Wait, so now writing joke captions can get you in trouble? Uh...I've got to go...
Seriously though, isn't this the definition of free speech? I mean, if she went up to other students and showed the picture in RL and said "Look, a drunken pirate" I highly doubt anything would've been made of it.
The American school system is just plain messed up right now. This is the second story on/. about a student who committed no crimes and is being punished by the school system because of it...what's up with that!? I mean, shouldn't the schools have to at least be able to point to a law that the student could be breaking? Why is it that people get all upset when religious people try to impose some of their morals on others without the backing of the law and yet schools are able to do it freely? I mean, I get the whole private property/you don't have rights for some odd reason even though this place is payed for by the government, the same government that grants you those rights. But really, since when can you be punished because the administrators aren't happy with something you've done? This is really quite absurd, if you don't commit a crime then you shouldn't be punished period. If one of the teachers isn't happy with the disturbing essay/counter-strike map/amusing caption on a MySpace page then that's too bad for them, none of those are even remotely illegal and so you have no right to punish them for them.
Ugh...schools are once more on top of my list of top 10 stupidest groups of people in the US, they've passed the RIAA again...
The only problem with your long answer is that it's impossible to fully deal with clumsy users without restricting them severely.
A famous quote by Douglas Adams was "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
In a perfect world with a perfect OS it would be robust enough to handle all user errors. In that same world we'd all be driving flying cars and live in peace, no one would ever starve and mySpace would never have been invented...oh, and the RIAA would promote people using the things they buy to their fullest:P
Just rambling here but isn't it interesting, YouTube sits there for years without any major lawsuits that I remember and then a large multi million dollar company buys it and suddenly companies are suing it...makes you wonder if they're really that disturbed about their content or if they simply want a quick buck...
But, a little more on topic, YouTube's response is just silly, threatening the internet? Is this supposed to become the tech people's "Think of the Children" meme? No offense but if YouTube goes down the internet won't be affected at all. However the accusation is also silly, YouTube pushing football (non-American) in order to raise it's profile. YouTube needs a bigger profile? I mean, is there really any person with internet access for the last couple years, or who simply watches the news, who doesn't know about YouTube?
As for the copyright issues wasn't there some law that said that people posting to a site (text) were responsible for their posts, not the hosting company? I may be wrong about that but if there was such a law would not this fall under it?
Oh well, it's not like YouTube is going down...and even if it did everyone knows that something would come up to replace it...probably a site with less regard for copyright law...you can't stop people from sharing things by making it hard on the places where people share, all that does is make people go to the less reputable places and then you have an even harder time stopping them. Better to let them share on a site like YouTube, where the worst offenders can be stopped, rather than sending the traffic to a site that would make it impossible to stop anything like this.
Look, no offense, but I don't see this as punishment for R&D but punishment for greed. The drug costs, what?, lets be generous and call it $100 per dose. It's probably much, much lower than that but lets go for that. They sell the stuff for $1200. Are you honestly going to call that reasonable? I'm all for them recouping their losses but not by making 1200%+ profits on each sale, that's absurd!
You are right that punishing people who invest and produce isn't good for an economy, especially a capitalistic one. On the other hand allowing a company to charge insanely high prices for something that costs no where near that much to produce and, oh by the way, a lot of people NEED TO SURVIVE is just absurd. People complain about the gas companies getting together and charging 10 bucks more per gallon, this company is charging $1100 more per drop for their drug. At that rate they'd recoup a billion dollar investment in 800,000 sales. That seems like a lot but with an estimated 39 million HIV positive people in the world it's not, they're looking to make money by selling a little at a huge price to the few who can afford it rather than a lot at a low price. That's not a bad thing unless 1 of two things is true:
A) There are no competitors nor is there likely to be any competitors for at least 5 years
B) The substance is needed for people to survive
Both of these are true right now and so Merck should be selling the drug as low as they can, making something like 50-100% profits on each sale and planning to recoup their investment in 5-10 years. Instead they're making something in the ballpark of 1000% profits on each sale and probably trying to recoup their investment in 2-3 years. That's plain wrong and I'm glad Brazil chose its people's lives over the companies greed.
