No, they gave back. You just couldn't run your changes on their hardware. But you could get similar hardware and enjoy the benefits of their changes. The argument surrounding tivoization was about using the code on the device after you changed it as you alluded to.
These are two separate concepts and I would argue that creating a license that basically says anyone who uses "and distributes" this software must allow anyone else to use the device it came installed on in any way they wish, is far beyond anything a software license should cover. I mean software or code that is copyrighted mandating stipulations pertaining to the hardware as a condition of the license is a bit dangerous. What if Sony decided their CDs could only be played on Sony CD player devices using the same license-hardware concept.
The GPLv3 doesn't remove the patent time bombs. It only removes the ability for a company to submarine them into the software.
The major problem is that both the patent holder and the person inserting the code that infringes on the patent, need to be the same person for the GPLv3 to have any teeth in that regard. That's not always the case and simply injecting infringing code into something doesn't make it so- even if you can trick the patent holder into distributing it.
I do not understand what is wrong with tivoization. When you but a product like a Tivo, you are buying an appliance designed to be used for one specific purpose set out in it's marketing. It's not a general purpose computer that you should expect to install and run any software you want on. If you can get past their security, then do whatever with it. But I'm not sure that locking the system down in order to retain licensing agreements from content providers is a bad thing since most people buy them specifically for that purpose.
I would like to see some stats for the statement "its rulings are also upheld more than any other circuit"
That in and of itself shows a significant problem that should concern everyone. While it happens, a court should have very few rulings upheld.
But what you are trying to do with your insistence on pushing the excuses for the ninth, is missing the point that if a district hears 100 cases, 20 of them are reverses, that's a 20% average. If another district hears 5 cases and 1 of them is reverses, that's still a 20% average. So what are the difference in the odds that this ruling would be reverses if it's heard in the ninth with 20 out of 100 cases being reverses compared to another with 1 out of 5 being reversed?
More cases reversed give a greater chance of this being that one case that is lumped in with those reversals. More cases being heard means more chances at something going wrong. But go ahead and pretend that 20 is no different then 1 if you can construe the right context. Just don't pretend to be smarter then me in the process.
Let's just stick with the facts and stall the name calling until you actually know them. Then I won't have to pretend you're standing in front of a mirror saying things like you stupid fuck.
It would seem that you have a clear problem with reading comprehension. There is not misunderstanding of math here, the fact is that both statements or true and the one is an excuse for the other. The fact is, both statements are trotted out by whomever thinks it to their advantage at the time the statements are made.
The fact is, one is an excuse for allowing overturned rulings to be normal when the reality is that most courts should be getting it right the first time and having less of a reliance on appeals courts. Every overturned ruling is one place where the legal system failed someone when the original ruling was put in place. To think it's acceptable just because it's the same as elsewhere is bullshit.
I was being facetious in my reply but yes, that is what he said.
Now tell me, is it factually correct, regardless of the reasons you just illustrated, to say that the 9th circuit court has the most reversals of any district in the US court system? If not, show me any other district that has more reversals on a regular basis.
Note, that the op, as well as I, am talking about rulings being over turned by district, not as a percentage of case load or anything of the sorts. You see, two separate things are being talked about here.
Am I supposed to be concerned about an anonymous coward's point of view when they couldn't even be bothered to sign into a fictitious screen name?
There is no misunderstanding of math here either. The op made a statement of fact, which is the 9th circuit court has more over turned rulings then any other district. The respondent attempted to justify that by basically saying all courts make mistakes and this court's mistakes are not much different then others if you consider more information.
You see, it's you that has a reading comprehension problem here, not problems with basic math. Two distinctly separate things were being said about the same topic. All I did was point out that both are talking points of political biases and used the respondent's own words to show he was the pot calling the kettle black.
Now, please move on and watch that you do not trip over a clue in the process.
You excuses don't make what he said not true, it only attempts to ration why you think is acceptable.
Here is a news flash, how over worked the 9th circuit court is happens to be a left wing talking point. It is unfortunate that you have repeated it as if it's any more valid then the op's statement.
No, what I am saying is that taxes and fees and other crap that goes onto items manufactured inside AU would still be applicable to items manufactured outside and brought in. This isn't to mention customs fees, union contracts and so on that all could be different then in the US or any other country.
You cannot directly compare prices because there is so much to the price that is hidden from plain view. In the US, mandatory seat belts is said to add $2,000 to the costs of a new car. It's worth it if you ask me, but things like this can cause an increase in price from region to region when the manufacturer has to deal with them.
Another example might be copyright. If you buy a book or magazine, you might see a US price and CAD price. The CAD price is always higher but this is not because of monetary values, it's because the copyright royalties group in Canada gets a cut of the sale too.
