.....They are all on equal footing for someone with no experience with computers....
Maybe for most/. readers, but I get to clean up screwed up Windows computers all the time. Now they even have a rootkit installed by a supposedly trustworthy corporation. The kind of people that would use a $100 minimal computer are definitely not the kind that would even attempt to write a device driver or any other software. Linux is a great OS for/. types, servers and certain embedded applications. Because the people who develop OSS do it mostly for themselves or others like them, OSS will never be a used much by the ordinary mom and pop computer users. This is natural since the OSS developers are not going to make any money selling their software and so don't have to deveop their product for mass market appeal.
As for open source, OSX can use most of it also. Every copy of OSX comes with a development installation so the nerds can roll their own software if they want or download and modify OSS programs to run on Macs.
.....The ability to alter the source code of the OS and recompile,.....
I was under the impression that the inner guts of OSX are based on Darwin for which the source code is available from Apple for free. Is that not good enough?
.....Or, much more likely, they want to alter it to run well on the extremely unique hardware....
That is really the bottom line. I hope that these machines turn out to be useable tools for the recipients, no matter what software runs on them. Nothing is more frustrating than a tool that gets in the way of a job that it needs to be used for. Linux is certainly capable of being adapted to this and can be set up to work for the intended recipients. OSX as it is shipped certainly would not work too well on this minimal hardware without some trimming.
The designers of this system have the same opportunity as Apple does in that they can design the hardware and the software TOGETHER and come up with a useable system. I hope that the money spent on this project will not result in a pile of computers that will not be used, but will bring this modern tool to many.
.....all need to fit within 1GB of storage (and only 128MB of RAM)......
OSX would work with only 128MB of RAM, since that is all the early iMacs had. However, the 1GB of storage would not be enough. But would that be enough for Linux? Maybe the OS itself, but all apps and the DATA? Maybe for a dedicated e-mail machine it might be doable.
OSX is quite "tinkerable" through the command line via terminal. The software control panel also allows for quite a bit of tinkering for those inclined to do so. My biggest reservation about this whole thing is whether a modern OS like OSX can be made to run well enough on a $100 computer. If Linux will run well, then OSX should run pretty well also, since both are variants of the *NIX universe. Contrary to Windows, each succeeding version of OSX has run better on the same old hardware than the previous versions. OSX10.3.9 runs quite reasonably on an "old" purple 1999 iMac still in use.
.....time rich people who can and should learn a lot about computers....
Why should people be forced to learn about computers, when all most of them really want to do is to communicate and get information? Contrary to the/. crowd, for most people in this world, computers are a means to an end, not an end in itself. A person does not have to study network theory in order to use a phone, so why should a computer user care about what happens inside of a computer. With Linux, a user is forced to learn much more about the ins and outs of their computer than with a Mac or Windows. Because Windows is subject to so much malware, it would be a poor choice for a low cost computer to be used by large numbers of barely literate people.
.....noting the designers want an operating system that can be tinkered with....
That tells me that this project is doomed right now. The supposed recipients of these computers don't want something to tinker with, but a computer they can actually USE to COMMUNICATE and learn stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with computers as such. This is like giving a telephone to someone, but requiring that they first learn the laws of electricity before they can use it to call their friends. To use a gas driven water pump for irrigating a field, it is not neccessary to learn the details of how an internal combustion engine works. To use a computer tool, it should not be required to be able to "tinker" with it. With OSX a knowledgeable person CAN tinker with it, but 99% of those computers will NOT be tinkered with by their users. Because Linux is designed by tinkerers for tinkerers, it will never be a general use computer by the unwashed, non-technical masses.
It seems that people around here immediately ascribe the worst motives to any large company that wants to help even a tiny bit in making this a better world.
.....opaque OS X binary is that people can't learn much from it.....
Is the purpose of the $100 computer to learn about computers and programming them? I thought it was supposed to be a communication and learning tool for the low income millions who may have never even seen a computer. Of all OS in existence, OSX seems closest to a simple communications box, yet powerful enough to be satistying to geeks also. In schools, if configured for a limited user, it can be used easily by almost anyone and there is little worry about malware installation. Three or four appropriate programs set up by the administrator into limited user accounts makes a very secure, easy to use machine.
