I've never seen a peaceful civil protest broken up with gas and rubber bullets.
Neither have I. Welcome to the point! You made it! Unless and until I see the non-lethal weapons we already have being abused, I'll not worry about the abuse of new ones.
As long as the movie is at least recognizable as the book. Example: The Lawnmower man. *shudder* That movie probably wouldn't have been as terrible if I hadn't been expecting something rather...different. Well, ok, yeah it probably would have.
Hear, hear! It's very useful to make fun of what people read, but I prefer to make fun of the fact people *can* read. Reading used to be "fun"damental but now it's just mental. Reading sucks and everyone who can do it sucks too.
We really need to be looking at why do our authorities think that they should be trying for the latest gizmo rather than actually trying to help the people who hired them.
Um...they are doing exactly that. Who do you think hires the cops? It isn't the tree-hugging whiny radicals, that's for sure. We all know how many peaceful, civil protests are broken up with riot gas and rubber bullets now....too bad we don't have the freedom to peaceably assemble here in america.
Hmm. 40-odd cases of 'injuries' from tasers...millions of people dead from gunshot wounds...you're right, guns are much more efficient. Forget 'non-lethal' weapons, let's just use regular old lethal ones. Mowing down gobs of trust-fund babies out protesting the cause du jour because they don't have to actually work for a living sounds like fun to me.
I have no qualms with companies protecting their intellectual rights, but I do think they go about it in the entirely wrong way. They effectively force people to obtain software they wanted legally through less-than-legal means.
I agree with most of what you said, but that last sentence is dangerous. No one is *forced* into breaking the law because of any of this. It may be more convenient, but there are legal ways to obtain software, and backups. If the company no longer exists, or no one owns those rights, then there will be no one to sue you, but that still doesn't mean that you are *required* to break the law. If you don't have the money to fight in court, or you don't have the pull to get the answer you want legally, then you're SOL.
Quick note on your assumptions: they're wrong. What's considered 'poverty' in america is middle class in many other places, europe included. Our 'poor' people own, on average, 1 car per adult and 2 televisions per household. A large number of our 'poor' have cable or satellite television. A trailer park resident in the us has an average of 1000 sq feet of living space. In many parts of the world, these people would be considered quite well off. This is the only one of your incorrect assumptions that I can be bothered correcting atm.
Yeah, I always got a kick out of that "effective access control" provision. It's "effective" as long as it works when you use it the way we say you can use it. Hell, in that case, it's effective for them to say "please, don't copy this CD."
Yes. It's like saying a screen door is 'effective security' because when nothing's trying to come through it, nothing gets through it. I wonder if that 'please do not make illegal copies of this disc' label they're putting on some software now counts as 'effective access control'.
Your logic is circular. That doesn't stop your point from having merit, namely that just because something *can* be used to circumvent the law does not mean that it *must* be. However, your middle argument does not help forward your point. Please also note that this product can be used either to make legal backup copies or to make illegal copies. Thus your final argument works with no circular logic required.
Even if you concede that EULAs are somehow legitmate contracts, that doesn't mean that just any crazy old provision should be able to go in there.
In other areas of contract law (insurance, loans) there are restrictions on what can be in the contract. It seems to me that we need to either invalidate EULAs outright, or regulate them like we do insurance contracts. No onerous porvisions enforced.
I think of EULAs the same way I do of 'You break it, you bought it' signs in stores. I glance at them, and ignore them, and then forget them. They're there for the gullible. There's no law which states that you are obligated to pay for something you accidentally break in a store. (obviously if you're rampaging around throwing stuff on the ground, they're just gonna call the cops) but if you bump a vase off a shelf, for example, you aren't legally obligated to pay for it. Any reasonable limitations in every EULA I've ever seen were things a responsible person wouldn't do anyhow (selling the program as your own, mass copy/distribution of the product) and people who do those things aren't concerned with EULAs anyhow. EULAs are used to convince people that they're legally obligated when in fact they're not. Just like those signs that say 'not responsible for valuables/safety/damage/etc.' They may have a sign, but that doesn't stop a good case. For example (warning, anecdotal evidence) we had a sign in the parking lot of a movie theater where I used to work that said 'not responsible for valuables left in car.' When we had 5 cars broken into in one day (the only time in over 3 years that *any* cars were broken into) 3 of the 5 people got us to pay for their windows and valuables. Sign notwithstanding, the judge found that we *did* have basic responsibility. The point is, signs like those and EULAs are basically deterrents at present. Perhaps someday companies will get EULAs made completely binding, but right now it's like putting a sign on your product that says 'by using this product you agree to hold the manufacturer completely blameless regardless of cirumstances for any damages whatsoever.' Might frighten some people, but it's hardly a legally binding contract.
