However, the precedent that they have a 'copyright program' inside their cartridge stands. If the 'ink empty' detection is a 'access control device' to the program in the cartridge, you can still be in violation of the DMCA if you reset it.
Unlikely. Remember: the customer already paid Lexmark for the cartridge, and if the end-user wants to simply re-fill their ink cartridge, the courts shouldn't (and likely won't) stand in their way.
The DMCA did nothing to alter the Doctrine of First Sale that the courts have decades ago decided exists in Title 17--of which the "DMCA" is just one part among many.
That the DMCA will fall into play if you merely tell someone how to refill their cart.
No, not unless Lexmark argues that there's some protected copyright in that cartridge that is being violated, and you fail to argue that your modifications are merely for interopability.
Care to explain how voting for Hillary is going to get us a sane/sensible foreign policy?
By the time she's able to run for President, she'll have been First Lady in the first administration to balance a budget since the 19th century, an eight-year senator with an amazing ability to adapt to the Senate, and someone who won twice in a landslide.
Plus, she won't have a personal vendetta against anyone in the world, won't be governed by neo-conservatives, and while she might be arrogant enough not to admit her mistakes, at least she'll be smart enough to make her own descisions.
Maybe if you didn't make such crappy cars, you wouldn't need so much gas in the first place.
No, not really. In fact, you've got causality backwards there.
The original automobiles--ok, "American" automobiles, if you want to get all anti-American--were rather fuel effecient. They had to be, given the total lack of a national infrastructure.
But throughout the 20th century, we made an amazingly good fuel distribution system. Better than anyone else's in the world, in fact. Having this abundant gasoline throughout the country let us make automobiles for, well, everyone. And from there we made cars that were interesting to drive--which was, btw, largely us copying crappy European racing cars.
Of course, the mechanization and capialistation of the Orient gave rise to effecient automobiles, which shifted the balance a bit. And the USA still is a horrible market for either hybrids or electric cars, but the reason isn't what you think.
The American car buyer wants to be able to fix his car himself. Understand that, and the balance of effeciency and performance (and the very existance of the Ford Motor Company) all become clear.
Does this not revive the concept of an 'ether'. Where we see only space, the extra-dimensional entities still exist. Just wondering about that.
Yes, but not as you would think it.
Ether was an intersteller medium much like water. It could be bottled, transported, and even theoretically moved.
But, since Einstein physics has operated on the theory that there is a "fabric of spacetime" where all matter/energy exists. You could go ahead and call this fabric "either", but if so kindly remember that ether is far more viscous than water could ever be, and the "fabric" analgoy is a lot better.
Then again, I think our roads are often quite different.
Yes, they are. The entire UK is also a LOT smaller than the USA.
(Example: if you started driving at the far end of your country and headed to the other end, you could easily do it in a single long but still less than 24-hour day. Driving the comparable distance in the USA requires multiple days, even driving non-stop.)
Plus, the fuel effeciency is a higher premium on the other side of the pond, due to higher gas prices.
Unless you mean food. Or steel. Or coal. Or almost any heavy industry...
1: Coal is already in the ground, you nitwit.
2: Every single state in the Union takes in food. Not all of the wide variety that we enjoy, but there simply isn't a state without ANY agriculture--and, conversely, you can likely find food from any state in your local community in you look hard enough.
3: Most Heavy Industry is located thanks in large part to government largese. Battleships, space ships, and fighter planes drive far more indusry than any ten greedy profit motives you can come up with.
4: The proper response to a Red State / Blue State fallacy is "we're a purple nation." Even Texas, Utah, and MA had distinct spurs of "opposition" in the 2004 Presidential Election.
And when you look at those "red state / blue state" maps on a county or city level, especially if you weight them by actual vote and not just electoral gamesmanship, the moronic fallacy just falls away.
Do I have statistics? No. But I can offer at least one counterexample to your claim, and I personally would like to see a real study on this.
Here's a three-step proof from your "manual trannys are fun" proposition.
* Manual transmissions are inherently more expensive than automatic transmissions.
* There are far more automatic transmissions than manual on the road -- to the point where the economy of scale has overcome the manual's inherent advantage.
