Telling somebody you're going to kill them doesn't make murder legal.
Thats not whats going on. Its more like: "I want to give you this pizza, but first you have to shoot yourself. Here is the gun." "Okay." And then you shoot yourself.
Remember. The EULA pops up before your eyes. You know what will happen if you hit "Agree" (You did read that thing didn't you). You hit the button, and it happens.
There is no need for it to be upheld in court. The EULA is de-facto enforced when Adaware is removed by the installer. The enduser has no recourse in court; the deed is done. The only person who can go to court to dispute a contract is the one who thinks the contract was not adhered to. But the contract was adhered to when Adaware was forcibly removed.
Now, if the user tricks the installer, and keeps Adaware on his machine, then sure, Radlight can go to court, and the Judge can say, "Fsck ya very much, Radlight, I'm not enforcing your contract."
On the enforcability of EULAs
on
Spyware Fights Back
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Disclamer: IANAL
To me this whole thing raises a point about the legality and enforcability of EULAs:
Everyone seems to agree that EULAs are legal in as far as they are enforcable (just like any other contract). When a EULA cannot be enforced by a company directly, it is up to a court to decide if the EULA will be enforced by the government.
So if a EULA says, "If you want to use our software, you have to give up your first born son", and you click on the Agree button (because you are stupid), then you have agreed to give up Jimmy. But when it comes time to give up Jimmy and you don't, the company then tries to get the EULA enforced by going to court. The court says, "Sorry company, we aren't going to enforce this contract because the right to keep Jimmy supersedes the right to enforce a contract" (or something like that), and the company is screwed out of yet another first born son.
But when the writer of the EULA can enforce the EULA, then it is perfectly legal and fine.
These Radlight people have come up with a way to enforce their EULA. You wanna use their software, then you can't use Adaware, and we will remove it for you. If you agree to the EULA (because you are still stupid), then they remove Adaware, and you have no reason to whine.
Enforcable, no. But thats not how I'm viewing the EULA in this case. As I understand it, this EULA states that it will remove software like Adaware:
You are not allowed to use any third party program (e.g Ad-aware) to uninstall application bundled with RadLight. Such programs will be removed.
To me, that is a warning. I don't see how I can claim that the installation is illegal when the installation is simply doing exactly what it says it will do.
Can't users who want Radlight install Adaware afterwards?...isn't a post-install an easy workaround?
Even if it is a work around, why bother?
Honestly, I don't get why anyone wants to bother with spyware or anti-spyware. If you don't like how spyware behaves, don't use it. "Oh, but I want feature X that spy-program Y provides", you say? Well, then find a non-spyware program that provides it, or shut up and let program Y give it to you up the a$$.
But don't mess with anti-spyware, please. If you mess with anti-spyware, you only up the cycle of abuse, and make life hellish for everyone. Instead, learn to do without feature X until it is made evailable in non-spyware program Z.
Its called "Voting with your pocketbook", and there are too few endusers with the principles to do that these days.
and because they mention it in the EULA doesn't mean it's legal. Anyway, it's not like this player will be actually downloaded much.
Hmm... I definitely agree that this practice is underhanded, unethical, and plain rude, but why do you say it is illegal?
Is there anything on the books that infers that existing software can not be deleted by new software? If so, how does that work when a new piece of software needs to replace a common shared library, and that new shared library makes existing software unworkable?
If the user was warned (and a EULA is at minimum a warning), does he really have any legal recourse?
I am one of those people who actually took their old mac-in-the-box, and turned it into a working aquarium. I am watching my neon tetras swim about as I write this.
With the mac, I can afford accessories!
on
iMac vs. VAIO Showdown
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Of course, what the article fails to consider is that I can order an iPod, an additional 256MB RAM, and a top of the line Palm for my new iMac, and still stay $400 under the Sony. For someone actually looking to use one of these machines alongside digital toys, that makes a difference.
For instance, in Windows, Microsoft has special folder layouts for folders declared to have digital music or images in them. The digital music folders don't bother with file permissions or any unnecessary data, but instead display your songs with the appropriate ID3 tag information instead
I don't think this has anything to do with the Windows file system. Its just how explorer presents data in certain folders. Nautilus does the exact same thing, for instance. It displays bitrate, time, artist, and presents a mini-player at the bottom of the folder view. I assume it gets the artist info from ID3 tags.
