Now we are at the point! Good job AC! This question revolves around what kind of crap the end user is willing to put up with in order to use some software. The are only two reason I have this PC, is because IE renders pages better than mozilla and handles https better then Konq. I have to have windows it to use outlook, which I have need of because I have to connect to an exchange server. We all have software we don't want because we need it for something else.
The case here is you have some software you can't have if you do want another bundle. It's not like they are robbing you of your right to run ad-aware. They are just saying "you can't have these two one the same machine at the same time". exactly like the company I work for is saying "you can't check your email and have linux as your desktop at the same time".
fair enough... but all this application does, is "help" you remove ad-aware. it doesn't hide what it's doing and then all of the sudden ad-aware is gone. it starts the uninstall proccess, and then you have the chance to click cancel at that point. It checks to see if you completed the uninstall and then continues its own install. but the think that everyone is missing here, is that it asks/tells you about ad-aware removal before the removal process even starts.
I may be a fscking moron, but i'm a fscking moron that can refuse to allow you to install my app. I can refuse the service of my application all day, every day. And I can refuse it on ANY grounds I want.
is some valid, technical reason:wouldn't the reason here be that the other application is going to uninstall a core part of my application?
not perform its core function properly:Please define core functionality... it would seem to me that if I put adware into my application to pay for my development cost, and so that I could provide my app to you for free, then that adware is core functionality
you don't have any reason to meddle...it's simply none of your affair:What's not fair about it. I give you choice, their software or mine. you are aware of the choice before the uninstall is started. I fail to see how this is meddling, and now the environment that my application lives in is none of my affaire. Can I not say, "This application is not to be used by those who produce child p0rn"? Guess what! I do have that right, and I also have the right to say, "this program will not install if winword.exe exists on the system. Same principal.
does not mean it's ethical to remove it, even if you are prompting the user: I guess you can't see the part where it lets you choose if you want to uninstall adaware. this is not about someone trying to sneak the other app off of your box, this is about one app refusing to install until another is gone.
but I think initiating the un-install for the other product is probably not kosher unless for valid technical reasons:I agree!!! Now let's define valid technical reason, shall we? Let's say that I'm a developer that uses the TCP/IP stack included with the adware app to send and receive usage data about the app you are running. Ok? If the adware gets uninstalled, then I lose the connection, and the application is not operating as it was designed. Thus there is a technical reason to not allow my app to run with adaware. Next....
legality of this is questionable at the very least: Let's see.... I ask you if you want to do something, I help you start the process is you click on the affirmative button, I check after the uninstall process to make sure everything looks the way I want. How exactly is that illegal? When you figure it out, let me know. (BTW: every browser I have ever used prompted me before a plugin install... is that illegal too?)
'Click to agree' EULAs are questionable in the first place:you have bigger issues. Check the law! The 'click to agree' EULAs are binding in court.
I doubt it would hold up in court:There is such a thing as an unbindable contract, but ask the EFFif EULA's can legally bind people to stupid things.
, I guess you can continue to labor under the assumption that you have complete control of your product in all circumstances:I'm so very glad to have your permission to write my damn code the way I want to.
Right On!!! I'm so glad to see this right off the bat. Just because you don't know how to use a language doesn't mean it sucks. I have spent the last 2 years working on XML 'based' applications. The parser and the standards are what is so cool about it. The/. group should absolutely fall in love with this. It is open, and powerful, it's open, and open. What more could you want from a data storage standard?
Like the parent poster said, you don't program loops with XML or XSL, you use something like XPATH in conjunction with PERL to do that. I have to agree that Oracle's XML stuff is not the coolest in the world (or anywhere else for that matter), but don't knock XML. XML is your friend, and you need to learn how to use it before you bash it.
Justin, Josh, John, (what ever your name is, your sig doesn't show up here on the reply form)
I am the programmer that would be so unedthical to write profit like that. I would like you to realize the importance of the statment that you just made. If I don't want my program to reside on the same disk as another, I am allowed to refuse my install until the other application in gone. I may, as a matter of convenince to you, prompt you with that information, and then start the uninstall process for you. One way or the other one of the programs is not going to be on that machine at the end of the day. I can be the biggest biggot you have ever seen, and still I am allowed to demand that my application not be installed on a machine with a particular application.
