I encourage everyone to go to CIA World Factbook and randomly look up developing nations in Africa and see what languages are being taught in the schools.
It is easy to see the early colonial powers have a strong influence on the language with French being taught in quite a few central African countries and English in the southern African countries. While Chinese will undoubtedly have a large impact on the internet if and when a bulk of China comes online, the basic fact that a sizeable portion of the Chinese population live without electricity, we cannot count their entire population as netizens.
Also, according to the factbook, English remains one of the most used languages in India while the official language is only spoken by 30% of the population.
While English will always be dominant in one form or another, I don't think anyone will actively allow it to become the only language of the net. At least I hope not. There are just some things that need to be in the original language. French euphemisms need to be in French. A Russian novelist is better when read in Russian.
Ideally, the globalization of languages on the net will mean more Americans are exposed to different languages and while not necessarily being able to speak and write in them, but be able to comprehend them to some degree.
Well, I'm not so way off. This is a quote from the CIA Worldbook. Also, there are more English newspapers printed in India than any other country.
Languages: English enjoys associate status but is the most important language for national, political, and commercial
communication, Hindi the national language and primary tongue of 30% of the people, Bengali (official), Telugu (official),
Marathi (official), Tamil (official), Urdu (official), Gujarati (official), Malayalam (official), Kannada (official), Oriya (official),
Punjabi (official), Assamese (official), Kashmiri (official), Sindhi (official), Sanskrit (official), Hindustani (a popular variant of
Hindi/Urdu spoken widely throughout northern India)
note: 24 languages each spoken by a million or more persons; numerous other languages and dialects, for the most part
mutually unintelligible.
This isn't meant to be an 'I told you so' but to highlight the fact in countries that have a lot of different languages (South Africa is included in this category) English tends to crawl to the top as a unifier.
Remember the some of the early student uprisings in South Africa were over the fact that English wasn't allowed to be taught in the tribal schools. It was one of the ways Apartheid worked...keeping the different tribes from organizing together.
I'm one of the first people to agree that making money is a good thing. I like having a roof over my head, food in my belly, the ability to have luxury in my life, and all of this comes about because companies are making money.
I think the element of this that really sticks in people's craw is the fact a good portion of the labor that went into cddb was volunteer with the idea that contributing that labor guaranteed free access to all the information. The correct way for cddb to handle this would have been to have clearly stated their business model, giving those who contributed the option to contribute knowing that they would eventually be paying for their own labor or to contribute to a different project.
I also believe there are other ways for cddb to make money off of that information (which I don't mind them doing, I just mind them earning money off of the free labor from the very people who performed that labor).
Though there are far greater
injustices out there that need to be corrected, this is a good place to start.
This isn't sarcasm, I just want to thank you for this sentiment. You are right, there are greater injustices that need to be solved, but you don't fix the world in one fell swoop.
I think you are absolutely right that this is a perfect project to test the mettle of this community. Let's see how big of an impact we can make. Then we can realistically scale our efforts towards other 'good causes'.
Pardon me, I moved the Christian calendar in the wrong direction. A more magnanimous mind would have seen the obvious error and derived the meaning from the intent. The point trying to be made was simply calendars are arbitrary.
I may be way off, as it has been a long time since I read anything about the government of India, with the last 'real' information coming from Michael Palin's 'Around the World in Eighty Days', but I was clearly under the impression due to the vast number of languages spoken in India, I thought English was made the official language.
Look at where most of the technical students are getting their education and look at what language most technical journals are published in and you can see the trends. Will English become the official language of the world? From the irony of the phrase lingua franca used to describe the common language, really meaning the Tongue of France, we can see the 'official' language fluctuates and will continue to fluctuate. But do to the way the world interacts, as long as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, Ireland, US, South Africa, and India remain economically powerful and continue to use English as the language in schools, we won't see English disappear as a dominant language any time soon.
I am curious why the designer of the desk didn't desing it so large sections were glued together and then interlocked. Let the entire top of the desk be three sections so other sections can be snapped on. Need to do some writing, snap on the flat surface and the pen holder. Going to be doing some heavy duty computing, snap in the ergonomic sections.
Also if the entire desk is actually several components, then shipping becomes easier.
A more impressive design would combine the computer and the desk, but until I get the money, time, and skill to do it, I guess I should just sit back and be impressed.
