No, it's enough that if we do slip on someone's unshovelled sidewalk, we can get medical treatment without needing to sue them.
People who live in glass countries...
Re:Some of these aren't so dumb!
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 2
It's not a bad law. The air waves are a public resource, as such use of them should serve the public.
If the radio stations played only the top40 songs from the USA, they would be hurting Canadian artists.
And it's not a question of "If it's crap, it doesn't deserve airplay." Canada is a small country and thus people in Canada don't have the huge local market that USA artists do so it's hard to reach the critical mass needed to get onto channels like MTV. It's only a Canadian content law, forcing stations to play some Canadian content, that keeps them from simply doing the easy thing and playing only USA artists.
The law isn't such that 1/5th of your CDs must be from Canadian artists, and 1/5th of your books must be from Canadian authors. Because those things you buy inependently.
Users of public resources, TV and radio stations, are forced to follow these laws because it benefits the Canadian economy by helping local artists and studios.
If you don't like it, buy MTV dance mix CDs and play them in your car.
Re:Dumb "Dumb Laws" Site
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 2
And there are a bunch of other 'Dumb Laws' that are perfectly reasonable when you understand the context.
I remember a law about not being able to water your lawn with an automated device during the summer. That's just to make sure people don't set the timer to overwater because the reseviors were low. Many arid climates have similar laws.
Some laws are either dumb, or so antiquated as to be laughable, but some make sense if seen in context.
Re:"Legal" expiration dates
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 2
Hey, that's a great idea.
If a law had to be renewed every 25 years or so, stupid old laws like the ones about firing a gun when coming into town to warn people about motor cars would be dropped.
So much easier than tracking these down and repealing them.
I found the article interesting. Not because of who it interviewed, or where he lived, but because of the trend it shows.
Admittedly, I see more of the work from home because I do medium-term consulting, but the companies I've worked for have been slowly moving the technical staff home, except for network admins and other people who need to be on hand to deal with phsyical problems.
It can help an Australian get a job in North America, and it can help a N.A. worker get a job without having to commute. It's a great situation and a great equalizer. Not only can Australian workers do this, but workers from very poor countries could too. All it would take is a reasonably priced connection and an office which just rents deskspace (and connectivity) to employees, all of whom work in different companies and countries around the world.
This won't work for some companies who rely on having employees around for creative tasks, such as having the art staff work closely together, but for programmers working on modules of a larger program... they're probably happier never having to meet the art staff.:)
Any company wanting to remain competetive is going to have to explore this, not only does it give them the largest selection of workers, but it also lowers costs (no office space needed, etc) but it also gives the employee an effective raise (Imagine your current salary but without transportation expenses and the cost of eating out...)
Even if you don't regret this, the rest of/. will.
You read *way* too much into a movie review, then start an offtopic thread which devolves into you an Kintanon preaching an everlasting eternal god and that time does not exist, etc.
You know, many people who weren't disgusted by religion before your series of posts will be afterword when they see the lme reasons you belive in it.
If it's about faith then *shut up* and let people find it on their own.
And quit whining about the bias against religion on Slashdot, it's not a bias against religion, it's a bias against people who whine about their unprovable delusions.
There really needs to be a kill-file feature on here, because people like you flood out all the relevant traffic.
Sorry for the agressive post, but seeing another 'This may get me moderated down, but...' and 'Slashdot is so anti-(whatever I like)' post makes me long for another 'Hot Grits' posts, he's usually more on topic.
which gets moderated up by some crack-smoking moderator.
If it's possible to experience the sun and earth in different positions relative to each other, then they don't all happen at the same time.
Sure, our calendar, and our days, are arbitrary to an alien, as would theirs be to us. But that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist, that all things happen at once.
God was, is, and will be.
Wow. You must have put a lot into that answer.
What a cop out.
If god can always exist, then why can't the universe just always have existed without him?
This is funny. You don't even realize how silly you sound. You're completely out to lunch, pulling perpetual god theories out of... nevermind. But you bash people who are trying to find out what happened because they don't know, and yet you subscribe to insane theories.
If you don't post a concrete answer as to where god came from, then you might as well go away. You're telling people they're wrong because they don't have all the answers, so put up or shut up.
There's a simpler explanation for the growth of western civ. Frontiers are where the innovation happens.
Sure, you can pick some holes in it. But no more than I can pick in your idea that christianity caused it.
