Maybe I'll try the same thing with my brand new sports coupe. If I leave the door's unlocked, it will allow people to just look through it and admire its outer *and* inner beauty.
You seemed to be happy enough with that aspect of it when you were talking approvingly of Microsoft's shared source in your previous posting.
With murder being killing that's forbidden of course, making the whole thing rather circular. "Thou shalt not do things which thou shalt not do" would cover it nicely.
And try this. Do the same test you used, but instead ask the questions "How many of you have not been able to accomplish a task with software the way you wanted to."
There will be hands on both sides, but I guarantee you there will be more on Mac users.
That would tend to suggest that the PC users would include a greater number of people who'd never tried to push the limits of what they'd already been told how to do. Realistically, anyone who's tried to do much with a computer is going to have been unable to accomplish some task with software in the way that they wanted to (probably true of pretty much any other device as well).
From the material provided it is entirely possible that all three of them had lost homework due to a crappy wintel PC which was probably from compaq and so the problem wasn't windows' fault anyway.
I don't think the advert even mentions Windows. So far as I can see Apple is competing with PC manufacturers in general and is trying to suggest that their product has advantages over PC systems in general, in this instance reliability. Macs may not actually be more reliable, I haven't used one in years so I don't know, but in using that as a selling point I think it's relevant whether the (perceived) deficiencies of the PCs arise from Windows.
Apple has an advantage in product differentiation since there products seem erm... more different:) because their main competitors have a fragmented common brand ("the PC") that they can attack but other than that any PC manufacturer could use a similar campaign to suggest that people should switch from other brands to theirs, whether they use Windows or not.
frankly, i'm glad someone is paying attention to my wants and needs
Me too, and in this case it's the legislature. If the phone company cared what I wanted they wouldn't be gathering data about my calls and trying to sell it because that's very very much not what I want.
If you're having difficulty understanding this, perhaps it will help to note that I don't want to be immersed in a tub of harmless spiders either. I don't, or shouldn't, need an explanation for either of these things. It doesn't matter whether it can hurt in any way that you comprehend. It is something unpleasant for me (and evidently for enough people that legislatures are taking note), rationalisations be damned.
If you WANT to broadcast your calling habits (or smother yourself with spiders), please note that you are still entitled to do so.
Re:Open source vs Free software
on
MAME To Become GPL?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's easy to arrive at that misunderstanding however, many people merely take the definitions of the words "open" and "source" and arrive at that conclusion.
And realistically, the OSI can hardly be surprised. They started out by claiming that a different term should be used than "Free Software" because "Free" was ambiguous, ao instead they felt it should be called "Open Source", which is no less ambiguous at all if you're using the term to mean something other than just that the source is available. I've always wondered whether any of the people claiming this believed what they were saying. It's hard to see how they could have done. Not that I have a major problem with either term, just the reasoning given was... unconvincing.
Sorry about the anonymous post. When I try to make a subtle point, I always get "-1 overrated" by people who don't read carefully. I don't know why I let the bother me, since I still gain unneeded karma.
Have you tried suggesting in your logged in posts that what you're saying is subtle and will be appreciated by people who read carefully? That should help.
Not that I don't sympathise, I always get "-1 off topic" by people who aren't astonishingly good looking, kind, generous, wise and a credit to the human race:(
It is already blocked in my library. Apparently, though, some children have.
Did they survive?
Sorry, but it's not in the same league as being hit by a car or something. If the worst you can find to get worked up about is the possibility that a child might see pornography at a library (hardly a daily occurence now is it?) then things are pretty damn good.
If this issue becomes that important to enough people, someone will deliberately violate the law i order to get it into the court system for constitutional review. Eventually, it might work its way to the Supreme Court.
What do you men "if"? The fact that this law has got into the court system for constitutional review and worked its way to the Supreme Court is exactly what everyone else here is discussing.
You still might have good arguments on the basis of the chain of evidence, though - if the blood wasn't drawn directly by the police or the court, who's to say that it's really yours?
