Yup. You should do that. Hell, I'd love to just get loads of people to buy some packaged software remove the shrinkwrap, and reject the agreement then return the unwrapped product for a refund just as a matter of principle, but people aren't willing to do that.
That would be "MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP HOME EDITION (RETAIL)"
The OEM version tells you "AND YOU SHOULD PROMPTLY CONTACT MANUFACTURER FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON RETURN OF THE UNUSED PRODUCT(S) FOR A REFUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RETURN POLICIES." So it's up to the manufacturer what their return policy is. If they insist you return the entire machine that's the policy.
None of them including the OS. It allows me to return the product. The product in this case is a PC with windows installed. The OEM licence is actually different from the retail licence in this respect (the retail licence specifically states "software", OEM says "product").
Can I also send back the graphics card for a full refund if I decide I want to use a card that's not offered? And return the hard disk because I'm only interested in using external drives?
The software is part of the entire package. If I'm not happy with it I'll send the whole thing back. What other products allow you to reject single components?
The insurance company knows full well they'd be in serious trouble if they used a claim of "you look happy so can't be depressed". They know depression is a medical condition.
Here's what I think happened; a co-worker got annoyed with her being on sick leave for such a long time. She grabbed some photos from facebook and sent them to the insurance company with an email saying "See! She's not depressed". The insurance company thought there was probably justification for some sort of investigation. They investigated. They pulled the medical records and their doctor decided that based on the objective evidence there was no reason she was still entitled to sick pay.
Phone boxes: Dead. Abut the only use is to report the theft of a mobile phone.
Wristwatches: Well, my wrist is in a very convenient place. I can even look at it whilst holding something else. It doesn't need to be fished out of a pocket. Women have the greater problem of having to fish it out of a handbag. Hell, I can look at it whilst on the phone. A watch than can keep better time than our planet can be purchased for about the same as an iphone app.
Bedside alarm clocks: Mine has a battery life measured in years. It has a handy big button on the top to stop the alarm. Far superior than to a phone.
MP3 players: I don't know why but I like my mp3 player better than my phone for mp3 purposes. Maybe that's just me, since I can't really rationalise this one.
Landline home phones: Dead. I know very few people who still use these.
Compact digital cameras: My Canon gives better pictures than any mobile phone ever will. It's not just about lens quality or pixels. There's a matter of having a large enough CCD to collect all those photons, which means you need a longer lens. And you do need a decent quality lens. They are expensive. Adding one to a cheap mobile phone means you might as well have a camera.
Netbooks: What!? They're totally different devices. If you can have a decent sized keyboard and 10 inch screen on a device that fits into your pocket let me know.
Handheld games consoles: Games consoles are extremely demanding about user interfaces. touch screens are not good for games.
Paper: I've been essentially paperless for a decade. Mobile phones aren't going to affect this significantly.
Thinking: Tools and information aid thinking. They don't replace it.
There's nothing inherently wasteful about game age ratings.
There's nothing wrong with parents wanting to prevent their children playing certain types of games. If you think they're harmless, that's fine. Let your own kids play them. A lot of parents do care, and do like some sort of age rating. The NIMF encouraged this in a generally fairly reasonable manner.
How many times have you passed a Jumbotron and seen a Windows error message instead of an ad?
Never... bur I get your point. On the other hand, I have at least 2 embedded Linux based devices of my own. My parents probably have a couple as well. It doesn't need to dominate the market place. Android is popular because it's probably going to do well.
Saving a $10 licence fee makes sense for some things. Right now I'm developing a system where the OS cost is insignificant. We're considering Linux or Windows or possibly even a mac. But that's a total saving of the cost of a windows licence. If we were churning out thousands of these, those thousands of $10's start to add up.
Does pirating an iphone app require a jailbroken phone?
Probably.
If so, does that mean the "rule" is that there are more jailbroken phone users out there using these pirated applications than there are non-jailbroken phone users using them?
Unlikely. Pirates are likely to have more software. When it's free people are more likely to acquire a piece of software.
Doesn't that essentially indicate the apps are overpriced to begin with?