Well, don't forget that for copyrighted works, there is often different laws to some degree across international borders and in some places, the copyright royalties requirements might be different.
This is a reason why sited like Hulu which doesn't charge to view block some foreign IP addresses.
So it's likely that it's a lot more complicated then it appears on the surface.
Have you ever stopped to think there might be hidden taxes in those prices? I mean either there is some AU import cabal sitting there making everything more expensive, or internal politics has taxed the items to some degree by either requiring a direct tax because of emissions, or warranty services or whatever.
My neighbor purchased some English car and had it imported to the US. It cost him close to 6k US on top of shipping to clear customs and then another 3k to get an inspection and US title for it. Now that's an individual but I know there are things pertaining to companies like Ford has a motor that is more cleaner and efficient then anything they sell in the US (*at least as of a few years ago) but only sells it in Europe because some regulation and union or rights licensing contract prohibits its sale in the US.
Are you sure it isn't differences in licensing agreements from the RIAA's of the world?
Apple fought tooth and nail to keep US prices low. But somehow I suspect that their deal mainly covers US sales and AU sales might even pass through another copyright royalties board before they can sell to you. This is different then buying in the US and shipping it because the sale is happening in the US in that case where it's happening in AU in the other.
In the cable systems around where I live, there isn't a whole lot of choice in packages outside of premium pay channels like HBO or cinema. You either get basic which doesn't require a box, digital which does need a box and has about 2 times the channels, a HD package which is the same as digital but with High def mirrors of some of the same channels, then premium pay channels.
Although I suppose it might be a concern in other areas where the packages are different.
Don't think of price, think of profit. Perhaps I worded it badly.
without the overhead of buying cable boxes, less can be more.
So lets think about this for a minute. If Time Warner is paying bulk prices of $50 per box and renting them for $5 per room per month, it will take 10 months to pay it off then it's profit for them until it breaks. But if they spend $5 per cable card and a signature to be imprinted on it so they are the only ones who can program and update it (for normal people), they can still charge $5 a month and make a profit after one month.
Chances are, it's already covered in some installation fees and they claim to retain ownership to deter tampering with the box (to get it to do more then it was designed to do or get channels not being paid for). So those fees remain the same and profit, they pretend to wave them to get you to buy their programming, either way, it's more cash to them and a win win for them.
Why would he need faith like that? God rarely takes part in human's lives any more. That's what the entire sacrifice of Jesus was supposed to be about. But to answer your point, how do you know that creating a bullet proof car and getting the pope inside it wasn't the lord protecting him?
There is a story about a preacher in a rural community. One day after a lot of rain, the weather man said more rain is coming and it's likely the river would flood. Well, everyone in the community started evacuating and several stopped by the church to ask the preacher if he needed a ride or help with anything. the preacher always replied, "that's ok, I'm fine, the lord will take care of me".
Well, sure enough, more rain came and the river started flooding. Some people were about in boats looking for stranded people and they passed the church asking the preacher to jump in so he would be safe. Again the preacher would reply "that's ok, I'm fine, the lord will take care of me". The water rose and eventually the preacher had to climb onto the roof of the church.
Well, the next day, a helicopter came around and the people inside lowered a harness down to the preacher. They said, get in the harness, we will take you to safety. The preacher once again replied "that's ok, I'm fine, the lord will take care of me". And the flood waters kept rising until it eventually topped the roof of the church and the preacher drowned.
So the preacher is dead now, and he is in heaven and furious. An angel came to him and asked why he was so upset. The preacher said, I believed in god, I believed he would take care of me, and yet I still died. The angel said, don't be silly, he sent warning to your the river was going to flood and you ignored it. He sent warning to you and a ride out of trouble when it first started to flood and you ignored it. He sent a boat to pick you up after it was flooded and you ignored it. Finally, he sent a helicopter to rescue you and yet again you ignored it. You have free will, he cannot make you do anything.
The point is, just because something doesn't work the way you want it to work, doesn't mean divine intervention didn't play a hand in it. Of course it doesn't mean it did either, but it's a bit disingenuous to propose such a specific set of requirements else his faith is somehow in question.
This is the UK we are talking about. they don't have a constitutional protection of free speech. Their protects come from law in which another law can take away, and court rulings which do not mean a whole lot when the accused pleads guilty without raising the issue.
Well, the interesting part about cable cards is that it's a win win for the cable companies. If the cable companies built their own cards, or had them created for them, they could use the cable boxes to push the changes to encryption and everything to them like they do now.