I have to agree on this one. Normally I'm against things like this because I personally feel that the more this stuff happens the less likely people are to work towards something, the whole private property issue. In this case, however, the pricing was just absurd, the company was not trying to make a slight profit by helping people (which I'm fine with) but way overcharging them. Good for Brazil.
Sure, it cost them a lot to make it. But this isn't a drug whose need is going to go away any time soon and trying to remake your investment quickly means that poor people can't buy something that can save their life. Crix whatever should've been priced in such a way so that 10-12 years down the road they began making a profit, not so that they start making profit almost immediately. I mean, what investor wouldn't invest in an AIDS drug just because they're not likely to recoup their losses within a year? We all know AIDS is going to be around for a while, cut your prices so that more people can get it.
But hey, just my opinion. Hopefully Brazil can start getting cheap crix out in their country and save some lives.
Hows about we call it "What's the greatest tube-traveling software ever?"
Seems reasonable to include WOW if he uses hotmail outlook on the first page (at least in a picture), I think he's taking it more as "What's the greatest software to make use of the web ever?" rather than "What's the greatest software that runs on a web page ever?"
I agree with the sentiment if not the actual wording. My first computer was a Windows 95, in like '98 or something. It got pretty messed up (no viruses persay but I did do a lot of DOS experimentation and I bet you can figure out the flaw inherent in giving a kid DOS access...especially a kid who's interested in technology...). My second was a moderately better computer, which I made none of the old mistakes and a bunch of new ones on. My third was much the same. I'm on my 4th, and first laptop, now and while I do appreciate the knowledge I gained from those old machines I also recognize that had I been given this computer off the bat it would not have been good.
If you're given a free laptop to use during class the first thing that nontechnical people are going to do is play around, and probably break the computer. The first thing that technical people are going to do is use the machine as a testbed for all sorts of specialty hacks/programs. Either way the laptop is not going to be respected or treated well, nothing free ever is.
Your lack of trust about pens reminds me of my High School lol, pens/pencils were constantly stuck in the ceilings there because of bored kids and so, while I do believe there are benefits (and I've experienced them myself, looking up something you're curious about as the teacher moves on since the rest of the class isn't interested is educational) I also firmly believe that a) People who don't understand how to use a device shouldn't be given it and b) No one should ever be given anything free of consequences/penalties for misuse.
Not really all that surprising, you can't solve bad grades with technology, especially when the technologies users have no incentive to not use the technology improperly...
As someone who has a laptop and tends to sit with the group of students who would likely be called lazy and disruptive by teachers I'll say this about the laptops. It's not the laptops that are a productivity killer, it's the teachers who are extremely boring and review review review. I regularly surf the web in any class that I can, java, circuits, history etc. I also get A's in those classes. It's not the laptop's fault that kids aren't paying attention, all that's changed there is that they have a better way to waste their time, kids aren't going to pay attention until the subject is interesting and challenging to them, which the current education fails to do for 90% of students who are either not interested at all in subjects they're being taught (case in point biology is required for my PROGRAMMING degree...I hate biology, much rather would take physics...you know, that think I'm very likely to program for any game/simulation...) or simply over or under challenged by the course.
On the other hand I'm against these "laptops for everyone!" programs as it tends to put technology in the hands of those who don't deserve it, those who can't treat it properly (oh look, I dropped my laptop for the third time this week...I should really put a hole in this screen and tie it to my backpack!) and those who tend to get good things ruined for the rest of us (there's an inverse relationship between the number of people on my campus who have a laptop and the number of classes that allow the thing, which is amusing as many of the laptops were bought through the school to help in classes that they're now banned in because some people aren't smart enough to alt-tab from/. to a blank or semi-filled word document when the teacher's near and only glace at other's laptops rather than stare at them and ignore the teacher noticing you)
I swear, most people don't have any ranks in Hide (Computer Use) at my school and far too many ranks in Illusion (I'm a leet hacker who'll never be caught)
But hey, what do I know. I'm one of the kids who doesn't pay attention in class so obviously you have to take what I say with a grain of salt...and a knowledge that I really don't like people who can't use technology right using it...and I'm currently in GM mode...