No intelligent business writes off an entire market. I work in the insurance biz and I know we jump through stupid and absurd hoops to become regulated in the different states. Some states even have weird requirements about seperate systems, which mean we cannot even have websites hosted from the same machine.
Writing off an entire state because you don't like a law is something you do only if the law is going to make you go bankrupt. Otherwise you stay in the state and lobby to have the law repealed or have the teeth cut out of the enforcement.
When a system actively prevents me, the free citizen, from being given the chance to select the candidate I feel deserves to be President, how can I feel like I am being represented by the system?
The system, still better than any I've studied, is ill designed. We allow political parties to nominate the candidates, then have a campaign financing strategy which favors those two candidates. There are more voters who consider themselves independent than belonging to a party, yet in many states they are required to chose which primary they want to vote in, not being allowed to pick and choose the best people for the job.
Also, in the primary season, the candidates are selected before even a majority of the states have had a chance to cast their votes. Sure a majority of the people have spoken, but this majority comes from regions of the country that have interests contrary to mine. Even though I live in Illinois, my passion will always be for my homestate of Montana. Montana votes don't count, ever, because of the lack of population. And too many candidates drop out of the race by the time the Illinois primary rolls around that it isn't even worth my time to go to the polls.
George Washington in his farewell address told us to not to create political parties. Boy, I'm glad we took that advice.
I'm glad they system represents you. The system does not represent me and I refuse to participate in it so it can say "see, look Luminous voted and thus he agrees that this process works so there is no need to change it." By not voting, those people running for congress (state and federal) need to come to me (and have) and ask me what they need to do to earn my vote. I tell them simply that my vote will go to the person who takes a real role in leading fundamental reform in how the system works. That person doesn't need to even be in office, just a member of one of the two major political parties who realizes they are not representing 50% of the country but more like 30%, so pretending they can speak for a vast constituency is pure bs.
All revolutions begin when the populace no longer recognizes the authority of a system to govern. Legitimacy is derived by the participation of the citizenry in the governance process. This participation can be coerced from the citizenry using tools like fear and propaganda, it can be given freely by the citizenry like in most liberal democracies, or it can be "tricked' from the citizenry like in the concept of "Divine Right of Kings".
Actually, abstaining takes legitimacy away from the system. There is a reason why voter turn out is important in democratic institutions. By not voting, you are saying that you are not going to legitimize a system that isn't representing you.
they are quite concerned that the ruling in the Napster case
could be applied much more broadly against isps in general.
All I can say is the ISP's and their lawyers seem to believe differently than you, which is why they filed these papers.
Nothing is cut and dry...cases like this can't be used as justification for other lawsuits. I'm not saying Napster is guilty or innocent, I am just saying it is in the best interest of ISP's to make sure the court doesn't make a ruling so broad that it opens up avenues of other lawsuits.
All through this Napster trial, I have been wondering where all the ISP's were. Whether you like Napster or not, their essential model is dangerously close to the ISP's.
Again, I know there are people who are strong opponents and proponents of Napster(inc) and Napster(idea) and then there are those of us in the middle who have one concern: making sure whatever precedent this case sets is a fair and equitable one. I believed the ISP's should also be very interested in this outcome.
I love Google and have been using it for a period of time now. But I also use Dogpile, Yahoo!, Alta-Vista, SavvySearch, and on occasion when I just don't care what sites come up, Ask Jeeves (which has never once given me the site I wanted but has given me hours of fun).
The point here isn't to list every search engine that is out there but to demonstrate that not one search engine will meet each and every need you have. If I am looking for something obscure, then I use Alta-Vista. AV has the most indexed pages (as of August 2, 2000) and I may have to dig, but I'll usually get what I want. Google is great for broad topic searches. Dogpile is a great shotgun approach as is SavvySearch.
Google is doing the right thing by staying focused on being a search engine and I have to say that ever since I first used the site (back when it was a logo, text box, and two buttons) I appreciated the simplicity of the site.
I recently read a report that the Search Engines are barely covering the web. Should search engines be sub-divided into 'web regions' in order to more thoroughly cover what is out there? Is there better technology we could be using?
Okay, that is way overstating it, but the cloned animal, unable to learn behavior from its own species will never be the animal that once was. While I agree we need to spend every reasonable effort from protecting species from becoming extinct, the fact of the matter is, extinction happens.
