Oh my god. I can hardly understand you, with your "pounds" and "mobiles" and "ringing" instead of "dollars" and "cell phones" and "calling". In another couple decades, we won't even be able to understand you! And thank god for that.
I will say, though, that I have the same question you do. I have asked my cell-phone-using brethren why the hell they don't want to pay less and get more and better service, like the Europeans do. My brethren look at me like I'm stoned, having no idea what I'm complaining about. Is it true that Europeans don't pay for text messages -- which additionally work better than they do in the states?
that's interesting. my dictionary defined a subpoena as a writ ordering a person to attend a court, and wiki has just about the same definition. i'm not saying you're wrong, but you aren't consistent with those two sources.
oh, that crazy law, never being what it says it is.
Can anyone explain why the police in this case would get a subpoena, instead of a warrant?
The way I understand it, a subpoena is a court order that a human appear in court; and a warrant is a court approval of police search or seizure. So, since in this case the police wanted to search the library records and sieze one of them, I would assume a warrant would be the proper writ. But obviously I'm confused about something.
as a libertarian, i see things differently than you.
me, i see the X Prize as the perfect example of why government need not bother sponsoring these private competitions. it seems to me that the X Prize went along just fine without any tax money (actually, i don't know, maybe there were taxes involved). i'm not so strictly libertarian, so i don't think there is anything wrong with reasonable governmental incentives for private innovation, but i also certainly don't think there is anything wrong with *not* having governmental incentives.
No, it doesn't invalidate EULAs; and no, it's not about corporations getting their way while individual citizens get screwed; and no, it's not about who has the most money -- it's about the *law*. Corporations, who have enough money to hire lawyers to make sure they behave according to the *law*, typically have a better claim, once they are in court, of explaining themselves according to the *law*. Individual citizens, untrained in the *law*, are far more likely to fail obeying the *law*.
In this specific case, the "agreement" was found to be invalid, but it wasn't a legal "contract" so this decision does not bear on contract law interpretation, under which EULAs fall.
If you are still pissed off, like I am, then do the reasonable thing and blame the *law*. You want court decisions that make you happier? Then you have to change the *law*, which is done by electing legislators to pass the laws that you want. Luckily enough we live in a democracy, which means the people are empowered to control the law which governs them; but that also means that blame for bad laws falls on the voters, not even on their elected representatives. Have you ever voted for a legislator who voted for a law you think is bad? Then you share the blame for the legal problems in this country.
I don't mean this pejoratively, but you aren't "just simply being observant of the way things really work", you are in fact ignorant of the law. EULAs are contracts, website agreements aren't; thus different legal rubrics govern them. Your mistake is easily made by the legally ignorant, similarly to misunderstandings of protections offered by copyright versus trademark versus trade secret, etc.
Yes, but both parties have to give something up; what is the user giving up? A bit of his time? I think you have to give up something "of value", and a bit of time might not be enough.
(So in the case of a EULA, the user gives up some money, the distributor gives up some software, and the EULA is the contract which arbitrates the transaction.)
On the one hand, I agree with you: if you don't know how to destroy the drive yourself, you hire someone to do it for you; on the other hand, these people trusted Best Buy, fergodsake, which is culpable stupidity at least.
would it really be "wrong" for the buyer to utilize the contents of the drive to his choosing?
Whether it is wrong, I won't conjecture, but it could certainly be illegal (operative word is 'could'). Citizens don't retain absolute right to do as they please with all the information they come across, even if they acquire it legitimately. For instance, a mis-addressed letter which arrives in your mailbox with sensitive information does not give you the prerogative to reveal that info -- at least, not absolutely.
On the other hand, the limits set out in the law might not apply to this case, I don't know.
Re:How to make sure your data is not readable
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
Hey there, Techno Vampire, I like your sig, but if you want to be a language enforcer, you might try dropping the sentence fragments -- they dilute the efficacy of your point... alot.
You must not be an American, or you would be familiar with our eleventh amendment to our Constitution, which prohibits citizens from filing lawsuits against the government, unless the government has specifically allowed the lawsuit with legislation.
Though it explicitly only limits certain specific lawsuits against a State or Federal Government, it has been interpreted in our courts in the same way as, under (British) common law, the principle of "sovergn immunity". --Which is to say, you literally can't sue the government.
Again, though, you can be forgiven for not knowing this because you (quite obviously) never went to high school in America, where you would have learned about that in a civics class.
you have made the mistake of equating the reason your legislators gave you for those liquor laws ("to help defeat the enemy") with the real reason for those liquor laws ("to assert control and conformity over the laypeople").
consider this a lesson in how democracy allows freedom to wither with the consent of the voters (cf. the quote from the recent star wars movie).
