My house isn't movable. To move it would destroy it, unless we spent more on moving the house than I did on buying it. So, like it or not, the HOA gets to say what I do with my house. (And no, I don't like it.) I can't reasonably avoid it by moving my house. That was a technical restriction you where aware of before you purchased. Just like Nintendo doesn't give you the means to play third-party games. What the HOA can't do, and Nintendo shouldn't be able to do, is prevent you from resolving those technical limitations if you so desire.
Some contracts are written in such a way that they can be amended in the future, usually only by one party. They have to send you notice, and you can either cancel the service or do nothing, and doing nothing means you agree to the terms. This is very popular for credit card contracts, for example. It sucks for the consumer, as most don't bother to even read the new terms, and even if you do there's little you can do about it except leave, but it's the way things are. But here we aren't talking about changing a contract for future purchase, we're talking about adding restrictions to a purchased item after the item was purchased without those restrictions. To use your example, a credit card company can change your contract and increase your future rate, but they can't make that rate change retro-active. Nintendo may, as you said, require buyers to agree not to mod their console _before_ they purchase, but they shouldn't be allowed to impose that restriction on those who bought their consoles without having to make that agreement.
As a mentioned in another reply, you don't sign away your rights to build a fence, you sign away your rights to build a fence in the HOA's neighborhood. Furthermore, either you agree to give the HOA the right to decided on that when you purchased the house, or some previous owner did and no longer has the ability to give you that right. Either way, the purchase agreement should have declared that the right to put up a fence was not conveyed to you as part of the purchase. If there was no HOA when you purchased your house, then one cannot come along after the fact and tell you that you cannot build a fence, because you already had that right and did not consent to giving it away.
You seem to be forgetting these things called `contracts'. You most certainly can sell a house that includes certain conditions that are part of the sales contract. I could sell you a house with the conditions that you not have any pets or leave the house unattended, and once you signed the contract, you'd be bound to those restrictions. If you didn't like it, you would walk away, or negotiate with me about the clause. Good counter-argument, except that the only "contract" agreement you make when buying a Nintendo is between you and the entity you are buying from, and the only conditions of that contract are that you pay a given price, and they give you a product that works as advertised. After that, you get into the legally murky area of the "EULA". Imagine that you bought a house, and there are no pet restrictions in your contract. Then you walk into the house for the first time after buying it, and there is a piece of paper in the living room that says by entering and occupying the house, you implicity agree to a whole new list of restrictions, like not having pets, that were not a part of the contract you signed to obtain the house. Essentially the seller is trying to impose restrictions on the use of something he no longer owns, rather than placing those restrictions before the sale, while he still had the right to do so.
And this sort of thing happens all the time with house sales. One big example? HOAs, and you tend to agree to their rules when you buy the house. If you don't, you can't buy the house. (HOAs are evil, yes, but they are real too.) Actually an HOA can only dictate what you do with your house within the confines of the neighborhood. You can legally take your house somewhere else and be free of the HOA regulations, so they don't so much control what you do with your house (individually owned), they just control what you do in their neighborhood (collectively owned). Nintendo could, for example, disallow modded consoles on their network service (Microsoft I believe already does), because they own the network service. But they no longer own the console after they sell it to you, and can't add further restrictions to something they don't own.
If you rent a house, you sign a form to say you will not do X, Y and Z, maybe not to have any pets, or leave the house unattended. I believe the parent was claiming that if you *buy* the house, then *you* should have the right to decide if you have pets, not the seller. Once you sell somebody a house, you no longer have the rights to dictate what they can and cannot do with the house, because you sold the rights to them. Why shouldn't the same common sense apply to electronics?
They designed, financed and made the product, it's up to them to determine the terms under which they offer it for sale. That's the thing though, they can dictate the terms of the sale, but should the be able to dictate the terms of use? No non-media product I can think of dictates how you can use what you buy. Toyota doesn't care if I mod my car, or who's gasoline I put in it, why should Nintento care what you put in your DS?
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
To get DRM-less content, they need to:
know that a crack exits
know how to get it
khow how to use it
AND...feel as though it was really worth it to go through all that trouble so they can avoid paying for someone else's work.
