It means they still have to worry about losing on appeal and getting an injunction again, but for the time being, they can continue to do what they're doing.
No we're talking about the difference between a criminal case and a civil case -- they are very different. As either the article or someone else stated - it's probably not worth AOL's time and money to go searching for buried treasure, They simply want to prevent Hawke from getting to it and living off of it.
Let's go back to a hand, a foot and your first born for an eye. Next time you'll think twice about committing crime.
In that case, you'd need a much more stringet set of requirements for the burden of proof lest you end up with a society of one handed, one footed, one eyed people, many of whom were falsely accused and convicted.
If you want to spur more violence and civil unrest all you need to do is overreact in an excessively violent manner. A perfect example of this is Israel and Lebanon. Understandably Israel was angered by the murder of their (three?) soldiers, but bombing Lebanon back to the stone age in retaliation was a bit on the "way overboard" side in terms of justice. And because of it did Lebanon and Hezbollah stop doing what they were doing? Of course not - it just escalated.
I'm not saying violence is never justified, but excessive violence is never justified. Would you lop off appendages for jaywalking, or just for murder? What about white-collar crimes like Ken Lay and Enron?
Probably because it's a hassle. Imagine waking each morning to the sound of a backhoe chewing through your well-manicured lawn. That's not something I'd want to hear for a couple weeks. Additionally, even if AOL replaces what they tear up, looking at Hydroseed on a big flat plot of dirt isn't quite as nice as the grass or other plants that used to be there.
And finally there's a consideration of the land having some environmental value such as being part wetland or home to wild grasses (this is all, of course speculation because TFA didn't say anything about it). At best, I could see AOL getting a warrant or equivalent to use metal detectors to sweep the land before being allowed to puruse any more drastic measures.
In the end, it's not amusing in the slightest for Hawke's parents and AOL's digging certainly infringes on their right to privacy. It would be no different if the guy buried gold and platinum bars in someone else's property (even if he did it illegally). It's not like they're looking for a body in a murder investigation - it's literally a treasure hunt, and I doubt very much AOL's right to dig is protected by law.
I also hope that with its passing we begin to see the demise of the patent system because a patent will no longer have significant meaning - it's just like an RTS game...first to the patent office (or first to attack) wins. We'll see the quality of patented things drop (though they're not particularly high now) and those people who invent things and get shafted too many times turn to alternate means of releasing their inventions.
I'm willing to bet that an inventor (note: not a money-grubber) is more interested in seeing their invention be used and adopted than to merely get a patent on it. With something like Creative Commons for tangible inventions I think we'd have a viable alternative to patents. Clearly, the existing rules for patents must still apply (non-obvious, useful, not overly broad, etc.) or too many vague patents will impeded innovation more than the current system.
Just fyi, the computer was the ONLY wireless device on my network - so it wasn't like the bandwidth was being used by soemthing else. Also, the distance between the router and PC was about 100 feet, one wall and one floor - so I'm sure I had less than the best reception. But that's kind of my point - wireless is great for freedom of mobility, but for video streaming it just didn't cut it - plus I'm sure the encryption didn't help speed things up any (though I doubt it slowed it down significantly).
If I could invent a wireless switch, I'd be a millionaire.:)
Have you ever tried streaming video between computers connected even by wireless g? The Internet will never feel slow because it operates at the fastest 10mbps - even wireless b can handle that no problem. But use VLC and serve up a large movie or mpeg from one computer and try to watch it on another and you'll start to see glitches and artifacts and pauses. These incrsease with the distance between the machines and the wireless router/hub.
When I switched my MythTV box from wireless g to wired 10/100 I went from being unable to watch a video stream from the Myth box to watching the same video stream from the Myth box on both machines - playing back different segments of the video. On top of that, the playback of both was flawless!
The wirelss speed isn't the problem, it's dropped packets and encryption just makes it that much more work to get a packet of information from one machine to the next -- encode, send, verify, (resend, verify, repeat as necessary) decode, use.