Now the problem is if I uninstall it without your knowledge. They are not uninstalling the application as part of thier install routine. Thier installer waits on the other application to be uninstalled before it writes it's own space. It actually prompted me and allowed me to control the uninstall. When I canceled the uninstall, redlight stoped it's own install with a message like "when you are ready to get rid of adaware...".
you can. Pay for a mail server that let's you administrate the configuration of, and a domain name (don't start with the "I shouldn't have to pay for it" crap, you want free? you get spam!).
Set up your mail server so that all incoming mail to your domain goes to you. then only give out email addresses such as yourcompanyname@mydomain.com. If companyA.com sells your email address to spammers, you can shut that email address off. you can tell your mail server to reject mail sent to companyA.com@mydomain.com. This is no sure fire way to stop everything, and someone who really wants to send you an email, can make up any string of alpha/numeric charicters and send it to you at your domain, But it's a really nice way to monitor who is selling your address. and you cut the address off when you see that they have compromised your information.
(note: many companies filter out the name of thier company before they sell thier address list, so your email never really makes it onto the list that the company ships)
Stool, I like that story much better, and this is turning out to be a nice little thread here. Sorry to hear about the carpet guy (I'm glad to heat that you sleep with a gun now, I was getting worried about your habbit of sleeping with blowup sheep dolls. [j/k]) I hope the the apartment chick was cute and was into you rimming her. Also, I've never tried to walk around with my pants down, but your right, nothing has ever happened to mr be back there.
I want to thank AC for pointing out the difference in deface and distroy. His/Her examples where right on target, and let me know that defacing an object does not mean to make it completely unusable. Two thumbs up to him, except where he called me a wise ass. I didn't enjoy that part, but as it turns out, he might be right.
sit back and enjoy the rest of your day and thank you for flying NorthSouthern Airlines.
when you say after defacing my home and then you say but didn't take or destroy anything what do you mean by defacincing? seems like you just contradicted yourself.
Stuff like this make me happy that I'm still holding onto old boards from some of the systems that my father worked on. I have a board of burned out tubes from ENIAC, a section of hand wired Cray 1A, and Altair 8800, and a whole room full of Tandy, and IBM boxes from the 8080 and 1810 families....
Tell me japan... How long will I have to wait before this becomes worth the shipping charges to get it over there?
this disturbed my too. what happens to the other 640Gbps? It seems a real waste to put in 1,280 and only be able to half of that back out! Are there 640Gbps escaping on the other 4 sides, or is there a fifo type thing going on where the 1,280 side has to wait for the buffers to make room?
Okay fine! it looked funny in my head and it's to late to turn back now...
Note: I reply here because I looked down the threads, and there are no real answers to the "who would buy this" questions
Before you go any further, realize that this device is built for commercial applications. This is for a nurse that needs to know who and where all of her critical care beds are. This is for the contruction worker that is out on side, and can look at the land and see a 3D outline of the building and can punch the earth in the right spots. Devices like this could even be good for museums who want to give ppl an interactive tour.
The only people who would buy a box like this are the people who can use these boxes to make (or save) money with them.
Also note, that in the 70's few really saw the use of having a whole floor of your building dedicated to bulky computer, and almost nobody could afford one.
Think about this as you read all the I337 H4z0r'z post about "who would buy..."
I was just say'en that I this artical made me think about how the courts could become so clogged with DMCA cases that the law itself could become impotent. the DMCA is not a that the government can't enforce because they can't catch the us, but rather they can't enforce it because the culture is such that there isn't enought court dockets to hold all of the violators on trial. I am etreamely interested in what politician are doing, and I thought that the two comments has something to do with each other.
yeah, i can see it now... the courts will become as backlogged as the patent system. There will be infrengments that lose the media they are infrenging on, before they can make it into court, and the only people that will be makeing money off of this law (as with all laws) are the phat lawyers that will take everybodies money.
what about the XMLDB libs? please don't come out of the box ditching on PHP cause you can't think of anything better to slabdown to get the phirst post. PHP 3.0 requiered libs to connect to any database, and now supports plenty of the nativly to help techno weenies adopt the platform. But just because the authors wanted to make language easy to use, doen't mean that it not still a powerful force. You can still mod and lib the engine, and you can still tweek the install configs where it beats the pants off of an asp server. You won't hear me talk bad about the 4.0, and I don't want to hear you talk bad about it eather.
We get these types in here all the time. They are fresh out of college and have no real world expr writing code. They talk of intellectual freedom, and then sit down and write the most brain dead code I have ever seen. And the consultents are even worse, cause they know in a couple of months they will be gone, and you will be holding the bag of funnel cake type code.
