But I am legally prohibited from certain kinds of tinkering. I can't disable the seatbelt warning. I can't remove the muffler. I can't disable the distracted driving warnings on my GPS system. I can't change it in ways that would make it violate emissions laws.
On the contrary; it's perfectly legal to do all those things. You just won't be allowed to register it for use on public roads later.
If you return to the software/car analogy, do you think there are things like the above that *are* fair game to prevent people from tinkering with?
Sure; my above car example is just like banning cheaters from MMOs, which is perfectly fine.
The problem only comes when the company tries to legally enjoin the cheaters from connecting their hacked game to their own servers, analogous to the owner of a non-registered car driving on his own property (which is actually a common use-case on farms).
There also existed (as of 10 years ago) AP statistics. It tended to attract those who were on the honors/gifted class track (and thus had to take an AP math senior year) but who didn't think they could hack it at calculus.
Like fixing a software bug on their own (through decompiling & etc...) instead of purchasing the patch from the provider of the original goods?
Absolutely! Software is a tool no different from a car; people should no more be prohibited from modifying their own software than they should be from fixing their own cars.
Not only should the game itself always be classified as a "good," but nothing should be allowed to infringe on the buyer's right to modify the good he purchased. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to create his own service that interfaces with that good (e.g. bnetd).
The thing to remember is that the guy has a restraining order in effect that he is restrained from doing anything to cause his wife "to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury."
I'm sure the guy's mere existence annoys his wife. Does that mean he no longer has the right to exist?
Ah yes, the timeless argument of totalitarian assholes everywhere...
The fact that our rights have not always been perfectly respected by the government doesn't mean they aren't rights; it means we need to do a better job of defending them!
Counter to what you think, there's a time lag between an unconstitutional law being enacted and it being struck down by the courts. In other words, NYC law proves nothing.
Shooting it down? A little over the top, but this is the one place where I think the Castle Doctrine has a place.
So, does that mean the owners of the other properties where the bullets landed (the ones that missed the helicopter, that is) should have the right to return fire? What about the motorists on the highway, who were quite literally in mortal danger from crossfire?
(This is not to say I'm siding with the animal-rights nuts either; they also put the motorists in danger by flying an unreliable toy aircraft over them.)
I'm being entirely serious. In fact, you're only supporting my point: even though it's on the same network, buying the service from those brands is much, much cheaper. Paying more for the same service just because it's the "name" brand is what makes the big-4-brand users chumps.
It's even worse than that: we subsidize the rural rednecks too. And what do we get in return? The answer is (for example with the Transportation Investment Act), we get to bend over and surrender control of our transit systems to the state (i.e. GRTA) just to be allowed to propose a tax on ourselves! It's absurd!
The only flaw with the DMCA is the ability for the content owners to use infringement notices with impunity.
On the contrary, the flaw in the DMCA is that it criminalizes DRM circumvention. By doing so, it makes a device owner's actual property rights subordinate to a copyright holder's "Imaginary Property" rights. (And make no mistake: copyright is 'imaginary' in the sense that it exists only at the whim of Congress, and even then only for the sole purpose to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts," not to confer any kind of benefit for benefit's sake upon the copyright holder!)
At least that's the most fundamental flaw. All the other flaws, such as the one you mentioned, are incidental to it.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary; it's perfectly legal to do all those things. You just won't be allowed to register it for use on public roads later.
Sure; my above car example is just like banning cheaters from MMOs, which is perfectly fine.
The problem only comes when the company tries to legally enjoin the cheaters from connecting their hacked game to their own servers, analogous to the owner of a non-registered car driving on his own property (which is actually a common use-case on farms).
That's actually a damn good deal, except for the part where it trashes your credit (just think of it as renting).
There also existed (as of 10 years ago) AP statistics. It tended to attract those who were on the honors/gifted class track (and thus had to take an AP math senior year) but who didn't think they could hack it at calculus.
Absolutely! Software is a tool no different from a car; people should no more be prohibited from modifying their own software than they should be from fixing their own cars.
Oh I don't know, maybe the fact that, even at half the national average, the unemployment rate is still higher than it was after the dot-com bust?
Also, those figures include all the crap jobs like tech support.
Not only should the game itself always be classified as a "good," but nothing should be allowed to infringe on the buyer's right to modify the good he purchased. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to create his own service that interfaces with that good (e.g. bnetd).
But on the other hand, houses in San Francisco don't tend to substitute shoji screens for walls.
Why should we listen to you? You can't even get half the characters' names right!
So you have an excuse, and your commute is way shorter than average. What about vast majority of folks, who aren't like you?
Folks who keep a backup landline for emergencies just posers. The real nuts have ham radios!
I'm sure the guy's mere existence annoys his wife. Does that mean he no longer has the right to exist?
...an argument which is absolute bullshit when the dad is available and wants custody (which is what the fight was about in the first place).
I got married in Georgia too, and have never heard of such a requirement.
Ah yes, the timeless argument of totalitarian assholes everywhere...
The fact that our rights have not always been perfectly respected by the government doesn't mean they aren't rights; it means we need to do a better job of defending them!
Counter to what you think, there's a time lag between an unconstitutional law being enacted and it being struck down by the courts. In other words, NYC law proves nothing.
So, does that mean the owners of the other properties where the bullets landed (the ones that missed the helicopter, that is) should have the right to return fire? What about the motorists on the highway, who were quite literally in mortal danger from crossfire?
(This is not to say I'm siding with the animal-rights nuts either; they also put the motorists in danger by flying an unreliable toy aircraft over them.)
I was thinking more in terms of Gattaca.
It works out pretty good for folks with lots of fixed-interest-rate debt. I guess they aren't the poor, though...
The concept of "corporation" itself is inherently an anthropomorphization!
I'm being entirely serious. In fact, you're only supporting my point: even though it's on the same network, buying the service from those brands is much, much cheaper. Paying more for the same service just because it's the "name" brand is what makes the big-4-brand users chumps.
Anyone using AT*T, Verizon, Sprint or T-Mobile is already a chump. The smart people are using carriers like Straight Talk, Net10 or Virgin Mobile.
Indeed, I hear that the crossing between Vermont and Quebec is particularly long and treacherous!
It's even worse than that: we subsidize the rural rednecks too. And what do we get in return? The answer is (for example with the Transportation Investment Act), we get to bend over and surrender control of our transit systems to the state (i.e. GRTA) just to be allowed to propose a tax on ourselves! It's absurd!
On the contrary, the flaw in the DMCA is that it criminalizes DRM circumvention. By doing so, it makes a device owner's actual property rights subordinate to a copyright holder's "Imaginary Property" rights. (And make no mistake: copyright is 'imaginary' in the sense that it exists only at the whim of Congress, and even then only for the sole purpose to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts," not to confer any kind of benefit for benefit's sake upon the copyright holder!)
At least that's the most fundamental flaw. All the other flaws, such as the one you mentioned, are incidental to it.
I sure hope you're wrong; I bought an LED-backlit TV specifically for maximum longevity.