More seriously, WTF is up with worrying about IP laws in a country that collectively doesn't have running water?
The reasons for that would fill a book. Specifically, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" 2nd ed. I don't think it's available in the US as the author has won a prize as the most censored author in America but I'm sure Amazon.co.uk will sell you it. Remember to get the 2nd edition.
The short answer: Iraq is to be a "free trade zone" for the purpose of destabilising the region's economies. If it was as simple as that, of course, it wouldn't work since free trade would eat Iraq alive and spit out the ground down bones but this FTZ will be bankrolled by the US via the World Bank (51% owned by the US Treasury Dept.) so that it won't go the way of Argentina, South Africa, Thailand, Chile etc. It's all very complicated and boils down to a return to 19th century economics and all the great benefits they gave people (rich people, that is). Think "Robber Barons Take On The World": there are literally trillions of dollars at stake here.
That's why the religious parties in Iraq are not being invited to run the country despite having the majority of the population's support: they would throw the "liberators" out and tell them where to stick their free trade. And, wouldn't you? If I locked you in a room with Saddam Hussain for 25 years how grateful would you be when I let you out? Now replace me with Donald Rumsfeld and you with the Iraqi people; can you see why they are annoyed even after they've been freed?
Oh, wait, no, you're just going to get artists the aren't on a major, you say?
No, what I'm saying is that if someone big like Apple can start a system that is fair to the artists and the listeners then it will work. You need all three: you or I can't do it no matter how nice we are to everyone because, as you say, we'll only get the indies. A big, well known, name can attract the bigger artists, who will attract the audience, which will attract more artists away from the RIAA etc.
Show the evidence for this assessment. Here's a clue: it ain't there.
Honest people will buy music in order to reward the artists, who they generally like and admire. Dishonest people already look for and find ways to not pay for music and they don't give a shit about who they're ripping of. That's never going to change.
the likelihood of it being offered with RIAA/major artist support is next to nil.
Major artists are major money people (or their managers are: they'll follow the money. So, P2P is out for them, but any system that is fair in both directions can't fail to attract them because they get screwed by the RIAA too. Contracts have to be renewed eventually...
"Thank you Mr. Nagora. Let's have a round of applause ladies and gentlemen for Mr. Nagora, former Founder, President, and CEO of failed-dot-com.com. We here in the real world appreciate your ingeneous business plan. Thank you for sharing." You twit.
The spirit of Oscar Wilde is still alive I see. I bow to your in-depth knowlege of the subject at hand. Or, I would if you had any.
There are all sorts of things carved into real (ie mediaeval) cathedrals. There's at least one in the UK with a person mooning down from top of the outside wall, and a church with a couple shagging in the rafters.
It's interesting that loads of people are having a go at Lucas for producing the first three films of his six part "Life and Death of Darth Vader" as a more-or-less continuous story split into three parts. Sure, they don't hold up as individual films but then neither do Jackson's LotRs films. Neither director has to work to the standard template, in Lucas' case because of the reputation his first three films in the series had, and in Jackson's because of the reputation the source material had.
In the end, though, Lucas has made a mess of his own idea by indulging himself too much, while Jackson has made a mess of someone else's idea. At least Lucas tried, but I think he left it too long between the two sets of films and the ideas went stale in his head.
I really do get the feeling people like to rag on Dreamweaver without ever using it.
I don't use it but when I find a site that has JS that acts badly or has bits of tags exposed and/or strange font behaviour it's almost always a Dreamweaver site.
I'll wager you're website was created in vi, and features visible RCS tags, and nothing remotely useful content....
The website I run was created in Emacs, uses CSS instead of almost infinite nested tables and runs from a templating system written in PHP and although we use CVS there are no visible signs of it in the content. The content itself has been useful enough to last for four years of making a profit through the dot com boom and bust and on top of all that, I can spell "your".
I'm still waiting on getting Dreamweaver MX to run.
Why? So you can have huge chunks of javacript that sucks embedded into every single page? Or perhaps you want your HTML to look like it was laid out by a deranged monkey?
Well, I'm sure Bill Gates would love to know that you agree that an app is part of the OS, just like he claims. Personally, if it doesn't control access to hardware then it isn't part of the OS.
Many people have pondered that if they request the operating system to be called GNU/Linux, why don't they add a clause in their license to demand that.
Perhaps because it isn't their OS so they can't demand that it's called anything.
"I demand that I may, or may not be, Magicthighs" "It's alright, you don't have to demand that." "Oh."
Aren't the vid-card drivers in Linux written specifically for Linux?