One of the funniest things about this quote is the number of people who use it....and don't know anything about it. Not much use arguing about the exact wording, or who it's attributed to. No one seems to know for sure. There have been at least 4 different versions attributed to Mark Twain, a few to Abraham Lincoln and others to various other people. The best guess for the 'origin' (first record *I* can find, anyhow, which doesn't mean it is the absolute origin) is Proverbs 17:28 - Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding. No matter what your views on the truth of the bible, that Solomon guy sure had some intelligent observations attributed to him.
You're very close to correct. I hope you were trolling, but either way here's the correct version. It was "originaly" from the comedian, Yakov Smirnoff. His appearance on night court came after a few successfull stand-up shows and some favorable appearances on other tv shows. Night court was not the first place the 'in soviet russia' joke reared its ugly head. I'm just glad people aren't popularizing his 'sanitary napkin' joke. *shudder*
My experience with console development systems is that you have almost no rights to transfer/sell. Everything must be handled through Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. I predict that, if they want to, they can confiscate all of his development systems.
So like...they're going to send the 'DevKitRepo' team after him or something? Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo can't confiscate anything, and I *highly* doubt they're going to get any sort of cooperation from the Hong Kong cops. By the time anything gets around to happening, if anything indeed ever even begins happening, this guy will be paid, the dev kits will be somewhere else (most likely in the US) and then you have a whole new layer of bureaucracy to deal with. I'm sure 'lingjr' is cowering in fear right now.
My worry would be if the police started tracking speeders with this.
Why would this worry you? If you speed, you have broken the law and have to take whatever punishment is deemed to be appropriate.
But I wasn't caught by a cop? Should I get away with a burglary just because I wasn't caught red-handed?
It's a bit of a different situation, imo. Then again, I'm a Libertarian, so feel free to move on if you're familiar with Libertarian positions regarding actual crime vs. perceived crime. If you're still reading, speeding is a perceived crime. Burglary is a crime because it has a victim. Speeding is a victimless crime. (Please don't confuse this with things like fraud, which some claim to be victimless crimes) You may argue that speeding makes the roads more dangerous, however unless you actually hit another car or person, there's no crime. If you *do* hit another car or person, that's already potentially a crime in and of itself, and the possibility that some people may sometime hit some other people should not force the great majority of drivers to drive more slowly. No matter what the speed limit is, there will always be accidents. Studies showing lower accident/fatality numbers with reduced speed limits have been found faulty. In fact, Houston Transtar regularly advertises on the radio that the majority of accidents occur at low speeds, during heavy traffic or while rubbernecking. There's no good reason why good drivers should be penalized in advance *in case* they might turn out to be bad drivers. Also, will they be able to handle sending out roughly 15 million speeding tickets the first day this goes live? Or will they pick on a small region until it finances expansion? This whole thing makes me wonder what the entire population will have to do next to prevent a few idiots from hurting themselves. Perhaps we'll have a government-mandated menu for all citizens because some people don't control what they eat...or perhaps we'll all have to stop playing sports and going camping/fishing etc because every year a small number of people die doing these things. It's really stupid. Also, the claim that lower speed limits produce less pollution was debunked here in Houston. The study that claimed it would help our horrible air was found to be so far off it wasn't even funny. They're claiming a reduction in our overall air pollution, but that discounts the many other efforts in the commercial sector that are finally paying off, and attempts to lay all of the reduction at the feet of the few months our speed limits were reduced. Of course, the biggest problem involving both cars and pollution is traffic, but that's a much thornier issue.
with the recent spike in US gas prices, I'll bet some companies would like to put this in gas pumps to track drive offs.
They have things in place which already do this. Here in Texas, they consist of cameras, windows placed so that the gas pumps are clearly visible from behind the counter, and scary stickers of a Texas State Trooper warning your about losing your license for pulling a drive-off. The biggest problem is that even when they *know* who did it, it takes a really long time (on average) for anything to happen to those who drive off. At least, that's according to ancedotal evidence I've received from a few gas station clerks.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never seen a peaceful civil protest broken up with gas and rubber bullets.
Neither have I. Welcome to the point! You made it! Unless and until I see the non-lethal weapons we already have being abused, I'll not worry about the abuse of new ones.
As long as the movie is at least recognizable as the book. Example: The Lawnmower man. *shudder*
That movie probably wouldn't have been as terrible if I hadn't been expecting something rather...different. Well, ok, yeah it probably would have.
