You're damn well right
despite all this posturing by the GIMP-fanboys, the fact is that photoshop pretty much blows it out of the water.
I use photoshop for plenty of design work, (although I tend to use the whole illustrator-indesign-photoshop combo, so linux has a fair way to go before it can meet that, sure there are some programs out there that do _some_ of the stuff I need to do, but on the whole they are all just too limited)
Photoshop 7, and well all the photoshops really are very similar to their future counterparts.
I find that Photoshop 5.5 was the definitive photoshop, and the minimum if you are trying to do anything practical with it.
Photoshop 7 was the start of the modern generation Photoshops, and despite its age can do just about anything that the CS versions can. Literally everything you learn on Photoshop 7 is transferable, and for teaching I would actually think this should be the starting point, other versions and features can get gimmicky and detract from the skills to be taught.
CS3 is another step, as it changes the interface slightly, and the inclusion of a few new features, as well as some from previous CS versions eg smart layers, will change workflow slightly. But again, it all transfers very well.
I have, in the last few years as a designer, used 5.5 (pc), 6.0 (mac & pc), 7.0 (mac & pc), CS (pc), CS2 (mac & pc), CS3 (pc), and have found all of them to be sufficient for the work I was currently doing. The fact that I can so easily switch between them, even though the versions become considerable different in their feature-sets, is a testament to Adobe building a solid platform. Learning one means I can go to any other one whenever I feel.
Flash 5 is a dog, and you should avoid it like the plague, nothing below MX2004 should even be touched in this day & age.
Dreamweaver is similar in the fact that the skills learnt in one version are relatively transferable, but I wouldn't go for anything below MX2004 once again.
I had much the same experiences.
ah, the multiplayer games of quake in computing class while the teacher wasn't looking...
Except I did get caught.
Almost lost all my credits for computing one year, banned from using computers at all. (And this was about the same time that I had a Computing assignment due, as well as my Design portfolio and Graphics final project due)
and when everyone started 'net send'ing each other it all somehow was placed on me, even though I wasn't allowed on the computers (officially.)
Also got told off for changing the resolution of the computers. Stupid teachers had them all set to 800x600. On 19" LCDs even. Add they expected me to be able to even work in photoshop properly with that, I couldn't even fit all the palletes on the screen! My computing teacher (he was absolutely clueless, don't know how he even got the job, to be honest...) decided that it was a bug in flash that the welcome page didn't fit properly on the screen at that resolution. What an idiot.
To be honest, who actually offers their _actual_ opinions on things?
Sure some of it is good, but a huge amount of bloggers only post to get more hits, to increase ad revenue, or to inflame the rest of the people with their outrageous opinions.
And the funny thing is, people listen anyway, people read anyway, people comment anyway, people post news on slashdot about it anyway. It's just flamebaiting on a larger scale, and then...to get paid for it as well!?
Righto I see what you mean now. But I still do not agree that man's nature can be used as a solid point of reference, due to the varied nature of individuals. (Which brings to question, what defines the nature of man - is it an intrinsic part of him from the get-go? (e.g. via DNA?) Or does man define himself in his upbringing, through the influence of society, peers, family, upbringing, and individual experience?)
And as for the statesman, and the State - rights are usually transferred to the State in the belief (or pretense?) of it as an amoral entity capable of deciding and outworking those rights in an equitable manner. The statesman works for the State in that he represents the State in his (official) actions, and holds said rights only as an instrument (a part?) of the abstract entity, and of his official position. Not as an individual in his own [right].
Sure, one individual can have a rational consistent, non-contradictory ethic. But the fact that you hold that such ethic can be universally consistent and non-contradictory is a utopianist dream. Is it not true that many peoples own ethics vary, even within confined demographics? People will generally take criminals, politicians, lawyers as examples of shaky ethics (/morals) But just because these individuals may have ethics varied from your own does not denegrate their substance, also as ethics.
For ethics to be objective, they need a solid point of reference, be that a codified law of ethics, a religious text such as the bible, or the assent of the populace to the ethical opinions of an individual.