....Mac OS X, especially free, would have been the best possible choice....
Would that choice not depend on what the primary uses that this $100 machine were to be used for? Also would that include the iLife programs and would there be enough RAM to run those? Certainly for e-mail and web surfing OSX would likely work quite well. OSX set up as a limited user is very easy to use by almost anybody. If the $100 hardware were certified by Apple to truly work with OSX for the intended uses, the rejection of the offer smacks of pride by someone associated with that project.
They know that most consumers don't know the law. Contract law has been around for a long time and applies to tangible and intangible goods and services. IP differs fom other goods and services by being covered by copyright law.
Of course if you get sued by a big rich corporation, such as Microsoft or the **AA, you'll have to decide whether all their army of high powered lawyers can overwhelm your puny resources. However, if the law is on your side you will likely prevail, if you have a good strong stomach and are otherwise healthy and are willing to go to trial. If you really did violate the LAW, (such as downloading copyrighted stuff without paying the owner) not the so called EULA, you might as well take your licks right away and settle. Be sure that you do not let others copy someone's copyrighted material that you have legally obtained. Copy it only for your OWN uses and there is not likely to be a case made against you that will stand up in court.
....because you can do a thing does not necessarily mean you should do it.....
When a person buys something they expect to be able to use it as they want. A car maker has no right to specifiy where I drive the car I bought from them or what brand of gas I use. In the same way, when I BUY a CD or DVD I want to be able to watch or listen whenever, wherever and on whatever playback device I like. The maker of the disk has NO rights to tell me otherwise, any more than the maker of a coffee brewer has the right to tell me that all coffee has to be made before 8 am only in my own house. So yes, I CAN do these things and I WILL do them, regardless of the fervent dreams of the content providers to use the laws and courts to control how I use their products. I will however not provide copies of their wares to to others.
....Are there references that can be provided to demonstrate that EULA are of no effect?......
It's very simple actually. You don't have to be a Harvard lawyer. The "A" stands for agreement or a contract. There can be NO agreement unless both parties agree, can be identified, certified and are qualified to enter such legal agreements. When your ten year old rips open a box or clicks a mouse, that does NOT constitute any agreement, because ALL laws in all states don't allow children to enter into legal agreements. For adults, an UNAMBIUOUS evidence, such as at LEAST a signature is needed to provide proof of any agreements. That's why a SIGNATURE is required on any supposed agreement by BOTH parties. When you apply for a loan, you and the bank officer both sign the terms of the loan. When you rent an apartment, BOTH you and the landlord SIGN a legally enforceable agreement, subject to the applicable laws.
For many important agreements, an official witness, such as a notary is needed to provide evidence that BOTH parties are who they say they are and are indeed agreeing to the terms of the contract thus entered into. These laws have been on the books for ages and are still in effect. Because an EULA is one sided, it is NOT an agreement, regardless of the wishful thinking of media and software companies. When they start requiring you to sign an official document that they also sign, concering the terms under which you may use their crap, you are NOT bound by whatever legalese they may print or display. By opening a box or clicking a mouse, you have made NO promise to ANYBODY. Those "agreements" are as worthless as an unsigned check.
.....But what about the rest of those who may not be as technically adept.....
That's easy! They just download a non encrypted version from the internet put there by a very technically adept person. No laws, rules or draconican punishments have ever prevented people from getting what they want. Prohibition and the failed war on drugs are two examples.
If the content providers make their stuff available for reasonable prices and in a convenient format, they will find out that most peole are willing to pay for it. The iTunes music service is a showcase for my point. Since Apple was forced to provide some DRM for the content, they chose to do one that is not too intrusive. However, I think that if there were NO DRM whatsoever on the iTunes music store, the number of downloads therefrom would not be significantly less.
