I know of people who were flat out beaten up by cops and then never arrested or charged with any crime. I know someone who argued against a speeding ticket only to watch the cop smash his windshield and then give him a ticket for having a broken windshield as a warning of what would happen if he continued to argue.
it is unfortunate that a minority of cops who are petty tyrants and bullies, who take the law into their own hands, bring shame on all cops everywhere.. but if cops did more to police themselves and stop trying to protect each other like some clique, and did more to APOLIGIZE when they treat an innocent person with force and violence, then not only would more crime be solved, but people would feel lees inclined to actually fight the police and less cops would be injured on the job.
as long as police tolerate thuggery in their own ranks and refuse to believe that any cops are less than angels of mercy and grace, and persist in treating non cops like criminals who simply haven't been caught yet, police will be seen as thugs to be distrusted.
cops have a tough job, but it is THEIR JOB. They should act like professionals or find another line of work.
how is revealing a source a defense?
where are you getting that from?
If I publish libel, and you republish MY libel without ensuring its veracity, then you are ALSO liable for libel. Liability does not solely rest with the very first publisher. Each and every copy of defamatory material put into the public causes additional damage.
When you publish something that might tend to damage someones reputation you have an obligation to ensure what you are saying is TRUE and that you are not acting out of malice. No one forced the newspapers to republish a story they didn't even investigate.
It is not a defense to the publisher of libel that another party is ALSO guilty.
even if, in the jurisdiction in question, parents are responsible for damages their children caused. The child was not the one who published the newpapers. Newpapers are autonomous and CHOOSE to publish certain stories, and as a result they caused additional damage well above and beyond what the blog would have done if they simply left it alone.
another reason to believe 5 + 5 = 11 is that 5 + 5 is symmetrical, around the +. logically, both sides of the = should also be symmetrical.
11 is a symmetrical number because if you draw a line right down the center you get 1 and 1.
10 isn't symmetrical because you get 1 and 0.
5 + 5 = 11 just makes more sense than 5 + 5 = 10.
Just like Intelligent Design.