Sure I can. Just as I can ask that the laws against rape and murder be enforced more agressively than those against, say, jaywalking. And sane people do.
I wonder how many people can't distinguish the petty act of copyright infringement from an assault on peoples' time and attention. Just because they're both against the ISPs' AUPs (for purely CYA reasons) doesn't imply they both merit the same enforcement effort.
Exactly. Display of a BBB logo on a merchant's premises or website should be treated like a warning label. It says "We know we're shady, but want to make you feel better." When you visit any high-complaint business' premises, chances are you'll see the BBB plaque.
A contract requires a meeting of the minds and consideration. There is no meeting of the minds, because there is no opportunity to negotiate this Diktat "contract," which is "offered" after purchase of the product. Since the "contract" is "offered" after purchase, there is no consideration--Blizzard attempts to make the customer agree to terms as a condition of owning what he has already bought. Thus first sale does apply.
Yah, I'm replying to an offtopic post. But I'm $rtbl'd and have karma to burn.
Anyways, I can't see why even the most rabid Apple fan would buy a PPC based Mac right now, knowing it's a dead end. And while I'm certainly guilty of indulging in trolling Mac zealots (which is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I digress), I honestly wonder in this case.
The headline was a little misleading, and I admittedly didn't RTFA until later. However, it's quite logical to assume that Apple will do this, given that they use their hardware as a multi-thousand dollar dongle for OS X. If OS X runs on general x86 hardware, their days of selling essentially commodity hardware for botique prices will come to an end pretty quickly, especially since they will no longer be able to hide behind the Megahertz "myth."
Bill: I hear you're getting ready to release low level specs so the OpenBSD and Linux folks can make a driver.
Hardware Co. Rep.: That's right, Bill--figured it would be hard to go wrong increasing our potential market, at no cost to us. It's not like they can use the interface specs to build a card.
Bill: That's nice. You know, it'd be a real shame if your driver couldn't be WHQL certified, and users had to see a warning box when they ran with your card. Or worse, if there were mysterious blue screens . ..
Harware Co. Rep.: OK, I get your point, Bill. We'll cancel the release of the specs.
Bottom line is that for most people, there's no use for the TPM/TCPA/Palladium/NGSCB save for copy protection, DRM, and keeping whistleblowers from forwarding incriminating emails--and once the endorsement key feature gets turned on, vendor lock-in. So it's not a surprise that people react with suspicion about how these technologies will be put to use.
. . . for those Apple apologists who said that Apple's iTMS wasn't a portent of a more massive DRM scheme to come--the camel's nose underneath the tent, if you will.
Apple is about to embrace treacherous computing on a scale that could only be realized on the Wintel platform in the entertainment industries hottest and wettest dreams.
Those who in spite of evidence to the contrary preached Apple as the platform of freedom will soon be shown their naivite in spades.
. . . to The Hague in chains. Try him for crimes against humanity, convict him, and hang him high as a deterrent for other corporate officers responsibile for aiding and abetting oppression in China. While they're at it, there should be gallows for the executives at Cisco who authorized the Great Firewall work.
Why does everyone jump over this, yet not any antivirus software that has to connect all the time to the net to get updates? What about iTunes checking for updates? Real player? Photoshop? etc etc etc. The list goes on.
In every one of the examples you cite, except anti-virus, I can turn off the ability to call home without losing any function not legitimately requiring network access (e.g. song rental from the iTunes music service). Since the virus-writing divisions of the anti-virus software companies (grin) are always creating new viruses, constant updates are naturally necessary.
No one should have to cede control over his machine and agree to a Draconian agreeement that indemnifies Valve in the event of any screwups to play a game he legitimately purchased. This is about control, not about copyright infringement. The crackers will have this one on Usenet inside of a week--the only ones inconvenienced will be those who purchased a game that has to call home to use single player mode, and a company that's going to collect and sell Bob-knows-what information about them in the process.
Even if this work were at the behest of a foreign power, it has grave First Amendment implications. Anyhoo, I think the whole "foreign government request' was a convenient smokescreen for a takedown of what's been a problematic source of information/propaganda during the runup to the election. Once the adminstration saw that Indymedia would be defended, it backed off.
Slashdot Mirror
I oppose.
My guarantee is based on the obvious. Are you asking to make it a bet? How much?