Ovepriced is highly subjective. Some people absolutely need certain software. They'd pay far more than the price if they had to. Others don't need it so much but find it useful if it's free. Most people are between these two extremes. The correct price is the one that maximise the product of units sold and per-unit profit.
That argument was used in favor of desktop Linux too. It's one factor in favor, there are many other factors against.
I'm sure there are. But it's certainly worked for embedded Linux. The smartphone market is both similar to and different from both of these. It has a shot. It's an open marketplace at the moment.
What, you think iPhone OS is the only established smartphone OS? Not true. In fact, it's something of a newcomer.
Interesting. It does seem strange for Google to design an entirely new Linux based OS considering the maturity of Symbian. Still, all any OS needs to gain market share is to be seen as viable. Android appears to be viable.
I have to say, I don't get Android. What's the appeal?
It's free (as in cost), an established standard, and backed by a company that's very likely still going to be around in a few years. These are all reasons to use it if you're producing mobile phones.
The market isn't overcrowded. iPhone has something like a 2.5% market share. At least some of those remaining 97.5% are going to be upgrading to a smartphone. That's quite a hefty chunk of the market to carve up and Apple doesn't offer a lot of choice. Nor will there be a lot of choice for an upgrade should you want to keep the existing apps.
Well, technically, yes, assuming there's something legal under US law that's banned in the Geneva convention. In practice, they tend not to have the ability to do this.
Incidentally - the rule works two ways. We can treat the MPAA worse than an invading army treats civilians in exactly the same way.
There are thousands of patents for devices that duplicate the functionality of another. Hell, the diesel engine has exactly the same function as a petrol engine, and much of the functionality of a Newcomen engine (pressure difference driving pistons to provide a motive force).
The patent is on the process. Not the end result.
Now the process is pretty much indistinguishable from sudo as well, but if you're going to criticise at least criticise for the right reasons.
This is sort of my point. What Glenn Beck does is unfair. The fact that he uses this tactic doesn't make it fair.
Now, perhaps he deserves this sort of attack. Sounds like he does but all I really wanted to point out is that it does cause harm. Deserved? Maybe. But so implausible as to be obviously satire? Not at all.
You're probably Not A Lawyer, so you probably don't know all of this. But the posters who said Copyright is an exception to Fair Use are spot on.
Nope. However I can read and do get legal information from places other than Slashdot.
Indeed the factors taken into consideration are examples. Examples of exceptions to copyright. The areas that copyright doesn't cover e.g. naturally occurring patterns or independently coming up with an identical work are not fair use because they don't need to be. They're simply not covered by copyright.
Sorry, but that's simply not the case. Not being American, about the only thing I know about him is that there's a suggestion that he may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I just assumed this he had been accused of this and it was the equivalent of DidOJSimpsonMurderHisWife.com. It strikes me as at least vaguely plausible.
So I might, at some time, be persuaded to avoid something that he's associated with due to unfair implied accusations. There is at least some hypothetical harm here.
That's not fair use. It's just use. Without copyright, I don't need fair use. I can use your work any way I choose fair or not.
Copyright limits this use, certainly. It may limit it in unfair ways. Because of this, those who drafted the laws on copyright decided not to make it absolute but to allow some exceptions. Copyright is an exception, it's true, but fair use is an exception to the exception. It's a specific legal term. Not some philosophical construct.
Surely then they'd previously have reported him as driving 6mph over the speed limit. It's unlikely that the same speed gun would register speeds 3mph apart as the same speed no matter how badly calibrated. As long as you drive 3mph below the speed measured as 3mph above the speed limit you're safe.
Why? That was a perfect brain teaser answer. One where only pure maths come in, speeds are exact, and acceleration is perfectly linear.
Here's one for you - if on a two-mile journey you go at a speed of 30MPH for the first mile, how fast do you have to go in the second mile to average 60MPH for the trip?
Infinitely fast. 60mph is 1 mile per minute, or 2 miles in 2 minutes. At 30 mph it takes you 2 minutes to go the first mile leaving you zero time to go the next.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. You should do that. Hell, I'd love to just get loads of people to buy some packaged software remove the shrinkwrap, and reject the agreement then return the unwrapped product for a refund just as a matter of principle, but people aren't willing to do that.
