Most people who call themselves atheist should really call themselves agnostic instead.... Nevertheless, most people assume that if you are agnostic, you either haven't thought about it enough, you can't make up your mind, or you simply don't know.
You are correct that agnosticism is ambiguous - and in fact "simply don't know" is the primary definition of the word, along with meaning that we can't know if God exists (which just as much a "leap of faith").
Not only is it easier to call oneself an atheist, there is nothing incorrect about it either. I reject belief in God (without asserting that there certainly is no God), so I'm an atheist. That's a definition backed up by many dictionaries and other references.
"We do not know" is correct, but it is also a statement of the obvious - of course we don't know if God exists. And note that almost all atheists fall into this category. We do not know if invisible unicorns exist, but I still might ask you if you believed in them.
No, they ruled that using Glider counted as copyright infringement.
There is no magic "courts just ruled EULAs valid" that so many people seem to think. Just because a court said that X was copyright infringment does not mean that different activity Y is therefore copyright infringement, just because both X and Y have EULAs!
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
On what basis do you think that this defence only applies where someone "owns" rather than "licenses" software? Note that it states "owner of a copy" rather than "owner", suggesting to me that this does mean someone who has purchased a copy of some software. Surely all software is licenced anyway - I'm not sure what distinction between "owns" and "licenses" you are trying to make?
I'm sure the evidence exists -- Apple takes HCI very seriously indeed -- but I doubt it's publicly available.
I'm a bit confused by this. Aside from it not being a very robust argument to claim that something is true, but then say that evidence must exist, but it's secret, I don't understand how advantages of a UI can be secret. If a particular task is easier on one system than another, then that can be described publically. If the only advantages are not ones available to the public, then how is that any use?
And your average user doesn't really have the vocabulary to describe that stuff. If you want it quantified, look at the HCI fanatic sites.
If an "average user" makes a claim, I expect him to back up that claim with a rational argument. If he considers himself not to be qualified, then he shouldn't make that claim in the first place.
The current Mac OS is known for its UI. The iPhone is known for its UI.
I disagree. Anyone can assert that their favourite item is "known for its X", but that doesn't make it true.
then the copy-to-ram that's part of running the software is apparently a copyright violation.
Nope, it was specifically the use of Glider that was copyright violation, because this copy-to-RAM wasn't part of the normal operation of WoW. I haven't seen anything that suggests the court claimed that all copy-to-RAM was copyright violation, and hence there's no reason it would apply if someone installs software normally. This is the Section 117 defense - it's simply that Glider doesn't come under that defence; they didn't rule that the defence no longer exists.
but what differentiates the iPhone, just like the Mac itself, is its user interface.
With a lack of fundamental UI features like copy/paste? Well, I guess that's differentiating...
And I don't run Linux, btw. I'm just curious that the Iphone's advantages are always argued in terms of assertions ("It works better! It just does.") and not evidence or examples.
It was the original MacOS which was known for its UI, btw. Macs today are running a different operating system.
If people choose games with better graphics over games with poorer graphics, then those games will sell more - that's life. Sure, a philosophy where graphics didn't matter would make life easier for developers, but then we'd have games which people didn't demand as much. Personally I think it's better for a market to product what people want, and not what is easy to produce.
But there's another issue: it may be that plenty of people do like games with older graphics, but there is less money to be made because supply is far greater: both in that you are competing against old games, as well as a competing against a larger pool of freeware/indie game developers.
Basically cost of game development has gone up, because that's the only real way to make large amounts of money. There was a golden age where a smaller pool of developers could make money from games that took a few weeks to write and had rubbish graphics. But things now are better for the user: if you like good graphics, it's good, but even if you don't, games with poor graphics can be found much more cheaply, or even for free.
It ought to go without saying that by "good/bad", people mean "better"/"worse". Obviously these are relative terms, not absolute ones. Furthermore, the OP didn't even mention "good" or "bad".
