...Why is it legally allowed to try again? I mean, it seems like no matter what, if someone wants something done that people don't like, it's not a matter of if it will happen, it's a matter of when it will happen.
Hold it, Chatzilla is a nice, simple IRC client extension for those who don't know much about IRC already. I personally use mIRC, but Chatzilla is nice too.
It has a simple user interface and is notable for its use of customer profiling, taking advantage of the data MSN gathers from its more than 9 million subscribers.
Does this mean that people logged into their.NET Passports will have the data taken from the passports in order to serve more relevant ads? If so, does this mean that web site owners will have the ability to look and see what data the.NET Passports hold?
The question is, would the copies have been purchased legally anyways? How much money would they have gotten off the sales if the piracy didn't exist? I'd say the extra sales would be minimal, at best, because most likely the people pirating the music would never have bought it anyways.
Well yeah, I mean, sometimes businesses support one part of the government or the other, and then the media suppresses things to keep those advertisments from those companies. In a sense, advertisements are ruining some free speech.
Hmm, the real question is, would Shareaza be able to come under the same fire as Limewire?
After all, Shareaza is fully free, while Limewire has a version you can pay for.
It's not just training, it's also experience. Those with experience are more than likely to be able to do things slightly better than those that have just finished training, since they already know almost exactly how to do things.
Yeah, but say that you were at a crime scene before a crime occured, and you were once arrested for something you didn't do also. If they find your DNA there, they'll be able to arrest you and the chances of being convicted for another crime you didn't do are high, seeing as they already have your DNA, it'll be easier to convict you. I mean, I'd say a jury would rule against someone who was arrested before, even if they were let free.
...If DNA is required and placed next to high level criminals, does this mean that if you get detained, that you will lose the same rights that people such as convicted terrorists lose even if you're not convicted?
Well, let's see. If Google can hook people into using their search engine more, such as giving them extra features in their preferred software such as spellcheck, then those people might think of using their search engine more often and possibly even other tools of theirs, increasing profit from ads and so forth. Also, you may not want it, but there are some people would did want it (Like me). Some people might have stopped using Google unless they released their own toolbar for Firefox, and they didn't want to lose people, so they made one themselves.
Luckily no such thing would happen unless they designed to have human-level learning capabilities, and with everyone tossing lawsuits over property, I'd say we'll never get to human-level artificial intelligence.
I'd think Microsoft would be intelligent enough to fully support OpenDocument if they ever got around to it. Think about it. If Microsoft didn't fully support a document everyone else in a certain workplace used (OpenDocument), then it's likely that the person would switch from Microsoft Office, causing more lost people. The only way to keep people for them would be to fully support it, and not try to irritate users that already are thinking of switching.
How is using a computer different? Simple. A computer is MUCH more complicated than hammering nails, filing paperwork, or driving a car. Knowing what each key does, and knowing how to open programs or edit files is something many people that regularly use computers find easy. But those that never learned how to find it very hard and complicated. Training would help those people to learn and find it less difficult, and make it so that they can use a computer to do their job.
Well, a more appropriate decision would be to train those that are tech-clueless and help them learn more things about technology. Firing employees because they don't know something they never learned seems a bit harsh, especially since most of those employees could become quick learners at technology.
Nope, if you forbid people to use electronic devices on trains, that's removing another right, and people will get angry about it. I know that I personally wouldn't want to not be allowed to use a cell phone to make a quick call on a train to tell someone I'll be late, and by removing this right, even on just a train ride, it may cause a lot of trouble in this digital-age world.
Yes, if you purchase something, you should have the right to use however you like. But it seems that the companies producing are trying to force people to use CD players instead of their computers... If this keeps up, CD player producers could make certain CD producers use DRM to force them to play their CDs only on one brand of CD player, causing people to have to use 5 or more different CD players. This is not going to make people happy.
Because most bloggers don't want to go through all that. If someone has something to say, they don't want to go through the trouble of finding another server overseas, let alone go through red tape the government puts up here.
Yes, but another thing is to just use an old type cell phone. I mean, what's the point of having a color cellphone anyways? And with web capabilities? Web browsers on phones were just asking for trouble. And the worst part is no one can make an antivirus for phones, so if your phone gets infected, your provider will probably charge you an arm, a leg, and your first born to repair it instead of trying to fix the holes in the first place.
They say there's truth in numbers... If someone is lying, most likely it won't have a large amount of other blogs saying it's true, and if it's REALLY false, other blogs might point to it and point out how wrong it is.
I doubt it. Most Terms of Usage proclaim that they can not be held legally accountable for changes in their Terms of Service you agreed to, and decided to ignore if you updated and were given warning that the terms of your service have changed.
Now, if they gave NO warning that their terms changed as they said they would, that might be something, but as I see it, most companies try to cover that hole.
Slashdot Mirror
...Why is it legally allowed to try again? I mean, it seems like no matter what, if someone wants something done that people don't like, it's not a matter of if it will happen, it's a matter of when it will happen.
Hold it, Chatzilla is a nice, simple IRC client extension for those who don't know much about IRC already. I personally use mIRC, but Chatzilla is nice too.