In order to play music or watch a movie, no matter how it is scrambled or encrypted, at some point you have to have the key. If there is a key, it can *always* be found and used to unlock the content. It doesn't matter, whether it is in hardware or software. At some point the key must be used. Encryption ONLY works against third parties. If I send an encrypted message to you and expect YOU to read it, then you must also have the key. A third party will not be able to read a well encrypted message unless they also have that key. In the movie DVDs the decryption key is in the licensed player. Once that key is known, the DVD can be viewed. No matter where and how deep they try to bury that key, at some point it has to be put into the lock and that's when it will *always* be grabbed by someone.
For purely theoretical, mathemetical reasons DRM can never work to prevent the intended recipient of a message or content from doing whatever they want with that once the message is in a plain unencrypted format. Maybe once the content creators figure out that DRM is theoretically impossible they'll stop using it.
If you actually SIGNED a EULA, then you can be identified and held to its terms, even if you never read it. It's just like any other document you sign, such as a lease or loan. However ripping open a package or clicking a mouse does not identify anybody, nor does it determine if you are not a minor. Since many, if not most purchasers of some of these CDs are minors and/or cannot be identified as having participated in a legal agreement, all such EULA are not worth the paper they are printed on or the price of the electrons to display them. Furthermore, laws take precedence ofer private contracts. Copyright law gives you certain rights as well as restrictions and that supercedes any private "agreeements".
Media companies will try to get consumers to believe that such "agreements" are binding, but they all know that they are not unless each CD comes with a piece of paper you SIGN just like a sales contract for a car might. Therefore standard copyright law is all that applies to these CDs as it does to other CDs that don't have that crap "agreement". Making copies for others of *any* copyrighted work is illegal whether there exists a EULA or not.
.....Your mom must be tech savvier than mine because mine can't even figure out how......
It is not that there is not a learning curve to be able to do the examples I gave. That would be the case on any computer, after someone installed the needed software. Any tool needs to be learned, but for the OS you mentioned, getting the tools that would work is an even bigger hurdle for a non tech person. Learning how to get a camcorder video into a computer, editing it and then burning a DVD is something your mom should be able to learn if the tools were reasonably intended for someone like her. Finding the source on the Internet, compiling and installing that into say Linux is a much higher, more esoteric skill set. On a Mac with iMovie and iDVD that hard work is already done. All mom needs to learn are the programs themselves, which for some might still be formidable.
.....Or you can install another OS (Linux, BSD, BeOS, OS/2, whatever you fancy) to dualboot on your PC.....
That works maybe for the/. readers, but unless you want to be the tech support for your mother and/or your aunt Millie, the Mac is the best choice, even if it initially costs more. In this world you usually get what you pay for. Your mom just got a nice camcorder from your brother to video her grandchildren. Now it is YOUR problem to get it to work with her PC that has (fill in any of the above) systems on it. She wants to edit the footage, burn a DVD and e-mail some clips to your sister. On a Mac she is likely able to do all that without you scouring the Internet for the appropriate drivers and other software and then installing it on her computer. Repeat and rinse for digital cameras, MIDI keyboards, many printers and other hardware. For a virus free system, the Mac is the ONLY viable choice for her. For Techies like you and I who LIKE computers, the challenge of getting such things working on various systems for minimum costs, even after much effort brings a degree of satisfaction.
....If you install the program you are bound by the EULA....
If a program is installed in a computer, that still doesn't prove WHO did. The *AA has to get the evidence from an ISP for who shared copyrighted files. If they can't get that evidence because it no longer exists, then they are at the end of the road.
Computer use can be pretty anonymous and determining who agreed to what is more often than not impossible.
.....Judges have ruled repeatedly that EULA's are not legally binding.....
EULAs can't be legally binding for the simple reason that it is impossible to prove WHO clicked the mouse or ripped the package open. Any AGREEMENT has to identify who is agreeing. For business, there may be a way to pin the identity on the business if not on the individual person. For consumers though it would be pretty difficult to prove the identity of the mosue clicker. The EULA is just a way that software companies have had so far of getting out of being held responsible for crappy products. For any tangible product the terms of such "agreements" would be thrown out of court or found to be illegal.
.....an EULA being an example of such a contract......