Simple enlightened self interest would dictate many of the 'christian' values. Taking care of the poor simply prevents them from deciding to even out the monetary situation with force.
And, pointing out the evils of some christians isn't designed to make anything else look better by comparison, or to invalidate the good things done by others. The idea is to point out that people can do nice things without being christian, and do nasty things despite being christian, thus being christian doesn't mean a lot about someone's character.
I don't pretend to know the age of the universe because time is a meaningless construct of humanity.
Really? Before mankind, everything happened at once?
Stick a cat in a box where it can't be observed and it's not that it's neither dead not alive, but that it's simultaneously dead, alive, a kitten, mulch, and all other things?
Ummmm.. I think you need to rethink that a bit.
As far as we know the universe is only 1 nanosecond old and all of our memories were created as is by some alien computer as a Virtual Life experiment.
"As far as we know" seems to imply that it's as likely that's true as anything else.
Not at all. Just because we can't completely disprove something doesn't mean that it's happening.
I have very Agnostic leanings, but following Pascal's wager (Which I believe to be an excellent model of why scientific logical people should believe in some kind of god )
This being "There might or might not be a god. If there isn't, being xian is just a waste of a little time, if there is, it's saved you from hell, so be xian just to be safe." right?
Why not look at it the other way?
There might be an xian god who is exactly as the contradictory bible describes him. He may decide to torture you for eternity for not following the rules he expects you to hear about and read in some book. Properly following these rules can take a good portion of your time and prevent you from doing many things you might like to do. You can suck up for the rest of your life, on the off chance that the whole story is true, or live your life as you see fit, getting the most enjoyment out of it you possibly can.
Personally, I'm not into long shots, so I don't play the lottery and I don't believe in god.
and my own research on the subject I've come to believe in a more or less traditional Christian view of life,death, God and everything.
How, pray tell, can you 'research' something that you are supposed to take on faith?
By praying and receiving an answer? There are drugs which can cure that you know...
If you believe that belief in a supreme deity is silly and juvenile then I challenge you to espouse to us the correct notion of how the universe came into being, how we came into being, why things are as they are.
Ok, tell us.
We'll work backwards.
God made us. God made the world. God made the universe. What made god?
You aren't offering any solutions.
The difference is that you aren't willing to look for solutions.
The big bang is just a wild guess and while it caught on with the layman, not all (many?) serious physicists are think it's likely. But, at least they're looking for the real answer.
Proponents of game theory would say that we do *nothing* which we do not believe benefits us. This seems as reasonable as everyone having a 'moral' nature. Stimulus/response consitioning and a little indoctrination can easily account for people's behavior.
2) Prophecies:
You're using defective methods to calculate this...
You're looking at the chance of eight *seperate* predictions being true and then basing the chance of some of a huge number coming true as being proof of something.
If I make a huge number of predictions, no doubt I can get some right. Do we then multiple the chances of those predictions being true together to see how unlikely this is without factoring in the number of predictions?
A lot of the things you mention can be easily guessed. The reaction of people to someone claiming to be the son of god doesn't seem hard to guess. Ditto with the likely method of death if that prophet is in an empire hostile to prophets and with a well established method of killing people.
So, these prophecies are quite vague, not that suprising, and linked (if his reception is such, his death will probably be such, which is really one prediction in two parts,) but there are enough of them that you could probably prove that anyone was the prophet.
Way to go with the stats there. Now it's up to 68.2% of statistics being made up on the spot or otherwise invalid.
What you fail to understand is that as Christians we have been COMMANDED to share our faith
So, christians were the first spammers?
Honestly, nobody cares. You can takes your faith and... well, do anything except bug me about it.
Besides, last time I checked the First Amendment was still in effect.
It is. That's why people can insult you when you tell them about your faith. You have the right to stand on a street corner and preach, other people have a right to stand there and laugh.
Nothing wrong with being an anarchist. It's a noble goal.
How to live together 'peacefully' with as few rules as possible.
There are many systems worse than the one we have now, and most anarchists realize that. So the goal (for most, they aren't exactly a cohesive group) isn't to destroy our system, it's to replace it with something else a lot less offensive.
For immediate goals, tax reformers and anarchists could probably unite.
Having all the tracks seperate would be good for one thing. You could move your 'viewpoint' around the virtual orchestra and a 3d sound card could remix everything on the fly, not just for volume, but also to add directional cues, which would let you choose where to 'sit' to listen to your copy of some classical music.
Actually, they are kind of right. You only have two ears, so you only need two channels.
