their referring to RST packets as "throttling" is right in line with standard criminal jargon.
Great. That means they might have the "right" to terminate (to use another slang term) your connection, but the means they use still involve knowingly impersonating a third party, which is probably illegal.
believing in no afterlife were you would be judged gives you a nice feeling of freedom - while religious people usually try to avoid a lot of things since they want to reach heaven (*snip*), I act on my own moral criterias without any pressure
For a long while I've thought that, while it takes a large amount of moral stamina to live by most religious codes, it takes as much if not more to realize that the responsibility for determining what's good and what's evil lies squarely on your own shoulders, and still do the right thing
Re:A couple of annoying things I've found so far
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, it's pretty damned scary, but you got a key wrong along the way. It's F3, not F4. I mean, how can he click there after the key sequence you told him to press made him alt-f4 out of the browser?
Or as someone who stands around Orgrimmar all day going "I'm bored".
That is pretty much the line I've drawn for myself. The day I find myself logged in and going "I'm bored" is the day I decide to quit (well, purposefully logging in to say "I'm bored, let's do an instance" not withstanding). So managing to log out and do something else for a couple of hours is a great way to fool myself into thinking I'm not addicted and letting the addiction stay;).
the number of digits of the representation being prime, however, *is* dependent on the number system, not an intrinsic property, which is what the GP was getting at.
Why should they be forced to sell OS X unencumbered? Would you try to force IBM to sell AIX so I can run it on some other PPC-based computer? Or perhaps complain to HP about HP-UX licensing would be a better idea.
You have a product that is a personal computer. Apple sells a complete solution composed of several off the shelf components, and some custom-built components (most notably, the software). They hold no monopoly in either the product or any of its components, unlike Microsoft (who holds a monopoly on the component that is the operating system), or Intel (who arguably holds a monopoly on processors), but neither monopoly is illegal per se either.
When Microsoft leveraged its Operating System monopoly to muscle its way into the nascent web browser market, that was illegal. When Intel tried to use its clout to screw around with DDR3 pin-outs, that was an attempt at illegal monopoly leveraging (they wanted to maintain DIMM pin-outs from DDR2, but make SO-DIMM pi-nouts different, which has no technical merit whatsoever, would be completely indifferent to Intel, who uses different desktop and laptop chipsets either way, but would seriously hamper AMD's integrated memory controllers).
Apple might be liable for some monopoly prosecution with the iTunes and iPod tie-ins, but as a non-monopolistic player in the personal computer market, the product tie-in doesn't harm the market as a whole in the least. The only story here is "company makes a shiny product that goes with another of their products and people are crying they want the former without the latter".
You can also switch two columns within the same block column or two lines within the same block line legally as well, as both operations maintain line, column and block consistency.
Guess which one would be more entertaining and receive the largest commercial sponsorships....
Given those two options, public perception would claim the Clean Olympiad to be the better sporting event, all athletes would want to participate in those rather than the dopehead olympics, and they'd dope up just the same. But that's just the cynic in me.
Would a court ask this? I don't recall seeing intent in any copyright statues that I have read (not that I claim to be an expert on the subject of copyright). Essentially, what you are suggesting is that the court should say: "in the hypothetical case that the person requesting the file did not have permission, the defendant would have violated copyright".
If you put an mp3 file up for download somewhere public (be it P2P, newsgroups, web, wherever) and accessible to the public in general, I'd say that you couldn't make a case in court that you really, honestly, expected the downloader to be the rights owner.
Of course it is -- provided you photocopied the label side of the CD (which probably *is* copyrighted material in and of itself). Seriously though, I doubt anybody could successfully argue that a photocopy of a CD produces a copy of the data contents thereof. Of course, they could (eventually) charge you with intent to make a copy...
This statement could not be more wrong. Copying material is not an automatic copyright infringement and both case law as well as legislation have strongly established this fact. All copyright infringements require the act of copying but not all copying is an automatic copyright infringement.
The GP did specifically write "without permission". Under any reasonable readings of that expression, I'd take both implicit legal permission (i.e., fair use) and explicit permission from the rights holder (a license) as meaning "with permission". Or is there some specific legal interpretation of some term I'm unaware of?
I don't think illegal means what you think it does. I.e. "Illegal" is not synonymous with "criminal". Copyright infringement *is* illegal. That's exactly the whole point.
Well, if you prefer, what if I post an unmodified GPLed program on my personal website, but don't publish the source as well?
Hell, I've actually done that before, packaging 2-3 tools I use to pass along to some friends who asked for them. The files just happen to lie there available for basically anyone, though.
If you think those odds are realistic, you just make sure to make the fine you pay in court at least 101 times the value of an individual sale. Problem solved.
Slashdot Mirror
their referring to RST packets as "throttling" is right in line with standard criminal jargon.
