Fair use protects you, since your use is definitely parody. Also, I think you meant Starburst®, which is a "Juicy Contradiction."
But yes, everything OOtB says is horseshit, and we might as well ignore him/her/it(most likely). Although the things it says does, form time to time, spur intelligent people to say interesting things and make a cogent argument we can use with people IRL. I suppose OOtB might even be a valuable resource in order to keep us sharp on the day-to-day drill of refuting idiotic ramblings of syphilitic, unthinking minds that have bought into copyright maximalism as a "Good Thing" hook line and sinker.
Well... The faucet example was manufactured in part in the Andromeda galaxy, which is 2.5 million light years away. Basically impossible to reach from either direction, unless some form of FTL travel is possible, or an alien civilization grew to maturity and sent a trading ship to us sometime earlier than 2.5 million years ago (from out POV at least. If they traveled fast enough, they would experience barely any time at all getting here.)
Or perhaps he thinks a bad copyright law is one that extends protection only another 20 years after it's original expiration (applied retroactively of course)
Bullmess! Every single cat I've had (5 over the years) goes hungry if I move her food dish by as little as a meter. The cats I've had simply won't eat if anything's out of place even slightly. If that's adaptable, then I have a horse that solves arithmetic problems to sell you.
They don't do nothing. They do lots of stuff. They just don't have to tell anyone what they're doing, as long as there's a good cover story. It is DHS after all. They're busy soothing the public with sweet lies of how they're working to preserve our freedoms, while simultaneously wiping their asses with the fourth amendment.
The Slurm (it's highly addictive) sweepstakes? cuz that was just a winning bottle cap rattling around in a can.
Perhaps the eyePhone? even though that was targeted advertising but didn't seem to involve location tracking. Just recording and analyzing everything the user does with the eyePhone.
So, nope, I can't really think Futurama did anything like this. But it could be a cool episode!
As far as I know, the Mobile protocols and standards attempt "graceful handoffs" where they connect to the new tower and verify network connectivity before handing off from the current tower. It works well if there are multiple towers to connect to, but wouldn't work if there's only two including the StingRay.
Logic would dictate that the phone wouldn't drop the call, but still attempt to connect to the StingRay, won't be able to establish or verify network connectivity, and just keep pinging the StingRay while using the next strongest signal.
I'm pretty sure that it won't be that situation though. I'm betting most phones would ping the StingRay. If the StingRay gives pretty much any response, the phones will start broadcasting to it, and drop the other tower's connection. There could also be the problem of the StingRay simply broadcasting on the same frequency as the nearest tower and act like a jammer, though I don't know if that would happen, since I'm not familiar with exactly how a SingRay works. If it broadcasts back to the phone it probably will cause huge problems with connection dropping. If it doesn't then the phones are going to run down their batteries shouting into the wind at a device that never answers.
This is entirely speculative, but I did get an AAS in IT and Networking, and had to take several classes on POTS and Cell networks. So I'm not an expert or anything, just faintly more knowledgeable on this subject, than I would have been fresh out of high school.
That's called "Being a Crank" They move the goalposts in debates constantly in order to try to avoid the appearance of being wrong, while moving the goalposts is one of the things that make them wrong anyway.
aj seems not to understand that one can lose a debate and still come out on top. It's a form of educated thinking. If you're willing to accept the undeniable facts that makes your initial argument wrong, and reexamine your own view point, you end up literally thinking better in some measure.
I like the idea that since all the labels do this kind of thing, that makes it unconscionable on the grounds of having no other choice.
BUT, by that logic, Microsoft's EULA for Windows XP Pro would be unconscionable as well, since the only way to use XP legally is to agree to the EULA, and the EULA has an applicable law clause that specifies the jurisdiction as Washington State, or Ontario if in Canada.
Don't waste your money. I've been given a few of these types of knockoffs as promo swag before. They're not actually android OS, they look a bit like android, but the setting screens and impossible version ID numbers give away that the OS is developed in-house specifically to work with the cheapest hardware you can possibly imagine. Usually the whole graphical OS is a JVM skinned to look like the OS it's mimicing.
I even got a tablet once. It had buttons beneath the LED screen, (under the lighting element), and of course claimed to be "touch-screen". More like "click on the grid of hidden buttons screen". They're really terrible, cheap and flimsy devices held together mostly with spit, and a loose fold here and there.
