I don't know about you, but I'm sick of everything being a flipping copyright concern. Screw the media conglamorates and their infinite copyrights and fascist enforcement.
They have done some shady dealing. The sad truth is that any successful global company has, that's how you do business worldwide. You MAKE things happen.
And by what sort of logic is this acceptable? The everyone-else-is-doing-it logic?
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The free marketplace is a democracy. People have voted with their dollars. Nobody is forcing you to use MS software!
Right.. because the average consumer had such a choice as to whether or not to have M$ software...
Huh? I think you missed the point somewhat, but I'll reply anyway.
A wireless network adapter cannot store 128M of "secret files", no. But it can transfer them elsewhere in a minute or so.. And possibly give more network access than you ever intended in the meantime, as well.
Did you bother to read my post? There was -nothing- compelling him to support the people who expected him to answer every little thing they couldn't be arsed to look up. That was very much the point of my post.
I wasn't being overly dismissive. The developer, on the other hand, seems to have been. He dismissed an entire project that you claim he wasn't tired of developing, simply because somehow he couldn't figure out how to NOT answer support questions?
I agree. He simply comes off sounding like a whiner. If he was just tired of developing it, he should have said so. Instead, he blamed it on support and documention. That's an easy fix. Don't support it or document it.
Not an ideal solution, I admit. But better coming off like he did in his email. The one paragraph about the email expecting support for the old version didn't even make sense...
I won't knock the guy's contribution, but it's not like anyone was forcing him to do anything. He quits. Fine. I don't want to hear the non-sensical whining and complaining.
Call me off-topic, but for the sake of accuracy, I'd like to point out that you don't have an Amiga over 20 years old... unless you have a pre-release model. And I additionally doubt that you actually -use- an Amiga 1000.
First Amiga was released June (or July?) 23, 1985. So, you have a couple months to go before your statement could be true.. with the possible pre-release exception above.
I can respect this response. And certainly in depends upon your expectations and also what you're comparing to. I can also respect that for trained eyes, 11x17 is the outer limit for a high quality print from a quality 6MP shot. (Big difference between 'digicam' 6MP and dSLR 6MP, especially depending on ISO)
But I take exception to this:
I find that a 6mpel image at only 5x7 clearly shows loss of quality using fine JPEG (ie every random person I asked to compare RAW versus JPEG prints could easily tell me which was better).
Wow.. your 'every random person' must be FAR more discerning than the random person around here. Two factors at play to my taking issue with this. First is the people. Heck, your average random person seems to be barely able to make out the difference between a print from a webcam and a 1Ds. Secondly, the actual quality issue. I assume by 'fine jpeg' you mean the best (or close to it) quality jpeg option you have available to you. Course, I'm also assuming by 'print' you mean photographic process output rather than a high-quality inkjet. Two assumptions already. But working from that basis... there is no way your statement could hold up. I'm not even sure a close analysis of said 5x7's would show the difference, though I haven't put it to the test.
By saying this, I don't mean to disparage RAW or imply that jpeg doesn't lose quality. Simply that I think you've gotten over-zealous in your point, or that something wasn't even-handed in your test. Or I've made multiple bad assumptions.
Regarding printing 300D images to a max of 11x17...
Nonsense. Of course, there's a lot of factors that come into play, but cameras like the 1Ds have since surpassed 35mm film and are rivaling medium format. The 300D has much of the detail of film. Maybe not the detail of your best film in your best cameras, but alas..
The trick is quite simply that if you're going to output a large print, -UPSIZE THEM- first. Interpolate them up using bicubic resizing in Photoshop. It won't magically create detail like the uber-elite stuff on TV shows do, but it's what you need to do if printing large.
Course, you could use those half dozen kilobucks and buy a 1Ds Mark II. But you're still gonna need to upsize if you're printing a poster.:)
Re:Engineering within limits brings great results
on
Where's My 10 Ghz PC?
·
· Score: 1
Your problem is you were using a Windows 95 machine.:)
I was happily multitasking graphical apps in 512k of RAM years before that on my Amiga.
So maybe it's not that his glasses are rose colored, but rather that you've worn blinders for years.
Actually, you are wrong.. while being right. It is pretty stupid. That's the legal game-playing country we're in though.
They say the phrase as a result of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms. In other words, it's law that they say it. At least it is for presidential candidates. I don't know or care that much about the reforms, though I assume they affect all political campaigns.
1. Use ClamAV to reject viruses. This takes a big load off SpamAssassin.
This should be the other way around. You should run them through spamassassin before ClamAV. ClamAV is more processor intensive, and many virus emails will get discarded by SA without having to go through Clam. Whereas you'll be clamscanning lots of virus-free spam this way around.