A EULA is NOT a valid contract, never will be. A contract has to IDENTIFY unambiguosly the contracting parties. There is NO way to prove or disprove WHO clicked a mouse or ripped open a package. Also, BOTH persons to a contract have to be of legal age (not minors) to engage in a legally enforceable contract. In addition to all that, a contract is invalid if it violates any laws.
Legal contracts will at minimum require a signature of each party and if the contract is significant, such as most real estate transaction, an official witness called a notary.
.....Microsoft's security model is an existing threat, with no easy solution.....
The easiest solution is to buy a new Mac for your next computer, disconnect the present Winbox from the Internet and use it only to play all the games you already have. If the present Winbox has a good monitor, USB keyboard and mouse, a Mac mini will get you on the Internet safely and securely for only $500. plus tax.
I suppose that the parents not knowing what their kids are up to, especially in regards to technology is a reflection on the fact that too many parents are only providing a crash pad for their kids because they themselves are too busy with their careers.
Parents OUGHT to know what their kids are doing in every area of their kid's lives. Unfortunately it is true, as you said, that many, if not most of them don't know what their kids, especially teens are doing. The Internet is just one area of life that parent ought to be paying attention to.
.....It's the result of random mutation and natural selection......
That's exactly what is wrong with the illogical hypocrisy of evolution. It attributes to randomness the incredibly complex living world, yet not the most rabid evolutionsist defender, such as you, would venture to say that something manmade, even as simple as a pencil came into being without thoughtful design. Pencils are writing instuments and so are ball point pens. Ball point pens write much better, more permanently, and are therefore a higher evolved form of a pencil.
(....The egg came first......)
Really, how do you know that? What laid the egg? How did the program codes get into the egg that give the instructions for how to build a chicken?
(....People have duplicated evolution, you blithering moron. Ever hear of the problem farmers have with pesticides?....)
Yes, people have de-evolved and stressed already existing life forms, which then respond by becoming resistant to human induced or other stresses. The codes on how to do that were already designed in. In human designs we try to some degree figure out this sort of thing through worst case analasys. Life forms do "evolve", although some prefer to use the word "adapt". Evolution has SOME explanations and data to support those. Evolution however is incapable of giving us the origin of INFORMATION, such as embodied in the DNA codes. The step from non-living atomic matter to the complex molecular structures cannot come by any "natural" process we know. Experiments with electric sparks in a flask make assumptions about the atmosphere that have been shown to be wrong. Even if true, the simple compounds produced, compared to the structure of most proteins is laughable. It is like comparing the Space Shuttle to a 25 cent balsa wood glider. Once living things are around, they can adapt, mutate and change and if you want to call that evolution, that is just a matter of vocabulary.
(.....does entropy have to do......)
Entropy is fundamentally opposed to evolution. Evolution dogma preaches that things go from disorder and simplicity to order and complexity by non-directed neboulous means. It is completely contrary to what we all experience every day. It takes energy and INTELLIGENCE to clean up your house. If BOTH of these are not applied, your house will get always messier and dirtier. You pay good money to intelligent? mechanics to maintain your car to slow down the effects of wear caused by entropy.
(.....Your demands are unreasonable. All that science requires is a verification of the mechanism, not a duplication of every event that has come about as a result of that mechanism. Must we now verify the general theory of relativity by creating our own black hole?.....)
Not at all unreasonable. It is not a very good testimony for science that it cannot accomplish by best effort what suposedly happened by blind chance. It makes scientists appear pretty stupid. If on the other hand the natural world was designed by a great designer, then it becomes a tremendous credit to any scientist, a great achivement worthy of Nobel Prizes, for anyone who is able to understand some of the processes from that mind of and duplicate what the Creator has done. The first scientist to create a living cell from the basic elements will have his/her name on the headlines. I don't think that God cares much about patents and copyrights.
General relativity HAS ben verified to incredible accuracy by many different EXPERIMENTS.
Slashdot Mirror
.....They are all on equal footing for someone with no experience with computers....
