Serpentor died. Got shot in the face with an arrow, IIRC. Cobra Commander got shot in the back and replaced. I'm sure I could think of some more people who died, if I thought long and hard enough.
You may have given them the right to make inspections or audits when you signed a contract. My local cable company has a clause for this in their service agreement.
They can't conduct an inspection if I don't open the door for them. And they better not try to get in my house without my permission --- that would be breaking and entering, and I could legally shoot them if I catch 'em doing it. I wouldn't shoot a cable guy, of course, but a BSA representative, now, that's different.:-)
Are you sure it wouldn't be a criminal case? According to the copyright zealots, software piracy is theft, and theft is a criminal offense. Maybe we can use their own rhetoric against them.
There are a number of "artists" who are only in it for the money, of course. But I think most of us would agree that the world would be better off without their "music".
It works that way in the U.S. too. Example: O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder in the criminal case, but was later found liable for the deaths by a civil jury.
I personally think that sort of thing should be unconstitutional under the "double jeopardy" clause of the constitution, but I don't make the rules...
Anyway, I expect that the standard of proof in the bnetd case is similar... they don't have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Beyond that, you have the problem that hate speech is actually an opinion --- even if it's one that's almost universally detested --- and it is clearly and unconditionally protected under the first amendment. I think the law in question could work if done properly, but I think you'd have to have safeguards on it, i.e. "access to adult content domains cannot be blocked by an ISP without an explicit request from the customer" or something of that nature, just to ensure that it isn't censorship and isn't misconstrued as censorship. And I think you'd want to drop the "hate speech" aspects and limit it only to things like porn, again to avoid the appearance of censorship.
The idea isn't to take away access to adult content from those who want it, but to allow those who don't want it to conveniently protect themselves.
I personally would LOVE to have an effective "adult content" filter, just so I can be sure I can click a link without being exposed to goatse.cx. I'm sure a lot of other people would like such a filter, too, and I see no reason that it can't be done without denying others access to the porn they want.
Re:Blindingly obvious, bloke
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 1
...and even they had FreeBSD on their webserver until they got caught.
Since releasing on DVD would be a win-win situation for everybody involved, why can they not renegotiate the contracts? Last time I checked, the terms of a contract can be changed if all parties involved agree to it. Is there somebody along the line somewhere being a grinch?
No, they only have to add some bloody violence for it to be rated R. If you've ever seen The Patriot, that movie is rated R, but contains almost no profanity and no nudity or even a hint of any sexuality above the PG level. The R rating is strictly for bloody violence. I'd argue that the violence in that case is appropriate to the film and does enhance the story that is being told. If the 4-hour version of LOTR is rated R, it will be for the same reason. Don't worry, there won't be any naked hobbits or Aragorn/Arwen conjugation scenes.
"Try throwing a ball to a small child and see how naturally they compensate for gravity."
I dunno. Most of the kids I've played catch with have dropped a lot more balls than they caught. I think catching things is much more of an acquired skill than we might assume.
"This is also why many plantation owners kept slaves against their own moral inclinations - because competition made it impossible for them not to."
Thanks for that insight. I've often wondered why people who were seemingly of unimpeachable character otherwise, stood up to defend slavery in the early years of the U.S. (I'm not just talking about the Civil War; I'm talking about all the events from the founding of the colonies until that point.)
That's not necessarily true. If the EULA were invalid for whatever reason, the software would be covered by standard copyright law. This means that you wouldn't have the right to distribute copies (i.e. make copies for friends). However, it WOULD mean that you WOULD have the right to make copies for personal use, and could therefore legally install Windows XP on every computer in your house if you were of such a mind, something that the XP license does not allow you.
The key is that EULAs don't grant rights. You're not asked to agree to the EULA until after you've already bought the software, so you would by default have the right to use the copy you've purchased, in the same way that buying a dead-tree copy of a book gives you the right to use that book. The EULAs restrict rights that you would normally have by virtue of buying that copy of the software. By clicking on the "I agree" button or whatever other method of coercion the software vendor chose to implement, you are (technically speaking) "agreeing" to concede certain rights.
To sum up: You have certain rights to use a copy of a work you've bought. EULAs seek to add restrictions on top of the ones imposed by copyright law. So, nullifying an EULA would indeed be a Good Thing.
That's probably one of the better ideas out there. It has the most potential to allow access to pornography to those who want it, while protecting those who don't.
The objection I have to Internet porn is that it's all too easy to accidentally encounter it. (Witness the proliferation of a certain image/site by Slashdot trolls, for example.) Sure, people who want to see porn should have the right to see it. However, you also need to look out for the rights of those who want to be protected from it. There's no reason that both sides can't coexist.
I'm afraid, though, that any solution would be difficult to implement. Sure, a lot of people would be happy to use the.sex domain. But there are also a lot of folks who take a perverse delight in inflicting porn upon those who are offended by it. That's what I see as the real problem, and I think we're a long way from being able to effectively contain that sort of thing.
