But some might argue that indicating you agree to something when you really don't is falsely representing yourself and not an excuse for breaking an agreement.
But I didn't "indicate" anything! The software wouldn't install unless I clicked the button, so I clicked it. Doing so constituted an action to get my property to work, nothing more.
Given that the youth of America have been brought up on MS products...
And that's why when the revolution finally does come, it'll come from Asia and Africa (and maybe to a lesser extent Europe). Why else did you think Free Software advocates were building laptops for third-world kids?
Every browser renders the content differently, even if you follow all the standards to the letter. That's just not acceptable.
If that's not acceptable, you're doing something wrong. The web was designed to work that way, and different software is supposed to have some freedom on how the document gets rendered (even including whether it gets "rendered" at all, as opposed to read aloud, parsed by a machine, etc.). Accept that and learn to work with it, and you'll be a lot happier.
And since when did clicking on something constitute agreeing to a contract anyway? I've installed plenty of software too, and I never agreed to a damn thing. I merely clicked the buttons I was required to click in order to get my property for which the transaction of buying was already completed to work. To say that that binds me to some extraneous "agreement" is as fucked up and insane as (for example) having a car with a sticker across the door saying "by breaking this seal (and therefore being able to use the car), you're hereby agreeing not to make left turns on odd-numbered Tuesdays" or some shit like that.
Since when did that ever stop anyone? With copyright lasting as long as it does, dead people sue over copyright violations all the time! 'Cause, you know, their corpse obviously needs that continuing incentive to create...
In other words, the problem with using cellulose (or anything other than corn, for that matter) to produce ethanol in the United States, is political, not technological.
All electric vehicles will eventually win out, as batteries get better, lighter and less expensive, because eventually, each drive wheel is an electric motor.
But that assumes that batteries actually will improve, which hasn't happened yet. Why not just replace the battery with a [hydrocarbon] fuel tank and use that fuel to generate electricity for the motors (either by combustion or by reforming to hydrogen and running a fuel cell) instead?
How long till someone decides that exploiting bacteria is a form of cruelty to animals?
Bacteria aren't animals. In fact, if someone objects to harming bacteria then they better object to eating plants too, because even plants are higher-order life forms than bacteria.
Besides, a person literally can't avoid killing thousands (or more?) bacteria every day -- his white blood cells see to that!
Why would you want electric or hydrogen anyway, if you've got a good (i.e., renewable and no net CO2 production) hydrocarbon fuel source? It would be stupid to switch!
The reason people want electricity or hydrogen is that they have the possibility of being made from clean sources. But unless there's some huge advance in battery or hydrogen storage technology, they simply suck for vehicle use because they can't store enough energy in a reasonable [size|weight|cost] compared to liquid hydrocarbons.
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for finding clean, renewable sources of energy. But that doesn't mean that liquid fuels are obsolete. In fact, I think a good avenue of research would be to figure out a way to create gas from electricity (i.e., CO2+H20 --(electricity)-> CxHx) just because it would be in a form that could be stored much more efficiently.
Obviously if it takes more bandwidth and more storage space to pirate an HD movie then it does to pirate a Book, those things aren't what is causing people to pirate movies more then books. I think you'd be better off looking at the ratio of cost per hours of enjoyment rather then bandwidth and storage space.
I think the bigger issue is that the cost of "pirating" the book is driven up by the need to print it out, because nobody wants to read it on the computer screen. Once electronic paper becomes widespread I predict that the "piracy" of books will increase.
The physical single-mode fibre is actually capable of multiple terabits, that ain't offered because there's simply no demand.
No, the problem is still supply, not demand -- just not at the "last mile" connection. I seriously doubt that the ISPs have enough fast routers, or a fast enough connection upstream, to keep up with the demand if they let all their thousands of customers have terabit connections.
I'm sorry, I must be new here. Exactly what UK law gives the BSA, or anyone else, any authority to enter private property and seize assets?
The Windows EULA.
