CowboyNeal just lost a big amount of my respect after posting that. Sure, it's slashdot, and not only stories that survive close scrutiny are posted here, but this really screams "SNAKE OIL" just as much as your average penis enlargement spam, so... did he even *read* the submission before posting (and frontpaging) it?
The truth is, though, that it is unknown to us whether a connection exists or not. If someone eats apples, molests a child and is arrested for that, would you be outraged if they say "I was arrested for eating apples"? Probably not - rather, you'd point out that the very fact that there is no connection between the two things (eating apples and molesting children) means that their assertion is rubbish.
So, if someone is arrested for attempting to hack into a site and happens to be a lynx user, then why do you believe him when he's saying "I was arrested for using lynx" instead of point out that that's rubbish, too?
Now, of course, I don't *know* he was trying to hack into the site, and it may very well be that his statement (namely, that he was solely arrested because someone thought lynx was so unusual that it must have constituted a hacking attempt) is actually true. But I don't know he definitely wasn't, either, so I don't go about and ridicule those who point out that we do, in fact, not know which version is true.
At the risk of being modded as flamebait, that just shows again that jwz is an idiot.
Yeah, he did some cool stuff like xscreensaver, but when you actually talk to him, you'll find that he's really just a hateful idiot who will insult you simply for being what you are - not a bit better than any racist, sexist or Rush Limbaugh.
If the movie you were reading to him bit by bit was copyrighted and the copyright holder did not allow you to distribute it, then you did commit an illegal act.
And freedom of speech does not protect you - just like it does not protect you when you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, for example.
It's not Toy Story 3, but there *is* Kaze, Ghost Warrior, which was produced in six months by one man (Timothy Albee) on 2 PCs in his spare time...... and, one might, add, which seriously ROCKS. It's only 23 minutes, but quality-wise, it's just as good as anything Pixar could come up with.
Buy the DVD some time, you're not gonna regret it.:)
I fail to see how anyone could moderate that as "Troll" instead of "Insightful". It may not have been the most politely-worded comment, but there's more than a grain of truth in there (and this is slashdot, anyway, so if you want politeness, go somewhere else).
In the case of TVs at least, one might argue that these are actually meant to educate and provide information - just like, say, newspapers.
Of course, that purppose is kinda defeated when someone just watches talk shows and crappy shows 10 hours a day, but I doubt that that's even remotely possible in your average (US-american) prison.
Simple: Because it's the "taxpayer" (that is, the general public) that put them into prison.
You might just as well ask why the taxpayers have to pay for prison construction costs, for the inmates' food, and so on.
That being said, yes, they are in prison for a reason, and that reason is to make sure that they ultimately will give up on crime and become productive members of society again, coupled with (in the more extreme cases) protecting the general public from dangerous people like serial killers and the like. And yes, of course, there is an element of punishment, too, but it's not about *revenge*, which is a fundamentally different thing.
Think about it.
1. Yes, it was necessary. 2. Yes, the author (most likely) would've done so. (Not that I can speak for the author, of course, but if he has any amount of journalistic common sense, then the answer is yes). 3. You're wrong. Of course there is a political side to this story - outside of the bleedingly obvious fact that every official decision made by a politician has a political side (that's what it's ABOUT, for goodness' sake), the question how inmates should be treated, what rights they should have, and whether they should still be viewed as human beings with dignity is very much a political one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if this is not a political question, then what is?
You may be unhappy with the fact that one of your republican heroes is portrayed in a light that might be perceived as less than 100% positive and uncritical, but if you think about it for a second, you'll notice that the reporter is just doing his job - reporting. He's not responsible for the guy's actions, so why should he be making excuses for them or deliberately leaving out facts?
Rubbish. Look at the libtorrent project page; it clearly states that it's BSD-licensed, which makes it OK to include it in closed-source software.
Re:An EULA is no real contract in Germany
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 1
But games aren't the only programs that have EULAs - your typical application, for example, will only ask you to agree to its EULA's terms once (namely, when it's installed).
What's more, in Germany at least, you can't enter a contract accidentally - IANAL, but if, for example, the manufacturer places the focus on the "Accept" key by default, then you will be able to argue in court that you did not actually agree to the terms. It's like when someone says "if you do not agree to be bound by these terms, then please sign here; if you don't do anything, I'll assume you do agree" - that sort of thing just doesn't work.
True, but there's another issue that the article fails to address.
IANAL, just someone who believes he's got a reasonable amount of common sense, but why do I have to enter a contract with the software company who made a product (whether it's a game or something else) to use that product after I purchased it in a store, anyway? Didn't I already acquire the right to use that software when I payed for it in store? If you take Photoshop, for example, which actually costs a couple of hundreds of dollars, I really would argue that by paying those, you bought more than a cardboard box, some CDs and a printed manual - you bought the right to use Photoshop. Adobe granted the store to sell that right to one person along with the box, and now the store is selling that right to me.
Again, IANAL, but that's really what I think it's like. If I buy a book, for example, I don't have to enter a contract with the publisher to be allowed to read it, either, do I? I already got that right when I purchased the book, because what I paid for is more than just a stack of paper bound together. It's the right to actually utilize the contents (reading it in case of a book, and use it in case of software).
Slashdot Mirror
In related news, BatMax just announced that they hired CowboyNeal as the new head of their PR department.
CowboyNeal just lost a big amount of my respect after posting that. Sure, it's slashdot, and not only stories that survive close scrutiny are posted here, but this really screams "SNAKE OIL" just as much as your average penis enlargement spam, so... did he even *read* the submission before posting (and frontpaging) it?
It must have been a windows sysadmin, then. But yeah, that probably is equivalent to "inexperienced", anyway.
