You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Dropbox, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, damages, losses and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of or in any way connected with: (i) your access to or use of the Site, Content, Files and Services; (ii) your violation of this Agreement; (iii) your violation of any third party right, including without limitation any intellectual property right, including but not limited to right of attribution, publicity, confidentiality, property or privacy right; or (iv) any claim that Your Files, or your use of Files, caused damage to a third party, including without limitation claims that Your Files, or use of Files, infringe the rights of another.
If somebody files an absolutely baseless lawsuit against Dropbox relating to the stuff you keep on Dropbox, you're promising to pay all of Dropbox's legal expenses defending that lawsuit.
You're also promising to pay Dropbox for all "EXPENSES" in any way connected with your use of the Dropbox site! What the hell does that mean? Super caveat emptor baby.
Here's the liability exclusion language:
IN NO EVENT WILL DROPBOX BE LIABLE TO YOU OR TO ANY THIRD PARTY FOR DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING LOSS OF USE, DATA, BUSINESS OR PROFITS) ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT, OR FROM YOUR ACCESS TO OR USE OF, OR INABILITY TO ACCESS OR USE, THE SITE, CONTENT, FILES AND/OR SERVICES, OR FOR ANY ERROR OR DEFECT IN THE SITE, CONTENT, FILES OR SERVICES, WHETHER SUCH LIABILITY ARISES FROM ANY CLAIM BASED UPON CONTRACT, WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, WHETHER OR NOT DROPBOX HAS BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE, EVEN IF A REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DROPBOX IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF OTHER USERS OR THIRD PARTIES AND THAT THE RISK OF INJURY FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH YOU. FURTHER, DROPBOX WILL HAVE NO LIABILITY TO YOU OR TO ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY THIRD PARTY CONTENT UPLOADED ONTO OR DOWNLOADED FROM THE SITE OR THROUGH THE SERVICES AND/OR THE FILES, OR IF YOUR DATA IS LOST, CORRUPTED OR EXPOSED TO UNINTENDED THIRD PARTIES.
FREE ACCOUNT HOLDERS: YOU AGREE THAT THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF DROPBOX TO YOU FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE USE OF THE SITE, CONTENT, FILES AND/OR SERVICES IS LIMITED TO TWENTY ($20) U.S. DOLLARS. THE LIMITATIONS OF DAMAGES SET FORTH ABOVE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN DROPBOX AND YOU.
PREMIUM ACCOUNT HOLDERS: YOU AGREE THAT THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF DROPBOX TO YOU FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE USE OF THE SITE, CONTENT, FILES AND/OR SERVICES IS LIMITED TO LOWER OF THE AMOUNTS YOU HAVE PAID TO DROPBOX DURING THE THREE MONTH PERIOD PRIOR TO SUCH CLAIM, FOR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SITE, CONTENT, FILES OR SERVICES, OR ONE-HUNDRED ($100) DOLLARS. THE LIMITATIONS OF DAMAGES SET FORTH ABOVE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN DROPBOX AND YOU.
Note that you can't sue them if your data is exposed to unintended third parties. Doesn't that make their privacy policy totally toothless?
Submit to Trusted Critic Overlords (TCOs) who are supervised by an Almighty Board of Governors (ABG) and guided by Principles of Meaningful Dialog (PMG). Enable Significant Gratification Disbursals (SGDs) to meaningful contributors and Access Denial Impositions (ADIs) to people who are absolute fucking morons. In short, create a bureaucracy to supplant the chaos! That would be way better now, wouldn't it?
Put tools in the hands of intelligent data miners ("historians," for want of a better word) so that they can get the good stuff out to the people. In other words, your tweeters/facebookers are like "reporters"--they get the frontline material. The "historians" then find, digest, and interpret the material that is flowing past them. Eventually, reporters (seeking attention and validation) will provide information to the historians, who can make sense of it all. This is a big gain for the end user. The historians will be exploited by greedy pigs (i.e., that vile Huffington woman) who can make a lot of money off them and the reporters. The reporters get nothing and a few historians earn a living. How about that?