I see your point. The doctor would presumably give evidence in court to the effect that the blood sample was taken from the defendant, but if the evidence is that he deliberatly betrayed the trust of a patient in his care then he obviously can't be trusted; how much is his word worth to anyone?
Of course, all this is based on the original post about this, I have no idea whether this really even happened:)
I'd also bitch about doctor-patient privilege (essentially the doctor has handed over sensitive medical information) but I don't imagine that's a defense in court.
Yep, on the facts as presented the doctor has clearly done something unforgiveable. He shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine after that and you'd think he could be sued. But I don't think that should mean that the court can't hear his evidence, just that they should view it as the word of a man who seemingly lacks any integrity.
You can thank the war on drugs for that. According to the Supreme Court, if a doctor takes a sample of your blood for a routine test (which you agree to), and that doctor decides to also run a drug test on that sample (without your knowledge), the doctor can hand the sample over to the police, and the police can use the test results to convict you in court. The court reasoned that the police do not need a warrant if the evidence is voluntarily handed over to them.
I don't see a problem with that. Obviously the doctor should be disbarred from practising medicine in the future, it's apalling for a doctor to behave like that, but the police and courts relying on the evidence he provided doesn't seem to be wrong in itself.
Actually, try here for a much more thorough analysis: http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/volum e1/ lrc_3.html but general rule is what I said, most contracts with minors are valid unless and until repudiated by the minor
Maybe it's different in the US, but certainly in the UK there's no general reason why minors can't enter into legal agreements. Otherwise (just off the top of my head) they wouldn't be legally able to walk into a shop and buy sweets, or indeed to buy and install a copy of Windows.
In the UK minors can enter into contracts, and those contracts are valid. However the contracts are voidable by the minor i.e. at whatever point they want to cancel the contract and not be further bound by it they can.
Companies that can't compete in a free market using the force of govt. to aid them sounds a bit like tyranny to me. MS never used force, they only negotiated contracts.
This is untrue. The same sort of force used against Microsft has been and is being used by them.
Copyrights are an invention of government supported by the force of the state in exactly the same way that anti-trust laws are. The intention in copyright laws is to create market conditions considered desirable by government, just like anti-trust laws. Microsoft makes use of these laws, and the force of the state behind them, just like anti-trust laws are being used against them.
If you like one set of laws and dislike the other then by all means make your arguments, you may even be right:) but to claim that force is being used against Microsoft and hasn't been used by them is dishonest.
Speaking as someone who had to get a job in high school, it's sometimes kinda tough to get a job that even pays decently. These services will continue as long as someone keeps buying from them.
So yes, needing a job makes it ok to sell a product (piss you off).
So you're getting your blood money, why shouldn't you take the grief that comes with it?
Also [paranoid mode on] as buyers are likely to have an illegal collection of movies, if you ever buy those standalone DivX players, don't pay by check nor CC.
That's right the police'll break the door down and burst into your house with guns blazing. Just like I had this friend once who parked on a yellow line and... well, nothing happened really.
hmm, that must mean... *queries*...179 of the distinct Lynx visitors I've had in this past year must be faking their user_agent then. (Or switching ip and lynx versions a lot that is of course also possible.)
Of course, it's all us Internet Explorer users who've hacked it to report as Lynx so that we can be outraged when web sites refuse us too. Why should the rest of you get all the fun?
The problem is you *haven't* bought the software, you've licensed it. Thats the whole point of the EULA. Because of that, you have no right to use the software unless you follow the terms of the license.
If I walk into a shop, pick a copy of Word off the shelf, take it to the counter and say "I'd like to buy this please" then I abolutely 100% agree that the salesperson can say "I can't sell that to you but I can license it to you for the following limited uses, just sign here and here...". But you, me and the salesperson both all know that that's nothing like what happens. Furthermore I think we all have a pretty good idea that any shop that actually tries to license software to people who were looking to buy something are going to be running low on customers pretty fast. If you think it's a good business model then you try it, nobody else wants to.
the GPL says how source can be used, and you agree to it's terms before you use the source code.
