Software Product Transfer. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE, provided you retain no copies, you transfer all of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA and, if applicable, the Certificate(s) of Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade, any transfer must also include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Meaning, if you own it, abide by the EULA scribbled above, and the purchaser does as well, then you can do whatever the hell you want with it.
Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts.
Meaning that IF Microsoft thinks you are being a douchebag, they can yank your rights to the software you just bought. But wait, here's more.
COPYRIGHT. All title and copyrights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text and "applets," incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. You may not copy the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. All rights not specifically granted under this EULA are reserved by Microsoft.
Which means, "What? We forgot to add that clause that places our customers into a perfect 90 degree angle, with their legs perpendicular to the floor, complete with a wall in the way for their head? Well hell, Bill, throw it on in, and git yer pants off!!"
All jokes aside, it means they can screw with you about anything. Over anything, with anything. Including farm animals, big and small.
Whether or not they are technically competent should make no difference to their chance of selection
Absolutely correct. What I was trying to get across was that Technically inclined people could be denied the right to sit in on a trial, whether it involves a simple "I killed em with a lawnmower blade" or a disgruntled microsoft employee who decides to make an omelette out of a computer with an easter egg.
Jury selection should (and is currently) beyond this. What worries me is that I consider myself to be a peer of other citizens, and thus, able to sit in on a jury. I don't beleive ownership or use of technology places me above, or below the "peer" threshold.
The question of "Do you own a computer?" doesn't exempt computer owners the right to sit in on a jury; It DENIES them that right. Think about it. While stating that non technically inclined people would be making decisions may be "Elitist", saying that exempting technically inclined people is right is incredibly biased. Jury selection should not even involve such trivialities.
If you are an average citizen, and commit a crime, chances are that you have the right to be judged by a jury of your peers. Is that to mean that the concept of peers includes whether or not you own a computer? What about a SUV? Rent or Own a home? Have a Condo? Boxers or Briefs?
The computer is a tool, and it does not, nor should it define whether a person is fit for jury duty or not. Being judged by your peers means being judged by the same melting pot that makes up society.
The notion of keeping a jurors mind clean is absurd. Whether or not a person did one thing or not has nothing to do with their ability to judge fairly. That's like asking a juror if they ever speed, or blow a stop sign, when screening for a rape trial. Unnecessary and idiotic. (Unless a car chase was involved and will be presented.)
Jurors are (In the US, today) asked prepared questions based around the case they are involved with.
Remember, a jury of your peers does not include the statement of "Wholly lawful abiding citizens."
Tilting the scales of justice to your line of thinking would sway the favor of the trials towards that of the prosecution.
The Justice system is not supposed to "SEE" whether a person is guilty or not. That is what a jury is there for.
With the advent of the home PC, and internet based news coming in faster than stories can be edited, perhaps this will help set a new standard for Jury Selection. I'm pretty sure similar ideas have been rolling around in US judges/attorneys heads for a while.
It is indeed, a precedent. But is it a good one? Think about it. As a citizen, you could lose your right (It's not really a duty, you know) to be considered a "peer" of the accused.
"Do you own a computer?" or "Do you have an internet connection?" could be the new basis for sequestering a jury/juror, or dismissing one entirely. So called Non-techs could wind up being the ones making decisions on increasingly technical crimes.
Another angle we should take a look at is the possibility of a law being passed amending a jurors rights and duties to include not being able to connect to the internet either at home, or at work, once notified of jury duty.
While I don't completely agree with the Melbourne decision to dismiss the jury, I understand it. The availability of knowledge on the internet IS phenomenal, and a single juror gaining knowledge of the crime ahead of time could taint the trial.
Justice, though she is blind, does not appear to be deaf, or dumb. Sometimes she sees things a bit too clearly.
I'm pretty sure that can be cleared up with a couple scripts. If you can't find the answer here, try debian.org, or "insert linux flavor here.org" Usenet also has their considerable collection of Linux gurus... Linux, since it was a toddler, has been designed to run on both mainstream, and the equivalent of a motherboard with a hole shot in it. With the multiple ports and flavors of Linux, the answer is probably out there, and quite probably free. I would beware of network consultants complaining about linux, and/or freeBSD hashes. Either they haven't got the understanding to utilize them at their full potential, they're trying to sell you their preferred brand, or they're trying to nail you for more dough via consultation fees. Linux is extremely progressive, so even if you don't find your solution, it will probably be around within a month or so. krystal_blade
US, publicly available encryption (And it's available worldwide if you REALLY want it) is currently available in several different forms...
