I've been removing the license agreements from things before I install them for some time now. As far as I can tell, and, of course, IANAL, this should be perfectly valid. Assuming of course that click-through is legal at all, then I should only be bound to what _I_ click. I kinda want someone to sue me so I can force the issue on court.
I understand that one of the very first people to actively - er - stimulate the online economy of UO was someone with 2 characters - one male, name "Sharky", and one female, named "Susie"....
I know more than a few RL relationships that ended up being ruined over people they met online (MUD, not EQ, but same thing really). Of course, I also know more than a few people who met that way and have wonderful, loving relationships to this day.
Well, even if the NT kernel is preemtible, the implementation sucks. Overloading or crashing drivers can and will lock up every other process on the machine, while with 2k a hung kernel process doesn't kill the entire machine. Of course, it may just be a better-behaved shell, I haven't done any real testing, just my observations.
As long as we're all being offtopic here - a) you don't need to accept God. AA defines a "higher power", which can be God or anything else. It's a neccesary step because the 1st is admiting that you have no personal control. Not having any personal control, you need to put your faith in something else.
b) - you can be court ordered to attend AA meetings, but you have no obligation to work the program. It's no different than courts ordering marriage counseling in divorce cases. There has never been a court order to "complete the program", because there is no completion - this is a basic tenent of the AA program. There is also no third party "asessing" your progress, and rejecting you if you don't "accept God". There's no boss, and no gold stars. AA is a support group and a methodology, it has very little structure and no authorities.
Please learn a little bit about topics before you rant. Especially when it's offtopic.
"its components that you are utilizing" may be considered, for example, any dll on your system. Arguably, any program that makes any system calls at all could be considered a component. While I think it's perfectly possible that this is, in fact, intended as a CYA with regards to auto-update, you should note that the language doesn't mention the windows update service - meaning this clause would hold even if you disabled windows update. Which could mean you're in violation if you don't, for example, download the latest patch to the DRM utlities.
Other people have replied about the open source thing - I post using Arkanes because thats the name I use in every online forum and it identifies me at least as well as my "real" name does.
I think it's pretty damn arrogant of you to think that YOU get to decide what "Open Source" is. It's source code. It once was closed. It now is open. Therefore, it's open source. If RMS had his silly trademark you'd have room to bitch, but you don't, so shut up.
Something people seem to forget is that copyright doesn't give you some magic right to control how your work is displayed - it doesn't matter that it's "not how the author intended it". This is why people can quote reviews out of context. As long as you are within the limits of fair use, you can display it however you want.
I, personally, would say that deep linking doesn't constitute copying at all - however, since the courts seem to think that the "temporary copy in RAM" is copying under copyright law, who the hell knows what they think.
To me, the only issue here is the presentation. Obviously, for a search engine, there's no misrepresentation of who the actual creator is, so it should be a none issue. Example is the Ask Jeeves search, which sends you to your result page within a frame, with an add in a banner frame.
It's still harder than a hole punch, however. I wouldn't know where to go to get a magwriter (well, I would, but I've never actually bought on or shopped for one), but I certainly can duplicate a punch card with the hole punch in my desk and/or a razor blade.
I find end users to be a much greater source of "featurebloat" than my own twisted desires. And when they complain about how basic computer operations work, which, in my experience, is quite rare - people generally accept them even if they have to learn it by rote - it IS valid to tell them that they don't understand the technolgy. Because the people in question don't have any better ideas, except that it should "know what you want". These are the same people who will keep the same car for 40 years, not because of emotional atachment, price, or reliability, but because they can't figure out, or are unwilling to figure out, how to drive a new one.
The only instinctive interface is the nipple. All others are learned. Some people are less able to learn than others.
Man, I think someone's got a dead end job and too much cynicsm. Personally, I ENJOY writing tight, fast, efficent code, and will, in my spare time, go over old code and see where I can clean some things up, maybe clarify a comment...
You just are wrong in so many places... people who enjoy and time pride in thier jobs almost inevitably are better at them, because they put more effort into them, care about losing them, and don't look for things to keep them from working. Customer service is an excellent example, I know a couple people who actually enjoy working at the help desk. They're much more helpful (read: better at thier job) than the people who hate it and just try to get you to go away.
As for the army... a great deal of conditioning goes into allowing soldiers to objectify enemies, allowing them to take pride and pleasure in killing without feeling the guilt that they would if they didn't have that. Even more so in the modern era of "technical" warfare.
