It's not buggy software. The software seems to be doing exactly what it was intended to do. This is a fucking specification problem - some idiot decided that proper behavior is to shut down the system when a cert expires, instead of simply warning the user and asking if it was OK to continue. Or alternately, creating an infrastructure which ensures certs get updated as necessary.
On a deeper level, who the fuck would ever pay for an Oculus product going forward when this just proves you can't actually buy one to own and they can shut you down at any time (CRL, anyone?).
...or Pie, or Pudding (picture the lawn statue for that one), or Praline, or Parfait, or...
What makes Popsicle such an "obvious choice," especially considering it's a trademark? If they want to deal with getting trademark permissions (as they've done on some past occasions), then Pez, or Pixy-stix, or Pop Rocks, or...
No, it's because Bill Gates is ignorant of the obvious. If he can claim "cryptocurrencies are used for buying fentanyl and other drugs, so it is a rare technology that has caused deaths in a fairly direct way," then it is also true that Windows is used to make those purchases and is also causing deaths in a fairly direct way.
"Unix was around for a long time, however it ran on big iron systems. 32bit processors dozens of Megs of memory."
Huh? Unix was originally developed on a PDP-7 (18 bit, maximum 64K words memory), and became popular on the PDP-11 (16 bit, 64K bytes, although later models extended that with virtual addressing). Minicomputers, not mainframes, definitely not "big iron."
It assures that these cars will never work in the salt-spray environment encountered on northern winter roads. Interesting that most testing seems to be done in CA or AZ. Wimps.
"I've never figured out why flights with assigned seats don't load back to front to speed things up. "
That would make sense, except for the assholes who have seats in the rear and dump their carry-ons into the front overhead bins. Then, when the passengers in front get on, they have to find room in the back bins. Lots of back and forth in a narrow aisle.
"Had he not had these 28,000 Windows discs for sale, would some people instead buy from Microsoft?"
No, MS already makes the software available for free download. All he's really providing is a convenience - it's easier for a refurbisher to provide a CD than for an end user to download a few hundred MB of software. His income is limited to how much that convenience is worth.
Oh, and your four factors are not a limit, they are simply a minimum of what must be considered ("the factors to be considered shall include..."). There is nothing in statute which prevents considering other reasonable factors, and I submit that the copyright holder having already been paid for use of the work on the specific hardware is a perfectly reasonable factor.
Welcome to our universe. Here, whatever happened in your alternate universe isn't necessarily true, and saying it doesn't make it so.
For most of our history, reasonable gun regulations were enacted by states and municipalities across the United States,
Fact is, for most of our history, there was very little interpretation of the 2nd at all. And very little regulation until the Gun Control Act of 1968. And, over time, those "reasonable" laws and regulations have only been made more restrictive. Concealed carry was legal until after abolition, when racially motivated laws were implemented to prevent freedmen from carrying.
The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.
So what makes current law and regulation in any way unreasonable? For some reason, I don't think you're arguing that we should go back to the regulations we had for most of our history. Automatic weapons were completely unregulated until 1934, which would be "most of our history."
"if you boil it down to the root cause, is actually bullying."
I disagree. It's the whole - "Here's a participation medal, kid," entitlement society, you're not personally responsible thing.
Why more shootings? Guns haven't really changed in the last 70 years. Society, and the immediate pervasiveness of news has. I knew kids who would take their.22 rifle to school and put it in their locker so they could go "plinking" with friends after school. No one freaked out, and there were no problems. But they were raised to have personal responsibility. Do or do not. There is no try.
It's not the bullying, it's the intolerance (on both sides) and the inability to says "sticks and stones..." and walk away. Of course, it doesn't help that our government's first response to any threat is "shock and awe" force.
The founders recognized the right to private ownership of all arms. Heck, they even commissioned privateers who owned private warships (yes, like the 600-ton, 26-gun ship Caesar of Boston), to help support their cause.
And, they expected that to continue. The Constitution specifically provides for it in Article I, Section 8, where Congress is given the power to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal."
Ahh. A sophist. "Militia" doesn't mean what you think it means, and a prefatory clause isn't binding.
As a self professed liberal, do you also support other laws which would restrict civil liberties? How about the 1st A? It starts with "Congress shall make no law...". So, that means that the States (which definitely aren't "Congress") can make laws establishing religion, restricting speech and press, etc. Right?
