There is a difference. Jobs is dead, and in most jurisdictions, the right to control the use of one's name dies with the person. Everyone else mentioned is still alive, and can (and can afford to) sue on that basis.
(This is not a comment on whether or not this was a good decision, but legally, it looks correct to me. Apple missed the boat, and it cost them.)
In this case, I can defeat them by continuing to own my own car. If need by, I could live close enough to work to walk or bicycle.
But human driven cars aren't going anywhere any time soon, and when they do, advertising supported "free" rides won't be more than a short lived curiosity, like ad supported "free" internet services were.
This isn't a new idea. It's failed many times before.
If they manage to accurately mine my data, they'll refuse to take me anywhere, knowing that the advertising will cause me to actively avoid their brand.
Advertising is worthwhile only when it generates more in profits than it costs. Good luck on that.
Currency that is backed by the power of a government is far more reliable than an abstract currency like bitcoin.
That depends entirely on the government doing the backing. Zimbabwean currency (back when they still had one) is worth more as a collectible than it is as a currency. And it's worth about the same as the paper it's printed on as a collectible.
Did they cite primary sources that you can check yourself, like a statement on Mozilla's web site? Because otherwise, I don't find NPR any more credible (or less prone to propaganda) than Faux News, or any other tabloid.
The process of getting a human-rating certification takes years, and involves quite a few test launches, of both the rocket and the crew capsule. SpaceX is very close to meeting the requirements, and I believe at least one other private launch company is as well.
The Russians haven't designed a new rocket in many years. Their rockets already have the necessary certification for legal launches.
It's a political process, but one rooted in fatal failures in NASA's history.
People who drink heavily should not post things on the interwebs until they have a sober grown up to double check that they are writing completely, grammatically correct sentences.
McDonald's corporate is apparently putting a brutal amount of pressure on franchisees to force customers to use the "self serve" kiosks they've force all the stores to install (and considerable expense), and they apparently measure what percentage of sales are rung up on those kiosks.
One local McDonald's just stopped manning the registers as much, and the service there sucks donkey balls. The other one, clever bastards that they are, simply station a cashier at the kiosk and use it as a cash register. They even had somebody build a little wheeled cart for drink cups. The only difference between that and the other registers is that they don't take cash there - you have to go to the regular counter register to pay.
No difference to the customers, no difference to the employees, corporate is happy, it's win/win/win.
Be careful what you measure, because that's what you'll get.
Bose recommends you buy your speaker wire from your local hardware store, in the form of lamp cord. They certainly know more about the subject than I do, so I'll take their word for it. You, on the other hand, are some guy on the internet
Plus, of course, most people can't tell the difference between Monster cable and coat hanger wire.
It's normal to hate on audiophiles because it's normal for audiophiles to be idiots.
It's easy to see a placebo effect when there's nothing there at all. You give someone a sugar pill, and they get over the disease they had anyway (though natural healing), and (because you want there to be an effect), you see the placebo effect as being responsible. Human brains aren't wired to grasp random events very well.
There's also an anti-placebo (no "nocebo") effect.
Tea aficionados only use loose tea for the same reason that music aficionados pay thousand of dollars for speaker wire that works exactly the same as $0.29/foot lamp cord: they believe it will be better, and therefore, it will be better - for them. It's a placebo effect, but a real one.
For normal people, of course, there's little to no difference.
With really cheap, mass produced tea, like Lipton, there's a vaguely papery taste to the tea from the equally cheap paper used in the tea bag. Since that's what I grew up on, I like it that way. Cheap, strong, and loaded with caffeine.
Kind of, but not all that much. The incentive to not do that isn't that it's illegal, it's that if Microsoft sues you, it costs nearly as much to win as to lose, and Microsoft has much deeper pockets.
But that doesn't mean you'll lose if you do have the money to fight.