Hear, hear! It's very useful to make fun of what people read, but I prefer to make fun of the fact people *can* read. Reading used to be "fun"damental but now it's just mental. Reading sucks and everyone who can do it sucks too.
We really need to be looking at why do our authorities think that they should be trying for the latest gizmo rather than actually trying to help the people who hired them.
Um...they are doing exactly that. Who do you think hires the cops? It isn't the tree-hugging whiny radicals, that's for sure. We all know how many peaceful, civil protests are broken up with riot gas and rubber bullets now....too bad we don't have the freedom to peaceably assemble here in america.
Hmm. 40-odd cases of 'injuries' from tasers...millions of people dead from gunshot wounds...you're right, guns are much more efficient. Forget 'non-lethal' weapons, let's just use regular old lethal ones. Mowing down gobs of trust-fund babies out protesting the cause du jour because they don't have to actually work for a living sounds like fun to me.
I have no qualms with companies protecting their intellectual rights, but I do think they go about it in the entirely wrong way. They effectively force people to obtain software they wanted legally through less-than-legal means.
I agree with most of what you said, but that last sentence is dangerous. No one is *forced* into breaking the law because of any of this. It may be more convenient, but there are legal ways to obtain software, and backups. If the company no longer exists, or no one owns those rights, then there will be no one to sue you, but that still doesn't mean that you are *required* to break the law. If you don't have the money to fight in court, or you don't have the pull to get the answer you want legally, then you're SOL.
Feeding time.
Quick note on your assumptions: they're wrong.
What's considered 'poverty' in america is middle class in many other places, europe included. Our 'poor' people own, on average, 1 car per adult and 2 televisions per household. A large number of our 'poor' have cable or satellite television. A trailer park resident in the us has an average of 1000 sq feet of living space. In many parts of the world, these people would be considered quite well off. This is the only one of your incorrect assumptions that I can be bothered correcting atm.
Yeah, I always got a kick out of that "effective access control" provision. It's "effective" as long as it works when you use it the way we say you can use it. Hell, in that case, it's effective for them to say "please, don't copy this CD."
Yes. It's like saying a screen door is 'effective security' because when nothing's trying to come through it, nothing gets through it. I wonder if that 'please do not make illegal copies of this disc' label they're putting on some software now counts as 'effective access control'.
Your logic is circular. That doesn't stop your point from having merit, namely that just because something *can* be used to circumvent the law does not mean that it *must* be. However, your middle argument does not help forward your point. Please also note that this product can be used either to make legal backup copies or to make illegal copies. Thus your final argument works with no circular logic required.
should I be on the phone to my lawyer, then?
I prefer double rot-13 myself.
Even if you concede that EULAs are somehow legitmate contracts, that doesn't mean that just any crazy old provision should be able to go in there.
In other areas of contract law (insurance, loans) there are restrictions on what can be in the contract.
It seems to me that we need to either invalidate EULAs outright, or regulate them like we do insurance contracts. No onerous porvisions enforced.
I think of EULAs the same way I do of 'You break it, you bought it' signs in stores. I glance at them, and ignore them, and then forget them. They're there for the gullible. There's no law which states that you are obligated to pay for something you accidentally break in a store. (obviously if you're rampaging around throwing stuff on the ground, they're just gonna call the cops) but if you bump a vase off a shelf, for example, you aren't legally obligated to pay for it. Any reasonable limitations in every EULA I've ever seen were things a responsible person wouldn't do anyhow (selling the program as your own, mass copy/distribution of the product) and people who do those things aren't concerned with EULAs anyhow. EULAs are used to convince people that they're legally obligated when in fact they're not. Just like those signs that say 'not responsible for valuables/safety/damage/etc.' They may have a sign, but that doesn't stop a good case. For example (warning, anecdotal evidence) we had a sign in the parking lot of a movie theater where I used to work that said 'not responsible for valuables left in car.' When we had 5 cars broken into in one day (the only time in over 3 years that *any* cars were broken into) 3 of the 5 people got us to pay for their windows and valuables. Sign notwithstanding, the judge found that we *did* have basic responsibility. The point is, signs like those and EULAs are basically deterrents at present. Perhaps someday companies will get EULAs made completely binding, but right now it's like putting a sign on your product that says 'by using this product you agree to hold the manufacturer completely blameless regardless of cirumstances for any damages whatsoever.' Might frighten some people, but it's hardly a legally binding contract.
