Hahaha, police action. What a wonderful euphemism that is. It conjures images of shield, billy club and mace wielding swat team officers, dispersing crowds.
News flash: if you are gathering an invading army, it ain't a police action.
As has already been replied to other posts on the topic, americans need not worry about us Canadians covetting their beer. We'd like Pamela Lee back, mind you, but you can keep the beer.
Too bad they tried to satsify the content providers (advertisers) instead of the end users.
This is new? TV advertising has been rampant with catering to the avertiser for decades. Simple economics and capitalism have proven that those with resources decide the content, so long as they pay for what we 'want'.
And the lesson is: so long as we remain passive robots who stare at what we given, without questioning, others set the agenda and format.
You're getting a product for free. If netscape needs information to sell/share to
[snip] You don't have to use their browser.
If were to give you a stick of gum, do you agree I have the right to film you to see when/where you decide to chew it?
It does NOT follow that the creator of a program has the 'right' to monitor it's usage. AND use your bandwidth to do it. Also EULA's aren't law. They (iirc) haven't even been upheld in court yet.
Lastly, it's dodgy practice no matter how you slice it to have a program doing something that's deliberately hidden from the users view. Imho, this business of monitoring must be up front and clearly agreed to. (unlike every first execution of either new or patched installations of iexploder. IE phone home! bah.)
Think about it: If Microsoft could swipe the Linux kernel, wrap Windows around it, and sell it without the source, what would the
[snip] fork. Socially, Linux in the public domain would be far more powerful than Linux under the GPL.
The POINT is that Gargamelsoft (I love this monikker, kudos to it's creator) could later come back out and claim that later versions of the linux THEY COPIED were derivative of their work. Whereupon it would become a battle of attrition to determine ownership (and precedent)
Under current conditions, you imply that you acknowledge non-ownership when you use gpl'd source and distribute your own.
Allowing someone else part-ownership of your work gives them a foot in the door to owning all later versions. Much better to force them to always clearly delineate between what they claim to have made, and what they copied. Easier also for the public (the many-eyes approach) to have a boo and decide for themselves.
China has had pretty good success in censoring what it's citizens can and can not view. Costly I'm sure it is, it makes me wonder if France is next.
This argument assumes China will continue to be successful in this, and that it's goverment isn't buying more trouble in the attempt. Remember it's current government replaces a thousands-year long predecessor, so it's reasonable to conclude it can itself be replaced, which would make it's current attempt to censor a failure.
IANAL (in fact IANAA), but to the best of my knowledge the principle of innocent until proven guilty is only true of criminal cases, not civil matters.
>> So please kindly shut the fuck up and stay that way.
one of "Please" or "kindly" under that usage, not both. Both is unnecessarily extra and redundant. And not needed.
As to the part of your post that was relevant I would say that the point here is restricting corporations from taking over. It presupposes that the government is already in check. A big if, sure. If it's not already true, the population in question has much bigger problems than whether region codes and patents are being honoured.
"The issue", as another poster has already pointed out, is that 3 corporations are attempting to use customs as their own enforcement. Until there is a civil suit judging the not-licensed manufacturers illegal, customs can't (shouldn't) attempt to contradict anything. The bottom line, corporations shouldn't be allowed to control law enforcement.
Period. As soon as you do, the corporations ARE the government and all the worst cyberpunk plots you ever heard of come true.
Re:Off the tree around the hill...
on
Cringely's Bank Shot
·
· Score: -1, Redundant
> You're a fucking faggot, dude.
Millions of years of evolution to achieve communication skills such as this. Imagine!
Slashdot Mirror
Hahaha, police action. What a wonderful euphemism that is. It conjures images of shield, billy club and mace wielding swat team officers, dispersing crowds.
News flash: if you are gathering an invading army, it ain't a police action.
Pondering. brain and pinky ponder.
As has already been replied to other posts on the topic, americans need not worry about us Canadians covetting their beer. We'd like Pamela Lee back, mind you, but you can keep the beer.
And if you have any doubts about our ultimate agenda, have a look: http://www.standonguard.com
This is new? TV advertising has been rampant with catering to the avertiser for decades. Simple economics and capitalism have proven that those with resources decide the content, so long as they pay for what we 'want'.
And the lesson is: so long as we remain passive robots who stare at what we given, without questioning, others set the agenda and format.
If were to give you a stick of gum, do you agree I have the right to film you to see when/where you decide to chew it?
It does NOT follow that the creator of a program has the 'right' to monitor it's usage. AND use your bandwidth to do it. Also EULA's aren't law.
They (iirc) haven't even been upheld in court yet.
Lastly, it's dodgy practice no matter how you slice it to have a program doing something that's deliberately hidden from the users view. Imho, this business of monitoring must be up front and clearly agreed to. (unlike every first execution of either new or patched installations of iexploder. IE phone home! bah.)
Offtopic? Idiots. Guy trys to be funny and you clods mark him down..
The right to a speedy trial, like 'innocent until proven guilty',
are criminal trial concepts.
Different ballgame in civil matters.
The POINT is that Gargamelsoft (I love this monikker, kudos to it's creator) could later come back out and claim that later versions of the linux THEY COPIED were derivative of their work. Whereupon it would become a battle of attrition to determine ownership (and precedent) Under current conditions, you imply that you acknowledge non-ownership when you use gpl'd source and distribute your own.
Allowing someone else part-ownership of your work gives them a foot in the door to owning all later versions. Much better to force them to always clearly delineate between what they claim to have made, and what they copied. Easier also for the public (the many-eyes approach) to have a boo and decide for themselves.
Flamebait? I just screwed up and forgot a BR before the word 'millions'. I was actually attempting to castigate the previous poster..
IANAL (in fact IANAA), but to the best of my knowledge the principle of innocent until proven guilty is only true of criminal cases, not civil matters.
>> So please kindly shut the fuck up and stay that way.
one of "Please" or "kindly" under that usage, not both. Both is unnecessarily extra and redundant. And not needed.
As to the part of your post that was relevant I would say that the point here is restricting corporations from taking over. It presupposes that the government is already in check. A big if, sure. If it's not already true, the population in question has much bigger problems than whether region codes and patents are being honoured.
"The issue", as another poster has already pointed out, is that 3 corporations are attempting to use customs as their own enforcement. Until there is a civil suit judging the not-licensed manufacturers illegal, customs can't (shouldn't) attempt to contradict anything. The bottom line, corporations shouldn't be allowed to control law enforcement. Period. As soon as you do, the corporations ARE the government and all the worst cyberpunk plots you ever heard of come true.
> You're a fucking faggot, dude. Millions of years of evolution to achieve communication skills such as this. Imagine!
Score: 5 Insightful, 5 Funny.