If you use headphones.
Otherwise the sound, not being directly on either side of you all along is going to be processed as coming from a certain direction, on top of the processing done by the card. So it won't work quite right.
And then there's the issue that breaking the low frequencies out onto their own track means you don't have to use a filter later to do it. Do it once with professional equipment so the consumer doesn't have to do it.
Speaking of which... With 5:1 sound, do all channels take the same ammount of space? If you've got a channel that you're only going to send to a woofer, does it need the same fidelity as the high frequency channel? If a woofer is for 20-1000Hz, couldn't you same it at 2khz, or 4khz to avoid aliasing problems, and at a probably lower bit depth too? (Woofers don't seem like they'd be as high fidelity as the mids and uppers.)
This sounds like what a 3D sound card would do, for headphone output, to mimic sounds from different places. Distort and slow certain parts of the signal, and at certain frequencies more than others, to mimic the distortion you'd hear in a sound if it were coming from a certain place.
No, and they won't ever buy a compressed format even if it sounds better. But, it's probably ignorant consumers who want bigger numbers who drive the market.
Sorry, this is a button of mine.
I know a bunch of people who refuse to listen to MP3s, saying they sound so different as to be unlistenable. They refuse to listen to compressed music in any form... And then they go and listen to a *tape*! A regular analog tape... Because it's not compressed, it must sound better. *Argh*
Anyone with a clue would realize that if 96Khz 48b music sounds good, you could take 192Khz, 64b music, use lossy compression, get it smaller than the uncompressed version, and still have it sound better.
MP3s sound worse than CD audio, but they're a tenth (or less) of the size! Duh! If you MP3d (at 1Mbit) DVD Audio, it'd sound way better than CD audio at aproximately the same size.
The interesting thing is that even with perfect disc->tv-cable encryption, such that the file can not be read in plaintext anywhere, you can still copy it before it hits the TV. And then make your own digital version and pirate that. There is loss, but only a single generation.
'Rip off' can mean two things, to steal, or to remove forcefully. You 'rip off' a Band-Aid (tm) brand bandage.
I use 'rip' for the copying of something that doesn't "want" to be copied. CDs are a pain to digitally copy (it's not like you simply type 'copy track1.wav c:\wavs' or anything.
DVDs are a much better technology (without the CSS crap) because the disk, even a movie or music (if that ever gets off the ground) disk, has a filesystem, and files can be read without having to 'rip'...
People don't 'rip' files from a harddrive, because HDs and (decent) OSes are designed to aid in copying data.
Or, at least, to challenge the Digital Millenium Act which severely limits your ability to crack protection systems.
Show that the protection systems exist only to stop your legal use of the material, and that cracking them is essential for your use.
The whole thing is silly. Even if protection systems were invented that couldn't be cracked (work with me here) and the industry used them, we'd simply put up with one generation of loss by recording the music after it was played (in precisely controlled conditions, with known speakers and microphones, this can result in *very little* loss.) and then make our own unprotected MP3s.
And then we'd be right where we are now, except a lot more upset at the industry.
That agreement isn't 'fair use', it's nothing to do with a copyright. It's an EULA which is a contract they're trying to hold you to.
Fair use applies to those CDs in the same way it would apply to anything else. If you can convince a judge that a photocopy from a map book is fair, then a printing of one of the images is fair. Media is completely irrelevant.
On the other hand, you can sign a contract giving away your rights. For instance, an NDA appears to be a free speech violation, except that you voluntarily give up that right in trade for something (a job, secret design specs, etc.)
But, an EULA isn't a valid contract. So it doesn't have any power at all. This isn't a gray area. Until they manage to push a law through, EULAs are completely without force.
This is because you don't 1) get to read and sign the EULA before purchase, 2) don't get compensated for signing it, 3) have to say 'I Agree' to be able to use software you already bought.
Apply those three things to any area other than software and the contract is obviously not valid, so therefore it isn't valid with software.
Can you imagine buying a toaster and getting it home to discover an EULA they make you sign before the box will open that states you can only toast a certain brand of bread, and that you'll buy site licenses for the toaster if more than two people use it? Not bloody likely.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's enough that if we do slip on someone's unshovelled sidewalk, we can get medical treatment without needing to sue them.
People who live in glass countries...
It's not a bad law. The air waves are a public resource, as such use of them should serve the public.
If the radio stations played only the top40 songs from the USA, they would be hurting Canadian artists.
