But I've seen an extension of exactly that logic to say that "of course free shipping isn't, tanstaafl sonny, we just meant we don't charge a shippin and handling charge".
If businesses aren't held to the letter of their agreements, what are they held to?
In today's global business world it's thoroughly reasonable for a big company to offer a seemingly insane deal. It could be a loss leader, it could be overstock, or them needing to pump end-of-year sales. Why is it suddenly the burden of the consumer, now denied even access to an unbaised court (arbitrators are paid for by the industry they arbitrate...), to judge the business-worthiness (for the other party) of any deal offered?
Codeplex. What is so wonderful about it that not having seen it is a show-stopper? It's like a MS-friendly sourceforge...?
And you mentioned who you thought MS was afraid of, but when examined MS doesn't really compete much with those companies. MS competes with Apple in end-user UI, with Linux in mid-level servers, GMail/Yahoo in web services. IBM isn't really in the list.
Isn't that a bit insecure, seeing as how you're supposed to go through a random selection of nodes not all controlled by the same entity? Especially as probably only a few people in any given area will buy your device, making it relatively easy to correlate device usage with device purchase, and thus a name or at least register-cam footage.
Perhaps you'd like the school to teach a broader curriculum so that your child isn't turned down for a job at a mac-centric firm.
But then, I advocate making kids learn math instead of teaching calculator skills from a young age. Of course, once in the casio-dominated world of business calculators my secularly trained students would be unable to fend for themselves and would probably die. Alas.
Regardless of what "well regulated" means, "shall not" seems easier to understand.
The amount of intellectual dishonesty around this one phrase is staggering. What else could it possibly mean? Even if it started "An overstuffed sofa, being important to nothing,..." it would still end in the same unambiguous way. I'm a Canadian and I can see this as plain as day. The 4th is supposed to allow people to keep and bear arms (not just guns) as appropriate to militia use.
Perhaps you think this sentiment is outdated, though I would disagree citing your current politics, but it surely was the intent of the founders.
Did they stick this amendment in there, close to the top, just to say something useless like it's nice for people to join the reserves and when there, you might as well let them use a gun?
If your school wasted time teaching you the specific key combinations of software, did they teach you to manually program your VCR? Did they recommend your family buy a Sony, because anything less can leave kids behind in this rapid-paced dog-eat-remote-control world of VCR maintenance and if you child learns the wrong brand it's nothing but government cheese for them! The horror!
Thank god that this school system realized that the pace of technological change has stopped here. (Thank god they didn't jump the gun and say this in 2006, hoho!) Nothing shall ever be invented from this day forward so there's simply nothing left to do but teach people how to use the ultimate fruits of society, Office 2007.
We'd mock a mechanics class that recommended parents buy students only Fords, because even if Ford is a dominant brand in the market it doesn't do anyone any good to be stuck knowing only a single system. We mock comp-sci courses that teach only Java...
Heh, microsoft got around to writing their own "My First Rails Site". It's cute. What's your point though?
As for who eats MS's lunch... Well, MS doesn't sell any workstations, mainframes, or OSes suitable for them. It does sell a PC OS, and apps, but very little server capable.
Oh sure, if you call some $8k PC a "server", MS does just fine. Run their priciest OS, accept limitations like a hard-coded number of TCP/IP connections at a time, CPU limits, etc. All that, and it barely performs as well on similar hardware to a free OS that hackers threw together. There's a reason Google didn't shell out for MS licenses for every server, and it's not just money. Google would be far slower and less stable if they adopted MS's best and newest. Not to mention, completely at their mercy business wise.
If their lunch is being eaten it's not by IBM who merely inhabits a world MS never could, it's Apple who sells a far superior and cheaper product.
Microsoft makes servers like Mustang makes F1 cars; only for those who don't know any better.
The middle-east has (effectively) a mandatory state religion. There's a big difference between that and some politician saying "I support X because of my beliefs".
You can't make people ignore their religion in their actions, but you can keep them from forcing the specific beliefs on others. You can make them lie about their motives, but you can't see into their heads.
Singapore and China are two nearly secular places with insane laws. Indonesia is a religious place with crazy laws. Smoke pot in any of them and you're in for long jail terms or death. Does the feeling of being dead vary based on their reasons? (Maybe if you buy into their religion.)
So, I don't want a politician to have legal problems with declaring his motives for supporting a law (however wacky) because otherwise he'll lie. Like with hate speech, if it's in the open it's easy to fight. And easy to deal with. If religious people merely didn't want *their* kids to hear about evolution, that'd be okay. But they want to make up intelligent design and pretend it's not religious, and get that inserted into schools... that's bad.
