[Tom]

Name me one invention right now that I use, that I didn’t use before Apple.

You named “downloading music” as one. I was downloading music in the years Apple were bankrupt and struggling to compete with even Amiga.

Someone else mentioned that our inventions weren’t successful until Apple. Um, excuse me? What are you using right now? The internet? Invented by the British military in the 1970s? The World Wide Web was invented by the British and uses the same system and protocols as it did back then.

What other “inventions” did Apple create?

The applemac? Carbon copy of yes.. again.. the Amiga.

The ipod? A glorified Sony Walkman.

Music downloading? We had that in the early 90s with P2P sharing.

Name me ONE invention we use that Apple created. I wouldn’t use a f*cking I-pod if someone PAID me to, nor an AppleMac. Plagiarised, carbon copied, out-dated sh*te the lot of it.

BUT if you read my post properly, you’d see that I said as well as using his money for evil (ie: patenting products he never even invented, buying out smaller companies he plagiarised from etc), he also did A LOT OF GOOD, ie: for charity, and specifically for cancer, so although he’s a jumped up lying little pr*ck, he also had a good heart underneath it all, and therefore has my respect.

Now RIP.

[Tom]

@irish_lucy wrote:

oh for the love of sweet jesus – apple didnt start with the ipod it was founded in 1976

We know. At which point they were playing about with computer technology that was already in place since the 1940s after the British invented them during the war.

[Tom]

Not really. All that technology was already available. I was downloading music a good decade before the I-pod ever existed. I was downloading music when we still had Sony Walkmans with the old tape cassettes.

[Tom]

Do you even know what the word ‘racialism’ means? Judging by your above post you have no clue and just throw it around as a random insult at anyone to deflect your wrong-doings and protect your ego.

Here, I’ll help you. It is the illogical hatred of someone of a different race. That, is the cold, hard definition of racialism. A racist believes that his race is somehow superior to another.

It’s a viewpoint I abhore. No man is superior to another based on appearance, that’s just complete fantasy.

I’d much rather drink with a room full of successful black businessmen than a room full of white underclassed chav trash. I wonder who is superior, Morgan Freeman or your average white trash on the street mugging old ladies? Hmm?

So racism is BS, Prime, grow up.

Being concerned of over-population; self-sustainability and retention of an indigenous culture is legit, and is the viewpoint more serious, intellectual and understanding people of all different creeds and backgrounds concern themselves with.

Blind hatred because you can’t; won’t or don’t understand the above is racism and you need to put your alcopops down and pick up a book or two.

[Tom]

Lucy Griffiths dressed up as Maid Marion :oops:

I think I just jizzed my pants :oops:

[Tom]

Blimey, TBH I’d never use any of his products, they’re a con and most have been plagiarised by smaller companies that he simply bought out anyway. I mean his initial computers were just carbon copies of Amiga technology.

But he did do good in other areas in the world, and although he used his money for evil, he also used it for good at times. He did a lot for charity, and for that he deserves a humble RIP.

[Tom]

@irish_lucy wrote:

when is replying with your opinion trolling, i dont troll, never have and never want to.
Its pointless and stupid.

Calling names because someone knows about you is not going to get you elected.
And i dont know much about the BNP only there well known for being racist and pigs to women – again just saying what i see.

You’re right, they are, and that’s why I turned my back on them. I actually felt VERY bad and VERY guilty leaving them, because the national organiser and Pat Harrington & Griffin was so nice to me, supported me, stuck up for me, and I just turned round and stabbed them in hte back by saying I’d had enough of the far-right and jumped ship to the Andrew Brons/Eddy Butler camp (who wanted massive reform). When Brons lost the election I resigned permanently to do some soul-searching and gather my thoughts. I still feel guilty to this day for completely betraying them, but at the end of the day I just don’t agree with illogical hatred. It’s not about foreigners, it’s about over-population and the damaging effect is has on a nation.

The time isn’t right yet, as I still need to do some thought-gathering and get my mental health in-check before I jump back in, but UKIP seems the way forward as it stands

[Tom]

@irish_lucy wrote:

@irish_lucy wrote:

well if your girlfriend really is only 14/15 i can see why YOU dont want your pc being looked at.

I do agree with not signing the ACTA but this was and still is my point to this thread.
See the IF now i even put it on bold for you.

And I also replied to your daft attempt of trolling.

Grow up, Lucy and stop spouting sh*te. So you’re OK with violations of human rights & invasion of privacy? What next, going to make lies up about everyone who is against genocide? Besides, what has that got to do with films, music & software? The corporations aren’t concerned with such trivial stuff as who you chat to. You could have the Anarchist’s Cook Book on your HD for all they care and they’d ignore it, they’re only interested in whether you have software/music/videos on there.