The creation of a news/analysis model that fairly rewards (non-moronic) reporters and historians is the holy grail. Unfortunately, the rapacious Huffingtons of the world always need to take more than their share. To protect the reporters and the historians, you'd need to have a model that had ZERO barriers to entry. That way, they couldn't be ripped off by the Huffingtons of the world--they could just move on to another cluster of reporters/historians. The base problem is finding leadership that is not out to rip the reporters and historians off.
Worry about stabilizing the regional governments first and then worry about upgrading them to first world farming techniques.
Keeping those who know how to farm alive and on the land they know how to farm will be necessary to make new equipment have any lasting effect.
That's paternalistic nonsense--and an excuse for doing nothing. An open hardware spec doesn't hurt anything, and it just might help some people. Progress is not linear. Oftentimes it requires a combination of things to interact at the right time. These people are helpfully adding to the mix. Besides, change imposed on third world countries from the outside has no good history of success.
I applaud these people for trying to help create the tools that some innovative African users can use.
If the DRM stays memory-resident on a person's computer while they are NOT using the game, then I have no problems whatsoever with people pirating the software.
For the content companies, this is a battle to retain control over the things they sell. For the hackers, it is a battle to be able to freely use the things they have purchased. Tension is inevitable. There will be other battles, on other days.
We need to focus on developing an energy source that powers self-replicating robots that are capable of building more self-replicating robots, more energy sources, and (especially) the facilities necessary to sustain human life. This is an amazing challenge.
We should build the hotel on the other planet before we send the guests.
You're actually arguing welfare via military service? That is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Take the money spent on soldiers and spend it on employing scientists and infrastructure builders.
The military is a vast money dump right now. It has so much extra money that we're wasting it on dumbass wars in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan--all at the same time.
Government's a lot like religion. It's done so many bad things that a huge amount of ignorant people think the world would be better off without it. If you care at all to get your head out of your ass, you'll realize that it's done an incredible amount of unequaled good, too, between its short spurts of horrifically bad, though.
Also like religion, it's a basic need of the world at large. Try as you might to replace it with something else or even nothing it all, it'll always come creeping back in/ Even in tribal societies there are village elders.
Human beings need to organize. We're social creatures. When we organize in groups, it is imperative that we defend ourselves from incursions from other groups. Otherwise, the other groups will take our stuff and we will perish. The most basic groups, like the tribe, are readily destroyed by the more organized groups (like the genocide practiced on the American Indians). Big groups are subject to fragmentation (see the American Civil War). Government is never a static thing, it is a practical, seat-of-the-pants human thing.
Arguing whether government is good is like arguing whether the atmosphere is good. We need both.
Make something that violates a software patent, then file a declaratory judgment action seeking to determine the invalidity of the patent--after you've built up a big war chest. Come at the opponent (MS, IBM, Oracle, etc.) Straight On.
Why not? The corporations always avoid the showdown out of self-interest.
This could be a real big software patent showdown. Two corporate behemoths, loaded to the gills with money, prepared to fight the software patent battle down to the bloody bitter end.
I can only dream. To me patenting a streaming format is like patenting a spoken language. A company cannot patent how I program my mind; they shouldn't be able to patent how I program my computer. This is a basic liberty question.
Slashdot Mirror
Make sure your flanks are secure before you launch an attack.
Here's Dropbox's indemnity language:
You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Dropbox, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, damages, losses and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of or in any way connected with: (i) your access to or use of the Site, Content, Files and Services; (ii) your violation of this Agreement; (iii) your violation of any third party right, including without limitation any intellectual property right, including but not limited to right of attribution, publicity, confidentiality, property or privacy right; or (iv) any claim that Your Files, or your use of Files, caused damage to a third party, including without limitation claims that Your Files, or use of Files, infringe the rights of another.
If somebody files an absolutely baseless lawsuit against Dropbox relating to the stuff you keep on Dropbox, you're promising to pay all of Dropbox's legal expenses defending that lawsuit.
You're also promising to pay Dropbox for all "EXPENSES" in any way connected with your use of the Dropbox site! What the hell does that mean? Super caveat emptor baby.