The hardware people have to pay for. The driver they give away but nobody wants.
Really, there is no value in an ATI driver. Even to them. For years I've recommended against buying ATI at my work because of the support nightmare.
As far as knockoffs go, do you think someone's going to try for an ATI-like card through reverse engineering crap when they could just implement the DirectX spec directly? They'll go snooping if ATI does something better, but they do that now without source.
If there was a question nVidia had about ATI's drivers they'd simply disassemble them. They'd have a really good idea about what all was going on so it'd probably be pretty easy even.
Closed source prevents no bugs or leaks, just fixes.
Why is that too much to ask? I've written a few hardware companies over the years expecting them to improve their drivers because of my corner case configurations.
IMHO, based on years of QA, it's *much* harder to get a product working properly under Windows than Linux. "They" make so much of all the versions of Linux, as if the differences between Suse and Debian are half as large as that between versions of Windows. (98|NT) -> 2k was a difficult time for hardware companies. The company I was at had to support a million oddball things, many different products or windows actions would hose product and we had to recover from registry munging, files being overwritten, poor documentation on parallel port driver requirements, and a million things. If it were open source we'd have just made it work in a few default configurations and let the users support the weird crap themselves.
If ATI/etc want to keep selling products they should make ones that work. If one of the requirements is that it be open source so it can be properly maintained, then so be it.
I'm not expecting something for nothing. I'll buy the hardware, if they manage to make it work with my OS. If not I'll send them nasty letters for failing to make it work even where they attempted to.
People already can disassemble video drivers. In fact, other video card companies are quite likely to employ someone who can already do this.
If nVidia was, let's say, 50% slower on dual-textured polys and couldn't figure out why, they'd have no trouble looking at the relevant sections of ATI's driver.
It's not even that they don't have the rights to all the code. They'd just open the parts they had rights and provide specs for the rest, if that was it...
The most likely reason is that their code is horrible. ATIs drivers have always been subpar and now we want to *see* their code!? Also, probably realizing that they must infringe on a ton on submarine software patents and thinking that letting patent-trolls read your source code is a good way for them to decide to sue you.
That I can agree with. I don't want thieves around trying to steal from everyone else, even if it was incredibly fitting when it happened to the casino.
Not justified (guilt-free), but justice (what they sow). Now if only the casino situation allowed throwing them all in jail the like raped rapist scenario.
Pft again. If we accept EULAs contract law is finished and no big corporation will accept that. Thus it'll never happen. Only a few software companies win, but everyone else loses including the rest of the politicians brib...lobbyists.
Ask why "they" pushed so hard for the UCITA if it wasn't needed. Until that's in your state, an EULA is as empty as any other post-sale contract.
No legal footing is required to sue, ruinously, look at the Scientologists. They're idiots and lie in court proceedings but they can push a baseless lawsuit till you're blue in the face... You'll be bankrupted by whichever corporation chooses to sue, regardless of what they say you did, and regardless of any guilt on your part.
DirecTV attacked thousands of people for merely buying smart-card programmers. There's *no* law against buying one, but they threatened ruinous legal damages to anyone who objected to paying them off.
Yes I can. Rape would be *good* when it happened to the rapist from the earlier scenarios.
I'm not arguing that we should allow stealing from casinos, because we don't need any more junkies stealing to support their habits. And I'm not saying we shouldn't take the money from them, but if we all laughed at the victims just a little bit here it'd be nice, because they're far worse people.
We shouldn't set out to punish the potentially guilty rapist with more rape, but if we were watching a security video that showed a rapist, and as he was walking away he got mugged and brutally raped it would be hilarious. #1 on Youtube kind of funny.
Yeah, and the people they stole money from are lower than drug dealers, so while technically it was a crime, nobody really minds.
I get that we can't all just decide to take matters into our own hands, but that doesn't mean that anyone cries for a drug dealer when they get robbed.
There is a chance of a problem is the ISP misrepresents their actions. If they claim the page looked like that before you've then got a lie which could damage the reputation of the page creator. But if you know they're doing it... I can sell you a book I put through a wood chipper.
The problem with that line of thinking is that a mechanical translation with ads inserted isn't a derivative work. There must be permission inherent, for them to be able to packetize the data, check for pieces in the ISP's cache, etc. This is obvious because the content owner authorized their machine (the one making copies) to make them for anyone who requested one.
This isn't a derivative work, and thus something they can forbid, anymore than me taking the last half of one Harry Potter book and the first half of another and stapling them together. It's still 100% JK Rowling's, though there are no laws that forbid my mangling or even resale of the book. (Unless I misrepresent it as unmodified, etc.)