The cable companies on the other hand, could continue renting the cable card for the same price or slightly less then the set top boxes and actually make more money because of the lack of overhead required.
Google could even increase the costs of these private boxes when selling to the public because they won't be sold in bulk.
I just don't see the downside to it other then a small amount of control that can be dealt with by program and firmware updates from the cable company. It might even add some lockin value if a small fee is charged to flash the card to the cable system in use and people think they will have to pay if they switch to the competition in the markets where it exists.
That easily though? Exit polling is given credibility because it somewhat reflect what the results should be from that polling place.
At least with current situations, the loser can call for a recount and cite a number of reasons why it's necessary or their privilege to do so. This requires more then a simple printf, it requires actual stuffing of ballots and making sure you do not over stuff the system to create more ballots cast then voters or average voter turnout.
I guess the point is, even if it is going on right now, why make it easier to happen?
"for the people" isn't socialistic at all. I suspect you have a severe lack of understanding of government. And that's without bothering with your rub on corporations and the rich.
Tell me about it. I for one am thrilled that me and all my imaginary friends will be able to vote in Canadian elections if I want. And the best part is that I can wait until early election results come in and see if my guy is winning before I even bother trying to connect from Alberta via Germany Via the USA where I live to cast my 10,000 votes.
If every country would do something like this, I can see where I can have a huge influence in world politics. I could be the wizzard behind the curtains pulling all the levers and strings to amaze the populous. And I do not think going back to the silver standard would help us out of oz either.
You evidently haven't watched much Jerry Springer. They have dudes on there everyone in a while in bikinis and you cannot tell they are a man because they tuck it in pretty welll.
consumer of services. not everything done at abortion clinics is about abortions. some things are just regular woman's health checkups, birth control issuing and so on.
Re:Then Why Are We Seeing the Same Negative Effect
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 2
sigh... you're a complete idiot. keeping the war funding off the budget did not keep it off the books. It kept the spending from being a budgetary asset. when the wars are over, the money allocated to them disappears When its on budget, all the money allocated to it can be spent on other things. Not really smart to do it the later way now is it. But that's how the US government works. And yes, we have already seen claims of paying for crap with savings from ending the wars. So Obama basically made emergency spending permanent spending.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they gave back. You just couldn't run your changes on their hardware. But you could get similar hardware and enjoy the benefits of their changes. The argument surrounding tivoization was about using the code on the device after you changed it as you alluded to.
These are two separate concepts and I would argue that creating a license that basically says anyone who uses "and distributes" this software must allow anyone else to use the device it came installed on in any way they wish, is far beyond anything a software license should cover. I mean software or code that is copyrighted mandating stipulations pertaining to the hardware as a condition of the license is a bit dangerous. What if Sony decided their CDs could only be played on Sony CD player devices using the same license-hardware concept.
The GPLv3 doesn't remove the patent time bombs. It only removes the ability for a company to submarine them into the software.
The major problem is that both the patent holder and the person inserting the code that infringes on the patent, need to be the same person for the GPLv3 to have any teeth in that regard. That's not always the case and simply injecting infringing code into something doesn't make it so- even if you can trick the patent holder into distributing it.
I do not understand what is wrong with tivoization. When you but a product like a Tivo, you are buying an appliance designed to be used for one specific purpose set out in it's marketing. It's not a general purpose computer that you should expect to install and run any software you want on. If you can get past their security, then do whatever with it. But I'm not sure that locking the system down in order to retain licensing agreements from content providers is a bad thing since most people buy them specifically for that purpose.
I would like to see some stats for the statement "its rulings are also upheld more than any other circuit"
That in and of itself shows a significant problem that should concern everyone. While it happens, a court should have very few rulings upheld.
But what you are trying to do with your insistence on pushing the excuses for the ninth, is missing the point that if a district hears 100 cases, 20 of them are reverses, that's a 20% average. If another district hears 5 cases and 1 of them is reverses, that's still a 20% average. So what are the difference in the odds that this ruling would be reverses if it's heard in the ninth with 20 out of 100 cases being reverses compared to another with 1 out of 5 being reversed?
More cases reversed give a greater chance of this being that one case that is lumped in with those reversals. More cases being heard means more chances at something going wrong. But go ahead and pretend that 20 is no different then 1 if you can construe the right context. Just don't pretend to be smarter then me in the process.
BTW, have a look at this.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/11/opinion/oe-fitzpatrick11
Let's just stick with the facts and stall the name calling until you actually know them. Then I won't have to pretend you're standing in front of a mirror saying things like you stupid fuck.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/11/opinion/oe-fitzpatrick11
Now I know it's from the right wing Los Angeles times. But please read it, ask you mom to help if it's a little hard for you, and then think about it before replying.