(No, seriously -- that's the basis on which they claim their authority. The idea is that, by installing Windows, you agree to let them extor...err, "audit" you.)
However, advertising is still one of the main means of making people aware a movie is out.
That doesn't mean it's necessary, or that needs to be intrusive. In a world without advertising people would still find out about products they wanted; it's just that they'd have to be proactive about it. For example, I see no problem with the "movie trailer" function in Apple's Front Row or the existence of Yahoo! Movies, which are similar in that they both require the user to choose to view them. Stuff like that and Consumer Reports and Epinions and whatnot is how "advertising" ought to be!
Fighting DRM =! Fighting against slavery, ethnic cleansing, racism, sexism, facism, totalitarinism....or any other REALLY important social battle.
Instead DRM covers movies, tv shows, music tracks and sometimes video games.
Sure, for now. But what happens when it becomes ubiquitous? I don't know about you, but I can see a world where Freedom of Information Act requests are useless because they're so restricted by DRM that you can't actually do anything with them. A world where government and corporate whistleblowing doesn't exist, because even if you do get an incriminating file, since it's DRM'd it's effectively written in disappearing ink. A world where those in power can retroactively erase anything that they don't like, by simply revoking the encryption keys.
You know, Orwell's Ministry of Truth would have a field day in a society with ubiquitous DRM (in particular, "Trusted[sic] Computing")! And yet you're still so naive and nearsighted that you think it isn't a "really important social battle?"
Of course, it would be better than a bumbling, hard-headed, trigger-happy "liberator," but it would be nice if there was a good candidate, rather than one who's merely "better than the other." Granted, my definition of good is likely different from everyone else's, but it seems like the past 5 elections or so have been defined merely as choosing the more palletable of two distateful candidates.
There was a good candidate; you just ignored him because he belonged to a "third party" (you decide which).
For example, in 2004 I voted for Kerry instead of Badnarik. It didn't do me any good, and it's a mistake I don't intend to make again. I suggest that you don't either, because it's only then that this country will stop perpetuating the stupidity and divisiveness brought about by the "two-party system!"
Re:even LGBT benefit from today's laws
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The benefits are for kids, not the adults.
Bullshit. If the benefits are for the kids, then they should be categorizing the taxpayers according to who has kids and who doesn't, not by who is (religiously) married and who isn't!
Re:The right to privacy is underrated
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A healthy distrust of politicians is not FUD nor cynicism but merely realism.
More than that, a healthy distrust of politicians is the essence of patriotism itself!
Slashdot Mirror
But I didn't "indicate" anything! The software wouldn't install unless I clicked the button, so I clicked it. Doing so constituted an action to get my property to work, nothing more.
And that's why when the revolution finally does come, it'll come from Asia and Africa (and maybe to a lesser extent Europe). Why else did you think Free Software advocates were building laptops for third-world kids?
...he just did all those people a favor, by breaking the Microsoft crap that was infecting their computer!
Postscript isn't PDF. The former is Turing-complete; the latter isn't.
If that's not acceptable, you're doing something wrong. The web was designed to work that way, and different software is supposed to have some freedom on how the document gets rendered (even including whether it gets "rendered" at all, as opposed to read aloud, parsed by a machine, etc.). Accept that and learn to work with it, and you'll be a lot happier.
And since when did clicking on something constitute agreeing to a contract anyway? I've installed plenty of software too, and I never agreed to a damn thing. I merely clicked the buttons I was required to click in order to get my property for which the transaction of buying was already completed to work. To say that that binds me to some extraneous "agreement" is as fucked up and insane as (for example) having a car with a sticker across the door saying "by breaking this seal (and therefore being able to use the car), you're hereby agreeing not to make left turns on odd-numbered Tuesdays" or some shit like that.
Since when did that ever stop anyone? With copyright lasting as long as it does, dead people sue over copyright violations all the time! 'Cause, you know, their corpse obviously needs that continuing incentive to create...