I'd buy one if it was likely to be any good, the idea of an Android clone of the iPhone is pretty cool. But none of these devices are as good as the consumer grade crap that ships to American big-box stores. And none of the devices I've seen even have real Android versions running on them.
The court should say: The head of the TSA will hold these hearings from his jail cell in 18 hours, since he thinks he can treat the American people like fools.
Maybe my brother and I (male too) got stuck in the Freudian penile phase, but all he and I ever made were the tallest towers we could (we were big on lego when we were around 7 or 8). We got some towers 3 or 4 meters tall before they fell over. We had a 3 story living room with indoor landing balconies looking out onto it from the stairs. (BTW, I'm not sure how I can explain the balconies other than it was kind of like an open atrium hotel where you could see ever floor from the ground.)
might as well lash out at the guy who screwed us over.
Then you probably should be lashing out at George W. Bush....
During his presidency we got:
-The "war on terror" (how do you win a shooting war on a concept?)
-National Security Letters
-The Patriot Act
-Set up Guantanamo
-Deregulated the financial industry, leading to the worst recession ever. A recession so bad that Obama can't do anything about it with the limited power of the presidency.
Nobody claimed "someone" that would imply a specific person. Generally speaking, the vast majority of humans living in America will NEVER have a shot at making $1 billion odd dollars, no matter what method they try. It takes a fucking shitton of money to make a billion dollars in the first place, whether it's running a business, or investing wisely. Anyone who makes a billion dollars in America starting at the median salary is an astronomically rare exception. Don't flatter your own intellectualism, because reality strongly suggests that these commenters are right, and that you're talking out your ass.
$47,619 odd dollars is damn close to the median of $45,018
On the wikipedia chart, there's 59,835,000 households below the bracket containing $47,619. There's 51,739,000 households above the bracket containing $47,619. Which means that $47,619 is off of the very center by 13%, which isn't enough to make a difference when talking about incomes amounting to $1billion dollars.
The second to the top bracket is $200,000 to $249,999 annually (the top bracket is >=$250,000), and at $249,999 annually it would take 4000.016 years to make a billion dollars. The sum of the brackets below >=$250,000 account for 98.5% of the households in the United states. In a sample of 100 households, you can expect about two of them to make $250,000 annually or more. That means 98.5% of the population can't expect to ever make anything even approaching 1 billion dollars in their whole lives.
You're argument is spurious at best, because it deals in rare exceptions to the rule, and even then, completely ignores the spirit of the OC's statement, you dick.
That's because Google Translate "uses statistical models" to translate words and sentences from one language to another using datapoints gleaned from webpages. Or at least, that's the official explanation.
If that's true, then it simply doesn't take into account tenses, grammatical rules, or meaning (in any meaningful way (rimshot)).
If a page that is natively arabic also has a link to an english counterpart, google would just do a straight 1:1 word translation, not taking into account any grammatical structure.
That's how you get non-english pages translated into english looking like:
"In case dearth and said orifice no splyzna like, ontological right ovens."
Re: Re: Be silly that reseller rights are more than the creators.
But yes, everything OOtB says is horseshit, and we might as well ignore him/her/it(most likely). Although the things it says does, form time to time, spur intelligent people to say interesting things and make a cogent argument we can use with people IRL. I suppose OOtB might even be a valuable resource in order to keep us sharp on the day-to-day drill of refuting idiotic ramblings of syphilitic, unthinking minds that have bought into copyright maximalism as a "Good Thing" hook line and sinker.
Re: Re: Be silly that reseller rights are more than the creators.
Just because the cost of one good is incurred on a population doesn't mean it's a net economic gain.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Or, he simply doesn't understand that if the SC bans resale of foreign manufactured goods, he won't be able to even sell a used BIC lighter, since it has the © symbol on it (applied to the specific shade of red the plastic is dyed or other such nonsense.)
cats
Bullmess! Every single cat I've had (5 over the years) goes hungry if I move her food dish by as little as a meter. The cats I've had simply won't eat if anything's out of place even slightly. If that's adaptable, then I have a horse that solves arithmetic problems to sell you.
