Also, a person named Jesus, in fact, could have existed 2000 years ago and, in the way you state things, you'd have to list it as a (Fact) also.
Jesus was and is a common name in some parts of the world. I am sure a man named Jesus was born ~2,000 years ago, whether or not he was the messiah is a different question.
A license is revocable at the will of the licensor and therefore is not a contract.
Did you ever sign an employment contract? I have signed several. Most said something along the lines of "we can fire you at will, terminating this contract." While certainly not a license, it definitely is a contract.
This is exactly the same as if you found a piece of paper in the trunk of your car after you had bought it. It's just a piece of paper until you sign it...
True, but the analogy is more like you cannot drive the car until you read the paper. For example, the keys are in a pouch attached to the paper and it says "by opening this envelope you agree to these terms..." Either way I think it is a stupid idea, but the legal system does not agree with me.
GPL'ed software has no EULA, and the GPL does not rely on contract law, rather it uses copyright law as it only covers distribution of the program, not how it is used.
The GPL is still a type of contract. Copyright itself is a type of contract -- the owner grants me permission to use the product if I agree to abide by the terms of the license. This license may be "pay me $20 for a CD and promise not to copy it" or it might be "take it for free, change it, and give it away."
I just have my kid brother click "ok" or tear open the envelope. Since he's not 18, the contract isn't enforceable in most states.
Yes, it is enforceable. Having someone else act on your behalf, regardless of age, is the same as you doing it yourself. This is why if you hire a hitman to commit murder, you are guilty of murder too.
Also, while IANAL, I understand that many states consider a contract signed while you are intoxicated to be unenforcable.
Contracts signed under duress are null and void. I have known a few people who got in trouble while drunk. Not just for drunk in public, but for doing stupid shit like vandalism or petty theft. Intoxication is not an excuse, in each case the judge basically said "drunk or not, you fucked up. If you didn't want to fuck up, you shouldn't have been drunk." Also, proving intoxication while opening the CD case would be extremely difficult.
I will believe that EULAs are enforcable as soon as the first EULA is enforced, but not sooner.
I think the real issue is whether shrinkwrapped EULAs are enforceable, not EULAs in general. If I can view the EULA online, for example, as with GPL'd software, then why shouldn't it be legal? But if I have to pay money, remove shrinkwrap, view license keys, insert CDs, then have the option of reading the EULA, but cannot return the opened software if I disagree, should that be legal?
I don't think it should be legal, but then again I am not a lawyer, judge, or Congressman.
Maybe her personal hygiene was not up to modern standards, but bless her soul for making sacrifices to help the civil rights movement bring equal rights to everyone, not just white males.
While riding in an elevator, one must talk to no one, and fold his hands while looking toward the door.
That is certainly not an inane law. This, in fact, should be a federally mandated law enforced by the penalty of death.
Thankfully, the law says nothing about farting in elevators. I've made people get out on the wrong floor before, as well as having people enter, sniff, turn around, and leave.
What we need is ap2p network which is centrally controlled (centralised).
Just ask the Napster people how well that worked out.
What we really need is a P2P application that takes the best features of BitTorrent and Freenet and combines them into a fast, anonymous, free way to share content. Make it so the FBI is able to download their Brittney Spears MP3s but completely unable to determine who is responsible for distributing it.
So then why is the charge only for conspiracy, and not for the actual crime which has already been committed?
Maybe because they were sharing files out, which is conspiracy because they were helping other people break the law. This might not be conspiracy in the sense most of us think of, but sometimes the police can get someone on charges like this even though they cannot prove a more serious offense. For example, I know someone who had in his possession a large (car trunk full) amount of marijuana. Rather than get him for possession, they got him for conspiracy. He was carrying it for someone else, someone who was going to distribute and sell it. The police knew he was a small fish, and were hoping for a bite. In this case, conspiracy to sell that much marijuana was a more serious offense than mere possession. In the end the police couldn't prove much, so this man went to jail for about 2 years.
I could see the same idea applying with copyrights. Possessing a few gigabytes of unauthorized copyrighted material is one thing, but conspiring to distribute multiple copies of that data could be a more serious charge. What is worse from a legal standpoint: possessing $1,000 worth of unauthorized copyrighted material, or distributing it such that the total value of all the copies is $50,000? Sure, us Slashdotters may think that argument is bullshit, but the legal system does not. That is where conspiracy comes in: maybe he did not make a bunch of copies, but he intended to do so with the help of other people (downloaders). The fact that the Justice Department was able to download that much illegal content is just another nail in the coffin.