The code is part of the purchased goods. I presume it's a one time use code (and if it's not, that's on Disney, not RedBox). Once RedBox owns the copy of the movie, they can do anything that isn't prohibited with that copy. Splitting it up and selling it in pieces is not prohibited, any more than cutting the color illustrations out of a book and selling them as wall are it.
Adobe didn't dispute the right of SoftMan to sell the disk, the disputed the right to sell the license to use the copyrighted material based on their license terms. Their license terms were ruled immaterial, because copyright is governed by copyright law, not contract law. The first sale doctrine goes back well over a century, and was formally defined when book publishers put "licenses" in their books that prohibited libraries from loaning out their books. This isn't a new area of law, no matter how obscure it is these days.
There's conflicting case law at the appellate level, but it would be a reversal of long standing policy if this goes Disney's way. This may well be the case that gets to the Supreme Court, though, which is badly needed.
You are absolutely correct. Actual leases, set up as such, are a great deal for the leasing company. And most big software companies don't have a shit about customers.
There's quite a bit of case law (Softman v. Adobe, for instance), that says that doesn't matter. If it's a one time purchase, with an indefinite period of use, it's a sale of goods, and the first sale doctrine applies.
(There's also case law at the appellate level that disagrees with that interpretation. TFA doesn't say where this was filed, but I'll bet it was California, same district as Softman v. Adobe.)
Slashdot Mirror
There is a difference. Jobs is dead, and in most jurisdictions, the right to control the use of one's name dies with the person. Everyone else mentioned is still alive, and can (and can afford to) sue on that basis.
(This is not a comment on whether or not this was a good decision, but legally, it looks correct to me. Apple missed the boat, and it cost them.)
In this case, I can defeat them by continuing to own my own car. If need by, I could live close enough to work to walk or bicycle.
But human driven cars aren't going anywhere any time soon, and when they do, advertising supported "free" rides won't be more than a short lived curiosity, like ad supported "free" internet services were.
This isn't a new idea. It's failed many times before.
If they manage to accurately mine my data, they'll refuse to take me anywhere, knowing that the advertising will cause me to actively avoid their brand.
Advertising is worthwhile only when it generates more in profits than it costs. Good luck on that.
If you're worried that they'll let you go early if you give them six months notice, why do you care what happens to them if you only give two weeks?
A coworker in a similar position gave a year's notice, and we were almost ready when he finally left.
Currency that is backed by the power of a government is far more reliable than an abstract currency like bitcoin.
That depends entirely on the government doing the backing. Zimbabwean currency (back when they still had one) is worth more as a collectible than it is as a currency. And it's worth about the same as the paper it's printed on as a collectible.
are damaging to the medium in which they are promoted. That's why they're illegal in postal mail.
Granted, damaging Facebook is like damaging the titanium spork you've stabbed yourself in the testicles with.
Did they cite primary sources that you can check yourself, like a statement on Mozilla's web site? Because otherwise, I don't find NPR any more credible (or less prone to propaganda) than Faux News, or any other tabloid.
Fruit stands explode in a colorful way when you drive a car through them at high speed. Or shoot them with a machinegun. And fruit is cheap.
"We reserve the right to change the terms of service at any time, without notice."
And they will never, ever, ever break that rule.
The process of getting a human-rating certification takes years, and involves quite a few test launches, of both the rocket and the crew capsule. SpaceX is very close to meeting the requirements, and I believe at least one other private launch company is as well.
The Russians haven't designed a new rocket in many years. Their rockets already have the necessary certification for legal launches.
It's a political process, but one rooted in fatal failures in NASA's history.
People who drink heavily should not post things on the interwebs until they have a sober grown up to double check that they are writing completely, grammatically correct sentences.
This may come as a shock to you, but some people really are of above-average intelligence.
The overlap between people who are above average in intelligence and people who claim they are on the internet is very, very low.
McDonald's corporate is apparently putting a brutal amount of pressure on franchisees to force customers to use the "self serve" kiosks they've force all the stores to install (and considerable expense), and they apparently measure what percentage of sales are rung up on those kiosks.