Re: Forget giving us the money back
Re: Re:
Perhaps the eyePhone? even though that was targeted advertising but didn't seem to involve location tracking. Just recording and analyzing everything the user does with the eyePhone.
So, nope, I can't really think Futurama did anything like this. But it could be a cool episode!
Re: Messing with regular cell towers
Logic would dictate that the phone wouldn't drop the call, but still attempt to connect to the StingRay, won't be able to establish or verify network connectivity, and just keep pinging the StingRay while using the next strongest signal.
I'm pretty sure that it won't be that situation though. I'm betting most phones would ping the StingRay. If the StingRay gives pretty much any response, the phones will start broadcasting to it, and drop the other tower's connection. There could also be the problem of the StingRay simply broadcasting on the same frequency as the nearest tower and act like a jammer, though I don't know if that would happen, since I'm not familiar with exactly how a SingRay works. If it broadcasts back to the phone it probably will cause huge problems with connection dropping. If it doesn't then the phones are going to run down their batteries shouting into the wind at a device that never answers.
This is entirely speculative, but I did get an AAS in IT and Networking, and had to take several classes on POTS and Cell networks. So I'm not an expert or anything, just faintly more knowledgeable on this subject, than I would have been fresh out of high school.
Re: Re:
If you don't want your house to be set on fire by an arsonist, don't build a house.
If you don't want to be attacked by a pack of wild dogs, don't smell delicious.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
aj seems not to understand that one can lose a debate and still come out on top. It's a form of educated thinking. If you're willing to accept the undeniable facts that makes your initial argument wrong, and reexamine your own view point, you end up literally thinking better in some measure.
Re: Unconscionable?
BUT, by that logic, Microsoft's EULA for Windows XP Pro would be unconscionable as well, since the only way to use XP legally is to agree to the EULA, and the EULA has an applicable law clause that specifies the jurisdiction as Washington State, or Ontario if in Canada.
Re: Please please please
http://www.amazon.com/Unlocked-Android-Capacitive-T-mobile-networks/dp/B007TR4ON6
Re:
I even got a tablet once. It had buttons beneath the LED screen, (under the lighting element), and of course claimed to be "touch-screen". More like "click on the grid of hidden buttons screen". They're really terrible, cheap and flimsy devices held together mostly with spit, and a loose fold here and there.
I'd buy one if it was likely to be any good, the idea of an Android clone of the iPhone is pretty cool. But none of these devices are as good as the consumer grade crap that ships to American big-box stores. And none of the devices I've seen even have real Android versions running on them.
They are called knockoffs for a reason.
Re:
Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Then you probably should be lashing out at George W. Bush....
During his presidency we got:
-The "war on terror" (how do you win a shooting war on a concept?)
-National Security Letters
-The Patriot Act
-Set up Guantanamo
-Deregulated the financial industry, leading to the worst recession ever. A recession so bad that Obama can't do anything about it with the limited power of the presidency.
Re:
Sorry... I'm just not satisfied kicking the shit out of Todd Aiken yet
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Difficulty comprehending large numbers
$47,619 odd dollars is damn close to the median of $45,018
On the wikipedia chart, there's 59,835,000 households below the bracket containing $47,619. There's 51,739,000 households above the bracket containing $47,619. Which means that $47,619 is off of the very center by 13%, which isn't enough to make a difference when talking about incomes amounting to $1billion dollars.
The second to the top bracket is $200,000 to $249,999 annually (the top bracket is >=$250,000), and at $249,999 annually it would take 4000.016 years to make a billion dollars. The sum of the brackets below >=$250,000 account for 98.5% of the households in the United states. In a sample of 100 households, you can expect about two of them to make $250,000 annually or more. That means 98.5% of the population can't expect to ever make anything even approaching 1 billion dollars in their whole lives.
You're argument is spurious at best, because it deals in rare exceptions to the rule, and even then, completely ignores the spirit of the OC's statement, you dick.
Re: Re: Re:
If that's true, then it simply doesn't take into account tenses, grammatical rules, or meaning (in any meaningful way (rimshot)).
If a page that is natively arabic also has a link to an english counterpart, google would just do a straight 1:1 word translation, not taking into account any grammatical structure.
That's how you get non-english pages translated into english looking like:
"In case dearth and said orifice no splyzna like, ontological right ovens."
More comments from LDoBe >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by LDoBe.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt