UPS and FedEx come to mind as alternatives. Now these aren't subsidized by the government, hence they will cost more, but they are quite good at getting things to people fast.
Back to the topic at hand. I am not convinced that the Antivirus Software market has a right to exist; alas software has bugs. It would help if the apps that came with the OS were reasonably secure by default, but in the meantime Antivirus will remain a necessary evil
I've never agreed with the convential use of the term "artificial". To me, everything is natural, there is no artificial. It's our human ego that makes us think that our tools and creations are somehow special.
Just because humans (or machines) make something, that does not make the product unnatural or artificial. Nature makes humans, humans make machines. The only reason the word "artificial" has its usual semantics is because we as humans view ourselves as somehow above or apart from nature, when in fact we are simply an extension of natural processes.
What I question, and what you fail to address, is why is it any different than music?
Look, MUSIC IS NOT THE SAME AS SOFTWARE. We all get that YOU WANT THE SAME MODEL TO APPLY. This DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE SAME MODEL DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT APPLY. Yes I understand that to install software on more than one system I have to make a copy. But that's a restriction created by the developer. Knoppix, and previous software from years ago, demonstrates that this doesn't have to be the case.
THE MODEL OF RUNNING SOFTWARE OFF REMOVABLE MEDIA IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ALL SOFTWARE.
You do understand that forcing software to fit onto a certain removable media (CD DVD WHATEVER) puts an upper limit on the amount of content that can be delivered?
Likewise I paid for the right to use the software. Why should I be restricted to using only a single copy at a time?
The right to copy is governed by this thing called copyright. Just because you choose to ignore this doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
I bought the right to use it...is there a difference if I use it on more than one system? Yes there is a difference if you have to make copies to use it on more than one system. See above.
I still purchased the right to use it. On one system.
Think about it...does it make sense for me to purchase an additional right to use something that I've already purchased a right to use just because it's used on multiple systems? Especially when it's the developers who designed the product in such a way as to force that issue? Yes.
What if the recording industry licensed music with the right of only using it on a single system? What about it?
Would that be legal? Legal yes, popular, probably not.
Yes, I realize that copyright law would not apply. Copyright law DOES STILL APPLY.
But it's not copying that's at issue...it's should I be forced to purchase additional rights solely because the developers have manufactured their product to force me to make a copy of it to easily move it to a different system I answered this in my reply to your first post. Yes. Yes you should pay more in order to be able to make copies of something to use it more than once if that is what the owner of the IP has stated in the license. You don't have to like it, but it still is the way it SHOULD BE.
If you don't like it, choose an OS with a different license.
Calling someone a moron may make you happy, but it does not strenghten the quality of your argument. It's called argument ad hominem.
Look you are entitled to your opinion, and I won't try and wrest it from you. It's almost 100% certain you'll never be tried for making personal copies of software you bought.
None of the above means 1) You are legally entitled to make these copies. 2) You *should* be allowed to make these copies under the law.
The distinction is subtle, but important.
I encourage you to make up your own mind based on information from other sources. I have concluded for myself that installing software to multiple locations simulataneously does violate IP rights, regardless of how poorly the owner of that IP informed me of the license.
Perhaps that's true, but you failed miserably to understand the parent poster's point.
You are probably correct that I misread their position. While your cogent argument below may be what the poster intended, it certainly vastly outclasses the argument above both in clarity and in cohesiveness. Please acknowledge that your argument below is a significant enhancement of the original post both in terms of quality and quantity of the points made.
Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine.
# 1. Is that one single machine at a time, or only installed on one machine?
This question is a good one. Statistically, most flavors of Windows (that come pre-installed on machines) are a right to use only on the single machine on which it was pre-installed. The license is pretty clear that it is not transferrable to another machine, regardless of simultaneous use.
If I de-install it on one machine and then install it on another, does that meet the EULA? It seems to be, but it is very inconvenient.
Per above it is not very likely in accordance with the license of the software.
There's no operational difference with installing it on both and only using one at a time, except for the lack of the inconvenience.
Despite the fact that this is against the license, I would be easily convinced that this falls under fair use. Should this type of use be tried in court, I would hope such use would be protected, however it is still likely against the license. What about swappable HDD?
What about them?
I think that we can agree that there are two distinct questions.
1) What is in accordance with the license? 2) What is "fair use" of software?
Muddling the questions doesn't make them easier to understand.
