Well, I haven't had the annoyance of Javascript alt-click blocking since I started using the extension. Just tested with this script, and no problems. I'm also a mousegesture user, so alt-click blocking interferes with my regular use of the browser. (BTW, I think Firefox now includes some built-in protection from this abuse -- but the extension adds some extra assurance.
I recently did a similar experiment to make a Qix-type animation in a table by changing the background colors of the cells via script. It worked, but it was very slow, and very memory/CPU intensive.
I guess we need some mechanism for government agencies, but I would like to see greater accountability. Autonomous gov't entities scare me when they're granted powers like the FCC.
I can't view this story from work. Every other story loads fine.. at the moment I'm SSHd into an alternate server to post this comment. Anyone else having trouble?
Well, that sucks. Seems like there should be some kind of penalty for baseless claims.. but then again, the DMCA could be a poster child for poorly thought out (or maybe just "corporate") legislation.
Ah, I didn't think about it from a Windows perspective. I've found that sending mail from ASP is equally difficult, especially since Micros~1 decided to break the way the IIS mailer works between NT, 2K, and XP.
Unfortunately many of the web-applications we use do not support Mozilla Firefox. I've contacted the vendors on many occasions, and they consider it too costly to develop for a browser with a small market-share.
That really is an unfortunate attitude, unfortunately it's a phrase I've heard before. These vendors need to realize that if they built their web apps to W3C specs in the first place, they wouldn't need to worry about supporting "browsers with a small market share". Fortunately this is an attitude which seems to be on the decline. Web shops are starting to learn to support standards, not implementations.
You know, you can just tell them, "declined" with a smile. No need to make up numbers. (although I do like the idea of cluttering their DB with junk data)
Sorry, that doesn't make me think any less of the iPod and it certainly doesn't make me think any more highly of Windows.
In other news, preloading any non-MS OS promotes piracy, Windows has a lower TCO*, and Windows server outperforms RHEL**. You just can't make this stuff up!
* Ignoring the costs of any and all security issues.
** When the RHEL server is connected via 10 Mb Ethernet.
Do they really use that wording, "copywrite protection system"? Because if they do, it really shows that they are either clueless or actively supporting the newspeak "copy protection is copyright protection" which seems to have become prevalant lately.
To clairify,
Copyright protection is the system of laws which protect copyrighted works.
Copy protection is features added to a work to make it more difficult to duplicate.
The difference is that duplication of a work may not violate copyright law (fair use, public domain), but copy protection would try to prevent it regardless. Getting people to equate copy protection with the copyright itself is a deceit.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. To clairify my position, I recently completed a college senior-level business law course focusing on contract law and found it most interesting. I don't advocate software piracy, but am disgusted by the blatant power grabs some software companies attempt with their EULAs. Now, what I'm writing below concerns agreements presented after purchase of software. If the agreement is presented before the purchase takes place, it's probably is binding.
1)The EULA writers obviously agree to the terms as they wrote the EULA. The person who reads the EULA accepts it at the time of installing or running the program for the first time. The date stamp of when you agreed to the EULA is shown on the installation date or first usage date of the software
That's interesting, with the proper records I suppose acceptance may hold up. However, a contract must meet all four qualifications to be valid. Let's examine the other three.
2) Both parties are receiving something of benefit. The software company receives money and a gaurentee that you will not violate their agreement or you will be sued (at their option). The consumer of the product gets the benefit of using the software. I do not see how there is duress? You are not forced to utilize the software. Nobody placed a gun to your head (hopefully) and said "agree to this EULA or die."
The problem here, is that the purchaser already has the right to use the software since they already completed the financial transaction! Duress does not necessarily involve deadly force, the manufacturer is effectively holding their product hostage until the purchaser agrees to further terms. (at any rate, copyright law still applies, EULA or no) Not to mention that courts tend to frown on contracts where one party holds all the power. A real contract should have negotiable terms.
3)You are correct a contract may not contain illegal terms - but I am sure MS has evaluated the legality of their EULA, and if they missed something - I am sure someone else (with a valid law degree) didn't miss the flaws.
Actually, it's pretty common practice for contract writers to attempt to "grab" additional powers, especially if they think it won't be challenged. That's also why most contracts have a clause saying something like, "if any part of this contract is found to be invalid, only that part will be voided..", etc.
