So...is he a wayward European brother because he got lost and ended up in Africa? Just cos, you know, that's where Morocco was last time I looked at a map.:)
Again, you are saying fly-by-wire when you mean computer control or restraint. Systems could talk to the actual controls themselves and say "nah, G-limiting, don't do that" but it's not inherent to fly-by-wire itself.
Your water example ignores a thing or two. It would be better to realize that Mr Yuppie will gladly buy that bottle of water several days a week for the rest of his life. You want continual consumers, not someone who has to "sell their soul" and then they're done. People bitch about really expensive items, but nickel and dime them to death for the same amount and most won't notice.
Since fly-by-wire merely refers to how control inputs are processed (electrical impulses instead of hydraulic linkages), you probably mean "when we have computer-driven cars" instead.
What then, in the case where MS gives away software for free? Should there be no contract nor liability implied there?
My question prolly more relates to "at what point does the situation change?" What would be a consistent way of determining there is a contract or liability here but not there?
This is why you have to be careful with analogies. People stop using them as illustration and try to use them as actual arguments. My point, is of course, what is your point? After all, I could suggest as a counter-example that maybe the architect claimed the window was reliable, which doesn't mean Joe Criminal couldn't bust it with a tire iron, but where is the relevance to the discussion?
Is there some claim of unbreakable software (Oracle aside!) that you are referring to? I think that claim prolly doesn't get made a whole lot, if at all.
Your supposition that because something is free it should be liability exempt makes no sense. After all, that is the only difference, since both types of software would be released "as is" and at one's own risk.
In this case, the cost of the software merely relates to how much you could get suing the developer. Free software = prolly not much. Commercial software = uhh..more. It sorta depends.:)
I think people would want free software to get an exemption because they don't want the rules to apply to them. You need to be consistent in application of rules for them to mean anything.
"Common sense" (now there's a terrible term for you) isn't at all prevalent here, so why should we expect it from government? Of the people, by the people...all that jazz.
If they prolly aren't gonna plant the corn anyway, then what difference does it make if it was genetically modified?
It's prolly more likely that he just refused it out of some idiotic reason, given his normal behavior. Or more political control over the people, maybe. I doubt he suddenly became a rational, thoughtful, and caring person.
It's a night vision scope dipshit...you CAN see it.
FWIW, the original poster has no idea what he was talking about, and has mangled several different concepts together. It's likely a case of misunderstanding between his Army buddy and him, and what happens when you try to relay information like that. Remember the old "telephone" game?
It's one of those problems where you have an elitist group who desperately want the public acceptance, but don't want to open up membership in their little private club, either.
This obviously exlcudes the reasonable folk, of course. They however have a tendency to show by action, instead of preach with loud words. Too bad the idjits get all the attention instead.
It may not have been the ONLY factor, but there shouldn't be much disagreement that it was a hell of a big factor. Remember, from the late 40s to the end of the 80s, nuclear war was a real and present danger on a global scale.
Of course, the people who really make the money will by far be the last ones to be affected. It's sort of like how sanction against countries don't hurt corrupt governments, only the people that need help against those governments in the first place. Your logic is flawed in that sense.
That's why you don't make the users do it. If they save stuff on a network drive, sooner or later they don't know if it's local or network. Then they don't have to do anything differently, and you back up a directory or several of user shares.
Modding won't hurt game sales. It may not help them, but there won't be any negative affect. I still think there would be some possibility of helping game sales. Hell, you've got the box, why not play a game or two?
And as for greatly accelerating market penetration, I doubt that. It's gonna be a pretty damn small minority of people that will want to buy these things just to mod, as quite a few people have already mentioned. Geeks (to use a term loosely) tend to forget that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean the general public or even appreciable numbers of folks will actually do it. You have to look at niche markets from the outside, not the inside, if you want to grow them.
Slashdot Mirror
So...is he a wayward European brother because he got lost and ended up in Africa? Just cos, you know, that's where Morocco was last time I looked at a map. :)
Again, you are saying fly-by-wire when you mean computer control or restraint. Systems could talk to the actual controls themselves and say "nah, G-limiting, don't do that" but it's not inherent to fly-by-wire itself.