And it's not a question of "If it's crap, it doesn't deserve airplay." Canada is a small country and thus people in Canada don't have the huge local market that USA artists do so it's hard to reach the critical mass needed to get onto channels like MTV. It's only a Canadian content law, forcing stations to play some Canadian content, that keeps them from simply doing the easy thing and playing only USA artists.
The law isn't such that 1/5th of your CDs must be from Canadian artists, and 1/5th of your books must be from Canadian authors. Because those things you buy inependently.
Users of public resources, TV and radio stations, are forced to follow these laws because it benefits the Canadian economy by helping local artists and studios.
If you don't like it, buy MTV dance mix CDs and play them in your car.
And there are a bunch of other 'Dumb Laws' that are perfectly reasonable when you understand the context.
I remember a law about not being able to water your lawn with an automated device during the summer. That's just to make sure people don't set the timer to overwater because the reseviors were low. Many arid climates have similar laws.
Some laws are either dumb, or so antiquated as to be laughable, but some make sense if seen in context.
Hey, that's a great idea.
If a law had to be renewed every 25 years or so, stupid old laws like the ones about firing a gun when coming into town to warn people about motor cars would be dropped.
So much easier than tracking these down and repealing them.
I found the article interesting. Not because of who it interviewed, or where he lived, but because of the trend it shows.
:)
Admittedly, I see more of the work from home because I do medium-term consulting, but the companies I've worked for have been slowly moving the technical staff home, except for network admins and other people who need to be on hand to deal with phsyical problems.
It can help an Australian get a job in North America, and it can help a N.A. worker get a job without having to commute. It's a great situation and a great equalizer. Not only can Australian workers do this, but workers from very poor countries could too. All it would take is a reasonably priced connection and an office which just rents deskspace (and connectivity) to employees, all of whom work in different companies and countries around the world.
This won't work for some companies who rely on having employees around for creative tasks, such as having the art staff work closely together, but for programmers working on modules of a larger program... they're probably happier never having to meet the art staff.
Any company wanting to remain competetive is going to have to explore this, not only does it give them the largest selection of workers, but it also lowers costs (no office space needed, etc) but it also gives the employee an effective raise (Imagine your current salary but without transportation expenses and the cost of eating out...)
Even if you don't regret this, the rest of /. will.
You read *way* too much into a movie review, then start an offtopic thread which devolves into you an Kintanon preaching an everlasting eternal god and that time does not exist, etc.
You know, many people who weren't disgusted by religion before your series of posts will be afterword when they see the lme reasons you belive in it.
If it's about faith then *shut up* and let people find it on their own.
And quit whining about the bias against religion on Slashdot, it's not a bias against religion, it's a bias against people who whine about their unprovable delusions.
There really needs to be a kill-file feature on here, because people like you flood out all the relevant traffic.
Sorry for the agressive post, but seeing another 'This may get me moderated down, but...' and 'Slashdot is so anti-(whatever I like)' post makes me long for another 'Hot Grits' posts, he's usually more on topic.
which gets moderated up by some crack-smoking moderator.
If it's possible to experience the sun and earth in different positions relative to each other, then they don't all happen at the same time.
... nevermind. But you bash people who are trying to find out what happened because they don't know, and yet you subscribe to insane theories.
Sure, our calendar, and our days, are arbitrary to an alien, as would theirs be to us. But that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist, that all things happen at once.
God was, is, and will be.
Wow. You must have put a lot into that answer.
What a cop out.
If god can always exist, then why can't the universe just always have existed without him?
This is funny. You don't even realize how silly you sound. You're completely out to lunch, pulling perpetual god theories out of
If you don't post a concrete answer as to where god came from, then you might as well go away. You're telling people they're wrong because they don't have all the answers, so put up or shut up.
There's a simpler explanation for the growth of western civ. Frontiers are where the innovation happens.
Sure, you can pick some holes in it. But no more than I can pick in your idea that christianity caused it.
Simple enlightened self interest would dictate many of the 'christian' values. Taking care of the poor simply prevents them from deciding to even out the monetary situation with force.
And, pointing out the evils of some christians isn't designed to make anything else look better by comparison, or to invalidate the good things done by others. The idea is to point out that people can do nice things without being christian, and do nasty things despite being christian, thus being christian doesn't mean a lot about someone's character.
I don't pretend to know the age of the universe because time is a meaningless construct of humanity.
Really? Before mankind, everything happened at once?