It'll happen to us one day. There are some hard questions that need to be asked such as where is this animal's habitat now? Has another species thrived in that area with this species absence? Are we sacrifing one species for the sake of another?
There are many good cases for cloning, but to bring back an extinct species isn't one of them. A better use is to clone endangered species to increase genetic diversity.
And to continue this thought. Remember, BattleBots is on Comedy Central, not PBS, not Discovery Channel, not local access. What this means is they have to pull a certain level of ratings from the typical Comedy Central watcher to make it worth their while doing.
Thus, we get the hype and the 'personalities'.
Let us not fail to realize that what this is doing is making something that is considered tres geek and making it into something worthwhile by pop culture. Anything that enlightens that masses, even by a little, gets my thumbs up. Who knows, those gearheads might make the next super killer robot instead of adding lifters to their musclecar. And super killer robots are a hell of a lot more fun than musclecars, IMHO.
A personal helicopter sounds just downright dangerous to me. I don't even trust my neighbor not to bash the cars he is trying to parallel park between.
But what could be better is a small little electricmotor scooter. It may not be as cool, but just a tad safer and you can get one today!
I have to strongly agree with your statements. There is a lot of danger in using analogies. The first of which is it makes the person making the analogy appear to be overreacting and diminishing the trauma associated with the crimes they are making the comparison.
"Napster rapes artists." "2600 aids and abets thieves." Dear lord, have these people never known someone who has been raped? Have they never been robbed? I'll tell you it is a completely different feeling going through these events, the nightmares, etc. that hang on to you for weeks, months, and in extreme cases years later. Someone illegally copying a file doesn't even come close to causing an emotional scar. Pointing someone where they can download some code that can be used to make an illegal copy is also below that threshold.
Jack Valenti, when he makes these analogies, should be forced to live through what he is comparing it to and then I might listen to his pathetic comparisons. Until then, he is merely trying to pull at some emotional threads in our culture -- thank you Hollywood.
I am wondering how far this will go. If I link to a site that happens to link to a site that has something illegal on it, will I be held liable?
What sort of implication does this have for sites like Yahoo! that have a human being adding sites to their directories. That implies they are knowingly linking to sites that have illegal material on them.
Is this ruling essential eroding the very fabric of the web? So much for the great postmodern theory of 'One Book'. What I find interesting is you can circumvent the issue by just providing the web address without using the underlying technology to actually link. Is this whacked or what?
You know the Supreme Court is going to allow linking, and drug information, and every other free speech issue proceed. Why do these lower court officials create such a mess? Do they not think things all the way through? Or perhaps they do, and that is even scarier.
BT will eventually have to be forced to open itself to competition, but Britain has a chance to do it right instead of how the U.S. did it.
I am in the midst of installing a vpn and a framerelay one with AT&T and the other with MCI. MCI, doing the frame has to deal with three different local carriers in five different states. And local carriers are known for their anti-competitive practices.
I believe strongly in competition, but realistic regulation also needs to go along with it.
By adding a tactile response to mouse motion, i.e. getting some resistence when on a button or link, more people with vision problems will be able to use computers.
Admittedly, there are already many other tools that provide a better method of browsing and are a much better interface than a tactile response mouse, but it is a tool that might appeal to someone. I'm also thinking about people with joint disorders or difficulties with fine motion. Having some 'stickiness' on links (sticky="2") might make web surfing a bit easier for them.
I'm going to slip out of my normal role as the non-judgemental person who believes all opinions have a place on the smorgasbord of life and simply say this is possibly the most assinine thing I have ever heard.
I'm not saying that Doom on Digita is really worth anyone's time, but to claim that the programmer who did this shouldn't have is of a level of arrogrance I have yet to encounter until now. Who is anyone to tell another person how to spend their time and energy?
I've already read one post about Leonardo Divinci, so I won't reiterate that. One cannot control the passions and whims of creativity and genius. To even begin to try is like herding cats. You will fail. Besides, who is anyone to dictate what is a worthwhile project and not? You may want a video editor, this programmer may have really wanted to play Doom on his/her digital camera. Maybe this programmer wasn't giving a flying fig newton about what anyone else wanted and was doing this to appease his/her own desires.
Never, ever rain on someone else's parade unless you willingly want to turn over your life to the collective and allow them to dictate how you want to spend your creative energy. But even then, think twice before you say something of this nature is a waste of time. Proving it can be done opens many, many doors.