Sure I can. Just as I can ask that the laws against rape and murder be enforced more agressively than those against, say, jaywalking. And sane people do.
If the vendor controls the keys, yes, it is scary. If I do, no, it is not.
I guarantee it won't be the owner who controls the keys. Thus, it's scary.
I wonder how many people can't distinguish the petty act of copyright infringement from an assault on peoples' time and attention. Just because they're both against the ISPs' AUPs (for purely CYA reasons) doesn't imply they both merit the same enforcement effort.
Exactly. Display of a BBB logo on a merchant's premises or website should be treated like a warning label. It says "We know we're shady, but want to make you feel better." When you visit any high-complaint business' premises, chances are you'll see the BBB plaque.
Well, Missouri is the Show Me State.
*** Osama has been left the channel #h8usa. Disconnected.
The answer to your question is right there in the post. I assume there's some sort of reading comprehension issue here?
The first court is in error, which will hopefully be established at the next higher court.
A contract requires a meeting of the minds and consideration. There is no meeting of the minds, because there is no opportunity to negotiate this Diktat "contract," which is "offered" after purchase of the product. Since the "contract" is "offered" after purchase, there is no consideration--Blizzard attempts to make the customer agree to terms as a condition of owning what he has already bought. Thus first sale does apply.
Anyways, I can't see why even the most rabid Apple fan would buy a PPC based Mac right now, knowing it's a dead end. And while I'm certainly guilty of indulging in trolling Mac zealots (which is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I digress), I honestly wonder in this case.
obstarwarsreference: "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it further" could be a commentary on closed source.
The headline was a little misleading, and I admittedly didn't RTFA until later. However, it's quite logical to assume that Apple will do this, given that they use their hardware as a multi-thousand dollar dongle for OS X. If OS X runs on general x86 hardware, their days of selling essentially commodity hardware for botique prices will come to an end pretty quickly, especially since they will no longer be able to hide behind the Megahertz "myth."
Hardware Co. Rep.: That's right, Bill--figured it would be hard to go wrong increasing our potential market, at no cost to us. It's not like they can use the interface specs to build a card.
Bill: That's nice. You know, it'd be a real shame if your driver couldn't be WHQL certified, and users had to see a warning box when they ran with your card. Or worse, if there were mysterious blue screens . . .
Harware Co. Rep.: OK, I get your point, Bill. We'll cancel the release of the specs.
Bottom line is that for most people, there's no use for the TPM/TCPA/Palladium/NGSCB save for copy protection, DRM, and keeping whistleblowers from forwarding incriminating emails--and once the endorsement key feature gets turned on, vendor lock-in. So it's not a surprise that people react with suspicion about how these technologies will be put to use.
Apple is about to embrace treacherous computing on a scale that could only be realized on the Wintel platform in the entertainment industries hottest and wettest dreams.
Those who in spite of evidence to the contrary preached Apple as the platform of freedom will soon be shown their naivite in spades.
. . . to The Hague in chains. Try him for crimes against humanity, convict him, and hang him high as a deterrent for other corporate officers responsibile for aiding and abetting oppression in China. While they're at it, there should be gallows for the executives at Cisco who authorized the Great Firewall work.
Careful--you're going to wear that bicycle out backpedaling.
And your argument is so good that it can't stand without name-calling. Again, your words speak volumes about you.
In every one of the examples you cite, except anti-virus, I can turn off the ability to call home without losing any function not legitimately requiring network access (e.g. song rental from the iTunes music service). Since the virus-writing divisions of the anti-virus software companies (grin) are always creating new viruses, constant updates are naturally necessary.
No one should have to cede control over his machine and agree to a Draconian agreeement that indemnifies Valve in the event of any screwups to play a game he legitimately purchased. This is about control, not about copyright infringement. The crackers will have this one on Usenet inside of a week--the only ones inconvenienced will be those who purchased a game that has to call home to use single player mode, and a company that's going to collect and sell Bob-knows-what information about them in the process.
Sorry, no returns on opened software. You'll have to take it up with the manufacturer.
Even if this work were at the behest of a foreign power, it has grave First Amendment implications. Anyhoo, I think the whole "foreign government request' was a convenient smokescreen for a takedown of what's been a problematic source of information/propaganda during the runup to the election. Once the adminstration saw that Indymedia would be defended, it backed off.
You mean seeing it for the first time from a first-person perspective, right?