Inability to comprehend simple concepts (like why one doesn't trust one's data to a proprietary product with proprietary file formats
Extremely belligerent behavior (like viciously attacking people who should be your friends - i.e. someone who reverse engineers protocols so your UNIX clone OS can interoperate with other systems and hence be more useful to many more people)
There is also something call qigong deviation syndrome and qigong psychotic reaction which have been reported sometimes in conjunction with Falun Gong.
Anything can cause harm if done or used improperly.
Your understanding of the word "right" is backwards, because copyrgiht law uses the word in a backwards way.
"limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner" really means "limits the exercise of an action (by anyone); where only the copyright holder has an exclusive right to perform such action".
Copying a work is an exclusive "right" of the copyright holder (s/he can of course grant a license and there are exceptions, etc).
Restricting that "right of the copyright holder" is just a legalistic way of saying "restricting copying".
The law is not meant to be clear, quite the contrary.
Maybe its been hacked and is being kept really quiet. They are keeping quiet, to prevent an even stronger system coming out and they losing access again.
Credit card chargebacks are always a good way to fight back.
Yeah, there are time limits, etc, but if you bought it and it breaks soon after you can do it, get paid, and if enough people do so, the seller suffers and can even have credit card transaction rights revoked from them.
The L train goes through some extremely rough parts of town (I was born in New York and lived there 19 years).
I'd be more worried about getting mugged, assaulted or killed due to less people around to deter it than I would be of any computer failure or terrorist hacking of the system.
Would using a product at work bind you from doing things on your own time at home, even if you kept work and home totally seperate as far as the product in question is concerned?
If I am forced to use product X at work, can its license forbid me from reverse engineering it at home, even if I never use it at home and don't share any data regarding it between work and home?
If there answer is yes, then basically we are saying use of a product "contaminates" a person so they can't do certain things on their own.
What if one's job requires one to use a tool which says one can never work on open source projects as a condition of the license? Is that legal? Is the considered "contrary to public policy" and thus unenforcable? Is that ethical or moral? (totally different question that is it legal, unfortunately).
If software companies want to play that way (excluding sales to particular people or entities) and/or any other actions inconsistent with "mass marketing" of software (e.g. Pepsi doesn't know or care exactly who buys their product - just how much money they make overall - and they sure don't blackball potential customers) then they shouldn't be able to have mass-market licenses (click thru EULAs, etc).
Make them get a signature on the license from each individual customer.
Yeah, nothing free makes any economic sense whatsoever.
Like Google, providing a free web search service running on a free OS (Linux) using free/open protocols (HTTP over TCP over IP) and serving pages in a free/open standard (HTML).
And no one used Sendmail and BIND, those free programs aren't used at all by any one with any economic signifcant right?
(Note, I was being sarcastic - just thought I'd make that clear before someone with an itchy trigger finger mods this post as "Flamebait".
Slashdot Mirror
The Pope being dead doesn't preclude his talking:
Ever hear of EVP?
http://aaevp.com/
Some more symptoms:
Inability to comprehend simple concepts (like why one doesn't trust one's data to a proprietary product with proprietary file formats
Extremely belligerent behavior (like viciously attacking people who should be your friends - i.e. someone who reverse engineers protocols so your UNIX clone OS can interoperate with other systems and hence be more useful to many more people)
For the U. S. Federal government, $25000 is almost free.
There is also something call qigong deviation syndrome and qigong psychotic reaction which have been reported sometimes in conjunction with Falun Gong.
Anything can cause harm if done or used improperly.
I shudder to think what the British members of our audience will think when they see your post.
Here was the original post he made before it went through the filter:
They filter everything. I've lived in China for the past 10 years and I can tell you that the American government/media is telling you the truth.
Oh God! Someone's breaking down my front door!
Your understanding of the word "right" is backwards, because copyrgiht law uses the word in a backwards way.
"limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner" really means "limits the exercise of an action (by anyone); where only the copyright holder has an exclusive right to perform such action".
Copying a work is an exclusive "right" of the copyright holder (s/he can of course grant a license and there are exceptions, etc).
Restricting that "right of the copyright holder" is just a legalistic way of saying "restricting copying".
The law is not meant to be clear, quite the contrary.
Just press the "easy button".
Analog Macrovision is *easy* to break.
I know how, but won't say.
That is illegal knowledge to disseminate.
Maybe its been hacked and is being kept really quiet. They are keeping quiet, to prevent an even stronger system coming out and they losing access again.
Then DVDs will die.
Most people won't even know what you are talking about.
Now having new DVDs automatically update the firmware is easy, stealthy, evil, and effective. I think some DRM systems use such an idea.
The user merely watches a movie, and their player gets reflashed in the process. That could work.
Expecting the average movie watcher to even know what to do with a USB cable and how to boot something off an external drive won't.
Credit card chargebacks are always a good way to fight back.
Yeah, there are time limits, etc, but if you bought it and it breaks soon after you can do it, get paid, and if enough people do so, the seller suffers and can even have credit card transaction rights revoked from them.
As interpreted by the courts, that provision gives very little protection at all.
If you reverse engineer anything that annoys someone else, you are likely to be sued and lose.
He wasn't doing it at work.
Disco rules.
The 70s and 80s had the best music of all time.
solaris has been 64bit for far longer than (mainstream) linux
Linux 64 bit support is now mainstream? When did this happen. I thought there were still quite a few kinks to iron out.
The L train goes through some extremely rough parts of town (I was born in New York and lived there 19 years).
I'd be more worried about getting mugged, assaulted or killed due to less people around to deter it than I would be of any computer failure or terrorist hacking of the system.
Would using a product at work bind you from doing things on your own time at home, even if you kept work and home totally seperate as far as the product in question is concerned?
If I am forced to use product X at work, can its license forbid me from reverse engineering it at home, even if I never use it at home and don't share any data regarding it between work and home?
If there answer is yes, then basically we are saying use of a product "contaminates" a person so they can't do certain things on their own.
What if one's job requires one to use a tool which says one can never work on open source projects as a condition of the license? Is that legal? Is the considered "contrary to public policy" and thus unenforcable? Is that ethical or moral? (totally different question that is it legal, unfortunately).
There is something really wrong with a tool if some user tweaking a ChangeSet file causes damage that costs $35000 and needs a custom release to fix!
Neutron bombs just kill you with radiation poisoning , no melting eyes or exploding skin.
Just fatal DNA damage, etc.
A true free market wouldn't have government enforced monopolies, such as copyright.
If software companies want to play that way (excluding sales to particular people or entities) and/or any other actions inconsistent with "mass marketing" of software (e.g. Pepsi doesn't know or care exactly who buys their product - just how much money they make overall - and they sure don't blackball potential customers) then they shouldn't be able to have mass-market licenses (click thru EULAs, etc).
Make them get a signature on the license from each individual customer.
That would be consistent.
Yeah, nothing free makes any economic sense whatsoever.
Like Google, providing a free web search service running on a free OS (Linux) using free/open protocols (HTTP over TCP over IP) and serving pages in a free/open standard (HTML).
And no one used Sendmail and BIND, those free programs aren't used at all by any one with any economic signifcant right?
(Note, I was being sarcastic - just thought I'd make that clear before someone with an itchy trigger finger mods this post as "Flamebait".
Actually you do (if you're in the US)
The USA has a lot of people laid off due to outsourcing and the dot-com bust.
These people literally having nothing better (or at all) to do.
* San Jose and the rest of the Bay Area in particular.
Heck they did it with a web server.
kHTTPd.
(I better duck)