I can't speak for the reviewer, but even on Windows I prefer Mozilla for two reasons: Pop-up blocking and tabbed browsing. I can't live without either of those features any more.
I think you could get around most of the problems you mention with a summary by clearly stating that it is, in fact, only a summary and has no legal standing, and that the full text of the license takes precedence.
Well, I'm a redneck from Mississippi, and I agree with the "damned yankee from Connecticut";)
Slavery was wrong. The Southern states seceded because of the way they were being treated over the slavery issue. However, the war itself was fought over their right to secede from the Union. This is a fine distinction, to be sure, but I find it to be a valid one. I believe that slavery was wrong (and so do most other reasonable people), but I also believe that secession is not unconstitutional. I have to side with the Confederacy on that point.
The results of the Civil War included the abolition of slavery, which was a good outcome. However, that outcome had a dreadful expense, both in human life and the nature of the American republic. Most people will say that outcome was worth the cost; I would say that history has yet to answer the question.
I know I'm feeding a troll, but I should point out that the conservative objection to stem cell research is based on the belief that an embryo is a human life and should be treated as one. It isn't out of any "fear of science" or things of that nature.
You may not agree with that belief, and you have every right to disagree with it, but you should respect the fact that some conservatives actually have reasons for our positions;)
Actually, you're wrong. I'm as conservative as they come, and I have no problem with using fat cells for research. Neither do most people I know. I think this sort of research is a good thing because if it works out, I think there would be less pressure to use embryonic stem cells.
Really? Wow! I'm going to go straight to the store, buy a Microsoft product, and modify the EULA to read, "By installing this software, Microsoft agrees to release every software product it produces, has ever produced, or will ever produce, under the terms of the GPL."
No, the ONE COPY of the software becomes yours. Therefore you can do whatever the heck you like with that one copy. You bought it, and you have a reasonable expectation to be able to use what you bought. A license is completely different from a sale, and when you took the box to the cash register, you participated in a sale.
If you try to copy it and redistribute it, now, that changes the situation, but we aren't talking about that; we're just talking about your right to use the copy you bought.
"You don't own the software" in the sense that you don't own the rights to distribute it.
However, you do own the software in the sense that you own that copy of the software and can use it however you like for personal use. You own that copy because you bought that copy; you picked it up off the shelf at Wally World, took it to the register, and paid money for it. You did not agree to any license before you did that, therefore no license is in effect except for standard copyright law. And as long as you don't distribute copies, you aren't violating even a strict construction of copyright law.
To me, passing laws that punish everybody because a few people are pirates would be morally equivalent to wiping the whole population of Afghanistan off the planet to get rid of the terrorists.
Everybody agrees that we must be careful to avoid damage to civilians in our little war on terror. Everybody agrees that hurting civilians is wrong. Why, then, are people willing to tolerate the same sort of strategy when it comes to other issues? Just because it isn't a matter of life or death doesn't make the strategy any less wrong. There's no justification for punishing the innocent along with the guilty.
I agree with this in principle, but the problem is that there are many other issues I care about besides this one. No two people will agree completely about anything, much less so if one of them happens to be a politician.
I wind up voting for whoever seems to best fit my perspective in the big picture instead of simply on one or two issues. As an example (and one that many people here will probably disagree with, but that's ok), I'm happy with the way President Bush has performed in office, although I do disagree with him on several issues I consider important (Microsoft being a key one). Sure, if Gore were President, he might have thrown the book at Bill Gates. But in the big picture, I disagree with Gore on far more issues than I agree with him on, so I couldn't vote for him, regardless of the Microsoft issue.
Copyright issues are important. But they're not the only issues that are important to me when deciding who to support in an election.
It's been mentioned before, and is probably true, that people buying these machines are using "pirated" copies of Windows, not Linux, FreeBSD, etc.
That is perhaps true. However, there are also people whose cheap computers have just died, and they need a new one, and they already have a "legal" copy of Windows that was installed on the dead computer (assuming that it's not an OEM version tied to the original hardware). That's a completely legitimate use that not even MS can really argue with.
And then you have people who are buying a second computer (for the kids perhaps) and are going to install one copy of Windows on both of them. Microsoft might call that piracy, but most reasonable people wouldn't.
With that in mind, the number of people who are actually pirating Windows --- in the sense of actually going and downloading XP from Morpheus or some such just to avoid paying for it --- to put on a new computer is probably not quite so large as you theorize. It's probably still mostly going to get Microsoft POed, though, because they're going to perceive it as encouraging piracy.
Microsoft might be the 2,000 pound gorilla... but Wal-Mart is a pretty big ape itself. They could stand up to MS if they really want to.