So if the contract of the lease specifies that they have "the right to access and use the unused horsepower and trunk space in your car/s and/or the highways for the aggregation of sales staff and use in distributed a convoy. The leasee acknowledges and authorizes this use without the right of compensation.", they can put a guy in a trench coat in the back seat, and a black bag in the trunk. Because I signed the agreement, i understand that they plan on using my car once I park at work.
That's fine, but here is my issue.
Said man in trench coat gets pulled over (hacked).
Goverment offical searches contents of the car (computer).
Finds contraban and/or dismembered bodies in that bag in the trunk (childporn/warez/etc).
Government disables car, and then empounds it.
Leasing company doesn't have to "compensate" the leasee
So you say "that would never happen", and I say take another look at the lows that internet companies will go to to turn a buck. especially companies that will use a another program to slip your install script onto users programs.
Oh wait... I'll have to wait until "Brilliant Digital Entertainment" is done with my CPU to finnish this post....
First, who are "they", and in what respect am I "you". I might see your point, but I can't make out for sure what point you have.
If a law like this is passed, it could easily be abused. If someone gets a virus from you, and you did nothing to help prevent the virus from spreading, you are libal. You are responsable for thier loss, due to neglagence. If you don't believe the law works that way, tell me where your house is, we'll see what happens when a visitor falls and hurt himself on you property.
Please respond to this, because I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Maybe your right.
I remeber how excited I was to think about normal people going into space. I would love for my kid to see a teacher from her school go up one day. There is nothing like putting an average joe in to space.
Except when your trying to put them into space and you explode the living-be-jesus out of them.
While I will agree that a law like this would allow software manufacturers a new way to loom over users, what I fear more is the virus detection industry. If I am liable for the spead of a virus, then I had better buy a copy of some anti-virus software, and then pay the company what ever they charge to get the updates. As much as I fear Microsoft abusing the rules, I also fear companies like Computer Associates and Network Associates abusing customers directly because we are afraid of being sued.
As someone who has never watched this series before, I would like to know how many of these DVD's I need to look for. Of course I'm only going to watch them because of the/. peer presure, and so I only want the good ones. I ended up reading LOTR because it seems to be a/. geek shrine, so I'll bite on this one too. So, what should I get?
Slashdot Mirror
Now we are at the point! Good job AC! This question revolves around what kind of crap the end user is willing to put up with in order to use some software. The are only two reason I have this PC, is because IE renders pages better than mozilla and handles https better then Konq. I have to have windows it to use outlook, which I have need of because I have to connect to an exchange server. We all have software we don't want because we need it for something else.
The case here is you have some software you can't have if you do want another bundle. It's not like they are robbing you of your right to run ad-aware. They are just saying "you can't have these two one the same machine at the same time". exactly like the company I work for is saying "you can't check your email and have linux as your desktop at the same time".
yes I already know about http://www.ximian.com/
fair enough... but all this application does, is "help" you remove ad-aware. it doesn't hide what it's doing and then all of the sudden ad-aware is gone. it starts the uninstall proccess, and then you have the chance to click cancel at that point. It checks to see if you completed the uninstall and then continues its own install. but the think that everyone is missing here, is that it asks/tells you about ad-aware removal before the removal process even starts.
I may be a fscking moron, but i'm a fscking moron that can refuse to allow you to install my app. I can refuse the service of my application all day, every day. And I can refuse it on ANY grounds I want.
Please take a moment to get over yourself.
You're so full of crap...
:wouldn't the reason here be that the other application is going to uninstall a core part of my application?
:Please define core functionality... it would seem to me that if I put adware into my application to pay for my development cost, and so that I could provide my app to you for free, then that adware is core functionality
:What's not fair about it. I give you choice, their software or mine. you are aware of the choice before the uninstall is started. I fail to see how this is meddling, and now the environment that my application lives in is none of my affaire. Can I not say, "This application is not to be used by those who produce child p0rn"? Guess what! I do have that right, and I also have the right to say, "this program will not install if winword.exe exists on the system. Same principal.
: I guess you can't see the part where it lets you choose if you want to uninstall adaware. this is not about someone trying to sneak the other app off of your box, this is about one app refusing to install until another is gone.
:I agree!!! Now let's define valid technical reason, shall we? Let's say that I'm a developer that uses the TCP/IP stack included with the adware app to send and receive usage data about the app you are running. Ok? If the adware gets uninstalled, then I lose the connection, and the application is not operating as it was designed. Thus there is a technical reason to not allow my app to run with adaware. Next....