1. rot13esque, usually sold by underhanded "security solutions" fly by night software companies
2. Decent in it's day, RSA style encryption that can be broken, or cracked, but still takes a bit of effort.
3. Rock solid, won't be broken until quantum computing gets integrated into sony walkman style encryption.
For the security minded folks, the proper solution to what they want is available in the US.
Unless, of course, your talking about the NSA's 26th level, which, of course, contains the living brains of 3000 alien abduction victims, networked together using live marijuana leaves and capable of breaking sapphire in.02 milliseconds.
The truth is, encryption "infrastructure" already exists. There's that little group out there that are doing work on that not so well known Advanced Encryption Standard pretty much as we speak.
Creating a world wide standard has very little to do with the EU opening up their doors to THEIR encryption... The US, and EU do not a world make.
The EU may, or may not be the encryption/privacy standards bearer... (By the way, that privacy thing was fairly hilarious.) The US, as well as Canada, Russia, China, Japan, and Korea have ALL come up with viable solutions to encryption. The US is probably pissed about the EU opening up their encryption exports because
The US and the EU (or, together, basically, the UN) may have to face the same people that are obtaining this encryption in the future. In battle, every edge counts.
I was wondering if it was possible, since NetPD came up with the 350k or so "names" who "illegally" traded, or downloaded Metallica's music, for at least some of those people to sue either Metallica, or Napster for slander...
I'm no lawyer by any means, but, I do recall the copyright law stating that copies can be owned and maintained by someone who owns a bought and paid for original copy.
The copyright law says nothing about format, which is all MP3 encoding really is. I've checked out the legality of scanning and storing on my Hard Drive several books that are rare, and it looks like the law is in my favor.
At least 1/5th of those people on the listing didn't "Pirate" the software. They obtained a copy of the music, and owned the actual music CD. What that amounts to, IMO, is that Metallica, and NetPD is responsible for labeling around 1/5th of their list improperly as pirates, or thieves.
Napster, if they were smart, would query their own customers with an honest to goodness questionairre, and present the findings in court. Couple that with the possibility of a multi state, multi person slander suit, and perhaps the big labels, and finger pointers will look harder the next time they want to mislabel someone.
I say "hey, if RH wants to donate 70K for a good cause, then cudos to them...
Being able to rip DVD's and watch them from your HD is a fairly small and trivial thing.
The outcome of this particular soap opera is what is important. While you can sit back and think "Hey, I don't need DVD ripping... screw 'em." The truth is, this really isn't about DVD's in the long run. It's about the way the FSF, and the EFF will be FORCED to do business in the future.
Red Hat, by sending 70k, which is actually a substantial amount of $$, is saying "Look, we need to curb this legal bs before it gets out of hand. Here's some dough, good luck. Sure, they get PR out of it, but they could make a simple 2k$ news statement about how they're "rooting" for the EFF, and get the same thing.
And who knows, maybe their donation will spawn others. Anyone know of a "Help the EFF" fund?
I don't think political concerns will affect the outcome of the hearing. MS, unless they come up with their own acceptable strategy for appeasing the U.S. government, will be broken up.
The impact will not be as bad as predicted. The loss of imbedded systems may even help MS to clean up their OS code a bit. It will certainly help start ups, and down pounded software companies because while the OS market will be dominated by MS for some time, Joe Public will have a discernable option on the shelf.
The ruling will not be based on MS's ability to stagnate the technological avenues of the world. It will be based on the rulings that Microsoft uses monopolistic practices and breaks the law.
>> n0w 5hut th3 phukk up b3f0r3 1 k1ck j00r 455, f4gg0t. > What's scary is that I'm getting to where I can actually read this stuff as a stream, rather than having to decypher it one character at a time. Maybe I'm ready to tackle perl now. What's exceptionally scary about all of this is if you add all the numbers in that phrase together, (count 0's as tens) they come up to more than double the original posters I.Q. And they say monkeys can't do math well...
I think the use of a liquid over thin ceramics is more to ensure temperature uniformity, than to provide for a better cool down. Cold, blown air is usually sufficient to cool down almost anything.
I'm a radio technician for the military, and the only item I've seen that uses a liquid for cooling is our dummy loads.
The proper creation and use of cooling fins effectively negates the need for using a liquid coolant. Increasing the airflow should be sufficient.
If I had to do it my way, I'd probably pick a low volume air conditioner to cool the air, rather than submersing the chip.