The ISPs are likely to have problems as they are trying to hide their ads. This is misrepresentation, as it makes it appear that the original author inserted ads. If they told the customer about it up front, there would be no legal problems regardless of how many ads they wanted to insert.
After all, it's just as mechanical to stick a leaflet in every page of a newspaper as to stick a banner in every div tag.
Pft. EULAs have been found wanting in more cases, and in the ones that upheld the EULA wasn't the strongest part of the case.
If you really want to see proof of this, sell something to a big company (say Walmart) and then remotely disable to product on day two due to some technicality in your post-sale contract. When their lawyers spit you out you'll understand that the contract is what was agreed upon. In the case of a contract of sale, that gives you full rights to use whatever was being sold. If this is ever different (famous art could include a right-of-first-refusal to the next sale, for instance) it's a major infringement on the free rights of the buyer and would need to be negotiated for specifically.)
At one point there used to be no explicit permission to use software (it requires copying into ram/etc) in the copyright law. This caused some genius to think you couldn't use software. However, this would have been ridiculous as everyone with this view would have been intentionally selling something they didn't intend for their customers to be able to use. Obviously, this was nobody's intent, so the law was clarified to explain that using software is not a copyright violation.
Of course, with that, went the only leg that EULAs stood on. The proponents used to say that only with an explicit license was software use legal, but now it's very clear that this is mistaken.
By the time I buy a piece of software and open it I've already spent time and money, and purchased a product. To insist that I should be required to return it at this point because it's unfit for purchase as advertised is sheer lunacy.
For a legal professional, or business person who should know better, to push EULAs as having force is tantamount to fraud. Lies (or what a reasonable person should know to be untrue) resulting in the financial injury of others.
Slashdot Mirror
But I've seen an extension of exactly that logic to say that "of course free shipping isn't, tanstaafl sonny, we just meant we don't charge a shippin and handling charge".
If businesses aren't held to the letter of their agreements, what are they held to?
In today's global business world it's thoroughly reasonable for a big company to offer a seemingly insane deal. It could be a loss leader, it could be overstock, or them needing to pump end-of-year sales. Why is it suddenly the burden of the consumer, now denied even access to an unbaised court (arbitrators are paid for by the industry they arbitrate...), to judge the business-worthiness (for the other party) of any deal offered?
Codeplex. What is so wonderful about it that not having seen it is a show-stopper? It's like a MS-friendly sourceforge...?
And you mentioned who you thought MS was afraid of, but when examined MS doesn't really compete much with those companies. MS competes with Apple in end-user UI, with Linux in mid-level servers, GMail/Yahoo in web services. IBM isn't really in the list.
Isn't that a bit insecure, seeing as how you're supposed to go through a random selection of nodes not all controlled by the same entity? Especially as probably only a few people in any given area will buy your device, making it relatively easy to correlate device usage with device purchase, and thus a name or at least register-cam footage.
I'll reply to you re: your sig here rather than email.
I'd check out your book if it were really available online, as a web page. PDF doesn't cut it - broken searching, bookmarking, etc.
Also, it sounds a little Ayn Rand-ish. I'm not going to want to smack you after reading it, am I?
btw, No-Derivs? That's a little unfree. More like cheap distribution than sharing.
Oh no! They have the latest version - the one that came out since she finished school. She packs her bag and leaves.
Perhaps you'd like the school to teach a broader curriculum so that your child isn't turned down for a job at a mac-centric firm.
But then, I advocate making kids learn math instead of teaching calculator skills from a young age. Of course, once in the casio-dominated world of business calculators my secularly trained students would be unable to fend for themselves and would probably die. Alas.
Regardless of what "well regulated" means, "shall not" seems easier to understand.
..." it would still end in the same unambiguous way. I'm a Canadian and I can see this as plain as day. The 4th is supposed to allow people to keep and bear arms (not just guns) as appropriate to militia use.
The amount of intellectual dishonesty around this one phrase is staggering. What else could it possibly mean? Even if it started "An overstuffed sofa, being important to nothing,
Perhaps you think this sentiment is outdated, though I would disagree citing your current politics, but it surely was the intent of the founders.
Did they stick this amendment in there, close to the top, just to say something useless like it's nice for people to join the reserves and when there, you might as well let them use a gun?
Sheesh!
If your school wasted time teaching you the specific key combinations of software, did they teach you to manually program your VCR? Did they recommend your family buy a Sony, because anything less can leave kids behind in this rapid-paced dog-eat-remote-control world of VCR maintenance and if you child learns the wrong brand it's nothing but government cheese for them! The horror!
