The day that I can't buy a video game in NY state because it doesn't conform to this state's law is the day i move out of the state. This is just a stupid toothless law that makes it harder for anyone to enjoy video games.
I have a non legislature solution. Put the responsibility on the PARENTS when they buy something for their kids. It's that simple. Do your goddamn homework before shoveling shit to your kids. I don't think a little sticker is going to do jack about anything. There's probably more to this law than a simple sticker, you know, something that demands compliance by 2010 or so. Still, wasting time on this crap instead of important things is what bothers me the most since i live in NY.
Can anyone tell me if anyone's looked into the possibilities of these excessive pressurized rock planets having superconductors on the surface considering the recent advances in presurized metals becoming superconductors at room temps? Comebined with the fact there's a lot of acid, how electrically active is such a planet?
Explain to me how a END USER License agreement affects a 3rd party developer making a utility?
They didn't agree to sign away their rights. How the hell are they being sued?
If the user chooses to run this program that violates a copyright by copying part of it into ram (which imo is bullshit, how do you violate a copyright by using the program?), then isn't it directly the end user who has to deal with the consequences?
And honestly, the whole 1 copy per license is bullshit. If i want, i can take wow and install it on 5 computers i own. I can have multiple accounts as per the service and connect to all of them at the same time (one at a time) because of the way the service is structured. I can have several wow sessions all on one computer with no restrictions (before i actually log in). I can hack my own version and connect to a non blizzard server (since the eula for the service is only agreed to when you connect to a blizzard owned server).
Everyone has a very short lived memory of how well blizzard does it's releases. Do you remember Betacraft when it first came out? It was highly unplayable, crashes, lag, broken skills, ect. Because they piecemealed the burning crusade expansion months before and delayed it until they knew it wasn't going to kill the servers you call them the gods of releases?
And you expect others to beat blizzard? Conan was more playable than wow was when it first came out. They both gave a refund of time back to the users because they were down so much.
I don't know. I'd like to say if it's open to the public then they should admit everyone. If there are clear and easy to understand rules posted, then people can abide by them. If they post 2000 line eulas which say you agree to this as you enter and we have every right to do whatever we want once you're inside including change the rules, i'm not too sure if i could agree to that. It's like saying prices subject to change depending if we like you or not. Not exactly the kind of buisness practices that i feel should be legal.
I dunno, places where you make an account and agree to a eula to me are public places. Anyone can sign up, there's no defined user base and there's no boundaries.
Sounds to be you're talking about a gated park that allows anyone to enter as long as they follow established easy to understand rules like, "no dogs, no alcohol, park closes at sundown" type of thing.
You sort of give away your private property status when you invite anyone to join.
If not, i guess i'll start a barbershop, and whenever i see an asian person come in i'll tell them they're not welcome there. I guess that works under private property, right?
Private property and public spaces are completly different things though. If i put up a store in a public place I must let anyone who wants to enter. I would think it's illegal for me to put up signs like "no whites" "only people with 50k or greater income allowed" "only republicans welcome" "english speaking only" ect. Yet more and more i see public places such as stores, websites, online games having policies on what is accepted and not, and yet since they're written in legalese, not being clearly understood and not being enforced all the time. Clearly if you establish a public "anyone is welcome to come and use/buy" area, then it's not strictly private. You should not be able to apply private restrictions unless the area is definately not public. A private residence for example should be accessable to a defined set of people, be locked and or gated with clear and defined borders. The owner can do whatever they want on the residence short of breaking laws. You don't want to invite christians in your residence then don't, you're in your perfect right not to. Now if you have a garage sale open to the public with a sign that says "whites only" I'm pretty sure you're in legal trouble.
That being established, websites that are open to the pubic (for anyone to use) and yet have policies against certain things (lets say dipictions of kids that smoke) are clearly crossing the boundary. Whether or not it's morally reprehensible, the fact that they're disgriminating against a subject means they clearly are not a public space, yet they are open to the public (the fact of a website). Unless they have a defined userbase and clearly defined boundaries i'd say what they're doing is wrong. That's one step away from saying yahoo will cancel all email accounts from anyone who votes for bush in 04.
In a public forum it's all or nothing, not how each owner defines it.
Corporations by themselves are not a threat to liberty, but corporations donating vast ammounts of money to the government to get it's way is. The government should be by the people, for the people, not for whomever gives the most ammount of campain contributions. The option really isn't to limit coporation's abilities but to limit the government once they forget their place.
Well, I'm pretty sure the downsides are a) less financial campain contributions b) no more fake wars for oil c) energy independence... i mean, interfering less with countries we have no buisness being in
Phew, looks as if there are too many negatives to continue.