4)People who utilize computers generally have the capacity to enter an agreement - and if they are so mentally handicapped that they cannot - they probably are not qualified to willingly engage in things like software piracy.
Considering some of the posts here on Slashdot, I'd say that's a pretty big assumption.:) Without a face to face "meeting of the minds" it's difficult to determine that the signing party is not mentally incapacitated, a minor, confused, etc. However, with the rise of electronic communication, courts have taken a pretty liberal view of this requirement.
To summarize, my problem with after-sale EULAs are mainly:
1) the offeror wields undue power over the offeree
2) the offerors terms are generally non-negotiable
3) the offeror does not offer any compensation for the acceptance of the terms
You mentioned the legality clause, but there are many problems with EULAs as contracts. In fact, they may fail all four parts of contract law:
Acceptance: Both parties must agree to the terms. Since most EULAs do not have real-time user authentication systems, it's hard to prove who, if anyone, actually agreed to the EULA.
Consideration: Under contract law, both parties must recieve something of benefit from a contract. However, with most EULAs, only the manufacturer benefits. There may also be a question of duress in requiring the purchaser to agree to additional terms in order to use the product he's already paid for.
Legality: A contract may not contain illegal terms. This affects EULAs which purport to take constitutional rights from users. (freedom of speech, etc)
Capacity: Both parties must be competent to enter into the legal arrangement. EULAs suffer the same problems here as in acceptance. Which is why I have my dog press the mouse button whenever I'm presented with some ridiculous EULA.
Apparently, Illinois has the largest naval base in the country. source
The Great Lakes Naval Training Center is home to the U.S. Navy's only Recruit Training Command. The largest military installation in Illinois and the largest training center in the Navy, the base includes 1,153 buildings on 1,628 acres and uses 50 miles of roadway to provide access to the Center's facilities.
Great Lakes has been turning civilians into seamen and seamen into sailors for more than 80 years. From NTC's founding in 1911, it has maintained its position as the Navy's largest training facility. From World War I through today it has trained and sent to the fleet more than two million new sailors through its Recruit Training Command and nearly an equal number from its technical schools.
Slashdot Mirror
However, I do not welcome our Slashdot down-modding overlords.
Well, I haven't had the annoyance of Javascript alt-click blocking since I started using the extension. Just tested with this script, and no problems. I'm also a mousegesture user, so alt-click blocking interferes with my regular use of the browser. (BTW, I think Firefox now includes some built-in protection from this abuse -- but the extension adds some extra assurance.
I recently did a similar experiment to make a Qix-type animation in a table by changing the background colors of the cells via script. It worked, but it was very slow, and very memory/CPU intensive.
There's an extension called Allow Right-Click to accomplish just that. (Granted, it would be nice if this was integrated into the browser)
I for one, welcome our new corporate, DMCA-wielding, Google overlords.
Heh, I played DE1 as a Swordmaster also. Reading this article, I think it might be time to play through it again..
/hoopy frood
I guess we need some mechanism for government agencies, but I would like to see greater accountability. Autonomous gov't entities scare me when they're granted powers like the FCC.
I can't view this story from work. Every other story loads fine.. at the moment I'm SSHd into an alternate server to post this comment. Anyone else having trouble?
Well, that sucks. Seems like there should be some kind of penalty for baseless claims.. but then again, the DMCA could be a poster child for poorly thought out (or maybe just "corporate") legislation.
Are not DMCA takedown notices sent under penalty of perjury? I wonder why no-one has countersued?
I agree.. why should the FCC have such powers? They're not elected or representative of the people. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?
Ah, I didn't think about it from a Windows perspective. I've found that sending mail from ASP is equally difficult, especially since Micros~1 decided to break the way the IIS mailer works between NT, 2K, and XP.
Because mail($to, $subj, $body, $headers); is sooooo difficult..
Unfortunately many of the web-applications we use do not support Mozilla Firefox. I've contacted the vendors on many occasions, and they consider it too costly to develop for a browser with a small market-share.
That really is an unfortunate attitude, unfortunately it's a phrase I've heard before. These vendors need to realize that if they built their web apps to W3C specs in the first place, they wouldn't need to worry about supporting "browsers with a small market share". Fortunately this is an attitude which seems to be on the decline. Web shops are starting to learn to support standards, not implementations.