# 2. You are assuming EULAs are legally binding.
I am not making this assumption. I am simply stating that intellectual property should be respected. AFAIK, that has not been demonstrated, and there's good reason to believe they aren't. # 3. The conditions of the agreement cannot waive fair use rights, if they apply in this case. They might, but AFAIK it has never been tested.
Another valid point, nonetheless the scenario of having 2 simultaneous installations is not very likely fair use even if only one of the machines is in use at any given time.
Even if you are not distributing your *perfect copy* of my product to others, by buying one and using two, you have deprived me of an opportunity to sell you a second copy.
But this is not the basis of law, rights, fairness, and ethics. One could say the same thing about many items. Allowing people to play the media in more than one device deprives the creators from an opportunity to sell many more copies. Allowing a car to be driven by more than one person deprives the manufacturers from selling more cars. Maximizing opportunities to sell things should never be the driver for fair use rights or legalities of licenses. It's a lousy argument and not convincing at all.
Fair cop, it wasn't the best point I've ever made.
We should both be able to agree intellectual property should be respected. I am not an advocate of a EULA, and I hope it is challenged.
In the end, if you buy IP and a EULA says it can only be used under certain conditions, in my mind there are only a few justifiable options to choose.
1) Attempt to return the IP. 2) Challenge the EULA in court 3) Use it in accordance with the EULA.
Making pirated copies is not the right answer.
Just because EULAs are evil and Microsoft is a monopolistic bully doesn't mean that violating their IP rights is morally justified.
You moron...I understand the difference. I've never seen a person who misses the clue more than you! If you made a point and stuck to it, maybe it wouldn't be missed.
The only two points I saw you making consistently were
1) Calling me a moron 2) Claiming that using windows on multiple machines should be considered the same as using a cd on multiple players.
If you really believe 1) then you shouldn't argue with me, since when a wise person argues with a moron, there are two morons arguing.
As for 2) I have yet to read a justification of yours that convinces me that installing multiple copies of software should be the same as listening to multiple cds. I don't think I have missed your point, I just think you have failed to make it.
I am of course willing to wait until you claim to have made it before refuting it thoroughly.
You moron...I know exactly what he paid for. I disagree with that. I doubt that the recording industry would be able to legally force a buyer to listen to music they licensed on only one device. Why is software any different?
Software license != Music License Software that is installed != music that is played.
When you are done playing (not copying) a cd, and move it to another player THE OLD PLAYER DOESN'T STILL HAVE THE MUSIC STORED ON IT, thus you can't simultaneously play it on both devices. If you install Windows and remove the cd, and install it elsewhere, you can use both machines at once.
If you don't want to understand that there is a difference, fine, but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
You may know what he paid, but you seem to fail miserably in knowing what he paid for Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine. You don't have to like it, you don't have to even agree to it. You should recognize that failure to comply with it is misappropriation of intellectual property.
What I am saying is why can't he purchase one license and use it on all the PCs in his home?
Read. The. License.
One can purchase a single license to music and use it on every device capable of playing it.
Not all licenses are created equal. Not all licenses should be created equal. Comparing apples and lugwrenches by saying both are objects is fine, but it doesn't make an apple like a lugwrench.
I understand this too. I'm questioning why it should be the case.
I beg to differ, you don't understand. I suspect you would change your tune if you were selling your intellectual property and had your sales impacted by unlicensed use of your product your perspective might change.
You're right...there isn't a difference. So why can I listen to music on multiple devices but I can't use Windows on multiple devices?
Look, if I am selling something, and there is a glut of perfect replicas of what I am selling freely available, it lowers the value of my product. Even if you are not distributing your *perfect copy* of my product to others, by buying one and using two, you have deprived me of an opportunity to sell you a second copy. I don't like windows. When at all possible, I install linux on harware I build, or by hardware that ships with non-Windows OS pre-installed. If you don't like Windows, don't use it. Please don't rationalize IP theft, wrong is wrong.
FYI: This article (admittedly posted at cisco.com) has some cell phone and WIFI information, however it does not specifically address the magnetic field headsets discussed in the article. Specifically about cell phone usage:
In September 2002, The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority released a report written by two internationally well-known epidemiologists who review published studies on the relationship between the use of cellular telephones and cancer risk. The authors are Dr. John D. Boice, Jr. and Dr. Joseph K. McLaughlin from the International Epiderminology Institute, USA. In their review, no consistent evidence was observed for increased risk of health factors by wireless devices, specifically handheld cellular phones.