(1) All the source which used to be available, is still available. (2) Apple owned the source anyway, so (3) Apple could re-license code which was under (hypothetically) GPL if it wanted to (because the copyright owner is free, under the GPL, to re-license his own code)
And no matter what, when Apple first released Darwin, and used their crappy "open source" license, everyone debated about how "free" it was, and the freedom zealots didn't want to touch that code.
So really, this development has little or nothing to do with that particular argument, although GPL is nevertheless a superior license, in my freedom-zealotry mind.
mmm hmmm. it's not that it's easy, rather just that it's easier than starting a tv station, radio station, or newspaper; easier than building a car, or building a rocket. certainly it's easy enough that a motivated neighborhood nerd could do it. and if your nerd can hook up with the nerd across town, you're halfway there.
and if you're lucky enough to live in a city with dense enough population, then you can use 802.11 for the whole network, lillypadding your bits end-to-end. it's like that guy who networked Hawaii way back in the day, though of course his wireless signal was a lot stronger than 802.11.
of course this is all only worth your while if you REALLY hate SBC.
well the internet is the INTER-NET, the interconnected network; so if you want to compete with SBC, or bypass it, it's as easy as linking your computer to some other computers (however you want to do that, there are lots of ways), then bridging your network over to someone else's network. then you have an interconnected network. the important detail is that you use the Internet Protocol and the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP/IP) to broker the bits back and forth. the magic thing is, your interconnected network can link into the rest of the world's interconnected network if even one single link exists from your inter-net to The Internet. it really is that simple. if you don't like SBC, then your little network just needs some kind of link to a place where SBC isn't the local backbone.
now now i know this all sounds complicated, but there really is a huge variety of commonly available options for linking your 'net to The 'Net. it is not, as you say, "astronomically" difficult. in fact, it's the lowest barrier to entry of any major form of media (i mean, it's a lot harder than this to, say, start your own television network).
shockingly, it's not. right now legislators in the state of Washington are *considering* a law that would make sex with animals a crime there... operative word: *considering*./don't go to washington
Slashdot Mirror
Oh my god. I can hardly understand you, with your "pounds" and "mobiles" and "ringing" instead of "dollars" and "cell phones" and "calling". In another couple decades, we won't even be able to understand you! And thank god for that.
I will say, though, that I have the same question you do. I have asked my cell-phone-using brethren why the hell they don't want to pay less and get more and better service, like the Europeans do. My brethren look at me like I'm stoned, having no idea what I'm complaining about. Is it true that Europeans don't pay for text messages -- which additionally work better than they do in the states?
that's interesting. my dictionary defined a subpoena as a writ ordering a person to attend a court, and wiki has just about the same definition. i'm not saying you're wrong, but you aren't consistent with those two sources.
oh, that crazy law, never being what it says it is.
Can anyone explain why the police in this case would get a subpoena, instead of a warrant?
The way I understand it, a subpoena is a court order that a human appear in court; and a warrant is a court approval of police search or seizure. So, since in this case the police wanted to search the library records and sieze one of them, I would assume a warrant would be the proper writ. But obviously I'm confused about something.
you misspelled "libertarian"
Yes. I'd do away with them both.
Why do you ask? are you unable to separate those issues?
as a libertarian, i see things differently than you.
me, i see the X Prize as the perfect example of why government need not bother sponsoring these private competitions. it seems to me that the X Prize went along just fine without any tax money (actually, i don't know, maybe there were taxes involved). i'm not so strictly libertarian, so i don't think there is anything wrong with reasonable governmental incentives for private innovation, but i also certainly don't think there is anything wrong with *not* having governmental incentives.
No, it doesn't invalidate EULAs; and no, it's not about corporations getting their way while individual citizens get screwed; and no, it's not about who has the most money -- it's about the *law*. Corporations, who have enough money to hire lawyers to make sure they behave according to the *law*, typically have a better claim, once they are in court, of explaining themselves according to the *law*. Individual citizens, untrained in the *law*, are far more likely to fail obeying the *law*.
In this specific case, the "agreement" was found to be invalid, but it wasn't a legal "contract" so this decision does not bear on contract law interpretation, under which EULAs fall.
If you are still pissed off, like I am, then do the reasonable thing and blame the *law*. You want court decisions that make you happier? Then you have to change the *law*, which is done by electing legislators to pass the laws that you want. Luckily enough we live in a democracy, which means the people are empowered to control the law which governs them; but that also means that blame for bad laws falls on the voters, not even on their elected representatives. Have you ever voted for a legislator who voted for a law you think is bad? Then you share the blame for the legal problems in this country.
I don't mean this pejoratively, but you aren't "just simply being observant of the way things really work", you are in fact ignorant of the law. EULAs are contracts, website agreements aren't; thus different legal rubrics govern them. Your mistake is easily made by the legally ignorant, similarly to misunderstandings of protections offered by copyright versus trademark versus trade secret, etc.