: Let's see.... I ask you if you want to do something, I help you start the process is you click on the affirmative button, I check after the uninstall process to make sure everything looks the way I want. How exactly is that illegal? When you figure it out, let me know. (BTW: every browser I have ever used prompted me before a plugin install... is that illegal too?)
:you have bigger issues. Check the law! The 'click to agree' EULAs are binding in court.
:There is such a thing as an unbindable contract, but ask the EFFif EULA's can legally bind people to stupid things.
:I'm so very glad to have your permission to write my damn code the way I want to.
is some valid, technical reason
not perform its core function properly
you don't have any reason to meddle...it's simply none of your affair
does not mean it's ethical to remove it, even if you are prompting the user
but I think initiating the un-install for the other product is probably not kosher unless for valid technical reasons
legality of this is questionable at the very least
'Click to agree' EULAs are questionable in the first place
I doubt it would hold up in court
, I guess you can continue to labor under the assumption that you have complete control of your product in all circumstances
Right On!!! I'm so glad to see this right off the bat. Just because you don't know how to use a language doesn't mean it sucks. I have spent the last 2 years working on XML 'based' applications. The parser and the standards are what is so cool about it. The /. group should absolutely fall in love with this. It is open, and powerful, it's open, and open. What more could you want from a data storage standard?
Like the parent poster said, you don't program loops with XML or XSL, you use something like XPATH in conjunction with PERL to do that. I have to agree that Oracle's XML stuff is not the coolest in the world (or anywhere else for that matter), but don't knock XML. XML is your friend, and you need to learn how to use it before you bash it.
</soapbox> ha! "soap" </pun>
Justin, Josh, John, (what ever your name is, your sig doesn't show up here on the reply form)
I am the programmer that would be so unedthical to write profit like that. I would like you to realize the importance of the statment that you just made. If I don't want my program to reside on the same disk as another, I am allowed to refuse my install until the other application in gone. I may, as a matter of convenince to you, prompt you with that information, and then start the uninstall process for you. One way or the other one of the programs is not going to be on that machine at the end of the day. I can be the biggest biggot you have ever seen, and still I am allowed to demand that my application not be installed on a machine with a particular application.
Now the problem is if I uninstall it without your knowledge. They are not uninstalling the application as part of thier install routine. Thier installer waits on the other application to be uninstalled before it writes it's own space. It actually prompted me and allowed me to control the uninstall. When I canceled the uninstall, redlight stoped it's own install with a message like "when you are ready to get rid of adaware...".
It's not illigal, and it's not unethical.
you can. Pay for a mail server that let's you administrate the configuration of, and a domain name (don't start with the "I shouldn't have to pay for it" crap, you want free? you get spam!).
Set up your mail server so that all incoming mail to your domain goes to you. then only give out email addresses such as yourcompanyname@mydomain.com. If companyA.com sells your email address to spammers, you can shut that email address off. you can tell your mail server to reject mail sent to companyA.com@mydomain.com. This is no sure fire way to stop everything, and someone who really wants to send you an email, can make up any string of alpha/numeric charicters and send it to you at your domain, But it's a really nice way to monitor who is selling your address. and you cut the address off when you see that they have compromised your information.
(note: many companies filter out the name of thier company before they sell thier address list, so your email never really makes it onto the list that the company ships)
Stool,
I like that story much better, and this is turning out to be a nice little thread here. Sorry to hear about the carpet guy (I'm glad to heat that you sleep with a gun now, I was getting worried about your habbit of sleeping with blowup sheep dolls. [j/k]) I hope the the apartment chick was cute and was into you rimming her. Also, I've never tried to walk around with my pants down, but your right, nothing has ever happened to mr be back there.
I want to thank AC for pointing out the difference in deface and distroy. His/Her examples where right on target, and let me know that defacing an object does not mean to make it completely unusable. Two thumbs up to him, except where he called me a wise ass. I didn't enjoy that part, but as it turns out, he might be right.
sit back and enjoy the rest of your day and thank you for flying NorthSouthern Airlines.
when you say after defacing my home and then you say but didn't take or destroy anything what do you mean by defacincing? seems like you just contradicted yourself.
Stuff like this make me happy that I'm still holding onto old boards from some of the systems that my father worked on. I have a board of burned out tubes from ENIAC, a section of hand wired Cray 1A, and Altair 8800, and a whole room full of Tandy, and IBM boxes from the 8080 and 1810 families....