I had a letter from my GP explaining I was diabetic, a medic-alert bracelet, etc, anticipating the whole post-9/11 paranoia.
I am not diabetic, do not have any medical issues requiring metal objects, etc. and I still refuse to fly. I am upset that the TSA is on a permanent power trip, that airline companies roll over and let their passengers take it in the ass with regards to the various anti-privacy and anti-freedom programs the government tells them to cooperate with. No thank you, I'll drive everywhere I need to. At least the state troopers still have limits to their authority on our highways.
Welfare is for lazy trailer trash who can't get off their fat ass to find a job.
Trailer trash such as my mother, who after the divorce was a single mother of five. Trailer trash that worked her ass off, lived in a "house" in the "city." Eventually she got off Welfare, but thank God it was there for us when we needed it. It was not for lack of work ethic that we were on it, it was poor planning on my mother's part.
Social Security is for old people who worked hard and want to retire.
Socialist Security is not for people who want to retire, the benefits are so tiny that all it does is supplement the typically small income our elderly are able to procure. Think about it -- who wants to hire a 70 year old to a six figure job when that person is bordering on senility and has very few productive years left? Age discrimination may be illegal, but it happens. I see a lot of old people working at Wal-Mart and McDonald's. Social Insecurity will barely pay their rent or house insurance, whichever is applicable.
Lots of people are in favor of cutting welfare benefits in the name of forcing these people to get a job and quit being leeches, while very few people want to be seen as "cutting" SS in the eyes of the older voters.
Not everyone on Welfare, Food Stamps, or whatever other public assistance programs are out there are leeches. Some are just in a shitty part of life and need a boost. I have no problem cutting Social Security as long as everyone gets their dues if they want. I plan on denying my Social Security benefits even after paying into the system all my life. Hopefully I won't need them, because I will plan better than my parents did. It may be a drop in the bucket, and more symbolic than anything, but that is doing my part to keep the system from fucking some poor Joe who gets the short end of the stick in 40-60 years.
I feel sorry for Americans though. I do feel as though you have your backs against the wall when it comes to elections. You are crying out for a coordinated mass lobbying for a 3rd. party candidate - only way to remove the boolean (unary!?) system you use now. You need allot more parties, you actually need complete reform,maybe via a revolution or something.
Don't feel sorry for us. Most of us deserve the hell we're in.
Anyway, I think we need another revolution, peaceful or not. I truly think we are degenerating into the police state that we always bitched about in the Soviet Union. Our basic freedoms are intact, but the fringe freedoms are being eroded slowly but surely.
Nader can't fill every seat in every state congress, or the federal congress, can he?
No, but there are enough people running for office that have morals and want to stand up for the people instead of businesses. However, they do not run under the "Republican" or "Democrat" banners, so people label them as political heretics and do not consider them seriously.
Let the MPAA and the RIAA track down and find the individuals serving these materials up and have them find their REAL NAMES, REAL ADDRESSES, and sue them themselves.
This is a weird, new concept -- letting the IP owners go after infringers themselves, without FBI raids, without special laws. What was so wrong with existing copyright law that we needed the DMCA or even this proposed bill? Maybe I am just an oddball, but I thought property rights were the responsibility of the property owners, not the state. If someone steals my car I might call the police, but ultimately it is my responsibility to take care of the situation by suing the thief and hoping the jury gives him justice. All the police do is return the property, which does not apply in IP cases. If someone "steals" my IP, I should have to track that person down myself, and as before, take them to court and deal with it myself.
The goal of the republicans is not to revamp social security. The goal is to abolish it entirely, along with medicaid. The easiest way to do so is to completely break it by privatizing it, while at the same time bankrupting the government. Then, of course, the private managers will be to blame. Something will have to go to balance the budget... and then they will eliminate social security. Now the tax cuts and war start to make sense. Expect a budget crisis shortly!
Nah, cut the massive social programs from the budget entirely, it's okay. Think of the budget surplus!
Lets agree that Social Security is flawed, take the hit this generation, and start something new and rational for the next.
