First off, the SC doesn't protect actions as much as it does pure speech and secondly, commercial speech (they are selling a video game) can be highly regulated. It's not as much as a slam dunk as you think. I'm with you though, just leave them alone and let the market decide!
I think it's good to be a little bit skeptical first before telling everyone not to buy a Dell. That being said, I have some issues:
1. The validity of supposed 'email' that Dell sent out. According to this site, this refers to Dell's own preloaded applications. OK, but since when would Dell EVER refer to their own applications as "spyware" as they have done in this email. Spyware is now quite a volatile topic, and I would imagine that if Dell did infact have some sort of spyware preloaded on their machines, they'd at least be good enough to lie to us (via their techs) about what it is.
2.3rd Party Applications - As mentioned in (1), I don't think Dell would refer to their own applications as spyware, and if for arguments sake believe the email is geniune, then it refers only to 3rd party applications. So then we have a policy that is in line with Dell's general policy of not supporting 3rd party apps.
Most of us work in an environment where we have to deal with Dell's. I personally think the machines are pretty good and the service isn't bad. I've even gotten the techs help find a conflict with a 3rd party app before on a couple of occasions, but I recognize this is above and beyond the call of duty. Does Dell owe us a duty if we install 3rd party spyware to tell us to use a 3rd party spyware removal tool? What if that spyware removal tool removes an important dll and hoses the system? Then the tech support lines become even more efficient.
I just wanted to play devil's advocate here. I have no idea if that email is real or not, but I think we shouldn't immediately jump all over Dell until we can find out the truth. As it stands now, someone has posted a few sentences on a website somewhere - hardly damning evidence.
after reading your link, it still remains true that the guy had made that film first and then recieved the webhosting offer in exchange for a plug for the guy's batteres.
Also it remains true that Apple won't sell you a battery for the thing and it will cost you a load of cash to get it fixed, but thankfully for 3rd party sources you can swap out the battery for a mere $50.
You're kind of just attacking the messenger, but for all intents and purposes, the point is moot.
I know everybody is going to come on here and praise the ipod, but if I recall correctly, most slashdotters (even the mac zealots) bashed the ipod when it was launched. Slashdotters not infalliable? That's unpossible!;-)
Yoshi did this on TechTV. Projector, HTS, Screen with Microperf, very nice setup indeed (and for cheap, well, relatively speaking). You can check it out here
Re:Described in Linux Journal months ago
on
Home Directory In CVS
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I like ragging the editors as well, but come on, the blurb said 'innovative' and that is all. There's nothing about "new" mentioned anywhere in there, you pulled that out of your ass just so you could complain. Now quitcherbitchin and just read the kewlness that is home directies in cvs.;)
What the ACLU didn't tell you there is that the Supreme Court has only touched one 2nd amendment case, and that was some 60 years ago (forgive me if the dates are wrong - I'm doing this from memory). However there are 2 cases coming through the pipeline that the SCOTUS will likely grant cert to (this means they will hear the cases). One from a conservative 5th circuit, and one from a liberal 9th circuit.
There are two interpretations of the 2nd amendment: The first says that it is a 'collective' right, that only state militias are given the right to bear arms; The second theory holds that this freedom is extended to individuals. If and when the SCOTUS hears these cases, many legal scholars expect the court hold the "individual rights" theory (please note that every other freedom spelled out in the Bill of Rights is extended to the individual). You probably have already figured out quite obviously that the 5th circuit takes the "individual right" theory and the 9th circuit holds the "collective rights" theory.
Also, Judge Reinhardt from the 9th circuit, one the most liberal judges on the 9th circuit (and perhaps the most liberal judge in the entire country), concedes (and correctly I might add) that ex-military and ex-law enforcement officers are not "super citizens" that are allowed to bear arms while the rest of the country is not.
For you legal eagles out there, here are the cites for the two cases:
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (2002) - this is the 9th circuit case
U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001) - this is the 5th circuit case.
The 9th circuit case is great because there is are EXCELLENT dissertations on both the collective and indivual rights theories. I'm glad things like this are on slashdot, we as geeks need to be more informed at the voting booth. Whatever side you take on this issue, just remember to vote!!