To quote Professor Farnsworth from Futurama: "A man can dream. A man can dream..."
The truth is, though, that it is unknown to us whether a connection exists or not. If someone eats apples, molests a child and is arrested for that, would you be outraged if they say "I was arrested for eating apples"? Probably not - rather, you'd point out that the very fact that there is no connection between the two things (eating apples and molesting children) means that their assertion is rubbish.
So, if someone is arrested for attempting to hack into a site and happens to be a lynx user, then why do you believe him when he's saying "I was arrested for using lynx" instead of point out that that's rubbish, too?
Now, of course, I don't *know* he was trying to hack into the site, and it may very well be that his statement (namely, that he was solely arrested because someone thought lynx was so unusual that it must have constituted a hacking attempt) is actually true. But I don't know he definitely wasn't, either, so I don't go about and ridicule those who point out that we do, in fact, not know which version is true.
At the risk of being modded as flamebait, that just shows again that jwz is an idiot.
:)
Yeah, he did some cool stuff like xscreensaver, but when you actually talk to him, you'll find that he's really just a hateful idiot who will insult you simply for being what you are - not a bit better than any racist, sexist or Rush Limbaugh.
I just had to say that.
If the movie you were reading to him bit by bit was copyrighted and the copyright holder did not allow you to distribute it, then you did commit an illegal act. And freedom of speech does not protect you - just like it does not protect you when you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, for example.
It's not Toy Story 3, but there *is* Kaze, Ghost Warrior, which was produced in six months by one man (Timothy Albee) on 2 PCs in his spare time... ... and, one might, add, which seriously ROCKS. It's only 23 minutes, but quality-wise, it's just as good as anything Pixar could come up with.
:)
Buy the DVD some time, you're not gonna regret it.
I fail to see how anyone could moderate that as "Troll" instead of "Insightful". It may not have been the most politely-worded comment, but there's more than a grain of truth in there (and this is slashdot, anyway, so if you want politeness, go somewhere else).
I wish I had points to mod you up. :)
In the case of TVs at least, one might argue that these are actually meant to educate and provide information - just like, say, newspapers.
Of course, that purppose is kinda defeated when someone just watches talk shows and crappy shows 10 hours a day, but I doubt that that's even remotely possible in your average (US-american) prison.
Simple: Because it's the "taxpayer" (that is, the general public) that put them into prison. You might just as well ask why the taxpayers have to pay for prison construction costs, for the inmates' food, and so on. That being said, yes, they are in prison for a reason, and that reason is to make sure that they ultimately will give up on crime and become productive members of society again, coupled with (in the more extreme cases) protecting the general public from dangerous people like serial killers and the like. And yes, of course, there is an element of punishment, too, but it's not about *revenge*, which is a fundamentally different thing. Think about it.
1. Yes, it was necessary.
2. Yes, the author (most likely) would've done so. (Not that I can speak for the author, of course, but if he has any amount of journalistic common sense, then the answer is yes).
3. You're wrong. Of course there is a political side to this story - outside of the bleedingly obvious fact that every official decision made by a politician has a political side (that's what it's ABOUT, for goodness' sake), the question how inmates should be treated, what rights they should have, and whether they should still be viewed as human beings with dignity is very much a political one. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if this is not a political question, then what is?
You may be unhappy with the fact that one of your republican heroes is portrayed in a light that might be perceived as less than 100% positive and uncritical, but if you think about it for a second, you'll notice that the reporter is just doing his job - reporting. He's not responsible for the guy's actions, so why should he be making excuses for them or deliberately leaving out facts?
It's just like with jazz (paraphrasing Louis Armstrong): if you have to ask, you'll never get it.
If you happen to come across the paper you were referring to again, please let me know - I'd be very interested in reading it.
:)
Thanks.
No.. just a political joke.
With luck, draughts and all that will at least mean we'll have to put up with less bushes. :)
No, but there's one for "Flamebait".
Is it OpenPGP-compliant? If yes, what are the advantages it has over established solutions like GnuPG? And if not, why should we use it at all?
How long until the eXeem makers either sue or try to ban lite users from the network?
Rubbish. Look at the libtorrent project page; it clearly states that it's BSD-licensed, which makes it OK to include it in closed-source software.
But games aren't the only programs that have EULAs - your typical application, for example, will only ask you to agree to its EULA's terms once (namely, when it's installed). What's more, in Germany at least, you can't enter a contract accidentally - IANAL, but if, for example, the manufacturer places the focus on the "Accept" key by default, then you will be able to argue in court that you did not actually agree to the terms. It's like when someone says "if you do not agree to be bound by these terms, then please sign here; if you don't do anything, I'll assume you do agree" - that sort of thing just doesn't work.
True, but there's another issue that the article fails to address. IANAL, just someone who believes he's got a reasonable amount of common sense, but why do I have to enter a contract with the software company who made a product (whether it's a game or something else) to use that product after I purchased it in a store, anyway? Didn't I already acquire the right to use that software when I payed for it in store? If you take Photoshop, for example, which actually costs a couple of hundreds of dollars, I really would argue that by paying those, you bought more than a cardboard box, some CDs and a printed manual - you bought the right to use Photoshop. Adobe granted the store to sell that right to one person along with the box, and now the store is selling that right to me. Again, IANAL, but that's really what I think it's like. If I buy a book, for example, I don't have to enter a contract with the publisher to be allowed to read it, either, do I? I already got that right when I purchased the book, because what I paid for is more than just a stack of paper bound together. It's the right to actually utilize the contents (reading it in case of a book, and use it in case of software).
No. Let's just raise insulin prices until it's more expensive than ink again!
Nice. Does it work in Seamonkey, too, though?