If you don't like traffic coming to your site, close it down. That's all you're saying. YOU made the decision to put up a web page, if you don't want people linking to your site, or if you want it private, or any number of other things, then you need to not have a public web page.
Now, embeding your content on thier page is borderline, as I said, because they (could be) branding your content as thier own - I don't think this really applies to search engines, where it's obvious that the search engine isn't hosting the site, but linking to, say, just an image on your site rather than to your page is perfectly legal. Displaying an image from your site, for an image search, SHOULD be reasonable.
If you don't want to get slashdotted, well... just don't have anything interesting. You made a website, you made it public, you committed to paying fees, your bad luck if you become popular.
As for images... an image request is just an HTTP GET like any other as far as the protocol is concerned. Your server may not log them in an attempt to keep log files smaller, but it certainly should have the capability.
Oh, and I know copyright law just fine, thanks. And showing someone elses work isn't a cut and dried issue of "ripping off".
I find that hacking installers to make the EULA magically disappear works just fine. Or replacing it with one of your own. Then I'm only bound by normal copyright law, none of this silly EULA crap.
The movie store where all my roomates worked HATED people who turned stuff in late, because it meant they weren't renting it out to other people. So not only was there not a steady revenue flow from it (sure, you've got late fees, but only when the customer actually pays them, etc) plus loss of customer satisfaction.
The prices for a rental were also about a third that of blockbusters (3 bucks/3 movies/3 days, extendable in any amount). No struggling there.
Gotta say, I was ASTOUNDED when I moved to the east coast and saw the rental prices here. I really miss being able to rent, eg, then entire Eva series for a week for 10 bucks.
How about when I go directly to an image on your site, rather than the HTML surrounding it? Am I stealing it? You don't get an ad impression, but lets not get all huffy and declare that ad impressions are the legal right of all web pages. I'm viewing your work out of context, but so what? I can skim a book out of order if I want to. So, if I can go directly to your image, then whats wrong with a site linking directly to your image?
Note: Yes, I know that in the case in question they were linking the image and displaying it with thier own copy. I'd say this was a grey area but falls more on the side of infringment. But we've kinda gotten offtopic to a more general case.
Perl taint mode doesn't do that at all... all taint mode does is force you to apply a regexp to your data before you can use it. ANY regexp. So it's still perfectly possible to screw yourself, just if you do you have only your regexp skills to blame.
I completely agree. Pretty much my entire job revolves around sticking Intranet front ends on databases of various types, in Cold Fusion no less, and when I look back over mode I code, I see some of the dirtiest, hacky solutions I can imagine. I can't use any stored procs because they don't allow me access to the database, so I'm stuck with hacking stuff up on my end.
I'd like to rant for a moment: The MS Jet SQl engine sucks, and is the bane of me existence. Thank you.
That's totally untrue, for purposes of this argument. If you're a Word 1.0(Mac) "power user", then you will be TOTALLY lost in WordXP, and have to relearn the location and names of almost every function you use. Since this is the case, you may as well switch to Staroffice or whatever. If all you want to do is type a memo, sure, there won't be any migration problems - but there won't be any to StarOffice, either.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been removing the license agreements from things before I install them for some time now. As far as I can tell, and, of course, IANAL, this should be perfectly valid. Assuming of course that click-through is legal at all, then I should only be bound to what _I_ click. I kinda want someone to sue me so I can force the issue on court.
I understand that one of the very first people to actively - er - stimulate the online economy of UO was someone with 2 characters - one male, name "Sharky", and one female, named "Susie"....
I know more than a few RL relationships that ended up being ruined over people they met online (MUD, not EQ, but same thing really). Of course, I also know more than a few people who met that way and have wonderful, loving relationships to this day.
One reason they're hitting prodigy. Back in the 80's, it was all over telephone lines.
Do you like my hat? It's made out of MONEY!
Well, even if the NT kernel is preemtible, the implementation sucks. Overloading or crashing drivers can and will lock up every other process on the machine, while with 2k a hung kernel process doesn't kill the entire machine. Of course, it may just be a better-behaved shell, I haven't done any real testing, just my observations.
b) - you can be court ordered to attend AA meetings, but you have no obligation to work the program. It's no different than courts ordering marriage counseling in divorce cases. There has never been a court order to "complete the program", because there is no completion - this is a basic tenent of the AA program. There is also no third party "asessing" your progress, and rejecting you if you don't "accept God". There's no boss, and no gold stars. AA is a support group and a methodology, it has very little structure and no authorities.