Its the same with video too, everyone declared DVD as awesome quality, when it replaced VHS, now everyone is denouncing it as totally shit, not just less good, but its shit, and we can't bare to watch it with all its nasty lo def blurryness, or course 4 years ago, it was amazing and crisp and awesome, now it's utter SHITE, and watching it make us all want to puke, and of course everyone claims they thought it was shit all along and hated it.
Not at all - it's a case of, why would I buy something inferior now that something better is available? Do you really think that video producers should release on VHS instead of DVD, because they shouldn't be striving for something better?
The court essentially found that if you violate the EULA then the use of the software constitutes a copyright violation.
Now that the article is slashdotted, I can see you've got it backwards.
The court ruled that using Glider constitutes a copyright violation, and therefore the licence (not agreement - the court did not rule that EULAs are a contract) is relevant, as use of Glider was not allowed under that licence either.
But if you violate a licence, where violation does not count as copyright infringement, then no laws are broken.
Even if we did conclude that a one-sided licence was a legally binding contract, that would still only make it a contract violation. You are claiming that breaking any contract becomes copyright infringement, which would be very bizarre. Copyright law is decided by the courts, not by what a licence states. The licence is only relevant in cases where the act would already be copyright infringment.
Nope, because they still haven't. Or at least, you are making a straw man argument. Of course some licences are valid, like the GPL. The way it works if that you are free not to accept a licence. However, if what you are doing involves copyright infringement, then that becomes illegal.
What the pro-EULA people argue is that any EULA is inherently valid, in that you are bound by its terms, even if what you are doing is not copyright infringement. When people say "EULAs have not been tested", what they mean is that a court has not ruled that an EULA is inherently enforceable.
TFA states that the court ruled that use of Glider does not fall under Section 117 defence. So using it is copyright infringment - this is no different to violating the GPL. You are free to not accept the licence, but either way you are committing copyright infringment.
This has no relevance to someone who uses the game normally. They are not committing copyright infringement, due to Section 117 defence, and they are also free not to accept the licence, even if they use the game.
Unfortunately the article was slashdotted yesterday, so I guess people will just be concluding that EULAs are valid in court based on hearsay in the comments. In which case, please all pay me that $10.
That's TWO parties coming to an agreement, not one.
Well, the question is whether one party can decide how to infer what the other person's decision is, especially when that is an act you are legally entitled to do - e.g., me deciding that posting to Slashdot indicates agreement with my terms, or you playing a game you have already legally bought.
If the judge has decided that can be so, then I'm not saying the law is anything other than that - but my point is that such a ruling would be alarming. (And it seems we agree that clicking a button on an installer shouldn't be a legally binding contract, when clicking that button is required as part of the game's normal installation process.)
However, now that the article is no longer slashdotted, I see that a key part of it is that Glider copied a part to RAM which was outside of the normal process of running the game, which is why Section 117 defence did not apply. In which case, the EULA is not a contract, but it becomes a licence just like things like the GPL is a licence - you are free not to accept the licence, but if you don't, you're committing copyright infringement by using Glider.
This does not mean that any EULA is now automatically valid. If you're using the game normally, then you aren't committing copyright infringement, so you are free to not accept the licence.
It isn't alarming if one party can decide what constitutes an "agreement"? Okay, everyone who replies to this article from now on agrees to pay me $10.
Of course, I very much doubt this court case would allow that, in which case people shouldn't assume one particular court case is broad enough to make EULs inherently enforceable.
But that's still rather worrying - it means that copying something you have bought into RAM or onto an mp3 player is illegal, unless the software/CD does that itself.
Oh. They suck? I guess that settles it. I couldn't possibly rebut such well-argued arguments on why the Iphone is the Best Phone Ever and as such should be the only phone assumed to exist by the media.
It's not a question of "opinion"; Windows systems take a lot of time and manpower to install and maintain, that's just a fact.
I must be superman, I've got enough manpower to "maintain" multiple machines running Windows...
It's something you can reproduce for yourself.
The experience I have is that Windows users do not even think in terms of "maintaining". That's the first clue - that with Linux, "maintaining" is something that needs to be done in the first place. And yes, when I ran it, I was constantly having problems maintaining it, not knowing which script file I had to edit or which obscure command I needed to type to get done what I needed.
