Exclusivity agreements are evil. Simple as that. They were wrong when Microsoft was insisting on them, they are wrong for telecoms, they are wrong period, anytime, anywhere. The moment that any corporation can insist on an exclusive agreement, they are ALREADY a monopoly, and the government should deal with them as such.
So do you have a non-exclusive arrangement with your wife?
Well done for believing the RIAA's propaganda campaign. What Amazon did was provide unauthorized copies of a text. This is copyright infringement NOT stealing.
I assume you were too busy foaming at the mouth to read the next sentence I wrote?
No! All stickers go off, if they don't they will peel off and leave awfull unstained areas.
That's what he's saying. The article submitter talked about how easy removing the sticker is. And the post you replied to said to keep those [removed] stickers in case they want it back. Saying "No! All stickers go off..." is redundant.
I disagree. The end user purchased the book in good faith and had absolutely no reason to even suspect that Amazon didn't have the US rights. What would have happened if Amazon had shipped physical books? Same sort of thing should happen. The end user still keeps the book, Amazon pays the appropriate damages to the rights-holders.
Your post brings up an interesting case. If someone buys stolen property in good faith, never believing that it was stolen then the police inform them, they have absolutely no right to keep it and in all likelihood will not get their money back.
Of course, an unauthorized-to-sell book isn't the same as stolen property so I have no idea whether or not the right to keep the product has any similarity.
Also, there's probably some boilerplate legal language included with the Kindle that says they are not responsible for data loss, etc., or if it kills your grandmother or dog.
This isn't data loss. This is intentional destruction of data -- quite a different story.
You had JCL? Ooo och sheer luuxury mon! We had GCOS and eight logical names and the first two letters had to match the COBOL FD!
But can ye tell the young'uns about that nowadays? Noooo...
Paradise! Why, in my day we actually omitted the part about telling young people so that others could chime in with their own witty versions. We only dreamed of cutting off a funny thread of posts at the knees like you just did.
It only has about 3 more months of work(all I need to do is add moves through my animation maker), and I have spent on and off for 6 years making it.
I checked out your site and from the list of things it "will" do, it looks like you have far more work to go.
That said, if your passion is for Tekken/Virtua Fighter style of thing then go for it. But if you want it to be tremendously popular, why not make a Babe Fighter? Here's your first models:
For a few hundred bucks, you could have a real crowd-pleaser! Or search on those sites for other models. Yes, they're out there and most cost under $100... peanuts really.
I can repair automobiles for free, in my spare time, for freinds and neighbors. If some creep comes into my shop, and threatens to beat the shit out of me unless I repair his broken down junk-heap, you are suggesting that I would have no legal recourse. The fact that I have given free labor to people I know and like, means I have to give the same free labor to some arrogant bully.
Makes sense to me - NOT.
Here's a clue: There's nothing that's lost here except someone's concept of imaginary property and their claim of control over how you use something they freely gave away. Microsoft could use GPLv2 code inside internal, closed source projects, much like Google has been known to, and they'd be fully compliant in not providing the source code and not contributing back any changes as long as they don't distribute the software. As soon as they let somebody download the software, you think that's like an arrogant bully making you work?
Next up, you're going to claim that the RIAA is fully justified because copying music is like beating up babies.
Well, most lasers don't emit radiation in the UV spectrum, so according to your theory those shouldn't hurt your eyes either! In reality, the energy from sufficiently strong radiation in spectra other than UV can damage your eyes.
So let's say NASA buys a common steel bolt and the contract they sign says "must not be used on the space station". Later, whether intentional or not, it gets used on the space station. You would argue that the manufacturer of the bolt can sue for the cost to buy the space station?
Would not four pairs of sunglasses achieve the same effect? In essence, the radiation emanating from the sun during an eclipse is no different than during regular daylight, and if sunglasses are effective for normal use then using a sufficient number of pairs (of sufficiently dark glasses) should be equally effective during an eclipse.