/. readers, but I get to clean up screwed up Windows computers all the time. Now they even have a rootkit installed by a supposedly trustworthy corporation. The kind of people that would use a $100 minimal computer are definitely not the kind that would even attempt to write a device driver or any other software. Linux is a great OS for /. types, servers and certain embedded applications. Because the people who develop OSS do it mostly for themselves or others like them, OSS will never be a used much by the ordinary mom and pop computer users. This is natural since the OSS developers are not going to make any money selling their software and so don't have to deveop their product for mass market appeal.
Maybe for most
As for open source, OSX can use most of it also. Every copy of OSX comes with a development installation so the nerds can roll their own software if they want or download and modify OSS programs to run on Macs.
.....The ability to alter the source code of the OS and recompile, .....
I was under the impression that the inner guts of OSX are based on Darwin for which the source code is available from Apple for free. Is that not good enough?
.....Or, much more likely, they want to alter it to run well on the extremely unique hardware....
That is really the bottom line. I hope that these machines turn out to be useable tools for the recipients, no matter what software runs on them. Nothing is more frustrating than a tool that gets in the way of a job that it needs to be used for. Linux is certainly capable of being adapted to this and can be set up to work for the intended recipients. OSX as it is shipped certainly would not work too well on this minimal hardware without some trimming.
The designers of this system have the same opportunity as Apple does in that they can design the hardware and the software TOGETHER and come up with a useable system. I hope that the money spent on this project will not result in a pile of computers that will not be used, but will bring this modern tool to many.
.....all need to fit within 1GB of storage (and only 128MB of RAM)......
OSX would work with only 128MB of RAM, since that is all the early iMacs had. However, the 1GB of storage would not be enough. But would that be enough for Linux? Maybe the OS itself, but all apps and the DATA? Maybe for a dedicated e-mail machine it might be doable.
....Think 3rd world where the school is a grass hut....
Surely somebody in each country can be found to set up such computers for the specific environment where they will be used.
....The OS should be "tinkerable".......
OSX is quite "tinkerable" through the command line via terminal. The software control panel also allows for quite a bit of tinkering for those inclined to do so. My biggest reservation about this whole thing is whether a modern OS like OSX can be made to run well enough on a $100 computer. If Linux will run well, then OSX should run pretty well also, since both are variants of the *NIX universe. Contrary to Windows, each succeeding version of OSX has run better on the same old hardware than the previous versions. OSX10.3.9 runs quite reasonably on an "old" purple 1999 iMac still in use.
.....time rich people who can and should learn a lot about computers....
/. crowd, for most people in this world, computers are a means to an end, not an end in itself. A person does not have to study network theory in order to use a phone, so why should a computer user care about what happens inside of a computer. With Linux, a user is forced to learn much more about the ins and outs of their computer than with a Mac or Windows. Because Windows is subject to so much malware, it would be a poor choice for a low cost computer to be used by large numbers of barely literate people.
Why should people be forced to learn about computers, when all most of them really want to do is to communicate and get information? Contrary to the
.....noting the designers want an operating system that can be tinkered with....
That tells me that this project is doomed right now. The supposed recipients of these computers don't want something to tinker with, but a computer they can actually USE to COMMUNICATE and learn stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with computers as such. This is like giving a telephone to someone, but requiring that they first learn the laws of electricity before they can use it to call their friends. To use a gas driven water pump for irrigating a field, it is not neccessary to learn the details of how an internal combustion engine works. To use a computer tool, it should not be required to be able to "tinker" with it. With OSX a knowledgeable person CAN tinker with it, but 99% of those computers will NOT be tinkered with by their users. Because Linux is designed by tinkerers for tinkerers, it will never be a general use computer by the unwashed, non-technical masses.
It seems that people around here immediately ascribe the worst motives to any large company that wants to help even a tiny bit in making this a better world.
.....opaque OS X binary is that people can't learn much from it.....
Is the purpose of the $100 computer to learn about computers and programming them? I thought it was supposed to be a communication and learning tool for the low income millions who may have never even seen a computer. Of all OS in existence, OSX seems closest to a simple communications box, yet powerful enough to be satistying to geeks also. In schools, if configured for a limited user, it can be used easily by almost anyone and there is little worry about malware installation. Three or four appropriate programs set up by the administrator into limited user accounts makes a very secure, easy to use machine.
