Yes, you'd have a fair comparison to "socialism" - _IF_ that were what "socialism" meant....which it's not. in case you weren't clear that that was the point i was trying to get across here.
Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).
It's always been possible to cite _any_ specific version of a wikipedia page.
As far as i know, the terms have never been attached to the _sale_ in a traditional [microsoft-ish] EULA - they all claim "by installing and using this software you agree..."
That's because you're profiting from it if you're using it to sell newspapers. And it's the "target medium" that makes a difference even in your example - you can't steal pictures off the internet to print in your newspaper, and you can include scans of newspaper clippings in your personal website. in both case, google is running a website.
I asked you seriously what money authors stand to lose from this and what _moral_ right is even violated in this case, [the actual copyright violation is a mere technicality as long as they're not distributing copies - no different morally than you making a backup copy of a CD onto analog tape] and you go off-topic and claim an analogy to forced prostitution?
The problem is that even if referenced, the EULA is usually _not_ presented at the point of sale. It's inside the box. You're also not offered the option to reject the EULA - the document itself "offers" you the option of returning it at the retailer for a full refund, which is not honored by the retailer - I suspect an argument can be made that by allowing the retailer to have a no-returns policy the copyright holder is releasing you from the license terms entirely.
Only if the conduct is something that would not be allowed without agreement to the contract - which may not include normal installation and use of the software, depending on one's interpretation of section 117 [i don't know if there is a precedent for this]. a bit of history - i believe [i read somewhere i now forget where] that section 117 was created to specifically invalidate the doctrine under which EULAs were originally considered necessary [specifically, the copies of a program made in memory, etc]
It's classic argument from consequences - he's trying to deter them by saying "If you do this, it will destroy the internet." and hoping that they like their web searches. It might work, but that is a dangerous game he is playing.
"If you don't allow us to do this, we won't do the other thing either (web search)"
In what way would a finding against them in this matter allow web searches to remain legal? I'm honestly curious, because it seems like the precedent would trivially apply to both.
Even if they're technically in the wrong legally, I'd still like to see your argument for why the authors and publishers are "screwed over". You can't jump straight from "unlawful" to "evil" without providing some support
wtf? criticizing one company automatically makes one a shill for another company? that must be the reason for the attacks he mentions in his sig. I guess this makes you a Nintendo shill - arbitrarily because i said so. dipshit.
The selling price of a drug under patent protection is _not_ the "market price" - the market price is whatever the generic ends up selling for after the patent expires. It's an inherently non-market-based situation until then.
Only the R&D "costs" factor in to the argument of why patent protection is justified. the manufacturing costs would be the same for _anyone_ making the same drug via the same process, and thus don't contribute to the reason claimed for justification of monopoly protection
Intimidation/blackmail isn't a crime? "I 'forgot' to actually file the false complaint this time - but watch your step - maybe next time I won't be so 'forgetful' - Nice website you got there - sure would be a shame if anything were to 'happen' to it."
The point was that the claimed benefit in the original post for dropping enough cash to end up in a lower bracket would require tax brackets to work in exactly the way that we all know they don't.
Way to completely miss the point - For those who don't get it, I'll explain: I was suggesting a life sentence, or multiple consectutive ones, in a humorous manner.
You seem to have a deep-seated hostility towards analogies. He was explaining reasons for restaurant choice. The reasons people have for choosing windows may not map directly onto that, but he was just pointing out that "That's like saying mcdonalds is the best restaurant" is sensitive to what your definition of a 'good restaurant' even _means_.
Slashdot Mirror
ringing voltage is 90V, 'power' 48 in the US.
Yes, you'd have a fair comparison to "socialism" - _IF_ that were what "socialism" meant. ...which it's not. in case you weren't clear that that was the point i was trying to get across here.
Makes it possible to cite a stable version of a wikipedia page in an academic work without it being completely screwed up at a later date. (They should be archived quarterly/yearly/whatever).
It's always been possible to cite _any_ specific version of a wikipedia page.
