Main > Everything Else

Just installed XBMC on my iPad

<< < (7/15) > >>

ark_ader:

--- Quote from: shmokes on February 12, 2011, 05:00:07 pm ---
--- Quote from: ark_ader on February 12, 2011, 04:27:14 pm ---

--- Quote ---By the way, the horse pointdablame referred to was of the metaphorical variety.  I don't think your experience at your brother's Nevada ranch will help you much.
--- End quote ---

As was mine on the Constitution.   ::)



--- End quote ---

As was your what?  You were referring to a hypothetical constitution, or your brother's ranch was hypothetical?  I sincerely don't know what you're talking about.

And I did tell you where it says jailbreaking an iPad is legal.  When it comes to jailbreaking an iDevice there is nothing significant about the fact that there is a CDMA or GSM chip in it.  For unlocking, yes, for jailbreaking, none whatsoever.  An iPod touch is an iPhone aside from that one little chip.  I, and any competent lawyer, would counsel a jailbreaker that they were almost definitely perfectly safe to jailbreak those devices to their heart's content because it is now defacto legal.  Apple would never sue them (because Apple employs equally competent lawyers who know how to read laws and regs and cases, etc.) and if they did a judge would never side with them because to do so would be to make the law an ass.  

--- End quote ---

References?  Lets see them.

Otherwise it is:

All heresay your honour.

All I see is your opinion, nothing tangible that one can read and relate to.  You have not submitted one scrap of evidence to back up your theory.  And you call yourself a lawyer?

I hope your mentor isn't reading this.  :laugh2:

Seriously, Shmokes I think you need to provide something that will provide some insight to your argument.  So far your responses are becoming predictable.

May I suggest you refrain from responding until you have found a firm foundation to base your argument on.  I want to see fact not fiction.

You did not answer my Consitutution question, let me know if I am asking too much of you at this time.  


--- Quote ---As was your what?  You were referring to a hypothetical constitution, or your brother's ranch was hypothetical?  I sincerely don't know what you're talking about.
--- End quote ---

You knew very well what I was referring to.   ::)

I will help you Shmokes.  I read my post and it was very much one-sided.  You have no responsibility to respond to me nor do I have the right to ask you to defend yourself as you have not actually demonstrated that you have done this act. As Pointdablame as pointed out it is all hypothetical.

So here is an excerpt of the ruling and if anyone can point out the related word, just dont keep it to yourself - just jump up and down and scream it out loud to the computer screen:



2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.



3)Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.


 


Edit: cannot spell tonight.

shmokes:

--- Quote from: ark_ader on February 12, 2011, 04:27:14 pm ---
Pop quiz:  Why was the Constitution of the United States  created in the first place?  What did it protect in regards to our discussion?


--- End quote ---

Lol . . . this question?  I thought that was rhetorical.  Um, the First Amendment protects our freedom to have this discussion.  One section empowers Congress to legislate copyright.  LMAO.  If you have something to say why don't you just say it?

If the world worked the way you think it works there would be no need for lawyers.  Nobody would employ lawyers for legal advice.  And there would be no such thing as appellate courts.  Facts would be established by trial courts and the law would simply be applied to those facts.  Appellate courts do nothing other than correct errors of law (i.e. interpret the law).  They don't touch the facts as found by the lower court.  You don't get to introduce new evidence or just claim that the lower court drew the wrong conclusion from the facts.  The appellate court is there just to tell you whether the laws were interpreted and applied correctly by the lower court.  Honestly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, you have no idea what hearsay is.  You might want to remedy that before using it in a sentence again--especially a sentence meant to convey your intellectual superiority.

ark_ader:

--- Quote from: shmokes on February 12, 2011, 06:35:05 pm ---
--- Quote from: ark_ader on February 12, 2011, 04:27:14 pm ---
Pop quiz:  Why was the Constitution of the United States  created in the first place?  What did it protect in regards to our discussion?


--- End quote ---

Lol . . . this question?  I thought that was rhetorical.  Um, the First Amendment protects our freedom to have this discussion.  One section empowers Congress to legislate copyright.  LMAO.  If you have something to say why don't you just say it?

If the world worked the way you think it works there would be no need for lawyers.  Nobody would employ lawyers for legal advice.  And there would be no such thing as appellate courts.  Facts would be established by trial courts and the law would simply be applied to those facts.  Appellate courts do nothing other than correct errors of law (i.e. interpret the law).  They don't touch the facts as found by the lower court.  You don't get to introduce new evidence or just claim that the lower court drew the wrong conclusion from the facts.  The appellate court is there just to tell you whether the laws were interpreted and applied correctly by the lower court.  Honestly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, you have no idea what hearsay is.  You might want to remedy that before using it in a sentence again--especially a sentence meant to convey your intellectual superiority.

--- End quote ---

What I do know is that you have ducked my question several times and you have not provided any factual information or references to back up your claim that it is legal to jailbreak an iPad.  I have provided references.  I have shown you where your argument is void.  All I see is your incompetence in responding to my question.  All you can do is attack my responses, trying to change the subject, making me look small.  Shame on you.

Shmokes - are you really a lawyer or just an armchair Perry Mason?   :laugh2:

With your response the option of legal advice, I would have to be directed to someone with more legal experience.  If I had you representing me, I know I would be going into the court room half-cocked.

So far you have only proven your ignorance on the matter. Perhaps you should ask a colleague with more common sense experience on the subject, and again please provide references to your argument for the rest of us to follow.

Oh and please do remind us that an ipad is a telephone, by nature and by manufacture, with your evidence to back up your claims.

We await your informed answer.

shmokes:

--- Quote from: ark_ader on February 13, 2011, 07:10:10 am ---

Shmokes - are you really a lawyer or just an armchair Perry Mason?   :laugh2:



--- End quote ---

Um . . . your bringing up legal qualifications?  That doesn't even make sense.  Are you a lawyer?

Anyway, I've explained my position to you.  The whole world, including Apple, behaves as though they agree with me.  And either way, I don't care any more than I care that I almost never come to a full stop in front of a stop sign before then rolling up to the intersection.  I didn't create this thread to talk about how you can easily steal software with a jailbroken iDevice.  We're talking about XBMC, which is legal and only compatible with jailbroken iDevices.

Stop acting like a ten year old.  Saint's a big boy.  He can take care of himself.

ark_ader:
We are not talking about Saint, or me, we are talking about you and your inability to back up your statements.

You see, you made a bold statement, which you seem to have difficulty backing up otherwise you would have done so by now. 

This is a shame, as I thought you would be eager to prove your point.  The fact that you have not done so only proves that are in the wrong.  Not a good start is it?

Take some advice:  Do whatever you like, just don't brag about it on a website, which opens you up to criticism, especially ones you have difficulty proving.

Now whenever you respond to a post, I have to remind myself you might not be who you appear to be, except maybe a Perry Mason wannabe.   :lol

How dissapointing.  I thought you had some legal insight, some legal mumbo jumbo to dazzle us with, yet you chose to duck and dive the answer time and time again.  Nothing referenced, nothing factual - just your opinion.

I suggest that you leave the tech legalities of the modern world to those who are more capable and go watch some Perry Mason episodes instead.

You might learn something  :laugh2:


Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version