....Mac OS X, especially free, would have been the best possible choice....
Would that choice not depend on what the primary uses that this $100 machine were to be used for? Also would that include the iLife programs and would there be enough RAM to run those? Certainly for e-mail and web surfing OSX would likely work quite well. OSX set up as a limited user is very easy to use by almost anybody. If the $100 hardware were certified by Apple to truly work with OSX for the intended uses, the rejection of the offer smacks of pride by someone associated with that project.
.....What do they know that we don't?....
They know that most consumers don't know the law. Contract law has been around for a long time and applies to tangible and intangible goods and services. IP differs fom other goods and services by being covered by copyright law.
Of course if you get sued by a big rich corporation, such as Microsoft or the **AA, you'll have to decide whether all their army of high powered lawyers can overwhelm your puny resources. However, if the law is on your side you will likely prevail, if you have a good strong stomach and are otherwise healthy and are willing to go to trial. If you really did violate the LAW, (such as downloading copyrighted stuff without paying the owner) not the so called EULA, you might as well take your licks right away and settle. Be sure that you do not let others copy someone's copyrighted material that you have legally obtained. Copy it only for your OWN uses and there is not likely to be a case made against you that will stand up in court.
....because you can do a thing does not necessarily mean you should do it.....
When a person buys something they expect to be able to use it as they want. A car maker has no right to specifiy where I drive the car I bought from them or what brand of gas I use. In the same way, when I BUY a CD or DVD I want to be able to watch or listen whenever, wherever and on whatever playback device I like. The maker of the disk has NO rights to tell me otherwise, any more than the maker of a coffee brewer has the right to tell me that all coffee has to be made before 8 am only in my own house. So yes, I CAN do these things and I WILL do them, regardless of the fervent dreams of the content providers to use the laws and courts to control how I use their products. I will however not provide copies of their wares to to others.
....Are there references that can be provided to demonstrate that EULA are of no effect? ......
It's very simple actually. You don't have to be a Harvard lawyer. The "A" stands for agreement or a contract. There can be NO agreement unless both parties agree, can be identified, certified and are qualified to enter such legal agreements. When your ten year old rips open a box or clicks a mouse, that does NOT constitute any agreement, because ALL laws in all states don't allow children to enter into legal agreements. For adults, an UNAMBIUOUS evidence, such as at LEAST a signature is needed to provide proof of any agreements. That's why a SIGNATURE is required on any supposed agreement by BOTH parties. When you apply for a loan, you and the bank officer both sign the terms of the loan. When you rent an apartment, BOTH you and the landlord SIGN a legally enforceable agreement, subject to the applicable laws.
For many important agreements, an official witness, such as a notary is needed to provide evidence that BOTH parties are who they say they are and are indeed agreeing to the terms of the contract thus entered into. These laws have been on the books for ages and are still in effect. Because an EULA is one sided, it is NOT an agreement, regardless of the wishful thinking of media and software companies. When they start requiring you to sign an official document that they also sign, concering the terms under which you may use their crap, you are NOT bound by whatever legalese they may print or display. By opening a box or clicking a mouse, you have made NO promise to ANYBODY. Those "agreements" are as worthless as an unsigned check.
.....But what about the rest of those who may not be as technically adept.....
That's easy! They just download a non encrypted version from the internet put there by a very technically adept person. No laws, rules or draconican punishments have ever prevented people from getting what they want. Prohibition and the failed war on drugs are two examples.
If the content providers make their stuff available for reasonable prices and in a convenient format, they will find out that most peole are willing to pay for it. The iTunes music service is a showcase for my point. Since Apple was forced to provide some DRM for the content, they chose to do one that is not too intrusive. However, I think that if there were NO DRM whatsoever on the iTunes music store, the number of downloads therefrom would not be significantly less.
......is only legal, not technical....