Maybe he doesn't want to slow his already limited network bandwidth down by encrypting everything. This is a much funnier and less bandwidth-hogging solution to an annoying problem.
rather than those copyright holders whose music was actually downloaded
Don't confuse artist with copyright holder. In this case, the RIAA/IFPI is the copyright holder by contract, and the artist is just the workhorse. As such, the money is going to the copyright holder.
I think classically 'geek' was more derrogative than 'nerd' but thanks to pop culture and the rise in popularity of geeks (think "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Geek Squad") that geekdom now surpasses nerdom in the ranks of social status vs. tech skills.
The Geek Squad commercials depict somewhat dorky members but they are still well-manicured in clean clothes and wooing the woman at the door whose computer is busted. On the other hand, in "Revenge of the Nerds" everyone except Anthony Edwards was almost borderline retarded when it came to women or anything other than the techno-stuff they worked on. 'Booger' and 'Toshiro Takashi' were your bad hygene and taped glasses nerd image.
I also think the likes of Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds are considered 'geeks' to which one should aspire - not nerds in their trade. So in essence, geeks are not much different from nerds in the technical skills department - the difference lies in their ability and desire to also fit into the social structure of the non-geek world, even to make it to superstar(geek)dom.
As such, I consider myself a geek because while I'm technically savvy and am well-rounded in other areas of discipline, I have rarely passed up a social opportunity to stay home by myself and obsess about a game or tech gadget/project. I enjoy the company of others and do socialize as much as (or a close approximiation) as the next non-geek...slashdot posting notwithstanding.
What's the difference between them swapping your drained battery or them draining their own battery? In the end they still have n - 1 charged batteries and it will take them the same amount of time to recharge.
With that math out of the way what's the downsides to each?
Swap battery
people may not trust the battery they're getting in exchange is the same quality
you have to move two batteries instead of one
Charge battery
need to design a battery that will not allow this rapid charge without also allowing an equally rapid discharge through the same interface
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it certainly seems like charging rapidly is preferable to exchanging. Especially if you look at it from the point of view of those who buy 'premium' batteries and will only swap out for the same brand/quality. The charging station would now need to keep a varied stock of batteries to swap or lose buisness to another that will stock more and varied batteries.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't RedHat sell their maintenance services, and their training primarily? Even if Ubuntu steps into the enterprise market with a free product, I doubt their service will be free. Also RedHat has a well-recognized name in the linux enterprise market - it will take Ubuntu a great deal if time and effort to steal that mind and market share from RedHat -- plenty of time to 'react', or better yet improve their service and value.
But I do agree that RedHat needs to beware of falling victim to Ghandi's famous quote about first they ignore, then they laugh, then they fight, then you win -- they being RH and you being Ubuntu.
This particular shrink-wrapped license case has to do with Mr. X buying a piece of software that the license said was for non-commercial use only (because commercial use had a higher price), and he proceeded to use it for a business he started up.
In this case, the terms of usage were very reasonable and I'm not surprised the court overturned the original decision that ruled it was unenforcable. The reasons it was deemed enforcable in this case is that they guy in question knew exactly the terms he was agreeing to but chose to ignore them and violate the terms anyway. He was not forced to use the software in volation of the terms. If he disagreed and he did not suffer any loss of functionality or if he disagreed simply because he didn't like the terms, he could have chosen to use another package.
The case says he could have returned the software if he disagreed to the terms, but I'm not sure if that was actually possible or not - i.e. if he bought it direct from the software builder or from a retail outlet. If retail he might have had a stronger case. But in any event, this wasn't a case of a person being forced to accept an agreement that changed the terms during an update, and the language of the agreement was not such that it was considered unconscionable.
I think whether a shrink-wrapped license is enforcable or not depends heavily on two things:
Whether or not the user intentionally and blatently violated the terms
Even if the court held the EULA is enforcable (and I didn't read the case, so I'm just going on your word) I'm sure that could easily be overturned in a higher court.
