Because every time you double the rotation speed, you increase the force on the DVD by a factor of four; which means that before long the disk simply tears itself apart.
I vaguely remember a Mythbusters episode on that. The CD literally exploded, and the shrapnel left a big freaking dent in the aluminium casing they put it in.
Although voice control has interesting potential, its not optimal for most situations. (think open cubicle office)
Think any situation where you're doing anything else than control your computer. The mouse and the keyboard differentiate. Voice recog doesn't. And face recog? Now you can't even read a joke without deleting your hard drive.
Bullshit about obligations to shareholders. The shareholders invest their money of their own free will. If they think they've made a bad bargain then they shouldn't have invested or should sell their shares. And it stops there.
Unless of course, they're the ones with the money, so the law protects them and only them. Even with your money.
Right universe, wrong country. It's been known to happen these "3rd world countries" that don't have public education systems designed to beat individuality out of people, starting with a morning salute to the flag, and ending in a cease and desist order to the cries of "oh my precious imaginary property!"
I'll bite. Show me one other country that does this:
Some weeks ago NRK - Norwegian Broadcasting put up one of the most popular shows in Norway on bittorrent. For free, with no DRM, no country restrictions.
Just wait and see what happens to their control when they no longer want to provide something.
I think they meant "if it's already out there, at least make sure it's good quality". Presumably they know what happens to torrents in general if they're referring to TPB.
No Script is about MY having the choice of whether to run an arbitrary program on MY computer. I set up the whitelist, and I decide whether to make an exception.
Thank you for articulating it. I still don't know why there is a culture of "running everything the website tells me to" among browsers. Let's just get over the flaws of IE5, shall we?
The lack of an easily configurable blocker is what's keeping me away from Opera. With Noscript it's two clicks to temporarily OR permanently allow a given site; actually a given subsite.
On the contrary, it appears that they're already running targeted advertising and have you pegged as belonging to the "sad lonely loser" demographic;-P
You (yes, you) know (do you?), it's (well, it might not be, but who knows) really hard (not easy, at least according to me) to read (decypher) your post.
Freedom of speech includes the right to waive that freedom in particular cases. NDA's for example.
You're not waiving it, they take it away from you. Unless you think you're in a position to just refuse. And if you are, why the hell are you seeing a doctor anyway?
Medical care is not an area that should be allowed to impose additional rules on the service they provide, for exactly this reason.
Is it safe to assume that this was just him trying to see how exactly the evil pirates are stealing his music, and that this doesn't represent any change in his position or the acquisition of some kind of clue?
Are you suggesting that the concept of precedent doesn't result in the courts making law, when seen from a practical/concrete point of view?
I'm suggesting it's not the job of the court to make new laws. Precedent applies to existing laws, when there is no previous precedent set. In common law countries, that is.
In Hungary, for example, it's been known for two courts to make different judgements in the same case (different defendants, but arrested at the same demonstration, innocently; all but one defendants were acquitted: he got a different judge in a different county). The law is set in stone, the interpretation is up to the judge. Precedent has no legal binding power in itself, but it's much easier to appeal a judgement which is against the [general idea of what the legal community as a whole thinks about the law].
If you want to change law, you don't do it on the defentants' seat.
This is frankly not true in the United States. Jury Nullification, though obscure, is a very balancing and necessary part of trial by a jury of peers.
Wrong. It does not change the law, it merely makes it unenforcable. The next jury will have the same law to nullify. And the jury is not "on the defendants' seat".
BTW did you notice by now, that the whole storyline is about a swedish case, as in swedish defendants, swedish plaintiffs, swedish judge, swedish court, swedish piratebay, and it's all in Sweden?
You could also interpret it as admitting the guilt of their users.
I don't see how they're in a position to admit someone else's guilt. Whether there is such a thing, this lawsuit does not cover that.
This is a coward's defence.
No, it's an innocent's defence, who's being charged with the actions of their users, because the accusers can't catch the users. What they did was technically legal, and they know it. They also know that this is the only thing that counts.
It also makes any victory or defeat in this case entirely hollow. This case will not change what is legal in relation to copyright law, but merely what you get to weasel out of.
Duh. It's a courtroom, not the parliament. You don't make law there, you enforce it. Imagine if any random murder trial could legalize murder.
If you want to change law, you don't do it on the defentants' seat.
Thinking that these two are mutually exclusive is silly.
As long as I do my job right, the boss has nothing to do with my wife/drinking habits/whatever. And the people who aren't even my boss yet and still want to know, they can go fuck themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Because every time you double the rotation speed, you increase the force on the DVD by a factor of four; which means that before long the disk simply tears itself apart.
I vaguely remember a Mythbusters episode on that. The CD literally exploded, and the shrapnel left a big freaking dent in the aluminium casing they put it in.
Although voice control has interesting potential, its not optimal for most situations. (think open cubicle office)
Think any situation where you're doing anything else than control your computer. The mouse and the keyboard differentiate. Voice recog doesn't. And face recog? Now you can't even read a joke without deleting your hard drive.
There's a reason why mice have buttons.
Bullshit about obligations to shareholders. The shareholders invest their money of their own free will. If they think they've made a bad bargain then they shouldn't have invested or should sell their shares. And it stops there.
Unless of course, they're the ones with the money, so the law protects them and only them. Even with your money.