Stick a cat in a box where it can't be observed and it's not that it's neither dead not alive, but that it's simultaneously dead, alive, a kitten, mulch, and all other things?
Ummmm.. I think you need to rethink that a bit.
As far as we know the universe is only 1 nanosecond old and all of our memories were created as is by some alien computer as a Virtual Life experiment.
"As far as we know" seems to imply that it's as likely that's true as anything else.
Not at all. Just because we can't completely disprove something doesn't mean that it's happening.
I have very Agnostic leanings, but following Pascal's wager (Which I believe to be an excellent model of why scientific logical people should believe in some kind of god )
This being "There might or might not be a god. If there isn't, being xian is just a waste of a little time, if there is, it's saved you from hell, so be xian just to be safe." right?
Why not look at it the other way?
There might be an xian god who is exactly as the contradictory bible describes him. He may decide to torture you for eternity for not following the rules he expects you to hear about and read in some book. Properly following these rules can take a good portion of your time and prevent you from doing many things you might like to do. You can suck up for the rest of your life, on the off chance that the whole story is true, or live your life as you see fit, getting the most enjoyment out of it you possibly can.
Personally, I'm not into long shots, so I don't play the lottery and I don't believe in god.
and my own research on the subject I've come to believe in a more or less traditional Christian view of life,death, God and everything.
How, pray tell, can you 'research' something that you are supposed to take on faith?
By praying and receiving an answer? There are drugs which can cure that you know...
If you believe that belief in a supreme deity is silly and juvenile then I challenge you to espouse to us the correct notion of how the universe came into being, how we came into being, why things are as they are.
Ok, tell us.
We'll work backwards.
God made us.
God made the world.
God made the universe.
What made god?
You aren't offering any solutions.
The difference is that you aren't willing to look for solutions.
The big bang is just a wild guess and while it caught on with the layman, not all (many?) serious physicists are think it's likely. But, at least they're looking for the real answer.
So, get busy telling us where god came from.
1) Moral nature:
Proponents of game theory would say that we do *nothing* which we do not believe benefits us. This seems as reasonable as everyone having a 'moral' nature. Stimulus/response consitioning and a little indoctrination can easily account for people's behavior.
2) Prophecies:
You're using defective methods to calculate this...
You're looking at the chance of eight *seperate* predictions being true and then basing the chance of some of a huge number coming true as being proof of something.
If I make a huge number of predictions, no doubt I can get some right. Do we then multiple the chances of those predictions being true together to see how unlikely this is without factoring in the number of predictions?
A lot of the things you mention can be easily guessed. The reaction of people to someone claiming to be the son of god doesn't seem hard to guess. Ditto with the likely method of death if that prophet is in an empire hostile to prophets and with a well established method of killing people.
So, these prophecies are quite vague, not that suprising, and linked (if his reception is such, his death will probably be such, which is really one prediction in two parts,) but there are enough of them that you could probably prove that anyone was the prophet.
Way to go with the stats there. Now it's up to 68.2% of statistics being made up on the spot or otherwise invalid.
What you fail to understand is that as Christians we have been COMMANDED to share our faith
So, christians were the first spammers?
Honestly, nobody cares. You can takes your faith and... well, do anything except bug me about it.
Besides, last time I checked the First Amendment was still in effect.
It is. That's why people can insult you when you tell them about your faith. You have the right to stand on a street corner and preach, other people have a right to stand there and laugh.
Chick parody
Really very crude. If you're into that sort of thing, check it out.
Nothing wrong with being an anarchist. It's a noble goal.
How to live together 'peacefully' with as few rules as possible.
There are many systems worse than the one we have now, and most anarchists realize that. So the goal (for most, they aren't exactly a cohesive group) isn't to destroy our system, it's to replace it with something else a lot less offensive.
For immediate goals, tax reformers and anarchists could probably unite.
Having all the tracks seperate would be good for one thing. You could move your 'viewpoint' around the virtual orchestra and a 3d sound card could remix everything on the fly, not just for volume, but also to add directional cues, which would let you choose where to 'sit' to listen to your copy of some classical music.
Actually, they are kind of right. You only have two ears, so you only need two channels.
If you use headphones.
Otherwise the sound, not being directly on either side of you all along is going to be processed as coming from a certain direction, on top of the processing done by the card. So it won't work quite right.
And then there's the issue that breaking the low frequencies out onto their own track means you don't have to use a filter later to do it. Do it once with professional equipment so the consumer doesn't have to do it.