GPL nut: "Your honor, I'd like you to impose a $1 million fine on Microsoft" Judge: "Can you show your reasoning for such a fine?" GPL nut: "Yes, it's for lost sales/opportunity that Microsoft has caused" Judge: "But wait, you give your code away for free. How is it you can claim lost sales?" GPL nut: [foaming at the mouth now] "But Micro$oft is teh evil! They're my sworn mortal enemy and must pay!!11!1!!1!one!" Judge: "Oooookay there. I set the fine for Microsoft at three times lost revenue, or zero dollars which for the sake of this case I'll around up to one dollar. Case dismissed."
There's no profit in working for free and giving away your work (The 0th Rule of Acquisition). Perhaps Microsoft's big plan is to make up the loss by offering support contracts?
Or maybe its just natures way of countering global warming..... you know like how evaporation helps cool....
If the hot water vapor left the planet, then the planet would be cooler and we'd have a water shortage to deal with. Otherwise, it's a closed system and there's no net change in temperature.
I tried this using greasemonkey and wanted to thank you for it, but I had to switch to Internet Explorer to post the reply as for some reason Slashdot started bringing up a million alert boxes.
Let's just hope that all those eyes are friendly. How many black hats are scouring the source code to generate exploits to sell underground? As quickly as Firefox releases patches, when these bugs aren't reported it's no better than a proprietary browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Exclusivity agreements are evil. Simple as that. They were wrong when Microsoft was insisting on them, they are wrong for telecoms, they are wrong period, anytime, anywhere. The moment that any corporation can insist on an exclusive agreement, they are ALREADY a monopoly, and the government should deal with them as such.
So do you have a non-exclusive arrangement with your wife?
Excuse me... PLEASE quit associating infringement with theft.
Wow, another person too busy foaming at the mouth to read the very next sentence I wrote.
Well done for believing the RIAA's propaganda campaign. What Amazon did was provide unauthorized copies of a text. This is copyright infringement NOT stealing.
I assume you were too busy foaming at the mouth to read the next sentence I wrote?
No! All stickers go off, if they don't they will peel off and leave awfull unstained areas.
That's what he's saying. The article submitter talked about how easy removing the sticker is. And the post you replied to said to keep those [removed] stickers in case they want it back. Saying "No! All stickers go off..." is redundant.
I disagree. The end user purchased the book in good faith and had absolutely no reason to even suspect that Amazon didn't have the US rights. What would have happened if Amazon had shipped physical books? Same sort of thing should happen. The end user still keeps the book, Amazon pays the appropriate damages to the rights-holders.
Your post brings up an interesting case. If someone buys stolen property in good faith, never believing that it was stolen then the police inform them, they have absolutely no right to keep it and in all likelihood will not get their money back.
Of course, an unauthorized-to-sell book isn't the same as stolen property so I have no idea whether or not the right to keep the product has any similarity.
Also, there's probably some boilerplate legal language included with the Kindle that says they are not responsible for data loss, etc., or if it kills your grandmother or dog.
This isn't data loss. This is intentional destruction of data -- quite a different story.
You had JCL? Ooo och sheer luuxury mon! We had GCOS and eight logical names and the first two letters had to match the COBOL FD!
But can ye tell the young'uns about that nowadays? Noooo...
Paradise! Why, in my day we actually omitted the part about telling young people so that others could chime in with their own witty versions. We only dreamed of cutting off a funny thread of posts at the knees like you just did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ
Seriously... what the hell?!?
It only has about 3 more months of work(all I need to do is add moves through my animation maker), and I have spent on and off for 6 years making it.
I checked out your site and from the list of things it "will" do, it looks like you have far more work to go.
That said, if your passion is for Tekken/Virtua Fighter style of thing then go for it. But if you want it to be tremendously popular, why not make a Babe Fighter? Here's your first models:
http://www.buy3dmodels.com/3dmodels/bustybabe.php
http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=78246
http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=73390
http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=69243
For a few hundred bucks, you could have a real crowd-pleaser! Or search on those sites for other models. Yes, they're out there and most cost under $100... peanuts really.
