No, illegal implies that you're violating a law; speeding is illegal, and is a criminal offense, it's just at the lower end of the spectrum, so it turns out to be a very lightly punished misdemeanor. illegal: prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules; "an illegal chess move" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Windows used to be able to be installed on the DEC Alpha, I think it worked on the Sparc as well. Basically, it ran on anything the hacked OS/2 kernel would.
Well, I'm not saying that what will happen is good or bad. I'm simply making an assertion what will happen based on my experiences with governments and corporations.
Now, that said, asking Microsoft to hand over their code because some retarded third party decided to build their voting platform on Windows is pretty bullshit, and I can understand Microsoft telling New York to shove it. Hell, I'd do it myself. But then, I'd also be utilising that little used clause in the EULA - and revoking Diebold's (and others) right to use it too. And I'd be whipping out that indemnification clause. Hell, it's Diebold, you'd probably do it too - no matter how "evil" it is.
Wow. You guys even have fixed term contracts! All our providers axed those years ago. We also pay only for text messages and calls we make. Granted, we pay a bit more for our calls then quite a few other countries (I think here in New Zealand we're 23rd from the top in cellphone call pricing)
You should probably also be aware that a cellphone provider (don't know about your country, but it's the case here and in Australia) is actually PAID by the calling provider to connect a call to their customers. So really, presuming your providers do the same it's ridiculous that they'd charge to receive calls.
No it's not a joke. I have never, I repeat never seen an "Activation Fee" on any of my cell phone bills for any of my 5 cell phones. Maybe my country just sucks less? Do you folks in America get ridiculous fees on everything?
I think the real question is: why do you have to pay to activate it?
Wow, even Microsoft wont dare pull that stunt.
Re:All I want to know about the iPhone....
on
All Things iPhone
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
WillItBlend is a site run by a blender company, Blendtec. They have successfully blended some iPods in their blender (they always use the same one, and it's actually just a consumer grade one) before.
Oh, and because mentioning blending iPods in a blender WILL get you -10,000,000 Overrated (to dodge metamoderation!) here on Slashdot, they HAVE also blended Windows CDs. They make a really cool sparkly powder (over-expensive glitter?), though I still think microwaving CDs is way cooler.
Yestheywould, strictly speaking. The RIAA has apparently very little concern for whether or not it hits actual copyright infringers, and everyone it hits still has to show up in court and in the press, or settle out of court for an amount of money they very probably don't have to spare. Bear in mind I did say there is still the chance of being hit by the "oh shit, missed" proesecution campaign - and that I feel this is where the Universities need to draw the line. If someone can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to actually be pirating music, I say hell, disclose their details to the rights holders.
No, you're certainly right there. You'll also notice I carefully avoided ever saying that the punishment actually befits the crime. But nevertheless, it is still a crime and strictly speaking they would have nothing to worry about (regardless of how overblown the punishment is) if they simply didn't pirate.
Now, I've said "strictly speaking" because there's still the chance of being hit by the "whoops, missed" prosecution campaign the RIAA runs. These are certainly cases where the university itself needs to intervene.
No, but I've seen strategic misspellings used as an identifying feature of code before. "Your honour, I KNOW he leaked it because 'fuck' is spelled as 'fcku' in that comment!"
Yes, but in this case it IS wrong. Regardless of whether you are depriving the record companies of money (not entirely disagreeable) you are actually depriving the talented people who wrote and performed the music too. That's utter crap, and I see you're too damn frightened to post that behind an actual identity (mostly because you're opinion is bullshit).
Said students perhaps shouldn't be pirating music then, hmm? There's lots of ways to get DRM-free music (often of high quality too) for cheap or free legally.
Actually, governments can get the ENTIRE source code. The NY state could probably ask the federal government to review such things as ntoskrnl.c and green light it for them, since they probably already have it.
You sure as hell wont be seeing it. It'll be shown to a couple of high profile professional auditors who will give it the green or red light, and that's that. At NO point will the public see it.
Question two is easy to answer. No, it was free. Not because MS offered it especially to them free, but because the WM encoder and WMRM SDK are free to anyone who requests them (and can survive the arduous application process).
Of course, what are the alternatives? The free but encumbered WMV format, the expensive and encumbered AAC format, the free and unencumbered but apparently not that scalable OGG format?
The government owns the BBC or enough interest in it that they can exempt copyright liabilities and restrictions from free broadcasts. And they can do this under the guise of whatever the people can do at home legally from a regular broadcast should be excluded from content protection in any rebroadcast by the BBC. And then the requirements for the DRM are normal and not restrictive in the same sense. You do that, and see how quickly every content producer IN THE WORLD withdraws from the UK and refuses to license their content there. Good going, your idea to "exempt BBC from copyright liability" would kill TV in that country.
Where does that "Cancel or Allow?" line come from? It's not UAC, which has only two options - "Continue or Cancel" so I don't know where it comes from.
Reading the above post by NYCL - "2. It would mean those particular sound recordings are no longer copyrighted. It would have no bearing on the copyrights in the underlying song" - I would imagine it would still be illegal as the artist would still own the material and be the only one able to determine who can distribute it. That said, this would be an absolute gold mine for artists - as all royalties would then be due DIRECTLY to them, not the RIAA member company (correct me if I'm wrong there, but I do not believe I am).