And you say that parts of it are easy to discover - sure, there are situations where ethical decisions are generally black and white. But the majority is grey decisions, where the ethics of one or the rights of one individual encroach upon the ethics or rights of another. Then there is the question of whose ethics or rights do you follow? A rational, consistent (non-contradictory) ethic as you tell it is rather dreamy.
When do the rights of the State (in fulfilling it's responsibilities) take precedence over the rights of the individual? For example detainment without trial of suspected terrorists or enemy combatants? The usage (abuse as some may say?) of the U.S. Patriot Act, and similar legislation in other countries. (Believe me, the U.S. aren't the first ones to do it - The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights for example tried to remedy such abuses by the State/Executive)
I didn't say the theory didn't fit. I just said that some people (in particular, myself) would not be happy in said situation.
Also you forget that, as I said before, the rights are validated through widespread recognition and acceptance. (though still subjective in nature, for recognition just a mental assent by the individual - HLA Hart's Rule of Recognition as opposed to Kelsen's Basic Norms)
So in your hypothetical situation, it would be against certain "rights" as recognised by others. But not by some metaphysical construct such as your previously-mentioned "nature of man"
You think rights are something imbued by some higher authority?
A right is nothing but a construct of man. Without recognition of that right by SOMEbody, there is no concept of that right (or rights in general) at all.
Thus the only reason the Maori land rights are under discussion is because there are those who recognise that such rights could exist. Furthermore, they recognise that there is such a thing as rights in the first place. Rights are subjective as they are man-made and subject to naught but the philosophical and theoretical discussion of man.
Read up on John Locke's definition of property rights. The property rights you base your comments on are limited to naturalist legal theory, which defines properry rights as individual (according to John Locke, as man's labour imbues that individual right to said property)
But if you delve deeper into this, you find that individual property rights are a western (I use the term loosely) ideal, that is not always recognised in many societies. Indeed, the Maori tribes of NZ had no concept of individual ownership, rather they had a responsibility to the land as a whole people, in order for it to be maintained. The concept that an individual could own - for example, land - was completely alien to them. (And this is partly what was the trouble with the british colonisation of NZ, with the different language versions of Treaties)
Your belief in (or definition of) "rights" as such are again a naturalist presupposition of the universalist nature of all humans (as you say, "the nature of man")
So, no I am not making confusions, I am merely saying that your ideas here are not the only acceptable definitions (don't get me wrong, it's not that they aren't acceptable) - there are other ways to define such things as law, rights, crime, property etc.
property rights - as set out theories of individual property rights on a whole. Many (historical) societies do not accept, or do not have a notion of such personal property rights. (Property is instead "common" - although different from the feudal concept of "the commons")
So thus you base your theories on ill-defined and non-universal concepts only as you see them. Again you base your theories on naturalism, but decide to call it "property rights"
Oh, and the roads are not essentially "stolen" in any sense. Being a public good, a road (a civil road, anyway) is non-excludable - and all legal citizens have rightful access.
He is not confusing law and morals (in response to the other reply) - he is advocating John Locke's Naturalist theory of law.
The real Question is, as you were saying, what is the definition of crime, and what makes law law?
Parent post is suggesting that a crime is defined by higher morals or standards, and law constituted by the state that contradicts such is invalidated by that contradiction. This is fine by the naturalist viewpoint - Locke, Aquinas, Kant and others.
Else the reply post appears to believe the positivist viewpoint that crime is only that which is defined by law - thus whatever the law says is criminal immediately is. The problem with this thinking is that law is validated by being put through a particular process - ie parliamentary guidelines and such, but the laws which dictate such process cannot be self-validating. See the works and theories of HLA Hart, John Austin, Hans Kelsen, Jeremy Bentham.
The problem with law as I it is that it is used not as a reflection of the current morals of society, but rather an influence upon them by those in power. Critical Legal theorists, and Legal Feminists, rest upon the idea that a hard moral line (standard) for all peoples is impossible (or immoral in itself) due to the inherent differences between individuals.
Ah - First year law, it all comes back to me now!
by the way, I am against the hate crime / speech laws - and dread the day my own country (NZ) decides to enforce them (parliamentary discussions are in progress already...)
there's still the iffiness of VP6 (ie flash video 9 - or is it 8?) implementation. And like that other dude said, it doesn't help when all the flvs are wrapped in swfs.
