Consumers would be able to purchase these DVDs at a lower price than regular DVDs and pay extra to enjoy their purchase ad-free without having to buy a second DVD.
The thing that distinguishes spam from commercial mail is that it's unsolicited. These discs sound like they suck, but they're not spam. (I note the linked article doesn't mention spam either)
No, dont stfu. I shouldn't have been so harsh, it's just that I quite strongly believe that connecting to an unsecured wlan is not illegal.
The AP tells your laptop 'connect to me', your laptop duly connects. I can't see any crime here.
Nothing that's gone through the court that I can see though. I could have sworn that I read something, but I may have just been suffering from temporary delirium.
Yeah, it's amazing the number of people who share that opinion, but while there's been hundreds of sensational headlines, there hasn't been any actual court cases purely for using someone's wlan without authorization.
You replied by pointing out that this has been discussed ad nauseum on Slashdot.
I actually said this has been discussed ad nauseum on the wider internet and on Slashdot
I hoped the audience would pick up the inference that anyone with an even cursory interest in copyright law would be familiar with this subject & this topic had been delved into.
*shrug* - you chose to ignore the phrase 'the wider internet'. Not my fault.
Since the law said it was, and judges set up precedence backing up that interpretation of the law.
Do you want to link to this 'law' and link to the case where that precedent was set?
Personally, I think you're full of shit. Every time I've seen someone done for 'stealing' wifi, they're charged under a different law - copyright infringemnent or similar.
which has come under fire from veterans' groups for ignoring American holidays such as Veterans Day and Memorial Day since Google's inception in 1999."
should read:
which has come under fire from nut-job websites for rightly dropping their nut-job non-news site from the news index"
World Nut Daily are a bunch of kooks, with a knife to grind. Getting listed in google news was a wet dream for them. Getting delisted ('cause they aint a news site), really pissed them off. They've had an anti-google axe to grind ever since.
Re:Foie Gras is some nasty shit...
on
Chefs As Chemists
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
you really think it's harder to do that than convince carnivores to stop eating meat?
Humans are omnivores, not carnivores.
On a side note, your little tirade didn't really seem to address the point the GP was making: Do we really need to torture animals before killing & eating them?
This just in, companies are legally selling the same Internet filtering software used by companies, libraries, etc., to Burma, and the government is using the software for its own purposes.
Hmmmmn, try:
This just in, companies are legally selling the same armaments used by companies & individuals, to Burma, and the government is using the armaments for its own purposes.
Should you be able to sell arms to Burma? If not - what's the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
Only if 2008 turns out to be Year of desktop users who care about a 1% performance boost in games.
Consumers would be able to purchase these DVDs at a lower price than regular DVDs and pay extra to enjoy their purchase ad-free without having to buy a second DVD.
The thing that distinguishes spam from commercial mail is that it's unsolicited. These discs sound like they suck, but they're not spam. (I note the linked article doesn't mention spam either)
Hmmmmmmn, clearly I'm on crack - or it could have been the large number of beers I consumed earlier this evening preventing me from RTFS...
I mean its not like Mark's a common name or anything! At least I can go back to respecting Shuttleworth (for the most part) again.
Precisely.
Ironically, one of Shuttleworth's own companies use p2p to distribute content - the fastest way to download an Ubuntu image is to grab the torrents.
Do you have Taco's express written permission to post to this site?
Or is the electromagnetic "garbage" that allows you to do so good enough here?
Stfu me.
No, dont stfu. I shouldn't have been so harsh, it's just that I quite strongly believe that connecting to an unsecured wlan is not illegal.
The AP tells your laptop 'connect to me', your laptop duly connects. I can't see any crime here.
Nothing that's gone through the court that I can see though. I could have sworn that I read something, but I may have just been suffering from temporary delirium.
Yeah, it's amazing the number of people who share that opinion, but while there's been hundreds of sensational headlines, there hasn't been any actual court cases purely for using someone's wlan without authorization.
You replied by pointing out that this has been discussed ad nauseum on Slashdot.
I actually said this has been discussed ad nauseum on the wider internet and on Slashdot
I hoped the audience would pick up the inference that anyone with an even cursory interest in copyright law would be familiar with this subject & this topic had been delved into.
*shrug* - you chose to ignore the phrase 'the wider internet'. Not my fault.
Since the law said it was, and judges set up precedence backing up that interpretation of the law.
Do you want to link to this 'law' and link to the case where that precedent was set?
Personally, I think you're full of shit. Every time I've seen someone done for 'stealing' wifi, they're charged under a different law - copyright infringemnent or similar.
I never said that.
Why bother posting without clarifying your position?
He's obviously referring to the legal system.
You can't seriously be dumb enough to believe that the legal system's never 'delved into' the copyright violation of semi-free content?
A Better solution is plausible deniability.
One password gives your uber-secret-plans-for-world-conquest, the other password gives a few hundred meg of soft porn (or whatever).
That way, you appear to not be resisting their demands.
This is an interesting aspect of free license law that hasn't really been delved into yet.
You're so right! Noone on the wider internet or even slashdot has ever considered this!
I only wish we could always be "mismanaged" the way Reagan's administration mismanaged;
You mispelt 'Clinton'
should read:
World Nut Daily are a bunch of kooks, with a knife to grind. Getting listed in google news was a wet dream for them. Getting delisted ('cause they aint a news site), really pissed them off. They've had an anti-google axe to grind ever since.
Inspiration for new UI can be found here
(I kid, I kid)
you really think it's harder to do that than convince carnivores to stop eating meat?
Humans are omnivores, not carnivores.
On a side note, your little tirade didn't really seem to address the point the GP was making: Do we really need to torture animals before killing & eating them?
I'm afraid google use the term 'beta' correctly. They just have higher standards than you.
This just in, companies are legally selling the same Internet filtering software used by companies, libraries, etc., to Burma, and the government is using the software for its own purposes.
Hmmmmn, try:
This just in, companies are legally selling the same armaments used by companies & individuals, to Burma, and the government is using the armaments for its own purposes.
Should you be able to sell arms to Burma? If not - what's the difference?
At 60GHz? Not if there's any... you know... MOISTURE in the air around you.
Or even any oxygen.
Article is shithouse - light on detail beyond belief. Check out IBM's 60GHz page.
What you want to know: Practical limitation is 10M, useless through walls.
the only thing you'd buy from a guy like that is weed.
Luckily, he's not selling weed, but freely giving away his enormously valuable copyright.
(You fucking idiot)
Yes, but the apache license puts no conditions on use, just grants extra rights(ie to patents held by Apache developers).
The MS licenses puts conditions on use - for instance, granting MS permission to use your patents.
You can use GPLd (any version) software to build anything you like. The license doesn't come into play until you distribute the software.
Why do people find this so hard to understand? Its a simple concept.
I can't see how a license that governs use rather than distribution can be considered open source.
I'm dissapointed in the OSI.
Whether we like it or not, "linux" has almost from the start meant more than just a kernel.