Anyone have any information about the possible long term effects of using these headsets? I would think that they are low energy so would be low risk, however I wonder if heavy usage would end up causing detrimental effects.
As the article said, it seems to be only the most popular search terms. Which means probably those that require the highest price per click on their sponsored matches. Now, more people will try for sponsored matches on those keywords, pushing the price up (artificially) high.
We are always warned about the dangers of a monopoly/monoculture, and this is precisely why.
Google doesn't force end users to use their search engine, they simply have become very popular due to the quality of their searches. I see nothing wrong with attempting to increase that quality by downranking sites attempting to trick their algorithm. They owe the end user nothing, and if their changes decrease the quality of results, the marketplace will decide on a different search engine. After all, those sites were creating an artificial value for themselves at the expense of other, more legitimate sites. If anything this will lead to the *actual* value of google sponsored matches, not an artificial one.
With the various search engines available, I wouldn't say google has a monopoly, and if there is a monoculture favoring google, it is because of end users choosing quality, not because people are forced to use google. I see nothing dangerous here. Google owes us (end users and webmasters alike) nothing not a specific ranking algorithm, not a free search service, nothing at all. If they have found ways to monetize the service they provide, all the better, because I am happy that the service exists and want it to remain around. For the record I don't work for Google, nor am I affiliated with it, and I am not running a website.
1) Just because *you* feel that someone else could benefit humanity in a different vocation does not mean that person *should* be doing your bidding. Forcing others to toil for the good of humanity generally *isn't* for the good of humanity... it strips humans of their ability to *choose* their vocation.
2) Computer games can be good or bad, just as all activity can be benefical or harmful. Playing is generally accepted as a natural and healthy way to develop physical and cognitive skills. Just because humans choose to use electronic games to play does not mean that they (our their developers) are doing a great harm to mankind.
3) It is a good thing to offer games to the needy and infirm, at minimum it increases their choices.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, is it any wonder we regard them as out of touch? They think it's anyone's fault but their own.
It is a wonder, because that's what we think too!
I was having fun to suck batteries while I was a child!
UPS and FedEx come to mind as alternatives. Now these aren't subsidized by the government, hence they will cost more, but they are quite good at getting things to people fast.
Back to the topic at hand. I am not convinced that the Antivirus Software market has a right to exist; alas software has bugs. It would help if the apps that came with the OS were reasonably secure by default, but in the meantime Antivirus will remain a necessary evil
It's a shame our "magic lasso" is a waterboard.
You can get people to admit to almost anything to get off one of those.
SunRay at home.
It is good.
It's pretty easy to do hardware support when you control the hardware.
Since I happened to reply to this post a while back, here's your link
5 &cid=13786646
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16521
Interestingly, as I pointed out before 100% is > 1% it's not like continuing to have > 1% of a market is bad.
Clearly they should be shot on site, in case they learn to type with their elbows.
The world population is ~6.5 billion.
See also http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
Let see
5% > 1%
50% > 1%
99% > 15
Works for me.
If > and confuse you just remember:
the alligator is hungry so the mouth opens towards the bigger meal.
Update! Military releases the ultimate weapon!
The new uber-defense system:
Hope the enemy doesn't shoot anymore.
I mean, it's not like the U.S. has pissed any other nations off or anything.
I am the antithesis of a hawk, and I realize the folly in your strategy.
I've never agreed with the convential use of the term "artificial". To me, everything is natural, there is no artificial. It's our human ego that makes us think that our tools and creations are somehow special.
Just because humans (or machines) make something, that does not make the product unnatural or artificial. Nature makes humans, humans make machines. The only reason the word "artificial" has its usual semantics is because we as humans view ourselves as somehow above or apart from nature, when in fact we are simply an extension of natural processes.
When someone developed the flamethrower it was because of the idea "You know, I'd really like to set that person over there on fire"
I wonder what the analogous thought process was for this product if there was one...
IANAL and IAN the SEC BUT:
Aren't publically traded companies required not to make knowingly misleading statements to their investors?
What I question, and what you fail to address, is why is it any different than music?
Look, MUSIC IS NOT THE SAME AS SOFTWARE. We all get that YOU WANT THE SAME MODEL TO APPLY. This DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE SAME MODEL DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT APPLY.
