If he does, he could find himself locked into the GPL, which he may not want. GPL software is not as free as most people think.
Some people say that the GPL contains a "virus", in that GPL code can only be used with other GPL code. If any non-GPL code mixes with GPL code, the non-GPL code is infected with the virus and becomes GPL code.
So, the GPL has herpes. If you've already got herpes then you're probably seeking others with your condition; or you may not care who you infect. Either way, if you don't want herpes you'll probably avoid those that have it.
Perhaps this guy doesn't want his code to catch herpes.
Yellow Submarine is on the list. Are you trying to tell me the director told the animators to draw a 4:3 ratio movie so he could crop it top and bottom to look widescreen? NOBODY draws an animated cartoon like that. Lots of cartoons were cropped to make them look "widescreen" but the director never intended them to be shown cropped, and I don't see why MGM should get away with selling them that way.
If the director composed the shot for widescreen, why didn't they film it that way? If they're simply cheap (which MGM is), then I can certainly understand them using the original, non-cropped 4:3 version for DVD release, since it's cheaper than doing a proper pan-and-scan on the widescreen version. I understand it, but I don't like it. And for them to say this version is "Modified to fit your screen" is a lie.
These peoples reasoning is that because the full frame version is an open matte version of the widescreen that they were ripped off on the widescreen version?
Yes. Exactly. When I buy a widescreen version I do it because I want to see the entire movie, not some pan-and-scan hack job. But in MGM's case, the so-called "widescreen" DVDs actually give us LESS of the original film, while the "fullscreen" version is the one that shows the entire film. I bought the widescreen version because MGM misled me into thinking it was the full version when in fact it is the butchered version. So yes, I feel ripped off.
Damn, some people really need to get a life.
Yes, you do. You hang out on Slashdot way too much for your own good.
this does not mean the widescreen movies are butchered. They are not.
That depends on what you mean by "butchered". I buy the widescreen version so that I can see the entire film as it was originally shot. These so-called "widescreen" DVDs give us LESS than the entire film. In the case of these movies, the "fullscreen" version gives you the whole movie, the "widescreen" version gives you less than the whole movie. That's butchered, in my opinion.
It never says that you're restricted to using the program on one machine. Since copying the game in a ROM is a prerequisite to playing the game in an emulator, it falls under provision 1. It's exactly akin to making a copy in RAM, because it's required to make a copy to use it on the computer.
Aw, you beat me to it! That's exactly what I was going to say.
Now, to use his example, if his PC could read a C64 formatted 5 1/4" floppy disk, then he wouldn't need the D64 file, he could just play the game via the emulator by putting his legal copy of the disk into his PC. But since he can't do that, he has to use the D64 file. Nothing illegal about that! (IANAL) It becomes illegal in the case where you don't own the orginal disk, which is how everyone but Matt Matthews will continue to opperate until a court tells us otherwise.
When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras!
Re:So don't use a camera that honors this...
on
No Pictures, Thanks
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I don't know where you live, but this is the United Police States of Intellectual Property Protection. No doubt this will be mandated (and only the government will be allowed cameras without this feature) once HP makes the requisite "donations" to key Congress Persons. They may need to rally the RIAA and MPAA for support, but this is just another form of DRM so it should be an easy sell.
Besides, it's a vital tool in our war against terror. After all, think of the children!
You shouldn't have to patch your browser to fix a broken web page! Should we need a patch for each and every web site? NO! If the web sites follow the standards, and the browsers follow the standards, then there's no need for any patches.
I've heard of web sites using patches to get around browser defects, but patching a browser to get around ONE web site's defects? That's crazy!
If one FBI agent installs it on an FBI computer, they're accepting the EULA on behalf of the entire FBI, including the other agent with the packet sniffer. Hey, IANAL, but this interpretation seems in line with other recent court decisions, or at least not totally unbelieveable.
Maybe this EULA won't work the way I'm describing, but I'm sure Gator thinks (or hopes) it will. The question was "how can the EULA be enforceable if you don't know you've installed Gator?" and I think I answered that. It's enforcable in the only case that matters to Gator: the case where someone out to get them installs it on purpose to see how it works.
