It's a completely ridiculous proposition to compare the public telephone network to a gaming network. Are you going to die if you can't use the latter? Surely you can't be serious.
Similarly, Nintendo wouldn't care about the DS flash cartridges if people only backed up games to which they physically had access, because that kind of piracy doesn't have a great impact on sales.
I don't get the impression you're a big fan of capitalism. Please don't try to claim you are, because you can't have it both ways. Go start your own company and establish these glorious terms of service you so dearly want.
That doesn't pass for justification. You paid them money in exchange for access to their network according to their terms of service. If you want the right to dictate how they operate their company, you'll need to be a shareholder (minimal influence unless you've got a hell of a lot of shares), on the board of directors, or a C-level employee.
I guarantee that the vast majority of terms of service publications include a clause that the customer agrees to be bound by future versions of the TOS. It's my opinion that notifying customers each time a substantive change to the TOS is made is the right thing to do, but there's no real requirement for companies to do so (unless applicable law requires such notification).
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Terms of service are supposed to be the "teeth" that allow a company to take actions they believe are in the best interest of the network, other customers, and the company in general. That said, companies should do as much as possible to work through issues with customers before taking "final action" on any case. Exceptions would certainly need to be made for extreme cases, but immediate permanent action shouldn't be the rule. That's just awful customer service.
That's pretty much my point. As long as the terms of service set forth by a company don't violate the law, the company absolutely has the right to enforce them. Those who complain about it seem to be taking a distinctly "think of the poor little guy who's getting beaten down" attitude, which I find amusing given the fact that nobody is going to die if they can't log on to some gaming network.
Rights? What "rights" do you have here aside from choosing whether or not to give a company money? Your basic human rights aren't being violated here, and I don't see anything illegal happening with respect to a company's right to set terms of service for the use of their network.
I applaud Microsoft's banning of modded consoles, but condemn Terms of Service in general because they're 99.999% in the favor of the writer. I mean, the company.
I don't get it. You start out with "Microsoft's network, Microsoft's rules." Note that this isn't specific to Microsoft; you could replace them with any company that operates a network and it'd be the same concept. You then say you're against TOS policies as a blanket statement... what do you actually believe? Any company has the right to set terms of service for the use of their network, and it's up to the customer to decide if those terms are reasonable. If the customer doesn't think so, s/he can choose not to give that company money. It's very simple.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Heck, who knows what stuff we'll be using every day even ten years from now? A single large leap could render today's whole model of personal computing obsolete.
Hey, can you please get some more educational institutions off of Windows 2000?;)
In all seriousness, while I'm a huge fan of deploying Linux in educational environments (especially Ubuntu desktops and departmental servers), I'd give just about anything to see IE6 finally die in fire. I run an educational resources site, and about 10% of my visitors are still using it.
There is not an unlimited supply of skilled OS developers despite what people may think and even less of a supply of those willing to freely contribute to projects.
I really can't agree with that. As Google is paying good salaries for developers to work on Chromium, the situation is quite different from the traditional open source labor contribution model.
Regardless of how many existing approaches there might be to a given problem, another "hat in the ring" is a good thing. Things change fast in tech, and who knows where Chromium might go in the future? Diversity fosters competition and improvements.
The price you paid for that airline ticket has nothing to do with what commodities traders in Taiwan had for breakfast. Geez, anyone could see that it's obviously related to football scores from last week.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a completely ridiculous proposition to compare the public telephone network to a gaming network. Are you going to die if you can't use the latter? Surely you can't be serious.
Similarly, Nintendo wouldn't care about the DS flash cartridges if people only backed up games to which they physically had access, because that kind of piracy doesn't have a great impact on sales.
I'd say that wouldn't have any impact on sales.
I don't get the impression you're a big fan of capitalism. Please don't try to claim you are, because you can't have it both ways. Go start your own company and establish these glorious terms of service you so dearly want.
Nothing gives me the right to tell you what to do with that gun. If you choose to do something illegal with it the courts will deal with you.
That's a terrible strawman, by the way. It doesn't even make sense as a counter-argument, and almost agrees with my point.
That doesn't pass for justification. You paid them money in exchange for access to their network according to their terms of service. If you want the right to dictate how they operate their company, you'll need to be a shareholder (minimal influence unless you've got a hell of a lot of shares), on the board of directors, or a C-level employee.
I guarantee that the vast majority of terms of service publications include a clause that the customer agrees to be bound by future versions of the TOS. It's my opinion that notifying customers each time a substantive change to the TOS is made is the right thing to do, but there's no real requirement for companies to do so (unless applicable law requires such notification).
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Terms of service are supposed to be the "teeth" that allow a company to take actions they believe are in the best interest of the network, other customers, and the company in general. That said, companies should do as much as possible to work through issues with customers before taking "final action" on any case. Exceptions would certainly need to be made for extreme cases, but immediate permanent action shouldn't be the rule. That's just awful customer service.
That's pretty much my point. As long as the terms of service set forth by a company don't violate the law, the company absolutely has the right to enforce them. Those who complain about it seem to be taking a distinctly "think of the poor little guy who's getting beaten down" attitude, which I find amusing given the fact that nobody is going to die if they can't log on to some gaming network.
Okay, seriously. They own and operate their network. Let's reverse this: what gives you the right to tell them how to operate it?
Rights? What "rights" do you have here aside from choosing whether or not to give a company money? Your basic human rights aren't being violated here, and I don't see anything illegal happening with respect to a company's right to set terms of service for the use of their network.
I applaud Microsoft's banning of modded consoles, but condemn Terms of Service in general because they're 99.999% in the favor of the writer. I mean, the company.
I don't get it. You start out with "Microsoft's network, Microsoft's rules." Note that this isn't specific to Microsoft; you could replace them with any company that operates a network and it'd be the same concept. You then say you're against TOS policies as a blanket statement... what do you actually believe? Any company has the right to set terms of service for the use of their network, and it's up to the customer to decide if those terms are reasonable. If the customer doesn't think so, s/he can choose not to give that company money. It's very simple.
Oh, really? Granted, that's documentation intended for server administrators, but I'd squarely categorize them as "system users."
Very interesting! Thanks for the info.
A bottle of Digital Draino will get those pipes unblocked quickly enough.
Craigslist's series of tubes?
I think you were looking at the wrong post.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Heck, who knows what stuff we'll be using every day even ten years from now? A single large leap could render today's whole model of personal computing obsolete.
I'm having trouble seeing what that has to do with the topic at hand.
Hey, can you please get some more educational institutions off of Windows 2000? ;)
In all seriousness, while I'm a huge fan of deploying Linux in educational environments (especially Ubuntu desktops and departmental servers), I'd give just about anything to see IE6 finally die in fire. I run an educational resources site, and about 10% of my visitors are still using it.
Very few people buy retail copies of Windows. The vast majority of the install base will be from PC manufacturers.
There is not an unlimited supply of skilled OS developers despite what people may think and even less of a supply of those willing to freely contribute to projects.
I really can't agree with that. As Google is paying good salaries for developers to work on Chromium, the situation is quite different from the traditional open source labor contribution model.
If you look at the original submission (which is what I did), you can find the link there. That said, somebody really ought to fix it in the summary.
Regardless of how many existing approaches there might be to a given problem, another "hat in the ring" is a good thing. Things change fast in tech, and who knows where Chromium might go in the future? Diversity fosters competition and improvements.
The price you paid for that airline ticket has nothing to do with what commodities traders in Taiwan had for breakfast. Geez, anyone could see that it's obviously related to football scores from last week.
Hayabusa runs Linux?