How about this:
working at a design firm (where we use macs and a single pc) we hire a web developer to make us a custom ordering site for some of our bigger customers.
He makes the system to our specifications, and after many times around we have a working system. Except. We had been shown the website only on an xp-based pc, and stupidly, had also been testing from our side via our xp machine (though not exclusively on this machine).
We then find out that the login system does not work in anything apart from IE6+
Oh yes, fun and games.
(the login system was one of the last things implemented, and the base system did work fine on safari, or firefox, or IE5.5 - barring a few graphical glitches)
So we tell our web developer about our little problem, he says, no worries, I can fix that.
Next day we log onto the site to see a dialog pop up saying "this site requires internet explorer 6 or above. Please visit www.microsoft.com to upgrade your browser."
And that was his fix.
He had now successfully alienated EVERY computer in our firm (apart from our single xp machine) from using it's own ordering system.
Thanks Mate!
MIT's OpenCourseWare has been amazing for myself. Having taken a few courses on philosophy, poitics and western literature, I have learnt as much (or more) than I have been in my concurrently enrolled university lectures.
Having chosen to do law and commerce didn't do much for my love of philosophy, so I decided to, (rather than a triple-degree) study a few philosophy courses on OpenCourseWare in my spare time. I find out, when talking to a friend of mine who did philosophy, that some of the courses are so similar (in the case of one in particular - even sharing prescribed readings and similar class topics) that I am glad I didn't waste more time and more money when I can learn the same thing for free!
I have yet to try the business courses offered there, but could this be another reason of entrepreneurs to condemn the MBA?
IANAL but... someone wrote on slashdot (and I'm trying to find it) who was a lawyer concerning this exact case. The facts I remember were that yes Cisco missed out on the trademark re-registration (or whatever it's called) last year, but those who do are given a 6 month grace period past that point in which to submit their application. Cisco did this approximately 2 months later (2 months into the 6 month period)
Some other thing as well about the use of the trademark where Cisco submitted box art for an upcoming product (possible fraudulent?)
I'm not too on-to-it with the facts. Still trying to find the source comment... EUREKA! I've got it. Thanks jmbehmke1 for all the info!
Jobs will always find his way back into apple. Apple is Jobs, Jobs is apple.
Even the years at NeXT found their way back to apple. In the form of OSX, one of the biggest and best Operating System upgrades there has been. OS9 to OSX is the greatest form of punctuated equilibrium this millenia
Definitely a good decision if there is going to be a shortage (at the start) of these products in the developing countries. reportedly enough for some to sell on the "gray-market"
(Bletsas acknowledges that some abuse is inevitable. "Will some parents sell their children's laptops on the gray market? Sure." ) source
Yes this is only initially, but if the children that these laptops are designed for are missing out because some random wants to play with it in his apartment along with his 2 pc's his other laptop, his pda and 3 game consoles something is seriously amiss, regardless of how much he pays for it.
Sure that apple will do a good job at all their own apps but there is only so much that they can do by themselves. And some rogue app bringing down cingular sounds pretty off-the-wall to me.
I would like to know what happens to the non-cingular countries (New Zealand for example) who get the phone Q4 2006 or so? Are we going to have the same restrictions pushed upon us?
As with most apple products, I'm excited but I'm going to wait for genII at least before throwing my chips in.
technically yes the downloader is not actually stealing (copyright infringing - whatever you wish) anything at all. But is it conspiracy to commit the crime?
If the feds were to put a fake (shop dummy) president at a podium somewhere (yes it is a completely laughable situation - just bear with me) and caught some cheeky wrongdoer who runs up to this "president" and shoots the dummy (who he completely thought was the president) in the head, what would he be up for?
Murder - no because he did not commit to the actual act
but conspiracy to commit murder?
Technically no now that I look at the trustworthy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.
So (if he worked alone) that isn't applicable either. So what are they liable for.
maybe so actually - because a bittorrent network requires at least two parties (one seeder and one downloader) and when the download gets going theres alot more "conspiring" parties. That's how I see it anyway
of course IANAL (although I start law school this year - so I could come back to you soon enough ^_^)
ugh I'll stop here - this is ending up in more questions than I can answer.