That would be "MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP HOME EDITION (RETAIL)"
The OEM version tells you "AND YOU SHOULD PROMPTLY CONTACT MANUFACTURER FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON RETURN OF THE UNUSED PRODUCT(S) FOR A REFUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RETURN POLICIES." So it's up to the manufacturer what their return policy is. If they insist you return the entire machine that's the policy.
No. They figured out a way to do so. Patents are on the solution, not the problem.
So I get a refund on the PC. That's what's being offered. Not a refund on a bit of it.
None of them including the OS. It allows me to return the product. The product in this case is a PC with windows installed. The OEM licence is actually different from the retail licence in this respect (the retail licence specifically states "software", OEM says "product").
Can I also send back the graphics card for a full refund if I decide I want to use a card that's not offered? And return the hard disk because I'm only interested in using external drives?
The software is part of the entire package. If I'm not happy with it I'll send the whole thing back. What other products allow you to reject single components?
Buy a million motherboards and you might get a decent deal.
Nope. I'm not a parent and live in a country with a much more competently handled age rating system.
The insurance company knows full well they'd be in serious trouble if they used a claim of "you look happy so can't be depressed". They know depression is a medical condition.
Here's what I think happened; a co-worker got annoyed with her being on sick leave for such a long time. She grabbed some photos from facebook and sent them to the insurance company with an email saying "See! She's not depressed". The insurance company thought there was probably justification for some sort of investigation. They investigated. They pulled the medical records and their doctor decided that based on the objective evidence there was no reason she was still entitled to sick pay.
Phone boxes: Dead. Abut the only use is to report the theft of a mobile phone.
Wristwatches: Well, my wrist is in a very convenient place. I can even look at it whilst holding something else. It doesn't need to be fished out of a pocket. Women have the greater problem of having to fish it out of a handbag. Hell, I can look at it whilst on the phone. A watch than can keep better time than our planet can be purchased for about the same as an iphone app.
Bedside alarm clocks: Mine has a battery life measured in years. It has a handy big button on the top to stop the alarm. Far superior than to a phone.
MP3 players: I don't know why but I like my mp3 player better than my phone for mp3 purposes. Maybe that's just me, since I can't really rationalise this one.
Landline home phones: Dead. I know very few people who still use these.
Compact digital cameras: My Canon gives better pictures than any mobile phone ever will. It's not just about lens quality or pixels. There's a matter of having a large enough CCD to collect all those photons, which means you need a longer lens. And you do need a decent quality lens. They are expensive. Adding one to a cheap mobile phone means you might as well have a camera.
Netbooks: What!? They're totally different devices. If you can have a decent sized keyboard and 10 inch screen on a device that fits into your pocket let me know.
Handheld games consoles: Games consoles are extremely demanding about user interfaces. touch screens are not good for games.
Paper: I've been essentially paperless for a decade. Mobile phones aren't going to affect this significantly.
Thinking: Tools and information aid thinking. They don't replace it.
There's nothing inherently wasteful about game age ratings.
There's nothing wrong with parents wanting to prevent their children playing certain types of games. If you think they're harmless, that's fine. Let your own kids play them. A lot of parents do care, and do like some sort of age rating. The NIMF encouraged this in a generally fairly reasonable manner.
How many times have you passed a Jumbotron and seen a Windows error message instead of an ad?
Never... bur I get your point. On the other hand, I have at least 2 embedded Linux based devices of my own. My parents probably have a couple as well. It doesn't need to dominate the market place. Android is popular because it's probably going to do well.
Saving a $10 licence fee makes sense for some things. Right now I'm developing a system where the OS cost is insignificant. We're considering Linux or Windows or possibly even a mac. But that's a total saving of the cost of a windows licence. If we were churning out thousands of these, those thousands of $10's start to add up.
90% of everything is crap. Sturgeons law applies to iPhone apps as well.
Does pirating an iphone app require a jailbroken phone?
Probably.
If so, does that mean the "rule" is that there are more jailbroken phone users out there using these pirated applications than there are non-jailbroken phone users using them?
Unlikely. Pirates are likely to have more software. When it's free people are more likely to acquire a piece of software.
Doesn't that essentially indicate the apps are overpriced to begin with?