Here's the liability exclusion language:
IN NO EVENT WILL DROPBOX BE LIABLE TO YOU OR TO ANY THIRD PARTY FOR DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING LOSS OF USE, DATA, BUSINESS OR PROFITS) ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT, OR FROM YOUR ACCESS TO OR USE OF, OR INABILITY TO ACCESS OR USE, THE SITE, CONTENT, FILES AND/OR SERVICES, OR FOR ANY ERROR OR DEFECT IN THE SITE, CONTENT, FILES OR SERVICES, WHETHER SUCH LIABILITY ARISES FROM ANY CLAIM BASED UPON CONTRACT, WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, WHETHER OR NOT DROPBOX HAS BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE, EVEN IF A REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN IS FOUND TO HAVE FAILED OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DROPBOX IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF OTHER USERS OR THIRD PARTIES AND THAT THE RISK OF INJURY FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH YOU. FURTHER, DROPBOX WILL HAVE NO LIABILITY TO YOU OR TO ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY THIRD PARTY CONTENT UPLOADED ONTO OR DOWNLOADED FROM THE SITE OR THROUGH THE SERVICES AND/OR THE FILES, OR IF YOUR DATA IS LOST, CORRUPTED OR EXPOSED TO UNINTENDED THIRD PARTIES.
FREE ACCOUNT HOLDERS: YOU AGREE THAT THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF DROPBOX TO YOU FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE USE OF THE SITE, CONTENT, FILES AND/OR SERVICES IS LIMITED TO TWENTY ($20) U.S. DOLLARS. THE LIMITATIONS OF DAMAGES SET FORTH ABOVE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN DROPBOX AND YOU.
PREMIUM ACCOUNT HOLDERS: YOU AGREE THAT THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF DROPBOX TO YOU FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE USE OF THE SITE, CONTENT, FILES AND/OR SERVICES IS LIMITED TO LOWER OF THE AMOUNTS YOU HAVE PAID TO DROPBOX DURING THE THREE MONTH PERIOD PRIOR TO SUCH CLAIM, FOR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SITE, CONTENT, FILES OR SERVICES, OR ONE-HUNDRED ($100) DOLLARS. THE LIMITATIONS OF DAMAGES SET FORTH ABOVE ARE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN DROPBOX AND YOU.
Note that you can't sue them if your data is exposed to unintended third parties. Doesn't that make their privacy policy totally toothless?
Submit to Trusted Critic Overlords (TCOs) who are supervised by an Almighty Board of Governors (ABG) and guided by Principles of Meaningful Dialog (PMG). Enable Significant Gratification Disbursals (SGDs) to meaningful contributors and Access Denial Impositions (ADIs) to people who are absolute fucking morons. In short, create a bureaucracy to supplant the chaos! That would be way better now, wouldn't it?
Put tools in the hands of intelligent data miners ("historians," for want of a better word) so that they can get the good stuff out to the people. In other words, your tweeters/facebookers are like "reporters"--they get the frontline material. The "historians" then find, digest, and interpret the material that is flowing past them. Eventually, reporters (seeking attention and validation) will provide information to the historians, who can make sense of it all. This is a big gain for the end user. The historians will be exploited by greedy pigs (i.e., that vile Huffington woman) who can make a lot of money off them and the reporters. The reporters get nothing and a few historians earn a living. How about that?
The creation of a news/analysis model that fairly rewards (non-moronic) reporters and historians is the holy grail. Unfortunately, the rapacious Huffingtons of the world always need to take more than their share. To protect the reporters and the historians, you'd need to have a model that had ZERO barriers to entry. That way, they couldn't be ripped off by the Huffingtons of the world--they could just move on to another cluster of reporters/historians. The base problem is finding leadership that is not out to rip the reporters and historians off.
Worry about stabilizing the regional governments first and then worry about upgrading them to first world farming techniques.
Keeping those who know how to farm alive and on the land they know how to farm will be necessary to make new equipment have any lasting effect.
