I'd mod you up insightful, at least for the first statement.
The voting public is so prone to emotional knee-jerk reactions to certain points of view that there are some issues you JUST DON'T TALK ABOUT in a campagne.
Which as an american makes me kinda sad. We the people should be capable of reasoning out issues, indeed, that's what politics should be about.
But considering there are intolerant bigots on both sides, and yes there are people who WILL kill a "fag" on sight given the chance to get away with it, I don't think there's much of a chance that we'll be electing the most qualified.
And with the electoral college system hopelessly raped by partisanism, the last refuge of the system against dumb people with an agenda has fallen.
Throttling you is one thing but shoving a firmware update down your modem's throat is another.
Maybe cable modem firmware is a bit easier to reset than most but...what if the cable-co decided to, either by accident or on purpose, brick you with a bad update?
Still though there's a potential for a bad precedent to be set here. Depending on HOW psystar loses things could go anywhere from blah to downright ugly here.
What intrigues me is the fact that cable co's are trusting END USER EQUIPMENT to enforce limits that should be imposed at their own network ingress.
Besides, what if someone creates a DOCSIS compliant device of their own and hooks it up to the cable network? Considering how eager companies are to pounce for it, you're almost certain to run afoul of a few patents in the process, but you're clear in copyright, and hence immune to the DMCA as well, since the only copyright involved would be your own.
Knowingly and willfully taking more bandwidth than you've paid for is fraud and should be treated as such. Everything else is bullshit.
I think it would be meritorious and ethical for MS to patch every windows machine that comes knocking on their door.
But expecting MS to share the blame that is rightly entirely that of the pirates that are refusing to patch their boxes is unreasonable.
The pirates have no legitimate reason to demand that updates from MS not trash their windows installs. They have unclean hands and so on. By refusing to update their boxes they are aiding and abetting the damage done by malware authors. Whether said updates would cause collateral damage against something they have no right to possess in the first place is immaterial.
So...you expect MS to pony up bandwidth to support users that didn't pay for their operating systems?
IMHO, MS has no obligation to support pirates.
Yes they should get some flak for writing an insecure OS. But it's the actual pirates themselves that, knowing full well MS isn't going to do jack shit to support them, decide to install an unpatchable OS in the first place.
Just because Psystar fucked up their legal defense and neglected to assert first sale rights doesn't mean us individuals have to follow suit (no pun intended).
And in psystar's case, they DID make unauthorized copies via the imaging process. If they'd been good boys and installed them MANUALLY like they were supposed to apple wouldn't have a leg to stand on. If psystar had done that, then they'd have clean hands.
There's what's known as an "implied warranty of habitability", which includes the right to enjoy privacy from landlordly intrusions. Not to mention that by signing a lease or otherwise making an agreement, you are PAYING for the privilege of having a private pad.
That, in turn, grants you a reasonable expectation of privacy from your landlord. After all, if your landlord went snooping around in your pad they could get in big trouble, as that's usually against the law.
On the other hand, signing up for an email service usually requires you to agree to a TOS that gives the hosting company all the usual ass covering privileges and stamps out your rights.
I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore. These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang. It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.
Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days. Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.
Once a license has been granted and rights^Wprivileges have already been exercised you run into 2 problems:
1. Consideration already accepted by the other side cannot be revoked after the fact 2. Promissory estoppel bars one side from revoking a privilege already exercised by the other party.
But you are correct in that it needs to be made more explicit. Corporations get to flex their legal muscles way too much these days.
I don't think psystar will ever survive long enough to either win OR lose the lawsuit.
And any mob boss worth his salt will have already gotten tipped off by a well-bribed techie at the telco long before the cops ever get the wiretap in place.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd mod you up insightful, at least for the first statement.
The voting public is so prone to emotional knee-jerk reactions to certain points of view that there are some issues you JUST DON'T TALK ABOUT in a campagne.
Which as an american makes me kinda sad. We the people should be capable of reasoning out issues, indeed, that's what politics should be about.
But considering there are intolerant bigots on both sides, and yes there are people who WILL kill a "fag" on sight given the chance to get away with it, I don't think there's much of a chance that we'll be electing the most qualified.
And with the electoral college system hopelessly raped by partisanism, the last refuge of the system against dumb people with an agenda has fallen.
...That actually sounds even scarier.
Throttling you is one thing but shoving a firmware update down your modem's throat is another.