You know, I got karma to burn so mod me down too, but this guy is right. When Ashcroft does something stupid, it's "Ashcroft the Republican is at it again!!", but when a Republican does something that our little gang here tends to agree with, no party affiliation is given. It's not just this article, it's very consistant. And the converse is true as well - if a Democrat does something idiotic, he's spared the idignity of embarrassing his party here on slashdot because it's kindly left out, but if in this case the Senator was a Democrat, he'd put on his pedastool where he belonged. Just be even-handed folks, it's all many of us are asking. If you did that, I'd forget about all the spelling errors and dupes.;-)
With as much crap that gets modded up, I can't believe this gets the "troll" label - save that for the ascii goatse.cx posts. This never happens when I have mod points! arghhh.
Since when is a job a right? I'm glad I have a job while so many of my friends are laid off right now, but I don't think my job is a God given right that can't be taken away. I think this goes to more of a privacy issue, but will courts curtail privacy to save an industry money?
Clean-Hands Doctrine only applies when conduct in question is related to the suit that is being brought. In this case, the RIAA's shenanigans about fixing CD prices are wholly unrelated to the separate claim over lost profits due to file swapping. So while what the RIAA did previously is reprehensible, because it does not stem from the same transaction or occurance, they can still bring the suit.
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings
translation = if it's noncommercial use, you CAN share. I think Congress's intent is pretty damn clear (now that's scary).
This was posted in a previous article, it is from a "contact" from within Dell. Whatever that means, but it seems legit.
Thank you for using the Dell Community Forum.
Yes, Pocket PC 2003 is real. I do not have a firm date when Dell will begin shipping Pocket PC 2003, or when upgrades will be available, or who will be eligible for free upgrades.
One warning. I have been told that many applications that work in Pocket PC 2002 do not work in Pocket PC 2003. It appears that Pocket PC 2003 is a major Operating System upgrade and that some applications will have to be recompiled for it.
I am at the moment testing a few applications on Pocket PC 2003, and so far I have only found one application, the game Argentum that will not run. I do not have a list of applications that will work with Pocket PC 2003, but I will try to keep you posted about any applications that I have trouble with.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Coca-Cola's recipe is no secret. They just do it better than everyone else. Here is real Coke's "highly guarded secret recipe"
so you're saying you didn't get an invite?
First off, the SC doesn't protect actions as much as it does pure speech and secondly, commercial speech (they are selling a video game) can be highly regulated. It's not as much as a slam dunk as you think. I'm with you though, just leave them alone and let the market decide!
Anybody wanna buy my hacked iopener that I don't use anymore so I can buy a bunch of these cameras?
I think it's good to be a little bit skeptical first before telling everyone not to buy a Dell. That being said, I have some issues:
1. The validity of supposed 'email' that Dell sent out. According to this site, this refers to Dell's own preloaded applications. OK, but since when would Dell EVER refer to their own applications as "spyware" as they have done in this email. Spyware is now quite a volatile topic, and I would imagine that if Dell did infact have some sort of spyware preloaded on their machines, they'd at least be good enough to lie to us (via their techs) about what it is.
2.3rd Party Applications - As mentioned in (1), I don't think Dell would refer to their own applications as spyware, and if for arguments sake believe the email is geniune, then it refers only to 3rd party applications. So then we have a policy that is in line with Dell's general policy of not supporting 3rd party apps.
Most of us work in an environment where we have to deal with Dell's. I personally think the machines are pretty good and the service isn't bad. I've even gotten the techs help find a conflict with a 3rd party app before on a couple of occasions, but I recognize this is above and beyond the call of duty. Does Dell owe us a duty if we install 3rd party spyware to tell us to use a 3rd party spyware removal tool? What if that spyware removal tool removes an important dll and hoses the system? Then the tech support lines become even more efficient.
I just wanted to play devil's advocate here. I have no idea if that email is real or not, but I think we shouldn't immediately jump all over Dell until we can find out the truth. As it stands now, someone has posted a few sentences on a website somewhere - hardly damning evidence.
Welcome to slashdot, we like to repeat things over and over again. ;-)
after reading your link, it still remains true that the guy had made that film first and then recieved the webhosting offer in exchange for a plug for the guy's batteres.
Also it remains true that Apple won't sell you a battery for the thing and it will cost you a load of cash to get it fixed, but thankfully for 3rd party sources you can swap out the battery for a mere $50.
You're kind of just attacking the messenger, but for all intents and purposes, the point is moot.
I know everybody is going to come on here and praise the ipod, but if I recall correctly, most slashdotters (even the mac zealots) bashed the ipod when it was launched. Slashdotters not infalliable? That's unpossible! ;-)
And what do R2's ramblings translate to?
"Greetings Slashdotters. You have way too much time on your hands. That is all."