There’s nothing illegal on my computer, except perhaps a handful of MP3s.

[Tom]

http://www.osnews.com/story/22980/European_Parliament_Opposes_ACTA_Votes_Wednesday

We have some very, very good news for Europeans (which happens to include myself): we have the European Parliament on our sides when it comes to battling ACTA. If you may recall, ACTA is basically an attempt by the US to impose upon the rest of the world draconian measures like three strikes laws and the DMCA. All parties within the European Parliament have together put forth a resolution that would effectively tackle ACTA.
Thanks to the Lisboa Treaty, the European Parliament has gained a number of key authorities, with a consequence of that being that the ACTA would have to go through Parliament first before it would ever go into effect. The resolution reminds the European Commission of that fact.

The resolution demands a whole boatload of things, all of which are extremely beneficial to us as European consumers. First of all: transparency. All negotiations, up until now done in secret, behind closed doors, must be conducted in the open, and any results, whether past, present, or future, must be made accessible to both Parliament and the public. The resolution demands that this very point be brought to the table at the next round of ACTA talks in April, 2010, in New Zealand.

Failure to comply to these demands means Parliament will possibly take the case to court. “The European Parliament stresses that, unless the Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, Parliament reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives,” the resolution reads.

The resolution also goes into great detail, in stern words, about what ACTA may not be about. ACTA calls for the authority to search people’s laptops and other digital devices at the borders to check for copyright infringement; the resolution strictly prohibits any such activity. The resolution further forbids any form of three strikes laws.

“If there is to be an ACTA agreement, the parliament wants it to be about combating goods counterfeiting (i.e.: fake Rolexes and hand bags, fake Viagra on the net, fake cigarettes that are even more harmful that proper ones etc.),” writes Christian Engström, MEP for Piratpartiet, Sweden, “It should not be about restricting our fundamental civil liberties on the net.“

The resolution will go to vote tomorrow, so there’s still a chance it will be shot down, but seeing as all but one party already support it, things are looking up. It looks like the European Parliament is not as easily corrupted as the European Commission apparently is (seeing it entered into the secret ACTA talks in the first place), and I’m happy such an overwhelming majority helped draft this resolution.

Let’s hope we Europeans get to hold on to our civil liberties on the net – at least until the next backhanded attempt by the content industry to shove US law down our throats.

[Tom]

ACTA Violates Fundamental Human Rights
posted by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Oct 2011 13:31 UTC

A few days ago, several countries signed ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. As you are probably aware, ACTA was drafted up in secret, and is basically Obama/Biden’s attempt to impose the US’ draconian pro-big business/big content protection laws on the rest of the world (‘sign it, or else’). The European Parliament still has to vote on it, and as such, Douwe Korff, professor of international law at the London Metropolitan University, and Ian Brown senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, performed a 90-page study, with a harsh conclusion: ACTA violates fundamental human rights.
The Greens in the European Parliament, together with Korff, presented the result during a press conference today. You can watch the press conference as a video-on-demand, including the questions-and-answer sessions which followed, and you can download the full 90-page study as well.

Green MEP Jan Phillip Albrecht summarises the study’s findings – and it ain’t pretty. “As the study points out, encouraging the ‘cooperation’ between internet providers and the content industry amounts to privatised policing, violating the rule of law and the right to fair judicial process. ACTA also allows for the monitoring of internet users without initial suspicion, the handing over of their personal data to rights holders on the basis of mere claims and the transfer of this data even to countries without adequate data protection, all of which is in clear conflict with legal guarantees of fundamental rights in the EU,” he states, “The agreement does not contain ‘fair use’ clauses or exceptions for trivial or minimal infringements. It therefore tilts the balance – both in terms of substance and of process – unfairly in favour of rights holders and against users and citizens.”

The final conclusion from the study itself isn’t much rosier. “Overall, ACTA tilts the balance of IPR protection manifestly unfairly towards one group of beneficiaries of the right to property, IP right holders, and unfairly against others. It equally disproportionately interferes with a range of other fundamental rights, and provides or allows for the determination of such rights in procedures that fail to allow for the taking into account of the different, competing interests, but rather, stack all the weight at one end,” the study concludes, “This makes the entire Agreement, in our opinion, incompatible with fundamental European human rights instruments and -standards.”

Of course, most of us already knew this (except for irish lucy and the-slave-of-his-masters on JC), but it’s always good to have a detailed study from a reputable source to point to whenever you enter into a discussion about this topic. ACTA is pure, concentrated evil in liquid form, and I find it inconceivable that anyone would support this – other than big business and big content, of course.

[Author]

Posts