Slashdot Mirror
Software Product Transfer. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE, provided you retain no copies, you transfer all of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA and, if applicable, the Certificate(s) of Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade, any transfer must also include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Meaning, if you own it, abide by the EULA scribbled above, and the purchaser does as well, then you can do whatever the hell you want with it.
Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts.
Meaning that IF Microsoft thinks you are being a douchebag, they can yank your rights to the software you just bought. But wait, here's more.
COPYRIGHT. All title and copyrights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text and "applets," incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. You may not copy the printed materials accompanying the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. All rights not specifically granted under this EULA are reserved by Microsoft.
Which means, "What? We forgot to add that clause that places our customers into a perfect 90 degree angle, with their legs perpendicular to the floor, complete with a wall in the way for their head? Well hell, Bill, throw it on in, and git yer pants off!!"
All jokes aside, it means they can screw with you about anything. Over anything, with anything. Including farm animals, big and small.
krystal_blade
Absolutely correct. What I was trying to get across was that Technically inclined people could be denied the right to sit in on a trial, whether it involves a simple "I killed em with a lawnmower blade" or a disgruntled microsoft employee who decides to make an omelette out of a computer with an easter egg.
Jury selection should (and is currently) beyond this. What worries me is that I consider myself to be a peer of other citizens, and thus, able to sit in on a jury. I don't beleive ownership or use of technology places me above, or below the "peer" threshold.
krystal_blade
If you are an average citizen, and commit a crime, chances are that you have the right to be judged by a jury of your peers. Is that to mean that the concept of peers includes whether or not you own a computer? What about a SUV? Rent or Own a home? Have a Condo? Boxers or Briefs?
The computer is a tool, and it does not, nor should it define whether a person is fit for jury duty or not. Being judged by your peers means being judged by the same melting pot that makes up society.
The notion of keeping a jurors mind clean is absurd. Whether or not a person did one thing or not has nothing to do with their ability to judge fairly. That's like asking a juror if they ever speed, or blow a stop sign, when screening for a rape trial. Unnecessary and idiotic. (Unless a car chase was involved and will be presented.)
Jurors are (In the US, today) asked prepared questions based around the case they are involved with.
Remember, a jury of your peers does not include the statement of "Wholly lawful abiding citizens."
Tilting the scales of justice to your line of thinking would sway the favor of the trials towards that of the prosecution.
The Justice system is not supposed to "SEE" whether a person is guilty or not. That is what a jury is there for.
krystal_blade
Ummm... Hate to break it to ya, but dismissing the jury is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from dismissing the case.
When a jury is dismissed, a NEW jury is selected.
Other than that slight misunderstanding... (Only 16 lines of text were wacked, you still have your sig...doh!)
I found your baiting, I mean writing to be quite interesting.
krystal_blade
With the advent of the home PC, and internet based news coming in faster than stories can be edited, perhaps this will help set a new standard for Jury Selection. I'm pretty sure similar ideas have been rolling around in US judges/attorneys heads for a while.
It is indeed, a precedent. But is it a good one? Think about it. As a citizen, you could lose your right (It's not really a duty, you know) to be considered a "peer" of the accused.
"Do you own a computer?" or "Do you have an internet connection?" could be the new basis for sequestering a jury/juror, or dismissing one entirely. So called Non-techs could wind up being the ones making decisions on increasingly technical crimes.
Another angle we should take a look at is the possibility of a law being passed amending a jurors rights and duties to include not being able to connect to the internet either at home, or at work, once notified of jury duty.
While I don't completely agree with the Melbourne decision to dismiss the jury, I understand it. The availability of knowledge on the internet IS phenomenal, and a single juror gaining knowledge of the crime ahead of time could taint the trial.
Justice, though she is blind, does not appear to be deaf, or dumb. Sometimes she sees things a bit too clearly.
krystal_blade
I'm pretty sure that can be cleared up with a couple scripts. If you can't find the answer here, try debian.org, or "insert linux flavor here.org" Usenet also has their considerable collection of Linux gurus... Linux, since it was a toddler, has been designed to run on both mainstream, and the equivalent of a motherboard with a hole shot in it. With the multiple ports and flavors of Linux, the answer is probably out there, and quite probably free. I would beware of network consultants complaining about linux, and/or freeBSD hashes. Either they haven't got the understanding to utilize them at their full potential, they're trying to sell you their preferred brand, or they're trying to nail you for more dough via consultation fees. Linux is extremely progressive, so even if you don't find your solution, it will probably be around within a month or so. krystal_blade
Great, another conspiracy theorist.
.02 milliseconds.