Yes, what I was getting at is that a lot of the drivers for Linux are written by reverse-engineering rather than being provided by the card makers themselves. Even when they are provided, as in the case of NVIDIA, they are often second rate compared to the Windows drivers (I have given up using the NVIDIA driver for example as it's the only item I've ever had that causes Linux to crash). Apple, I would imagine, have been able to tune their drivers in a way that Linux?XFree developers are almost never allowed to.
I installed with --nodeps and it works fine. Check that you do have the file libqt.so.3 first, though. If not, and you do have QT3 installed (did version 3 come with 7.2?), do a symlink to it and run ldconfig before running Opera.
2) Consideration is not required as part of a contract. You click yes, you sign. No ifs, ands, or buts, at least how the law sees it. Ignorance of the terms of a contract you have signed is no excuse from that contract.
AFAIK this is specifically not true in the UK. Perhaps the US is behind us in this case.
What you bought was the right to be licensed to use software, providing that you agree to the EULA.
Does it say that on the box? Did the sales person point this out to you? Again, my arrangement is with the seller, not MS or whoever.
I for one would like to see these issues tested in court in a case that does not involve a very large company. That way case-law can be established without worrying about very large cheques influencing the outcome.
By clicking yes, you are taking positive action to agree to the contract which you see before you.
But this is not a contract since I do not get anything from it. I already have the product and have paid for it (which involves a real contract with the seller). The click through is effectively asking "do you want to use the product you own?" to which the only sensible answer is "Yes". Hence, I always click "Yes" in these cases but I do not in any way agree to the bullshit which is in the text. Indeed, I never read the text specifically so that there is no consideration on my part and thus no contract.
When you click the "order" button on-line, it's the same legal principle.
No it's not. In that case I have been made an offer of sale which I have agreed to and have the ability (although not conveniently) to back out of after reasonable consideration. In the case of an EULA I have already made and completed the contract of sale with the vendor. I have no relationship with the manufacturer and no interest in the relationship between the vendor and the manufacturer. In other words: the EULA to be binding should be processed by the seller. It's too late after I own the program. At that point clicking "Yes" is no more a contract than turning the key in your ignition is a contract to only buy Ford spares would be even if the handbook said that this was the case. I have no formal relationship with Ford and therefore no contract.
The real hole in these things is the use of the word "licence". In fact they are not licences at all: there is no term and no renewal requirement nor often any means to cancel the "agreement". These are all characteristics of a "sale", not a licence and as such the manufacturer has no rights to force you to agree to anything. Even in the cases where these things do appear it must be made clear by the vendor that s/he is not selling you anything. Otherwise the manufacturer's beef is with the vendor, not you.
All this is moot, of course, since the law is not involved in reality. The only thing that matters is money and MS and others have enough money to buy any judge and any ruling it wants regardless of law, constitution, human rights or whatever. When money talks, the law listens.
Slashdot Mirror
The reasons for that would fill a book. Specifically, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" 2nd ed. I don't think it's available in the US as the author has won a prize as the most censored author in America but I'm sure Amazon.co.uk will sell you it. Remember to get the 2nd edition.
The short answer: Iraq is to be a "free trade zone" for the purpose of destabilising the region's economies. If it was as simple as that, of course, it wouldn't work since free trade would eat Iraq alive and spit out the ground down bones but this FTZ will be bankrolled by the US via the World Bank (51% owned by the US Treasury Dept.) so that it won't go the way of Argentina, South Africa, Thailand, Chile etc. It's all very complicated and boils down to a return to 19th century economics and all the great benefits they gave people (rich people, that is). Think "Robber Barons Take On The World": there are literally trillions of dollars at stake here.
That's why the religious parties in Iraq are not being invited to run the country despite having the majority of the population's support: they would throw the "liberators" out and tell them where to stick their free trade. And, wouldn't you? If I locked you in a room with Saddam Hussain for 25 years how grateful would you be when I let you out? Now replace me with Donald Rumsfeld and you with the Iraqi people; can you see why they are annoyed even after they've been freed?
TWW
That's how you get a world-wide IP system: tanks and bloodsuckers. Your country could be next...
TWW
Music has been sold in an open format since the invention of the compact cassette. How many homes don't have a tape recorder?
TWW
Here's how to tell if it holds water legally:
Hope that helps.
TWW
No, what I'm saying is that if someone big like Apple can start a system that is fair to the artists and the listeners then it will work. You need all three: you or I can't do it no matter how nice we are to everyone because, as you say, we'll only get the indies. A big, well known, name can attract the bigger artists, who will attract the audience, which will attract more artists away from the RIAA etc.