Thank god that this school system realized that the pace of technological change has stopped here. (Thank god they didn't jump the gun and say this in 2006, hoho!) Nothing shall ever be invented from this day forward so there's simply nothing left to do but teach people how to use the ultimate fruits of society, Office 2007.
We'd mock a mechanics class that recommended parents buy students only Fords, because even if Ford is a dominant brand in the market it doesn't do anyone any good to be stuck knowing only a single system. We mock comp-sci courses that teach only Java...
Heh, microsoft got around to writing their own "My First Rails Site". It's cute. What's your point though?
As for who eats MS's lunch... Well, MS doesn't sell any workstations, mainframes, or OSes suitable for them. It does sell a PC OS, and apps, but very little server capable.
Oh sure, if you call some $8k PC a "server", MS does just fine. Run their priciest OS, accept limitations like a hard-coded number of TCP/IP connections at a time, CPU limits, etc. All that, and it barely performs as well on similar hardware to a free OS that hackers threw together. There's a reason Google didn't shell out for MS licenses for every server, and it's not just money. Google would be far slower and less stable if they adopted MS's best and newest. Not to mention, completely at their mercy business wise.
If their lunch is being eaten it's not by IBM who merely inhabits a world MS never could, it's Apple who sells a far superior and cheaper product.
Microsoft makes servers like Mustang makes F1 cars; only for those who don't know any better.
Yeah, you want anyone to be able to use what you write until they try to feed themselves by doing so. Jerk.
The GPL takes nothing. Ignore it and pretend you got a look-but-don't-use license.
If you vote for the government, why is it more likely to be oppressive if there are simply less civil servants? Less laws?
Of course, that's assuming voting does anything. Especially on a Diebold machine.
The middle-east has (effectively) a mandatory state religion. There's a big difference between that and some politician saying "I support X because of my beliefs".
You can't make people ignore their religion in their actions, but you can keep them from forcing the specific beliefs on others. You can make them lie about their motives, but you can't see into their heads.
Singapore and China are two nearly secular places with insane laws. Indonesia is a religious place with crazy laws. Smoke pot in any of them and you're in for long jail terms or death. Does the feeling of being dead vary based on their reasons? (Maybe if you buy into their religion.)
So, I don't want a politician to have legal problems with declaring his motives for supporting a law (however wacky) because otherwise he'll lie. Like with hate speech, if it's in the open it's easy to fight. And easy to deal with. If religious people merely didn't want *their* kids to hear about evolution, that'd be okay. But they want to make up intelligent design and pretend it's not religious, and get that inserted into schools... that's bad.
The hardware people have to pay for. The driver they give away but nobody wants.
Really, there is no value in an ATI driver. Even to them. For years I've recommended against buying ATI at my work because of the support nightmare.
As far as knockoffs go, do you think someone's going to try for an ATI-like card through reverse engineering crap when they could just implement the DirectX spec directly? They'll go snooping if ATI does something better, but they do that now without source.
This is ATI. We've all be wishing for a stable driver since they started, it's not open source holding them back...
If it was open, perhaps someone else would do it for them.
If there was a question nVidia had about ATI's drivers they'd simply disassemble them. They'd have a really good idea about what all was going on so it'd probably be pretty easy even.
Closed source prevents no bugs or leaks, just fixes.
Why is that too much to ask? I've written a few hardware companies over the years expecting them to improve their drivers because of my corner case configurations.
IMHO, based on years of QA, it's *much* harder to get a product working properly under Windows than Linux. "They" make so much of all the versions of Linux, as if the differences between Suse and Debian are half as large as that between versions of Windows. (98|NT) -> 2k was a difficult time for hardware companies. The company I was at had to support a million oddball things, many different products or windows actions would hose product and we had to recover from registry munging, files being overwritten, poor documentation on parallel port driver requirements, and a million things. If it were open source we'd have just made it work in a few default configurations and let the users support the weird crap themselves.
If ATI/etc want to keep selling products they should make ones that work. If one of the requirements is that it be open source so it can be properly maintained, then so be it.
I'm not expecting something for nothing. I'll buy the hardware, if they manage to make it work with my OS. If not I'll send them nasty letters for failing to make it work even where they attempted to.
People already can disassemble video drivers. In fact, other video card companies are quite likely to employ someone who can already do this.
If nVidia was, let's say, 50% slower on dual-textured polys and couldn't figure out why, they'd have no trouble looking at the relevant sections of ATI's driver.
It's not even that they don't have the rights to all the code. They'd just open the parts they had rights and provide specs for the rest, if that was it...
