The way to communicate this principle is not through tailgating or other stupidities. Not stopping because you can't see what the person in front you is stopping for is far dumber and more inconsiderate that using the left-lane improperly.
MIT's OpenCourseWare uses Real for their video lectures. I can't think of any other website that does, but for me, this was more than enough reason to install the player.
This discussion has taken a turn to the ridiculous. If you don't mind, I'll try to take it to a more reasonable direction.
The current situation is that anything sent unsolicited via USPS is a gift. Period. As far as the stickers and magnets and "I'm with stupid"'s go, they are the domain of the laws that govern what people can do with things in their possession, and I have no idea as to the legality of them. I do know that it's unreasonable for record companies or anybody else to attach stipulations to unsolicited items, and so I agree with the law that it stands, as well as the ruling.
I do like your idea for a widespread, GPL like system by which these things can be worked out, as long as it's opted into voluntarily, rather than assumed, printed on the outside of stuff people didn't want, or legislated. The opt-in part, as well as full disclosure, is important. Those interested in the situation have the responsibility to come up with a solution and implement it; the government does not. Whether that means sending an intern to get sign-off on the contract with every delivery or setting up long-term blanket agreements with the people they hope to send material to or something else is for them to decide, but it must be properly communicated and voluntary, or it's meaningless.
He said that if Dell sends an unsolicited brochure, he can sell the brochure for profit (if he can find someone to buy it), regardless of what logo is on it. Using the Dell logo in his ads is trademark infringement, which applied regardless of where or how he gets the logo. He can do whatever he wants with the actual object that was received, as it now belongs to him, but only if he doesn't break any laws. Breaking any "contracts" or stipulations printed on the unsolicited material does not constitute breaking the law.
If someone sends me a knife unsolicited with a sticker that says "For use with chicken only", I am still within my rights to use the knife on roast beef, but not to use the knife to stab someone, as that is already illegal.
Accept on delivery style agreements could work as long as you have a courier willing to be sure it's executed properly, but these things are being sent by USPS. That means they're left in the mailbox, with no feedback from the recipient. In fact, I've been walking out of the door while the mailman was dropping off, and tried to tell him I don't want the crap that I can see him putting in the box, and he says he has no choice, he has to deliver it.
If you used a courier, all they ever ask for is a plain signature on their machines. They don't do contracts, only confirmation that it was received. I've never tried to refuse to sign, but somehow I doubt they would have much tolerance for delivering packages that were habitually refused.
Yeah, I hear that, and you're certainly correct. But it's one of those scenarios that doesn't scale well. In a world of dissemination, you can't call the receiver, and reach someone who is capable of agreeing to those terms (as in they don't represent the company), and get that agreement within a reasonable time-frame so as to not render the transmission obsolete.
However, if you want to send promos to somebody or some company for whatever reason, you can arrange an agreement with them whereby you send them promos to review and play on the air or whatever else, and they agree to your terms of no resale. That way you don't need an individual contract for each one. If they refuse the agreement, then the terms you are trying to impose are not, in fact, beneficial to both parties, so you have no business sending the product if you want those terms respected.
That way, the law remains consistent and people can't be taken advantage of by contracts they didn't agree to. No company that operates by assuming external parties will behave a certain way has any business complaining when they do not.
That's the beauty of it. You can then send the RIAA a letter with a sticker on the outside saying they have to go to California and pick up all your crap.
That's because that would be (poorly executed) fraud. It has nothing to do with the fact that the checks arrived in the mail.
Also, you did ask for them when you filed your tax return (at least in Canada, I assume it is the same in US).
What is commonly referred to as random chance is things like finding cash on the sidewalk, running into a friend when out in public or finding what you want in the first place you look. These events aren't truly random, which I suspect is what prompted the phrase in the GP.
If the software doesn't live up to its hype, it's up to you to communicate this to your managers. Either way, you shouldn't work for them if their bad decisions are costing you all this unpaid overtime. I think it's generally safe to say that if they suck, they'll suck whether they have access to free software or not.
In other words, the problem lies with management's decision to waste his time, and his decision to work for bad managers, not with the existence of open source software.
People want to read their morning newspaper in their mother tongue. Propaganda has nothing to do with it.
To be fair, the newspaper may occasionally be used to (ineffectively) incite the masses, but mostly it's straight fact reporting.
What does having a marshal and locked cockpit
achieve - one definitely dead guy for every hijacking attempt* and (at least) one dead stewardess to convince the pilot to open the cockpit door. There doesn't have to be a door between the cockpit and the rest of the plane.
(remember you don't want body checks for concealed weapons)
Remember that opinion I pretended was yours earlier? Don't forget that you still believe it.
Have you been to an airport? Do you have any idea how big the signs are that they actually want you to see? People being herded through security and not holding up the line in order to read everything on every wall don't necessarily have their heads up their asses. Perhaps they have enough faith in the system to assume they're not being forced into a nudie booth.
Like you, I wear a big belt buckle to hold up pants that are too big, but I've never actually lost my pants going through security.
I find holding them up works well.
But what difference does it make? They intentionally broke the law both by planting the false torrents and by the DoS attacks. It is completely irrelevant whether they knew the two things were connected. Just because they're stupid doesn't mean they're not also malicious.
Slashdot Mirror
The key is to buy books with titles like "Mashed Potatoes: The true story of how Obama/McCain/Lincoln/whoever is destroying America."
That way the receipt shows "Mashed Potatoes" but you can still buy what you want.