Slashdot Mirror
You're damn well right
despite all this posturing by the GIMP-fanboys, the fact is that photoshop pretty much blows it out of the water.
I use photoshop for plenty of design work, (although I tend to use the whole illustrator-indesign-photoshop combo, so linux has a fair way to go before it can meet that, sure there are some programs out there that do _some_ of the stuff I need to do, but on the whole they are all just too limited)
Photoshop 7, and well all the photoshops really are very similar to their future counterparts.
I find that Photoshop 5.5 was the definitive photoshop, and the minimum if you are trying to do anything practical with it.
Photoshop 7 was the start of the modern generation Photoshops, and despite its age can do just about anything that the CS versions can. Literally everything you learn on Photoshop 7 is transferable, and for teaching I would actually think this should be the starting point, other versions and features can get gimmicky and detract from the skills to be taught.
CS3 is another step, as it changes the interface slightly, and the inclusion of a few new features, as well as some from previous CS versions eg smart layers, will change workflow slightly. But again, it all transfers very well.
I have, in the last few years as a designer, used 5.5 (pc), 6.0 (mac & pc), 7.0 (mac & pc), CS (pc), CS2 (mac & pc), CS3 (pc), and have found all of them to be sufficient for the work I was currently doing. The fact that I can so easily switch between them, even though the versions become considerable different in their feature-sets, is a testament to Adobe building a solid platform. Learning one means I can go to any other one whenever I feel.
Flash 5 is a dog, and you should avoid it like the plague, nothing below MX2004 should even be touched in this day & age.
Dreamweaver is similar in the fact that the skills learnt in one version are relatively transferable, but I wouldn't go for anything below MX2004 once again.
your cellphone explodes in (on?) your face...
I've had nasty experiences with capacitors
I had much the same experiences.
ah, the multiplayer games of quake in computing class while the teacher wasn't looking... Except I did get caught. Almost lost all my credits for computing one year, banned from using computers at all. (And this was about the same time that I had a Computing assignment due, as well as my Design portfolio and Graphics final project due) and when everyone started 'net send'ing each other it all somehow was placed on me, even though I wasn't allowed on the computers (officially.)
Also got told off for changing the resolution of the computers. Stupid teachers had them all set to 800x600. On 19" LCDs even. Add they expected me to be able to even work in photoshop properly with that, I couldn't even fit all the palletes on the screen! My computing teacher (he was absolutely clueless, don't know how he even got the job, to be honest...) decided that it was a bug in flash that the welcome page didn't fit properly on the screen at that resolution. What an idiot.
To be honest, who actually offers their _actual_ opinions on things? ...to get paid for it as well!?
Sure some of it is good, but a huge amount of bloggers only post to get more hits, to increase ad revenue, or to inflame the rest of the people with their outrageous opinions.
And the funny thing is, people listen anyway, people read anyway, people comment anyway, people post news on slashdot about it anyway. It's just flamebaiting on a larger scale, and then
Righto I see what you mean now. But I still do not agree that man's nature can be used as a solid point of reference, due to the varied nature of individuals. (Which brings to question, what defines the nature of man - is it an intrinsic part of him from the get-go? (e.g. via DNA?) Or does man define himself in his upbringing, through the influence of society, peers, family, upbringing, and individual experience?)
And as for the statesman, and the State - rights are usually transferred to the State in the belief (or pretense?) of it as an amoral entity capable of deciding and outworking those rights in an equitable manner. The statesman works for the State in that he represents the State in his (official) actions, and holds said rights only as an instrument (a part?) of the abstract entity, and of his official position. Not as an individual in his own [right].
Sure, one individual can have a rational consistent, non-contradictory ethic. But the fact that you hold that such ethic can be universally consistent and non-contradictory is a utopianist dream. Is it not true that many peoples own ethics vary, even within confined demographics? People will generally take criminals, politicians, lawyers as examples of shaky ethics (/morals) But just because these individuals may have ethics varied from your own does not denegrate their substance, also as ethics.
For ethics to be objective, they need a solid point of reference, be that a codified law of ethics, a religious text such as the bible, or the assent of the populace to the ethical opinions of an individual.