Right click on your GNOME foot. Click properties. Change the menu type from "Global main menu" to "Main menu". Toggle "Programs (GNOME)" to "On the main menu" or "In a submenu". Problem solved.
Personally, I like the Ximian menu; its pretty sane. It also may go away with GNOME2, as Ximain has had a lot of influence on GNOME2 standards, and the panel should support user-editable menus.
NASA wanted to send up teachers because they could give lessons to children from space. Christa McAuliffe was supposed to give several lessons to her class, and other classes around the country. The idea was to make the life of astronauts (their experiments, how they live and sleep, what they do and work on, etc.) accessible to children through mini-lessons.
Sure, it was (and still is) a symbolic gesture/publicity stunt, but it's a helluva lot more useful and interesting than sending up the first plumber in space. Odds are, he couldn't even help the crew with their toilets.
Re:I am partially made of Titanium
on
The Sexiest Metal
·
· Score: 1
Well, all metals expand a bit under heat, but I doubt that would be whats causing your aches, unless you take really hot showers!
In any event, congratulations on being bionic. You are every 8 year old boys dream:-)
Gosh, I care, and the people working on the project care.
Keep in mind that this is a specialty article, not a mainstream article. You are free to ignore it. If you don't care, there are plenty of other places on slashdot for you to waste your time.
I agree completely. C# is a language. At the minimum,.NET is the C# language with a set of standard libraries that do useful things (If only Bjarne had thought of that when he introduced C++). Mono is just an implementation of the language and those minimal libraries, and AFAIK GTK# is just a way of binding the GUI portions of those libraries to native GTK calls, and can be used independently of the.NET portions of Mono, for those who just like writing in C#.
GTK/Gnome has bindings for just about any useful language, and a few not so useful ones. This is possible in part because GTK/Gnome is C based. I don't see that changing. The only thing that may change is that more people may use higher level languages to write their GTK/Gnome applications, especially if the bindings support a large subset of GTK/Gnome features, as it appears GTk#/Mono will (and GTKmm/Gnomemm currently does). How is this a bad thing?
Are these stars stable?
on
Quark Stars
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone know enough about this topic to know if these stars aren't just transitionary critters, on their way to being black holes? Or do astronomers have good reason to believe this a distinctly different way for a star to end its life?
Re:How does this fit in with String theory?
on
Quark Stars
·
· Score: 1
I think we are giving ST a little too much credit here. Keep in mind there is no experimental evidence that favours ST over any other cosmological model. If one idea says "BH are like elementary particles" and another says "ST says BH have memory, and cannot be thought of as only having the information associated with an elementary particle", well, then lets just wait until we have some evidence one way or another, okay?
Sorry, but I find String Theorists too be a bit arrogant, and I am uncomfortable with a theory that hasn't actually predicted anything. And I am still waiting for them to solve the Riemann Zeta hypothesis, as some confidently said they could 15 years ago.
You are right, it is an oversimplification. I wasn't trying to be insightful, just funny. I think that we worry more about far away places for a couple of reasons: One: Its easier to worry about Europa than Cleveland because its far away and we don't have to get practical work done there. Two: We worry more about places that are more pristine to begin with. Its impractical to worry about the minute contamination of a place when we've already wiped out 10% of its native life.
But we do worry some about our planet; especially the places that are still pristine. It is an oversimplification to assume we don't.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Your view of the world is truly myopic...
Oh, wow. Thank you for pointing that out for me. I feel enlightened now. I think I will spend the rest of the day reading leftist conspiracy rags.
Re:Space Defense Initiative (SDI)
on
Space Wars
·
· Score: 1
I believe that the US push for 'defensive' weapons in space is a farce; they're going to primarily be offensive weapons, 'defensive' only in their 'deterrence' to nations (particularly Third-World) that do not possess such weapons....
So what is the problem? The concept of "defense through deterrence" has a pretty good track record. Just look at nukes and the cold war.