With all this talk about slush funds, bankrupting the system, etc, nobody mentions a fundamental fact about social security. When it started, young people worked and gave their Socialist Security taxes to old people to generate revenue for them (many had only the clothes on their backs during the Great Depression). Essentially it was one facet of a large social program to redistribute wealth and jump start the economy. Problem is, it never stopped. Now that the system has been going for a generation or two, we realize that as the population increases, the fiscal disproportionism between generations becomes greater and greater. More and more people draw benefits as a proportion of the working population. Mathematically it is inevitable that the system will fail without either massive outside investment or a graceful end.
I for one am also willing to give up my SS benefits, and I plan to.
Information which is marked even as low as classified cannot be moved through usual channels anyway. This is irrelevant.
This is not necessarily about security and moving information. It is about authentication. Who really sent that document?
Existing systems are already capable of this.
Existing system require multiple cards to work together. I have a military ID and an access badge for my building. They both have electronic mechanisms to interface with computers, but they both work differently. At my last base I had another card that worked a third way. Unifying these means I have fewer cards to carry around and everything works in a single way. That makes the system simpler and easier, which means fewer fuckups.
I understand that it sounds like a bad thing. While I do not have a card with the new system, my current military ID (Common Access Card, CAC) is basically the same. It has similar advantages and disadvantages. I know from experience that it makes security a lot easier. Maybe not better, but definitely not worse, and certainly easier.
Not really. First of all, IDs with biometrics and RSA key signatures (like my military ID) provide a level of security that protects against counterfeiting. Keys are issued at approved facilities and locked down with a PIN. To counterfeit such a card you would need to recreate the card, embed the smart chip, enter a key on it, and hack the central database with the same key.
Slashdot Mirror
I know Jesus, he sells dime bags across the street from the police sub station. "Dime Vato..." will get you sticky. :-p
Nobody fuck with the Jesus. I will fuck you up!
Also, a person named Jesus, in fact, could have existed 2000 years ago and, in the way you state things, you'd have to list it as a (Fact) also.
Jesus was and is a common name in some parts of the world. I am sure a man named Jesus was born ~2,000 years ago, whether or not he was the messiah is a different question.
Jesus still loves you despite your misguided beliefs.
I know he still loves me, but he just can't give me the kind of loving I need -- the kind of love that Michael Jackson gives to children.
Because there's no gaurantee that you've been presented with the EULA nore is agreement a condition of sale.
Good point. I hadn't thought of this. Maybe we need a new way of selling commercial software. Huh. Wishful thinking.
A license is revocable at the will of the licensor and therefore is not a contract.
Did you ever sign an employment contract? I have signed several. Most said something along the lines of "we can fire you at will, terminating this contract." While certainly not a license, it definitely is a contract.
You say the GPL is not a EULA, then quote its text that says it is a license. I thought the "L" in "EULA" stood for "license."
This is exactly the same as if you found a piece of paper in the trunk of your car after you had bought it. It's just a piece of paper until you sign it...
True, but the analogy is more like you cannot drive the car until you read the paper. For example, the keys are in a pouch attached to the paper and it says "by opening this envelope you agree to these terms..." Either way I think it is a stupid idea, but the legal system does not agree with me.
GPL'ed software has no EULA, and the GPL does not rely on contract law, rather it uses copyright law as it only covers distribution of the program, not how it is used.
The GPL is still a type of contract. Copyright itself is a type of contract -- the owner grants me permission to use the product if I agree to abide by the terms of the license. This license may be "pay me $20 for a CD and promise not to copy it" or it might be "take it for free, change it, and give it away."
I just have my kid brother click "ok" or tear open the envelope. Since he's not 18, the contract isn't enforceable in most states.
Yes, it is enforceable. Having someone else act on your behalf, regardless of age, is the same as you doing it yourself. This is why if you hire a hitman to commit murder, you are guilty of murder too.
Also, while IANAL, I understand that many states consider a contract signed while you are intoxicated to be unenforcable.
Contracts signed under duress are null and void. I have known a few people who got in trouble while drunk. Not just for drunk in public, but for doing stupid shit like vandalism or petty theft. Intoxication is not an excuse, in each case the judge basically said "drunk or not, you fucked up. If you didn't want to fuck up, you shouldn't have been drunk." Also, proving intoxication while opening the CD case would be extremely difficult.