And you say that parts of it are easy to discover - sure, there are situations where ethical decisions are generally black and white. But the majority is grey decisions, where the ethics of one or the rights of one individual encroach upon the ethics or rights of another. Then there is the question of whose ethics or rights do you follow? A rational, consistent (non-contradictory) ethic as you tell it is rather dreamy.
When do the rights of the State (in fulfilling it's responsibilities) take precedence over the rights of the individual? For example detainment without trial of suspected terrorists or enemy combatants? The usage (abuse as some may say?) of the U.S. Patriot Act, and similar legislation in other countries. (Believe me, the U.S. aren't the first ones to do it - The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights for example tried to remedy such abuses by the State/Executive)
I didn't say the theory didn't fit. I just said that some people (in particular, myself) would not be happy in said situation.
Also you forget that, as I said before, the rights are validated through widespread recognition and acceptance. (though still subjective in nature, for recognition just a mental assent by the individual - HLA Hart's Rule of Recognition as opposed to Kelsen's Basic Norms)
So in your hypothetical situation, it would be against certain "rights" as recognised by others. But not by some metaphysical construct such as your previously-mentioned "nature of man"
Well, no. But I'm sure some people won't be very happy.
That's the difference between theory and reality.
You think rights are something imbued by some higher authority?
A right is nothing but a construct of man. Without recognition of that right by SOMEbody, there is no concept of that right (or rights in general) at all.
Thus the only reason the Maori land rights are under discussion is because there are those who recognise that such rights could exist. Furthermore, they recognise that there is such a thing as rights in the first place. Rights are subjective as they are man-made and subject to naught but the philosophical and theoretical discussion of man.
Your belief in (or definition of) "rights" as such are again a naturalist presupposition of the universalist nature of all humans (as you say, "the nature of man")
So, no I am not making confusions, I am merely saying that your ideas here are not the only acceptable definitions (don't get me wrong, it's not that they aren't acceptable) - there are other ways to define such things as law, rights, crime, property etc.
property rights - as set out theories of individual property rights on a whole. Many (historical) societies do not accept, or do not have a notion of such personal property rights. (Property is instead "common" - although different from the feudal concept of "the commons")
So thus you base your theories on ill-defined and non-universal concepts only as you see them. Again you base your theories on naturalism, but decide to call it "property rights"
Oh, and the roads are not essentially "stolen" in any sense. Being a public good, a road (a civil road, anyway) is non-excludable - and all legal citizens have rightful access.
He is not confusing law and morals (in response to the other reply) - he is advocating John Locke's Naturalist theory of law.
The real Question is, as you were saying, what is the definition of crime, and what makes law law?
Parent post is suggesting that a crime is defined by higher morals or standards, and law constituted by the state that contradicts such is invalidated by that contradiction. This is fine by the naturalist viewpoint - Locke, Aquinas, Kant and others.
Else the reply post appears to believe the positivist viewpoint that crime is only that which is defined by law - thus whatever the law says is criminal immediately is. The problem with this thinking is that law is validated by being put through a particular process - ie parliamentary guidelines and such, but the laws which dictate such process cannot be self-validating. See the works and theories of HLA Hart, John Austin, Hans Kelsen, Jeremy Bentham.
The problem with law as I it is that it is used not as a reflection of the current morals of society, but rather an influence upon them by those in power. Critical Legal theorists, and Legal Feminists, rest upon the idea that a hard moral line (standard) for all peoples is impossible (or immoral in itself) due to the inherent differences between individuals.
Ah - First year law, it all comes back to me now!
by the way, I am against the hate crime / speech laws - and dread the day my own country (NZ) decides to enforce them (parliamentary discussions are in progress already...)
there's still the iffiness of VP6 (ie flash video 9 - or is it 8?) implementation. And like that other dude said, it doesn't help when all the flvs are wrapped in swfs.
try veoh.com You can download full-resolution versions of the video via the "veoh player"
How about this:
working at a design firm (where we use macs and a single pc) we hire a web developer to make us a custom ordering site for some of our bigger customers. He makes the system to our specifications, and after many times around we have a working system. Except. We had been shown the website only on an xp-based pc, and stupidly, had also been testing from our side via our xp machine (though not exclusively on this machine).