Ah, an anti-Bush pro-democratic posting that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. How predictable. Gotta love you party-line political types.
RTFA. You'll see that the/. headline and summary are completely incorrect, making your post even more irrelevant.
As has been stated repeatedly in the comments, the ruling was about -government- getting into the telecom business. Take a deep breath, and go find something else to turn into a political debate.
The basis for contract law is that the two parties agree and there is some kind of mutual compensation.
Some people might be able to claim plausible deniability, but everyone here knows the MS doesn't want you to copy it to several computers.
By knowing that fact, and purchasing the software anyway, there is some kind of acceptance of those basic terms. Sure, you might be able to tell yourself that you don't have to care about the fine print.
The point is that you do know, and you purchase the software anyway. By purchasing it you imply that you intend to follow the terms that you're aware of. Therefore it's wrong to violate your agreement.
And if you don't want to license something, don't. Nobody is forcing you to. But no, you can't wave your hands about how the world "should be" and magically claim rights over something you didn't create.
It's low on the moral priority list for me, so heck I do it too, but don't play dumb and pretend that you don't know.
Your post seems intelligent at first glance, but I don't think it is accurate.
The basis for contract law is, as you said, that two parties agree. There is no inherent agreement in purchasing a product other than the transfer of ownership.
Additionally, the reason that the "click-wrap" was invented was an effort to try to get a 'digital signature', since there were no agreements, understanding, and especially no signatures in a software purchase.
You say if you don't want to license something, don't. Precisely! When you go to buy a banana, are you licensing something? When you go to buy a t-shirt, are you licensing something? When you buy a book, are you licensing something? When you buy a VCR, are you licensing something. NO. YOU'RE PURCHASING something. There's no inherent license. Thus, the reason that 'plausible deniability' is irrelevant. Billions of people for thousands of years have made purchases with no licensing. There's no expectation of a license. Thus, no "acceptance" of those "basic terms". Period.
Additionally, back to the contract law thing. Signatures are pretty much a defacto requirement for a provable contract, and particularly for liability. (Yes, I know that oral contracts, etc, exist.. but have fun in court with them.) You can be an Authorized User on someone's credit card, go rampant and buy $20k worth of crap, even having told the cardholder that you take care of the bill, and there is no legal recourse for actually collecting that amount from you. Sure, Collection Agencies will try anyway, but they will go running if you know your legal rights, and if they don't, then they wind up owing you money.
Long story short, I think your argument is exceptionally flawed.
If I buy a book, I'm allowed to read it as often as I want, where I want, and I'm perfectly allowed to let someone else read along too! I can lend it, or give it. And a bookmaker certainly could write any sort of conditions on the cover "if you read this book, you agree to foo-bar-baz" and they would be laughed out of a court.
Maybe this is precisely what needs to happen to highlight the stupidity of it all. Write a book that has a EULA on the front cover, and take someone to court over it. It puts the law into the realm of the understood, instead of allowing lawyers to 'abstract' it convincing a judge it's something other than what it is.
The solution to me seems fairly simple. Don't take away the patients' right to sue in legitimate cases. Don't even limit awards.
Simply cap the -lawyers- cut of any reward.
See? That wasn't so hard, now was it?
Slashdot Mirror
Bah.
It's education. So you'll get paid like crap, and nothing will ever change.
Run.
A wireless network adapter cannot store 128M of "secret files", no. But it can transfer them elsewhere in a minute or so.. And possibly give more network access than you ever intended in the meantime, as well.
How many floppies have you seen that can act as a wireless network adapter?
I wasn't being overly dismissive. The developer, on the other hand, seems to have been. He dismissed an entire project that you claim he wasn't tired of developing, simply because somehow he couldn't figure out how to NOT answer support questions?
Not an ideal solution, I admit. But better coming off like he did in his email. The one paragraph about the email expecting support for the old version didn't even make sense...
I won't knock the guy's contribution, but it's not like anyone was forcing him to do anything. He quits. Fine. I don't want to hear the non-sensical whining and complaining.
First Amiga was released June (or July?) 23, 1985. So, you have a couple months to go before your statement could be true.. with the possible pre-release exception above.
The stupidity in this post runs deep...
