As long as you trust the reading device. It could still display a different amount to the one that it charges you for; or copy your card details from the magstripe that is still on the back.
I also immediately thought of the Linux Standard Base. Unfortunately, that relies on rpm (which Ubuntu (and others) don't use by default, but which can be supported if certain packages are installed).
Only as a format for containing files. They might just as well have specified tar or cpio. The actual format that is chosen for packaging is irrelevant, as long as your distribution comes with a section in the release notes saying, "to install LSB packages, do this and that...".
there are heaps of people with access to the source code (ok, maybe not full), such as academic institutions, and infamous examples such as MainSoft, who could prove 'em wrong.
How do they know that the code they are provided with matches the code that we all run?
But then we'd have to take the word of some un1337 student haxer at some institution, who just locked down access to their precious copied jewels because some un1337 student haxer at some instituion proved some M$ guy wrong.
I can't parse this. But if someone did discover a back door in the code that MS provided them with then surely others would be able to reproduce the flaw?
Anyway, aren't there multiple reports of backdoors in PGP from various stages of its life?
Really, this is not only a solution to a non-issue, it just makes things worse over all.
God bless the Treaty of Rome and Our Glorious Leaders who signed it! May our children's children never forget the day that our forefathers forever signed away our freedoms for the sake of multinational corporations and the ever-expanding bureaucracy!
Your other comments may apply equally well to KDE.
I'll close with an old classic:
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you KDE fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of KDE (3.4) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from a folder on the hard drive to a server via the fish kioslav. 20 minutes. At home, on my Amstrad PC2086 running DOS 3.3, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, other KDE programs will not work, probably because dcopserver has ground to a halt. Even epiphany is straining to keep up as I type this.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use KDE over other faster, cheaper, more stable environments.
The Gnome people and the KDE people have fixed it. They decided that it would be simpler to implement these (often very complex) filesystems in user space, rather than dealing with the complexities and limitations of working in the kernel, not to mention the difficult of persuading the kernel hackers to accept the enormouse amounts of code directly into the kernel.:)
In this paper, we make the case for using the existing XFree86/X.Org DDX loadable driver framework to achieve a production-quality composited X desktop, as opposed to the X-on-OpenGL model. While the X-on-OpenGL model demonstrates what the graphics hardware is capable of, everything that the X-on-OpenGL model can achieve is equally possible with the current framework. Furthermore, the current framework offers flexibility to driver developers to expose vendor-specific features that may not be possible through the X-on-OpenGL model.
Seems to me as if there is a straightforward solution to this problem: make all content illegal, except for content signed by some central media authority. This authority should be run by the government since they are impartial and have our best interests at heart!
If more than ten computers connect to your computer for the purpose of file/print sharing, using IIS, or NetMeeting/Remote Desktop, then you violate the EULA. If any number of computers connect to your computer for any other purpose, then you violate the EULA.
I hope you don't run BitTorrent, Apache, Asterisk or any other illegal^Wnon-Microsoft server software!
There is no reason why you must enter this contract, but under our current legal code the only way to not enter the contract is not purchase and open the package.
If I go to a shop and buy some software, I give my money to the shopkeeper and, in return, recieve a box containing a CD.
On my new CD is a bunch of data. What I can do with this data is limited only by my human faculties; what I choose to do with it is my business alone; but what I may do with it is limited by society. Copyright law (temporarily) reserves the exercise of certain rights to the holder of the data's copyright.
Among the rights resreved are that of copying, modification and public performance. However, the right to run the software is not in this list. You may argue that the software must be copied into RAM in order to be run; however section 117 states that it is not an infringement to make a copy of a computer program if "such a new copy... is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program".
Since I do not infringe the copyright by running the software, I have no reason to ask the copyright holder for permission to do so; therefore I have no reason to agree to the EULA.
Furthermore, I believe that for a contract to be valid, there must be consideration (a "meeting of minds") given by both parties. Since the EULA grants me no benefits, and only takes away my rights, it might not even be a valid contract in the first place.
I believe that in a fair system, a court would throw out an EULA, just as it would discard an attempt to limit what I may do with my rake after the sale had been made. A contract agreed upon at the time of sale would, of course, still be valid. Similarly, if a publisher wants to make me give up my (natural) right to run his software, then he must make me sign the right away at the time of sale.
