Excuse me, Mr. Anonymous Coward. I wasn't implying we shouldn't enjoy this particular Google's move. I was only noting that the GGP was using a tu quoque argument; it was putting down MS and some other companies, as a reply to 'Google misuses a 767'. Nothing else. The rest, including the typo highlighting, was done by you.
how about htmldoc takes a bunch of html files creates a pdf with hyperlinks in it. along with html help workshop from ms its quite easy to go from chm to html to pdf
Was that a lesson for the GP on why English can be way more complicated than PDF?
Unless it's a bunch of Joe Sixpacks who's doing the programming, I bet they have some sort of spam filter. Real Geeks [TM] won't be taken down with a mere %40 google search ^^
I think copyright infridgement should be just that: I infringed someone's copy rights. I think it should apply when I'm trying to earn money using someone's work without their authorization, or when I'm trying to claim the copyright on something ilegitimately.
I think those concepts should be clearly separated from "getting a song at no cost from some other peer". Maybe you'd like to claim it's also ilegal, but I don't think "Copyright infrigdement" can apply to both.
I'm still impressed by what can be considered copyright infringement under the US law, and how exaggerately high the compensation for damages can be.
If they were to be fair, I think they should charge with $1 for each Mp3, since that's what it would cost her to buy them through iTunes (or maybe $2, or $10, since she could make copies, but nothing near $150,000), and the costs of the trial.
It's no wonder, then, that O. bauri ants can launch themselves into the air with a mere snap of their jaws, achieving heights up to 8.3 centimeters and horizontal distances up to 39.6 centimeters.
I, for one, welcome our new [jaw-propelled] insect overlords!
Perhaps less impressive is the ants' apparent inability to control the direction of their jumps, or even their orientation when landing.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you tried? If not, you're speaking without knowing, thus being an idiot; if so, you're just an idiot. Gotcha. Hah.
but does it run memes?
Or they could use MS Live Search, using specially chosen keywords to search for last month's encrypted instructions...
Right click.... Oops, that was Macs...
Excuse me, Mr. Anonymous Coward. I wasn't implying we shouldn't enjoy this particular Google's move. I was only noting that the GGP was using a tu quoque argument; it was putting down MS and some other companies, as a reply to 'Google misuses a 767'. Nothing else. The rest, including the typo highlighting, was done by you.
'less you're playing against the Mafia.
And Hitler killed millions of Jews and that still doens't make Google better...
If it's steam powered I doubt it can be that cool...
That's the wittiest comment I've read in a long time
It's trying to mimmick Firefox's success... But maybe they got it wrong...
I'm sorry, but
m ple/FromHandle.pm
Email-Simple-FromHandle-0.011/lib/Email/Si
13: # We are liberal in what we accept.
# But then, so is a six dollar whore.
# At least, that's what Casey tells me.
Unless it's a bunch of Joe Sixpacks who's doing the programming, I bet they have some sort of spam filter. Real Geeks [TM] won't be taken down with a mere %40 google search ^^
I'm sure there's a NO CARRIER joke around waiting for me to come across it...
If it will remove every myspace reference on Slashdot and everywhere else, I'm buying 8. At last I am becoming a crafty consumer...
damn my master card...
Also referred to as the jennytolls...
We're way classier.
896642 = 448321 2
1. Read. 2. Write reply. 3. Re-read. 4. Post.
I think copyright infridgement should be just that: I infringed someone's copy rights. I think it should apply when I'm trying to earn money using someone's work without their authorization, or when I'm trying to claim the copyright on something ilegitimately.
I think those concepts should be clearly separated from "getting a song at no cost from some other peer". Maybe you'd like to claim it's also ilegal, but I don't think "Copyright infrigdement" can apply to both.
PS: The difference? The money involved.
I'm still impressed by what can be considered copyright infringement under the US law, and how exaggerately high the compensation for damages can be.
If they were to be fair, I think they should charge with $1 for each Mp3, since that's what it would cost her to buy them through iTunes (or maybe $2, or $10, since she could make copies, but nothing near $150,000), and the costs of the trial.
I wouldn't mind them all being merely vegetables...
... like a million whooses filling the room...