Everyone equates wifi access to doors and whatnot, but it really isn't a good analogy for someone to understand.
WIFI access are like public telephones. Some of them are free, some coin operated, some of them have a lock on them letting only certain people use them and some of them are tucked away hidden for only the right people to know/use.
You can always find a public telephone, pick them up, hit some buttons on them, even fiddle around with them because they're public. If you break the lock on one of them you are doing something immoral and probably illegal. Though i'd say there's a big difference to one that has a metal lock on it to one that has a zip tie holding down the reciever.
If there is a payphone out there that's free to use yet has no sign on top of it, it should be as legal to use as one with a big sign that says "FREE ACCESS" on top of it.
Trying to see if it's free or not is not a crime. Tampering with or damaging it is illegal (I equate this to tampering with the local network or router if you do connect to one).
ohh, by that same respect i should be suing broadcasters everywhere for tresspassing into my home? I never invited tv signals or fm radio signals into my home at all, but they come in anyway. I even put a sign outside that says no em radiation allowed yet they bypass my super secure barrier. I don't get it, will the government please help me by passing idiotic and stupid laws that protect my stupidity please?
Last time i checked soliders willingly take others lives and legally at that. I'm pretty sure our president has commited the same thing through proxy by his military actions.
I think yer a dumbass. When america holds "enemy combatants" in their own prisons, a law must be applied to them. If they're POWs, then international, and if we are holding them, then yes, our own laws should apply. You can never at anytime take away all laws and say they're a special case. This leads to effectively making up your own shit as you go. Last time i checked the president didn't have special dictator powers that can make up his own country and enforce whatever cockamainy laws he sees fit.
best hacking is done through social networking. What are they gunna do? Pretend to be the chinese delivery people asking for an admin password or something?
Besides, everyone knows the best hackers are in Jails. US Jails.
Slashdot Mirror
.25$ a day?
Well i guess it depends where and what you mean by raise
The day that I can't buy a video game in NY state because it doesn't conform to this state's law is the day i move out of the state. This is just a stupid toothless law that makes it harder for anyone to enjoy video games.
I have a non legislature solution. Put the responsibility on the PARENTS when they buy something for their kids. It's that simple. Do your goddamn homework before shoveling shit to your kids. I don't think a little sticker is going to do jack about anything. There's probably more to this law than a simple sticker, you know, something that demands compliance by 2010 or so. Still, wasting time on this crap instead of important things is what bothers me the most since i live in NY.
Can anyone tell me if anyone's looked into the possibilities of these excessive pressurized rock planets having superconductors on the surface considering the recent advances in presurized metals becoming superconductors at room temps? Comebined with the fact there's a lot of acid, how electrically active is such a planet?
Are you counting the used toilet sheets after going to taco bell as well?
Explain how it causes them financial harm?
I see authorized users paying for service. I see them connecting and using their accounts.
Explain to me how a END USER License agreement affects a 3rd party developer making a utility?
They didn't agree to sign away their rights. How the hell are they being sued?
If the user chooses to run this program that violates a copyright by copying part of it into ram (which imo is bullshit, how do you violate a copyright by using the program?), then isn't it directly the end user who has to deal with the consequences?
And honestly, the whole 1 copy per license is bullshit. If i want, i can take wow and install it on 5 computers i own. I can have multiple accounts as per the service and connect to all of them at the same time (one at a time) because of the way the service is structured. I can have several wow sessions all on one computer with no restrictions (before i actually log in). I can hack my own version and connect to a non blizzard server (since the eula for the service is only agreed to when you connect to a blizzard owned server).
Everyone has a very short lived memory of how well blizzard does it's releases. Do you remember Betacraft when it first came out? It was highly unplayable, crashes, lag, broken skills, ect. Because they piecemealed the burning crusade expansion months before and delayed it until they knew it wasn't going to kill the servers you call them the gods of releases?
And you expect others to beat blizzard? Conan was more playable than wow was when it first came out. They both gave a refund of time back to the users because they were down so much.
Untrue.
FSMism has proven ID to be wrong. How the hell did this inteligent being create the universe without meatballs? It's unpossible!
lol, honestly who cares. It's louisiana. I'm suprised they know how to read over there.
I don't know. I'd like to say if it's open to the public then they should admit everyone. If there are clear and easy to understand rules posted, then people can abide by them. If they post 2000 line eulas which say you agree to this as you enter and we have every right to do whatever we want once you're inside including change the rules, i'm not too sure if i could agree to that. It's like saying prices subject to change depending if we like you or not. Not exactly the kind of buisness practices that i feel should be legal.
I dunno, places where you make an account and agree to a eula to me are public places. Anyone can sign up, there's no defined user base and there's no boundaries.