But...motion sensing is cool...and all...stop ruining my Star Trek dreams...keep them away, them and their normal ideas...I want my motion sensing radio with mood ring capabilities for music!
In which case you should tend to lean towards the proven crazy person rather than the other guy who has no proven insanity...course that's probably politically incorrect or something and so we have to come down on the other guy since he might have done something and just not revealed it!
Hmm...lets see a few good examples of why the logical fallacy of causation from correlation is so wrong.
Steve Jobs' company distributes RIAA music. Jobs is now distributing DRM free music. It doesn't take a lot of dot-connecting, the RIAA hates DRM!
China has a state owned Disneyland. Disney owns Mickey Mouse. It doesn't take a lot of dot-connecting, China owns Mickey Mouse!
Vista eats battery life. Microsoft is a big company like GM. It doesn't take a lot of dot-connecting, Microsoft wants you to spend more money on batteries so they can make more money!
The MPAA wants to stop people from talking about a certain hex key. Talking about things is protected under the first amendment. It doesn't take a lot of dot-connecting, the MPAA hates freedom and are terror...wait...that one might actually work...
See the problem with that logic or do I need to do more? I can if you'd like. Personally I hate conspiracy theories as they assume the government is a)Competent and b)Able to keep a secret. Neither of those has ever even been implied of the government:P.
Pst...Obama's people asked him for a price, he gave one. If you're really going to condemn the guy as someone "in it for the money" when he was asked for a price then you obviously have a different viewpoint than me. For me, if you ask someone for a price on something you don't then balk and go in and get it shut down or whatever, you negotiate and try to get a better price or you give up and let him keep it.
Heh...I'm one of those people who don't buy anything from the RIAA or MPAA (or whatever they're called) but also don't pirate from them. You're absolutely right in that today's music and movies are very uncreative, but that started happening long before pirating became big enough to make creativity more risky. The simple fact is that the current music/movie industry has become too bloated to produce anything really good, baring a few exceptions (and by few I mean probably about 5-10 per month, which is a tiny percentage). The gaming industry is starting to get there too sadly enough.
The problem with music/movies isn't that everyone's pirating them and so no one's paying, it's that no one's watching/listening to them and so no one's paying. The last 3 movies I've been too (all within a week of release and pretty medium hype levels) haven't even come close to filling the theaters. The industry is just too bloated and until it cuts itself down again it's going to be bleeding money from the people who just don't care about it and have found a new hobby, piracy is just the excuse because they refuse to believe that Barbie's Magical Horse Adventure The Movie II won't sell big bucks even if no one pirated it...
Uh...no? He didn't create a new page, he got mySpace to hand the old page over to him. By your analogy it's more like asking for the price on a house, balking at it and getting the government to claim it as needed for a park or something then give it to you for no price. (Oh and by the way, someone else did the calculations. 32 cents per friend is not a lot of money AT ALL for a political campaign, they wanted the mySpace and needed a good excuse for taking it so they asked for a price and said he was money grabbing)
Now then, back on topic, this is actually a pretty good move. While I really don't pay much attention to the debates I'm sure this'll open up more quoting and stuff online so I can catch the good parts. Not a bad move really.
Err I think you means Today, Disney. Today, GM. Today, Microsoft. Today, IBM. Today, Medical Drugs. Today, everything but the kitchen sink. Tomorrow, the kitchen sink...
You would be right if it was Feb. 15 2004. The letter read that the IP was used "02/15/2005" which is a while after the May 14th cancellation. Nothing to see here, the RIAA's just sued another innocent person with flimsy evidence...
Yeah, lets see a newspaper pull that off. "But your honor one of our sources reported that Celebrity T was doing R bad thing at the time therefore we didn't slander them."