Please learn a little bit about topics before you rant. Especially when it's offtopic.
"its components that you are utilizing" may be considered, for example, any dll on your system. Arguably, any program that makes any system calls at all could be considered a component. While I think it's perfectly possible that this is, in fact, intended as a CYA with regards to auto-update, you should note that the language doesn't mention the windows update service - meaning this clause would hold even if you disabled windows update. Which could mean you're in violation if you don't, for example, download the latest patch to the DRM utlities.
Other people have replied about the open source thing - I post using Arkanes because thats the name I use in every online forum and it identifies me at least as well as my "real" name does.
I, personally, would say that deep linking doesn't constitute copying at all - however, since the courts seem to think that the "temporary copy in RAM" is copying under copyright law, who the hell knows what they think.
To me, the only issue here is the presentation. Obviously, for a search engine, there's no misrepresentation of who the actual creator is, so it should be a none issue. Example is the Ask Jeeves search, which sends you to your result page within a frame, with an add in a banner frame.
It's still harder than a hole punch, however. I wouldn't know where to go to get a magwriter (well, I would, but I've never actually bought on or shopped for one), but I certainly can duplicate a punch card with the hole punch in my desk and/or a razor blade.
The only instinctive interface is the nipple. All others are learned. Some people are less able to learn than others.
You just are wrong in so many places... people who enjoy and time pride in thier jobs almost inevitably are better at them, because they put more effort into them, care about losing them, and don't look for things to keep them from working. Customer service is an excellent example, I know a couple people who actually enjoy working at the help desk. They're much more helpful (read: better at thier job) than the people who hate it and just try to get you to go away.
As for the army... a great deal of conditioning goes into allowing soldiers to objectify enemies, allowing them to take pride and pleasure in killing without feeling the guilt that they would if they didn't have that. Even more so in the modern era of "technical" warfare.
This is fascinating, and perhaps should be published more widely - who knows, maybe it'll be the kicker to get people to stop using Word! *gasp!*
Now, embeding your content on thier page is borderline, as I said, because they (could be) branding your content as thier own - I don't think this really applies to search engines, where it's obvious that the search engine isn't hosting the site, but linking to, say, just an image on your site rather than to your page is perfectly legal. Displaying an image from your site, for an image search, SHOULD be reasonable.
If you don't want to get slashdotted, well... just don't have anything interesting. You made a website, you made it public, you committed to paying fees, your bad luck if you become popular.
As for images... an image request is just an HTTP GET like any other as far as the protocol is concerned. Your server may not log them in an attempt to keep log files smaller, but it certainly should have the capability.
Oh, and I know copyright law just fine, thanks. And showing someone elses work isn't a cut and dried issue of "ripping off".
I find that hacking installers to make the EULA magically disappear works just fine. Or replacing it with one of your own. Then I'm only bound by normal copyright law, none of this silly EULA crap.
Gotta say, I was ASTOUNDED when I moved to the east coast and saw the rental prices here. I really miss being able to rent, eg, then entire Eva series for a week for 10 bucks.
Note: Yes, I know that in the case in question they were linking the image and displaying it with thier own copy. I'd say this was a grey area but falls more on the side of infringment. But we've kinda gotten offtopic to a more general case.
Of course, you could take a moral step forward and make EVERYONE opt-in. yeah, watch that happen.
Perl taint mode doesn't do that at all... all taint mode does is force you to apply a regexp to your data before you can use it. ANY regexp. So it's still perfectly possible to screw yourself, just if you do you have only your regexp skills to blame.
I'd like to rant for a moment: The MS Jet SQl engine sucks, and is the bane of me existence. Thank you.
*bzzzt* It's not illegal to reverse engineer stuff. Try again.
That's totally untrue, for purposes of this argument. If you're a Word 1.0(Mac) "power user", then you will be TOTALLY lost in WordXP, and have to relearn the location and names of almost every function you use. Since this is the case, you may as well switch to Staroffice or whatever. If all you want to do is type a memo, sure, there won't be any migration problems - but there won't be any to StarOffice, either.
well, they'll probably cancel it. If they go ahead and charge me full price, I'll be sitting pretty with my new 0 cost geforce 4 in very short order.