Slashdot Mirror
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Windows used to be able to be installed on the DEC Alpha, I think it worked on the Sparc as well. Basically, it ran on anything the hacked OS/2 kernel would.
Wait... like, Zenith Data Systems? With the tree logo?
Holy crap. They're oooold.
Damn right. I cannot believe CryTek licensed FarCry to THAT idiot to make a movie out of.
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment"
For fuck sake, POST IT ALREADY.
Um, that's Continue or Cancel.
Besides, that would sooo be cheating. "Hmm, bad thing. Cancel!"
Well, I'm not saying that what will happen is good or bad. I'm simply making an assertion what will happen based on my experiences with governments and corporations.
Now, that said, asking Microsoft to hand over their code because some retarded third party decided to build their voting platform on Windows is pretty bullshit, and I can understand Microsoft telling New York to shove it. Hell, I'd do it myself. But then, I'd also be utilising that little used clause in the EULA - and revoking Diebold's (and others) right to use it too. And I'd be whipping out that indemnification clause. Hell, it's Diebold, you'd probably do it too - no matter how "evil" it is.
Wow. You guys even have fixed term contracts! All our providers axed those years ago. We also pay only for text messages and calls we make. Granted, we pay a bit more for our calls then quite a few other countries (I think here in New Zealand we're 23rd from the top in cellphone call pricing)
You should probably also be aware that a cellphone provider (don't know about your country, but it's the case here and in Australia) is actually PAID by the calling provider to connect a call to their customers. So really, presuming your providers do the same it's ridiculous that they'd charge to receive calls.
No it's not a joke. I have never, I repeat never seen an "Activation Fee" on any of my cell phone bills for any of my 5 cell phones. Maybe my country just sucks less? Do you folks in America get ridiculous fees on everything?
I think the real question is: why do you have to pay to activate it?
Wow, even Microsoft wont dare pull that stunt.
WillItBlend is a site run by a blender company, Blendtec. They have successfully blended some iPods in their blender (they always use the same one, and it's actually just a consumer grade one) before.
Oh, and because mentioning blending iPods in a blender WILL get you -10,000,000 Overrated (to dodge metamoderation!) here on Slashdot, they HAVE also blended Windows CDs. They make a really cool sparkly powder (over-expensive glitter?), though I still think microwaving CDs is way cooler.
Um, IE doesn't have "smart quotes"
Lay off the crack.
But yes, don't edit your messages in Microsoft W0rd before posting. That's just nasty. If you really must spellcheck it, use Firefox.
No, you're certainly right there. You'll also notice I carefully avoided ever saying that the punishment actually befits the crime. But nevertheless, it is still a crime and strictly speaking they would have nothing to worry about (regardless of how overblown the punishment is) if they simply didn't pirate.
Now, I've said "strictly speaking" because there's still the chance of being hit by the "whoops, missed" prosecution campaign the RIAA runs. These are certainly cases where the university itself needs to intervene.
No, but I've seen strategic misspellings used as an identifying feature of code before. "Your honour, I KNOW he leaked it because 'fuck' is spelled as 'fcku' in that comment!"
Yes, but in this case it IS wrong. Regardless of whether you are depriving the record companies of money (not entirely disagreeable) you are actually depriving the talented people who wrote and performed the music too. That's utter crap, and I see you're too damn frightened to post that behind an actual identity (mostly because you're opinion is bullshit).
Said students perhaps shouldn't be pirating music then, hmm? There's lots of ways to get DRM-free music (often of high quality too) for cheap or free legally.
Not even then. The code will not be visible to us regular people, period. You might be able to read the results of the audit, but that's it.
Actually, governments can get the ENTIRE source code. The NY state could probably ask the federal government to review such things as ntoskrnl.c and green light it for them, since they probably already have it.
You sure as hell wont be seeing it. It'll be shown to a couple of high profile professional auditors who will give it the green or red light, and that's that. At NO point will the public see it.
Well, I guess we have twitter's answer then, eh?
Question two is easy to answer. No, it was free. Not because MS offered it especially to them free, but because the WM encoder and WMRM SDK are free to anyone who requests them (and can survive the arduous application process).
Of course, what are the alternatives? The free but encumbered WMV format, the expensive and encumbered AAC format, the free and unencumbered but apparently not that scalable OGG format?
Where does that "Cancel or Allow?" line come from? It's not UAC, which has only two options - "Continue or Cancel" so I don't know where it comes from.
I trust Microsoft as much as I trust Apple, Google, or the government itself. Which is to say, I don't.
Reading the above post by NYCL - "2. It would mean those particular sound recordings are no longer copyrighted. It would have no bearing on the copyrights in the underlying song" - I would imagine it would still be illegal as the artist would still own the material and be the only one able to determine who can distribute it. That said, this would be an absolute gold mine for artists - as all royalties would then be due DIRECTLY to them, not the RIAA member company (correct me if I'm wrong there, but I do not believe I am).