Ovepriced is highly subjective. Some people absolutely need certain software. They'd pay far more than the price if they had to. Others don't need it so much but find it useful if it's free. Most people are between these two extremes. The correct price is the one that maximise the product of units sold and per-unit profit.
That argument was used in favor of desktop Linux too. It's one factor in favor, there are many other factors against.
I'm sure there are. But it's certainly worked for embedded Linux. The smartphone market is both similar to and different from both of these. It has a shot. It's an open marketplace at the moment.
What, you think iPhone OS is the only established smartphone OS? Not true. In fact, it's something of a newcomer.
Interesting. It does seem strange for Google to design an entirely new Linux based OS considering the maturity of Symbian. Still, all any OS needs to gain market share is to be seen as viable. Android appears to be viable.
I have to say, I don't get Android. What's the appeal?
It's free (as in cost), an established standard, and backed by a company that's very likely still going to be around in a few years. These are all reasons to use it if you're producing mobile phones.
The market isn't overcrowded. iPhone has something like a 2.5% market share. At least some of those remaining 97.5% are going to be upgrading to a smartphone. That's quite a hefty chunk of the market to carve up and Apple doesn't offer a lot of choice. Nor will there be a lot of choice for an upgrade should you want to keep the existing apps.
but many people like to listen to classical, jazz, and other mostly-acoustic music at least a portion of the time,
Although these types of music do compress better using perceptual codecs so there's a win there.
Well, technically, yes, assuming there's something legal under US law that's banned in the Geneva convention. In practice, they tend not to have the ability to do this.
Incidentally - the rule works two ways. We can treat the MPAA worse than an invading army treats civilians in exactly the same way.
There are thousands of patents for devices that duplicate the functionality of another. Hell, the diesel engine has exactly the same function as a petrol engine, and much of the functionality of a Newcomen engine (pressure difference driving pistons to provide a motive force).
The patent is on the process. Not the end result.
Now the process is pretty much indistinguishable from sudo as well, but if you're going to criticise at least criticise for the right reasons.
This is sort of my point. What Glenn Beck does is unfair. The fact that he uses this tactic doesn't make it fair.
Now, perhaps he deserves this sort of attack. Sounds like he does but all I really wanted to point out is that it does cause harm. Deserved? Maybe. But so implausible as to be obviously satire? Not at all.
You're probably Not A Lawyer, so you probably don't know all of this. But the posters who said Copyright is an exception to Fair Use are spot on.
Nope. However I can read and do get legal information from places other than Slashdot.
Indeed the factors taken into consideration are examples. Examples of exceptions to copyright. The areas that copyright doesn't cover e.g. naturally occurring patterns or independently coming up with an identical work are not fair use because they don't need to be. They're simply not covered by copyright.
Sorry, but that's simply not the case. Not being American, about the only thing I know about him is that there's a suggestion that he may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I just assumed this he had been accused of this and it was the equivalent of DidOJSimpsonMurderHisWife.com. It strikes me as at least vaguely plausible.
So I might, at some time, be persuaded to avoid something that he's associated with due to unfair implied accusations. There is at least some hypothetical harm here.
That's not fair use. It's just use. Without copyright, I don't need fair use. I can use your work any way I choose fair or not.
Copyright limits this use, certainly. It may limit it in unfair ways. Because of this, those who drafted the laws on copyright decided not to make it absolute but to allow some exceptions. Copyright is an exception, it's true, but fair use is an exception to the exception. It's a specific legal term. Not some philosophical construct.
Surely then they'd previously have reported him as driving 6mph over the speed limit. It's unlikely that the same speed gun would register speeds 3mph apart as the same speed no matter how badly calibrated. As long as you drive 3mph below the speed measured as 3mph above the speed limit you're safe.
I'll bet you never did well on brain teasers.
Why? That was a perfect brain teaser answer. One where only pure maths come in, speeds are exact, and acceleration is perfectly linear.
Here's one for you - if on a two-mile journey you go at a speed of 30MPH for the first mile, how fast do you have to go in the second mile to average 60MPH for the trip?
Infinitely fast. 60mph is 1 mile per minute, or 2 miles in 2 minutes. At 30 mph it takes you 2 minutes to go the first mile leaving you zero time to go the next.