Great. That means they might have the "right" to terminate (to use another slang term) your connection, but the means they use still involve knowingly impersonating a third party, which is probably illegal.
believing in no afterlife were you would be judged gives you a nice feeling of freedom - while religious people usually try to avoid a lot of things since they want to reach heaven (*snip*), I act on my own moral criterias without any pressure
For a long while I've thought that, while it takes a large amount of moral stamina to live by most religious codes, it takes as much if not more to realize that the responsibility for determining what's good and what's evil lies squarely on your own shoulders, and still do the right thing
Yeah, it's pretty damned scary, but you got a key wrong along the way. It's F3, not F4. I mean, how can he click there after the key sequence you told him to press made him alt-f4 out of the browser?
Or as someone who stands around Orgrimmar all day going "I'm bored".
That is pretty much the line I've drawn for myself. The day I find myself logged in and going "I'm bored" is the day I decide to quit (well, purposefully logging in to say "I'm bored, let's do an instance" not withstanding). So managing to log out and do something else for a couple of hours is a great way to fool myself into thinking I'm not addicted and letting the addiction stay ;).
aren't going to be "destroying" much of anything.
Their pants perhaps?
Bah, managed to not only not RTFA, but misRTFS, didn't see it was an off-by-one.
Without even bothering to RTFA, I'm going to hazard that the patch was a '!' right before a '=' ;)
3D maps? Voice commands? Sitting on the couch? Deckard does that stuff much faster than you, nooblet.
the number of digits of the representation being prime, however, *is* dependent on the number system, not an intrinsic property, which is what the GP was getting at.
You might have had a point somewhere, but you lost me at joining "expedience" and "bureaucrats" in the same sentence
Why should they be forced to sell OS X unencumbered? Would you try to force IBM to sell AIX so I can run it on some other PPC-based computer? Or perhaps complain to HP about HP-UX licensing would be a better idea.
You have a product that is a personal computer. Apple sells a complete solution composed of several off the shelf components, and some custom-built components (most notably, the software). They hold no monopoly in either the product or any of its components, unlike Microsoft (who holds a monopoly on the component that is the operating system), or Intel (who arguably holds a monopoly on processors), but neither monopoly is illegal per se either.
When Microsoft leveraged its Operating System monopoly to muscle its way into the nascent web browser market, that was illegal. When Intel tried to use its clout to screw around with DDR3 pin-outs, that was an attempt at illegal monopoly leveraging (they wanted to maintain DIMM pin-outs from DDR2, but make SO-DIMM pi-nouts different, which has no technical merit whatsoever, would be completely indifferent to Intel, who uses different desktop and laptop chipsets either way, but would seriously hamper AMD's integrated memory controllers).
Apple might be liable for some monopoly prosecution with the iTunes and iPod tie-ins, but as a non-monopolistic player in the personal computer market, the product tie-in doesn't harm the market as a whole in the least. The only story here is "company makes a shiny product that goes with another of their products and people are crying they want the former without the latter".
multi-hundred pound canon
Omnianism has loads of holy books, but I don't think even those collected amount to several hundred pounds.
You can also switch two columns within the same block column or two lines within the same block line legally as well, as both operations maintain line, column and block consistency.
Guess which one would be more entertaining and receive the largest commercial sponsorships....
Given those two options, public perception would claim the Clean Olympiad to be the better sporting event, all athletes would want to participate in those rather than the dopehead olympics, and they'd dope up just the same. But that's just the cynic in me.
Well, at least this once
can't dereference a casting operator.
Would a court ask this? I don't recall seeing intent in any copyright statues that I have read (not that I claim to be an expert on the subject of copyright). Essentially, what you are suggesting is that the court should say: "in the hypothetical case that the person requesting the file did not have permission, the defendant would have violated copyright".
If you put an mp3 file up for download somewhere public (be it P2P, newsgroups, web, wherever) and accessible to the public in general, I'd say that you couldn't make a case in court that you really, honestly, expected the downloader to be the rights owner.
Of course it is -- provided you photocopied the label side of the CD (which probably *is* copyrighted material in and of itself). Seriously though, I doubt anybody could successfully argue that a photocopy of a CD produces a copy of the data contents thereof. Of course, they could (eventually) charge you with intent to make a copy...
This statement could not be more wrong. Copying material is not an automatic copyright infringement and both case law as well as legislation have strongly established this fact. All copyright infringements require the act of copying but not all copying is an automatic copyright infringement.
The GP did specifically write "without permission". Under any reasonable readings of that expression, I'd take both implicit legal permission (i.e., fair use) and explicit permission from the rights holder (a license) as meaning "with permission". Or is there some specific legal interpretation of some term I'm unaware of?
I don't think illegal means what you think it does. I.e. "Illegal" is not synonymous with "criminal". Copyright infringement *is* illegal. That's exactly the whole point.
Well, if you prefer, what if I post an unmodified GPLed program on my personal website, but don't publish the source as well?
Hell, I've actually done that before, packaging 2-3 tools I use to pass along to some friends who asked for them. The files just happen to lie there available for basically anyone, though.
Yeah, no joke. My thought process actually went like this:
If you think those odds are realistic, you just make sure to make the fine you pay in court at least 101 times the value of an individual sale. Problem solved.
In this particular case, he *was* a criminal going out, by the sheer means of getting out...
Hate to answer to myself, but seems that, though I had the idea of grilling him, somebody already did.