You understand and agree that any unauthorized use of the Player or Content would result in irreparable injury to us and/or our affiliates or licensors for which money damages would be inadequate, and in such event we and/or licensors, as applicable, shall have the right, in addition to other remedies available at law and in equity, to immediate injunctive relief against you. Nothing contained in this paragraph or elsewhere in this document shall be construed to limit remedies or relief available pursuant to statutory or other claims that we, our affiliates and/or licensors may have under separate legal authority, including but not limited to, any claim for intellectual property infringement
Irreparable?? That's quite a strong term to use in this case. Especially if they don't know you did it it doesn't hurt them at all. That pretty much rules out irreparable in my book. Also I'm not sure how they can be damaged so that monetery reparations would be inadequate. They are a corporation, they are only there to make money, I don't think they can take you to court on the basis of emotional damage for non-compliance. Just what do they expect to do to you for copying this cd?
You agree to indemnify and hold harmless us and our agents, employees, representatives, licensors, affiliates, parents and subsidiaries from and against any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action and judgments (including attorneys' fees and court costs) (collectively "Claims") arising from or concerning your use of the Player or Content and to reimburse them on demand for any losses, costs or expenses they incur as a result of any Claims.
Ok so not only can I not sue you for any reason whatsoever, but you can charge me money if I try anyway. Basically this whole thing says if you buy this cd you are fucked, we can do whatever we want to you and you can't do a thing, but if you have the audacity to listen to this product in a way we don't approve of, we can sue you file injunctions take away your dog, or whatever we feel like.
Since when did consumers lose all of their rights as a result of buying a product?
Oh - and also think about the Battle-Bot contests on TV, and your old BattleTech and RoboTech role-playing games... Think those were just games? I don't think so
And more in line with the idea of a (close to) human sized suit, check out the power armor wearing space marines in Games Workshop's Warhammer 40k.
But a military application? Not anytime soon. Let's not forget these devices require a power source. For the few minutes of operation, they'd be great. But don't forget that adding weapons and armor will do two things: SEVERELY tax the power supply, and when the power is gone, the frame makes the soldier a sitting duck for a fair amount of time while the suit is either re-charging/fueling, or the soldier is scrambling out of the suit.
Heh ok so you make the suit bigger, several tens of tons so it can hold a huge reactor, and we'll call it a Mech, yeah baby!
Hmmm when my server fails, and locks up completely I'm willing to bet that Oracle has gone down as well, and when they power gets cut I'm almost positive. Of course there's no way to prove this case, you can make an inductively strong argument, but it's even worse than seeing what happens to the light in the refrigerator when you close it, at least in that situation you can close the fridge while you're in it.
I agree. Let me point out that the first buildings were most likely in a poorer state in their beginnings than programs were. They were certainly at least as bad, and I don't think I need to point out that the first woodepecker did NOT destroy civilization.
Anything not used as expected will cause problems, at least with code we have more room to work.
Re:The first Slashdot troll post investigation
on
KaZaa Suspends Downloads
·
· Score: 0, Interesting
Ummm if you are going to present finding based on statistics you need to post your methods and data. I could easily post a similar post that proves the opposite of your conclusions with no difficulty because you back nothing up. I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, but I'd like to see the data that you drew your conclusions from. But to address some of your points:
I have written both normal and troll posts, 1st posts, etc., both logged in and anonymously, and I have found these rather shocking results:
Statistics based only on your posts are definitely not enough. For starters, maybe you experienced more modding down because you don't post anything interesting, even when you mean to. Your assumption that there are concrete objective categories for modding is without merit. The distinction between troll and normal posts is a judgment call, if it were not the moderation system would not be needed.
even when it's not a particularly interesting or clever post [slashdot.org]. There are a LOT more +5 posts than +3 or +4.
Again, this is a judgement call, apparently it was interesting to enough people to get it modded up.
Digging deep into the history of slashdot, I found this poll [slashdot.org], which clearly indicates the vast majority does NOT want the moderation we have here today. 'nuff said.
I didn't even bother to check the results of this poll, anyone who points to a web poll as statistical evidence should have all of his conclusions immediately called into question, even if they appear to be solid, which your do not. Trying to prove anything by an easily stuffable poll is ridiculous. But for arguments sake let's say that each vote represents the opinion of one and only one person. Still the poll's accuracy is highly questionable. In fact if I were to predict the outcome of such a poll ahead of time I would have guessed that the greatest number would vote against the moderation system. Why? Because those that post anonymously or having nothing to say would have more reason to vote (negatively) since they are the ones constantly being modded down.