Guess what, if you sue someone it's now your problem. If the RIAA doesn't fully explore evidence before suing people over then they have no right to continue suing people. It would be like the police bringing a case against a suspected murderer and asking, in the trial, to search the house, car etc. to find evidence. That's not how the legal system is supposed to work. Trial is supposed to be the last thing in a long line of to do's, one of which is verifying that you've got the right person. The RIAA doesn't do that long list, which is horribly wrong but not quite illegal, and more and more often it's coming back to haunt them.
You work for the government and you don't think they'll dump possible licensing issues on your shoulders? No offense but that's a bit naive, the gov is MORE likely to do that than your average company, not less, as has been shown by the large number of times a low level person in the government is fired for one of the big timer's mistakes. If I were you I'd get those documents in triplicate in different places...
A method by which a specific unbound sequence of comparisons are performed with the program being instructed to perform differing operation based on the results. Should none of the comparisons result in the machine determining that the variable being compared fits the condition a "default" condition shall be allowed. Using this system a large number of such Improved Jumps can be performed with less code and processing power.
((For those without programming knowledge, or sense of humor, the parent wants to post If-Then statements, this is a Switch statement. That is all))
Yeah, it's a built in Apple mandated reminded that your technology is out of date and you should upgrade...genius! This must be part of Apple's No User Left Behind policy to keep users with the freshest technology!
In all seriousness though, big deal. A few laptops broke and suddenly Apple's to blame? Technology gets old. Technology Breaks. Technology is rarely tested past a year as it's obsolete within a few months. So what if it broke, that's pretty much par for the course. What's more surprising is that Apple managed to go until now without any manufacturing complaints...
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so now writing joke captions can get you in trouble? Uh...I've got to go...
/. about a student who committed no crimes and is being punished by the school system because of it...what's up with that!? I mean, shouldn't the schools have to at least be able to point to a law that the student could be breaking? Why is it that people get all upset when religious people try to impose some of their morals on others without the backing of the law and yet schools are able to do it freely? I mean, I get the whole private property/you don't have rights for some odd reason even though this place is payed for by the government, the same government that grants you those rights. But really, since when can you be punished because the administrators aren't happy with something you've done? This is really quite absurd, if you don't commit a crime then you shouldn't be punished period. If one of the teachers isn't happy with the disturbing essay/counter-strike map/amusing caption on a MySpace page then that's too bad for them, none of those are even remotely illegal and so you have no right to punish them for them.
Seriously though, isn't this the definition of free speech? I mean, if she went up to other students and showed the picture in RL and said "Look, a drunken pirate" I highly doubt anything would've been made of it.
The American school system is just plain messed up right now. This is the second story on
Ugh...schools are once more on top of my list of top 10 stupidest groups of people in the US, they've passed the RIAA again...
The only problem with your long answer is that it's impossible to fully deal with clumsy users without restricting them severely.
:P
A famous quote by Douglas Adams was "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
In a perfect world with a perfect OS it would be robust enough to handle all user errors. In that same world we'd all be driving flying cars and live in peace, no one would ever starve and mySpace would never have been invented...oh, and the RIAA would promote people using the things they buy to their fullest
MOD PARENT UP
+1 Hilarious Joke
Just rambling here but isn't it interesting, YouTube sits there for years without any major lawsuits that I remember and then a large multi million dollar company buys it and suddenly companies are suing it...makes you wonder if they're really that disturbed about their content or if they simply want a quick buck...
But, a little more on topic, YouTube's response is just silly, threatening the internet? Is this supposed to become the tech people's "Think of the Children" meme? No offense but if YouTube goes down the internet won't be affected at all. However the accusation is also silly, YouTube pushing football (non-American) in order to raise it's profile. YouTube needs a bigger profile? I mean, is there really any person with internet access for the last couple years, or who simply watches the news, who doesn't know about YouTube?
As for the copyright issues wasn't there some law that said that people posting to a site (text) were responsible for their posts, not the hosting company? I may be wrong about that but if there was such a law would not this fall under it?