In fact, if this bill passes, I move that all books be renamed to "Mashed Potatoes" and given subtitles.
The way to communicate this principle is not through tailgating or other stupidities. Not stopping because you can't see what the person in front you is stopping for is far dumber and more inconsiderate that using the left-lane improperly.
MIT's OpenCourseWare uses Real for their video lectures. I can't think of any other website that does, but for me, this was more than enough reason to install the player.
And quite convenient it is, too. Thanks.
This discussion has taken a turn to the ridiculous. If you don't mind, I'll try to take it to a more reasonable direction.
The current situation is that anything sent unsolicited via USPS is a gift. Period. As far as the stickers and magnets and "I'm with stupid"'s go, they are the domain of the laws that govern what people can do with things in their possession, and I have no idea as to the legality of them. I do know that it's unreasonable for record companies or anybody else to attach stipulations to unsolicited items, and so I agree with the law that it stands, as well as the ruling.
I do like your idea for a widespread, GPL like system by which these things can be worked out, as long as it's opted into voluntarily, rather than assumed, printed on the outside of stuff people didn't want, or legislated. The opt-in part, as well as full disclosure, is important. Those interested in the situation have the responsibility to come up with a solution and implement it; the government does not. Whether that means sending an intern to get sign-off on the contract with every delivery or setting up long-term blanket agreements with the people they hope to send material to or something else is for them to decide, but it must be properly communicated and voluntary, or it's meaningless.
Not really.
He said that if Dell sends an unsolicited brochure, he can sell the brochure for profit (if he can find someone to buy it), regardless of what logo is on it. Using the Dell logo in his ads is trademark infringement, which applied regardless of where or how he gets the logo. He can do whatever he wants with the actual object that was received, as it now belongs to him, but only if he doesn't break any laws. Breaking any "contracts" or stipulations printed on the unsolicited material does not constitute breaking the law.
If someone sends me a knife unsolicited with a sticker that says "For use with chicken only", I am still within my rights to use the knife on roast beef, but not to use the knife to stab someone, as that is already illegal.
Accept on delivery style agreements could work as long as you have a courier willing to be sure it's executed properly, but these things are being sent by USPS. That means they're left in the mailbox, with no feedback from the recipient. In fact, I've been walking out of the door while the mailman was dropping off, and tried to tell him I don't want the crap that I can see him putting in the box, and he says he has no choice, he has to deliver it.
If you used a courier, all they ever ask for is a plain signature on their machines. They don't do contracts, only confirmation that it was received. I've never tried to refuse to sign, but somehow I doubt they would have much tolerance for delivering packages that were habitually refused.
However, if you want to send promos to somebody or some company for whatever reason, you can arrange an agreement with them whereby you send them promos to review and play on the air or whatever else, and they agree to your terms of no resale. That way you don't need an individual contract for each one. If they refuse the agreement, then the terms you are trying to impose are not, in fact, beneficial to both parties, so you have no business sending the product if you want those terms respected.
That way, the law remains consistent and people can't be taken advantage of by contracts they didn't agree to. No company that operates by assuming external parties will behave a certain way has any business complaining when they do not.
That's the beauty of it. You can then send the RIAA a letter with a sticker on the outside saying they have to go to California and pick up all your crap.
"... we can request that you return it at any time."
They can certainly request it, but you aren't beholden to care.
That's because that would be (poorly executed) fraud. It has nothing to do with the fact that the checks arrived in the mail.
Also, you did ask for them when you filed your tax return (at least in Canada, I assume it is the same in US).
My wife and kids gave me.
I sure hope it was worth that bumper sticker.
I didn't read the article, but the last line of the summary implies the judge disagrees with you.
"The labels indicate no expectation of their return."
You underestimate the potential of multiple personalities. Me, Myself and I,Robot seems like the only possible outcome.
What is commonly referred to as random chance is things like finding cash on the sidewalk, running into a friend when out in public or finding what you want in the first place you look. These events aren't truly random, which I suspect is what prompted the phrase in the GP.
If the software doesn't live up to its hype, it's up to you to communicate this to your managers. Either way, you shouldn't work for them if their bad decisions are costing you all this unpaid overtime. I think it's generally safe to say that if they suck, they'll suck whether they have access to free software or not.
In other words, the problem lies with management's decision to waste his time, and his decision to work for bad managers, not with the existence of open source software.
People want to read their morning newspaper in their mother tongue. Propaganda has nothing to do with it. To be fair, the newspaper may occasionally be used to (ineffectively) incite the masses, but mostly it's straight fact reporting.
(remember you don't want body checks for concealed weapons)
Remember that opinion I pretended was yours earlier? Don't forget that you still believe it.
Have you been to an airport? Do you have any idea how big the signs are that they actually want you to see? People being herded through security and not holding up the line in order to read everything on every wall don't necessarily have their heads up their asses. Perhaps they have enough faith in the system to assume they're not being forced into a nudie booth.
Because the people who set up networks are often stupid.
Like you, I wear a big belt buckle to hold up pants that are too big, but I've never actually lost my pants going through security. I find holding them up works well.
Why do you start by assuming the statement is true?
But what difference does it make? They intentionally broke the law both by planting the false torrents and by the DoS attacks. It is completely irrelevant whether they knew the two things were connected. Just because they're stupid doesn't mean they're not also malicious.
There is no Microsoft Tax if the same computer is more expensive with Linux instead of Windows.