Of course as off topic as your post and my resultant response (damn I'll take two karma hits in one day) were I do commend you for trying.
As one final thought let me leave you with this, I disagree with the action of modding (not the fact that it exists) for the most part. But you need to remember that most likely the majority of the readers of slashdot are the young and the internet, that's a natural result of popularity and a sure reason to expect the lowest common denominator.
Somehow I doubt it. There is a distinction. I don't have to buy Red Hat off the shelf, I can download it at absolutely no cost to me, or more accurately no profit for Red Hat.
I'm not going to get into the morality of software licensing but suffice to say, whether you are paying for a license or the product itself there should be liability inferred when a corporation sells you the ability to use the software. Just as I cannot sue a University for teaching me how to use a software product, or a friend for helping me get it running or answering questions Red Hat should not be liable for code that they are not selling.
Then go somewhere else you pretentious jackass. This site is free, and you complain about it as if you're paying a monthly subscription. If you don't like the way things are discussed here, go elsewhere. I'm getting more than a little sick of seeing the 'holier than thou' posts that have sprung up more and more frequently over the last year or so. You act like you are owed something from the editors of this site. Or perhaps you have nothing better to do than troll around the weblogs all day.
This topic is kind of like abortion for me, I just can't decide which way I feel, however your statement:
If that doesn't free up any memory then neither would killing it (modulo some metadata - read on).
Is simply not true, any process may grow over time without executing a single fork, and force the system out of total memory, in that case killing the process will free up memory. I'm not saying that an OOM killer is the right way to go but you definitely need to address this part of your argument if you want to convince anyone that it's valid.
Instead of flaming the original poster for his obvious bias and lack of knowledge. I'll add another PITA revision control system... MKS. I cannot stand this piece of crap.
I have to disagree with that. Quality level implies that the products with a lower score are not as good, as you've included free software under level 0, you're immediately penalizing the best software out there because it's given away for free and they don't have the money to buy of a Quality Check Organization.
In addition, OSS and Free software would never be able to grab a significant market share in this scenario. No company would use a product that has been rated 0 by some quality control board.
Not ALL geeks need the fastest computer out there. I'm perfectly happy with running my 450 everything works great, and since I play very few games it's more than enough for coding on. Of course if I could really get a machine that cheap I'd probably do it, I am getting tired of dual boot.
Hmm, that's very interesting, I doubt it is the sole legal text that applies, but let's look at it a little mor closely.
Number one, section 108 does provide for making a copy for archival purposes. I remember reading somewhere that precedent was established that a consumer IS allowed to make a copy as a backup of their digital media, in fact in every PC game I've bought I've seen that in the EULA.
This text however, says that the collections of the library or archive MUST be open to the public. And that up to three copies may be made assuming that the original is still in possesion of the copier. Let me preface this with the fact that I know it's not that simple, but this almost gauruntees the right to rip your cd's and make them streamable in such a way that you are never transferring a whole copy of the media to the remote computer, as long as you aren't making money off of it of course. I know this is a simplistic scenario and there's a lot more that goes into it, but I am also sure that there are loopholes in the laws that protect copyright holders that are ripe for taking advantage of.
I may not be a kernel hacker, but someone else with my hardware is, and I benefit from the improvements he or she makes to the kernel. "I don't recompile applications" is not a reason to not use open source software.
Excellent, excellent point, and one which I rarely, if ever have seen brought up. Here's hoping someone with mod points takes you up a couple of notches.
I;ve been burned by those too, I forget the channel but one morning before work I was watching a cooking show, that turned out to be a half hour advertisment. Now I own a Great Wok of China.
To tell you the truth I don't know if that's the case or not, it should be. But if a company sells your name to another company for the purposes of email that's a privacy issue with the original company, not the company that attempted to contact you. Like I said before, it should all be opt in, with an implicit opt out rather than explicit.
One more note, your definition is less specific than mine which allows more emails to fall into this category. I think the word you're looking for is strict, since it cracks down on a wider range of instances.
Plenty of providers will agree with me. In a legal sense, the definition will have to be much more specific and allow for that first attempt at contact before any law will be passed. If I send out one email my provider will not drop me, because you would have no case and they want my monthly payment. I'm not saying that I like the fact that I get constant emails that I'm not interested in I don't like it either, but I'm not going to play the spam card until I can't unsubscribe.