EULAs have nothing to do with copyright law. Zip Zero Zilch. Copyright law mearly says who can copy (reproduce) it. EULAs on the other hand are a contract. Within certain limits which we fight out in congress and court that can contain whatever terms they want. Apple could just as legally say "Thou shalt only run this on Apple hardware and nothing else." and include no authetication mechanism what-so-ever. You would still be just as (legally) guilty of violating the EULA as if they did include a protection scheme.
Please explain why I must I enter into this contract in the first place? I have no need to do so, so why should I sign away my rights in exchange for nothing?
If I buy a rake, it doesn't come with any conditions saying that I may only use it for cleaning leaves off of my lawn. If I buy a chair, it doesn't come with any conditions saying I may only use it for sitting on, etc.
How so? Copyright law does not reserve the right to run a program to the copyright holder; therefore, he who runs the program does not need to seek permission to do so; nor does such permission need to be granted in a license.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as you trust the reading device. It could still display a different amount to the one that it charges you for; or copy your card details from the magstripe that is still on the back.
Are you?
Who knows, indeed? ;)
They'll do that right after the unsolveable races/deadlocks in FUSE are solved.
Will he not be tainted by having had access to (and, in fact, creating) so much of Apple's intellectual 'property'?
39
Your other comments may apply equally well to KDE.
I'll close with an old classic:
The Gnome people and the KDE people have fixed it. They decided that it would be simpler to implement these (often very complex) filesystems in user space, rather than dealing with the complexities and limitations of working in the kernel, not to mention the difficult of persuading the kernel hackers to accept the enormouse amounts of code directly into the kernel. :)
Because there is no existing VFS as far as desktop apps are concerned--you have to be root to mount things.
The ide-scsi module has been deprecated since 2.6 came out. Everyone apart from Jorg Schilling has moved on to more modern ways of working. :)
XFree86/X.Org Loadable Driver Framework to Achieve a Composited X Desktop":
Seems to me as if there is a straightforward solution to this problem: make all content illegal, except for content signed by some central media authority. This authority should be run by the government since they are impartial and have our best interests at heart!
Read the http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/eula.mspx"> EULA.
If more than ten computers connect to your computer for the purpose of file/print sharing, using IIS, or NetMeeting/Remote Desktop, then you violate the EULA. If any number of computers connect to your computer for any other purpose, then you violate the EULA.
I hope you don't run BitTorrent, Apache, Asterisk or any other illegal^Wnon-Microsoft server software!
You have a user called *.* on your machine?
Shouldn't old decoders ignore the unsynchronised frames that contian the ID3V2 data?
If I go to a shop and buy some software, I give my money to the shopkeeper and, in return, recieve a box containing a CD.
On my new CD is a bunch of data. What I can do with this data is limited only by my human faculties; what I choose to do with it is my business alone; but what I may do with it is limited by society. Copyright law (temporarily) reserves the exercise of certain rights to the holder of the data's copyright.
Among the rights resreved are that of copying, modification and public performance. However, the right to run the software is not in this list. You may argue that the software must be copied into RAM in order to be run; however section 117 states that it is not an infringement to make a copy of a computer program if "such a new copy
Since I do not infringe the copyright by running the software, I have no reason to ask the copyright holder for permission to do so; therefore I have no reason to agree to the EULA.
Furthermore, I believe that for a contract to be valid, there must be consideration (a "meeting of minds") given by both parties. Since the EULA grants me no benefits, and only takes away my rights, it might not even be a valid contract in the first place.
I believe that in a fair system, a court would throw out an EULA, just as it would discard an attempt to limit what I may do with my rake after the sale had been made. A contract agreed upon at the time of sale would, of course, still be valid. Similarly, if a publisher wants to make me give up my (natural) right to run his software, then he must make me sign the right away at the time of sale.
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~davidt/tech_comm/Orwell_ Politics.htm
If I buy a rake, it doesn't come with any conditions saying that I may only use it for cleaning leaves off of my lawn. If I buy a chair, it doesn't come with any conditions saying I may only use it for sitting on, etc.
How so? Copyright law does not reserve the right to run a program to the copyright holder; therefore, he who runs the program does not need to seek permission to do so; nor does such permission need to be granted in a license.
If the program wanted to be malicious itself, there's no reason it would have to choose such a circuitous method to enact damage...
Krikey, Krita sounds like a neat problem. If only there would be a GNOME port? :)
In which case, the program that created the file is broken.
On Linux (and other traditional Unixes) you must deliberatly set the execute permission on a file before you can execute it.