I suspect a lot of people are remembering Windows 9x, which did fall over and need reinstalling regularly. But that's a different OS (and Linux of the same timeframe, although more stable, was far less user-friendly than even today).
It's something you can also measure by looking at the number of machines a single support person can support in an organization. I've measured and quantified this.
So you can point us to your published study on the matter, then?
Yes, I see. A single story about an interesting new product that is actually related to computers is "Slashvertisement", but the regular Iphone adverts we get here all the time are stuff that matters.
Think of all the incredible discoveries that were made because of the hardships to get man into space! A ton of inventions are, directly or indirectly, a product of the space race.
Such as?
We should start looking beyond the immediate usefulness of research. If we didn't have quantum physics, we wouldn't have lasers, and thus no DVDs.
That's irrelevant to this issue. "Research would be more cost-effective if we did it using unmanned systems" does not equate to "We shouldn't do research at all".
Furthermore, the "look beyond immediate usefulness of research" argument is an argument against manned space travel. It is the pro-manned people who want immediate results - getting a man on Mars, and that's that. It is those who argue against them that want long term plans that start with unmanned travel, until it is more appropriate to send people.
Yes, because obviously those 10 million people are the only phone users in existence, and nevermind the far larger number of non-Iphone users who have been for years able to do this.
I guess by this logic, we need to have a repeat story about any generic phone feature repeated everytime just for late-to-the-party Iphone users.
The story is spam, plain and simple. Lots of spam stories about software might be of interest to some people, but that doesn't stop it being an advert.
So why don't we have all these stories about every other phone? E.g., "Motorola W377 released with a camera phone" or "Round-up of years old phones that support 3G and copy/paste"? After all, people who don't like them could just filter them out.
And how does one filter out stories in the media, which the OP was complaining about?
I agree. And not just Slashdot - I was walking in London yesterday to see "news" about 3G... on the Iphone! - plastered over all the news billboards. Is there really nothing more happening in the world then a years-old feature being added to one particular phone?
God, I guess when they finally add basic UI requirements like copy/paste, it'll be first story on the Nine O' Clock News.
I wish Apple would stop spamming me via email too, come to that.
It's interesting to consider that even Joe Average could get crazy wealthy just due to the power of compound interest. If Joe's parents put $1000 in a bank account for him at birth, earning 5% compounded annually, then at age 1000 that would have grown to a staggering $1.5 * 10^24.
I'm reminded of the Futurama episode where 1 cent in his bank account turns into trillions (or something like that):)
But this is something that will happen with or without extending lifespan. You still have money getting passed down the generations, just as much as you might have money being put away in a bank for a very long time.
I'm not sure quite how the economics work. Inflation is one factor of course, as you point out. The other point is that everyone would understandably better off in real terms, as this would reflect the greater amount of wealth (just as people today have more wealth than centuries ago). Again, these issues are not related directly to eliminating aging.
This isn't really any different to the fact that a fresh graduate can't compete with someone with years of experience - or a 16 year old can't compete with someone who's been to University. Big deal, why should they compete? People with more experience do jobs that require more experience, and those without start lower down. The answer isn't to do away with education and experience just so things are "equal".
Essentially the point is that the workforce will be able to become more educated and experienced - I'm not sure that this can be twisted into saying that's a bad thing. Overall, the economy is better off.
The sorts of jobs that people with more education or experience go for are those that those without the required education/experience would not be able to do those jobs. And if 25 PhDs aren't needed for the job, there is no reason why they are more likely to get it (they may be less likely, due to being overqualified).
Why would a millionaire do a graduate-level job just for fun, and not something than he can use his 25 PhDs for, or something more interesting? What next - shall we ban degrees, because someone with a degree might go for a job flipping burgers for fun, and make it harder for fresh 16 year olds to get that job?
Slashdot Mirror
Most people who call themselves atheist should really call themselves agnostic instead. ... Nevertheless, most people assume that if you are agnostic, you either haven't thought about it enough, you can't make up your mind, or you simply don't know.