In order to play music or watch a movie, no matter how it is scrambled or encrypted, at some point you have to have the key. If there is a key, it can *always* be found and used to unlock the content. It doesn't matter, whether it is in hardware or software. At some point the key must be used. Encryption ONLY works against third parties. If I send an encrypted message to you and expect YOU to read it, then you must also have the key. A third party will not be able to read a well encrypted message unless they also have that key. In the movie DVDs the decryption key is in the licensed player. Once that key is known, the DVD can be viewed. No matter where and how deep they try to bury that key, at some point it has to be put into the lock and that's when it will *always* be grabbed by someone.
For purely theoretical, mathemetical reasons DRM can never work to prevent the intended recipient of a message or content from doing whatever they want with that once the message is in a plain unencrypted format. Maybe once the content creators figure out that DRM is theoretically impossible they'll stop using it.
.....based on the EULA I signed ....
If you actually SIGNED a EULA, then you can be identified and held to its terms, even if you never read it. It's just like any other document you sign, such as a lease or loan. However ripping open a package or clicking a mouse does not identify anybody, nor does it determine if you are not a minor. Since many, if not most purchasers of some of these CDs are minors and/or cannot be identified as having participated in a legal agreement, all such EULA are not worth the paper they are printed on or the price of the electrons to display them. Furthermore, laws take precedence ofer private contracts. Copyright law gives you certain rights as well as restrictions and that supercedes any private "agreeements".
Media companies will try to get consumers to believe that such "agreements" are binding, but they all know that they are not unless each CD comes with a piece of paper you SIGN just like a sales contract for a car might. Therefore standard copyright law is all that applies to these CDs as it does to other CDs that don't have that crap "agreement". Making copies for others of *any* copyrighted work is illegal whether there exists a EULA or not.
.....Your mom must be tech savvier than mine because mine can't even figure out how......
It is not that there is not a learning curve to be able to do the examples I gave. That would be the case on any computer, after someone installed the needed software. Any tool needs to be learned, but for the OS you mentioned, getting the tools that would work is an even bigger hurdle for a non tech person. Learning how to get a camcorder video into a computer, editing it and then burning a DVD is something your mom should be able to learn if the tools were reasonably intended for someone like her. Finding the source on the Internet, compiling and installing that into say Linux is a much higher, more esoteric skill set. On a Mac with iMovie and iDVD that hard work is already done. All mom needs to learn are the programs themselves, which for some might still be formidable.
.....Or you can install another OS (Linux, BSD, BeOS, OS/2, whatever you fancy) to dualboot on your PC.....
/. readers, but unless you want to be the tech support for your mother and/or your aunt Millie, the Mac is the best choice, even if it initially costs more. In this world you usually get what you pay for. Your mom just got a nice camcorder from your brother to video her grandchildren. Now it is YOUR problem to get it to work with her PC that has (fill in any of the above) systems on it. She wants to edit the footage, burn a DVD and e-mail some clips to your sister. On a Mac she is likely able to do all that without you scouring the Internet for the appropriate drivers and other software and then installing it on her computer. Repeat and rinse for digital cameras, MIDI keyboards, many printers and other hardware. For a virus free system, the Mac is the ONLY viable choice for her. For Techies like you and I who LIKE computers, the challenge of getting such things working on various systems for minimum costs, even after much effort brings a degree of satisfaction.
That works maybe for the
....If you install the program you are bound by the EULA....
If a program is installed in a computer, that still doesn't prove WHO did. The *AA has to get the evidence from an ISP for who shared copyrighted files. If they can't get that evidence because it no longer exists, then they are at the end of the road.
Computer use can be pretty anonymous and determining who agreed to what is more often than not impossible.
.....Judges have ruled repeatedly that EULA's are not legally binding.....
EULAs can't be legally binding for the simple reason that it is impossible to prove WHO clicked the mouse or ripped the package open. Any AGREEMENT has to identify who is agreeing. For business, there may be a way to pin the identity on the business if not on the individual person. For consumers though it would be pretty difficult to prove the identity of the mosue clicker. The EULA is just a way that software companies have had so far of getting out of being held responsible for crappy products. For any tangible product the terms of such "agreements" would be thrown out of court or found to be illegal.