Hmm, that might go a ways toward explaining why G.I. Joe and Star Wars figures were, for the most part, interchangeable. It was just that G.I. Joes were more poseable, so when you "killed" them you could contort the dead bodies in all sorts of interesting ways.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for the reviewer, but even on Windows I prefer Mozilla for two reasons: Pop-up blocking and tabbed browsing. I can't live without either of those features any more.
But the character's name isn't "Spiderman", it's "Spider-man".
I think you could get around most of the problems you mention with a summary by clearly stating that it is, in fact, only a summary and has no legal standing, and that the full text of the license takes precedence.
Slavery was wrong. The Southern states seceded because of the way they were being treated over the slavery issue. However, the war itself was fought over their right to secede from the Union. This is a fine distinction, to be sure, but I find it to be a valid one. I believe that slavery was wrong (and so do most other reasonable people), but I also believe that secession is not unconstitutional. I have to side with the Confederacy on that point.
The results of the Civil War included the abolition of slavery, which was a good outcome. However, that outcome had a dreadful expense, both in human life and the nature of the American republic. Most people will say that outcome was worth the cost; I would say that history has yet to answer the question.
Actually I think the parent poster was probably saying that the killing of embryos was creepy, rather than the conservatives' stand against it.
Gotta love ambiguous grammatical constructs. . . ;)
You may not agree with that belief, and you have every right to disagree with it, but you should respect the fact that some conservatives actually have reasons for our positions ;)
Actually, you're wrong. I'm as conservative as they come, and I have no problem with using fat cells for research. Neither do most people I know. I think this sort of research is a good thing because if it works out, I think there would be less pressure to use embryonic stem cells.
Homer Simpson?
Sorry, y'all ain't getting MY money...
No, there's a difference between Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer. Or at least, the states say there should be.
"I told you never to call me on this wall! This is an unlisted wall!"
That's odd. The amendment says "the people", not "the federal government".
FYI, I get a 404 on your link to the letter.
The Constitution specifically states that the rights it explicitly lists are not the ONLY rights the people have.
Really? Wow! I'm going to go straight to the store, buy a Microsoft product, and modify the EULA to read, "By installing this software, Microsoft agrees to release every software product it produces, has ever produced, or will ever produce, under the terms of the GPL."
If you try to copy it and redistribute it, now, that changes the situation, but we aren't talking about that; we're just talking about your right to use the copy you bought.
However, you do own the software in the sense that you own that copy of the software and can use it however you like for personal use. You own that copy because you bought that copy; you picked it up off the shelf at Wally World, took it to the register, and paid money for it. You did not agree to any license before you did that, therefore no license is in effect except for standard copyright law. And as long as you don't distribute copies, you aren't violating even a strict construction of copyright law.
To me, passing laws that punish everybody because a few people are pirates would be morally equivalent to wiping the whole population of Afghanistan off the planet to get rid of the terrorists.
Everybody agrees that we must be careful to avoid damage to civilians in our little war on terror. Everybody agrees that hurting civilians is wrong. Why, then, are people willing to tolerate the same sort of strategy when it comes to other issues? Just because it isn't a matter of life or death doesn't make the strategy any less wrong. There's no justification for punishing the innocent along with the guilty.
I wind up voting for whoever seems to best fit my perspective in the big picture instead of simply on one or two issues. As an example (and one that many people here will probably disagree with, but that's ok), I'm happy with the way President Bush has performed in office, although I do disagree with him on several issues I consider important (Microsoft being a key one). Sure, if Gore were President, he might have thrown the book at Bill Gates. But in the big picture, I disagree with Gore on far more issues than I agree with him on, so I couldn't vote for him, regardless of the Microsoft issue.
Copyright issues are important. But they're not the only issues that are important to me when deciding who to support in an election.
Slashdot has more bandwidth capacity than the sites that get victimized.
That is perhaps true. However, there are also people whose cheap computers have just died, and they need a new one, and they already have a "legal" copy of Windows that was installed on the dead computer (assuming that it's not an OEM version tied to the original hardware). That's a completely legitimate use that not even MS can really argue with.
And then you have people who are buying a second computer (for the kids perhaps) and are going to install one copy of Windows on both of them. Microsoft might call that piracy, but most reasonable people wouldn't.
With that in mind, the number of people who are actually pirating Windows --- in the sense of actually going and downloading XP from Morpheus or some such just to avoid paying for it --- to put on a new computer is probably not quite so large as you theorize. It's probably still mostly going to get Microsoft POed, though, because they're going to perceive it as encouraging piracy.
Microsoft might be the 2,000 pound gorilla ... but Wal-Mart is a pretty big ape itself. They could stand up to MS if they really want to.
Not all rednecks are stupid. :-)
Unless, of course, Cobra Commander was a Sicilian...
I reckon it just wouldn't be politically correct to have toys that turn into guns these days. Sometimes I really miss the 80s.
Yes, I was a vicious little kid. ;)