No, I dont. Clearly, you didnt read much of the post, which is an incredible thing to achieve while still quoting and responding to it. I have produced lengthy evidence which you have chosen to ignore, possibly owing to your being a fucking idiot. It was not a lack of understanding, so much as a demand that you explain yourself- why? I have asked for the purpose of revealing to you that you are a fucking idiot, yet you have failed to undertake this most simple task, and are left with the assumption that there is no evidence whatsoever of your being a fucking idiot. I have, I think, made it clear that I am open to any contradictory evidence, yet you have offered none. As I have repeatedly stated, this is nothing more than an initial judgement, based only on the evidence which I have at my disposal. Not all the mysteries of the universe are known, yet we assume that the sun contains hydrogen, and that you are a fucking idiot. The ability to see fit the use of the phrase "Yo Momma" where the previous message does not contain a description of some sort (such as, 'you are ugly', or 'you suck cocks') merely shows a disregaurd for coherent usage, and doesnt speak one way or the other towards being a "fucking idiot". You fucking idiot.
your mother... what? Doesnt want "fucking idiot" on her record? I have no idea where "Yo mama!" by itself would fit in this context. I only repeat myself because you seem not to have fully read it the first time, while it also (as stated in other posts: based only on the information I have here) seems to still be true. That is to say, while I have no evidence of anything else, I do have evidence of two things: 1) You are a fucking idiot 2) You don't know that you are a fucking idiot
therefor, I must try to make this clear, and since I know no other way of saying it, I can only repeat myself a second time: You are a fucking idiot.
Uhm.. excuse me, but why would the passwords be storedin plain text? Is there something I'm missing here, or are MD5 and crypt's weaknesses so completely crippling that it's better to just store passwords as they are typed in?
please do some research on sarcasm. [not "look up the definition of sarcasm", but go find out the origins of sarcasm, some famous works of sarcasm, etc]
Can we apply this to other things? Wouldnt it be great if instead of wasting time trying to tell people that guns are bad, we just told everyone that they should buy guns?! Gun stores would soon run out of firearms, AND THEN IT WOULD BE JUST LIKE NOBODY HAVING GUNS AT ALL!!! YOU ARE A FUCKING GENIUS, MAN!!!
Gee, I really want in on this video-game publisher thing if this is the case. I mean, I can just make games, and stores will just buy them, and keep buying them, and I can keep making more and always have a garanteed person to sell it to, even if stores arent selling what I sell to them. Fuck-yeah, where do I sign?
In my experience, it's to wire a quick connection when you dont have an actual outlet, and to hold the plug more securely into the wall (the same way some pen-caps have little nubs on either side and little indentations or ridges on the pen). I've never heard of these locks, and my first assumption is that he's full of shit. Why bother believing him or looking it up? no, this guy is just full of shit.
Well sure, if those copies werent in use it would be nice for the licenses to be transfered. Say a government office gets scaled-down, it could donate the old licenses to a school. I think that's perfectly reasonable.
"Only copyright holders should have this, because the feds doing it would be illegal" I'm sorry, did I miss that somewhere in the article? Where does it remotely imply this? Where does anything? Did I miss the part in the BOR that says "No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the federal government without due process of law"? Or are you just a complete fucking moron adding your own stupid and completely false comments to submissions so that you can brag to other morons "HUR HUR HUR I GOT ON SLASHDOT I AM SO FUCKING HOMOSEXUAL IT HURTS MY ANUS"?
I, speaking as a human, dont give a flying fuck what license a government agency is under for using software. If you disagree, you're a fucking moron. The problem is when they need software to be developed for them. Then it should be open-source- What the people pay for, the people should get.
How does this work? Government agency B wants to use some software, so they buy it. Then they want something new developed for it, so they go to the software company that makes it, give them money, and say "make it." All code written on the dime of the government is released into the open. It doesnt matter if it doesnt work by itself, because not the whole program was created by the government. What the people pay for, the people should get- it's unfair to expect more.
All other things I would mention are covered fully IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
holy fuck what a stupid moderator. Apparently he didnt read the DESCRIPTION of the article either. That's right, the DESCRIPTION, dont even have to bother CLICKING [you fucking moronic asswipe] to know what I'm talking about
Okay, these other people are idiots, saying "It's not stealing!!", they're morons, okay? It is stealing. You know it, I know it, they know it. Now here's MY answer to your question: "So if someone won't sell you something you want, it's ok to steal it?"
The answer is "yes". If you refuse to allow someone(as in anyone) to see it in exchange for something, you lose the right to deny someone(as in anyone) seeing it. Once you are willing to part with it for a price, you may deny those who wont pay that price.
That is to say: Until they will sell us licenses un-attached to any media, we will watch whatever media without license.
See subject. They refuse the money, so they dont get the money. I on the other hand do not refuse their movie.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't remember him. Strangely enough, though, I've pointed at more evidence than is probably neccessary. I wonder why it is that you deny this.