* Ergo, enough people have chosen to drive automatic--which means that they don't drive for fun as much as they drive to drive.
It can be beneficial in the short term, but in the long term, it always fails. The problems caused by the use of violence are usually worse than the problem fixed by violence, simply because it creates more violence.
There are a great many problems that we do not live with in civilized society due directly to the application of violence against a non-violent problem.
Here's exactly what I'm talking about--and proof that you didn't understand what I said:
The only problem bigger than violence, is people who think of violence as a viable option to get things done.
Violence isn't the answer, but it sure as hell is a better answer than polarizing and foolish statements like the one above. Our problem, in THIS counry, is that we aren't allowed to see the middle ground--the area between "violence YES" and "violence NEVER" where we all actually live.
The problem is not one of violence or desire to use violence. It's of a lack of understanding of what the other side is saying.
(A good example of violence used against a non-violent problem is policemen apprehending a suspect. Under no twisting of the word can "violence" mean "running away", but the strikes used by the police are certainly violent. And it does solve the immediate problem of the suspect running away, without greatly adding to the problem of the suspect becoming a criminal.)
She also made a point of telling me that violence didn't solve any problems,
That's it, right there. Not necessarily in your case, but the idea that violence never solves problems--and the fact that this is a debate we ever have at all--is why America's crime statistics are so skewed.
There ARE problems to which violence is the correct answer. There are ALWAYS problems that the use of violence causes. The list of things in the first group are all worse than those in the second group--but where do we get off arguing that either group doesn't exist?
Don't pretend that I've signed a contract by writing bullshit demands on the box
It might surprise you to learn that signing a contract doesn't actually DO anything for the contract. Rather, it's just one less thing that the other side has to prove when they take you to court.
We form un-negotiated contracts all the time in everyday commerce. And as to ones that have more specificity--well, you can't pretend that you aren't aware that most software has EULAs, so "I didn't know" isn't really a good answer anymore.
(Another good example is a restaurant with a sign on the wall that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"--even if you pay in advance and they take your order, they can still kick you out.)
If I saw chips on the shelf of my local supermarket that said MAY ONLY BE EATEN WITH OFFICIAL DIP I'd have no doubt that it was unenforcable bullshit.
Unenforceable as a practical matter. Not a legal one.
If I sell your restaurant my chips, and require that they only be served with my dip, I can sure as heck take you to court if you don't follow through. And there is no legal differnece between you and your restaurant.
because a company is more well regarded than most doesn't entitle them to stomp on the rights of customers
You're right. If they're going to requre using their hardware as a condition of selling you their software, they sure as heck had better make it abundantly clear BEFORE anyone pays hard earned money for it...
After all, they can't continue being a high-class botique OS if Mac OS is seen everywhere on buggy, overheating hardware. If consumers can do it, then those same consumers might be able to do it on ultra-cheap hardware and sell it to other consumers.
In fact, the only way to stop them would be to eliminate the right of first sale--which would mean that you could never sell your OS upgraded Mac without its original OS or paying them another license fee.
Hmm.... yeah, I'd say Apple is engaging in pretty honest commerce. We know what they want, what they're selling, and everything they want in return.
If you want to make the effect comprehensible to Joe Sixpack, words like "attention" or "situational awareness" are too vague, too hich on the abstraction scale. "Blindness", in the commonly accepted meaning of "unable to see" is a concrete word.
Except that it's not "unable to see." It's "unable to notice."
And Joe Sixpack already knows that it's extremely easy to miss something when he's intensley emotional.
Yes, they are. In fact, they're exactly how government regulation is supposed to work.
Government sees something that needs to be done. Government then sets rules that give a duty/right to part of the governed. Government only steps in to aid the aforementioned governed in excerising their duty/right.
My VOIP phone box even comes with a battery pack that keeps the phone alive for a few hours even with the power off. Along with the corded phone I've had since before I was married, I don't have any worries of not being able to dial "9-1-1" in an emergency.
Having said that it annoys me intensely that the churches taking advantage of our religious memes are so primitive that they havent got much further than a set of worries about 1st centuary Palestinian social mores
Trust me--if you can say that, you haven't had a very through religious education.