It would seem that you have a clear problem with reading comprehension. There is not misunderstanding of math here, the fact is that both statements or true and the one is an excuse for the other. The fact is, both statements are trotted out by whomever thinks it to their advantage at the time the statements are made.
The fact is, one is an excuse for allowing overturned rulings to be normal when the reality is that most courts should be getting it right the first time and having less of a reliance on appeals courts. Every overturned ruling is one place where the legal system failed someone when the original ruling was put in place. To think it's acceptable just because it's the same as elsewhere is bullshit.
I was being facetious in my reply but yes, that is what he said.
Now tell me, is it factually correct, regardless of the reasons you just illustrated, to say that the 9th circuit court has the most reversals of any district in the US court system? If not, show me any other district that has more reversals on a regular basis.
Note, that the op, as well as I, am talking about rulings being over turned by district, not as a percentage of case load or anything of the sorts. You see, two separate things are being talked about here.
Am I supposed to be concerned about an anonymous coward's point of view when they couldn't even be bothered to sign into a fictitious screen name?
There is no misunderstanding of math here either. The op made a statement of fact, which is the 9th circuit court has more over turned rulings then any other district. The respondent attempted to justify that by basically saying all courts make mistakes and this court's mistakes are not much different then others if you consider more information.
You see, it's you that has a reading comprehension problem here, not problems with basic math. Two distinctly separate things were being said about the same topic. All I did was point out that both are talking points of political biases and used the respondent's own words to show he was the pot calling the kettle black.
Now, please move on and watch that you do not trip over a clue in the process.
You excuses don't make what he said not true, it only attempts to ration why you think is acceptable.
Here is a news flash, how over worked the 9th circuit court is happens to be a left wing talking point. It is unfortunate that you have repeated it as if it's any more valid then the op's statement.
No, what I am saying is that taxes and fees and other crap that goes onto items manufactured inside AU would still be applicable to items manufactured outside and brought in. This isn't to mention customs fees, union contracts and so on that all could be different then in the US or any other country.
You cannot directly compare prices because there is so much to the price that is hidden from plain view. In the US, mandatory seat belts is said to add $2,000 to the costs of a new car. It's worth it if you ask me, but things like this can cause an increase in price from region to region when the manufacturer has to deal with them.
Another example might be copyright. If you buy a book or magazine, you might see a US price and CAD price. The CAD price is always higher but this is not because of monetary values, it's because the copyright royalties group in Canada gets a cut of the sale too.
Well, don't forget that for copyrighted works, there is often different laws to some degree across international borders and in some places, the copyright royalties requirements might be different.
This is a reason why sited like Hulu which doesn't charge to view block some foreign IP addresses.
So it's likely that it's a lot more complicated then it appears on the surface.
Have you ever stopped to think there might be hidden taxes in those prices? I mean either there is some AU import cabal sitting there making everything more expensive, or internal politics has taxed the items to some degree by either requiring a direct tax because of emissions, or warranty services or whatever.
My neighbor purchased some English car and had it imported to the US. It cost him close to 6k US on top of shipping to clear customs and then another 3k to get an inspection and US title for it. Now that's an individual but I know there are things pertaining to companies like Ford has a motor that is more cleaner and efficient then anything they sell in the US (*at least as of a few years ago) but only sells it in Europe because some regulation and union or rights licensing contract prohibits its sale in the US.
Are you sure it isn't differences in licensing agreements from the RIAA's of the world?
Apple fought tooth and nail to keep US prices low. But somehow I suspect that their deal mainly covers US sales and AU sales might even pass through another copyright royalties board before they can sell to you. This is different then buying in the US and shipping it because the sale is happening in the US in that case where it's happening in AU in the other.
In the cable systems around where I live, there isn't a whole lot of choice in packages outside of premium pay channels like HBO or cinema. You either get basic which doesn't require a box, digital which does need a box and has about 2 times the channels, a HD package which is the same as digital but with High def mirrors of some of the same channels, then premium pay channels.
Although I suppose it might be a concern in other areas where the packages are different.
Don't think of price, think of profit. Perhaps I worded it badly.
without the overhead of buying cable boxes, less can be more.
So lets think about this for a minute. If Time Warner is paying bulk prices of $50 per box and renting them for $5 per room per month, it will take 10 months to pay it off then it's profit for them until it breaks. But if they spend $5 per cable card and a signature to be imprinted on it so they are the only ones who can program and update it (for normal people), they can still charge $5 a month and make a profit after one month.