The most likely reason is that their code is horrible. ATIs drivers have always been subpar and now we want to *see* their code!? Also, probably realizing that they must infringe on a ton on submarine software patents and thinking that letting patent-trolls read your source code is a good way for them to decide to sue you.
That I can agree with. I don't want thieves around trying to steal from everyone else, even if it was incredibly fitting when it happened to the casino.
Not justified (guilt-free), but justice (what they sow). Now if only the casino situation allowed throwing them all in jail the like raped rapist scenario.
Pft again. If we accept EULAs contract law is finished and no big corporation will accept that. Thus it'll never happen. Only a few software companies win, but everyone else loses including the rest of the politicians brib...lobbyists.
Ask why "they" pushed so hard for the UCITA if it wasn't needed. Until that's in your state, an EULA is as empty as any other post-sale contract.
No legal footing is required to sue, ruinously, look at the Scientologists. They're idiots and lie in court proceedings but they can push a baseless lawsuit till you're blue in the face... You'll be bankrupted by whichever corporation chooses to sue, regardless of what they say you did, and regardless of any guilt on your part.
DirecTV attacked thousands of people for merely buying smart-card programmers. There's *no* law against buying one, but they threatened ruinous legal damages to anyone who objected to paying them off.
Yes I can. Rape would be *good* when it happened to the rapist from the earlier scenarios.
I'm not arguing that we should allow stealing from casinos, because we don't need any more junkies stealing to support their habits. And I'm not saying we shouldn't take the money from them, but if we all laughed at the victims just a little bit here it'd be nice, because they're far worse people.
We shouldn't set out to punish the potentially guilty rapist with more rape, but if we were watching a security video that showed a rapist, and as he was walking away he got mugged and brutally raped it would be hilarious. #1 on Youtube kind of funny.
Yeah, and the people they stole money from are lower than drug dealers, so while technically it was a crime, nobody really minds.
I get that we can't all just decide to take matters into our own hands, but that doesn't mean that anyone cries for a drug dealer when they get robbed.
So? That's not a copyright violation.
There is a chance of a problem is the ISP misrepresents their actions. If they claim the page looked like that before you've then got a lie which could damage the reputation of the page creator. But if you know they're doing it... I can sell you a book I put through a wood chipper.
No, god doesn't *send* you to hell. He, being omnipotent, merely chooses to let a being of his creation take you there.
FSM FTW!
The problem with that line of thinking is that a mechanical translation with ads inserted isn't a derivative work. There must be permission inherent, for them to be able to packetize the data, check for pieces in the ISP's cache, etc. This is obvious because the content owner authorized their machine (the one making copies) to make them for anyone who requested one.
This isn't a derivative work, and thus something they can forbid, anymore than me taking the last half of one Harry Potter book and the first half of another and stapling them together. It's still 100% JK Rowling's, though there are no laws that forbid my mangling or even resale of the book. (Unless I misrepresent it as unmodified, etc.)
The ISPs are likely to have problems as they are trying to hide their ads. This is misrepresentation, as it makes it appear that the original author inserted ads. If they told the customer about it up front, there would be no legal problems regardless of how many ads they wanted to insert.
After all, it's just as mechanical to stick a leaflet in every page of a newspaper as to stick a banner in every div tag.
Pft. EULAs have been found wanting in more cases, and in the ones that upheld the EULA wasn't the strongest part of the case.
If you really want to see proof of this, sell something to a big company (say Walmart) and then remotely disable to product on day two due to some technicality in your post-sale contract. When their lawyers spit you out you'll understand that the contract is what was agreed upon. In the case of a contract of sale, that gives you full rights to use whatever was being sold. If this is ever different (famous art could include a right-of-first-refusal to the next sale, for instance) it's a major infringement on the free rights of the buyer and would need to be negotiated for specifically.)
At one point there used to be no explicit permission to use software (it requires copying into ram/etc) in the copyright law. This caused some genius to think you couldn't use software. However, this would have been ridiculous as everyone with this view would have been intentionally selling something they didn't intend for their customers to be able to use. Obviously, this was nobody's intent, so the law was clarified to explain that using software is not a copyright violation.
Of course, with that, went the only leg that EULAs stood on. The proponents used to say that only with an explicit license was software use legal, but now it's very clear that this is mistaken.
By the time I buy a piece of software and open it I've already spent time and money, and purchased a product. To insist that I should be required to return it at this point because it's unfit for purchase as advertised is sheer lunacy.
For a legal professional, or business person who should know better, to push EULAs as having force is tantamount to fraud. Lies (or what a reasonable person should know to be untrue) resulting in the financial injury of others.