The TOS doesn't explicitly state the right that RR can take away my chosen usenet header, so it can be assumed that I can choose my header. To compare this to other examples, the TOS doesn't explicitly state that I can't use ICQ, but it can be assumed that I can, because they didn't say I couldn't. The TOS doesn't explicitly say I can't go to website X, but it can be assumed that I can....
"We can make 10 million and have a few customers hate us (but keep giving us money because we are the only game in town)" and "We can make 8 million and get good press and have the most satisfied customers."
They are your ISP and you are using THEIR machines, hence they may do as they wish.
But you're paying them for use of their machines, and you agreed to the TOS that came with their product. They exceeded their rights under their own TOS.
[A]n ISP has every right...to do whatever they want to incoming/outgoing data.
Again, you're paying them for their service. They must abide by their own TOS.
When I asked RoadRunner about the change the other day, mailing to help, PR and abuse desk addresses, I received only their standard "piss off and die" brush-off form letter requesting info neither relevant nor extant.
This won't work for the same reason that the under 21 for drinking and the under 18 for cigarettes--it's up to the store to enforce it, but if the store does enforce it, they lose sales.
He claims he was misquoted and misunderstood in a Financial Times of London article that came out earlier this week and that he does indeed has stories for years and years.
It seems he has been misstated again, unless that's the way his grammar is.
First, there are way too many definitions of what "harms the public": contrary to the general well-being of the public, contrary to the wishes of the public, harmful to a small group of people, Windows, annoying but not malicious, etc.
Second, programs may cause harm to a half the populace, but success to the other half. Where is the line drawn?
Third, not enough people will accept this because they will see a way of making more money picking up jobs that others left because of their beliefs.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires that most kinds of information be available to the general public. There are exceptions for classified information, information that's protected by privacy (e.g. you shouldn't be able to get a copy of my tax return, etc).
I'm pretty sure that the only Executive office exempt from this is the White House. All other offices/departments/agencies/commissions must release information whenever asked. The exceptions are due to the Privacy Act of 1974 (if I get blown up in Israel, the gubmint can't release my name without the consent of my family; and if I commit a crime as a minor and settle it out of court, you'll never get my name) and the National Security Act of 1947 (classified documents in the CIA, NSA, NRO, DIA, USAF, USArmy, USN, DMA, etc. are released 50 years after the use of the document expires--i.e. when Operation XXX concludes, it's details are released to the public 50 years later). So technically, if I consented, the gubmint could release my tax return to anyone who asked.
I assumed there had already been one--I checked the box to exclude his stories from my page about a year ago. I suggest you do the same--you don't even have to know he exists anymore.
Well, I guess the entertainment industry will know what the rest of the world already does--people don't like commercials, and given the chance, they won't watch them. I wouldn't, but as a college student I can't exactly afford ReplayTV.
First of all, you don't get points assessed to your license, and if someone else was driving your car, you probably can get money from them for the ticket. That is, if they still want to be able to know you. If you weren't friends, then what were they doing in your car?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this would make licenses more customizable than the GPL allows--people may want a little more or a little less restriction than the GPL has.
...or has this already been done?
There are also other sites dedicated to this idea.
To write your congressman, click here. Senator, here.
And, of course, Pong is the only real video game. All the others are just updates.
This Onion article shows how ludicrous the music industry's claims are.
The TOS doesn't explicitly state the right that RR can take away my chosen usenet header, so it can be assumed that I can choose my header. To compare this to other examples, the TOS doesn't explicitly state that I can't use ICQ, but it can be assumed that I can, because they didn't say I couldn't. The TOS doesn't explicitly say I can't go to website X, but it can be assumed that I can....
Your argument is weak. No wonder you're an AC.
The same with nearly every other free email service, except this is worse--it would be tantamount to replacing the subject line with "Do You Yahoo?".
But then BF is sort of an anomaly among computer languages.
Oops, /. took out my <stops pedaling> that appeared before the ellipses.
These little lights of mine, I'm gonna let 'em shine, let 'em shine, let 'em ...D'oh!
This won't work for the same reason that the under 21 for drinking and the under 18 for cigarettes--it's up to the store to enforce it, but if the store does enforce it, they lose sales.
Microsoft: It can't be done! It can't be done!
States: Yes it can, and we can prove it!
Microsoft: Damn!
I don't see this happening, for many reasons:
First, there are way too many definitions of what "harms the public": contrary to the general well-being of the public, contrary to the wishes of the public, harmful to a small group of people, Windows, annoying but not malicious, etc.
Second, programs may cause harm to a half the populace, but success to the other half. Where is the line drawn?
Third, not enough people will accept this because they will see a way of making more money picking up jobs that others left because of their beliefs.
It's a good idea, but impractical.
I stand corrected. This is why I'm a Computer Science major, not a Law/Gubmint major.
Buy lasers, or, even better, use university printers :).
There are a few exceptions, e.g. Jesse Ventura. That's a politician I can respect, even if I disagree with him.
And now you get +4 Informative, when you should get -2 Karma Whore.
I assumed there had already been one--I checked the box to exclude his stories from my page about a year ago. I suggest you do the same--you don't even have to know he exists anymore.
Well, I guess the entertainment industry will know what the rest of the world already does--people don't like commercials, and given the chance, they won't watch them. I wouldn't, but as a college student I can't exactly afford ReplayTV.
First of all, you don't get points assessed to your license, and if someone else was driving your car, you probably can get money from them for the ticket. That is, if they still want to be able to know you. If you weren't friends, then what were they doing in your car?