Not worth the effort I guess.
it was spoofed here and here as well, just not as good. ;)
Yoshi did this on TechTV. Projector, HTS, Screen with Microperf, very nice setup indeed (and for cheap, well, relatively speaking). You can check it out here
I like ragging the editors as well, but come on, the blurb said 'innovative' and that is all. There's nothing about "new" mentioned anywhere in there, you pulled that out of your ass just so you could complain. Now quitcherbitchin and just read the kewlness that is home directies in cvs. ;)
On a side note, does it disturb anyone else that a mere 5 people control such weighty decision affecting telecommunications?
is it an African Elk or a European Elk?
What the ACLU didn't tell you there is that the Supreme Court has only touched one 2nd amendment case, and that was some 60 years ago (forgive me if the dates are wrong - I'm doing this from memory). However there are 2 cases coming through the pipeline that the SCOTUS will likely grant cert to (this means they will hear the cases). One from a conservative 5th circuit, and one from a liberal 9th circuit.
There are two interpretations of the 2nd amendment: The first says that it is a 'collective' right, that only state militias are given the right to bear arms; The second theory holds that this freedom is extended to individuals. If and when the SCOTUS hears these cases, many legal scholars expect the court hold the "individual rights" theory (please note that every other freedom spelled out in the Bill of Rights is extended to the individual). You probably have already figured out quite obviously that the 5th circuit takes the "individual right" theory and the 9th circuit holds the "collective rights" theory.
Also, Judge Reinhardt from the 9th circuit, one the most liberal judges on the 9th circuit (and perhaps the most liberal judge in the entire country), concedes (and correctly I might add) that ex-military and ex-law enforcement officers are not "super citizens" that are allowed to bear arms while the rest of the country is not.
For you legal eagles out there, here are the cites for the two cases:
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (2002) - this is the 9th circuit case
U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001) - this is the 5th circuit case.
The 9th circuit case is great because there is are EXCELLENT dissertations on both the collective and indivual rights theories. I'm glad things like this are on slashdot, we as geeks need to be more informed at the voting booth. Whatever side you take on this issue, just remember to vote!!
Thanks,
--Matt
yes, but they want people to see them ;)
here is a mirror
You know, I got karma to burn so mod me down too, but this guy is right. When Ashcroft does something stupid, it's "Ashcroft the Republican is at it again!!", but when a Republican does something that our little gang here tends to agree with, no party affiliation is given. It's not just this article, it's very consistant. And the converse is true as well - if a Democrat does something idiotic, he's spared the idignity of embarrassing his party here on slashdot because it's kindly left out, but if in this case the Senator was a Democrat, he'd put on his pedastool where he belonged. Just be even-handed folks, it's all many of us are asking. If you did that, I'd forget about all the spelling errors and dupes. ;-)
With as much crap that gets modded up, I can't believe this gets the "troll" label - save that for the ascii goatse.cx posts. This never happens when I have mod points! arghhh.
Since when is a job a right? I'm glad I have a job while so many of my friends are laid off right now, but I don't think my job is a God given right that can't be taken away. I think this goes to more of a privacy issue, but will courts curtail privacy to save an industry money?
It seems the google cache is slashdotted, here is a google cache of google.
I'm not exactly sure how to use the word "Irony", but thanks to Fark, I know how not to use it ;)
Clean-Hands Doctrine only applies when conduct in question is related to the suit that is being brought. In this case, the RIAA's shenanigans about fixing CD prices are wholly unrelated to the separate claim over lost profits due to file swapping. So while what the RIAA did previously is reprehensible, because it does not stem from the same transaction or occurance, they can still bring the suit.
Title 17, chp. 10, sub.D, sec.1008?
I'll quote it here:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings
translation = if it's noncommercial use, you CAN share. I think Congress's intent is pretty damn clear (now that's scary).
This was posted in a previous article, it is from a "contact" from within Dell. Whatever that means, but it seems legit.
Thank you for using the Dell Community Forum.
Yes, Pocket PC 2003 is real. I do not have a firm date when Dell will begin shipping Pocket PC 2003, or when upgrades will be available, or who will be eligible for free upgrades.
One warning. I have been told that many applications that work in Pocket PC 2002 do not work in Pocket PC 2003. It appears that Pocket PC 2003 is a major Operating System upgrade and that some applications will have to be recompiled for it.
I am at the moment testing a few applications on Pocket PC 2003, and so far I have only found one application, the game Argentum that will not run. I do not have a list of applications that will work with Pocket PC 2003, but I will try to keep you posted about any applications that I have trouble with.
Both linux gamers will enjoy this tremendously! ;-)