I couldn't agree more. I want a file sharing system controlled by the artists. I want 90% of what I pay to go to the artist. I think if the artist had more control over the capital resources of the industry then we would get more diverse forms of 'content' and diversification is always good.
This is an interesting statement quoted from the article said to Lars in regards to Metallica wanting to control their music. A lot will be made of this statement and I must reiterate my consistent point on Napster et.al., I haven't a clue as to who is right or who is wrong.
Artists should be justly compensated for their work but they aren't being justly compensated right now by the record labels. A new paradigm for the music industry needs to be created.
The philosophical question this raises isn't new, but is a twist on an old favorite. Is music considered music if no one hears it?
I believe the statement, "Fuck you, Lars. It's our music too!" was not saying Metallica doesn't have a right to control their music but was saying that without the people who listen to their music, Metallica wouldn't exist.
This does not give anyone the right to deny them compensation for their music. What it does do is establish the fact that the fans, the people who make or break musicians, want a shift in how the music economy works.
I am an extreme relativist. I believe monopolies can be good one year, bad the next. I don't believe the same standard should be applied consistently because each case is unique with unique cirmcumstances. Unfortunately, you can't build a legal system on such chaos and expect it to serve its purpose.
Monopolies aren't evil until the environment shifts. IMHO, the winds of change are upon the RIAA/MPAA/MS only because they've served their purpose and no longer are useful to the culture as a whole. The same thing with United Steel, Standard Oil, ATT, and IBM.
But don't expect me to feel bad about a company losing its monopoly...its a company not an individual.
I found it interesting that the judge in this case made that statement which directly implies if I create something (or pay to have something created) I have the exclusive right to distribute it, even if it means in that distribution, I create artificial limits in how it can be used. For an oversimplified analogy, it is like my selling Coca-Cola and then suing you if you decide not to drink it but use it to spill into people's keyboards or to pour it down the drain. I not not get to sell it to you in the form of my choosing (cans or bottles/dvd) but I get to dictate how you use it (imbibe only/watch only).
I said it was a simple analogy.
-- By reading this line you waive your right to flame
Slashdot Mirror
It is easy to see the early colonial powers have a strong influence on the language with French being taught in quite a few central African countries and English in the southern African countries. While Chinese will undoubtedly have a large impact on the internet if and when a bulk of China comes online, the basic fact that a sizeable portion of the Chinese population live without electricity, we cannot count their entire population as netizens.
Also, according to the factbook, English remains one of the most used languages in India while the official language is only spoken by 30% of the population.
While English will always be dominant in one form or another, I don't think anyone will actively allow it to become the only language of the net. At least I hope not. There are just some things that need to be in the original language. French euphemisms need to be in French. A Russian novelist is better when read in Russian.
Ideally, the globalization of languages on the net will mean more Americans are exposed to different languages and while not necessarily being able to speak and write in them, but be able to comprehend them to some degree.
This isn't meant to be an 'I told you so' but to highlight the fact in countries that have a lot of different languages (South Africa is included in this category) English tends to crawl to the top as a unifier.
Remember the some of the early student uprisings in South Africa were over the fact that English wasn't allowed to be taught in the tribal schools. It was one of the ways Apartheid worked...keeping the different tribes from organizing together.
I think the element of this that really sticks in people's craw is the fact a good portion of the labor that went into cddb was volunteer with the idea that contributing that labor guaranteed free access to all the information. The correct way for cddb to handle this would have been to have clearly stated their business model, giving those who contributed the option to contribute knowing that they would eventually be paying for their own labor or to contribute to a different project.
I also believe there are other ways for cddb to make money off of that information (which I don't mind them doing, I just mind them earning money off of the free labor from the very people who performed that labor).
This isn't sarcasm, I just want to thank you for this sentiment. You are right, there are greater injustices that need to be solved, but you don't fix the world in one fell swoop.
I think you are absolutely right that this is a perfect project to test the mettle of this community. Let's see how big of an impact we can make. Then we can realistically scale our efforts towards other 'good causes'.
Pardon me, I moved the Christian calendar in the wrong direction. A more magnanimous mind would have seen the obvious error and derived the meaning from the intent. The point trying to be made was simply calendars are arbitrary.