The problem is that there's no way to associate a EULA with a single person. That is, there's no way to prove that Mr. X read and agreed to the EULA. This is especially true in the case of OEMs and pre-fab computers like Dell and Gateway. These manufacturers install Windows and often many other programs - clicking through the EULAs that the consumer of the machine will never see. I've not seen a printed or written EULA that's handed to me at Best Buy before I buy the computer. If I'm lucky enough to get the installation media with my PC, it's usually unopened and therefore I don't have to break any seals or agree to any terms by doing so -- someone else agreed to them already without my express knowledge or consent. And purchasing the computer without any counseling or written notification of the terms of usage, it cannot be held that I - as the purchaser of a new pre-fab PC - agreed to any specific licensing terms or agreements of the software installed by the OEM.
For all I know, the EULA could have said I surrender the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but I never had a chance to read it or agree to it before I started using the software. In particular, on pre-fab computers that don't even come with the installation media (very common nowadays) I don't even have the warning of a label on a CD jacket.
My point is, you cannot be found in breach of contract if you didn't explicitly agree - in writing or some other personnally verifiable means -- to the terms of usage, and EULAs do not offer the appropriate means of verifying that the person who agreed to the EULA is the same person who is using the software.
I suspect the case you site was very minor and the damages also very minor - not worth fighting at all or I suspect it would have been overturned on appeal.
Considering your sig, it's ironic that you repeat the brainwash that EULAs are contracts.
Contracts are signed by both parties and are legally-binding documents. EULAs are a hollow threat at best but when coupled with enough FUD to make people believe that by clicking 'I agree' they're actually signing something (especially in the situation where you've already opened the software box and broken the seal and any number of other things that makes it very difficult - if not impossible in some cases - to return the software).
When a EULA is held up in court as being a legally-enforcable contract, then I'll take your post seriously. But at this time, the only cases in which clicks count as signatures are for things like tax returns -- and usually those clicks are coupled with a personal code of your choosing so that at a later time they could verify that you did indeed agree to the terms when clicking because you 'signed' it with your PIN number. I have never seen a PIN number with a EULA before.
Slashdot Mirror
It means they still have to worry about losing on appeal and getting an injunction again, but for the time being, they can continue to do what they're doing.
No we're talking about the difference between a criminal case and a civil case -- they are very different. As either the article or someone else stated - it's probably not worth AOL's time and money to go searching for buried treasure, They simply want to prevent Hawke from getting to it and living off of it.
In that case, you'd need a much more stringet set of requirements for the burden of proof lest you end up with a society of one handed, one footed, one eyed people, many of whom were falsely accused and convicted.
If you want to spur more violence and civil unrest all you need to do is overreact in an excessively violent manner. A perfect example of this is Israel and Lebanon. Understandably Israel was angered by the murder of their (three?) soldiers, but bombing Lebanon back to the stone age in retaliation was a bit on the "way overboard" side in terms of justice. And because of it did Lebanon and Hezbollah stop doing what they were doing? Of course not - it just escalated.
I'm not saying violence is never justified, but excessive violence is never justified. Would you lop off appendages for jaywalking, or just for murder? What about white-collar crimes like Ken Lay and Enron?
Probably because it's a hassle. Imagine waking each morning to the sound of a backhoe chewing through your well-manicured lawn. That's not something I'd want to hear for a couple weeks. Additionally, even if AOL replaces what they tear up, looking at Hydroseed on a big flat plot of dirt isn't quite as nice as the grass or other plants that used to be there.
And finally there's a consideration of the land having some environmental value such as being part wetland or home to wild grasses (this is all, of course speculation because TFA didn't say anything about it). At best, I could see AOL getting a warrant or equivalent to use metal detectors to sweep the land before being allowed to puruse any more drastic measures.
In the end, it's not amusing in the slightest for Hawke's parents and AOL's digging certainly infringes on their right to privacy. It would be no different if the guy buried gold and platinum bars in someone else's property (even if he did it illegally). It's not like they're looking for a body in a murder investigation - it's literally a treasure hunt, and I doubt very much AOL's right to dig is protected by law.
I also hope that with its passing we begin to see the demise of the patent system because a patent will no longer have significant meaning - it's just like an RTS game...first to the patent office (or first to attack) wins. We'll see the quality of patented things drop (though they're not particularly high now) and those people who invent things and get shafted too many times turn to alternate means of releasing their inventions.