Become informed, and your cynicism will dissolve.
Yes, but both parties have to give something up; what is the user giving up? A bit of his time? I think you have to give up something "of value", and a bit of time might not be enough.
Shit, I just read about this... I think it's called "bargain theory" or something. Okay here I found the Wiki article I was thinking of. I'm not a lawyer so I may not have understood perfectly.
(So in the case of a EULA, the user gives up some money, the distributor gives up some software, and the EULA is the contract which arbitrates the transaction.)
no? i do, if they are sufficiently in the past. maybe we need a poll.
On the one hand, I agree with you: if you don't know how to destroy the drive yourself, you hire someone to do it for you; on the other hand, these people trusted Best Buy, fergodsake, which is culpable stupidity at least.
would it really be "wrong" for the buyer to utilize the contents of the drive to his choosing?
Whether it is wrong, I won't conjecture, but it could certainly be illegal (operative word is 'could'). Citizens don't retain absolute right to do as they please with all the information they come across, even if they acquire it legitimately. For instance, a mis-addressed letter which arrives in your mailbox with sensitive information does not give you the prerogative to reveal that info -- at least, not absolutely.
On the other hand, the limits set out in the law might not apply to this case, I don't know.
Hey there, Techno Vampire, I like your sig, but if you want to be a language enforcer, you might try dropping the sentence fragments -- they dilute the efficacy of your point... alot.
yo, that's a pretty smart sendup. kudos.
You must not be an American, or you would be familiar with our eleventh amendment to our Constitution, which prohibits citizens from filing lawsuits against the government, unless the government has specifically allowed the lawsuit with legislation.
Though it explicitly only limits certain specific lawsuits against a State or Federal Government, it has been interpreted in our courts in the same way as, under (British) common law, the principle of "sovergn immunity". --Which is to say, you literally can't sue the government.
Again, though, you can be forgiven for not knowing this because you (quite obviously) never went to high school in America, where you would have learned about that in a civics class.
you have made the mistake of equating the reason your legislators gave you for those liquor laws ("to help defeat the enemy") with the real reason for those liquor laws ("to assert control and conformity over the laypeople").
consider this a lesson in how democracy allows freedom to wither with the consent of the voters (cf. the quote from the recent star wars movie).
i feel bad for the people who bought any of those albums, because they all suck
i except, possibly, Trey Anastasio, though without the rest of Phish, i don't give him much benefit of doubt
what ass-backward school is offering programming classes using Visual Basic?
(1) All the source which used to be available, is still available.
(2) Apple owned the source anyway, so
(3) Apple could re-license code which was under (hypothetically) GPL if it wanted to (because the copyright owner is free, under the GPL, to re-license his own code)
And no matter what, when Apple first released Darwin, and used their crappy "open source" license, everyone debated about how "free" it was, and the freedom zealots didn't want to touch that code.
So really, this development has little or nothing to do with that particular argument, although GPL is nevertheless a superior license, in my freedom-zealotry mind.
mmm hmmm. it's not that it's easy, rather just that it's easier than starting a tv station, radio station, or newspaper; easier than building a car, or building a rocket. certainly it's easy enough that a motivated neighborhood nerd could do it. and if your nerd can hook up with the nerd across town, you're halfway there.
and if you're lucky enough to live in a city with dense enough population, then you can use 802.11 for the whole network, lillypadding your bits end-to-end. it's like that guy who networked Hawaii way back in the day, though of course his wireless signal was a lot stronger than 802.11.
of course this is all only worth your while if you REALLY hate SBC.
well the internet is the INTER-NET, the interconnected network; so if you want to compete with SBC, or bypass it, it's as easy as linking your computer to some other computers (however you want to do that, there are lots of ways), then bridging your network over to someone else's network. then you have an interconnected network. the important detail is that you use the Internet Protocol and the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP/IP) to broker the bits back and forth. the magic thing is, your interconnected network can link into the rest of the world's interconnected network if even one single link exists from your inter-net to The Internet. it really is that simple. if you don't like SBC, then your little network just needs some kind of link to a place where SBC isn't the local backbone.
now now i know this all sounds complicated, but there really is a huge variety of commonly available options for linking your 'net to The 'Net. it is not, as you say, "astronomically" difficult. in fact, it's the lowest barrier to entry of any major form of media (i mean, it's a lot harder than this to, say, start your own television network).
second. that's just what i thought: "fewer than half? is that a defense?"
shockingly, it's not. right now legislators in the state of Washington are *considering* a law that would make sex with animals a crime there... operative word: *considering*. /don't go to washington
point of fact: china is way more than 17 years "behind" the united states
i'm watching this, and i'm not sure i believe it. in fact, i'm pretty sure i don't believe it. but it's interesting.