Yes I understand that to install software on more than one system I have to make a copy. But that's a restriction created by the developer. Knoppix, and previous software from years ago, demonstrates that this doesn't have to be the case.
THE MODEL OF RUNNING SOFTWARE OFF REMOVABLE MEDIA IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ALL SOFTWARE.
You do understand that forcing software to fit onto a certain removable media (CD DVD WHATEVER) puts an upper limit on the amount of content that can be delivered?
Likewise I paid for the right to use the software. Why should I be restricted to using only a single copy at a time?
The right to copy is governed by this thing called copyright. Just because you choose to ignore this doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
I bought the right to use it...is there a difference if I use it on more than one system?
Yes there is a difference if you have to make copies to use it on more than one system. See above.
I still purchased the right to use it.
On one system.
Think about it...does it make sense for me to purchase an additional right to use something that I've already purchased a right to use just because it's used on multiple systems? Especially when it's the developers who designed the product in such a way as to force that issue?
Yes.
What if the recording industry licensed music with the right of only using it on a single system?
What about it?
Would that be legal?
Legal yes, popular, probably not.
Yes, I realize that copyright law would not apply.
Copyright law DOES STILL APPLY.
But it's not copying that's at issue...it's should I be forced to purchase additional rights solely because the developers have manufactured their product to force me to make a copy of it to easily move it to a different system
I answered this in my reply to your first post.
Yes. Yes you should pay more in order to be able to make copies of something to use it more than once if that is what the owner of the IP has stated in the license. You don't have to like it, but it still is the way it SHOULD BE.
If you don't like it, choose an OS with a different license.
Calling someone a moron may make you happy, but it does not strenghten the quality of your argument. It's called argument ad hominem.
Look you are entitled to your opinion, and I won't try and wrest it from you. It's almost 100% certain you'll never be tried for making personal copies of software you bought.
None of the above means
1) You are legally entitled to make these copies.
2) You *should* be allowed to make these copies under the law.
The distinction is subtle, but important.
I encourage you to make up your own mind based on information from other sources. I have concluded for myself that installing software to multiple locations simulataneously does violate IP rights, regardless of how poorly the owner of that IP informed me of the license.
Perhaps that's true, but you failed miserably to understand the parent poster's point.
You are probably correct that I misread their position. While your cogent argument below may be what the poster intended, it certainly vastly outclasses the argument above both in clarity and in cohesiveness. Please acknowledge that your argument below is a significant enhancement of the original post both in terms of quality and quantity of the points made.
Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine.
# 1. Is that one single machine at a time, or only installed on one machine?
This question is a good one. Statistically, most flavors of Windows (that come pre-installed on machines) are a right to use only on the single machine on which it was pre-installed. The license is pretty clear that it is not transferrable to another machine, regardless of simultaneous use.
If I de-install it on one machine and then install it on another, does that meet the EULA? It seems to be, but it is very inconvenient.
Per above it is not very likely in accordance with the license of the software.
There's no operational difference with installing it on both and only using one at a time, except for the lack of the inconvenience.
Despite the fact that this is against the license, I would be easily convinced that this falls under fair use. Should this type of use be tried in court, I would hope such use would be protected, however it is still likely against the license.
What about swappable HDD?
What about them?
I think that we can agree that there are two distinct questions.
1) What is in accordance with the license?
2) What is "fair use" of software?
Muddling the questions doesn't make them easier to understand.
# 2. You are assuming EULAs are legally binding.
I am not making this assumption. I am simply stating that intellectual property should be respected.
AFAIK, that has not been demonstrated, and there's good reason to believe they aren't.
# 3. The conditions of the agreement cannot waive fair use rights, if they apply in this case. They might, but AFAIK it has never been tested.
Another valid point, nonetheless the scenario of having 2 simultaneous installations is not very likely fair use even if only one of the machines is in use at any given time.
Even if you are not distributing your *perfect copy* of my product to others, by buying one and using two, you have deprived me of an opportunity to sell you a second copy.
But this is not the basis of law, rights, fairness, and ethics. One could say the same thing about many items. Allowing people to play the media in more than one device deprives the creators from an opportunity to sell many more copies. Allowing a car to be driven by more than one person deprives the manufacturers from selling more cars. Maximizing opportunities to sell things should never be the driver for fair use rights or legalities of licenses. It's a lousy argument and not convincing at all.
Fair cop, it wasn't the best point I've ever made.