No, I dont. Clearly, you didnt read much of the post, which is an incredible thing to achieve while still quoting and responding to it. I have produced lengthy evidence which you have chosen to ignore, possibly owing to your being a fucking idiot. It was not a lack of understanding, so much as a demand that you explain yourself- why? I have asked for the purpose of revealing to you that you are a fucking idiot, yet you have failed to undertake this most simple task, and are left with the assumption that there is no evidence whatsoever of your being a fucking idiot. I have, I think, made it clear that I am open to any contradictory evidence, yet you have offered none. As I have repeatedly stated, this is nothing more than an initial judgement, based only on the evidence which I have at my disposal. Not all the mysteries of the universe are known, yet we assume that the sun contains hydrogen, and that you are a fucking idiot. The ability to see fit the use of the phrase "Yo Momma" where the previous message does not contain a description of some sort (such as, 'you are ugly', or 'you suck cocks') merely shows a disregaurd for coherent usage, and doesnt speak one way or the other towards being a "fucking idiot".
You fucking idiot.
your mother... what? Doesnt want "fucking idiot" on her record? I have no idea where "Yo mama!" by itself would fit in this context. I only repeat myself because you seem not to have fully read it the first time, while it also (as stated in other posts: based only on the information I have here) seems to still be true. That is to say, while I have no evidence of anything else, I do have evidence of two things:
1) You are a fucking idiot
2) You don't know that you are a fucking idiot
therefor, I must try to make this clear, and since I know no other way of saying it, I can only repeat myself a second time:
You are a fucking idiot.
...
You are a fucking idiot.
I judge based only on the information I am presented with. Now, were you or he to offer any contradictory evidence, I could be swayed.
Uhm.. excuse me, but why would the passwords be storedin plain text? Is there something I'm missing here, or are MD5 and crypt's weaknesses so completely crippling that it's better to just store passwords as they are typed in?
and of course, this fuck will be granted a patent, just because nobody else bothered to develop something wich will be useless for the next 20 years
why the fuck would I want to post anonymously? You're a fucking idiot.
please do some research on sarcasm. [not "look up the definition of sarcasm", but go find out the origins of sarcasm, some famous works of sarcasm, etc]
Then shut the fuck up.
-5 unfunny.
GO FUCK YOURSELF, MORON
fuck you in your fucking fuck, you fuck-fucking fuck-fucker.
Can we apply this to other things? Wouldnt it be great if instead of wasting time trying to tell people that guns are bad, we just told everyone that they should buy guns?! Gun stores would soon run out of firearms, AND THEN IT WOULD BE JUST LIKE NOBODY HAVING GUNS AT ALL!!! YOU ARE A FUCKING GENIUS, MAN!!!
Gee, I really want in on this video-game publisher thing if this is the case. I mean, I can just make games, and stores will just buy them, and keep buying them, and I can keep making more and always have a garanteed person to sell it to, even if stores arent selling what I sell to them.
Fuck-yeah, where do I sign?
There is no step four, you fuckwit
In my experience, it's to wire a quick connection when you dont have an actual outlet, and to hold the plug more securely into the wall (the same way some pen-caps have little nubs on either side and little indentations or ridges on the pen). I've never heard of these locks, and my first assumption is that he's full of shit. Why bother believing him or looking it up? no, this guy is just full of shit.
Well sure, if those copies werent in use it would be nice for the licenses to be transfered. Say a government office gets scaled-down, it could donate the old licenses to a school. I think that's perfectly reasonable.
well fuck the fuck you fuck too, fucker
"Only copyright holders should have this, because the feds doing it would be illegal"
I'm sorry, did I miss that somewhere in the article? Where does it remotely imply this?
Where does anything?
Did I miss the part in the BOR that says "No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property by the federal government without due process of law"? Or are you just a complete fucking moron adding your own stupid and completely false comments to submissions so that you can brag to other morons "HUR HUR HUR I GOT ON SLASHDOT I AM SO FUCKING HOMOSEXUAL IT HURTS MY ANUS"?
I, speaking as a human, dont give a flying fuck what license a government agency is under for using software. If you disagree, you're a fucking moron.
The problem is when they need software to be developed for them. Then it should be open-source- What the people pay for, the people should get.
How does this work? Government agency B wants to use some software, so they buy it. Then they want something new developed for it, so they go to the software company that makes it, give them money, and say "make it."
All code written on the dime of the government is released into the open. It doesnt matter if it doesnt work by itself, because not the whole program was created by the government. What the people pay for, the people should get- it's unfair to expect more.
All other things I would mention are covered fully IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE.
holy fuck what a stupid moderator. Apparently he didnt read the DESCRIPTION of the article either. That's right, the DESCRIPTION, dont even have to bother CLICKING [you fucking moronic asswipe] to know what I'm talking about
CRC's for the CRC's, CRC's for those CRC's, CRC's for those, etc..etc..
maybe being german has something to do with it
Okay, these other people are idiots, saying "It's not stealing!!", they're morons, okay? It is stealing. You know it, I know it, they know it.
Now here's MY answer to your question:
"So if someone won't sell you something you want, it's ok to steal it?"
The answer is "yes".
If you refuse to allow someone(as in anyone) to see it in exchange for something, you lose the right to deny someone(as in anyone) seeing it.
Once you are willing to part with it for a price, you may deny those who wont pay that price.
That is to say: Until they will sell us licenses un-attached to any media, we will watch whatever media without license.
See subject. They refuse the money, so they dont get the money. I on the other hand do not refuse their movie.
I'm not trying to prove how smart I am, just how stupid you are.
That would be about the movie, or about the architect himself, not about "the scene with the architect"