I'm willing to bet that an inventor (note: not a money-grubber) is more interested in seeing their invention be used and adopted than to merely get a patent on it. With something like Creative Commons for tangible inventions I think we'd have a viable alternative to patents. Clearly, the existing rules for patents must still apply (non-obvious, useful, not overly broad, etc.) or too many vague patents will impeded innovation more than the current system.
I was winning...I woulda won!
Wouldn't that be RIGLing?
Just fyi, the computer was the ONLY wireless device on my network - so it wasn't like the bandwidth was being used by soemthing else. Also, the distance between the router and PC was about 100 feet, one wall and one floor - so I'm sure I had less than the best reception. But that's kind of my point - wireless is great for freedom of mobility, but for video streaming it just didn't cut it - plus I'm sure the encryption didn't help speed things up any (though I doubt it slowed it down significantly).
:)
If I could invent a wireless switch, I'd be a millionaire.
Have you ever tried streaming video between computers connected even by wireless g? The Internet will never feel slow because it operates at the fastest 10mbps - even wireless b can handle that no problem. But use VLC and serve up a large movie or mpeg from one computer and try to watch it on another and you'll start to see glitches and artifacts and pauses. These incrsease with the distance between the machines and the wireless router/hub.
When I switched my MythTV box from wireless g to wired 10/100 I went from being unable to watch a video stream from the Myth box to watching the same video stream from the Myth box on both machines - playing back different segments of the video. On top of that, the playback of both was flawless!
The wirelss speed isn't the problem, it's dropped packets and encryption just makes it that much more work to get a packet of information from one machine to the next -- encode, send, verify, (resend, verify, repeat as necessary) decode, use.
In the words of Stephen Colbert at the Whitehouse Correspondant's Dinner, "Ah..hmm... You have to set up your jokes properly, sir."
:(
Apparently even when posing as a comedian I can't rearrange the prefixes correctly to make the joke I was attempting (DHMO).
Maybe he doesn't want to slow his already limited network bandwidth down by encrypting everything. This is a much funnier and less bandwidth-hogging solution to an annoying problem.
that stuff's toxic!
I think with the thick skin of a pineapple that these stickers wouldn't work on it anyway, unlike the porous skin of an orange or nectarine.
Don't forget to make it shoot out a few inches in the direction of the visitor/intruder and say, "Choo co BAK chi!" :)
Two more years.
Jokes about alien motorcycle cop shows? Or maybe a crossover show with "Nick At Night" hillbillies and Eric Estrada?
Let's face it...there just really ain't many good jokes about green chips!
I think classically 'geek' was more derrogative than 'nerd' but thanks to pop culture and the rise in popularity of geeks (think "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Geek Squad") that geekdom now surpasses nerdom in the ranks of social status vs. tech skills.
The Geek Squad commercials depict somewhat dorky members but they are still well-manicured in clean clothes and wooing the woman at the door whose computer is busted. On the other hand, in "Revenge of the Nerds" everyone except Anthony Edwards was almost borderline retarded when it came to women or anything other than the techno-stuff they worked on. 'Booger' and 'Toshiro Takashi' were your bad hygene and taped glasses nerd image.
I also think the likes of Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds are considered 'geeks' to which one should aspire - not nerds in their trade. So in essence, geeks are not much different from nerds in the technical skills department - the difference lies in their ability and desire to also fit into the social structure of the non-geek world, even to make it to superstar(geek)dom.
As such, I consider myself a geek because while I'm technically savvy and am well-rounded in other areas of discipline, I have rarely passed up a social opportunity to stay home by myself and obsess about a game or tech gadget/project. I enjoy the company of others and do socialize as much as (or a close approximiation) as the next non-geek...slashdot posting notwithstanding.
Removal of inconvenience? I think you mean "to compensate for the deprival of convenience for other people".
What's the difference between them swapping your drained battery or them draining their own battery? In the end they still have n - 1 charged batteries and it will take them the same amount of time to recharge.
With that math out of the way what's the downsides to each?