You are correct that agnosticism is ambiguous - and in fact "simply don't know" is the primary definition of the word, along with meaning that we can't know if God exists (which just as much a "leap of faith").
Not only is it easier to call oneself an atheist, there is nothing incorrect about it either. I reject belief in God (without asserting that there certainly is no God), so I'm an atheist. That's a definition backed up by many dictionaries and other references.
Agnosticism primarily means someone who believes we cannot know about god, so "(weak) atheist" is less ambiguous.
Knowledge is a separate issue to belief.
"We do not know" is correct, but it is also a statement of the obvious - of course we don't know if God exists. And note that almost all atheists fall into this category. We do not know if invisible unicorns exist, but I still might ask you if you believed in them.
No, they ruled that using Glider counted as copyright infringement.
There is no magic "courts just ruled EULAs valid" that so many people seem to think. Just because a court said that X was copyright infringment does not mean that different activity Y is therefore copyright infringement, just because both X and Y have EULAs!
Section 117 states:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
On what basis do you think that this defence only applies where someone "owns" rather than "licenses" software? Note that it states "owner of a copy" rather than "owner", suggesting to me that this does mean someone who has purchased a copy of some software. Surely all software is licenced anyway - I'm not sure what distinction between "owns" and "licenses" you are trying to make?
I'm sure the evidence exists -- Apple takes HCI very seriously indeed -- but I doubt it's publicly available.
I'm a bit confused by this. Aside from it not being a very robust argument to claim that something is true, but then say that evidence must exist, but it's secret, I don't understand how advantages of a UI can be secret. If a particular task is easier on one system than another, then that can be described publically. If the only advantages are not ones available to the public, then how is that any use?
And your average user doesn't really have the vocabulary to describe that stuff. If you want it quantified, look at the HCI fanatic sites.
If an "average user" makes a claim, I expect him to back up that claim with a rational argument. If he considers himself not to be qualified, then he shouldn't make that claim in the first place.
The current Mac OS is known for its UI. The iPhone is known for its UI.
I disagree. Anyone can assert that their favourite item is "known for its X", but that doesn't make it true.
then the copy-to-ram that's part of running the software is apparently a copyright violation.
Nope, it was specifically the use of Glider that was copyright violation, because this copy-to-RAM wasn't part of the normal operation of WoW. I haven't seen anything that suggests the court claimed that all copy-to-RAM was copyright violation, and hence there's no reason it would apply if someone installs software normally. This is the Section 117 defense - it's simply that Glider doesn't come under that defence; they didn't rule that the defence no longer exists.
but what differentiates the iPhone, just like the Mac itself, is its user interface.
With a lack of fundamental UI features like copy/paste? Well, I guess that's differentiating...
And I don't run Linux, btw. I'm just curious that the Iphone's advantages are always argued in terms of assertions ("It works better! It just does.") and not evidence or examples.
It was the original MacOS which was known for its UI, btw. Macs today are running a different operating system.
It's not a "philosophy", it's the market.
If people choose games with better graphics over games with poorer graphics, then those games will sell more - that's life. Sure, a philosophy where graphics didn't matter would make life easier for developers, but then we'd have games which people didn't demand as much. Personally I think it's better for a market to product what people want, and not what is easy to produce.
But there's another issue: it may be that plenty of people do like games with older graphics, but there is less money to be made because supply is far greater: both in that you are competing against old games, as well as a competing against a larger pool of freeware/indie game developers.
Basically cost of game development has gone up, because that's the only real way to make large amounts of money. There was a golden age where a smaller pool of developers could make money from games that took a few weeks to write and had rubbish graphics. But things now are better for the user: if you like good graphics, it's good, but even if you don't, games with poor graphics can be found much more cheaply, or even for free.
It ought to go without saying that by "good/bad", people mean "better"/"worse". Obviously these are relative terms, not absolute ones. Furthermore, the OP didn't even mention "good" or "bad".