Or, you can just get a DRM-free copy from somebody who did meet all of those requirements. DRM fails not because it can't stop casual copying, which you accurately point out it can, it fails because it can't stop casual redistribution once the first copy is made.
My second-to-last recruitment company wanted my resume in.Doc, and I later learned that was because they stripped my contact information and replaced it with their own. I guess that's so their client wouldn't be able to contact me directly, but they ended up screwing up the format and making my resume look like amateurish crap. Thankfully their client knew it was the recruiter's fault and didn't think I was simply unable to make a simple document.
Now, my last recruitment company got my resume in PDF only.
In my experience, not so good at fast searching (especially with wildcards) and lots of data, but I guess that all depends on your LDAP implementation.
MySQL might be OK for small (single-user) installs It seems to be working well enough for Google and Wikipedia, so I'd have to say it has both stability and speed, even under heavy use.
Firefox is passing stuff from webpages directly to the operating system. That's bad design. No, that is how it is supposed to work. You don't want Firefox mangling your URL before it passes it to the program you expect to assigned it. At most, Firefox should verify that the URL is valid, but this flaw uses VALID URLs, so even that wouldn't protect you.
Firefox is calling the operating system with user-supplied data without checking if it's safe. That's stupid. Firefox is passing a valid user-supplied URL string to Windows, to be passed on to another program. At this point, it is safe. Windows is turning around and allowing that URL to launch an arbitrary program instead of the program assigned to the URL's scheme, this is the part that is unsafe. Notice that this happens after Firefox is no longer involved.
Stop bashing Microsoft, loonie. Determining the root cause of a security flaw is "bashing" now? Would you rather leave the hole wide open and just say it's nobody's fault?
Firefox is passing a _VALID_ URL to the Window's URL handler, which is incorrectly parsing the URL. Firefox is not passing commands, Firefox is passing a URL, which Windows then runs as a command, instead of passing it as an argument to the program assigned to handle URLs of that scheme like it is supposed to (and like it does if you have IE 6 installed). This is a Microsoft flaw.
Since the URL's have the same effect if they are launched from the Windows Start menu, and presumably from any application that passes URLs to Window's URL handler, I don't see how this is Firefox's fault. Combine that with the fact that the URL is valid (%00 is valid URL encoding), and the fact that the flaw only exists when IE7 is installed, and you have a very hard time blaming Firefox for this.
That said, I completely agree with you on the firefoxurl: flaw.
Thanks for the clarification. I know I could have read the license, I was just being lazy. I knew someone would tell me anyway, that's what I love about slashdot.
The GPL3'd GCC can still compile programs that use ANY license, just as the GPL'd GCC can do today. The only difference is that you will not be allowed to run the GPL3'd GCC on a device that doesn't comply with the GPL V3's requirements. Just a minor correction to an otherwise informative post. You will be able to run GPLv3 code on a device that doesn't comply with the GPLv3's requirements, you just won't be able to distribute GPLv3 code on that device. The GPL (v2 or v3) doesn't stop you from modifying or running it however you want, it only puts requirements on your distribution.
The compilers don't matter... what does matter is that GPL3 code is incompatible with GPL2 code so you cannot copy this code into GPL3 programs you write unless Intel re-licenses it as GPL2/GPL3 code. If they never change the license on it, welcome to the software divide created by the FSF in their zeal to make the GPL3 incompatible with GPL2. It depends on if Intel licensed this code "under the GPL version 2" or "under the GPL version 2 or (at your option) any later version". If they included the "any later version" option, then it can be included into the GPLv3 GCC. If not, then your statement is correct.
Gimp has been the de facto standard for a long long time, and it still works very well for a lot of people's needs. Krita is relatively new, and has come a long way in a very short amount of time.
Have you tried Krita? It's a part of the KOffice suite, but I think it handles up to 32 bit and has CMYK and color profile support. Also, have you tried Gimp 2.3? I think it's added some more of these things that have been missing.
I've actually had more trouble with Thunderbird than Evolution. Especially since Thunderbird searching was dropped from Beagle, I've been favoring Evolution.