Tell me japan... How long will I have to wait before this becomes worth the shipping charges to get it over there?
Arthur C. Clarke wrote a book on this subject didn't he?
I connect to my school via dialup at 33.6, and the I^2 rocks the potty...
again.... sorry it looked funny in my head...
this disturbed my too. what happens to the other 640Gbps? It seems a real waste to put in 1,280 and only be able to half of that back out! Are there 640Gbps escaping on the other 4 sides, or is there a fifo type thing going on where the 1,280 side has to wait for the buffers to make room?
Okay fine! it looked funny in my head and it's to late to turn back now...
Note: I reply here because I looked down the threads, and there are no real answers to the "who would buy this" questions
Before you go any further, realize that this device is built for commercial applications. This is for a nurse that needs to know who and where all of her critical care beds are. This is for the contruction worker that is out on side, and can look at the land and see a 3D outline of the building and can punch the earth in the right spots. Devices like this could even be good for museums who want to give ppl an interactive tour.
The only people who would buy a box like this are the people who can use these boxes to make (or save) money with them.
Also note, that in the 70's few really saw the use of having a whole floor of your building dedicated to bulky computer, and almost nobody could afford one.
Think about this as you read all the I337 H4z0r'z post about "who would buy..."
I was just say'en that I this artical made me think about how the courts could become so clogged with DMCA cases that the law itself could become impotent. the DMCA is not a that the government can't enforce because they can't catch the us, but rather they can't enforce it because the culture is such that there isn't enought court dockets to hold all of the violators on trial. I am etreamely interested in what politician are doing, and I thought that the two comments has something to do with each other.
:)
Sorry
yeah, i can see it now... the courts will become as backlogged as the patent system. There will be infrengments that lose the media they are infrenging on, before they can make it into court, and the only people that will be makeing money off of this law (as with all laws) are the phat lawyers that will take everybodies money.
what about the XMLDB libs? please don't come out of the box ditching on PHP cause you can't think of anything better to slabdown to get the phirst post. PHP 3.0 requiered libs to connect to any database, and now supports plenty of the nativly to help techno weenies adopt the platform. But just because the authors wanted to make language easy to use, doen't mean that it not still a powerful force. You can still mod and lib the engine, and you can still tweek the install configs where it beats the pants off of an asp server. You won't hear me talk bad about the 4.0, and I don't want to hear you talk bad about it eather.
We get these types in here all the time. They are fresh out of college and have no real world expr writing code. They talk of intellectual freedom, and then sit down and write the most brain dead code I have ever seen. And the consultents are even worse, cause they know in a couple of months they will be gone, and you will be holding the bag of funnel cake type code.
That's fine, but here is my issue.
So you say "that would never happen", and I say take another look at the lows that internet companies will go to to turn a buck. especially companies that will use a another program to slip your install script onto users programs.
Oh wait... I'll have to wait until "Brilliant Digital Entertainment" is done with my CPU to finnish this post....
char agree[] = "By Entering this house you agree to this house's EULA";
char warning[] = "To ensure customer service, your visit may be recorded";
cout << agree << endl;
cin >> youAreInMyHouse;
while(youAreInMyHouse)
{
cout << warning;
}
First, who are "they", and in what respect am I "you". I might see your point, but I can't make out for sure what point you have.
If a law like this is passed, it could easily be abused. If someone gets a virus from you, and you did nothing to help prevent the virus from spreading, you are libal. You are responsable for thier loss, due to neglagence. If you don't believe the law works that way, tell me where your house is, we'll see what happens when a visitor falls and hurt himself on you property.
Please respond to this, because I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Maybe your right.
I remeber how excited I was to think about normal people going into space. I would love for my kid to see a teacher from her school go up one day. There is nothing like putting an average joe in to space.
Except when your trying to put them into space and you explode the living-be-jesus out of them.
While I will agree that a law like this would allow software manufacturers a new way to loom over users, what I fear more is the virus detection industry. If I am liable for the spead of a virus, then I had better buy a copy of some anti-virus software, and then pay the company what ever they charge to get the updates. As much as I fear Microsoft abusing the rules, I also fear companies like Computer Associates and Network Associates abusing customers directly because we are afraid of being sued.
As someone who has never watched this series before, I would like to know how many of these DVD's I need to look for. Of course I'm only going to watch them because of the /. peer presure, and so I only want the good ones. I ended up reading LOTR because it seems to be a /. geek shrine, so I'll bite on this one too. So, what should I get?
mod parent: +1 funny