Personally I feel that all bulk email should be opt in. I'd even tolerate unsolicited first attempts assuming that it requires me to respond positively that I want more mail from the sender, not that I need to go through steps to get myself unsubscribed.
My definition of the word is more specific than yours for the very reason that people are quick to define any mail that they aren't interested in as spam. When you have a publically accessible medium of communication you are implicitly agreeing that anyone may attempt to contact you at least once. That's just the way it is. Assuming that the headers are correct and there is a way to let the sending party know that you don't want this mail anymore AND they stop sending it, it is not spam. When there is no way to unsubscribe, or no way to contact because of forged headers then it becomes spam. It doesn't matter that it's bulk or not, that's just an attribute usually found with spam. Let me ask you this, if I repeatedly send you a mail trying to sell you something, and I've forged the headers so that you cannot contact me, and my unsubscribe link does not work, am I spamming you? What if I'm only sending to you? It's not bulk and by your definition not spam.
I agree that it was stupid, and that it becomes spam the second time he sent it out. But the spam guns were brought out WAY too early in this case. I have the right to send anyone I want mail, to attempt to contact them at least once, within reason, obviously if I'm sending you death threats it's another story, without being accused of spamming whether it's effective or not. Just like I can initiate a phone call or snail mail. It's when I repeatedly attempt to contact you after you've asked me to stop that it becomes wrong.
Not that I don't see your point, but my definition of the word spam is much more strict than yours apparently.
...but that's not Spam. The difinition on that site is entirely too loose. The mail including the headers was valid, and Niel decides after recieving one unsolicited message that it's spam. Bullshit, if I send this guy an email by mistake am I spamming him? What if I send him an email and he just isn't interested, is it spam? Just sending large numbers of the same email out IS NOT spam. Note the definition listed does not even have any criteria based on whether or not the mail was solicited so even list hosts that you subscribe to qualify.
Ehh, I dunno, define malice. If a company wrongs me, I feel I have every right to do harm back, assuming I'm not lying to do so. It doesn't matter if I tell one person or 100,000, there is no cutoff. I shouldn't have my rights taken away because I'm effective in my fight against that company. It doesn't matter why I don't like a company, if I decide to organize a boycott and set up a page with the reasons I believe no one should have any dealings with that company I am well within my rights.
On the other hand, if I'm spreading lies that's a different story. The gray line comes in when the company claims I'm lying and I claim I'm not. The little guy should not be punished just because the coproation has enough cash to supress the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
You understand and agree that any unauthorized use of the Player or Content would result in irreparable injury to us and/or our affiliates or licensors for which money damages would be inadequate, and in such event we and/or licensors, as applicable, shall have the right, in addition to other remedies available at law and in equity, to immediate injunctive relief against you. Nothing contained in this paragraph or elsewhere in this document shall be construed to limit remedies or relief available pursuant to statutory or other claims that we, our affiliates and/or licensors may have under separate legal authority, including but not limited to, any claim for intellectual property infringement
Irreparable?? That's quite a strong term to use in this case. Especially if they don't know you did it it doesn't hurt them at all. That pretty much rules out irreparable in my book. Also I'm not sure how they can be damaged so that monetery reparations would be inadequate. They are a corporation, they are only there to make money, I don't think they can take you to court on the basis of emotional damage for non-compliance. Just what do they expect to do to you for copying this cd?
You agree to indemnify and hold harmless us and our agents, employees, representatives, licensors, affiliates, parents and subsidiaries from and against any and all claims, losses, demands, causes of action and judgments (including attorneys' fees and court costs) (collectively "Claims") arising from or concerning your use of the Player or Content and to reimburse them on demand for any losses, costs or expenses they incur as a result of any Claims.
Ok so not only can I not sue you for any reason whatsoever, but you can charge me money if I try anyway. Basically this whole thing says if you buy this cd you are fucked, we can do whatever we want to you and you can't do a thing, but if you have the audacity to listen to this product in a way we don't approve of, we can sue you file injunctions take away your dog, or whatever we feel like.
Since when did consumers lose all of their rights as a result of buying a product?
Oh - and also think about the Battle-Bot contests on TV, and your old BattleTech and RoboTech role-playing games... Think those were just games? I don't think so
And more in line with the idea of a (close to) human sized suit, check out the power armor wearing space marines in Games Workshop's Warhammer 40k.
