But since it's the BSD license, Cisco can just take it and copy it if it turns out to be better. Not trying to start a BSD vs. GPL flamewar or anything, just saying.
Who signed the DMCA again? Oh yes, it was William Jefferson Clinton. Who signed the No Electronic Theft Act? Same guy! The Sonny Bono (may the brimstone sear his skin forever) Copyright Term Extension Act? Yep, Clinton again!
I am far from a Bush apologist--I even voted against the man this past election. But I am under no illusion that the Democrats would be any less subservient to the government's corporate masters. Please give the partisan references a rest unless they hold water.
Nice post--I have had thoughts along those lines before but haven't articulated them like you have. My thoughts were along the lines of credit cards with rebates--those with good credit can get 1-3% off all their purchases, sell their transaction data to Upromise for their grandkids' college tuition, get frequent flyer miles, etc. Just another example of it being expensive to be poor in America.
I'm not sure what you're asking. What should apply in the circumstance you describe is that the person so barred should have access to the file containing the information on which his or her banning was based.
Someone simply asked to leave a premises and not returned is still subject to arrest and prosecution for tresspassing, secret reporting databases notwithstanding.
I should have said "for cash." But the point is, the means exist to track returns, even if you pay cash. All they have to do is ask for a driver's license and swipe it. No license, no return.
Sure--and give up the ability to have your credit card company chargeback against the store in the event of unsatisfactory merchandise, or, in the case of this story, a store backing off its own stated return policy. I would have called my credit card company and had the charge reversed when I was standing at the returns counter.
Any such database, whether internal or not, is a de facto consumer reporting system and should be subject to the same requirements of disclosure, the same rebuttal process, and the same government oversight as credit bureau reports.
They don't have to make an explicit claim to make an "implied" claim. Hence the use of the word "implied." Now if they advertised that they manipulate search results, they would be in the clear--but since there's overwhelming evidence that they do manipulate them (China, for example) and they don't prominently so state, they're being disingenuous about the whole thing.
I call it the "Apple phenomenon." Apple gets a pass for makiing DMCA threats, suing skinners, crippling their software, using DRM, and stuff that Bill Gates would be tarred and feathered for in this forum. Apparently, it only takes fancy design or a few freebies to buy off the Slashdot "community."
Google is publically traded and in a position of trust. They're free to edit their results, but such editing should be done in an environment of full disclosure. Instead, they're acting as 1984's Ministry of Truth, making information disappear for a large segment of the population that isn't savvy enough to look for it elsewhere.
Google has no right to an implied claim of impartiality if they are censoring results. If they censor results for political or other reasons, that fact should be prominently posted. But it isn't, because they want to have their cake and eat it, too.
I think that's more the end of the dot com boom and a saturation of the market. Those who wanted to relive the 80s have already bought what they want, and now its just people filling in collections, making all but the rarest of the rare not worth the trouble to sell.
We'll have to fix them. Dude! I know! We'll port the product to Windows! Yeah, Microsoft would never copy an idea and include it in their next operating system! Excellent!
These sorts of threats can only result in anonymous networks like Freenet becoming better. And it'll take years, but as the abusive nature of the current regime of perpetual corporate copyright is demonstrated, lawmakers will be forced to rein in those excesses.
The only reason GPL rests on current copyright law is that in order for the GPL to be invalid, so must be copyright. It certainly isn't because any love on the part of RMS or the FSF for copyright. If copyright didn't exist, there would be no need for the GPL to protect free software.
So you're saying that by knowing the existence of a EULA, the text of which the purchaser of the software cannot read, from a warning sticker and opening the package, constitutes a contract? I suppose if the BSA/SPA/etc. buy a few more judges, it will be true.
Then people would be here accusing them of making it too easy for mere users to spoof their From: address.
The workaround I use for this in OS X Mail.app is to keep a dummy account and change the address every time I want to send an email from a tagged account. I agree that having to do this sucks, though.
Nurses are unique creatures in that they require a four year education and above-average intelligence, but are managed like factory workers. It won't take long for peers to figure out who the low bidders are and to educate them as to the protocol to be followed, i.e. a minimum bid.
Precisely. You want to make content available free, use the public Internet. You want to purvey some kind of locked down, subscription required crap, build your own network and give away terminals. You don't follow this rule, don't be surprised when your "content" is cracked wide open and shared.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not dead. He's resting.