Its the same with video too, everyone declared DVD as awesome quality, when it replaced VHS, now everyone is denouncing it as totally shit, not just less good, but its shit, and we can't bare to watch it with all its nasty lo def blurryness, or course 4 years ago, it was amazing and crisp and awesome, now it's utter SHITE, and watching it make us all want to puke, and of course everyone claims they thought it was shit all along and hated it.
Not at all - it's a case of, why would I buy something inferior now that something better is available? Do you really think that video producers should release on VHS instead of DVD, because they shouldn't be striving for something better?
The court essentially found that if you violate the EULA then the use of the software constitutes a copyright violation.
Now that the article is slashdotted, I can see you've got it backwards.
The court ruled that using Glider constitutes a copyright violation, and therefore the licence (not agreement - the court did not rule that EULAs are a contract) is relevant, as use of Glider was not allowed under that licence either.
But if you violate a licence, where violation does not count as copyright infringement, then no laws are broken.
Even if we did conclude that a one-sided licence was a legally binding contract, that would still only make it a contract violation. You are claiming that breaking any contract becomes copyright infringement, which would be very bizarre. Copyright law is decided by the courts, not by what a licence states. The licence is only relevant in cases where the act would already be copyright infringment.
Nope, because they still haven't. Or at least, you are making a straw man argument. Of course some licences are valid, like the GPL. The way it works if that you are free not to accept a licence. However, if what you are doing involves copyright infringement, then that becomes illegal.
What the pro-EULA people argue is that any EULA is inherently valid, in that you are bound by its terms, even if what you are doing is not copyright infringement. When people say "EULAs have not been tested", what they mean is that a court has not ruled that an EULA is inherently enforceable.
TFA states that the court ruled that use of Glider does not fall under Section 117 defence. So using it is copyright infringment - this is no different to violating the GPL. You are free to not accept the licence, but either way you are committing copyright infringment.
This has no relevance to someone who uses the game normally. They are not committing copyright infringement, due to Section 117 defence, and they are also free not to accept the licence, even if they use the game.
Unfortunately the article was slashdotted yesterday, so I guess people will just be concluding that EULAs are valid in court based on hearsay in the comments. In which case, please all pay me that $10.
That's TWO parties coming to an agreement, not one.
Well, the question is whether one party can decide how to infer what the other person's decision is, especially when that is an act you are legally entitled to do - e.g., me deciding that posting to Slashdot indicates agreement with my terms, or you playing a game you have already legally bought.
If the judge has decided that can be so, then I'm not saying the law is anything other than that - but my point is that such a ruling would be alarming. (And it seems we agree that clicking a button on an installer shouldn't be a legally binding contract, when clicking that button is required as part of the game's normal installation process.)
However, now that the article is no longer slashdotted, I see that a key part of it is that Glider copied a part to RAM which was outside of the normal process of running the game, which is why Section 117 defence did not apply. In which case, the EULA is not a contract, but it becomes a licence just like things like the GPL is a licence - you are free not to accept the licence, but if you don't, you're committing copyright infringement by using Glider.
This does not mean that any EULA is now automatically valid. If you're using the game normally, then you aren't committing copyright infringement, so you are free to not accept the licence.
It isn't alarming if one party can decide what constitutes an "agreement"? Okay, everyone who replies to this article from now on agrees to pay me $10.
Of course, I very much doubt this court case would allow that, in which case people shouldn't assume one particular court case is broad enough to make EULs inherently enforceable.
But that's still rather worrying - it means that copying something you have bought into RAM or onto an mp3 player is illegal, unless the software/CD does that itself.
because they SUCK
Oh. They suck? I guess that settles it. I couldn't possibly rebut such well-argued arguments on why the Iphone is the Best Phone Ever and as such should be the only phone assumed to exist by the media.
It's not a question of "opinion"; Windows systems take a lot of time and manpower to install and maintain, that's just a fact.
I must be superman, I've got enough manpower to "maintain" multiple machines running Windows...
It's something you can reproduce for yourself.