Oh well, it's not like YouTube is going down...and even if it did everyone knows that something would come up to replace it...probably a site with less regard for copyright law...you can't stop people from sharing things by making it hard on the places where people share, all that does is make people go to the less reputable places and then you have an even harder time stopping them. Better to let them share on a site like YouTube, where the worst offenders can be stopped, rather than sending the traffic to a site that would make it impossible to stop anything like this.
No! Not Proprietary! Anything but Proprietary! Ahh! It burns! It burns us!
:P)
(Sorry but the enthusiasm with which you said that was a little much or at least that's how I read it
The answer is obviously 42...duh!
:P)
(Nice catch, no one else seemed to notice that
Look, no offense, but I don't see this as punishment for R&D but punishment for greed. The drug costs, what?, lets be generous and call it $100 per dose. It's probably much, much lower than that but lets go for that. They sell the stuff for $1200. Are you honestly going to call that reasonable? I'm all for them recouping their losses but not by making 1200%+ profits on each sale, that's absurd!
You are right that punishing people who invest and produce isn't good for an economy, especially a capitalistic one. On the other hand allowing a company to charge insanely high prices for something that costs no where near that much to produce and, oh by the way, a lot of people NEED TO SURVIVE is just absurd. People complain about the gas companies getting together and charging 10 bucks more per gallon, this company is charging $1100 more per drop for their drug. At that rate they'd recoup a billion dollar investment in 800,000 sales. That seems like a lot but with an estimated 39 million HIV positive people in the world it's not, they're looking to make money by selling a little at a huge price to the few who can afford it rather than a lot at a low price. That's not a bad thing unless 1 of two things is true:
A) There are no competitors nor is there likely to be any competitors for at least 5 years
B) The substance is needed for people to survive
Both of these are true right now and so Merck should be selling the drug as low as they can, making something like 50-100% profits on each sale and planning to recoup their investment in 5-10 years. Instead they're making something in the ballpark of 1000% profits on each sale and probably trying to recoup their investment in 2-3 years. That's plain wrong and I'm glad Brazil chose its people's lives over the companies greed.
Well lets see.
A) That would easily take 10+ years, they need the drug now
B) Brazil likely doesn't have the drug making infrastructure necessary to even start making AIDS drugs without 5+ years building
C) The odds of any drug beating AIDS is huge
So you want them to spend 15+ years working in hope that they can maybe get a drug working when there's a great one sitting on the market right now?
I have to agree on this one. Normally I'm against things like this because I personally feel that the more this stuff happens the less likely people are to work towards something, the whole private property issue. In this case, however, the pricing was just absurd, the company was not trying to make a slight profit by helping people (which I'm fine with) but way overcharging them. Good for Brazil.
Sure, it cost them a lot to make it. But this isn't a drug whose need is going to go away any time soon and trying to remake your investment quickly means that poor people can't buy something that can save their life. Crix whatever should've been priced in such a way so that 10-12 years down the road they began making a profit, not so that they start making profit almost immediately. I mean, what investor wouldn't invest in an AIDS drug just because they're not likely to recoup their losses within a year? We all know AIDS is going to be around for a while, cut your prices so that more people can get it.
But hey, just my opinion. Hopefully Brazil can start getting cheap crix out in their country and save some lives.
Hows about we call it "What's the greatest tube-traveling software ever?"
Seems reasonable to include WOW if he uses hotmail outlook on the first page (at least in a picture), I think he's taking it more as "What's the greatest software to make use of the web ever?" rather than "What's the greatest software that runs on a web page ever?"
I agree with the sentiment if not the actual wording. My first computer was a Windows 95, in like '98 or something. It got pretty messed up (no viruses persay but I did do a lot of DOS experimentation and I bet you can figure out the flaw inherent in giving a kid DOS access...especially a kid who's interested in technology...). My second was a moderately better computer, which I made none of the old mistakes and a bunch of new ones on. My third was much the same. I'm on my 4th, and first laptop, now and while I do appreciate the knowledge I gained from those old machines I also recognize that had I been given this computer off the bat it would not have been good.