The most popular religions in America today have a thoroughly modern list of opinions, and a view that is remarkably different from that of 1st century Israel. (this was pre-diaspora, remember?)
The American Dream is success through work, and the liberty to pursue and enjoy it. There's nothing in the capitalist ethos that supports fraud and theft.
Wrong on both counts.
1: The American Dream is to achieve sufficient success to provide, on your own and being beholden to none, for the whole of your nuclear family until your children are all grown.
Most of those characterised as "living the American Dream" are not, in literal fact, workers. They are businessmen, investors, and executives--who, while they doubtless provide a significant benefit to society, are arguably "parasites" from a strictly "work" point of view. (as in, their contribution to society depends on the physical or mental efforts of others.)
2: Capitalism sure as hell encourages fraud and theft. There IS no "capitalist ethos." There is, instead, a clear recognition by capitalist countries that people are greedy and will act however gets them the most profit.
Capitalism is not a system free of graft, fraud, and theft. Rather, it is a system that aligns the most selfish desires of society with the needs of society as a whole, by way of making investments liquid and fraud prohibitvely expensive.
We're living creatures. So are the microbs. But the way of life is not pacifist acceptance of what comes--it's to seek out new habitats and adapt to them, to spread and survive as best we can.
There is no moral value in defending microbs. No ethical constraint against colonization of a dead planet.
What's the use of assigning proper permissions if every user has Admin privileges anyway?
It adds even one small additional layer of security.
What Windows needs, really, is a way to properly segregate its software--so that if you try and install "l33t file manager 1994!", Windows wraps it in a sandbox and can treat the whole thing with one permission bundle.
Slashdot Mirror
However, the precedent that they have a 'copyright program' inside their cartridge stands. If the 'ink empty' detection is a 'access control device' to the program in the cartridge, you can still be in violation of the DMCA if you reset it.
Unlikely. Remember: the customer already paid Lexmark for the cartridge, and if the end-user wants to simply re-fill their ink cartridge, the courts shouldn't (and likely won't) stand in their way.
The DMCA did nothing to alter the Doctrine of First Sale that the courts have decades ago decided exists in Title 17--of which the "DMCA" is just one part among many.
That the DMCA will fall into play if you merely tell someone how to refill their cart.
No, not unless Lexmark argues that there's some protected copyright in that cartridge that is being violated, and you fail to argue that your modifications are merely for interopability.
And I think they already tried it.
Care to explain how voting for Hillary is going to get us a sane/sensible foreign policy?
By the time she's able to run for President, she'll have been First Lady in the first administration to balance a budget since the 19th century, an eight-year senator with an amazing ability to adapt to the Senate, and someone who won twice in a landslide.
Plus, she won't have a personal vendetta against anyone in the world, won't be governed by neo-conservatives, and while she might be arrogant enough not to admit her mistakes, at least she'll be smart enough to make her own descisions.
Maybe if you didn't make such crappy cars, you wouldn't need so much gas in the first place.
No, not really. In fact, you've got causality backwards there.
The original automobiles--ok, "American" automobiles, if you want to get all anti-American--were rather fuel effecient. They had to be, given the total lack of a national infrastructure.
But throughout the 20th century, we made an amazingly good fuel distribution system. Better than anyone else's in the world, in fact. Having this abundant gasoline throughout the country let us make automobiles for, well, everyone. And from there we made cars that were interesting to drive--which was, btw, largely us copying crappy European racing cars.
Of course, the mechanization and capialistation of the Orient gave rise to effecient automobiles, which shifted the balance a bit. And the USA still is a horrible market for either hybrids or electric cars, but the reason isn't what you think.
The American car buyer wants to be able to fix his car himself. Understand that, and the balance of effeciency and performance (and the very existance of the Ford Motor Company) all become clear.
Does this not revive the concept of an 'ether'. Where we see only space, the extra-dimensional entities still exist. Just wondering about that.
Yes, but not as you would think it.
Ether was an intersteller medium much like water. It could be bottled, transported, and even theoretically moved.
But, since Einstein physics has operated on the theory that there is a "fabric of spacetime" where all matter/energy exists. You could go ahead and call this fabric "either", but if so kindly remember that ether is far more viscous than water could ever be, and the "fabric" analgoy is a lot better.