.....an EULA being an example of such a contract......
A EULA is NOT a valid contract, never will be. A contract has to IDENTIFY unambiguosly the contracting parties. There is NO way to prove or disprove WHO clicked a mouse or ripped open a package. Also, BOTH persons to a contract have to be of legal age (not minors) to engage in a legally enforceable contract. In addition to all that, a contract is invalid if it violates any laws.
Legal contracts will at minimum require a signature of each party and if the contract is significant, such as most real estate transaction, an official witness called a notary.
.....Microsoft's security model is an existing threat, with no easy solution.....
The easiest solution is to buy a new Mac for your next computer, disconnect the present Winbox from the Internet and use it only to play all the games you already have. If the present Winbox has a good monitor, USB keyboard and mouse, a Mac mini will get you on the Internet safely and securely for only $500. plus tax.
.....Isn't Canada part of the United States? Like, um, Minnesota?.....
Actually no, it's even colder in Canada than in Minnesota.
I suppose that the parents not knowing what their kids are up to, especially in regards to technology is a reflection on the fact that too many parents are only providing a crash pad for their kids because they themselves are too busy with their careers.
Parents OUGHT to know what their kids are doing in every area of their kid's lives. Unfortunately it is true, as you said, that many, if not most of them don't know what their kids, especially teens are doing. The Internet is just one area of life that parent ought to be paying attention to.
.....It's the result of random mutation and natural selection......
......)
That's exactly what is wrong with the illogical hypocrisy of evolution. It attributes to randomness the incredibly complex living world, yet not the most rabid evolutionsist defender, such as you, would venture to say that something manmade, even as simple as a pencil came into being without thoughtful design. Pencils are writing instuments and so are ball point pens. Ball point pens write much better, more permanently, and are therefore a higher evolved form of a pencil.
(....The egg came first......)
Really, how do you know that? What laid the egg? How did the program codes get into the egg that give the instructions for how to build a chicken?
(....People have duplicated evolution, you blithering moron. Ever hear of the problem farmers have with pesticides?....)
Yes, people have de-evolved and stressed already existing life forms, which then respond by becoming resistant to human induced or other stresses. The codes on how to do that were already designed in. In human designs we try to some degree figure out this sort of thing through worst case analasys. Life forms do "evolve", although some prefer to use the word "adapt". Evolution has SOME explanations and data to support those. Evolution however is incapable of giving us the origin of INFORMATION, such as embodied in the DNA codes. The step from non-living atomic matter to the complex molecular structures cannot come by any "natural" process we know. Experiments with electric sparks in a flask make assumptions about the atmosphere that have been shown to be wrong. Even if true, the simple compounds produced, compared to the structure of most proteins is laughable. It is like comparing the Space Shuttle to a 25 cent balsa wood glider. Once living things are around, they can adapt, mutate and change and if you want to call that evolution, that is just a matter of vocabulary.
(.....does entropy have to do
Entropy is fundamentally opposed to evolution. Evolution dogma preaches that things go from disorder and simplicity to order and complexity by non-directed neboulous means. It is completely contrary to what we all experience every day. It takes energy and INTELLIGENCE to clean up your house. If BOTH of these are not applied, your house will get always messier and dirtier. You pay good money to intelligent? mechanics to maintain your car to slow down the effects of wear caused by entropy.
(.....Your demands are unreasonable. All that science requires is a verification of the mechanism, not a duplication of every event that has come about as a result of that mechanism. Must we now verify the general theory of relativity by creating our own black hole?.....)
Not at all unreasonable. It is not a very good testimony for science that it cannot accomplish by best effort what suposedly happened by blind chance. It makes scientists appear pretty stupid. If on the other hand the natural world was designed by a great designer, then it becomes a tremendous credit to any scientist, a great achivement worthy of Nobel Prizes, for anyone who is able to understand some of the processes from that mind of and duplicate what the Creator has done. The first scientist to create a living cell from the basic elements will have his/her name on the headlines. I don't think that God cares much about patents and copyrights.
General relativity HAS ben verified to incredible accuracy by many different EXPERIMENTS.