If you're given a free laptop to use during class the first thing that nontechnical people are going to do is play around, and probably break the computer. The first thing that technical people are going to do is use the machine as a testbed for all sorts of specialty hacks/programs. Either way the laptop is not going to be respected or treated well, nothing free ever is.
Your lack of trust about pens reminds me of my High School lol, pens/pencils were constantly stuck in the ceilings there because of bored kids and so, while I do believe there are benefits (and I've experienced them myself, looking up something you're curious about as the teacher moves on since the rest of the class isn't interested is educational) I also firmly believe that a) People who don't understand how to use a device shouldn't be given it and b) No one should ever be given anything free of consequences/penalties for misuse.
Not really all that surprising, you can't solve bad grades with technology, especially when the technologies users have no incentive to not use the technology improperly...
As someone who has a laptop and tends to sit with the group of students who would likely be called lazy and disruptive by teachers I'll say this about the laptops. It's not the laptops that are a productivity killer, it's the teachers who are extremely boring and review review review. I regularly surf the web in any class that I can, java, circuits, history etc. I also get A's in those classes. It's not the laptop's fault that kids aren't paying attention, all that's changed there is that they have a better way to waste their time, kids aren't going to pay attention until the subject is interesting and challenging to them, which the current education fails to do for 90% of students who are either not interested at all in subjects they're being taught (case in point biology is required for my PROGRAMMING degree...I hate biology, much rather would take physics...you know, that think I'm very likely to program for any game/simulation...) or simply over or under challenged by the course.
/. to a blank or semi-filled word document when the teacher's near and only glace at other's laptops rather than stare at them and ignore the teacher noticing you)
On the other hand I'm against these "laptops for everyone!" programs as it tends to put technology in the hands of those who don't deserve it, those who can't treat it properly (oh look, I dropped my laptop for the third time this week...I should really put a hole in this screen and tie it to my backpack!) and those who tend to get good things ruined for the rest of us (there's an inverse relationship between the number of people on my campus who have a laptop and the number of classes that allow the thing, which is amusing as many of the laptops were bought through the school to help in classes that they're now banned in because some people aren't smart enough to alt-tab from
I swear, most people don't have any ranks in Hide (Computer Use) at my school and far too many ranks in Illusion (I'm a leet hacker who'll never be caught)
But hey, what do I know. I'm one of the kids who doesn't pay attention in class so obviously you have to take what I say with a grain of salt...and a knowledge that I really don't like people who can't use technology right using it...and I'm currently in GM mode...
But...motion sensing is cool...and all...stop ruining my Star Trek dreams...keep them away, them and their normal ideas...I want my motion sensing radio with mood ring capabilities for music!
In which case you should tend to lean towards the proven crazy person rather than the other guy who has no proven insanity...course that's probably politically incorrect or something and so we have to come down on the other guy since he might have done something and just not revealed it!
Hmm...lets see a few good examples of why the logical fallacy of causation from correlation is so wrong.
:P.
Steve Jobs' company distributes RIAA music. Jobs is now distributing DRM free music. It doesn't take a lot of dot-connecting, the RIAA hates DRM!
China has a state owned Disneyland. Disney owns Mickey Mouse. It doesn't take a lot of dot-connecting, China owns Mickey Mouse!
Vista eats battery life. Microsoft is a big company like GM. It doesn't take a lot of dot-connecting, Microsoft wants you to spend more money on batteries so they can make more money!
The MPAA wants to stop people from talking about a certain hex key. Talking about things is protected under the first amendment. It doesn't take a lot of dot-connecting, the MPAA hates freedom and are terror...wait...that one might actually work...
See the problem with that logic or do I need to do more? I can if you'd like. Personally I hate conspiracy theories as they assume the government is a)Competent and b)Able to keep a secret. Neither of those has ever even been implied of the government
Pst...Obama's people asked him for a price, he gave one. If you're really going to condemn the guy as someone "in it for the money" when he was asked for a price then you obviously have a different viewpoint than me. For me, if you ask someone for a price on something you don't then balk and go in and get it shut down or whatever, you negotiate and try to get a better price or you give up and let him keep it.