I will believe that EULAs are enforcable as soon as the first EULA is enforced, but not sooner.
I think the real issue is whether shrinkwrapped EULAs are enforceable, not EULAs in general. If I can view the EULA online, for example, as with GPL'd software, then why shouldn't it be legal? But if I have to pay money, remove shrinkwrap, view license keys, insert CDs, then have the option of reading the EULA, but cannot return the opened software if I disagree, should that be legal?
I don't think it should be legal, but then again I am not a lawyer, judge, or Congressman.
rosa parks was a filthy nigger.
Maybe her personal hygiene was not up to modern standards, but bless her soul for making sacrifices to help the civil rights movement bring equal rights to everyone, not just white males.
Thankfully, the law says nothing about farting in elevators. I've made people get out on the wrong floor before, as well as having people enter, sniff, turn around, and leave.
Yes, I can die knowing I accomplished something.
What we need is ap2p network which is centrally controlled (centralised).
Just ask the Napster people how well that worked out.
What we really need is a P2P application that takes the best features of BitTorrent and Freenet and combines them into a fast, anonymous, free way to share content. Make it so the FBI is able to download their Brittney Spears MP3s but completely unable to determine who is responsible for distributing it.
So then why is the charge only for conspiracy, and not for the actual crime which has already been committed?
Maybe because they were sharing files out, which is conspiracy because they were helping other people break the law. This might not be conspiracy in the sense most of us think of, but sometimes the police can get someone on charges like this even though they cannot prove a more serious offense. For example, I know someone who had in his possession a large (car trunk full) amount of marijuana. Rather than get him for possession, they got him for conspiracy. He was carrying it for someone else, someone who was going to distribute and sell it. The police knew he was a small fish, and were hoping for a bite. In this case, conspiracy to sell that much marijuana was a more serious offense than mere possession. In the end the police couldn't prove much, so this man went to jail for about 2 years.
I could see the same idea applying with copyrights. Possessing a few gigabytes of unauthorized copyrighted material is one thing, but conspiring to distribute multiple copies of that data could be a more serious charge. What is worse from a legal standpoint: possessing $1,000 worth of unauthorized copyrighted material, or distributing it such that the total value of all the copies is $50,000? Sure, us Slashdotters may think that argument is bullshit, but the legal system does not. That is where conspiracy comes in: maybe he did not make a bunch of copies, but he intended to do so with the help of other people (downloaders). The fact that the Justice Department was able to download that much illegal content is just another nail in the coffin.
Why not mention it to the idiots?
The idiots will not believe. Not unless the television says it. Why waste our breath?
I had a letter from my GP explaining I was diabetic, a medic-alert bracelet, etc, anticipating the whole post-9/11 paranoia.
I am not diabetic, do not have any medical issues requiring metal objects, etc. and I still refuse to fly. I am upset that the TSA is on a permanent power trip, that airline companies roll over and let their passengers take it in the ass with regards to the various anti-privacy and anti-freedom programs the government tells them to cooperate with. No thank you, I'll drive everywhere I need to. At least the state troopers still have limits to their authority on our highways.
If you feel this way, though, you might want to lobby against Social Security and donate the money directly to people who need it.
Good point. Why give my money to the politicians when I could donate it to a charity that has at least a tiny bit of financial sense?
Welfare is for lazy trailer trash who can't get off their fat ass to find a job.
Trailer trash such as my mother, who after the divorce was a single mother of five. Trailer trash that worked her ass off, lived in a "house" in the "city." Eventually she got off Welfare, but thank God it was there for us when we needed it. It was not for lack of work ethic that we were on it, it was poor planning on my mother's part.
Social Security is for old people who worked hard and want to retire.
Socialist Security is not for people who want to retire, the benefits are so tiny that all it does is supplement the typically small income our elderly are able to procure. Think about it -- who wants to hire a 70 year old to a six figure job when that person is bordering on senility and has very few productive years left? Age discrimination may be illegal, but it happens. I see a lot of old people working at Wal-Mart and McDonald's. Social Insecurity will barely pay their rent or house insurance, whichever is applicable.
Lots of people are in favor of cutting welfare benefits in the name of forcing these people to get a job and quit being leeches, while very few people want to be seen as "cutting" SS in the eyes of the older voters.