Heh ok so you make the suit bigger, several tens of tons so it can hold a huge reactor, and we'll call it a Mech, yeah baby!
Hmmm when my server fails, and locks up completely I'm willing to bet that Oracle has gone down as well, and when they power gets cut I'm almost positive. Of course there's no way to prove this case, you can make an inductively strong argument, but it's even worse than seeing what happens to the light in the refrigerator when you close it, at least in that situation you can close the fridge while you're in it.
Besides, building now are not bullet proof:
catch(Exception caughtFire) { building.burnDown(); }
Anything not used as expected will cause problems, at least with code we have more room to work.
I have written both normal and troll posts, 1st posts, etc., both logged in and anonymously, and I have found these rather shocking results:
Statistics based only on your posts are definitely not enough. For starters, maybe you experienced more modding down because you don't post anything interesting, even when you mean to. Your assumption that there are concrete objective categories for modding is without merit. The distinction between troll and normal posts is a judgment call, if it were not the moderation system would not be needed.
even when it's not a particularly interesting or clever post [slashdot.org]. There are a LOT more +5 posts than +3 or +4.
Again, this is a judgement call, apparently it was interesting to enough people to get it modded up.
Digging deep into the history of slashdot, I found this poll [slashdot.org], which clearly indicates the vast majority does NOT want the moderation we have here today. 'nuff said.
I didn't even bother to check the results of this poll, anyone who points to a web poll as statistical evidence should have all of his conclusions immediately called into question, even if they appear to be solid, which your do not. Trying to prove anything by an easily stuffable poll is ridiculous. But for arguments sake let's say that each vote represents the opinion of one and only one person. Still the poll's accuracy is highly questionable. In fact if I were to predict the outcome of such a poll ahead of time I would have guessed that the greatest number would vote against the moderation system. Why? Because those that post anonymously or having nothing to say would have more reason to vote (negatively) since they are the ones constantly being modded down.
Of course as off topic as your post and my resultant response (damn I'll take two karma hits in one day) were I do commend you for trying.
As one final thought let me leave you with this, I disagree with the action of modding (not the fact that it exists) for the most part. But you need to remember that most likely the majority of the readers of slashdot are the young and the internet, that's a natural result of popularity and a sure reason to expect the lowest common denominator.
Somehow I doubt it. There is a distinction. I don't have to buy Red Hat off the shelf, I can download it at absolutely no cost to me, or more accurately no profit for Red Hat.
I'm not going to get into the morality of software licensing but suffice to say, whether you are paying for a license or the product itself there should be liability inferred when a corporation sells you the ability to use the software. Just as I cannot sue a University for teaching me how to use a software product, or a friend for helping me get it running or answering questions Red Hat should not be liable for code that they are not selling.
Because you did not buy the software, you bought support.
Then go somewhere else you pretentious jackass. This site is free, and you complain about it as if you're paying a monthly subscription. If you don't like the way things are discussed here, go elsewhere. I'm getting more than a little sick of seeing the 'holier than thou' posts that have sprung up more and more frequently over the last year or so. You act like you are owed something from the editors of this site. Or perhaps you have nothing better to do than troll around the weblogs all day.
He gave it away. Not to mention he hasn't agressively defended it. Please learn a little about IP.
If that doesn't free up any memory then neither would killing it (modulo some metadata - read on).
Is simply not true, any process may grow over time without executing a single fork, and force the system out of total memory, in that case killing the process will free up memory. I'm not saying that an OOM killer is the right way to go but you definitely need to address this part of your argument if you want to convince anyone that it's valid.
Uhh GPL, heard of it. Cannot happen, Alan would never have to rename his branch. Linux is owned by no one, Linus gave it away.
Instead of flaming the original poster for his obvious bias and lack of knowledge. I'll add another PITA revision control system... MKS. I cannot stand this piece of crap.
I have to disagree with that. Quality level implies that the products with a lower score are not as good, as you've included free software under level 0, you're immediately penalizing the best software out there because it's given away for free and they don't have the money to buy of a Quality Check Organization.
In addition, OSS and Free software would never be able to grab a significant market share in this scenario. No company would use a product that has been rated 0 by some quality control board.
Not ALL geeks need the fastest computer out there. I'm perfectly happy with running my 450 everything works great, and since I play very few games it's more than enough for coding on. Of course if I could really get a machine that cheap I'd probably do it, I am getting tired of dual boot.
