It should be noted There's no season to be found Here in cyberspace
There used to be on usenet. The "Me too" season correlated with the influx of student getting internet connections in September/October. The low traffic seasons were during the school holidays. There were probably other seasonal changes as well for a variety of reasons.
MR. GARBUS: Will you produce that? MR. GOLD: The entire computer in his office? MR. GARBUS: The hard drive. MR. GOLD: You want the whole hard drive? [snip] Mr Pink: No *&%*hole! I want the whole goddamn office. What the $%&* do you think I want. Mr White: How about we just cut his ear off.
Yes. The question is along the lines of asking a bank robber "Did you steal $10 000 from the money?" or a murderer "Did you stab the knife". It suggests a misunderstanding of the terminology.
Q. You say it was zipped or compressed. Can you tell me what that means? A. It means that the executable file was compressed, which is standard technique used in the industry. Q. Was this done on your machine also? A. The compression? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. Where was that done?
If you claim to have anything to do with DVD's and don't grasp the concept of compression, then I think its time to do a little technical research.
Personally I think there's a difference. Apples are very conspicuous. Part of the design was to be noticable (I assume we're talking about iMacs here) Intel boxes are dull beige machines that are so ubiquitous that nobody notices them any more. You expect to see them.
Essentially, the very prescence of a Mac is an advertisement for Apple. Having publicity shots with them in the background would be as desirable to them as a great big poster behind Apple execs saying "Intel Pentium III" would be for Apple.
They weren't 100% right. Obviously they didn't want all the jokes along the lines of "Hey, did you see all those Macs in the intel publicity pictures".
Unfortunately they still insisted that preventing these jokes was more important to them than what they were funding. They should have backed down when they found that they were causing too much hassle. Partly out of consideration for others and aprtly out of good PR.
Its a lot easier to live withut technology in a fertile temperate area. Similarly, the Stallmanites typically have a source of income other than software.
If YOU are using the software, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure that it is the correct solution for your problem.
I don't think its reasonable to expect users tounderstand the source code. Anymore than I consider it reasonable that someone should be expected to check the designs of a car (e.g. the Ford Pinto) to make sure that it won't explode when it gets hit. This is something people take for granted.
When something is used normally, it should do its job and not cause damage. With software it is harder to guarentee the reliability, but the company should be able to work out whether its normally stable, and be insured against the possibility of something nasty happening.
You then have to work out a way to install it without clicking on "I agree". Since you own it, there's nothing to prevent you from making a personal copy on a CD-RW, but modify the string "I agree" to read "no way!", or replace the whole licence agreement with white space.
I think it would be polite to contact the company and mention to them that there seems to be a glitch in which the software won't install if you click on the "I disagree" button.
Quite correct. A key difference is that with most EULA's, you are expected to pay for the privilage of having a product with no warranty. With the GPL, although this is not included, you are given extra rights.
There is of course nothing to stop a third party selling GPL'ed software with a warranty provided by the third party.
According to clause 4, this may not be rented or leased. According to clause 10, you may end the contract by destroying the CD, and deleting all copies. You stil can't lease or reverse engineer the destroyed CD though.
I would think that the positioning of the terms and conditions (i.e. a link after the "Done" button rather than before) would actually make this less valid. Most websites that offer a service make sure that you have to at least scroll past the terms and conditions. You have the right to refuse.
Anyway, anyone want an mp3.com account that I signed up to just to find this out?
why go through the arse of downloading all this extra stuff, when Mandrake gives you everything you need?
But if Debian gave all the extra stuff then you still might as well download Mandrake. It loses its uniqueness. Debian doesn't need many supporters. It just needs enough.
The Stallmanesque psychonauts are sufficient in number to ensure that Debian is still worthwhile.
What I find interesting is the comment "[the robot] couldn't look less like a lamprey". A brain designed for controlling a fish was quite adequate for controlling wheels. Doesn't this suggest that virtually anything could be controlled like this? At last a neurally controlled TV so I don't have to lift one of those heavy remote controls!
Copyright law doesn't cover use. It covers copying.
Anything that I buy I can use for whatever purpose I want (as long as its legal) without getting permission from the author. A licence isn't neccesary to enforce copyright. Redistribution of copies is still illegal even if you own a copy.
For example, I have a book here. I don't have a licence to read the book. I can use the book for any legal purpose I want. I can't copy it. I can't use it as a murder weapon. I have a music CD. It contains a copy of the music. I don't have a licence to listen to the CD. I have the right to listen to the CD. I have a computer game CD. Not a licence. I have a copy of Linux. I rejected the GPL. I still own a copy I just can't redistribute it. I don't have a copy of Windows. Despite the fact that this CD that I legally bought has a copy of Windows 95 on it. I have a licnce to use it. Spot the anomoly.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be noted
There's no season to be found
Here in cyberspace
There used to be on usenet. The "Me too" season correlated with the influx of student getting internet connections in September/October. The low traffic seasons were during the school holidays. There were probably other seasonal changes as well for a variety of reasons.
Moderators Here, Touch only the abusive. Your sig insults them.
Joe Sixpack's 31337 Linux h4x0r z0n3, etc.
Now, that is a site we need. Keep all the script kiddies in one place.
MR. GARBUS: Will you produce that?
MR. GOLD: The entire computer in his office?
MR. GARBUS: The hard drive.