Look at where most of the technical students are getting their education and look at what language most technical journals are published in and you can see the trends. Will English become the official language of the world? From the irony of the phrase lingua franca used to describe the common language, really meaning the Tongue of France, we can see the 'official' language fluctuates and will continue to fluctuate. But do to the way the world interacts, as long as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, Ireland, US, South Africa, and India remain economically powerful and continue to use English as the language in schools, we won't see English disappear as a dominant language any time soon.
Also if the entire desk is actually several components, then shipping becomes easier.
A more impressive design would combine the computer and the desk, but until I get the money, time, and skill to do it, I guess I should just sit back and be impressed.
Writing off an entire state because you don't like a law is something you do only if the law is going to make you go bankrupt. Otherwise you stay in the state and lobby to have the law repealed or have the teeth cut out of the enforcement.
The system, still better than any I've studied, is ill designed. We allow political parties to nominate the candidates, then have a campaign financing strategy which favors those two candidates. There are more voters who consider themselves independent than belonging to a party, yet in many states they are required to chose which primary they want to vote in, not being allowed to pick and choose the best people for the job.
Also, in the primary season, the candidates are selected before even a majority of the states have had a chance to cast their votes. Sure a majority of the people have spoken, but this majority comes from regions of the country that have interests contrary to mine. Even though I live in Illinois, my passion will always be for my homestate of Montana. Montana votes don't count, ever, because of the lack of population. And too many candidates drop out of the race by the time the Illinois primary rolls around that it isn't even worth my time to go to the polls.
George Washington in his farewell address told us to not to create political parties. Boy, I'm glad we took that advice.
I'm glad they system represents you. The system does not represent me and I refuse to participate in it so it can say "see, look Luminous voted and thus he agrees that this process works so there is no need to change it." By not voting, those people running for congress (state and federal) need to come to me (and have) and ask me what they need to do to earn my vote. I tell them simply that my vote will go to the person who takes a real role in leading fundamental reform in how the system works. That person doesn't need to even be in office, just a member of one of the two major political parties who realizes they are not representing 50% of the country but more like 30%, so pretending they can speak for a vast constituency is pure bs.
Actually, abstaining takes legitimacy away from the system. There is a reason why voter turn out is important in democratic institutions. By not voting, you are saying that you are not going to legitimize a system that isn't representing you.
All I can say is the ISP's and their lawyers seem to believe differently than you, which is why they filed these papers.
Nothing is cut and dry...cases like this can't be used as justification for other lawsuits. I'm not saying Napster is guilty or innocent, I am just saying it is in the best interest of ISP's to make sure the court doesn't make a ruling so broad that it opens up avenues of other lawsuits.
Again, I know there are people who are strong opponents and proponents of Napster(inc) and Napster(idea) and then there are those of us in the middle who have one concern: making sure whatever precedent this case sets is a fair and equitable one. I believed the ISP's should also be very interested in this outcome.
I am glad to see they are breaking their silence.
The point here isn't to list every search engine that is out there but to demonstrate that not one search engine will meet each and every need you have. If I am looking for something obscure, then I use Alta-Vista. AV has the most indexed pages (as of August 2, 2000) and I may have to dig, but I'll usually get what I want. Google is great for broad topic searches. Dogpile is a great shotgun approach as is SavvySearch.
Google is doing the right thing by staying focused on being a search engine and I have to say that ever since I first used the site (back when it was a logo, text box, and two buttons) I appreciated the simplicity of the site.
I recently read a report that the Search Engines are barely covering the web. Should search engines be sub-divided into 'web regions' in order to more thoroughly cover what is out there? Is there better technology we could be using?
It'll happen to us one day. There are some hard questions that need to be asked such as where is this animal's habitat now? Has another species thrived in that area with this species absence? Are we sacrifing one species for the sake of another?
There are many good cases for cloning, but to bring back an extinct species isn't one of them. A better use is to clone endangered species to increase genetic diversity.
Thus, we get the hype and the 'personalities'.
Let us not fail to realize that what this is doing is making something that is considered tres geek and making it into something worthwhile by pop culture. Anything that enlightens that masses, even by a little, gets my thumbs up. Who knows, those gearheads might make the next super killer robot instead of adding lifters to their musclecar. And super killer robots are a hell of a lot more fun than musclecars, IMHO.
But what could be better is a small little electricmotor scooter. It may not be as cool, but just a tad safer and you can get one today!
