So some people are saying it doesn't matter wether you are interested in the ads or not, you shouldn't block them because that way, the webmaster will get paid for his efforts.
But doesn't that just shift the load to the advertiser? If you are going to shove the ads down the throats of people who don't want to see them, but charge the advertiser the same amount as for the people who are willing to look at some ads - isn't that the same morality?
"i take what i can as long as he can't do anything about it"
So how do i get the creepy feeling that this guy isn't entirely honest, but actually an elicense marketing stooge?
The install is painless (it installs a license control service that in many years of using I've never had any sort of issue with), and it stops a LOT of piracy.
Err, yes. I have original software too, but somehow the companies failed to send me regular, detailed newsletters about the LOTS of piracy they stopped with their particiular brand of DRM.
It IS possible to "unwrap" the executable, but of all the Elicense protected software I've used, I've only ever seen one game cracked. (Ironically it is the most obscure of the ones I own.)
Yeah, shure, I too make regular searches on the web for cracked versions of the originals i own, especially when the DRM is soooo good that i dont't want a no-cd crack.
And by the way, what are the multiple(!) games that haven't been cracked? I would really like to buy them, if only for rarity value. After all, in the whole history of mankind they are likley to be the only pieces of software ever that weren't cracked....
I am vehemently opposed to DRM, copy protection, call it what you will, but I find Elicense extremely inoffensive due to it's ease of use.
Yeah, i'm opposed to DRM but happy to install extra software on my computer that monitors me. But i am vehemently against everything else DRM-related, trust me.
DRM should not impact legitimate consumers, and this one is the only one I've come across that has never caused me any sort of negative experience.
Software where you have to enter a code ONCE is really a pain in the ass, believe me. But elicense is soooo easy to use, i have to mention it five times. Please buy our product.
DRM-Companies, i beg you, if you let your marketing division run loose on slashdot, at least stop them from taking drugs. Thanks!
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
Well, the Department of Justice won`t tell the judge to keep their arguements for a 'secret law' secret if their arguements are along the lines of "He was bulled by this employee. There is no such law!". So my guess is: yes, there is a secret law (or regulation or whatever).
Also you have the right to NEITHER show ID or get searched without reason.
On the other hand i think you have a valid point in stating that this is not a request by the police but part of the aviation security system, like metal detectors. So one might ask "Does it make sense to check for ID? Is it worth the costs of personal freedom?"
Lots of people mentioned that the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs, but one shouldn't forget that this was before 9/11. By now there is a HUGE (and secret;-) database with all sorts of names on it (terrorist, muslims, congressmen, double names, unlucky fellows, you name it and try to get your name of that list). So i guess terrorists would be forced to use false IDs if they don't want to jeopardize their plans. Of course, these are not hard to obtain...Well, you decide.
But the real issue here is not wether you have to show your ID or not. The point is "secret laws". Objecting people to laws that they are not entitled to argue or even hear about simply doesn't work out for a democratic society. But it does well for dictatorships.
Even if you can elect your dictator;-)
Brainteaser: what is so fucking secret about a law asking you to show id? Could it be that as few people as possible should know about it because it might be considered unconstitutional? Naaaa!
Just to get some things straight...
on
Germany Muzzles SCO
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I don`t like to spoil your fun, but the thing about SCO sueing its own customers is a misinterpretation.
SCO has repeatetly announced that it will sue any Linux user who uses any other distro but SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.
They didnt say ALL Linux users, so in best court-talk this translates to:
4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to "sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux".
I hope the quotation marks will make things clearer, although in german like in english you can really read it both ways.
Another point is that they can still sue users (they cant, but for other reasons), but they must not go around making hollow threats.
Some also mentioned how cool it is from the german goverment/courts to muzzle SCO.
Its neither the goverment nor the court who took action, they cant do that on their own: it was a lawsuit from a "competitor" who claimed that SCO was doing damage to its business by telling lies (people not buying Linux/support because of fearing lawsuits).
For an example: if Reebok starts to pronounce that "wearing Nike shoes shrinks your testicles", Nike can go to court and challenge Reebok to either proof it or stop talking bullshit. In this case Reebok would have come up with the proof (or at least serious reasons for this belief) or loose the lawsuit and hence will either be forbidden to make that claim again (maybe they might be able say things like "In our opinion, wearing Nike shoes shrinks your testicles").
Actually im pretty sure that SCO just didnt want their completly unimportant german branch to end their "we-got-proof-we-just-wont-show-it"-game before they get their chance on the big money in the US-courts.
A last one:
SCO and SCO Germany are
a) not the same company (in a juristical sense) and the contents of the english SCO website are
b) "not aimed at germans" (a website written in german might be),
so SCO Germany wont pay for anything on the SCO website.
Im sorry, but i think the case here in germany wont affect the US-courts and is therefore quite unimportant. But it still gives a warm feeling:-)
Slashdot Mirror
So some people are saying it doesn't matter wether you are interested in the ads or not, you shouldn't block them because that way, the webmaster will get paid for his efforts.