Virtual Desktops Bash (not sure what shells OS X comes with) Beagle (no sure how spotlight compares) Apt Beryl (ok, not really a need, but a definite want) Evolution
Microsoft selling Windows Legacy looks suspiciously similar Coke selling Coke Classic. Tell everyone they like "New Coke", realize the don't, and start selling "Coke Classic". Tell everyone they like "Vista", realize they don't, and then sell "Windows Legacy." Actually, numerous taste tests showed overwhelmingly that people did like the taste of "New Coke" more than "Classic". "New Coke" didn't fail because of taste.
That is the opposite of the article's suggestion. The article suggests that the "business line" be the legacy version that doesn't get any new features, and the "consumer line" be the main focus of future Windows development.
Slashdot Mirror
As a mentioned in another reply, you don't sign away your rights to build a fence, you sign away your rights to build a fence in the HOA's neighborhood. Furthermore, either you agree to give the HOA the right to decided on that when you purchased the house, or some previous owner did and no longer has the ability to give you that right. Either way, the purchase agreement should have declared that the right to put up a fence was not conveyed to you as part of the purchase. If there was no HOA when you purchased your house, then one cannot come along after the fact and tell you that you cannot build a fence, because you already had that right and did not consent to giving it away.
To get DRM-less content, they need to:
- know that a crack exits
- know how to get it
- khow how to use it
- AND...feel as though it was really worth it to go through all that trouble so they can avoid paying for someone else's work.
Or, you can just get a DRM-free copy from somebody who did meet all of those requirements. DRM fails not because it can't stop casual copying, which you accurately point out it can, it fails because it can't stop casual redistribution once the first copy is made.Yeah, but do you really think the recruitment company knows about them?
My second-to-last recruitment company wanted my resume in .Doc, and I later learned that was because they stripped my contact information and replaced it with their own. I guess that's so their client wouldn't be able to contact me directly, but they ended up screwing up the format and making my resume look like amateurish crap. Thankfully their client knew it was the recruiter's fault and didn't think I was simply unable to make a simple document.
Now, my last recruitment company got my resume in PDF only.
In my experience, not so good at fast searching (especially with wildcards) and lots of data, but I guess that all depends on your LDAP implementation.
Still, LDAP isn't a database.
Firefox is passing a _VALID_ URL to the Window's URL handler, which is incorrectly parsing the URL. Firefox is not passing commands, Firefox is passing a URL, which Windows then runs as a command, instead of passing it as an argument to the program assigned to handle URLs of that scheme like it is supposed to (and like it does if you have IE 6 installed). This is a Microsoft flaw.
Since the URL's have the same effect if they are launched from the Windows Start menu, and presumably from any application that passes URLs to Window's URL handler, I don't see how this is Firefox's fault. Combine that with the fact that the URL is valid (%00 is valid URL encoding), and the fact that the flaw only exists when IE7 is installed, and you have a very hard time blaming Firefox for this.
That said, I completely agree with you on the firefoxurl: flaw.
Thanks for the clarification. I know I could have read the license, I was just being lazy. I knew someone would tell me anyway, that's what I love about slashdot.
Gimp has been the de facto standard for a long long time, and it still works very well for a lot of people's needs. Krita is relatively new, and has come a long way in a very short amount of time.
Have you tried Krita? It's a part of the KOffice suite, but I think it handles up to 32 bit and has CMYK and color profile support. Also, have you tried Gimp 2.3? I think it's added some more of these things that have been missing.
I've actually had more trouble with Thunderbird than Evolution. Especially since Thunderbird searching was dropped from Beagle, I've been favoring Evolution.
What do you need Photoshop for? There are many Linux alternatives that fit the needs of probably 80% of Photoshop users.
I forgot middle-click to paste in my list, I try to do that all the time when I'm using windows and it drives me crazy.
For me:
Virtual Desktops
Bash (not sure what shells OS X comes with)
Beagle (no sure how spotlight compares)
Apt
Beryl (ok, not really a need, but a definite want)
Evolution
That is the opposite of the article's suggestion. The article suggests that the "business line" be the legacy version that doesn't get any new features, and the "consumer line" be the main focus of future Windows development.