Heh...I'm one of those people who don't buy anything from the RIAA or MPAA (or whatever they're called) but also don't pirate from them. You're absolutely right in that today's music and movies are very uncreative, but that started happening long before pirating became big enough to make creativity more risky. The simple fact is that the current music/movie industry has become too bloated to produce anything really good, baring a few exceptions (and by few I mean probably about 5-10 per month, which is a tiny percentage). The gaming industry is starting to get there too sadly enough.
The problem with music/movies isn't that everyone's pirating them and so no one's paying, it's that no one's watching/listening to them and so no one's paying. The last 3 movies I've been too (all within a week of release and pretty medium hype levels) haven't even come close to filling the theaters. The industry is just too bloated and until it cuts itself down again it's going to be bleeding money from the people who just don't care about it and have found a new hobby, piracy is just the excuse because they refuse to believe that Barbie's Magical Horse Adventure The Movie II won't sell big bucks even if no one pirated it...
Uh...no? He didn't create a new page, he got mySpace to hand the old page over to him. By your analogy it's more like asking for the price on a house, balking at it and getting the government to claim it as needed for a park or something then give it to you for no price. (Oh and by the way, someone else did the calculations. 32 cents per friend is not a lot of money AT ALL for a political campaign, they wanted the mySpace and needed a good excuse for taking it so they asked for a price and said he was money grabbing)
Now then, back on topic, this is actually a pretty good move. While I really don't pay much attention to the debates I'm sure this'll open up more quoting and stuff online so I can catch the good parts. Not a bad move really.
Err I think you means Today, Disney. Today, GM. Today, Microsoft. Today, IBM. Today, Medical Drugs. Today, everything but the kitchen sink. Tomorrow, the kitchen sink...
You would be right if it was Feb. 15 2004. The letter read that the IP was used "02/15/2005" which is a while after the May 14th cancellation. Nothing to see here, the RIAA's just sued another innocent person with flimsy evidence...
Yeah, lets see a newspaper pull that off. "But your honor one of our sources reported that Celebrity T was doing R bad thing at the time therefore we didn't slander them."
Guess what, if you sue someone it's now your problem. If the RIAA doesn't fully explore evidence before suing people over then they have no right to continue suing people. It would be like the police bringing a case against a suspected murderer and asking, in the trial, to search the house, car etc. to find evidence. That's not how the legal system is supposed to work. Trial is supposed to be the last thing in a long line of to do's, one of which is verifying that you've got the right person. The RIAA doesn't do that long list, which is horribly wrong but not quite illegal, and more and more often it's coming back to haunt them.
You work for the government and you don't think they'll dump possible licensing issues on your shoulders? No offense but that's a bit naive, the gov is MORE likely to do that than your average company, not less, as has been shown by the large number of times a low level person in the government is fired for one of the big timer's mistakes. If I were you I'd get those documents in triplicate in different places...
Patent Application 297641286876b
A method by which a specific unbound sequence of comparisons are performed with the program being instructed to perform differing operation based on the results. Should none of the comparisons result in the machine determining that the variable being compared fits the condition a "default" condition shall be allowed. Using this system a large number of such Improved Jumps can be performed with less code and processing power.
((For those without programming knowledge, or sense of humor, the parent wants to post If-Then statements, this is a Switch statement. That is all))
Yeah, it's a built in Apple mandated reminded that your technology is out of date and you should upgrade...genius! This must be part of Apple's No User Left Behind policy to keep users with the freshest technology!
In all seriousness though, big deal. A few laptops broke and suddenly Apple's to blame? Technology gets old. Technology Breaks. Technology is rarely tested past a year as it's obsolete within a few months. So what if it broke, that's pretty much par for the course. What's more surprising is that Apple managed to go until now without any manufacturing complaints...
Quick! Censor the First Post! It's the only way to make sure other posters aren't inflamed/derogated/insulted!