One local McDonald's just stopped manning the registers as much, and the service there sucks donkey balls. The other one, clever bastards that they are, simply station a cashier at the kiosk and use it as a cash register. They even had somebody build a little wheeled cart for drink cups. The only difference between that and the other registers is that they don't take cash there - you have to go to the regular counter register to pay.
No difference to the customers, no difference to the employees, corporate is happy, it's win/win/win.
Be careful what you measure, because that's what you'll get.
Is the stuffing inside edible?
Those who get into - and out of - a Ponzi scheme early generally profit from it. At the expense of the fools who jump on the bandwagon later.
Bose recommends you buy your speaker wire from your local hardware store, in the form of lamp cord. They certainly know more about the subject than I do, so I'll take their word for it. You, on the other hand, are some guy on the internet
Plus, of course, most people can't tell the difference between Monster cable and coat hanger wire.
It's normal to hate on audiophiles because it's normal for audiophiles to be idiots.
It's easy to see a placebo effect when there's nothing there at all. You give someone a sugar pill, and they get over the disease they had anyway (though natural healing), and (because you want there to be an effect), you see the placebo effect as being responsible. Human brains aren't wired to grasp random events very well.
There's also an anti-placebo (no "nocebo") effect.
Tea aficionados only use loose tea for the same reason that music aficionados pay thousand of dollars for speaker wire that works exactly the same as $0.29/foot lamp cord: they believe it will be better, and therefore, it will be better - for them. It's a placebo effect, but a real one.
For normal people, of course, there's little to no difference.
With really cheap, mass produced tea, like Lipton, there's a vaguely papery taste to the tea from the equally cheap paper used in the tea bag. Since that's what I grew up on, I like it that way. Cheap, strong, and loaded with caffeine.
Kind of, but not all that much. The incentive to not do that isn't that it's illegal, it's that if Microsoft sues you, it costs nearly as much to win as to lose, and Microsoft has much deeper pockets.
But that doesn't mean you'll lose if you do have the money to fight.
The code is part of the purchased goods. I presume it's a one time use code (and if it's not, that's on Disney, not RedBox). Once RedBox owns the copy of the movie, they can do anything that isn't prohibited with that copy. Splitting it up and selling it in pieces is not prohibited, any more than cutting the color illustrations out of a book and selling them as wall are it.
Adobe didn't dispute the right of SoftMan to sell the disk, the disputed the right to sell the license to use the copyrighted material based on their license terms. Their license terms were ruled immaterial, because copyright is governed by copyright law, not contract law. The first sale doctrine goes back well over a century, and was formally defined when book publishers put "licenses" in their books that prohibited libraries from loaning out their books. This isn't a new area of law, no matter how obscure it is these days.
There's conflicting case law at the appellate level, but it would be a reversal of long standing policy if this goes Disney's way. This may well be the case that gets to the Supreme Court, though, which is badly needed.
You are absolutely correct. Actual leases, set up as such, are a great deal for the leasing company. And most big software companies don't have a shit about customers.
There's quite a bit of case law (Softman v. Adobe, for instance), that says that doesn't matter. If it's a one time purchase, with an indefinite period of use, it's a sale of goods, and the first sale doctrine applies.
(There's also case law at the appellate level that disagrees with that interpretation. TFA doesn't say where this was filed, but I'll bet it was California, same district as Softman v. Adobe.)
. . . this into plain English:
"Wah, wah, wah, language usage changes and I can't make people talk my One True Way."
Somebody change subby's diapers.
I don't think that's true. But it's easy enough to install an XP VM in Win 7, and that will run Win 3.0 stuff.
. . . let's talk about how much it will cost to delete the backup copy.
And next week, we can talk about how much it will cost to delete the secondary backup.
And eventually, we'll need to talk about the offsite backups.