It worked in a lot of other Konami games, too. I wouldn't be surprised to see a variation of it turn up as an "easter egg" in a new Konami game or two.
Slashdot Mirror
Serpentor died. Got shot in the face with an arrow, IIRC. Cobra Commander got shot in the back and replaced. I'm sure I could think of some more people who died, if I thought long and hard enough.
Sheesh. Are there any insulting comparisons Microsoft hasn't yet made?
They can't conduct an inspection if I don't open the door for them. And they better not try to get in my house without my permission --- that would be breaking and entering, and I could legally shoot them if I catch 'em doing it. I wouldn't shoot a cable guy, of course, but a BSA representative, now, that's different. :-)
Are you sure it wouldn't be a criminal case? According to the copyright zealots, software piracy is theft, and theft is a criminal offense. Maybe we can use their own rhetoric against them.
There are a number of "artists" who are only in it for the money, of course. But I think most of us would agree that the world would be better off without their "music".
That's exactly why I build my own computers. That, and I don't trust manufacturers to give me decent hardware.
Interesting. I haven't been able to get my Z42 working in Linux yet, although I admittedly haven't tried very hard.
I personally think that sort of thing should be unconstitutional under the "double jeopardy" clause of the constitution, but I don't make the rules...
Anyway, I expect that the standard of proof in the bnetd case is similar... they don't have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The more you tighten your grip, Mr. Gates, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
The idea isn't to take away access to adult content from those who want it, but to allow those who don't want it to conveniently protect themselves.
I personally would LOVE to have an effective "adult content" filter, just so I can be sure I can click a link without being exposed to goatse.cx. I'm sure a lot of other people would like such a filter, too, and I see no reason that it can't be done without denying others access to the porn they want.
...and even they had FreeBSD on their webserver until they got caught.
The only problem is, I think the bnetd source code is probably a bit too long to fit comfortably on a T-shirt.
I think it's more accurate to say that Netscape is built off a Mozilla codebase than to say that Mozilla is built off a Netscape codebase.
Since releasing on DVD would be a win-win situation for everybody involved, why can they not renegotiate the contracts? Last time I checked, the terms of a contract can be changed if all parties involved agree to it. Is there somebody along the line somewhere being a grinch?
No, they only have to add some bloody violence for it to be rated R. If you've ever seen The Patriot, that movie is rated R, but contains almost no profanity and no nudity or even a hint of any sexuality above the PG level. The R rating is strictly for bloody violence. I'd argue that the violence in that case is appropriate to the film and does enhance the story that is being told. If the 4-hour version of LOTR is rated R, it will be for the same reason. Don't worry, there won't be any naked hobbits or Aragorn/Arwen conjugation scenes.
I dunno. Most of the kids I've played catch with have dropped a lot more balls than they caught. I think catching things is much more of an acquired skill than we might assume.
Thanks for that insight. I've often wondered why people who were seemingly of unimpeachable character otherwise, stood up to defend slavery in the early years of the U.S. (I'm not just talking about the Civil War; I'm talking about all the events from the founding of the colonies until that point.)
Of course, knowing the nature of Q, it probably was a sarcastic comment.
The key is that EULAs don't grant rights. You're not asked to agree to the EULA until after you've already bought the software, so you would by default have the right to use the copy you've purchased, in the same way that buying a dead-tree copy of a book gives you the right to use that book. The EULAs restrict rights that you would normally have by virtue of buying that copy of the software. By clicking on the "I agree" button or whatever other method of coercion the software vendor chose to implement, you are (technically speaking) "agreeing" to concede certain rights.
To sum up: You have certain rights to use a copy of a work you've bought. EULAs seek to add restrictions on top of the ones imposed by copyright law. So, nullifying an EULA would indeed be a Good Thing.
I don't know why they had so much trouble getting the thing to work. This isn't rocket sci.... oh. Never mind.
It's definitely a troll. Please don't feed it. :)
The objection I have to Internet porn is that it's all too easy to accidentally encounter it. (Witness the proliferation of a certain image/site by Slashdot trolls, for example.) Sure, people who want to see porn should have the right to see it. However, you also need to look out for the rights of those who want to be protected from it. There's no reason that both sides can't coexist.
I'm afraid, though, that any solution would be difficult to implement. Sure, a lot of people would be happy to use the .sex domain. But there are also a lot of folks who take a perverse delight in inflicting porn upon those who are offended by it. That's what I see as the real problem, and I think we're a long way from being able to effectively contain that sort of thing.
It worked in a lot of other Konami games, too. I wouldn't be surprised to see a variation of it turn up as an "easter egg" in a new Konami game or two.
Wow. A considerate thief. Who would have imagined it?
The flag that keeps track of this would, of course, have to be named $rtbl.