Swap battery
- people may not trust the battery they're getting in exchange is the same quality
- you have to move two batteries instead of one
Charge batteryMaybe I'm missing something here, but it certainly seems like charging rapidly is preferable to exchanging. Especially if you look at it from the point of view of those who buy 'premium' batteries and will only swap out for the same brand/quality. The charging station would now need to keep a varied stock of batteries to swap or lose buisness to another that will stock more and varied batteries.
Well, they are called Mythbusters, not Truthbusters -- what fun would it be to replicate Franklin's experiment on a cable tv show?
Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't RedHat sell their maintenance services, and their training primarily? Even if Ubuntu steps into the enterprise market with a free product, I doubt their service will be free. Also RedHat has a well-recognized name in the linux enterprise market - it will take Ubuntu a great deal if time and effort to steal that mind and market share from RedHat -- plenty of time to 'react', or better yet improve their service and value.
But I do agree that RedHat needs to beware of falling victim to Ghandi's famous quote about first they ignore, then they laugh, then they fight, then you win -- they being RH and you being Ubuntu.
This particular shrink-wrapped license case has to do with Mr. X buying a piece of software that the license said was for non-commercial use only (because commercial use had a higher price), and he proceeded to use it for a business he started up.
In this case, the terms of usage were very reasonable and I'm not surprised the court overturned the original decision that ruled it was unenforcable. The reasons it was deemed enforcable in this case is that they guy in question knew exactly the terms he was agreeing to but chose to ignore them and violate the terms anyway. He was not forced to use the software in volation of the terms. If he disagreed and he did not suffer any loss of functionality or if he disagreed simply because he didn't like the terms, he could have chosen to use another package.
The case says he could have returned the software if he disagreed to the terms, but I'm not sure if that was actually possible or not - i.e. if he bought it direct from the software builder or from a retail outlet. If retail he might have had a stronger case. But in any event, this wasn't a case of a person being forced to accept an agreement that changed the terms during an update, and the language of the agreement was not such that it was considered unconscionable.
I think whether a shrink-wrapped license is enforcable or not depends heavily on two things:
Even if the court held the EULA is enforcable (and I didn't read the case, so I'm just going on your word) I'm sure that could easily be overturned in a higher court.
The problem is that there's no way to associate a EULA with a single person. That is, there's no way to prove that Mr. X read and agreed to the EULA. This is especially true in the case of OEMs and pre-fab computers like Dell and Gateway. These manufacturers install Windows and often many other programs - clicking through the EULAs that the consumer of the machine will never see. I've not seen a printed or written EULA that's handed to me at Best Buy before I buy the computer. If I'm lucky enough to get the installation media with my PC, it's usually unopened and therefore I don't have to break any seals or agree to any terms by doing so -- someone else agreed to them already without my express knowledge or consent. And purchasing the computer without any counseling or written notification of the terms of usage, it cannot be held that I - as the purchaser of a new pre-fab PC - agreed to any specific licensing terms or agreements of the software installed by the OEM.
For all I know, the EULA could have said I surrender the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but I never had a chance to read it or agree to it before I started using the software. In particular, on pre-fab computers that don't even come with the installation media (very common nowadays) I don't even have the warning of a label on a CD jacket.
My point is, you cannot be found in breach of contract if you didn't explicitly agree - in writing or some other personnally verifiable means -- to the terms of usage, and EULAs do not offer the appropriate means of verifying that the person who agreed to the EULA is the same person who is using the software.
I suspect the case you site was very minor and the damages also very minor - not worth fighting at all or I suspect it would have been overturned on appeal.
Considering your sig, it's ironic that you repeat the brainwash that EULAs are contracts.
Contracts are signed by both parties and are legally-binding documents. EULAs are a hollow threat at best but when coupled with enough FUD to make people believe that by clicking 'I agree' they're actually signing something (especially in the situation where you've already opened the software box and broken the seal and any number of other things that makes it very difficult - if not impossible in some cases - to return the software).
When a EULA is held up in court as being a legally-enforcable contract, then I'll take your post seriously. But at this time, the only cases in which clicks count as signatures are for things like tax returns -- and usually those clicks are coupled with a personal code of your choosing so that at a later time they could verify that you did indeed agree to the terms when clicking because you 'signed' it with your PIN number. I have never seen a PIN number with a EULA before.