But since it's the BSD license, Cisco can just take it and copy it if it turns out to be better. Not trying to start a BSD vs. GPL flamewar or anything, just saying.
I am far from a Bush apologist--I even voted against the man this past election. But I am under no illusion that the Democrats would be any less subservient to the government's corporate masters. Please give the partisan references a rest unless they hold water.
Nice post--I have had thoughts along those lines before but haven't articulated them like you have. My thoughts were along the lines of credit cards with rebates--those with good credit can get 1-3% off all their purchases, sell their transaction data to Upromise for their grandkids' college tuition, get frequent flyer miles, etc. Just another example of it being expensive to be poor in America.
Someone simply asked to leave a premises and not returned is still subject to arrest and prosecution for tresspassing, secret reporting databases notwithstanding.
Vague exceptions do not consitute adequate disclosure. She would have had no problem getting a chargeback.
I should have said "for cash." But the point is, the means exist to track returns, even if you pay cash. All they have to do is ask for a driver's license and swipe it. No license, no return.
Then you get a pass and a commendation for having such a great memory or such a tiny business :).
Sure about that? When was the last time you returned something without having been asked to produce ID?
Sure--and give up the ability to have your credit card company chargeback against the store in the event of unsatisfactory merchandise, or, in the case of this story, a store backing off its own stated return policy. I would have called my credit card company and had the charge reversed when I was standing at the returns counter.
Any such database, whether internal or not, is a de facto consumer reporting system and should be subject to the same requirements of disclosure, the same rebuttal process, and the same government oversight as credit bureau reports.
While distasteful, if they're evidence at trial, they're public record and thus should be available to the public.
They don't have to make an explicit claim to make an "implied" claim. Hence the use of the word "implied." Now if they advertised that they manipulate search results, they would be in the clear--but since there's overwhelming evidence that they do manipulate them (China, for example) and they don't prominently so state, they're being disingenuous about the whole thing.
I call it the "Apple phenomenon." Apple gets a pass for makiing DMCA threats, suing skinners, crippling their software, using DRM, and stuff that Bill Gates would be tarred and feathered for in this forum. Apparently, it only takes fancy design or a few freebies to buy off the Slashdot "community."
Or Google's trying to proactively avoid pissing off the administration that they'll likely be lobbying soon.
Google is publically traded and in a position of trust. They're free to edit their results, but such editing should be done in an environment of full disclosure. Instead, they're acting as 1984's Ministry of Truth, making information disappear for a large segment of the population that isn't savvy enough to look for it elsewhere.
Google has no right to an implied claim of impartiality if they are censoring results. If they censor results for political or other reasons, that fact should be prominently posted. But it isn't, because they want to have their cake and eat it, too.
I think that's more the end of the dot com boom and a saturation of the market. Those who wanted to relive the 80s have already bought what they want, and now its just people filling in collections, making all but the rarest of the rare not worth the trouble to sell.
We'll have to fix them. Dude! I know! We'll port the product to Windows! Yeah, Microsoft would never copy an idea and include it in their next operating system! Excellent!
These sorts of threats can only result in anonymous networks like Freenet becoming better. And it'll take years, but as the abusive nature of the current regime of perpetual corporate copyright is demonstrated, lawmakers will be forced to rein in those excesses.
The only reason GPL rests on current copyright law is that in order for the GPL to be invalid, so must be copyright. It certainly isn't because any love on the part of RMS or the FSF for copyright. If copyright didn't exist, there would be no need for the GPL to protect free software.
So you're saying that by knowing the existence of a EULA, the text of which the purchaser of the software cannot read, from a warning sticker and opening the package, constitutes a contract? I suppose if the BSA/SPA/etc. buy a few more judges, it will be true.
The workaround I use for this in OS X Mail.app is to keep a dummy account and change the address every time I want to send an email from a tagged account. I agree that having to do this sucks, though.
Nurses are unique creatures in that they require a four year education and above-average intelligence, but are managed like factory workers. It won't take long for peers to figure out who the low bidders are and to educate them as to the protocol to be followed, i.e. a minimum bid.
Precisely. You want to make content available free, use the public Internet. You want to purvey some kind of locked down, subscription required crap, build your own network and give away terminals. You don't follow this rule, don't be surprised when your "content" is cracked wide open and shared.