Not everyone on Welfare, Food Stamps, or whatever other public assistance programs are out there are leeches. Some are just in a shitty part of life and need a boost. I have no problem cutting Social Security as long as everyone gets their dues if they want. I plan on denying my Social Security benefits even after paying into the system all my life. Hopefully I won't need them, because I will plan better than my parents did. It may be a drop in the bucket, and more symbolic than anything, but that is doing my part to keep the system from fucking some poor Joe who gets the short end of the stick in 40-60 years.
I feel sorry for Americans though. I do feel as though you have your backs against the wall when it comes to elections. You are crying out for a coordinated mass lobbying for a 3rd. party candidate - only way to remove the boolean (unary!?) system you use now. You need allot more parties, you actually need complete reform ,maybe via a revolution or something.
Don't feel sorry for us. Most of us deserve the hell we're in.
Anyway, I think we need another revolution, peaceful or not. I truly think we are degenerating into the police state that we always bitched about in the Soviet Union. Our basic freedoms are intact, but the fringe freedoms are being eroded slowly but surely.
Emigration sounds really good right about now.
Nader can't fill every seat in every state congress, or the federal congress, can he?
No, but there are enough people running for office that have morals and want to stand up for the people instead of businesses. However, they do not run under the "Republican" or "Democrat" banners, so people label them as political heretics and do not consider them seriously.
Let the MPAA and the RIAA track down and find the individuals serving these materials up and have them find their REAL NAMES, REAL ADDRESSES, and sue them themselves.
This is a weird, new concept -- letting the IP owners go after infringers themselves, without FBI raids, without special laws. What was so wrong with existing copyright law that we needed the DMCA or even this proposed bill? Maybe I am just an oddball, but I thought property rights were the responsibility of the property owners, not the state. If someone steals my car I might call the police, but ultimately it is my responsibility to take care of the situation by suing the thief and hoping the jury gives him justice. All the police do is return the property, which does not apply in IP cases. If someone "steals" my IP, I should have to track that person down myself, and as before, take them to court and deal with it myself.
The goal of the republicans is not to revamp social security. The goal is to abolish it entirely, along with medicaid. The easiest way to do so is to completely break it by privatizing it, while at the same time bankrupting the government. Then, of course, the private managers will be to blame. Something will have to go to balance the budget... and then they will eliminate social security. Now the tax cuts and war start to make sense. Expect a budget crisis shortly!
Nah, cut the massive social programs from the budget entirely, it's okay. Think of the budget surplus!
Lets agree that Social Security is flawed, take the hit this generation, and start something new and rational for the next.
With all this talk about slush funds, bankrupting the system, etc, nobody mentions a fundamental fact about social security. When it started, young people worked and gave their Socialist Security taxes to old people to generate revenue for them (many had only the clothes on their backs during the Great Depression). Essentially it was one facet of a large social program to redistribute wealth and jump start the economy. Problem is, it never stopped. Now that the system has been going for a generation or two, we realize that as the population increases, the fiscal disproportionism between generations becomes greater and greater. More and more people draw benefits as a proportion of the working population. Mathematically it is inevitable that the system will fail without either massive outside investment or a graceful end.
I for one am also willing to give up my SS benefits, and I plan to.
Information which is marked even as low as classified cannot be moved through usual channels anyway. This is irrelevant.
This is not necessarily about security and moving information. It is about authentication. Who really sent that document?
Existing systems are already capable of this.
Existing system require multiple cards to work together. I have a military ID and an access badge for my building. They both have electronic mechanisms to interface with computers, but they both work differently. At my last base I had another card that worked a third way. Unifying these means I have fewer cards to carry around and everything works in a single way. That makes the system simpler and easier, which means fewer fuckups.
I understand that it sounds like a bad thing. While I do not have a card with the new system, my current military ID (Common Access Card, CAC) is basically the same. It has similar advantages and disadvantages. I know from experience that it makes security a lot easier. Maybe not better, but definitely not worse, and certainly easier.
One ID means only one thing to conterfiet.
Not really. First of all, IDs with biometrics and RSA key signatures (like my military ID) provide a level of security that protects against counterfeiting. Keys are issued at approved facilities and locked down with a PIN. To counterfeit such a card you would need to recreate the card, embed the smart chip, enter a key on it, and hack the central database with the same key.