Are you sure you don't mean "cromulent?"
Forgetting Windows ME, eh?
No. His point was that it's unacceptable to have a bug this grievous to begin with, regardless of how quickly (or not) it gets fixed.
Unfortunately, his timing was horrible!
On the bright side, that "poor misguided sod" will die a quick death from starvation, because pretty much all food was alive at some point.
Corn Lobby
In other words, the problem with using cellulose (or anything other than corn, for that matter) to produce ethanol in the United States, is political, not technological.
But that assumes that batteries actually will improve, which hasn't happened yet. Why not just replace the battery with a [hydrocarbon] fuel tank and use that fuel to generate electricity for the motors (either by combustion or by reforming to hydrogen and running a fuel cell) instead?
Bacteria aren't animals. In fact, if someone objects to harming bacteria then they better object to eating plants too, because even plants are higher-order life forms than bacteria.
Besides, a person literally can't avoid killing thousands (or more?) bacteria every day -- his white blood cells see to that!
Why would you want electric or hydrogen anyway, if you've got a good (i.e., renewable and no net CO2 production) hydrocarbon fuel source? It would be stupid to switch!
The reason people want electricity or hydrogen is that they have the possibility of being made from clean sources. But unless there's some huge advance in battery or hydrogen storage technology, they simply suck for vehicle use because they can't store enough energy in a reasonable [size|weight|cost] compared to liquid hydrocarbons.
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for finding clean, renewable sources of energy. But that doesn't mean that liquid fuels are obsolete. In fact, I think a good avenue of research would be to figure out a way to create gas from electricity (i.e., CO2+H20 --(electricity)-> CxHx) just because it would be in a form that could be stored much more efficiently.
I think the bigger issue is that the cost of "pirating" the book is driven up by the need to print it out, because nobody wants to read it on the computer screen. Once electronic paper becomes widespread I predict that the "piracy" of books will increase.
No, the problem is still supply, not demand -- just not at the "last mile" connection. I seriously doubt that the ISPs have enough fast routers, or a fast enough connection upstream, to keep up with the demand if they let all their thousands of customers have terabit connections.
Maybe so, but he's got a point. The law doesn't have a sense of humor, so lawyers can't really afford to have on either.
The Windows EULA.
(No, seriously -- that's the basis on which they claim their authority. The idea is that, by installing Windows, you agree to let them extor...err, "audit" you.)
That doesn't mean it's necessary, or that needs to be intrusive. In a world without advertising people would still find out about products they wanted; it's just that they'd have to be proactive about it. For example, I see no problem with the "movie trailer" function in Apple's Front Row or the existence of Yahoo! Movies, which are similar in that they both require the user to choose to view them. Stuff like that and Consumer Reports and Epinions and whatnot is how "advertising" ought to be!
Sure, for now. But what happens when it becomes ubiquitous? I don't know about you, but I can see a world where Freedom of Information Act requests are useless because they're so restricted by DRM that you can't actually do anything with them. A world where government and corporate whistleblowing doesn't exist, because even if you do get an incriminating file, since it's DRM'd it's effectively written in disappearing ink. A world where those in power can retroactively erase anything that they don't like, by simply revoking the encryption keys.
You know, Orwell's Ministry of Truth would have a field day in a society with ubiquitous DRM (in particular, "Trusted[sic] Computing")! And yet you're still so naive and nearsighted that you think it isn't a "really important social battle?"
There was a good candidate; you just ignored him because he belonged to a "third party" (you decide which).
For example, in 2004 I voted for Kerry instead of Badnarik. It didn't do me any good, and it's a mistake I don't intend to make again. I suggest that you don't either, because it's only then that this country will stop perpetuating the stupidity and divisiveness brought about by the "two-party system!"
Bullshit. If the benefits are for the kids, then they should be categorizing the taxpayers according to who has kids and who doesn't, not by who is (religiously) married and who isn't!
More than that, a healthy distrust of politicians is the essence of patriotism itself!