Why do you automatically assume she's a guy?
Same reason.
Then again, I think our roads are often quite different.
Yes, they are. The entire UK is also a LOT smaller than the USA.
(Example: if you started driving at the far end of your country and headed to the other end, you could easily do it in a single long but still less than 24-hour day. Driving the comparable distance in the USA requires multiple days, even driving non-stop.)
Plus, the fuel effeciency is a higher premium on the other side of the pond, due to higher gas prices.
Unless you mean food. Or steel. Or coal. Or almost any heavy industry...
1: Coal is already in the ground, you nitwit.
2: Every single state in the Union takes in food. Not all of the wide variety that we enjoy, but there simply isn't a state without ANY agriculture--and, conversely, you can likely find food from any state in your local community in you look hard enough.
3: Most Heavy Industry is located thanks in large part to government largese. Battleships, space ships, and fighter planes drive far more indusry than any ten greedy profit motives you can come up with.
4: The proper response to a Red State / Blue State fallacy is "we're a purple nation." Even Texas, Utah, and MA had distinct spurs of "opposition" in the 2004 Presidential Election.
And when you look at those "red state / blue state" maps on a county or city level, especially if you weight them by actual vote and not just electoral gamesmanship, the moronic fallacy just falls away.
Do I have statistics? No. But I can offer at least one counterexample to your claim, and I personally would like to see a real study on this.
Here's a three-step proof from your "manual trannys are fun" proposition.
* Manual transmissions are inherently more expensive than automatic transmissions.
* There are far more automatic transmissions than manual on the road -- to the point where the economy of scale has overcome the manual's inherent advantage.
* Ergo, enough people have chosen to drive automatic--which means that they don't drive for fun as much as they drive to drive.
It can be beneficial in the short term, but in the long term, it always fails. The problems caused by the use of violence are usually worse than the problem fixed by violence, simply because it creates more violence.
There are a great many problems that we do not live with in civilized society due directly to the application of violence against a non-violent problem.
Here's exactly what I'm talking about--and proof that you didn't understand what I said:
The only problem bigger than violence, is people who think of violence as a viable option to get things done.
Violence isn't the answer, but it sure as hell is a better answer than polarizing and foolish statements like the one above. Our problem, in THIS counry, is that we aren't allowed to see the middle ground--the area between "violence YES" and "violence NEVER" where we all actually live.
The problem is not one of violence or desire to use violence. It's of a lack of understanding of what the other side is saying.
(A good example of violence used against a non-violent problem is policemen apprehending a suspect. Under no twisting of the word can "violence" mean "running away", but the strikes used by the police are certainly violent. And it does solve the immediate problem of the suspect running away, without greatly adding to the problem of the suspect becoming a criminal.)
She also made a point of telling me that violence didn't solve any problems,
That's it, right there. Not necessarily in your case, but the idea that violence never solves problems--and the fact that this is a debate we ever have at all--is why America's crime statistics are so skewed.
There ARE problems to which violence is the correct answer. There are ALWAYS problems that the use of violence causes. The list of things in the first group are all worse than those in the second group--but where do we get off arguing that either group doesn't exist?
Don't pretend that I've signed a contract by writing bullshit demands on the box
It might surprise you to learn that signing a contract doesn't actually DO anything for the contract. Rather, it's just one less thing that the other side has to prove when they take you to court.
We form un-negotiated contracts all the time in everyday commerce. And as to ones that have more specificity--well, you can't pretend that you aren't aware that most software has EULAs, so "I didn't know" isn't really a good answer anymore.
(Another good example is a restaurant with a sign on the wall that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"--even if you pay in advance and they take your order, they can still kick you out.)
If I saw chips on the shelf of my local supermarket that said MAY ONLY BE EATEN WITH OFFICIAL DIP I'd have no doubt that it was unenforcable bullshit.
Unenforceable as a practical matter. Not a legal one.
If I sell your restaurant my chips, and require that they only be served with my dip, I can sure as heck take you to court if you don't follow through. And there is no legal differnece between you and your restaurant.
because a company is more well regarded than most doesn't entitle them to stomp on the rights of customers
You're right. If they're going to requre using their hardware as a condition of selling you their software, they sure as heck had better make it abundantly clear BEFORE anyone pays hard earned money for it...