No. The GPL only covers distribution. Admitedly that includes distribution of derivative works but it places no restrictions whatsoever on your own use of the code. It's only when you redistribute the copyrighted work, or a derivative of the copyrighted work, that you have to comply with the GPL. Up to that point you can use the code any way you please.
This isn't accurate, not under U.S. law anyway. Copyright is granted automatically to a creator of any specific formulation of an idea, such as an essay or a piece of software...
Of courtse. And assuming that you're at least vaguely aware of the principles of copyright law then presumably you realise that it restricts copying, and public performance, not use.
If I write a book and give you a copy or sell you a copy or sell your best friend's mother's sister a copy and she lends it to you then you are 100% unquestionably entitled to read it. You can't copy it, that's what copyright is about, but read it sure of course you can. The same goes with software, go ahead and use it. It's copying that's forbidden by copyright law.
The same is true for software. A EULA (and the GPL) do not take away any rights from a user, they specify what rights the copyright holder grants the user. Without either, the user would have no rights.
Rubbish. The user has countless rights. The user has every right not actually prohibited by law. That means the user doesn't have the right to copy it. The user does have the right to use it, the user also has the right to sacrifice it to a dark god or to bury it in clay.
The GPL gives you rights to copy the software which you would not otherwise have. Those are rights that are otherwise prohibited by copyright law. EULAs, at least in general, do not. They purport to restrict rights that you would otherwise have. I agree that at least in sanely governed jurisdictions they will not be succesful in this.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'll try the same thing with my brand new sports coupe. If I leave the door's unlocked, it will allow people to just look through it and admire its outer *and* inner beauty.
You seemed to be happy enough with that aspect of it when you were talking approvingly of Microsoft's shared source in your previous posting.
"Thou shalt not murder".
With murder being killing that's forbidden of course, making the whole thing rather circular. "Thou shalt not do things which thou shalt not do" would cover it nicely.
And try this. Do the same test you used, but instead ask the questions "How many of you have not been able to accomplish a task with software the way you wanted to."
There will be hands on both sides, but I guarantee you there will be more on Mac users.
That would tend to suggest that the PC users would include a greater number of people who'd never tried to push the limits of what they'd already been told how to do. Realistically, anyone who's tried to do much with a computer is going to have been unable to accomplish some task with software in the way that they wanted to (probably true of pretty much any other device as well).
ermmm "think it's relevant" should be "don't think it's relevant", of course.
From the material provided it is entirely possible that all three of them had lost homework due to a crappy wintel PC which was probably from compaq and so the problem wasn't windows' fault anyway.
:) because their main competitors have a fragmented common brand ("the PC") that they can attack but other than that any PC manufacturer could use a similar campaign to suggest that people should switch from other brands to theirs, whether they use Windows or not.
I don't think the advert even mentions Windows. So far as I can see Apple is competing with PC manufacturers in general and is trying to suggest that their product has advantages over PC systems in general, in this instance reliability. Macs may not actually be more reliable, I haven't used one in years so I don't know, but in using that as a selling point I think it's relevant whether the (perceived) deficiencies of the PCs arise from Windows.
Apple has an advantage in product differentiation since there products seem erm... more different
frankly, i'm glad someone is paying attention to my wants and needs
Me too, and in this case it's the legislature. If the phone company cared what I wanted they wouldn't be gathering data about my calls and trying to sell it because that's very very much not what I want.
If you're having difficulty understanding this, perhaps it will help to note that I don't want to be immersed in a tub of harmless spiders either. I don't, or shouldn't, need an explanation for either of these things. It doesn't matter whether it can hurt in any way that you comprehend. It is something unpleasant for me (and evidently for enough people that legislatures are taking note), rationalisations be damned.
If you WANT to broadcast your calling habits (or smother yourself with spiders), please note that you are still entitled to do so.