But I take exception to this:
Wow.. your 'every random person' must be FAR more discerning than the random person around here. Two factors at play to my taking issue with this. First is the people. Heck, your average random person seems to be barely able to make out the difference between a print from a webcam and a 1Ds. Secondly, the actual quality issue. I assume by 'fine jpeg' you mean the best (or close to it) quality jpeg option you have available to you. Course, I'm also assuming by 'print' you mean photographic process output rather than a high-quality inkjet. Two assumptions already. But working from that basis... there is no way your statement could hold up. I'm not even sure a close analysis of said 5x7's would show the difference, though I haven't put it to the test.
By saying this, I don't mean to disparage RAW or imply that jpeg doesn't lose quality. Simply that I think you've gotten over-zealous in your point, or that something wasn't even-handed in your test. Or I've made multiple bad assumptions.
Nonsense. Of course, there's a lot of factors that come into play, but cameras like the 1Ds have since surpassed 35mm film and are rivaling medium format. The 300D has much of the detail of film. Maybe not the detail of your best film in your best cameras, but alas..
The trick is quite simply that if you're going to output a large print, -UPSIZE THEM- first. Interpolate them up using bicubic resizing in Photoshop. It won't magically create detail like the uber-elite stuff on TV shows do, but it's what you need to do if printing large.
Course, you could use those half dozen kilobucks and buy a 1Ds Mark II. But you're still gonna need to upsize if you're printing a poster. :)
Your problem is you were using a Windows 95 machine. :)
I was happily multitasking graphical apps in 512k of RAM years before that on my Amiga.
So maybe it's not that his glasses are rose colored, but rather that you've worn blinders for years.
I love the sig, man :)
Mod me offtopic if you must. I've got a weird spot in my heart for Better Off Dead.
Actually, you are wrong.. while being right. It is pretty stupid. That's the legal game-playing country we're in though.
They say the phrase as a result of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms. In other words, it's law that they say it. At least it is for presidential candidates. I don't know or care that much about the reforms, though I assume they affect all political campaigns.
Might I point out that all these advisories are on a pre-1.0 browser, as opposed to a "v6" browser?
In addition to the other comments that have been made, might I also point out that Honda's first entry into F1 was in 1964.
This should be the other way around. You should run them through spamassassin before ClamAV. ClamAV is more processor intensive, and many virus emails will get discarded by SA without having to go through Clam. Whereas you'll be clamscanning lots of virus-free spam this way around.
The Arkansas River flows through the city of Tulsa.
Brilliant folks put this page together.
Oh the horrors! All these years we would have had to suffer with a stable, multitasking, REAL OS...
Ah, an anti-Bush pro-democratic posting that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. How predictable. Gotta love you party-line political types.
/. headline and summary are completely incorrect, making your post even more irrelevant.
RTFA. You'll see that the
As has been stated repeatedly in the comments, the ruling was about -government- getting into the telecom business. Take a deep breath, and go find something else to turn into a political debate.
The basis for contract law is, as you said, that two parties agree. There is no inherent agreement in purchasing a product other than the transfer of ownership.
Additionally, the reason that the "click-wrap" was invented was an effort to try to get a 'digital signature', since there were no agreements, understanding, and especially no signatures in a software purchase.
You say if you don't want to license something, don't. Precisely! When you go to buy a banana, are you licensing something? When you go to buy a t-shirt, are you licensing something? When you buy a book, are you licensing something? When you buy a VCR, are you licensing something. NO. YOU'RE PURCHASING something. There's no inherent license. Thus, the reason that 'plausible deniability' is irrelevant. Billions of people for thousands of years have made purchases with no licensing. There's no expectation of a license. Thus, no "acceptance" of those "basic terms". Period.
Additionally, back to the contract law thing. Signatures are pretty much a defacto requirement for a provable contract, and particularly for liability. (Yes, I know that oral contracts, etc, exist.. but have fun in court with them.) You can be an Authorized User on someone's credit card, go rampant and buy $20k worth of crap, even having told the cardholder that you take care of the bill, and there is no legal recourse for actually collecting that amount from you. Sure, Collection Agencies will try anyway, but they will go running if you know your legal rights, and if they don't, then they wind up owing you money.
Long story short, I think your argument is exceptionally flawed.
Maybe this is precisely what needs to happen to highlight the stupidity of it all. Write a book that has a EULA on the front cover, and take someone to court over it. It puts the law into the realm of the understood, instead of allowing lawyers to 'abstract' it convincing a judge it's something other than what it is.
More methods for the enemy to be able to figure out your location. Just what troops need!
The solution to me seems fairly simple. Don't take away the patients' right to sue in legitimate cases. Don't even limit awards. Simply cap the -lawyers- cut of any reward. See? That wasn't so hard, now was it?