Are you implying that you think that the RIAA is trying to get laws passed requiring all CDs to be "crippled"? If not, politicians have nothing to do with it. It's the consumer's dollars that matter, and this survey implies that the consumers are going to use those dollars to vote NO.
And even if it did, the contract you agreed to when you arranged to have the cable service installed would have to provide actual references for the included EULAs telling you where you could get copies. "Anything we feel like sticking on the install CD is hereby included by reference" won't work.
To give one relatively recent example, in the late sixties all construction projects receiving Federal money sprouted signs announcing that fact. The largest letters on those signs spelled out "PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON".
> But this company is still within the letter of > the law,...
Not likely. Contracts of adhesion of this sort are subject to fairly strict standards. The terms must be such that a prudent person would consider them reasonable and expected given the subject matter. If they were to sue you for preventing their worm from using your address book, they would almost certainly lose.
Unfortunately, they probably don't care about that. What they do care about is being able to say "Hey! You were warned!" if you sue them.
> And no, just hoping everyone's going to be > running 64-bit systems by then is not going to > help if you have, for example, file formats which > only allocate 4 bytes to storing a time_t value.
If you are storing time_t in files as an int you deserve what you will get.
> I wonder how many C programmers will be called > out of their holes to patch programs similar to > the hunt for COBOL experts at the end of last > > century.
About one. The problem, if any, is trivial compared to the COBOL one.
>...you are allowed to use it in a "fair use" > context, and they have no expectation that their > message remain private. That is, you can quote > the most relevant portions, and explain the whole > situation in your own words.
You can quote the whole thing if that is what it takes to make your point. This is likely to be the case with these sorts of emails.
Re:Make 2.6.3 usable, never install a dot-oh versi
on
Linux Kernel 3.0?
·
· Score: 2
Slashdot Mirror
Are you implying that you think that the RIAA is trying to get laws passed requiring all CDs to be "crippled"? If not, politicians have nothing to do with it. It's the consumer's dollars that matter, and this survey implies that the consumers are going to use those dollars to vote NO.
And even if it did, the contract you agreed to when you arranged to have the cable service installed would have to provide actual references for the included EULAs telling you where you could get copies. "Anything we feel like sticking on the install CD is hereby included by reference" won't work.
> Not really. There are lots of contracts that
> refer to other contracts and "incorporate" their
> terms "by refrence".
I don't believe that this works for a contract of adhesion.
Such an agreement would not be binding unless it included the texts of all the EULAs.
> Most banks will give members additional free
> checking accounts.
Don't open your special PayPal account at any bank at which you have any other accounts. To understand why, read your bank's terms of service.
> Of course Progeny released recently the PGI
> graphical installer, but it is not as complete as
> the current Debian text-based installer
More importantly, it's i386 only.
3 or 4 years? ROTFLMAO!
To give one relatively recent example, in the late sixties all construction projects receiving Federal money sprouted signs announcing that fact. The largest letters on those signs spelled out "PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON".
> But this company is still within the letter of
> the law,...
Not likely. Contracts of adhesion of this sort are subject to fairly strict standards. The terms must be such that a prudent person would consider them reasonable and expected given the subject matter. If they were to sue you for preventing their worm from using your address book, they would almost certainly lose.
Unfortunately, they probably don't care about that. What they do care about is being able to say "Hey! You were warned!" if you sue them.
> Can you suggest a better option for use in
> installing software you download from the
> internet?
Any Free Software license (GPL, BSD...) works for me.
> this technology can be molded to clear displays
> in plastic casing that can bend easliy to mold
> lots of curves... leading the way for HUDs
I don't think HUDs work the way you think they do.
Lying is not illegal.
> Traditionally the .org domain was for individuals and non-profits.
.org domain was for anything that didn't fit anywhere else.
Traditionally the
> Why is everyone making such a big deal about
> Blender?
Everyone isn't (I'm not, for example). Only those who care are. There just happen to be a lot of them, and they care enough to actually do something.
> And going so far as to buy it as a community to
> GPL it?
The community that bought it is the community of those who care. It's their business how they spend their money.
> Why the hell doesn't the community get organized
> and purchase [Bynari's Insight server]?
Why the hell don't you get off your ass and organize it to do so?
> And no, just hoping everyone's going to be
> running 64-bit systems by then is not going to
> help if you have, for example, file formats which
> only allocate 4 bytes to storing a time_t value.
If you are storing time_t in files as an int you deserve what you will get.
> I wonder how many C programmers will be called
> out of their holes to patch programs similar to
> the hunt for COBOL experts at the end of last > > century.
About one. The problem, if any, is trivial compared to the COBOL one.
How about if I tell you that one of the competing technologies uses tiny internal combustion engines fabricated by etching silicon?
The fact that the system relies on body capacitance to complete the circuit also means that it will be possible to intercept the signal.
> Besides, if they really even cared to monitor
> you, they wouldn't hit your website from their
> own addresses.
You assume that they care if you know they are monitoring you.
That is not what I see at http://www.fedscope.com/faq.php
> Or perhaps that's just a legend?
An urban legend, with emphasis on the urban.
The US will not extradite you for doing something which is not a crime in the US.
Not that I could afford to anyway...
'The Hunt For Red October" isn't private information either. Go ahead and post it.
> IANAL
This is very clear.
Only if the work was registered at the time of the infringement.
> ...you are allowed to use it in a "fair use"
> context, and they have no expectation that their
> message remain private. That is, you can quote
> the most relevant portions, and explain the whole
> situation in your own words.
You can quote the whole thing if that is what it takes to make your point. This is likely to be the case with these sorts of emails.
So make it 3.2.