While I am generally in favour of taking care not to unnecessarily harm the surrounding environment of any place we visit, I am glad that this enlightened attitude has not always been a goal of mankind. I would hate to live in a cave and be fearful of getting eaten by cheetahs. That would seriously distract me from reading slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Telling somebody you're going to kill them doesn't make murder legal.
Thats not whats going on. Its more like:
"I want to give you this pizza, but first you have to shoot yourself. Here is the gun."
"Okay."
And then you shoot yourself.
Remember. The EULA pops up before your eyes. You know what will happen if you hit "Agree" (You did read that thing didn't you). You hit the button, and it happens.
This post does not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer, not slashdot.
:-)
Probably the truest words that anybody (including myself) has said in this news piece
There is no need for it to be upheld in court. The EULA is de-facto enforced when Adaware is removed by the installer. The enduser has no recourse in court; the deed is done. The only person who can go to court to dispute a contract is the one who thinks the contract was not adhered to. But the contract was adhered to when Adaware was forcibly removed.
Now, if the user tricks the installer, and keeps Adaware on his machine, then sure, Radlight can go to court, and the Judge can say, "Fsck ya very much, Radlight, I'm not enforcing your contract."
Disclamer: IANAL
To me this whole thing raises a point about the legality and enforcability of EULAs:
Everyone seems to agree that EULAs are legal in as far as they are enforcable (just like any other contract). When a EULA cannot be enforced by a company directly, it is up to a court to decide if the EULA will be enforced by the government.
So if a EULA says, "If you want to use our software, you have to give up your first born son", and you click on the Agree button (because you are stupid), then you have agreed to give up Jimmy. But when it comes time to give up Jimmy and you don't, the company then tries to get the EULA enforced by going to court. The court says, "Sorry company, we aren't going to enforce this contract because the right to keep Jimmy supersedes the right to enforce a contract" (or something like that), and the company is screwed out of yet another first born son.
But when the writer of the EULA can enforce the EULA, then it is perfectly legal and fine.
These Radlight people have come up with a way to enforce their EULA. You wanna use their software, then you can't use Adaware, and we will remove it for you. If you agree to the EULA (because you are still stupid), then they remove Adaware, and you have no reason to whine.
Can't users who want Radlight install Adaware afterwards?...isn't a post-install an easy workaround?
Even if it is a work around, why bother?
Honestly, I don't get why anyone wants to bother with spyware or anti-spyware. If you don't like how spyware behaves, don't use it. "Oh, but I want feature X that spy-program Y provides", you say? Well, then find a non-spyware program that provides it, or shut up and let program Y give it to you up the a$$.
But don't mess with anti-spyware, please. If you mess with anti-spyware, you only up the cycle of abuse, and make life hellish for everyone. Instead, learn to do without feature X until it is made evailable in non-spyware program Z.
Its called "Voting with your pocketbook", and there are too few endusers with the principles to do that these days.
and because they mention it in the EULA doesn't mean it's legal. Anyway, it's not like this player will be actually downloaded much.
Hmm... I definitely agree that this practice is underhanded, unethical, and plain rude, but why do you say it is illegal?
Is there anything on the books that infers that existing software can not be deleted by new software? If so, how does that work when a new piece of software needs to replace a common shared library, and that new shared library makes existing software unworkable?
If the user was warned (and a EULA is at minimum a warning), does he really have any legal recourse?
I am one of those people who actually took their old mac-in-the-box, and turned it into a working aquarium. I am watching my neon tetras swim about as I write this.
Of course, what the article fails to consider is that I can order an iPod, an additional 256MB RAM, and a top of the line Palm for my new iMac, and still stay $400 under the Sony. For someone actually looking to use one of these machines alongside digital toys, that makes a difference.
For instance, in Windows, Microsoft has special folder layouts for folders declared to have digital music or images in them. The digital music folders don't bother with file permissions or any unnecessary data, but instead display your songs with the appropriate ID3 tag information instead
I don't think this has anything to do with the Windows file system. Its just how explorer presents data in certain folders. Nautilus does the exact same thing, for instance. It displays bitrate, time, artist, and presents a mini-player at the bottom of the folder view. I assume it gets the artist info from ID3 tags.
