Free speech? Should have thought of that before you did whatever it was that got you in there.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Nope, sorry - don't see an exclusion there for convicts or anyone else for that matter.
Of course it's a useful enduser tool. And in addition to this point, I have yet to see firewall logs and packets analysed to show that information is being sent back to Microsoft.
If we're thinking of this function as being spyware, might I also suggest we consider the function of Redhat's Linux distro which stores information as to the last time and date a particular file was accessed as spyware?
The problem though is defining a concept like consent without placing overreaching restrictions on software developer's freedoms. I mean, the majority of spyware currently obtains your consent in some way to install itself - buried in term number 11, section 3b of the click-through EULA, it is disclosed that you hereby give consent for Claria to install Gator, for example. Of course, they know nobody has enough hours in the day to read EVERY EULA put in front of them, so of course no real consent is ever formed.
This is hardly an excuse.
Let's imagine for a moment that EULAs are legally-enforceable contracts, which they are in Scotland.
Would you say the same thing about any other legally-enforceable contract such as a credit agreement or an employment contract?
When agreeing to a contract whether by signature of by electronic signature, you should always read all the terms of the contract you are agreeing to otherwise if/when things go "wrong" it is the person who agreed to the contract in the first instance who is at fault and no-one else.
Now, the only way I could theoretically see the inclusion of spyware by EULA being ruled illegal would be by something similar to the UK's Unfair Contract Terms Act - I'm not sure whether there is something similar in the US however it could potentially be argued in a court that the inclusion of such applications would be an unfair contract term, however there is no such rules set in stone as to what is and what isn't an unfair term.
If they feel deprived of revenue, perhaps they should reconsider the field of businness they're in, because I'm most certainly not here to pay their bills.
I can see from the tone of your post, particularly this choice quote, that you must work for free. After all, if you don't believe workers in the industry of content production and distribution deserve a wage and to have their bills paid, then neither do you in your industry.
In this situation because I own a license to listen to the song in question I would feel 100% justified in downloading a 320kbps MP3 file of the same song.
Inconvenient yes, but well in keeping with the recording industry's policy of "you own a license to listen to the music, not the music itself".
I believe this is actually part of UN International law which states that refugees must apply for refugee status in the first country the hit.
This is one of the main reasons why there has been such a fuss in the UK over illegal asylum seekers in recent times as most of the asylum seekers come from Eastern Europe and the middle east and go through numerous countries such as Italy and France before coming to the over-friendly country we call the UK.
At least compare apples to apples rather than apples to oranges.
Do you think you should also have the right to own Microsoft.com, or IBM.com - had you registered the domain name after the company in question had registered their trademark?
I had an old base unit - desktop style - with most of its guts ripped out and installed in other working machines - which now has a piece of perfectly shaped wood on top and acts as a bedside cabinet.
I also have a sliding cup holder which came as standard in my new PC. In my first PC I had to fit one of those myself but was rather relieved to see they came included with new PCs these days...
There's a difference between living in debt and making use of credit.
Let's say as an example you have a credit card with a $400 limit, and every month you make between $200-$300 worth of purchases using your credit card and pay it back immediately when your statement comes in. Contrast that with someone who has never used credit in their life and merely uses cash.
Who would you say has a more verifiable credit history and has shown they are able to pay back credit (at least to some degree) ?
In the UK we have the Data Protection Act which provides strict rules on how data can and cannot be used, and this law would prevent this type of information sharing illegal.
So I'm assuming you would advocate blaming the girl's parents, who presumably setup the Vonage connection and ignored all the warnings and notices to setup 911 access?
Well then, the people who took out the Vonage service should have read the instructions and the multiple messages during signup advising that 911 was not enabled by default and had to be done themselves, shouldn't they?
There's no excuse for not taking the responsibility to do so. People's lives are on the line. Plain and simple.
Well, I would say if someone has both signed the receipt with "your" signature and come up with the PIN which they have a 1 in 10,000 chance of guessing, then it's a very good guess that the person using the card has been authorised to use it, no?
The BBC's business model is to charge each household in the UK who have a television a fee of around £110 regardless of whether they use BBC services or not.
If the TV license fee isn't paid, then the Government allows non-payers to be fined upto £1,000.
Personally, I feel a business model of allowing viewers/listeners to pay for a particular service if they decide to use it is a much more fair business model.
"Free iPod" sigs aren't really spam. Somewhere in your Slashdot preferences lies the option to turn signatures off giving you the ability to stop this data from even being downloaded to your PC in the first place.
Similar to another poster, I've never seen Google Cache results come up in any search I've ever done on google.
To justify your "translation", you would be wise to provide an example of the search in which it's shown Google Cache results are given preference over other non-Google results.
You should perhaps post a link to the evidence where the developers of the original code admit they were naive to release their work under the BSD license.
Or perhaps you can't because you're just spouting FUD and refuse to admit that developers actually decided to use the BSD licence over and above the BSD licence because they have no problems with other developers being free to use their code with fewer restrictions than the GPL.
Had the developers of the code from which Darwin was based upon wanted their code released under the GPL then they would have done so. Instead, it was released under the BSD license which is intentionally designed to give more freedom to the developers.
Let's reverse your statement: The problem with the GNU General Public License is that it does not allow "this sort of thing"
There, see how ridiculous it sounds?