Seriously, the best solution is to teach your kid what "no" means. We've got an antique shelf filled with delecate family dishes and other valuables, and both of our kids learned not to go near it. Of course, we also gave them pretty much the run of the rest of the house and left lots of un-childproofed drawers for them to explore.
Frankly, with four working computers in this house (not counting the firewall), the only problem caused by children is their tendency to mimic mommy and daddy and try to type something or click the mouse, problems you're going to have no matter what you do with the VGA cable. As a father I really think this is a non-issue.
Well, OK, but why is this filed under YRO? This has nothing to do with the general Slashdot reader's rights, and it's about working conditions, not being online.
I think you're missing the point. Let's say Gator's software is reading all your email and sending copies back to them. How would you know? If you ever found out and complained, Gator can say there's no way for you to know this without violating the terms of the license, which means you had no right to use their software, which opens you up to penalties for copyright violation and makes any evidence you may have inadmissable in court. Which puts the current efforts to criminalize what has until now been a civil issue in a whole new light. Leave it to the real bad guys to misuse a tool designed to catch folks who share music.
You realize that this means even the FBI can't test Gator to see if it snags people's data and sends it "home". Nobody can, legally.
Why would anyone download a browser to browse in IE?
AOL's browser (the one that comes on all those CDs) is based on IE. This is probably the first step in migrating it from IE to Netscape. Why else did AOL buy Netscape?
Also, I use Avant, which is based on IE, because it offers features not found elsewhere (such as movable tabs, multiple rows of tabs, and remembering your open tabs when you close it, features Firefox lacks).
Haven't you heard? We've been at "war" since 9/11/2001. It will be wartime in America for the forseeable future -- at least, until we've locked up all the undesireables and made the world safe for Haliburton.
Then I must be one of the five. Unless you somehow think my copy of Windows is illegal. Actually, I have two copies for my laptop: the XP Home that came with it, and the XP Pro that I put on it. So I guess that makes me two of the five:-)
I've got dead spots all over the place (T-Mobile, but it's the only company that has a signal at my house). What cell service do you have that's only dead in one specific spot? (bummer that it's where you work -- you should keep the phone and change jobs.) If it's Verizon, you should get that "can you hear me now" dude to come visit.
If our society were exactly as it is today, except the internal combustion engine was never invented, and today you invented it, you'd NEVER be allowed to sell vehicles using it fuled by gasoline. It's toxic and it polutes the ground and the water and the air. It's dangerous. It's a carcinogin (it causes cancer). It basically sucks as something to have around your family. The only reason we use it today is because it was introduced long before safety and enviornmental laws.
Oh, and where do you suggest we get this "tar" to make gasoline from? Do you even know how we make tar?
Yes, but Sam Reed is the guy who approved the current machines without a paper trail, and he's the guy who believed the manufactuers who said we can't have a paper trail until 2006, even though some states got the paper trail this year. He may now support the paper trail idea, but he's not pursuing it very aggressively.
This is absolutely true. Road and Track magazine does an April Fools road test each year (the Budwiser beer wagon, the Goodyear blimp, etc.). One year they decided that while they had done road tests, they had never tested road, so that's what they did. They got with their DoT and looked at the equipment that's used to test roads. Stuff I'd never imagined, like a gizmo that looks like a huge steam roller but what it does is measure the deflection of the pavement (why? I don't recall, but it's important to the pavement wonks).
Anyway, one tidbit of information I took away from that article was the fact that roads last longer if you use them, but not if you abuse them. Remote roads that are seldom used actually break up faster than roads that are moderately used. Cars use them, constantly rolling them flat; trucks abuse them, constantly squeezing them like a toothpaste tube.
I, too, am more interested in the principles (in Dino's case, gutting consumer protection laws in the hame of "tort reform," trashing the enviornment in the name of "buracracy reduction," and cutting taxes first and foremost THEN figuring out which programs to gut in the name of "fiscal responsibility") than the specifics he takes to get there (We'll cut this fee, then we'll cut that tax, then we'll cover the shortfall by closing parks. We'll cut government by laying off half the workers in the DOT then we'll give the road maintenence jobs to my buddies. Etc.).