It's easy to arrive at that misunderstanding however, many people merely take the definitions of the words "open" and "source" and arrive at that conclusion.
And realistically, the OSI can hardly be surprised. They started out by claiming that a different term should be used than "Free Software" because "Free" was ambiguous, ao instead they felt it should be called "Open Source", which is no less ambiguous at all if you're using the term to mean something other than just that the source is available. I've always wondered whether any of the people claiming this believed what they were saying. It's hard to see how they could have done. Not that I have a major problem with either term, just the reasoning given was... unconvincing.
Sorry about the anonymous post. When I try to make a subtle point, I always get "-1 overrated" by people who don't read carefully. I don't know why I let the bother me, since I still gain unneeded karma.
:(
Have you tried suggesting in your logged in posts that what you're saying is subtle and will be appreciated by people who read carefully? That should help.
Not that I don't sympathise, I always get "-1 off topic" by people who aren't astonishingly good looking, kind, generous, wise and a credit to the human race
It is already blocked in my library. Apparently, though, some children have.
Did they survive?
Sorry, but it's not in the same league as being hit by a car or something. If the worst you can find to get worked up about is the possibility that a child might see pornography at a library (hardly a daily occurence now is it?) then things are pretty damn good.
If this issue becomes that important to enough people, someone will deliberately violate the law i order to get it into the court system for constitutional review. Eventually, it might work its way to the Supreme Court.
What do you men "if"? The fact that this law has got into the court system for constitutional review and worked its way to the Supreme Court is exactly what everyone else here is discussing.
you a lawyer or something?
No. I do have a law degree, but probably not relevant to your jurisdiction and I am not a lawyer.
You still might have good arguments on the basis of the chain of evidence, though - if the blood wasn't drawn directly by the police or the court, who's to say that it's really yours?
:)
I see your point. The doctor would presumably give evidence in court to the effect that the blood sample was taken from the defendant, but if the evidence is that he deliberatly betrayed the trust of a patient in his care then he obviously can't be trusted; how much is his word worth to anyone?
Of course, all this is based on the original post about this, I have no idea whether this really even happened
I'd also bitch about doctor-patient privilege (essentially the doctor has handed over sensitive medical information) but I don't imagine that's a defense in court.
Yep, on the facts as presented the doctor has clearly done something unforgiveable. He shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine after that and you'd think he could be sued. But I don't think that should mean that the court can't hear his evidence, just that they should view it as the word of a man who seemingly lacks any integrity.
You can thank the war on drugs for that. According to the Supreme Court, if a doctor takes a sample of your blood for a routine test (which you agree to), and that doctor decides to also run a drug test on that sample (without your knowledge), the doctor can hand the sample over to the police, and the police can use the test results to convict you in court. The court reasoned that the police do not need a warrant if the evidence is voluntarily handed over to them.
I don't see a problem with that. Obviously the doctor should be disbarred from practising medicine in the future, it's apalling for a doctor to behave like that, but the police and courts relying on the evidence he provided doesn't seem to be wrong in itself.
did anyone in politics "hold these truths to be self-evident" like basic freedoms we enjoy today, like free speech, before someone wrote it? no.
If nobody did then the bit about them being self-evident is obviously wrong.
I get so tired of the Microsoft VS. Linux arguement. I really don't know what the big deal is.
Right... so having said that, why did you then post a bunch of Microsoft vs, Linux arguments? You wanted to get really really tired?
Actually, try here for a much more thorough analysis :m e1/ lrc_3.html
http://www.lawreform.ie/publications/data/volu
but general rule is what I said, most contracts with minors are valid unless and until repudiated by the minor
Maybe it's different in the US, but certainly in the UK there's no general reason why minors can't enter into legal agreements. Otherwise (just off the top of my head) they wouldn't be legally able to walk into a shop and buy sweets, or indeed to buy and install a copy of Windows.
In the UK minors can enter into contracts, and those contracts are valid. However the contracts are voidable by the minor i.e. at whatever point they want to cancel the contract and not be further bound by it they can.