After all, they can't continue being a high-class botique OS if Mac OS is seen everywhere on buggy, overheating hardware. If consumers can do it, then those same consumers might be able to do it on ultra-cheap hardware and sell it to other consumers.
In fact, the only way to stop them would be to eliminate the right of first sale--which would mean that you could never sell your OS upgraded Mac without its original OS or paying them another license fee.
Hmm.... yeah, I'd say Apple is engaging in pretty honest commerce. We know what they want, what they're selling, and everything they want in return.
If you want to make the effect comprehensible to Joe Sixpack, words like "attention" or "situational awareness" are too vague, too hich on the abstraction scale. "Blindness", in the commonly accepted meaning of "unable to see" is a concrete word.
Except that it's not "unable to see." It's "unable to notice."
And Joe Sixpack already knows that it's extremely easy to miss something when he's intensley emotional.
No, that would make it comparable to virtually every other site on the 'net that allows comments.
For it to be a wiki, one would have to be able to edit stories.
Copyrights aren't government regulation,
Yes, they are. In fact, they're exactly how government regulation is supposed to work.
Government sees something that needs to be done. Government then sets rules that give a duty/right to part of the governed. Government only steps in to aid the aforementioned governed in excerising their duty/right.
There is a PalmOS watch avaliable on the market. It's, if not the smallest Palm on the market (might be), the one that's easiest to keep with you.
FWIW, though, I say bite the bullet and get a real Palm.
It's nigh upon impossible to even find a phone that doesn't require AC to operate any more.
Not so.
In fact, it's trivally easy.
My VOIP phone box even comes with a battery pack that keeps the phone alive for a few hours even with the power off. Along with the corded phone I've had since before I was married, I don't have any worries of not being able to dial "9-1-1" in an emergency.
What the hell is a lbf? Is North America really so backwards and stubborn they refuse to use units that the rest of the world is perfectly happy with.
;)
Yes. We are able to use non-decimal units because, quite frankly, most applications call for non-decimal units.
Once you've been to the moon and back, THEN maybe we'll consider your ideas on measurement.
Having said that it annoys me intensely that the churches taking advantage of our religious memes are so primitive that they havent got much further than a set of worries about 1st centuary Palestinian social mores
Trust me--if you can say that, you haven't had a very through religious education.
The most popular religions in America today have a thoroughly modern list of opinions, and a view that is remarkably different from that of 1st century Israel. (this was pre-diaspora, remember?)
The American Dream is success through work, and the liberty to pursue and enjoy it. There's nothing in the capitalist ethos that supports fraud and theft.
Wrong on both counts.
1: The American Dream is to achieve sufficient success to provide, on your own and being beholden to none, for the whole of your nuclear family until your children are all grown.
Most of those characterised as "living the American Dream" are not, in literal fact, workers. They are businessmen, investors, and executives--who, while they doubtless provide a significant benefit to society, are arguably "parasites" from a strictly "work" point of view. (as in, their contribution to society depends on the physical or mental efforts of others.)
2: Capitalism sure as hell encourages fraud and theft. There IS no "capitalist ethos." There is, instead, a clear recognition by capitalist countries that people are greedy and will act however gets them the most profit.
Capitalism is not a system free of graft, fraud, and theft. Rather, it is a system that aligns the most selfish desires of society with the needs of society as a whole, by way of making investments liquid and fraud prohibitvely expensive.
Wrong.
We're living creatures. So are the microbs. But the way of life is not pacifist acceptance of what comes--it's to seek out new habitats and adapt to them, to spread and survive as best we can.
There is no moral value in defending microbs. No ethical constraint against colonization of a dead planet.
Yes, it will. No, that isn't a good reason not to do it.
*IF* there is life on mars, it's microscopic. We can safely ignore it.
What's the use of assigning proper permissions if every user has Admin privileges anyway?
It adds even one small additional layer of security.
What Windows needs, really, is a way to properly segregate its software--so that if you try and install "l33t file manager 1994!", Windows wraps it in a sandbox and can treat the whole thing with one permission bundle.
A "common settings" folder would be nice, too.