It has a simple user interface and is notable for its use of customer profiling, taking advantage of the data MSN gathers from its more than 9 million subscribers.
.NET Passports will have the data taken from the passports in order to serve more relevant ads? If so, does this mean that web site owners will have the ability to look and see what data the .NET Passports hold?
Does this mean that people logged into their
...Wouldn't the cost of such a test be well into millions of dollars? That sounds expensive for something that is just a test... But I could be wrong.
Also, never has the quote at the bottom of the screen been so appropriate.
Oh, wow! Look at the moon!
The question is, would the copies have been purchased legally anyways? How much money would they have gotten off the sales if the piracy didn't exist? I'd say the extra sales would be minimal, at best, because most likely the people pirating the music would never have bought it anyways.
How would you rate the SimGolf game, on a scale from 1 to 10?
Well yeah, I mean, sometimes businesses support one part of the government or the other, and then the media suppresses things to keep those advertisments from those companies.
In a sense, advertisements are ruining some free speech.
Hmm, the real question is, would Shareaza be able to come under the same fire as Limewire? After all, Shareaza is fully free, while Limewire has a version you can pay for.
It's not just training, it's also experience. Those with experience are more than likely to be able to do things slightly better than those that have just finished training, since they already know almost exactly how to do things.
Yeah, but say that you were at a crime scene before a crime occured, and you were once arrested for something you didn't do also.
If they find your DNA there, they'll be able to arrest you and the chances of being convicted for another crime you didn't do are high, seeing as they already have your DNA, it'll be easier to convict you. I mean, I'd say a jury would rule against someone who was arrested before, even if they were let free.
...If DNA is required and placed next to high level criminals, does this mean that if you get detained, that you will lose the same rights that people such as convicted terrorists lose even if you're not convicted?
Well, let's see.
If Google can hook people into using their search engine more, such as giving them extra features in their preferred software such as spellcheck, then those people might think of using their search engine more often and possibly even other tools of theirs, increasing profit from ads and so forth.
Also, you may not want it, but there are some people would did want it (Like me). Some people might have stopped using Google unless they released their own toolbar for Firefox, and they didn't want to lose people, so they made one themselves.
Luckily no such thing would happen unless they designed to have human-level learning capabilities, and with everyone tossing lawsuits over property, I'd say we'll never get to human-level artificial intelligence.
I'd think Microsoft would be intelligent enough to fully support OpenDocument if they ever got around to it. Think about it. If Microsoft didn't fully support a document everyone else in a certain workplace used (OpenDocument), then it's likely that the person would switch from Microsoft Office, causing more lost people. The only way to keep people for them would be to fully support it, and not try to irritate users that already are thinking of switching.
So they'd be using something like Multiplayer Notepad?
If it checks for ID3 tags on every file, does this mean if you add ID3 tags to iexplore.exe, it'll remove it?
How is using a computer different? Simple.
A computer is MUCH more complicated than hammering nails, filing paperwork, or driving a car. Knowing what each key does, and knowing how to open programs or edit files is something many people that regularly use computers find easy. But those that never learned how to find it very hard and complicated. Training would help those people to learn and find it less difficult, and make it so that they can use a computer to do their job.
Well, a more appropriate decision would be to train those that are tech-clueless and help them learn more things about technology. Firing employees because they don't know something they never learned seems a bit harsh, especially since most of those employees could become quick learners at technology.
Nope, if you forbid people to use electronic devices on trains, that's removing another right, and people will get angry about it. I know that I personally wouldn't want to not be allowed to use a cell phone to make a quick call on a train to tell someone I'll be late, and by removing this right, even on just a train ride, it may cause a lot of trouble in this digital-age world.
Yes, if you purchase something, you should have the right to use however you like. But it seems that the companies producing are trying to force people to use CD players instead of their computers...
If this keeps up, CD player producers could make certain CD producers use DRM to force them to play their CDs only on one brand of CD player, causing people to have to use 5 or more different CD players. This is not going to make people happy.
Because most bloggers don't want to go through all that. If someone has something to say, they don't want to go through the trouble of finding another server overseas, let alone go through red tape the government puts up here.
Yes, but another thing is to just use an old type cell phone.
I mean, what's the point of having a color cellphone anyways? And with web capabilities?
Web browsers on phones were just asking for trouble. And the worst part is no one can make an antivirus for phones, so if your phone gets infected, your provider will probably charge you an arm, a leg, and your first born to repair it instead of trying to fix the holes in the first place.
They say there's truth in numbers...
If someone is lying, most likely it won't have a large amount of other blogs saying it's true, and if it's REALLY false, other blogs might point to it and point out how wrong it is.
You forgot Gmail Notifier and Google Web Accelerator.
I doubt it. Most Terms of Usage proclaim that they can not be held legally accountable for changes in their Terms of Service you agreed to, and decided to ignore if you updated and were given warning that the terms of your service have changed.
Now, if they gave NO warning that their terms changed as they said they would, that might be something, but as I see it, most companies try to cover that hole.