Maybe cable modem firmware is a bit easier to reset than most but...what if the cable-co decided to, either by accident or on purpose, brick you with a bad update?
If they're modifying OSX then they're screwed.
Still though there's a potential for a bad precedent to be set here. Depending on HOW psystar loses things could go anywhere from blah to downright ugly here.
One possible usage:
Ignoring an ISP's attempts to abusively throttle you if they detect torrent traffic going on.
What intrigues me is the fact that cable co's are trusting END USER EQUIPMENT to enforce limits that should be imposed at their own network ingress.
Besides, what if someone creates a DOCSIS compliant device of their own and hooks it up to the cable network? Considering how eager companies are to pounce for it, you're almost certain to run afoul of a few patents in the process, but you're clear in copyright, and hence immune to the DMCA as well, since the only copyright involved would be your own.
Knowingly and willfully taking more bandwidth than you've paid for is fraud and should be treated as such. Everything else is bullshit.
I think it would be meritorious and ethical for MS to patch every windows machine that comes knocking on their door.
But expecting MS to share the blame that is rightly entirely that of the pirates that are refusing to patch their boxes is unreasonable.
The pirates have no legitimate reason to demand that updates from MS not trash their windows installs. They have unclean hands and so on. By refusing to update their boxes they are aiding and abetting the damage done by malware authors. Whether said updates would cause collateral damage against something they have no right to possess in the first place is immaterial.
Or maybe the folks who don't give a shit about pirating windows also don't give a shit that their rooted machines are causing mayhem.
MS not burning bandwidth supporting good for nothing freeloaders?
So...you expect MS to pony up bandwidth to support users that didn't pay for their operating systems?
IMHO, MS has no obligation to support pirates.
Yes they should get some flak for writing an insecure OS. But it's the actual pirates themselves that, knowing full well MS isn't going to do jack shit to support them, decide to install an unpatchable OS in the first place.
That's different.
WoWslider made unauthorized modifications to Blizzard's software, thus creating a derived work.
It was the copying to RAM *of the derived work* that burned them. Had they just left blizzard's software the fuck alone they'd have been in the clear.
Just because Psystar fucked up their legal defense and neglected to assert first sale rights doesn't mean us individuals have to follow suit (no pun intended).
And in psystar's case, they DID make unauthorized copies via the imaging process. If they'd been good boys and installed them MANUALLY like they were supposed to apple wouldn't have a leg to stand on. If psystar had done that, then they'd have clean hands.
That's different.
There's what's known as an "implied warranty of habitability", which includes the right to enjoy privacy from landlordly intrusions. Not to mention that by signing a lease or otherwise making an agreement, you are PAYING for the privilege of having a private pad.
That, in turn, grants you a reasonable expectation of privacy from your landlord. After all, if your landlord went snooping around in your pad they could get in big trouble, as that's usually against the law.
On the other hand, signing up for an email service usually requires you to agree to a TOS that gives the hosting company all the usual ass covering privileges and stamps out your rights.
I'd be quite happy of course to see what my options are during the primaries.
Naturally of course since even THOSE candidates are already cherry picked by corporate interests...
Do you think maybe they played with the docket to keep him from voting?
The french parliament pulled a similiar trick recently to get the 3 strikes law passed.
...we no longer have a democracy.
I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore. These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang. It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.
Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days. Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.
*WHOOSH*
Try Vectorman
What about First Sale? I think that would have some relevance here.
Once a license has been granted and rights^Wprivileges have already been exercised you run into 2 problems:
1. Consideration already accepted by the other side cannot be revoked after the fact
2. Promissory estoppel bars one side from revoking a privilege already exercised by the other party.
But you are correct in that it needs to be made more explicit. Corporations get to flex their legal muscles way too much these days.
I don't think psystar will ever survive long enough to either win OR lose the lawsuit.
Why not?
Didn't psystar purchase the copies? Aren't they covered by First Sale?
First sale doctrine means that Psystar already has the rights the EULA is trying to hoard for apple hardware owners.
42
Better yet, instead of giving them funds, give them vouchers that can only be spent at approved vendors.
Which is where selective enforcement would happily come into place...unless you actually RTFB.
And any mob boss worth his salt will have already gotten tipped off by a well-bribed techie at the telco long before the cops ever get the wiretap in place.
The disease helped them conquer the natives.