Chances are, it's already covered in some installation fees and they claim to retain ownership to deter tampering with the box (to get it to do more then it was designed to do or get channels not being paid for). So those fees remain the same and profit, they pretend to wave them to get you to buy their programming, either way, it's more cash to them and a win win for them.
Why would he need faith like that? God rarely takes part in human's lives any more. That's what the entire sacrifice of Jesus was supposed to be about. But to answer your point, how do you know that creating a bullet proof car and getting the pope inside it wasn't the lord protecting him?
There is a story about a preacher in a rural community. One day after a lot of rain, the weather man said more rain is coming and it's likely the river would flood. Well, everyone in the community started evacuating and several stopped by the church to ask the preacher if he needed a ride or help with anything. the preacher always replied, "that's ok, I'm fine, the lord will take care of me".
Well, sure enough, more rain came and the river started flooding. Some people were about in boats looking for stranded people and they passed the church asking the preacher to jump in so he would be safe. Again the preacher would reply "that's ok, I'm fine, the lord will take care of me". The water rose and eventually the preacher had to climb onto the roof of the church.
Well, the next day, a helicopter came around and the people inside lowered a harness down to the preacher. They said, get in the harness, we will take you to safety. The preacher once again replied "that's ok, I'm fine, the lord will take care of me". And the flood waters kept rising until it eventually topped the roof of the church and the preacher drowned.
So the preacher is dead now, and he is in heaven and furious. An angel came to him and asked why he was so upset. The preacher said, I believed in god, I believed he would take care of me, and yet I still died. The angel said, don't be silly, he sent warning to your the river was going to flood and you ignored it. He sent warning to you and a ride out of trouble when it first started to flood and you ignored it. He sent a boat to pick you up after it was flooded and you ignored it. Finally, he sent a helicopter to rescue you and yet again you ignored it. You have free will, he cannot make you do anything.
The point is, just because something doesn't work the way you want it to work, doesn't mean divine intervention didn't play a hand in it. Of course it doesn't mean it did either, but it's a bit disingenuous to propose such a specific set of requirements else his faith is somehow in question.
You mean without creating a pattern that can be discovered and exploited like with the various lottery exploits in news.
This is the UK we are talking about. they don't have a constitutional protection of free speech. Their protects come from law in which another law can take away, and court rulings which do not mean a whole lot when the accused pleads guilty without raising the issue.
Well, the interesting part about cable cards is that it's a win win for the cable companies. If the cable companies built their own cards, or had them created for them, they could use the cable boxes to push the changes to encryption and everything to them like they do now.
The cable companies on the other hand, could continue renting the cable card for the same price or slightly less then the set top boxes and actually make more money because of the lack of overhead required.
Google could even increase the costs of these private boxes when selling to the public because they won't be sold in bulk.
I just don't see the downside to it other then a small amount of control that can be dealt with by program and firmware updates from the cable company. It might even add some lockin value if a small fee is charged to flash the card to the cable system in use and people think they will have to pay if they switch to the competition in the markets where it exists.
That easily though? Exit polling is given credibility because it somewhat reflect what the results should be from that polling place.
At least with current situations, the loser can call for a recount and cite a number of reasons why it's necessary or their privilege to do so. This requires more then a simple printf, it requires actual stuffing of ballots and making sure you do not over stuff the system to create more ballots cast then voters or average voter turnout.
I guess the point is, even if it is going on right now, why make it easier to happen?
"for the people" isn't socialistic at all. I suspect you have a severe lack of understanding of government. And that's without bothering with your rub on corporations and the rich.
Tell me about it. I for one am thrilled that me and all my imaginary friends will be able to vote in Canadian elections if I want. And the best part is that I can wait until early election results come in and see if my guy is winning before I even bother trying to connect from Alberta via Germany Via the USA where I live to cast my 10,000 votes.
If every country would do something like this, I can see where I can have a huge influence in world politics. I could be the wizzard behind the curtains pulling all the levers and strings to amaze the populous. And I do not think going back to the silver standard would help us out of oz either.
You evidently haven't watched much Jerry Springer. They have dudes on there everyone in a while in bikinis and you cannot tell they are a man because they tuck it in pretty welll.
consumer of services. not everything done at abortion clinics is about abortions. some things are just regular woman's health checkups, birth control issuing and so on.
sigh... you're a complete idiot. keeping the war funding off the budget did not keep it off the books. It kept the spending from being a budgetary asset. when the wars are over, the money allocated to them disappears When its on budget, all the money allocated to it can be spent on other things. Not really smart to do it the later way now is it. But that's how the US government works. And yes, we have already seen claims of paying for crap with savings from ending the wars. So Obama basically made emergency spending permanent spending.