This is now so far off topic that I quit. Reply if you wish, but I'm moving on.
Slashdot Mirror
Buy Dad a TiVo and use it to record "Enterprise."
Or is this word the one you don't understand?
Some people say that the GPL contains a "virus", in that GPL code can only be used with other GPL code. If any non-GPL code mixes with GPL code, the non-GPL code is infected with the virus and becomes GPL code.
So, the GPL has herpes. If you've already got herpes then you're probably seeking others with your condition; or you may not care who you infect. Either way, if you don't want herpes you'll probably avoid those that have it.
Perhaps this guy doesn't want his code to catch herpes.
If the director composed the shot for widescreen, why didn't they film it that way? If they're simply cheap (which MGM is), then I can certainly understand them using the original, non-cropped 4:3 version for DVD release, since it's cheaper than doing a proper pan-and-scan on the widescreen version. I understand it, but I don't like it. And for them to say this version is "Modified to fit your screen" is a lie.
Now, to use his example, if his PC could read a C64 formatted 5 1/4" floppy disk, then he wouldn't need the D64 file, he could just play the game via the emulator by putting his legal copy of the disk into his PC. But since he can't do that, he has to use the D64 file. Nothing illegal about that! (IANAL) It becomes illegal in the case where you don't own the orginal disk, which is how everyone but Matt Matthews will continue to opperate until a court tells us otherwise.
When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras!
Besides, it's a vital tool in our war against terror. After all, think of the children!
I've heard of web sites using patches to get around browser defects, but patching a browser to get around ONE web site's defects? That's crazy!
Maybe this EULA won't work the way I'm describing, but I'm sure Gator thinks (or hopes) it will. The question was "how can the EULA be enforceable if you don't know you've installed Gator?" and I think I answered that. It's enforcable in the only case that matters to Gator: the case where someone out to get them installs it on purpose to see how it works.
Frankly, with four working computers in this house (not counting the firewall), the only problem caused by children is their tendency to mimic mommy and daddy and try to type something or click the mouse, problems you're going to have no matter what you do with the VGA cable. As a father I really think this is a non-issue.
Well, OK, but why is this filed under YRO? This has nothing to do with the general Slashdot reader's rights, and it's about working conditions, not being online.
You realize that this means even the FBI can't test Gator to see if it snags people's data and sends it "home". Nobody can, legally.
Yippie-skippie! Thanks.
Also, I use Avant, which is based on IE, because it offers features not found elsewhere (such as movable tabs, multiple rows of tabs, and remembering your open tabs when you close it, features Firefox lacks).
Why? No need to appologise. The lameness filter is, well, lame. As is the 20 second rule.
Haven't you heard? We've been at "war" since 9/11/2001. It will be wartime in America for the forseeable future -- at least, until we've locked up all the undesireables and made the world safe for Haliburton.
Then I must be one of the five. Unless you somehow think my copy of Windows is illegal. Actually, I have two copies for my laptop: the XP Home that came with it, and the XP Pro that I put on it. So I guess that makes me two of the five :-)
I've got dead spots all over the place (T-Mobile, but it's the only company that has a signal at my house). What cell service do you have that's only dead in one specific spot? (bummer that it's where you work -- you should keep the phone and change jobs.) If it's Verizon, you should get that "can you hear me now" dude to come visit.
Oh, and where do you suggest we get this "tar" to make gasoline from? Do you even know how we make tar?
Yes, but Sam Reed is the guy who approved the current machines without a paper trail, and he's the guy who believed the manufactuers who said we can't have a paper trail until 2006, even though some states got the paper trail this year. He may now support the paper trail idea, but he's not pursuing it very aggressively.
Anyway, one tidbit of information I took away from that article was the fact that roads last longer if you use them, but not if you abuse them. Remote roads that are seldom used actually break up faster than roads that are moderately used. Cars use them, constantly rolling them flat; trucks abuse them, constantly squeezing them like a toothpaste tube.
This is now so far off topic that I quit. Reply if you wish, but I'm moving on.