Hmm, that's very interesting, I doubt it is the sole legal text that applies, but let's look at it a little mor closely.
Number one, section 108 does provide for making a copy for archival purposes. I remember reading somewhere that precedent was established that a consumer IS allowed to make a copy as a backup of their digital media, in fact in every PC game I've bought I've seen that in the EULA.
This text however, says that the collections of the library or archive MUST be open to the public. And that up to three copies may be made assuming that the original is still in possesion of the copier. Let me preface this with the fact that I know it's not that simple, but this almost gauruntees the right to rip your cd's and make them streamable in such a way that you are never transferring a whole copy of the media to the remote computer, as long as you aren't making money off of it of course. I know this is a simplistic scenario and there's a lot more that goes into it, but I am also sure that there are loopholes in the laws that protect copyright holders that are ripe for taking advantage of.
Excellent, excellent point, and one which I rarely, if ever have seen brought up. Here's hoping someone with mod points takes you up a couple of notches.
I;ve been burned by those too, I forget the channel but one morning before work I was watching a cooking show, that turned out to be a half hour advertisment. Now I own a Great Wok of China.
To tell you the truth I don't know if that's the case or not, it should be. But if a company sells your name to another company for the purposes of email that's a privacy issue with the original company, not the company that attempted to contact you. Like I said before, it should all be opt in, with an implicit opt out rather than explicit.
One more note, your definition is less specific than mine which allows more emails to fall into this category. I think the word you're looking for is strict, since it cracks down on a wider range of instances.
Plenty of providers will agree with me. In a legal sense, the definition will have to be much more specific and allow for that first attempt at contact before any law will be passed. If I send out one email my provider will not drop me, because you would have no case and they want my monthly payment. I'm not saying that I like the fact that I get constant emails that I'm not interested in I don't like it either, but I'm not going to play the spam card until I can't unsubscribe.
Personally I feel that all bulk email should be opt in. I'd even tolerate unsolicited first attempts assuming that it requires me to respond positively that I want more mail from the sender, not that I need to go through steps to get myself unsubscribed.
My definition of the word is more specific than yours for the very reason that people are quick to define any mail that they aren't interested in as spam. When you have a publically accessible medium of communication you are implicitly agreeing that anyone may attempt to contact you at least once. That's just the way it is. Assuming that the headers are correct and there is a way to let the sending party know that you don't want this mail anymore AND they stop sending it, it is not spam. When there is no way to unsubscribe, or no way to contact because of forged headers then it becomes spam. It doesn't matter that it's bulk or not, that's just an attribute usually found with spam. Let me ask you this, if I repeatedly send you a mail trying to sell you something, and I've forged the headers so that you cannot contact me, and my unsubscribe link does not work, am I spamming you? What if I'm only sending to you? It's not bulk and by your definition not spam.
I agree that it was stupid, and that it becomes spam the second time he sent it out. But the spam guns were brought out WAY too early in this case. I have the right to send anyone I want mail, to attempt to contact them at least once, within reason, obviously if I'm sending you death threats it's another story, without being accused of spamming whether it's effective or not. Just like I can initiate a phone call or snail mail. It's when I repeatedly attempt to contact you after you've asked me to stop that it becomes wrong.
Not that I don't see your point, but my definition of the word spam is much more strict than yours apparently.
...but that's not Spam. The difinition on that site is entirely too loose. The mail including the headers was valid, and Niel decides after recieving one unsolicited message that it's spam. Bullshit, if I send this guy an email by mistake am I spamming him? What if I send him an email and he just isn't interested, is it spam? Just sending large numbers of the same email out IS NOT spam. Note the definition listed does not even have any criteria based on whether or not the mail was solicited so even list hosts that you subscribe to qualify.
Ehh, I dunno, define malice. If a company wrongs me, I feel I have every right to do harm back, assuming I'm not lying to do so. It doesn't matter if I tell one person or 100,000, there is no cutoff. I shouldn't have my rights taken away because I'm effective in my fight against that company. It doesn't matter why I don't like a company, if I decide to organize a boycott and set up a page with the reasons I believe no one should have any dealings with that company I am well within my rights.
On the other hand, if I'm spreading lies that's a different story. The gray line comes in when the company claims I'm lying and I claim I'm not. The little guy should not be punished just because the coproation has enough cash to supress the truth.