Living in a system with the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty means you accept more risk. Fortunately for you, you can move to almost anywhere else and trade that freedom and liberty for less risk and more security. Your choice.
What we need is news control laws. When the Constitution was written, there were no high speed presses, no electronic news, no way people could be flooded 24/7 with "news" and commentary.
It's clear that these school shootings are driven by crazies wanting to "copy-cat" other school shooting they're heard about, sometimes just to get their own 24 hours of fame. Yet, the modern media irresponsibly continues to glorify these events and saturate every media channel with them, just encouraging more copy-cats. That clearly needs to change.
We have to do something. We already have lots of gun laws. We now need some reasonable, common-sense, media control laws. Just as an private citizen can't get and has no reason to have a machine gun, no media needs a high speed Internet web site - when the "right to a free press" was created, it was in reference to Gutenberg presses. Same with radio/tv/cable. Such powerful methods of communication, so easily abused, should be highly regulated for private use. Only the government is responsible enough to be allowed to use them. Journalists should be licensed, subject to a background check to make sure they're not mentally ill, and don't have a criminal history. Photocopy machines should be registered. Scented magazine inserts should be outlawed. Cheap, Saturday night special, smartphones should be outlawed. A license should be required to carry a concealed smartphone.
As a bonus, such restrictions would also solve all of this "Russian facebook/twitter" cruft.
None of these reasonable, common-sense actions would infringe on 1st Amendment or natural rights in any way, but would go a long way to ending the bloodshed. Think of the children.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not buggy software. The software seems to be doing exactly what it was intended to do. This is a fucking specification problem - some idiot decided that proper behavior is to shut down the system when a cert expires, instead of simply warning the user and asking if it was OK to continue. Or alternately, creating an infrastructure which ensures certs get updated as necessary.
On a deeper level, who the fuck would ever pay for an Oculus product going forward when this just proves you can't actually buy one to own and they can shut you down at any time (CRL, anyone?).
The suggestion given below is easier and more flexible.
"OK Google. Set a reminder for July 4th, 2076 named tricentennial."
...they also used Kit-Kat. Both names with few (non-trademarked and widely recognized) choices. Your point?
...or Pie, or Pudding (picture the lawn statue for that one), or Praline, or Parfait, or ...
...
What makes Popsicle such an "obvious choice," especially considering it's a trademark? If they want to deal with getting trademark permissions (as they've done on some past occasions), then Pez, or Pixy-stix, or Pop Rocks, or
"using android & a Mac is far from as wonderfully easy as using an iPhone."
You get what you pay (exorbitantly) for. Until you need something different, when you'll pay for the lock-in.
No, it's because Bill Gates is ignorant of the obvious. If he can claim "cryptocurrencies are used for buying fentanyl and other drugs, so it is a rare technology that has caused deaths in a fairly direct way," then it is also true that Windows is used to make those purchases and is also causing deaths in a fairly direct way.
Fair is fair, take the blame on yourself, BillG.
"Unix was around for a long time, however it ran on big iron systems. 32bit processors dozens of Megs of memory."
Huh? Unix was originally developed on a PDP-7 (18 bit, maximum 64K words memory), and became popular on the PDP-11 (16 bit, 64K bytes, although later models extended that with virtual addressing). Minicomputers, not mainframes, definitely not "big iron."
It assures that these cars will never work in the salt-spray environment encountered on northern winter roads. Interesting that most testing seems to be done in CA or AZ. Wimps.
"I've never figured out why flights with assigned seats don't load back to front to speed things up. "
That would make sense, except for the assholes who have seats in the rear and dump their carry-ons into the front overhead bins. Then, when the passengers in front get on, they have to find room in the back bins. Lots of back and forth in a narrow aisle.
I like how Southwest does it.
I think Spirit Airlines has a process patent.
Disney, copyright misuse? That's a tautology.
Like this?
"Had he not had these 28,000 Windows discs for sale, would some people instead buy from Microsoft?"
No, MS already makes the software available for free download. All he's really providing is a convenience - it's easier for a refurbisher to provide a CD than for an end user to download a few hundred MB of software. His income is limited to how much that convenience is worth.
Oh, and your four factors are not a limit, they are simply a minimum of what must be considered ("the factors to be considered shall include..."). There is nothing in statute which prevents considering other reasonable factors, and I submit that the copyright holder having already been paid for use of the work on the specific hardware is a perfectly reasonable factor.
