It sucks when
something is done for a good reason, but that reason isn't given and it feels like they are just been bad people. :(
37 posts • joined 9 Aug 2007
Good they made the right judgement on the charge of hacking and whatnot, bad and slightly weird that of all the crimes involved with a balance of power between individuals they would use breaking a ToS agreement to prosecute with.
More the prosecutions fault then anyone else. Sad.
Unfortunately, it is kinda like what Heff said. Some brilliant stuff in the past, those games were so awesome, and now it is games like Black and White which while showing some interesting things that look like they could break new ground, simply fall flat on their face. Perhaps he should be be hired by a games company not running one?
Wow, doesn't the internet make me sound pompous.
I really don't understand why people have such a problem with Jack Straw using his veto on those documents.
If he had said nothing, or that it was to protect blah de blah blah then I could understand.
But he didn't, he said his reason was because if people could see those minutes of the meetings deciding on the war of Iraq then it 'would erode the public's confidence in the cabinet."
At best, that's an admission of incompetence that things were not done properly, at best it is an admission of guilt. Do we really need to see those documents now that Jack has already told us they are as negative as we think they are?
I hate these things, it just an example of the worst in people. Someone, under the guise of a company, tries to stop the rest of world doing stuff or at least making people and companies with no connections to theirs pay them money. Its trying to use a legal system for absolute robbery, nothing more.
I really hate them, all I hear about them is stupid lawsuits where someone is suing someone else for writing a song, because apparently they patented music back in the 80's, or BT patented the hyper-link. Are there any good examples of patent lawsuits? Where something worthwhile was done?
I feel the need to point something out as a lot of people seem to be writing posts without actually realising what's happening here.
Psystar 'buy' a copy of OS X to put on each of their machines, they arn't stealing or copying the DVD of just one. This might be against the law or it might not but it's hardly lazy or immoral. Buying an OS and putting it on someone else's hardware is how Windows works and that has many advantages as well as disadvantages to that model.
The issue isn't about stealing anything. It's about whether a company can make and sell a stand-alone OS and then legally stipulate that you can only use it with Hardware that they say you can use it with.
It is of course best for everyone on the planet (except perhaps Apple accountants) that Psystar be allowed to do this, afterall people who like buying from Apple can continue to do so and people who like modified systems (without warrenty) can do what they want to do. This is just another option for consumers with Apple been paid for the part of the machine that is Apple's.
Interesting to see how different countries deal with content on the internet been illegal in their country but illegal in another.
Not concentrating on the content here but isn't it interesting how this problem could be dealt with. Should a countries legal system be allowed (and able) to block content of certain sites? If not then should the internet be allowed to become a lawless place where it's far to easy to get away with things you shouldn't be allowed to?
It's also interesting to consider when transmitting information becomes illegal because of the copyright, with the varied ways it can be done it seems to me the only possible way of putting it that would legally cover anything is "intent" or "assembly". If it's intent its close to impossible to prove that in court when you need to deal with millions of people and therefor cases, and if it's assembly then the delivery system and the people support the delivery system structure cannot be prosecuted.
Tricky stuff. Possibly the only solution is to offer the same type as thing as the sites at a price that enough people find reasonable to make a profit despite the rest of the people.
I can see why everyone is siding with eBay on this. It seems stupid by any real means to investigate every auction put up. As Neoc said how would landlords be responsible for what the shop on their land was selling?
But it must be kept in mind that rather then thinking that this whole 'people sell fake/ripoffs of trademarked goods is bad and unfortunate', they don't actually give a crap, much like Youtube, great though it is its basically making money off of peoples willingness to break the law and piss all over trademark and copyright laws. Not saying a good deal of both of those don't deserve pissing over but then maybe some people in a position of power and distribution should give a shit about crime rather then how much money that crime brings them.
And not because I think copyright laws and trademark laws are good and just and should be upheld just because if your hiding behind the law, and at the same time benefiting from crime your hiding from then you should be removed from your position.
But I do know the ways to harass people are many and not always as obviously damaging as they would seem to someone without knowledge of the whole case. If he has been cautioned by the police before for continually contacting her perhaps it would have been better to present this issue as merely one more way he is trying to harass rather then making it sound like he is only using Facebook.
It just staggers the mind that something like that this can be patented by companies. It ranks alongside British Telecom trying to convince everyone that it, and it alone owned the right to the basic hyperlink.