Sorry for making a second reply
As far as i know, the terms have never been attached to the _sale_ in a traditional [microsoft-ish] EULA - they all claim "by installing and using this software you agree..."
That's because you're profiting from it if you're using it to sell newspapers. And it's the "target medium" that makes a difference even in your example - you can't steal pictures off the internet to print in your newspaper, and you can include scans of newspaper clippings in your personal website. in both case, google is running a website.
I asked you seriously what money authors stand to lose from this and what _moral_ right is even violated in this case, [the actual copyright violation is a mere technicality as long as they're not distributing copies - no different morally than you making a backup copy of a CD onto analog tape] and you go off-topic and claim an analogy to forced prostitution?
The problem is that even if referenced, the EULA is usually _not_ presented at the point of sale. It's inside the box. You're also not offered the option to reject the EULA - the document itself "offers" you the option of returning it at the retailer for a full refund, which is not honored by the retailer - I suspect an argument can be made that by allowing the retailer to have a no-returns policy the copyright holder is releasing you from the license terms entirely.
Only if the conduct is something that would not be allowed without agreement to the contract - which may not include normal installation and use of the software, depending on one's interpretation of section 117 [i don't know if there is a precedent for this]. a bit of history - i believe [i read somewhere i now forget where] that section 117 was created to specifically invalidate the doctrine under which EULAs were originally considered necessary [specifically, the copies of a program made in memory, etc]
IANAL or a law student
DNS space becoming "balkanized" wouldn't be the end of the world - people could find a way around it.
IP space becoming balkanized _would_ be the end of the internet. film at 11.
It's classic argument from consequences - he's trying to deter them by saying "If you do this, it will destroy the internet." and hoping that they like their web searches. It might work, but that is a dangerous game he is playing.
"If you don't allow us to do this, we won't do the other thing either (web search)"
In what way would a finding against them in this matter allow web searches to remain legal? I'm honestly curious, because it seems like the precedent would trivially apply to both.
Even if they're technically in the wrong legally, I'd still like to see your argument for why the authors and publishers are "screwed over". You can't jump straight from "unlawful" to "evil" without providing some support
wtf? criticizing one company automatically makes one a shill for another company? that must be the reason for the attacks he mentions in his sig. I guess this makes you a Nintendo shill - arbitrarily because i said so. dipshit.
The selling price of a drug under patent protection is _not_ the "market price" - the market price is whatever the generic ends up selling for after the patent expires. It's an inherently non-market-based situation until then.
Only the R&D "costs" factor in to the argument of why patent protection is justified. the manufacturing costs would be the same for _anyone_ making the same drug via the same process, and thus don't contribute to the reason claimed for justification of monopoly protection
except EU patents which are enforceable in any EU country
How is that different from saying "except US patents which are enforceable in any US state?"
oh, that's right - the EU 'countries' still have delusions of independence.
Intimidation/blackmail isn't a crime? "I 'forgot' to actually file the false complaint this time - but watch your step - maybe next time I won't be so 'forgetful' - Nice website you got there - sure would be a shame if anything were to 'happen' to it."
The point was that the claimed benefit in the original post for dropping enough cash to end up in a lower bracket would require tax brackets to work in exactly the way that we all know they don't.
Toilet has no 'proper' term in English. All words for it are euphemisms. Bathroom/restroom/water closet...
shitter.
Way to completely miss the point - For those who don't get it, I'll explain: I was suggesting a life sentence, or multiple consectutive ones, in a humorous manner.
And you consider someone who intends to kill someone wearing body armor to be an "otherwise upstanding citizen"?
How about we imprison him for one half second, the time it takes to hit delete ...per message
Same for pay phones with no coins - it may even apply to land-lines even if you've been cut off for non-payment
In my state there are plenty of signs saying to call if you see someone driving erratically [on the logic that the driver may be drunk]
You seem to have a deep-seated hostility towards analogies. He was explaining reasons for restaurant choice. The reasons people have for choosing windows may not map directly onto that, but he was just pointing out that "That's like saying mcdonalds is the best restaurant" is sensitive to what your definition of a 'good restaurant' even _means_.