We then find out that the login system does not work in anything apart from IE6+
Oh yes, fun and games.
(the login system was one of the last things implemented, and the base system did work fine on safari, or firefox, or IE5.5 - barring a few graphical glitches)
So we tell our web developer about our little problem, he says, no worries, I can fix that. Next day we log onto the site to see a dialog pop up saying "this site requires internet explorer 6 or above. Please visit www.microsoft.com to upgrade your browser."
And that was his fix. He had now successfully alienated EVERY computer in our firm (apart from our single xp machine) from using it's own ordering system.
Thanks Mate!
MIT's OpenCourseWare has been amazing for myself.
Having taken a few courses on philosophy, poitics and western literature, I have learnt as much (or more) than I have been in my concurrently enrolled university lectures.
Having chosen to do law and commerce didn't do much for my love of philosophy, so I decided to, (rather than a triple-degree) study a few philosophy courses on OpenCourseWare in my spare time.
I find out, when talking to a friend of mine who did philosophy, that some of the courses are so similar (in the case of one in particular - even sharing prescribed readings and similar class topics) that I am glad I didn't waste more time and more money when I can learn the same thing for free!
I have yet to try the business courses offered there, but could this be another reason of entrepreneurs to condemn the MBA?
I'm sure edward scissorhands will be happy to hear. Though I never knew he used a gun
IANAL but... someone wrote on slashdot (and I'm trying to find it) who was a lawyer concerning this exact case. The facts I remember were that yes Cisco missed out on the trademark re-registration (or whatever it's called) last year, but those who do are given a 6 month grace period past that point in which to submit their application. Cisco did this approximately 2 months later (2 months into the 6 month period)
Some other thing as well about the use of the trademark where Cisco submitted box art for an upcoming product (possible fraudulent?)
I'm not too on-to-it with the facts. Still trying to find the source comment...
EUREKA! I've got it. Thanks jmbehmke1 for all the info!
Jobs will always find his way back into apple. Apple is Jobs, Jobs is apple. Even the years at NeXT found their way back to apple. In the form of OSX, one of the biggest and best Operating System upgrades there has been. OS9 to OSX is the greatest form of punctuated equilibrium this millenia
Definitely a good decision if there is going to be a shortage (at the start) of these products in the developing countries. reportedly enough for some to sell on the "gray-market"
(Bletsas acknowledges that some abuse is inevitable. "Will some parents sell their children's laptops on the gray market? Sure." ) source
Yes this is only initially, but if the children that these laptops are designed for are missing out because some random wants to play with it in his apartment along with his 2 pc's his other laptop, his pda and 3 game consoles something is seriously amiss, regardless of how much he pays for it.
Sure that apple will do a good job at all their own apps but there is only so much that they can do by themselves. And some rogue app bringing down cingular sounds pretty off-the-wall to me.
I would like to know what happens to the non-cingular countries (New Zealand for example) who get the phone Q4 2006 or so? Are we going to have the same restrictions pushed upon us?
As with most apple products, I'm excited but I'm going to wait for genII at least before throwing my chips in.
technically yes the downloader is not actually stealing (copyright infringing - whatever you wish) anything at all. But is it conspiracy to commit the crime? If the feds were to put a fake (shop dummy) president at a podium somewhere (yes it is a completely laughable situation - just bear with me) and caught some cheeky wrongdoer who runs up to this "president" and shoots the dummy (who he completely thought was the president) in the head, what would he be up for?
Murder - no because he did not commit to the actual act
but conspiracy to commit murder?
Technically no now that I look at the trustworthy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.
So (if he worked alone) that isn't applicable either. So what are they liable for.
maybe so actually - because a bittorrent network requires at least two parties (one seeder and one downloader) and when the download gets going theres alot more "conspiring" parties. That's how I see it anyway
of course IANAL (although I start law school this year - so I could come back to you soon enough ^_^)
ugh I'll stop here - this is ending up in more questions than I can answer.
go to dick smith and buy a laptop gotta mail in the rebate to australia damn acer
nokia 1100 the best cheap phone you can get. period.