It really takes a certain kind of person to hurry on with there business regardless of them knowing that the human race would be that bit better off if they were just to die today, or never even be born.
There isn't any other way to do it, unless you wish to either force the women to abort, which would be ethically and morally terrible, or deny a child the information required to know who his other parent is, which I think should be a right.
Sure the men certainly didn't want to have a kid and probably presumed that matters were in place to prevent it, but at the end of the day, you take the chance.
I'd be very interested in finding out if they really are taking him to court only because he copied his own CD's onto his computer, without making them available to others, or if he is sharing. If he is sharing fair play I guess, but if they are taking him to court simply for personal use copying then this really is a indicator of how mental they are trying to make things.
Whatever the way the pricing system goes for anything I don't believe you'll ever have the option of been able to redownload for free, something you have bought before, that does actually cost loads to the people supplying it.
You can however, I hear phone apple and get a once only redownload of all your stuff if you ask nicely.
I like the comments. However it could be argued that reproduction takes almost as much skill as the original painting.
You don't get to choose what material you draw/paint on, and in the terms of what painting is been discussed there could be a large amount of restrictions on what can be used to paint with. It could be considered creative, I don't think reproduction should be lumbered together with photocopying.
In some cases of course this wouldn't apply but perhaps it should be taking into account.
I can't see why your getting in such an agitated state about Apple. Noone really claims they bring out new things first, or make their own stuff, which really makes them no different then a company such as Microsoft, but then they are both big business and tend to work the same.
They do however package things in quite a unique way. No phone is like the iPhone (and stealing the name? Come on with everything apple starting with i what else did people expect them to call it?), it doesn't have all the best tech inside and lack of tech is a reason I wont buy this version but it is however on its own in the market. That's an Apple product, it is different, not new.
Why is it people find something fundamentally appalling about Europe having its own GPS system? Wouldn't it be appalling if we didn't have one? Sure we can continue to pay the US Government to borrow theirs year in year out and be told we could be disconnected should they choose, not that I'm suggesting they would, just that something so important shouldn't be left out. Europe has its own GPS for its people and its military, this is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I don't think I could write for something that included people adding their comments to it. So many people are so thick/full of hate/full of blind devotion/stupid/pigheaded that everything that gets posted gets someone saying something really angry.
@Solomon Grundy: What did you expect the fricking 'security expert' to say when asked to comment on this topic? "Well people have been talking about this for years so am not going to answer your question and be stick my finger up at you instead."
Isn't it weird how people are compelled to pull other people down, assuming no trickery was involved someone has just done really well for themselves, even if that is only doing really well in hiring the right people to make it look like you've done really well.
I'm not a Britney fan or supporter but it's really depressing to see someone torn down by people who blatantly know very little about that person.
I think your missing the point of what the complaint was, they were not saying we are concerned about Facebook because it doesn't use them future scanning techno device to block communication between certain people from ever occurring.
What they are saying is we made a complaint about someone contacting our daughter for obviously inappropriate reasons and they didn't receive any customer support reply, even an automatic one saying how to block certain people yourself.
It's true that people have to live in this world so they need to get used to it and the dangers, and that parents are responsible for making sure their kids are up to safely living in this world but large corporations that make literally hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars profit have a duty by law to have certain standard safety measures in place. Nothing huge or undoable or vastly expensive either.
p.s. the internet is never going to safe certainly, but it is such a wonderful tool for learning and communication lets do what we can to allow people of any age to use it with a 'reasonable' degree of safety, as well as encourage them to know what they should be doing for themselves.
Which is Google is using its vast share of the search engine market to blacklist small companies for very small offenses, whilst large companies can do exactly the same thing, only delivering literally millions of infected ads instead of a few and not be penalised.
And for those who fail to see why this is a news worthy item you need to look at what this means, not just this single isolated case.
Maybe this sort of thing should be done on a case by case thing, it was mentioned in the article that the 'cover up' was to do with something that the government branch did wrong, not just spying on people which is their job but something they shouldn't have been doing. In that case they would be using this states secret thing to just cover themselves rather then using it for what it is intended for.
People are citing that since the sticker reads it is Vista capable that then running any version of Vista is good enough grounds to make this not court worthy.
That is not the case, because its not the point. The point is how Vista was advertised, not whether computers with Vista Ready stickers could run Vista Basic or not.
Its not about whether a computer is technically capable of running a version of Vista, its about whether adverts were used to mislead people.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019