You know, you can just tell them, "declined" with a smile. No need to make up numbers. (although I do like the idea of cluttering their DB with junk data)
Fat chicken.
KFG
Surely you meant 'KFC'? ;)
Sorry, that doesn't make me think any less of the iPod and it certainly doesn't make me think any more highly of Windows.
In other news, preloading any non-MS OS promotes piracy, Windows has a lower TCO*, and Windows server outperforms RHEL**. You just can't make this stuff up!
* Ignoring the costs of any and all security issues.** When the RHEL server is connected via 10 Mb Ethernet.
Our health care is better, so our life expectancy is higher.
For those of us who can afford health insurance, anyway..
Best. Episode. Ever.
(close, anyway)
Do they really use that wording, "copywrite protection system"? Because if they do, it really shows that they are either clueless or actively supporting the newspeak "copy protection is copyright protection" which seems to have become prevalant lately.
To clairify,
Copyright protection is the system of laws which protect copyrighted works.
Copy protection is features added to a work to make it more difficult to duplicate.
The difference is that duplication of a work may not violate copyright law (fair use, public domain), but copy protection would try to prevent it regardless. Getting people to equate copy protection with the copyright itself is a deceit.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. To clairify my position, I recently completed a college senior-level business law course focusing on contract law and found it most interesting. I don't advocate software piracy, but am disgusted by the blatant power grabs some software companies attempt with their EULAs. Now, what I'm writing below concerns agreements presented after purchase of software. If the agreement is presented before the purchase takes place, it's probably is binding.
1)The EULA writers obviously agree to the terms as they wrote the EULA. The person who reads the EULA accepts it at the time of installing or running the program for the first time. The date stamp of when you agreed to the EULA is shown on the installation date or first usage date of the software
That's interesting, with the proper records I suppose acceptance may hold up. However, a contract must meet all four qualifications to be valid. Let's examine the other three.
2) Both parties are receiving something of benefit. The software company receives money and a gaurentee that you will not violate their agreement or you will be sued (at their option). The consumer of the product gets the benefit of using the software. I do not see how there is duress? You are not forced to utilize the software. Nobody placed a gun to your head (hopefully) and said "agree to this EULA or die."
The problem here, is that the purchaser already has the right to use the software since they already completed the financial transaction! Duress does not necessarily involve deadly force, the manufacturer is effectively holding their product hostage until the purchaser agrees to further terms. (at any rate, copyright law still applies, EULA or no) Not to mention that courts tend to frown on contracts where one party holds all the power. A real contract should have negotiable terms.
3)You are correct a contract may not contain illegal terms - but I am sure MS has evaluated the legality of their EULA, and if they missed something - I am sure someone else (with a valid law degree) didn't miss the flaws.
Actually, it's pretty common practice for contract writers to attempt to "grab" additional powers, especially if they think it won't be challenged. That's also why most contracts have a clause saying something like, "if any part of this contract is found to be invalid, only that part will be voided..", etc.
4)People who utilize computers generally have the capacity to enter an agreement - and if they are so mentally handicapped that they cannot - they probably are not qualified to willingly engage in things like software piracy.
Considering some of the posts here on Slashdot, I'd say that's a pretty big assumption. :) Without a face to face "meeting of the minds" it's difficult to determine that the signing party is not mentally incapacitated, a minor, confused, etc. However, with the rise of electronic communication, courts have taken a pretty liberal view of this requirement.
To summarize, my problem with after-sale EULAs are mainly:
1) the offeror wields undue power over the offeree
2) the offerors terms are generally non-negotiable
3) the offeror does not offer any compensation for the acceptance of the terms
Damn, that's scary if you posted that *not* in jest. Try reading _1984_ sometime.
more info
Er, largest naval training facility anyway. Slashdot really needs an 'edit post' feature..
Apparently, Illinois has the largest naval base in the country. source
The Great Lakes Naval Training Center is home to the U.S. Navy's only Recruit Training Command. The largest military installation in Illinois and the largest training center in the Navy, the base includes 1,153 buildings on 1,628 acres and uses 50 miles of roadway to provide access to the Center's facilities.
Great Lakes has been turning civilians into seamen and seamen into sailors for more than 80 years. From NTC's founding in 1911, it has maintained its position as the Navy's largest training facility. From World War I through today it has trained and sent to the fleet more than two million new sailors through its Recruit Training Command and nearly an equal number from its technical schools.