Right click on your GNOME foot. Click properties. Change the menu type from "Global main menu" to "Main menu". Toggle "Programs (GNOME)" to "On the main menu" or "In a submenu". Problem solved.
Personally, I like the Ximian menu; its pretty sane. It also may go away with GNOME2, as Ximain has had a lot of influence on GNOME2 standards, and the panel should support user-editable menus.
Sure it's necessary. It's cross-platform. If I'm writing a game, this makes it easier for me to write one for multiple platforms.
Some folks actually care about that, you know.
NASA wanted to send up teachers because they could give lessons to children from space. Christa McAuliffe was supposed to give several lessons to her class, and other classes around the country. The idea was to make the life of astronauts (their experiments, how they live and sleep, what they do and work on, etc.) accessible to children through mini-lessons.
Sure, it was (and still is) a symbolic gesture/publicity stunt, but it's a helluva lot more useful and interesting than sending up the first plumber in space. Odds are, he couldn't even help the crew with their toilets.
Well, all metals expand a bit under heat, but I doubt that would be whats causing your aches, unless you take really hot showers!
:-)
In any event, congratulations on being bionic. You are every 8 year old boys dream
Gosh, I care, and the people working on the project care.
Keep in mind that this is a specialty article, not a mainstream article. You are free to ignore it. If you don't care, there are plenty of other places on slashdot for you to waste your time.
Unless you are root. Then you should just think carefully before executing :-)
I agree completely. C# is a language. At the minimum, .NET is the C# language with a set of standard libraries that do useful things (If only Bjarne had thought of that when he introduced C++). Mono is just an implementation of the language and those minimal libraries, and AFAIK GTK# is just a way of binding the GUI portions of those libraries to native GTK calls, and can be used independently of the .NET portions of Mono, for those who just like writing in C#.
GTK/Gnome has bindings for just about any useful language, and a few not so useful ones. This is possible in part because GTK/Gnome is C based. I don't see that changing. The only thing that may change is that more people may use higher level languages to write their GTK/Gnome applications, especially if the bindings support a large subset of GTK/Gnome features, as it appears GTk#/Mono will (and GTKmm/Gnomemm currently does). How is this a bad thing?
Does anyone know enough about this topic to know if these stars aren't just transitionary critters, on their way to being black holes? Or do astronomers have good reason to believe this a distinctly different way for a star to end its life?
I think we are giving ST a little too much credit here. Keep in mind there is no experimental evidence that favours ST over any other cosmological model. If one idea says "BH are like elementary particles" and another says "ST says BH have memory, and cannot be thought of as only having the information associated with an elementary particle", well, then lets just wait until we have some evidence one way or another, okay?
Sorry, but I find String Theorists too be a bit arrogant, and I am uncomfortable with a theory that hasn't actually predicted anything. And I am still waiting for them to solve the Riemann Zeta hypothesis, as some confidently said they could 15 years ago.
You are right, it is an oversimplification. I wasn't trying to be insightful, just funny. I think that we worry more about far away places for a couple of reasons:
One: Its easier to worry about Europa than Cleveland because its far away and we don't have to get practical work done there.
Two: We worry more about places that are more pristine to begin with. Its impractical to worry about the minute contamination of a place when we've already wiped out 10% of its native life.
But we do worry some about our planet; especially the places that are still pristine. It is an oversimplification to assume we don't.
Oh, wow. Thank you for pointing that out for me. I feel enlightened now. I think I will spend the rest of the day reading leftist conspiracy rags.
So what is the problem? The concept of "defense through deterrence" has a pretty good track record. Just look at nukes and the cold war.
Actually, I am a bit ashamed of my post above. I am no exceptional speller, myself. I just couldn't resist an "echo gag".
While I am generally in favour of taking care not to unnecessarily harm the surrounding environment of any place we visit, I am glad that this enlightened attitude has not always been a goal of mankind. I would hate to live in a cave and be fearful of getting eaten by cheetahs. That would seriously distract me from reading slashdot.