Viola, new unique copies, that don't match what they have on record.
When I leak your post to the world, I'll be sure to change that to "Cello, new unique copies..."
No because there was no clause to that effect.
The contract did not say "or else we own the station".
And that's my point with the GPL. There's no "or else we own your code" clause.
I can repair automobiles for free, in my spare time, for freinds and neighbors. If some creep comes into my shop, and threatens to beat the shit out of me unless I repair his broken down junk-heap, you are suggesting that I would have no legal recourse. The fact that I have given free labor to people I know and like, means I have to give the same free labor to some arrogant bully.
Makes sense to me - NOT.
Here's a clue: There's nothing that's lost here except someone's concept of imaginary property and their claim of control over how you use something they freely gave away. Microsoft could use GPLv2 code inside internal, closed source projects, much like Google has been known to, and they'd be fully compliant in not providing the source code and not contributing back any changes as long as they don't distribute the software. As soon as they let somebody download the software, you think that's like an arrogant bully making you work?
Next up, you're going to claim that the RIAA is fully justified because copying music is like beating up babies.
Well, most lasers don't emit radiation in the UV spectrum, so according to your theory those shouldn't hurt your eyes either! In reality, the energy from sufficiently strong radiation in spectra other than UV can damage your eyes.
So let's say NASA buys a common steel bolt and the contract they sign says "must not be used on the space station". Later, whether intentional or not, it gets used on the space station. You would argue that the manufacturer of the bolt can sue for the cost to buy the space station?
Would not four pairs of sunglasses achieve the same effect? In essence, the radiation emanating from the sun during an eclipse is no different than during regular daylight, and if sunglasses are effective for normal use then using a sufficient number of pairs (of sufficiently dark glasses) should be equally effective during an eclipse.
I can imagine how that would go:
GPL nut: "Your honor, I'd like you to impose a $1 million fine on Microsoft"
Judge: "Can you show your reasoning for such a fine?"
GPL nut: "Yes, it's for lost sales/opportunity that Microsoft has caused"
Judge: "But wait, you give your code away for free. How is it you can claim lost sales?"
GPL nut: [foaming at the mouth now] "But Micro$oft is teh evil! They're my sworn mortal enemy and must pay!!11!1!!1!one!"
Judge: "Oooookay there. I set the fine for Microsoft at three times lost revenue, or zero dollars which for the sake of this case I'll around up to one dollar. Case dismissed."
I've looked at the stories and the explanation about Google Wave.. and my attitude is definitely "Do Not Want".
Thanks for the info. Could you please come back every time something new is presented and let us know whether you want that one too?
There's no profit in working for free and giving away your work (The 0th Rule of Acquisition). Perhaps Microsoft's big plan is to make up the loss by offering support contracts?
Otherwise, it's a closed system and there's no net change in temperature.
You know, except for that whole sun thing.
What I'm sure you know I meant was that it's a closed system with respect to the evaporation.
Or maybe its just natures way of countering global warming..... you know like how evaporation helps cool....
If the hot water vapor left the planet, then the planet would be cooler and we'd have a water shortage to deal with. Otherwise, it's a closed system and there's no net change in temperature.
Something else to handle the load of serving the movie:
http://drop.io/noctilucent
Luckily, two dear lady friends helped me to understand what I needed to know and I'm now very happily married.
Well don't leave us hanging! What did you need to know?
I tried this using greasemonkey and wanted to thank you for it, but I had to switch to Internet Explorer to post the reply as for some reason Slashdot started bringing up a million alert boxes.
Let's just hope that all those eyes are friendly. How many black hats are scouring the source code to generate exploits to sell underground? As quickly as Firefox releases patches, when these bugs aren't reported it's no better than a proprietary browser.
I also thought about making a 1D camera joke, but figured, "what's the point?"
Bad 1D geometry skill is where I draw the line.