Sounds to be you're talking about a gated park that allows anyone to enter as long as they follow established easy to understand rules like, "no dogs, no alcohol, park closes at sundown" type of thing.
You sort of give away your private property status when you invite anyone to join.
If not, i guess i'll start a barbershop, and whenever i see an asian person come in i'll tell them they're not welcome there. I guess that works under private property, right?
Private property and public spaces are completly different things though. If i put up a store in a public place I must let anyone who wants to enter. I would think it's illegal for me to put up signs like "no whites" "only people with 50k or greater income allowed" "only republicans welcome" "english speaking only" ect. Yet more and more i see public places such as stores, websites, online games having policies on what is accepted and not, and yet since they're written in legalese, not being clearly understood and not being enforced all the time. Clearly if you establish a public "anyone is welcome to come and use/buy" area, then it's not strictly private. You should not be able to apply private restrictions unless the area is definately not public. A private residence for example should be accessable to a defined set of people, be locked and or gated with clear and defined borders. The owner can do whatever they want on the residence short of breaking laws. You don't want to invite christians in your residence then don't, you're in your perfect right not to. Now if you have a garage sale open to the public with a sign that says "whites only" I'm pretty sure you're in legal trouble.
That being established, websites that are open to the pubic (for anyone to use) and yet have policies against certain things (lets say dipictions of kids that smoke) are clearly crossing the boundary. Whether or not it's morally reprehensible, the fact that they're disgriminating against a subject means they clearly are not a public space, yet they are open to the public (the fact of a website). Unless they have a defined userbase and clearly defined boundaries i'd say what they're doing is wrong. That's one step away from saying yahoo will cancel all email accounts from anyone who votes for bush in 04.
In a public forum it's all or nothing, not how each owner defines it.
Corporations by themselves are not a threat to liberty, but corporations donating vast ammounts of money to the government to get it's way is. The government should be by the people, for the people, not for whomever gives the most ammount of campain contributions. The option really isn't to limit coporation's abilities but to limit the government once they forget their place.
Well, I'm pretty sure the downsides are
a) less financial campain contributions
b) no more fake wars for oil
c) energy independence... i mean, interfering less with countries we have no buisness being in
Phew, looks as if there are too many negatives to continue.
So not only does it create electricity from solar energy but provides free meals as well? Hot.
Everyone equates wifi access to doors and whatnot, but it really isn't a good analogy for someone to understand.
WIFI access are like public telephones. Some of them are free, some coin operated, some of them have a lock on them letting only certain people use them and some of them are tucked away hidden for only the right people to know/use.
You can always find a public telephone, pick them up, hit some buttons on them, even fiddle around with them because they're public. If you break the lock on one of them you are doing something immoral and probably illegal. Though i'd say there's a big difference to one that has a metal lock on it to one that has a zip tie holding down the reciever.
If there is a payphone out there that's free to use yet has no sign on top of it, it should be as legal to use as one with a big sign that says "FREE ACCESS" on top of it.
Trying to see if it's free or not is not a crime. Tampering with or damaging it is illegal (I equate this to tampering with the local network or router if you do connect to one).
ohh, by that same respect i should be suing broadcasters everywhere for tresspassing into my home? I never invited tv signals or fm radio signals into my home at all, but they come in anyway. I even put a sign outside that says no em radiation allowed yet they bypass my super secure barrier. I don't get it, will the government please help me by passing idiotic and stupid laws that protect my stupidity please?
how about using a rail gun?
Do you need a rocket?
How about a rail gun?
Sounds like if you use anything with fuel you can't really make it.
So... this has nothing to do with the Wii or a controller for that matter. It's video recognition software.
GJ.
Last time i checked soliders willingly take others lives and legally at that. I'm pretty sure our president has commited the same thing through proxy by his military actions.
I think yer a dumbass. When america holds "enemy combatants" in their own prisons, a law must be applied to them. If they're POWs, then international, and if we are holding them, then yes, our own laws should apply. You can never at anytime take away all laws and say they're a special case. This leads to effectively making up your own shit as you go. Last time i checked the president didn't have special dictator powers that can make up his own country and enforce whatever cockamainy laws he sees fit.
What should be passed is a disembarment procedure for Supreme court justices who can't fathom the idea of law.
That's a easy one. The army will enter cheat codes when playing doom and the airforce will play falcon 3.0 and provide backup against all enemys.
It'll be an unstopable one two punch!
On a serious note, i can't believe tax payer money will be spent on idiotic ideas like cyberwars in the future.
best hacking is done through social networking. What are they gunna do? Pretend to be the chinese delivery people asking for an admin password or something?
Besides, everyone knows the best hackers are in Jails. US Jails.
What's the point of putting someone on the sun? *whine whine*