We should both be able to agree intellectual property should be respected. I am not an advocate of a EULA, and I hope it is challenged.
In the end, if you buy IP and a EULA says it can only be used under certain conditions, in my mind there are only a few justifiable options to choose.
1) Attempt to return the IP.
2) Challenge the EULA in court
3) Use it in accordance with the EULA.
Making pirated copies is not the right answer.
Just because EULAs are evil and Microsoft is a monopolistic bully doesn't mean that violating their IP rights is morally justified.
Wrong is still wrong.
You moron...I understand the difference. I've never seen a person who misses the clue more than you!
If you made a point and stuck to it, maybe it wouldn't be missed.
The only two points I saw you making consistently were
1) Calling me a moron
2) Claiming that using windows on multiple machines should be considered the same as using a cd on multiple players.
If you really believe 1) then you shouldn't argue with me, since when a wise person argues with a moron, there are two morons arguing.
As for 2) I have yet to read a justification of yours that convinces me that installing multiple copies of software should be the same as listening to multiple cds. I don't think I have missed your point, I just think you have failed to make it.
I am of course willing to wait until you claim to have made it before refuting it thoroughly.
You moron...I know exactly what he paid for. I disagree with that. I doubt that the recording industry would be able to legally force a buyer to listen to music they licensed on only one device. Why is software any different?
Software license != Music License
Software that is installed != music that is played.
When you are done playing (not copying) a cd, and move it to another player THE OLD PLAYER DOESN'T STILL HAVE THE MUSIC STORED ON IT, thus you can't simultaneously play it on both devices. If you install Windows and remove the cd, and install it elsewhere, you can use both machines at once.
If you don't want to understand that there is a difference, fine, but THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
You may know what he paid, but you seem to fail miserably in knowing what he paid for
Whatever he paid, the EULA clearly states that it is the right to use on a single machine. You don't have to like it, you don't have to even agree to it. You should recognize that failure to comply with it is misappropriation of intellectual property.
Read. The. License.
Not all licenses are created equal. Not all licenses should be created equal. Comparing apples and lugwrenches by saying both are objects is fine, but it doesn't make an apple like a lugwrench.
I beg to differ, you don't understand. I suspect you would change your tune if you were selling your intellectual property and had your sales impacted by unlicensed use of your product your perspective might change.
Look, if I am selling something, and there is a glut of perfect replicas of what I am selling freely available, it lowers the value of my product. Even if you are not distributing your *perfect copy* of my product to others, by buying one and using two, you have deprived me of an opportunity to sell you a second copy.
I don't like windows. When at all possible, I install linux on harware I build, or by hardware that ships with non-Windows OS pre-installed. If you don't like Windows, don't use it. Please don't rationalize IP theft, wrong is wrong.
Anyone have any information about the possible long term effects of using these headsets? I would think that they are low energy so would be low risk, however I wonder if heavy usage would end up causing detrimental effects.
Google doesn't force end users to use their search engine, they simply have become very popular due to the quality of their searches. I see nothing wrong with attempting to increase that quality by downranking sites attempting to trick their algorithm. They owe the end user nothing, and if their changes decrease the quality of results, the marketplace will decide on a different search engine. After all, those sites were creating an artificial value for themselves at the expense of other, more legitimate sites. If anything this will lead to the *actual* value of google sponsored matches, not an artificial one.
With the various search engines available, I wouldn't say google has a monopoly, and if there is a monoculture favoring google, it is because of end users choosing quality, not because people are forced to use google. I see nothing dangerous here. Google owes us (end users and webmasters alike) nothing not a specific ranking algorithm, not a free search service, nothing at all. If they have found ways to monetize the service they provide, all the better, because I am happy that the service exists and want it to remain around. For the record I don't work for Google, nor am I affiliated with it, and I am not running a website.
1) Just because *you* feel that someone else could benefit humanity in a different vocation does not mean that person *should* be doing your bidding. Forcing others to toil for the good of humanity generally *isn't* for the good of humanity... it strips humans of their ability to *choose* their vocation.
2) Computer games can be good or bad, just as all activity can be benefical or harmful. Playing is generally accepted as a natural and healthy way to develop physical and cognitive skills. Just because humans choose to use electronic games to play does not mean that they (our their developers) are doing a great harm to mankind.
3) It is a good thing to offer games to the needy and infirm, at minimum it increases their choices.
Ironic that's a very violent thing to do to gamers...