Because it doesn't say anything about displaying it for _personal_ use. At least, not in the part you cited. Cheers!
Provided that you don't engage in commerce, for example by buying a ticket from them, since commerical use is banned.
Companies that can't compete in a free market using the force of govt. to aid them sounds a bit like tyranny to me. MS never used force, they only negotiated contracts.
:) but to claim that force is being used against Microsoft and hasn't been used by them is dishonest.
This is untrue. The same sort of force used against Microsft has been and is being used by them.
Copyrights are an invention of government supported by the force of the state in exactly the same way that anti-trust laws are. The intention in copyright laws is to create market conditions considered desirable by government, just like anti-trust laws. Microsoft makes use of these laws, and the force of the state behind them, just like anti-trust laws are being used against them.
If you like one set of laws and dislike the other then by all means make your arguments, you may even be right
Speaking as someone who had to get a job in high school, it's sometimes kinda tough to get a job that even pays decently. These services will continue as long as someone keeps buying from them.
So yes, needing a job makes it ok to sell a product (piss you off).
So you're getting your blood money, why shouldn't you take the grief that comes with it?
Also [paranoid mode on] as buyers are likely to have an illegal collection of movies, if you ever buy those standalone DivX players, don't pay by check nor CC.
That's right the police'll break the door down and burst into your house with guns blazing. Just like I had this friend once who parked on a yellow line and... well, nothing happened really.
hmm, that must mean... *queries* ...179 of the distinct Lynx visitors I've had in this past year must be faking their user_agent then. (Or switching ip and lynx versions a lot that is of course also possible.)
Of course, it's all us Internet Explorer users who've hacked it to report as Lynx so that we can be outraged when web sites refuse us too. Why should the rest of you get all the fun?
The problem is you *haven't* bought the software, you've licensed it. Thats the whole point of the EULA. Because of that, you have no right to use the software unless you follow the terms of the license.
If I walk into a shop, pick a copy of Word off the shelf, take it to the counter and say "I'd like to buy this please" then I abolutely 100% agree that the salesperson can say "I can't sell that to you but I can license it to you for the following limited uses, just sign here and here...". But you, me and the salesperson both all know that that's nothing like what happens. Furthermore I think we all have a pretty good idea that any shop that actually tries to license software to people who were looking to buy something are going to be running low on customers pretty fast. If you think it's a good business model then you try it, nobody else wants to.
the GPL says how source can be used, and you agree to it's terms before you use the source code.
No. The GPL only covers distribution. Admitedly that includes distribution of derivative works but it places no restrictions whatsoever on your own use of the code. It's only when you redistribute the copyrighted work, or a derivative of the copyrighted work, that you have to comply with the GPL. Up to that point you can use the code any way you please.
This isn't accurate, not under U.S. law anyway. Copyright is granted automatically to a creator of any specific formulation of an idea, such as an essay or a piece of software...
Of courtse. And assuming that you're at least vaguely aware of the principles of copyright law then presumably you realise that it restricts copying, and public performance, not use.
If I write a book and give you a copy or sell you a copy or sell your best friend's mother's sister a copy and she lends it to you then you are 100% unquestionably entitled to read it. You can't copy it, that's what copyright is about, but read it sure of course you can. The same goes with software, go ahead and use it. It's copying that's forbidden by copyright law.
The same is true for software. A EULA (and the GPL) do not take away any rights from a user, they specify what rights the copyright holder grants the user. Without either, the user would have no rights.
Rubbish. The user has countless rights. The user has every right not actually prohibited by law. That means the user doesn't have the right to copy it. The user does have the right to use it, the user also has the right to sacrifice it to a dark god or to bury it in clay.
The GPL gives you rights to copy the software which you would not otherwise have. Those are rights that are otherwise prohibited by copyright law. EULAs, at least in general, do not. They purport to restrict rights that you would otherwise have. I agree that at least in sanely governed jurisdictions they will not be succesful in this.