US, publicly available encryption (And it's available worldwide if you REALLY want it) is currently available in several different forms...
1. rot13esque, usually sold by underhanded "security solutions" fly by night software companies
2. Decent in it's day, RSA style encryption that can be broken, or cracked, but still takes a bit of effort.
3. Rock solid, won't be broken until quantum computing gets integrated into sony walkman style encryption.
For the security minded folks, the proper solution to what they want is available in the US.
Unless, of course, your talking about the NSA's 26th level, which, of course, contains the living brains of 3000 alien abduction victims, networked together using live marijuana leaves and capable of breaking sapphire in
The truth is, encryption "infrastructure" already exists. There's that little group out there that are doing work on that not so well known Advanced Encryption Standard pretty much as we speak.
Creating a world wide standard has very little to do with the EU opening up their doors to THEIR encryption... The US, and EU do not a world make.
The EU may, or may not be the encryption/privacy standards bearer... (By the way, that privacy thing was fairly hilarious.) The US, as well as Canada, Russia, China, Japan, and Korea have ALL come up with viable solutions to encryption. The US is probably pissed about the EU opening up their encryption exports because
The US and the EU (or, together, basically, the UN) may have to face the same people that are obtaining this encryption in the future. In battle, every edge counts.
krystal_blade
I was wondering if it was possible, since NetPD came up with the 350k or so "names" who "illegally" traded, or downloaded Metallica's music, for at least some of those people to sue either Metallica, or Napster for slander...
I'm no lawyer by any means, but, I do recall the copyright law stating that copies can be owned and maintained by someone who owns a bought and paid for original copy.
The copyright law says nothing about format, which is all MP3 encoding really is. I've checked out the legality of scanning and storing on my Hard Drive several books that are rare, and it looks like the law is in my favor.
At least 1/5th of those people on the listing didn't "Pirate" the software. They obtained a copy of the music, and owned the actual music CD.
What that amounts to, IMO, is that Metallica, and NetPD is responsible for labeling around 1/5th of their list improperly as pirates, or thieves.
Napster, if they were smart, would query their own customers with an honest to goodness questionairre, and present the findings in court. Couple that with the possibility of a multi state, multi person slander suit, and perhaps the big labels, and finger pointers will look harder the next time they want to mislabel someone.
krystal_blade
I say "hey, if RH wants to donate 70K for a good cause, then cudos to them...
Being able to rip DVD's and watch them from your HD is a fairly small and trivial thing.
The outcome of this particular soap opera is what is important. While you can sit back and think "Hey, I don't need DVD ripping... screw 'em." The truth is, this really isn't about DVD's in the long run. It's about the way the FSF, and the EFF will be FORCED to do business in the future.
Red Hat, by sending 70k, which is actually a substantial amount of $$, is saying "Look, we need to curb this legal bs before it gets out of hand. Here's some dough, good luck. Sure, they get PR out of it, but they could make a simple 2k$ news statement about how they're "rooting" for the EFF, and get the same thing.
And who knows, maybe their donation will spawn others. Anyone know of a "Help the EFF" fund?
krystal_blade
I don't think political concerns will affect the outcome of the hearing. MS, unless they come up with their own acceptable strategy for appeasing the U.S. government, will be broken up.
The impact will not be as bad as predicted. The loss of imbedded systems may even help MS to clean up their OS code a bit. It will certainly help start ups, and down pounded software companies because while the OS market will be dominated by MS for some time, Joe Public will have a discernable option on the shelf.
The ruling will not be based on MS's ability to stagnate the technological avenues of the world. It will be based on the rulings that Microsoft uses monopolistic practices and breaks the law.
krystal_blade
>> n0w 5hut th3 phukk up b3f0r3 1 k1ck j00r 455, f4gg0t. > What's scary is that I'm getting to where I can actually read this stuff as a stream, rather than having to decypher it one character at a time. Maybe I'm ready to tackle perl now. What's exceptionally scary about all of this is if you add all the numbers in that phrase together, (count 0's as tens) they come up to more than double the original posters I.Q. And they say monkeys can't do math well...
I think the use of a liquid over thin ceramics is more to ensure temperature uniformity, than to provide for a better cool down. Cold, blown air is usually sufficient to cool down almost anything.
I'm a radio technician for the military, and the only item I've seen that uses a liquid for cooling is our dummy loads.
The proper creation and use of cooling fins effectively negates the need for using a liquid coolant. Increasing the airflow should be sufficient.
If I had to do it my way, I'd probably pick a low volume air conditioner to cool the air, rather than submersing the chip.
krystal_blade