Your water example ignores a thing or two. It would be better to realize that Mr Yuppie will gladly buy that bottle of water several days a week for the rest of his life. You want continual consumers, not someone who has to "sell their soul" and then they're done. People bitch about really expensive items, but nickel and dime them to death for the same amount and most won't notice.
Since fly-by-wire merely refers to how control inputs are processed (electrical impulses instead of hydraulic linkages), you probably mean "when we have computer-driven cars" instead.
Don't forget the Hexa Troll!
It's hard to say. Sometimes that guy seems smart and cool, but other times he really seems like a moronic jackass.
What then, in the case where MS gives away software for free? Should there be no contract nor liability implied there? My question prolly more relates to "at what point does the situation change?" What would be a consistent way of determining there is a contract or liability here but not there?
That presumes the user would be able to DO anything with the source, which would be rather a stretch of assumption.
This is why you have to be careful with analogies. People stop using them as illustration and try to use them as actual arguments. My point, is of course, what is your point? After all, I could suggest as a counter-example that maybe the architect claimed the window was reliable, which doesn't mean Joe Criminal couldn't bust it with a tire iron, but where is the relevance to the discussion?
Is there some claim of unbreakable software (Oracle aside!) that you are referring to? I think that claim prolly doesn't get made a whole lot, if at all.
Your supposition that because something is free it should be liability exempt makes no sense. After all, that is the only difference, since both types of software would be released "as is" and at one's own risk.
:)
In this case, the cost of the software merely relates to how much you could get suing the developer. Free software = prolly not much. Commercial software = uhh..more. It sorta depends.
I think people would want free software to get an exemption because they don't want the rules to apply to them. You need to be consistent in application of rules for them to mean anything.
Don't ask a man with a flamethrower for a light?
FWIW, it's typically regarded as better to shoot the bad guys from a distance instead of let them get close. Just a thought. :)
"Common sense" (now there's a terrible term for you) isn't at all prevalent here, so why should we expect it from government? Of the people, by the people...all that jazz.
If they prolly aren't gonna plant the corn anyway, then what difference does it make if it was genetically modified?
It's prolly more likely that he just refused it out of some idiotic reason, given his normal behavior. Or more political control over the people, maybe. I doubt he suddenly became a rational, thoughtful, and caring person.
It's a night vision scope dipshit...you CAN see it.
FWIW, the original poster has no idea what he was talking about, and has mangled several different concepts together. It's likely a case of misunderstanding between his Army buddy and him, and what happens when you try to relay information like that. Remember the old "telephone" game?
If we're being pedantic, it should be spell it correctly, not any variant on right. :)
It's one of those problems where you have an elitist group who desperately want the public acceptance, but don't want to open up membership in their little private club, either.
This obviously exlcudes the reasonable folk, of course. They however have a tendency to show by action, instead of preach with loud words. Too bad the idjits get all the attention instead.
The A-10 in action is a beautiful thing, silly ideas about looks aside. It's a hell of a lot more graceful than people think it is.
It may not have been the ONLY factor, but there shouldn't be much disagreement that it was a hell of a big factor. Remember, from the late 40s to the end of the 80s, nuclear war was a real and present danger on a global scale.
The artist would get the same next to nothing they ordinarily get, wouldn't they? Why would it be different?
Of course, the people who really make the money will by far be the last ones to be affected. It's sort of like how sanction against countries don't hurt corrupt governments, only the people that need help against those governments in the first place. Your logic is flawed in that sense.
That's why you don't make the users do it. If they save stuff on a network drive, sooner or later they don't know if it's local or network. Then they don't have to do anything differently, and you back up a directory or several of user shares.
Not enough humor in the world, because most people DON'T.
Modding won't hurt game sales. It may not help them, but there won't be any negative affect. I still think there would be some possibility of helping game sales. Hell, you've got the box, why not play a game or two?
And as for greatly accelerating market penetration, I doubt that. It's gonna be a pretty damn small minority of people that will want to buy these things just to mod, as quite a few people have already mentioned. Geeks (to use a term loosely) tend to forget that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean the general public or even appreciable numbers of folks will actually do it. You have to look at niche markets from the outside, not the inside, if you want to grow them.
It's actually been a valid navigation concept longer than that. Not to say he didn't help come up with a new variation on an older theme, of course.