The experience I have is that Windows users do not even think in terms of "maintaining". That's the first clue - that with Linux, "maintaining" is something that needs to be done in the first place. And yes, when I ran it, I was constantly having problems maintaining it, not knowing which script file I had to edit or which obscure command I needed to type to get done what I needed.
I suspect a lot of people are remembering Windows 9x, which did fall over and need reinstalling regularly. But that's a different OS (and Linux of the same timeframe, although more stable, was far less user-friendly than even today).
It's something you can also measure by looking at the number of machines a single support person can support in an organization. I've measured and quantified this.
So you can point us to your published study on the matter, then?
Yes, I see. A single story about an interesting new product that is actually related to computers is "Slashvertisement", but the regular Iphone adverts we get here all the time are stuff that matters.
Think of all the incredible discoveries that were made because of the hardships to get man into space! A ton of inventions are, directly or indirectly, a product of the space race.
Such as?
We should start looking beyond the immediate usefulness of research. If we didn't have quantum physics, we wouldn't have lasers, and thus no DVDs.
That's irrelevant to this issue. "Research would be more cost-effective if we did it using unmanned systems" does not equate to "We shouldn't do research at all".
Furthermore, the "look beyond immediate usefulness of research" argument is an argument against manned space travel. It is the pro-manned people who want immediate results - getting a man on Mars, and that's that. It is those who argue against them that want long term plans that start with unmanned travel, until it is more appropriate to send people.
Yes, because obviously those 10 million people are the only phone users in existence, and nevermind the far larger number of non-Iphone users who have been for years able to do this.
I guess by this logic, we need to have a repeat story about any generic phone feature repeated everytime just for late-to-the-party Iphone users.
The story is spam, plain and simple. Lots of spam stories about software might be of interest to some people, but that doesn't stop it being an advert.
So why don't we have all these stories about every other phone? E.g., "Motorola W377 released with a camera phone" or "Round-up of years old phones that support 3G and copy/paste"? After all, people who don't like them could just filter them out.
And how does one filter out stories in the media, which the OP was complaining about?
Perhaps you should have skipped his comment, if you didn't like it...
I agree. And not just Slashdot - I was walking in London yesterday to see "news" about 3G ... on the Iphone! - plastered over all the news billboards. Is there really nothing more happening in the world then a years-old feature being added to one particular phone?
God, I guess when they finally add basic UI requirements like copy/paste, it'll be first story on the Nine O' Clock News.
I wish Apple would stop spamming me via email too, come to that.
It's interesting to consider that even Joe Average could get crazy wealthy just due to the power of compound interest. If Joe's parents put $1000 in a bank account for him at birth, earning 5% compounded annually, then at age 1000 that would have grown to a staggering $1.5 * 10^24 .
I'm reminded of the Futurama episode where 1 cent in his bank account turns into trillions (or something like that) :)
But this is something that will happen with or without extending lifespan. You still have money getting passed down the generations, just as much as you might have money being put away in a bank for a very long time.
I'm not sure quite how the economics work. Inflation is one factor of course, as you point out. The other point is that everyone would understandably better off in real terms, as this would reflect the greater amount of wealth (just as people today have more wealth than centuries ago). Again, these issues are not related directly to eliminating aging.
This isn't really any different to the fact that a fresh graduate can't compete with someone with years of experience - or a 16 year old can't compete with someone who's been to University. Big deal, why should they compete? People with more experience do jobs that require more experience, and those without start lower down. The answer isn't to do away with education and experience just so things are "equal".
Essentially the point is that the workforce will be able to become more educated and experienced - I'm not sure that this can be twisted into saying that's a bad thing. Overall, the economy is better off.
The sorts of jobs that people with more education or experience go for are those that those without the required education/experience would not be able to do those jobs. And if 25 PhDs aren't needed for the job, there is no reason why they are more likely to get it (they may be less likely, due to being overqualified).
Why would a millionaire do a graduate-level job just for fun, and not something than he can use his 25 PhDs for, or something more interesting? What next - shall we ban degrees, because someone with a degree might go for a job flipping burgers for fun, and make it harder for fresh 16 year olds to get that job?