But doesn't that just shift the load to the advertiser? If you are going to shove the ads down the throats of people who don't want to see them, but charge the advertiser the same amount as for the people who are willing to look at some ads - isn't that the same morality?
"i take what i can as long as he can't do anything about it"
Just a thought...
Really, really bad marketing.
So how do i get the creepy feeling that this guy isn't entirely honest, but actually an elicense marketing stooge?
The install is painless (it installs a license control service that in many years of using I've never had any sort of issue with), and it stops a LOT of piracy.
Err, yes. I have original software too, but somehow the companies failed to send me regular, detailed newsletters about the LOTS of piracy they stopped with their particiular brand of DRM.
It IS possible to "unwrap" the executable, but of all the Elicense protected software I've used, I've only ever seen one game cracked. (Ironically it is the most obscure of the ones I own.)
Yeah, shure, I too make regular searches on the web for cracked versions of the originals i own, especially when the DRM is soooo good that i dont't want a no-cd crack.
And by the way, what are the multiple(!) games that haven't been cracked? I would really like to buy them, if only for rarity value. After all, in the whole history of mankind they are likley to be the only pieces of software ever that weren't cracked....
I am vehemently opposed to DRM, copy protection, call it what you will, but I find Elicense extremely inoffensive due to it's ease of use.
Yeah, i'm opposed to DRM but happy to install extra software on my computer that monitors me. But i am vehemently against everything else DRM-related, trust me.
DRM should not impact legitimate consumers, and this one is the only one I've come across that has never caused me any sort of negative experience.
Software where you have to enter a code ONCE is really a pain in the ass, believe me. But elicense is soooo easy to use, i have to mention it five times. Please buy our product.
DRM-Companies, i beg you, if you let your marketing division run loose on slashdot, at least stop them from taking drugs. Thanks!
Second, because some unnamed worker for United Airlines "told him" that there was a "secret law", are we to believe that there is, then, such a "law"? That a random United Airlines employee is the ultimate fount of information on this topic? The fact that SFO would indeed allow him to fly with no ID negates his claim that ID is required by a "secret law" on its face.
;-) database with all sorts of names on it (terrorist, muslims, congressmen, double names, unlucky fellows, you name it and try to get your name of that list). So i guess terrorists would be forced to use false IDs if they don't want to jeopardize their plans. Of course, these are not hard to obtain...Well, you decide.
;-)
Well, the Department of Justice won`t tell the judge to keep their arguements for a 'secret law' secret if their arguements are along the lines of "He was bulled by this employee. There is no such law!". So my guess is: yes, there is a secret law (or regulation or whatever).
Also you have the right to NEITHER show ID or get searched without reason.
On the other hand i think you have a valid point in stating that this is not a request by the police but part of the aviation security system, like metal detectors. So one might ask "Does it make sense to check for ID? Is it worth the costs of personal freedom?"
Lots of people mentioned that the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs, but one shouldn't forget that this was before 9/11. By now there is a HUGE (and secret
But the real issue here is not wether you have to show your ID or not. The point is "secret laws". Objecting people to laws that they are not entitled to argue or even hear about simply doesn't work out for a democratic society. But it does well for dictatorships.
Even if you can elect your dictator
Brainteaser: what is so fucking secret about a law asking you to show id? Could it be that as few people as possible should know about it because it might be considered unconstitutional? Naaaa!
I don`t like to spoil your fun, but the thing about SCO sueing its own customers is a misinterpretation.
:-)
SCO has repeatetly announced that it will sue any Linux user who uses any other distro but SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.
They didnt say ALL Linux users, so in best court-talk this translates to:
4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to "sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux".
I hope the quotation marks will make things clearer, although in german like in english you can really read it both ways.
Another point is that they can still sue users (they cant, but for other reasons), but they must not go around making hollow threats.
Some also mentioned how cool it is from the german goverment/courts to muzzle SCO.
Its neither the goverment nor the court who took action, they cant do that on their own: it was a lawsuit from a "competitor" who claimed that SCO was doing damage to its business by telling lies (people not buying Linux/support because of fearing lawsuits).
For an example: if Reebok starts to pronounce that "wearing Nike shoes shrinks your testicles", Nike can go to court and challenge Reebok to either proof it or stop talking bullshit. In this case Reebok would have come up with the proof (or at least serious reasons for this belief) or loose the lawsuit and hence will either be forbidden to make that claim again (maybe they might be able say things like "In our opinion, wearing Nike shoes shrinks your testicles").
Actually im pretty sure that SCO just didnt want their completly unimportant german branch to end their "we-got-proof-we-just-wont-show-it"-game before they get their chance on the big money in the US-courts.
A last one:
SCO and SCO Germany are
a) not the same company (in a juristical sense) and the contents of the english SCO website are
b) "not aimed at germans" (a website written in german might be),
so SCO Germany wont pay for anything on the SCO website.
Im sorry, but i think the case here in germany wont affect the US-courts and is therefore quite unimportant. But it still gives a warm feeling