Speaking of which... With 5:1 sound, do all channels take the same ammount of space? If you've got a channel that you're only going to send to a woofer, does it need the same fidelity as the high frequency channel? If a woofer is for 20-1000Hz, couldn't you same it at 2khz, or 4khz to avoid aliasing problems, and at a probably lower bit depth too? (Woofers don't seem like they'd be as high fidelity as the mids and uppers.)
This sounds like what a 3D sound card would do, for headphone output, to mimic sounds from different places. Distort and slow certain parts of the signal, and at certain frequencies more than others, to mimic the distortion you'd hear in a sound if it were coming from a certain place.
Do you know if this is what they do?
So, what stops a company from making a disc with that much data area, and a copier that'll burn that far out?
Like, 1GB CDs are unavailble today, but with the Dreamcast (or the PS2, I don't use consoles) using them, they'll start to appear.
And they won't be for piracy, they'll be for general storage of more data. But pirates will use them too.
No, and they won't ever buy a compressed format even if it sounds better. But, it's probably ignorant consumers who want bigger numbers who drive the market.
Sorry, this is a button of mine.
I know a bunch of people who refuse to listen to MP3s, saying they sound so different as to be unlistenable. They refuse to listen to compressed music in any form... And then they go and listen to a *tape*! A regular analog tape... Because it's not compressed, it must sound better. *Argh*
Anyone with a clue would realize that if 96Khz 48b music sounds good, you could take 192Khz, 64b music, use lossy compression, get it smaller than the uncompressed version, and still have it sound better.
MP3s sound worse than CD audio, but they're a tenth (or less) of the size! Duh! If you MP3d (at 1Mbit) DVD Audio, it'd sound way better than CD audio at aproximately the same size.
The interesting thing is that even with perfect disc->tv-cable encryption, such that the file can not be read in plaintext anywhere, you can still copy it before it hits the TV. And then make your own digital version and pirate that. There is loss, but only a single generation.
'Rip off' can mean two things, to steal, or to remove forcefully. You 'rip off' a Band-Aid (tm) brand bandage.
I use 'rip' for the copying of something that doesn't "want" to be copied. CDs are a pain to digitally copy (it's not like you simply type 'copy track1.wav c:\wavs' or anything.
DVDs are a much better technology (without the CSS crap) because the disk, even a movie or music (if that ever gets off the ground) disk, has a filesystem, and files can be read without having to 'rip'...
People don't 'rip' files from a harddrive, because HDs and (decent) OSes are designed to aid in copying data.
Perhaps. It's worth looking into.
Or, at least, to challenge the Digital Millenium Act which severely limits your ability to crack protection systems.
Show that the protection systems exist only to stop your legal use of the material, and that cracking them is essential for your use.
The whole thing is silly. Even if protection systems were invented that couldn't be cracked (work with me here) and the industry used them, we'd simply put up with one generation of loss by recording the music after it was played (in precisely controlled conditions, with known speakers and microphones, this can result in *very little* loss.) and then make our own unprotected MP3s.
And then we'd be right where we are now, except a lot more upset at the industry.
That agreement isn't 'fair use', it's nothing to do with a copyright. It's an EULA which is a contract they're trying to hold you to.
Fair use applies to those CDs in the same way it would apply to anything else. If you can convince a judge that a photocopy from a map book is fair, then a printing of one of the images is fair. Media is completely irrelevant.
On the other hand, you can sign a contract giving away your rights. For instance, an NDA appears to be a free speech violation, except that you voluntarily give up that right in trade for something (a job, secret design specs, etc.)
But, an EULA isn't a valid contract. So it doesn't have any power at all. This isn't a gray area. Until they manage to push a law through, EULAs are completely without force.
This is because you don't 1) get to read and sign the EULA before purchase, 2) don't get compensated for signing it, 3) have to say 'I Agree' to be able to use software you already bought.
Apply those three things to any area other than software and the contract is obviously not valid, so therefore it isn't valid with software.
Can you imagine buying a toaster and getting it home to discover an EULA they make you sign before the box will open that states you can only toast a certain brand of bread, and that you'll buy site licenses for the toaster if more than two people use it? Not bloody likely.
This is an outright lie.
You can copy it in any way you want.
It's what you do with it afterwords that can be a copyright violation.
Wow, yeah, I never noticed the oh-so obvious connection between movie credits and marxism.
Dude, you really need to get out more, the black helicopters track you if you're in one place too long.