"Napster rapes artists." "2600 aids and abets thieves." Dear lord, have these people never known someone who has been raped? Have they never been robbed? I'll tell you it is a completely different feeling going through these events, the nightmares, etc. that hang on to you for weeks, months, and in extreme cases years later. Someone illegally copying a file doesn't even come close to causing an emotional scar. Pointing someone where they can download some code that can be used to make an illegal copy is also below that threshold.
Jack Valenti, when he makes these analogies, should be forced to live through what he is comparing it to and then I might listen to his pathetic comparisons. Until then, he is merely trying to pull at some emotional threads in our culture -- thank you Hollywood.
What sort of implication does this have for sites like Yahoo! that have a human being adding sites to their directories. That implies they are knowingly linking to sites that have illegal material on them.
Is this ruling essential eroding the very fabric of the web? So much for the great postmodern theory of 'One Book'. What I find interesting is you can circumvent the issue by just providing the web address without using the underlying technology to actually link. Is this whacked or what?
You know the Supreme Court is going to allow linking, and drug information, and every other free speech issue proceed. Why do these lower court officials create such a mess? Do they not think things all the way through? Or perhaps they do, and that is even scarier.
I am in the midst of installing a vpn and a framerelay one with AT&T and the other with MCI. MCI, doing the frame has to deal with three different local carriers in five different states. And local carriers are known for their anti-competitive practices.
I believe strongly in competition, but realistic regulation also needs to go along with it.
Admittedly, there are already many other tools that provide a better method of browsing and are a much better interface than a tactile response mouse, but it is a tool that might appeal to someone. I'm also thinking about people with joint disorders or difficulties with fine motion. Having some 'stickiness' on links (sticky="2") might make web surfing a bit easier for them.
There are many more uses than just games.
I'm not saying that Doom on Digita is really worth anyone's time, but to claim that the programmer who did this shouldn't have is of a level of arrogrance I have yet to encounter until now. Who is anyone to tell another person how to spend their time and energy?
I've already read one post about Leonardo Divinci, so I won't reiterate that. One cannot control the passions and whims of creativity and genius. To even begin to try is like herding cats. You will fail. Besides, who is anyone to dictate what is a worthwhile project and not? You may want a video editor, this programmer may have really wanted to play Doom on his/her digital camera. Maybe this programmer wasn't giving a flying fig newton about what anyone else wanted and was doing this to appease his/her own desires.
Never, ever rain on someone else's parade unless you willingly want to turn over your life to the collective and allow them to dictate how you want to spend your creative energy. But even then, think twice before you say something of this nature is a waste of time. Proving it can be done opens many, many doors.
I couldn't agree more. I want a file sharing system controlled by the artists. I want 90% of what I pay to go to the artist. I think if the artist had more control over the capital resources of the industry then we would get more diverse forms of 'content' and diversification is always good.
This is an interesting statement quoted from the article said to Lars in regards to Metallica wanting to control their music. A lot will be made of this statement and I must reiterate my consistent point on Napster et.al., I haven't a clue as to who is right or who is wrong.
Artists should be justly compensated for their work but they aren't being justly compensated right now by the record labels. A new paradigm for the music industry needs to be created.
The philosophical question this raises isn't new, but is a twist on an old favorite. Is music considered music if no one hears it?
I believe the statement, "Fuck you, Lars. It's our music too!" was not saying Metallica doesn't have a right to control their music but was saying that without the people who listen to their music, Metallica wouldn't exist.
This does not give anyone the right to deny them compensation for their music. What it does do is establish the fact that the fans, the people who make or break musicians, want a shift in how the music economy works.
Monopolies aren't evil until the environment shifts. IMHO, the winds of change are upon the RIAA/MPAA/MS only because they've served their purpose and no longer are useful to the culture as a whole. The same thing with United Steel, Standard Oil, ATT, and IBM.
But don't expect me to feel bad about a company losing its monopoly...its a company not an individual.
I found it interesting that the judge in this case made that statement which directly implies if I create something (or pay to have something created) I have the exclusive right to distribute it, even if it means in that distribution, I create artificial limits in how it can be used. For an oversimplified analogy, it is like my selling Coca-Cola and then suing you if you decide not to drink it but use it to spill into people's keyboards or to pour it down the drain. I not not get to sell it to you in the form of my choosing (cans or bottles/dvd) but I get to dictate how you use it (imbibe only/watch only).
I said it was a simple analogy.
--
By reading this line you waive your right to flame