The point of having different open source licenses is so that the developers (that's right, the people who wrote the code) can decide what they want others to do with the code.
I use iTMS quite frequently to buy music - both tracks and albums. On the other hand, I also download files illegally from sources such as Bittorrent and IRC.
While I know it's illegal, I class it on the same scale as driving over the speed limit on a road which I would consider it not life-endangering to do so. However, it's a risk I take in that generally there isn't much chance of me getting caught speeding on a road where everyone else is speeding, and similarly with filesharing and downloading files illegally I class it as an acceptable risk.
Slashdot Mirror
Suggesting that Crimson Editor is non-free can and will cause confusion with its many users who have never paid a single penny for it.
Nope, sorry - don't see an exclusion there for convicts or anyone else for that matter.
If we're thinking of this function as being spyware, might I also suggest we consider the function of Redhat's Linux distro which stores information as to the last time and date a particular file was accessed as spyware?
This is hardly an excuse.
Let's imagine for a moment that EULAs are legally-enforceable contracts, which they are in Scotland.
Would you say the same thing about any other legally-enforceable contract such as a credit agreement or an employment contract?
When agreeing to a contract whether by signature of by electronic signature, you should always read all the terms of the contract you are agreeing to otherwise if/when things go "wrong" it is the person who agreed to the contract in the first instance who is at fault and no-one else.
Now, the only way I could theoretically see the inclusion of spyware by EULA being ruled illegal would be by something similar to the UK's Unfair Contract Terms Act - I'm not sure whether there is something similar in the US however it could potentially be argued in a court that the inclusion of such applications would be an unfair contract term, however there is no such rules set in stone as to what is and what isn't an unfair term.
I can see from the tone of your post, particularly this choice quote, that you must work for free. After all, if you don't believe workers in the industry of content production and distribution deserve a wage and to have their bills paid, then neither do you in your industry.
Will you be happier paying for all your content when it comes to the time when the majority of web users use ad-blocking applications?
And include it in proprietary products without any legal comeback to the original authors.
Inconvenient yes, but well in keeping with the recording industry's policy of "you own a license to listen to the music, not the music itself".
This is one of the main reasons why there has been such a fuss in the UK over illegal asylum seekers in recent times as most of the asylum seekers come from Eastern Europe and the middle east and go through numerous countries such as Italy and France before coming to the over-friendly country we call the UK.
Do you think you should also have the right to own Microsoft.com, or IBM.com - had you registered the domain name after the company in question had registered their trademark?
I had an old base unit - desktop style - with most of its guts ripped out and installed in other working machines - which now has a piece of perfectly shaped wood on top and acts as a bedside cabinet.
I also have a sliding cup holder which came as standard in my new PC. In my first PC I had to fit one of those myself but was rather relieved to see they came included with new PCs these days...
Let's say as an example you have a credit card with a $400 limit, and every month you make between $200-$300 worth of purchases using your credit card and pay it back immediately when your statement comes in. Contrast that with someone who has never used credit in their life and merely uses cash.
Who would you say has a more verifiable credit history and has shown they are able to pay back credit (at least to some degree) ?
In the UK we have the Data Protection Act which provides strict rules on how data can and cannot be used, and this law would prevent this type of information sharing illegal.
So I'm assuming you would advocate blaming the girl's parents, who presumably setup the Vonage connection and ignored all the warnings and notices to setup 911 access?
There's no excuse for not taking the responsibility to do so. People's lives are on the line. Plain and simple.
Well, I would say if someone has both signed the receipt with "your" signature and come up with the PIN which they have a 1 in 10,000 chance of guessing, then it's a very good guess that the person using the card has been authorised to use it, no?
If the TV license fee isn't paid, then the Government allows non-payers to be fined upto £1,000.
Personally, I feel a business model of allowing viewers/listeners to pay for a particular service if they decide to use it is a much more fair business model.
Same here. Just as I blame the problems with IE opening popup ads on spyware and other malicious programs and not on the browser itself.
"Free iPod" sigs aren't really spam. Somewhere in your Slashdot preferences lies the option to turn signatures off giving you the ability to stop this data from even being downloaded to your PC in the first place.
With regards to the premium channels, your cable provider pays per RGU (revenue generating unit) and as such passes the costs onto their customers.
To justify your "translation", you would be wise to provide an example of the search in which it's shown Google Cache results are given preference over other non-Google results.
And that should read: ...developers actually decided to use the BSD licence over and above the GPL...
Or perhaps you can't because you're just spouting FUD and refuse to admit that developers actually decided to use the BSD licence over and above the BSD licence because they have no problems with other developers being free to use their code with fewer restrictions than the GPL.
Let's reverse your statement:
The problem with the GNU General Public License is that it does not allow "this sort of thing"
There, see how ridiculous it sounds?
The point of having different open source licenses is so that the developers (that's right, the people who wrote the code) can decide what they want others to do with the code.
I use iTMS quite frequently to buy music - both tracks and albums. On the other hand, I also download files illegally from sources such as Bittorrent and IRC.
While I know it's illegal, I class it on the same scale as driving over the speed limit on a road which I would consider it not life-endangering to do so. However, it's a risk I take in that generally there isn't much chance of me getting caught speeding on a road where everyone else is speeding, and similarly with filesharing and downloading files illegally I class it as an acceptable risk.