That's paternalistic nonsense--and an excuse for doing nothing. An open hardware spec doesn't hurt anything, and it just might help some people. Progress is not linear. Oftentimes it requires a combination of things to interact at the right time. These people are helpfully adding to the mix. Besides, change imposed on third world countries from the outside has no good history of success.
I applaud these people for trying to help create the tools that some innovative African users can use.
I'm really hoping for a decentralized social networking system, where everything is not controlled by the Big Head.
Many people unknowingly confess to copyright violations in their You Tube postings.
They say things like: "I don't own this. It is owned by ViaNBCBS." That is like a total admission of guilt.
They need Copyright School to keep them away from civil liability!!
If the DRM stays memory-resident on a person's computer while they are NOT using the game, then I have no problems whatsoever with people pirating the software.
In all other respects, I agree with you.
The mushroom argument sways me. When somebody sends poisons into my garden, I tend to get concerned.
People would miss Kansas. It has some of the best dirt in the world. From dirt comes food.
Nothing was settled here. There is no precedent.
For the content companies, this is a battle to retain control over the things they sell. For the hackers, it is a battle to be able to freely use the things they have purchased. Tension is inevitable. There will be other battles, on other days.
That's pretty naive. The "cloud" will essentially require you to waive your right to sue if you use the cloud.
Wrap your head around that.
We need to focus on developing an energy source that powers self-replicating robots that are capable of building more self-replicating robots, more energy sources, and (especially) the facilities necessary to sustain human life. This is an amazing challenge.
We should build the hotel on the other planet before we send the guests.
You're actually arguing welfare via military service? That is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Take the money spent on soldiers and spend it on employing scientists and infrastructure builders.
The military is a vast money dump right now. It has so much extra money that we're wasting it on dumbass wars in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan--all at the same time.
Sorry . . . Fascism has been copyrighted, trademarked, and patented. Nobody can use it anymore.
Government's a lot like religion. It's done so many bad things that a huge amount of ignorant people think the world would be better off without it. If you care at all to get your head out of your ass, you'll realize that it's done an incredible amount of unequaled good, too, between its short spurts of horrifically bad, though.
Also like religion, it's a basic need of the world at large. Try as you might to replace it with something else or even nothing it all, it'll always come creeping back in/ Even in tribal societies there are village elders.
Human beings need to organize. We're social creatures. When we organize in groups, it is imperative that we defend ourselves from incursions from other groups. Otherwise, the other groups will take our stuff and we will perish. The most basic groups, like the tribe, are readily destroyed by the more organized groups (like the genocide practiced on the American Indians). Big groups are subject to fragmentation (see the American Civil War). Government is never a static thing, it is a practical, seat-of-the-pants human thing.
Arguing whether government is good is like arguing whether the atmosphere is good. We need both.
Hotz=hacker
Anonymous=cracker
Summary shouldn't lump both together as hackers.
What's up with the open-source privacy-oriented project that was touted so fervently here awhile back? Are they producing anything useful?
Make something that violates a software patent, then file a declaratory judgment action seeking to determine the invalidity of the patent--after you've built up a big war chest. Come at the opponent (MS, IBM, Oracle, etc.) Straight On.
Why not? The corporations always avoid the showdown out of self-interest.
Who cares about protecting jerks who steal and copy? That's not what the hate about software patents is all about.
Software patents are hated because they limit the personal freedom of any person to independently write his or her own code.
Thanks. I stand corrected.
This could be a real big software patent showdown. Two corporate behemoths, loaded to the gills with money, prepared to fight the software patent battle down to the bloody bitter end.
I can only dream. To me patenting a streaming format is like patenting a spoken language. A company cannot patent how I program my mind; they shouldn't be able to patent how I program my computer. This is a basic liberty question.
You must learn to accept tautology as tautology if you hope to understand CrazyDuke.
Thanks. I couldn't complete my Niven studies because the third Ringworld book sucked.
Why that's sensational!
I've listened to Rand Paul. He actually believes that the marketplace should be completely left alone. Leaving Wall Street alone is a terrifying idea.