MR. GOLD: You want the whole hard drive?
[snip]
Mr Pink: No *&%*hole! I want the whole goddamn office. What the $%&* do you think I want.
Mr White: How about we just cut his ear off.
That looks almost like a bad turing test.
From that, I take it you have concluded that Lawyers are not yet intelligent.
Yes. The question is along the lines of asking a bank robber "Did you steal $10 000 from the money?" or a murderer "Did you stab the knife". It suggests a misunderstanding of the terminology.
Then there was this:
Q. You say it was zipped or compressed. Can you tell me what that means?
A. It means that the executable file was compressed, which is standard technique used in the industry.
Q. Was this done on your machine also?
A. The compression?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Where was that done?
If you claim to have anything to do with DVD's and don't grasp the concept of compression, then I think its time to do a little technical research.
Why are Time Warner constantly being singled out as an exception? What am I missing here?
Personally I think there's a difference. Apples are very conspicuous. Part of the design was to be noticable (I assume we're talking about iMacs here) Intel boxes are dull beige machines that are so ubiquitous that nobody notices them any more. You expect to see them.
Essentially, the very prescence of a Mac is an advertisement for Apple. Having publicity shots with them in the background would be as desirable to them as a great big poster behind Apple execs saying "Intel Pentium III" would be for Apple.
They weren't 100% right. Obviously they didn't want all the jokes along the lines of "Hey, did you see all those Macs in the intel publicity pictures".
Unfortunately they still insisted that preventing these jokes was more important to them than what they were funding. They should have backed down when they found that they were causing too much hassle. Partly out of consideration for others and aprtly out of good PR.
In this case, the feedline was backwards. It should be
My nose has no Dog.....
I consider the Amish to be a bit smug though.
Its a lot easier to live withut technology in a fertile temperate area. Similarly, the Stallmanites typically have a source of income other than software.
If YOU are using the software, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure that it is the correct solution for your problem.
I don't think its reasonable to expect users tounderstand the source code. Anymore than I consider it reasonable that someone should be expected to check the designs of a car (e.g. the Ford Pinto) to make sure that it won't explode when it gets hit. This is something people take for granted.
When something is used normally, it should do its job and not cause damage. With software it is harder to guarentee the reliability, but the company should be able to work out whether its normally stable, and be insured against the possibility of something nasty happening.
You then have to work out a way to install it without clicking on "I agree". Since you own it, there's nothing to prevent you from making a personal copy on a CD-RW, but modify the string "I agree" to read "no way!", or replace the whole licence agreement with white space.
I think it would be polite to contact the company and mention to them that there seems to be a glitch in which the software won't install if you click on the "I disagree" button.
Quite correct. A key difference is that with most EULA's, you are expected to pay for the privilage of having a product with no warranty. With the GPL, although this is not included, you are given extra rights.
There is of course nothing to stop a third party selling GPL'ed software with a warranty provided by the third party.
According to clause 4, this may not be rented or leased. According to clause 10, you may end the contract by destroying the CD, and deleting all copies. You stil can't lease or reverse engineer the destroyed CD though.
I would think that the positioning of the terms and conditions (i.e. a link after the "Done" button rather than before) would actually make this less valid. Most websites that offer a service make sure that you have to at least scroll past the terms and conditions. You have the right to refuse.
Anyway, anyone want an mp3.com account that I signed up to just to find this out?
why go through the arse of downloading all this extra stuff, when Mandrake gives you everything you need?
But if Debian gave all the extra stuff then you still might as well download Mandrake. It loses its uniqueness. Debian doesn't need many supporters. It just needs enough.
The Stallmanesque psychonauts are sufficient in number to ensure that Debian is still worthwhile.
Well, my sources indicate that certain individuals are planning on using cyborg lampreys to take over the world.
Never fear. I am creating a super loyal race of genetically engineered guppies.
I can give you a super enhanced cyborg body.
One thing though. I can't sell it to you. You have to lease it. And my organisation is allowed to repossess it at any time.
What I find interesting is the comment "[the robot] couldn't look less like a lamprey". A brain designed for controlling a fish was quite adequate for controlling wheels. Doesn't this suggest that virtually anything could be controlled like this? At last a neurally controlled TV so I don't have to lift one of those heavy remote controls!
Copyright law doesn't cover use. It covers copying.
Anything that I buy I can use for whatever purpose I want (as long as its legal) without getting permission from the author. A licence isn't neccesary to enforce copyright. Redistribution of copies is still illegal even if you own a copy.
For example, I have a book here. I don't have a licence to read the book. I can use the book for any legal purpose I want. I can't copy it. I can't use it as a murder weapon. I have a music CD. It contains a copy of the music. I don't have a licence to listen to the CD. I have the right to listen to the CD. I have a computer game CD. Not a licence. I have a copy of Linux. I rejected the GPL. I still own a copy I just can't redistribute it. I don't have a copy of Windows. Despite the fact that this CD that I legally bought has a copy of Windows 95 on it. I have a licnce to use it. Spot the anomoly.
I've installed Windows 95 from floppy disk. They built a special hospital just for mE afTeR ThaT.,-~'^'~-.,
Streetlawyers been alternating between trolling and making interesting comments for too long. He knows how to karma whore like the best of them.
My guess is that it will be incompatible with all previous modchips in a trivial way which will result in a new modchip being introduced.