TWW
Honest people will buy music in order to reward the artists, who they generally like and admire. Dishonest people already look for and find ways to not pay for music and they don't give a shit about who they're ripping of. That's never going to change.
TWW
Major artists are major money people (or their managers are: they'll follow the money. So, P2P is out for them, but any system that is fair in both directions can't fail to attract them because they get screwed by the RIAA too. Contracts have to be renewed eventually...
TWW
The spirit of Oscar Wilde is still alive I see. I bow to your in-depth knowlege of the subject at hand. Or, I would if you had any.
TWW
Right?
TWW
TWW
Absolutely, but it's also clear that the product is not giving these people any help in that regard.
' FORTH BEGIN DUP RISE AGAIN
In the end, though, Lucas has made a mess of his own idea by indulging himself too much, while Jackson has made a mess of someone else's idea. At least Lucas tried, but I think he left it too long between the two sets of films and the ideas went stale in his head.
TWW
I don't use it but when I find a site that has JS that acts badly or has bits of tags exposed and/or strange font behaviour it's almost always a Dreamweaver site.
Forth will rise again! (*sigh*)
Hooray! Let's hear it for Chuck Moore!
TWW
The website I run was created in Emacs, uses CSS instead of almost infinite nested tables and runs from a templating system written in PHP and although we use CVS there are no visible signs of it in the content. The content itself has been useful enough to last for four years of making a profit through the dot com boom and bust and on top of all that, I can spell "your".
I'll wager that you're a wanker. Yep!
TWW
Why? So you can have huge chunks of javacript that sucks embedded into every single page? Or perhaps you want your HTML to look like it was laid out by a deranged monkey?
TWW
Well, I'm sure Bill Gates would love to know that you agree that an app is part of the OS, just like he claims. Personally, if it doesn't control access to hardware then it isn't part of the OS.
TWW
Perhaps because it isn't their OS so they can't demand that it's called anything.
"I demand that I may, or may not be, Magicthighs" "It's alright, you don't have to demand that." "Oh."
TWW
Who told you that? It's actually C++
TWW
Yes, what I was getting at is that a lot of the drivers for Linux are written by reverse-engineering rather than being provided by the card makers themselves. Even when they are provided, as in the case of NVIDIA, they are often second rate compared to the Windows drivers (I have given up using the NVIDIA driver for example as it's the only item I've ever had that causes Linux to crash). Apple, I would imagine, have been able to tune their drivers in a way that Linux?XFree developers are almost never allowed to.
TWW
TWW
How about: "I didn't like the way the system worked so I'm going to fix it. What are you going to do, hire Bill Gates?".
TWW
TWW
AFAIK this is specifically not true in the UK. Perhaps the US is behind us in this case.
What you bought was the right to be licensed to use software, providing that you agree to the EULA.
Does it say that on the box? Did the sales person point this out to you? Again, my arrangement is with the seller, not MS or whoever.
I for one would like to see these issues tested in court in a case that does not involve a very large company. That way case-law can be established without worrying about very large cheques influencing the outcome.
TWW
But this is not a contract since I do not get anything from it. I already have the product and have paid for it (which involves a real contract with the seller). The click through is effectively asking "do you want to use the product you own?" to which the only sensible answer is "Yes". Hence, I always click "Yes" in these cases but I do not in any way agree to the bullshit which is in the text. Indeed, I never read the text specifically so that there is no consideration on my part and thus no contract.
When you click the "order" button on-line, it's the same legal principle.
No it's not. In that case I have been made an offer of sale which I have agreed to and have the ability (although not conveniently) to back out of after reasonable consideration. In the case of an EULA I have already made and completed the contract of sale with the vendor. I have no relationship with the manufacturer and no interest in the relationship between the vendor and the manufacturer. In other words: the EULA to be binding should be processed by the seller. It's too late after I own the program. At that point clicking "Yes" is no more a contract than turning the key in your ignition is a contract to only buy Ford spares would be even if the handbook said that this was the case. I have no formal relationship with Ford and therefore no contract.
The real hole in these things is the use of the word "licence". In fact they are not licences at all: there is no term and no renewal requirement nor often any means to cancel the "agreement". These are all characteristics of a "sale", not a licence and as such the manufacturer has no rights to force you to agree to anything. Even in the cases where these things do appear it must be made clear by the vendor that s/he is not selling you anything. Otherwise the manufacturer's beef is with the vendor, not you.
All this is moot, of course, since the law is not involved in reality. The only thing that matters is money and MS and others have enough money to buy any judge and any ruling it wants regardless of law, constitution, human rights or whatever. When money talks, the law listens.
TWW
TWW