One of the funniest things about this quote is the number of people who use it....and don't know anything about it. Not much use arguing about the exact wording, or who it's attributed to. No one seems to know for sure. There have been at least 4 different versions attributed to Mark Twain, a few to Abraham Lincoln and others to various other people. The best guess for the 'origin' (first record *I* can find, anyhow, which doesn't mean it is the absolute origin) is Proverbs 17:28 - Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
No matter what your views on the truth of the bible, that Solomon guy sure had some intelligent observations attributed to him.
Dish Network owns Directv
Translated to avoid confusion:
Dish Network pwns Directv.
I'm sorry, but when you ask for that much money for ANYTHING, you can not make yourself look like a first grade jackass.
Especially when people like you are willing to do it for free.
You're very close to correct. I hope you were trolling, but either way here's the correct version. It was "originaly" from the comedian, Yakov Smirnoff. His appearance on night court came after a few successfull stand-up shows and some favorable appearances on other tv shows. Night court was not the first place the 'in soviet russia' joke reared its ugly head. I'm just glad people aren't popularizing his 'sanitary napkin' joke. *shudder*
We all knew that. He mentioned being married already in his OP.
My experience with console development systems is that you have almost no rights to transfer/sell. Everything must be handled through Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. I predict that, if they want to, they can confiscate all of his development systems.
So like...they're going to send the 'DevKitRepo' team after him or something? Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo can't confiscate anything, and I *highly* doubt they're going to get any sort of cooperation from the Hong Kong cops. By the time anything gets around to happening, if anything indeed ever even begins happening, this guy will be paid, the dev kits will be somewhere else (most likely in the US) and then you have a whole new layer of bureaucracy to deal with. I'm sure 'lingjr' is cowering in fear right now.
Bork!
I've written a simple perl script for you to interface with. It will respond to your posts with random quotes and keep you entertained.
Hey, cool! Thanks! I'm sure it will post more intelligently than you, as well, which is an added bonus.
Thank you for entirely missing the point.
Better luck next time.
I really appreciate it.
My worry would be if the police started tracking speeders with this.
Why would this worry you? If you speed, you have broken the law and have to take whatever punishment is deemed to be appropriate.
But I wasn't caught by a cop? Should I get away with a burglary just because I wasn't caught red-handed?
It's a bit of a different situation, imo. Then again, I'm a Libertarian, so feel free to move on if you're familiar with Libertarian positions regarding actual crime vs. perceived crime. If you're still reading, speeding is a perceived crime. Burglary is a crime because it has a victim. Speeding is a victimless crime. (Please don't confuse this with things like fraud, which some claim to be victimless crimes) You may argue that speeding makes the roads more dangerous, however unless you actually hit another car or person, there's no crime. If you *do* hit another car or person, that's already potentially a crime in and of itself, and the possibility that some people may sometime hit some other people should not force the great majority of drivers to drive more slowly. No matter what the speed limit is, there will always be accidents. Studies showing lower accident/fatality numbers with reduced speed limits have been found faulty. In fact, Houston Transtar regularly advertises on the radio that the majority of accidents occur at low speeds, during heavy traffic or while rubbernecking. There's no good reason why good drivers should be penalized in advance *in case* they might turn out to be bad drivers. Also, will they be able to handle sending out roughly 15 million speeding tickets the first day this goes live? Or will they pick on a small region until it finances expansion? This whole thing makes me wonder what the entire population will have to do next to prevent a few idiots from hurting themselves. Perhaps we'll have a government-mandated menu for all citizens because some people don't control what they eat...or perhaps we'll all have to stop playing sports and going camping/fishing etc because every year a small number of people die doing these things. It's really stupid. Also, the claim that lower speed limits produce less pollution was debunked here in Houston. The study that claimed it would help our horrible air was found to be so far off it wasn't even funny. They're claiming a reduction in our overall air pollution, but that discounts the many other efforts in the commercial sector that are finally paying off, and attempts to lay all of the reduction at the feet of the few months our speed limits were reduced. Of course, the biggest problem involving both cars and pollution is traffic, but that's a much thornier issue.
with the recent spike in US gas prices, I'll bet some companies would like to put this in gas pumps to track drive offs.
They have things in place which already do this. Here in Texas, they consist of cameras, windows placed so that the gas pumps are clearly visible from behind the counter, and scary stickers of a Texas State Trooper warning your about losing your license for pulling a drive-off. The biggest problem is that even when they *know* who did it, it takes a really long time (on average) for anything to happen to those who drive off. At least, that's according to ancedotal evidence I've received from a few gas station clerks.
Thanks again!
Hint: I was trolling.
But thank you for explaining the Swedish Chef to me, there's nothing like explaining a joke to kill it.
What is this sense of humor that you speak of?
Hint: revealing your trolls invalidates them.
BTW, thank you very much for your reply.