Point to any regulation of automatic weapons before 1934. Go ahead, prove your point.
"If he didn't have a piece of paper showing he got a license for every single piece of hardware, he has no rights to sell the software."
If Microsoft doesn't have a piece of paper with the original purchaser's signature on it, they have no contract.
If copying software which has already been paid for and is specifically attached to hardware isn't "fair use," what is?
That's why there's a case - your claim that "he illegally copied copyrighted software" isn't cut-and-dry.
Microsoft's argument is that they're being deprived of revenue for something they've already been paid for - how does that make it all right?
You dumb fuck. You've never heard of a Maxim gun.
Fact is, for most of our history, there was very little interpretation of the 2nd at all. And very little regulation until the Gun Control Act of 1968. And, over time, those "reasonable" laws and regulations have only been made more restrictive. Concealed carry was legal until after abolition, when racially motivated laws were implemented to prevent freedmen from carrying.
-Watson v. Stone
So what makes current law and regulation in any way unreasonable? For some reason, I don't think you're arguing that we should go back to the regulations we had for most of our history. Automatic weapons were completely unregulated until 1934, which would be "most of our history."
"They also recognized the right to own slaves."
That was corrected with a Constitutional amendment. Your point?
"if you boil it down to the root cause, is actually bullying."
.22 rifle to school and put it in their locker so they could go "plinking" with friends after school. No one freaked out, and there were no problems. But they were raised to have personal responsibility. Do or do not. There is no try.
I disagree. It's the whole - "Here's a participation medal, kid," entitlement society, you're not personally responsible thing.
Why more shootings? Guns haven't really changed in the last 70 years. Society, and the immediate pervasiveness of news has. I knew kids who would take their
It's not the bullying, it's the intolerance (on both sides) and the inability to says "sticks and stones..." and walk away. Of course, it doesn't help that our government's first response to any threat is "shock and awe" force.
The founders recognized the right to private ownership of all arms. Heck, they even commissioned privateers who owned private warships (yes, like the 600-ton, 26-gun ship Caesar of Boston), to help support their cause.
And, they expected that to continue. The Constitution specifically provides for it in Article I, Section 8, where Congress is given the power to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal."
Ahh. A sophist. "Militia" doesn't mean what you think it means, and a prefatory clause isn't binding.
As a self professed liberal, do you also support other laws which would restrict civil liberties? How about the 1st A? It starts with "Congress shall make no law...". So, that means that the States (which definitely aren't "Congress") can make laws establishing religion, restricting speech and press, etc. Right?
Living in a system with the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty means you accept more risk. Fortunately for you, you can move to almost anywhere else and trade that freedom and liberty for less risk and more security. Your choice.
What we need is news control laws. When the Constitution was written, there were no high speed presses, no electronic news, no way people could be flooded 24/7 with "news" and commentary.
It's clear that these school shootings are driven by crazies wanting to "copy-cat" other school shooting they're heard about, sometimes just to get their own 24 hours of fame. Yet, the modern media irresponsibly continues to glorify these events and saturate every media channel with them, just encouraging more copy-cats. That clearly needs to change.
We have to do something. We already have lots of gun laws. We now need some reasonable, common-sense, media control laws. Just as an private citizen can't get and has no reason to have a machine gun, no media needs a high speed Internet web site - when the "right to a free press" was created, it was in reference to Gutenberg presses. Same with radio/tv/cable. Such powerful methods of communication, so easily abused, should be highly regulated for private use. Only the government is responsible enough to be allowed to use them. Journalists should be licensed, subject to a background check to make sure they're not mentally ill, and don't have a criminal history. Photocopy machines should be registered. Scented magazine inserts should be outlawed. Cheap, Saturday night special, smartphones should be outlawed. A license should be required to carry a concealed smartphone.
As a bonus, such restrictions would also solve all of this "Russian facebook/twitter" cruft.
None of these reasonable, common-sense actions would infringe on 1st Amendment or natural rights in any way, but would go a long way to ending the bloodshed. Think of the children.
I don't (can't afford to) live that close to an ocean, you insensitive clod.
(But I'm thinking that an investment in property on Lake Superior or Hudson Bay may pay off as the next French Riviera. Kashechewan=Monaco?)
The article is jammed in a paywall.