Right universe, wrong country. It's been known to happen these "3rd world countries" that don't have public education systems designed to beat individuality out of people, starting with a morning salute to the flag, and ending in a cease and desist order to the cries of "oh my precious imaginary property!"
I'll bite. Show me one other country that does this:
Some weeks ago NRK - Norwegian Broadcasting put up one of the most popular shows in Norway on bittorrent. For free, with no DRM, no country restrictions.
Just wait and see what happens to their control when they no longer want to provide something.
I think they meant "if it's already out there, at least make sure it's good quality". Presumably they know what happens to torrents in general if they're referring to TPB.
Experience from our early tests show that if we're the best provider of our own content we also gain control of it.
Did I wake up in a wrong universe or something? People are actually thinking now?
But the act of aiding and enabling those who commit a crime to do so does make them liable.
As far as I know, copyright infringement is not a crime yet in any country.
No Script is about MY having the choice of whether to run an arbitrary program on MY computer. I set up the whitelist, and I decide whether to make an exception.
Thank you for articulating it. I still don't know why there is a culture of "running everything the website tells me to" among browsers. Let's just get over the flaws of IE5, shall we?
The lack of an easily configurable blocker is what's keeping me away from Opera. With Noscript it's two clicks to temporarily OR permanently allow a given site; actually a given subsite.
On the contrary, it appears that they're already running targeted advertising and have you pegged as belonging to the "sad lonely loser" demographic ;-P
He didn't say he was watching it alone :)
There are a few problems that really will go away if you ignore them. This doesn't sound like one of those.
Given the law enforcement culture of the Russians, I don't see how it would matter either way.
You (yes, you) know (do you?), it's (well, it might not be, but who knows) really hard (not easy, at least according to me) to read (decypher) your post.
Other stuff depends on them.
At least Microsoft just sells software.
Xbox
In the UNIVERSE? Might as well say the Earth is flat.
Or that Pluto is a planet. I know, let's make a law about that!
Freedom of speech includes the right to waive that freedom in particular cases. NDA's for example.
You're not waiving it, they take it away from you. Unless you think you're in a position to just refuse. And if you are, why the hell are you seeing a doctor anyway?
Medical care is not an area that should be allowed to impose additional rules on the service they provide, for exactly this reason.
It seems the problem is people are willing to admit that Windows has something going for it, and thus wish it would be more like UNIX in some ways.
DirectX.
Filesharing on a small darknet may not be useful for rare stuff, unless your friends happen to have it. -1 Downside.
Luckily, noone targets the rare stuff with lawsuits.
Is it safe to assume that this was just him trying to see how exactly the evil pirates are stealing his music, and that this doesn't represent any change in his position or the acquisition of some kind of clue?
Don't worry, the cluons are safe from him.
Actually, that sounds like a great idea... I'm starting to believe my own sarcasm. How sad is that?
The Reality Distortion Field is losing control on you. You must be re-educated.
Are you suggesting that the concept of precedent doesn't result in the courts making law, when seen from a practical/concrete point of view?
I'm suggesting it's not the job of the court to make new laws. Precedent applies to existing laws, when there is no previous precedent set. In common law countries, that is.
In Hungary, for example, it's been known for two courts to make different judgements in the same case (different defendants, but arrested at the same demonstration, innocently; all but one defendants were acquitted: he got a different judge in a different county). The law is set in stone, the interpretation is up to the judge. Precedent has no legal binding power in itself, but it's much easier to appeal a judgement which is against the [general idea of what the legal community as a whole thinks about the law].
But your email address turns up a couple dozen hits on Google (mostly /.), is that on your resume?
Of course not. This is my online persona. Nothing to do with my government-approved identity.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,230 for jurily. (0.29 seconds)
And yes, most of them are me. Mostly /. and bash.hu quotes. It's not my real name, however. Good luck finding that out.
If you want to change law, you don't do it on the defentants' seat.
This is frankly not true in the United States. Jury Nullification, though obscure, is a very balancing and necessary part of trial by a jury of peers.
Wrong. It does not change the law, it merely makes it unenforcable. The next jury will have the same law to nullify. And the jury is not "on the defendants' seat".
BTW did you notice by now, that the whole storyline is about a swedish case, as in swedish defendants, swedish plaintiffs, swedish judge, swedish court, swedish piratebay, and it's all in Sweden?
You could also interpret it as admitting the guilt of their users.
I don't see how they're in a position to admit someone else's guilt. Whether there is such a thing, this lawsuit does not cover that.
This is a coward's defence.
No, it's an innocent's defence, who's being charged with the actions of their users, because the accusers can't catch the users. What they did was technically legal, and they know it. They also know that this is the only thing that counts.
It also makes any victory or defeat in this case entirely hollow. This case will not change what is legal in relation to copyright law, but merely what you get to weasel out of.
Duh. It's a courtroom, not the parliament. You don't make law there, you enforce it. Imagine if any random murder trial could legalize murder.
If you want to change law, you don't do it on the defentants' seat.
Hmmm - I don't think I'll be hiring you, Sunshine.
My real name turns up 3 hits on google, and one of those is my father. Good luck. :)
Thinking that these two are mutually exclusive is silly.
As long as I do my job right, the boss has nothing to do with my wife/drinking habits/whatever. And the people who aren't even my boss yet and still want to know, they can go fuck themselves.