I'm not sure what references you're looking for. Is anonymity is possible using a wire? If it is, then great. We'll never know until someone gets caught and finds out how it happened. At this point however, I still believe that wireless is far and away the more secure solution. I hope somebody is working on it. So far, the evidence indicates the the guy who owns the wire will be more than happy to turn you over whenever the authorities request it. It's usually stated in your contract with them, and if you want service, you're going to sign the contract. I would prefer to have access without having to sign a contract with anyone. Unless you use an internet cafe exclusively(and a different one at that each time you need access), how are you going to have real, free(as in speech) access without wireless? How are you going to stop the ISP from sniffing your packets? What if your one and only ISP demands that you send only plain text over the wire so they can eavesdrop(With a "signed warrant" of course)? Aren't these valid concerns? It seems to me that only wireless can really address these concerns adequately. If I'm wrong, please refer me to the possibilities. The things I've seen so far are too easy to take down and put many people at risk.
a bunch of muk-muks slam planes into our buildings, drive bomb loaded busses into our buildings, push our citizens in wheelchairs off of boats, and of course blow up our planes.
You seem to be under the impression it would somehow be different if the situation was reversed. You would be mistaken. Desperate people do desperate things. It makes no difference who they are. We, who sit nice and comfy in front of our tv's, don't feel the necessity to kill people in that manner. I would really like to know how you would react as people are blowing up your house and kicking you off your property with absolutely nobody to call upon for help.
Arab terrorists...You argue for appeasement...
to Israel? There are terrorists are on both sides of that fence. The Israelis just aren't attacking Americans...that we know of, but make no mistake, they do employ assassins outside of their borders. Of course they claim to be targeting only "terrorists". But we're not allowed to talk about them. Are we? They gave up much of their moral high ground in 1948. They completely blew it away in '67.
What they want is absolute power. They want to destroy western civilization...
What they want is absolute power. They want to destroy Indian civilization... I wonder if that's what the natives were thinking as the Americans were charging across the continent. Somebody stopped the muk-muks as you call them. Who was there to stop the Americans? At least the Arabs don't make false claims of democracy as the westerners do as they continue to support the corruption in Saudi Arabia and put Halliburton in charge of Iraq. If you think that the Americans or anybody else selling weapons in the region want peace or democracy there, then it is you that are the fool.
The hardliners in Iran wouldn't be overturning Democratic reforms.
I believe they tried democracy once or twice. The Americans did some overturning of their own in...1953, was it? Did you ever think that they might still be pissed? I think they did the same thing in Syria. What year was that? 1947? And what was up with that Suez Canal thing(or was it the dam?) in '56? Let's not forget Saddam himself. Propped up by the Americans and its allies throughout the 80's... and the 90's actually. Maybe the Arabs don't want democracy. One thing for sure is that neither does Europe or the U.S. Their constant meddling since the beginning of the 20th century(probably long before that) has proven that.
What he wants is to affect American foreign policy.
Oh please. American policy hasn't changed one bit. In fact it has accelerated. He is being used for that purpose. He has been part of American policy since they hired him back in...when? 1980 something?
As much as I apreciate the efforts put into this, I can't help feeling you're feeding a false sense of security to the users. Since my posts aren't widely read here, I'll tell you directly what I just finished posting to another person: "We can never, ever be anonymous as long as there is somebody else's wire attached to our machine. It is impossible! I repeat, once AGAIN. Only true, ad hoc, mobile, encrypted wireless will ever give us even the remotest chance at anonymity and true P2P. There is simply no other way. Anything else is exactly the illusion that the bad guys want you to believe. If you're wired they will find you! Remember that please." Sorry to be so redundant, but this message must be spread far and wide. So far I'm not sure how much effert is being put into this. I do see stories about improved wireless this and that, and I hope it leads to what I asking for.
Very good article. I also believe they should have "shut down with a warning that JAP can no longer fulfill its stated obligation to protect anonymity due to police interference". It would have more in keeping with their stated purpose. In light of what they(JAP) did, I don't believe they were ever very trustworthy to begin with. All the other anonymizer services are equally suspect to me for this very reason. That includes this, freenet, and whatever else is running these claims. We can never, ever be anonymous as long as there is somebody else's wire attached to our machine. It is impossible! I repeat, once AGAIN. Only true, ad hoc, mobile, encrypted wireless will ever give us even the remotest chance at anonymity and true P2P. There is simply no other way. Anything else is exactly the illusion that the bad guys want you to believe. If you're wired they will find you! Remember that please.
Ha! My thoughts exactly. May I assume that these lawyers are on retainer, normally sitting around doing "nothing", but getting paid anyway? Why not use them to complement the sales staff? Their personalities are similar. I bet they work well together. Sometimes the buzz created by the lawsuits are more exciting than the product they're suing over. The lawsuit is the ad, and CNET, Slashdot, and probably more than a few others just carried the ad for free.
One reason why you'll never see me posting stuff that I find out at work.
If you were to post information from work, find a way to do it anonymously. It's just like posting info on software exploits. Don't put your name anywhere near it. Just get the info out. Don't look for attribution. All you'll get is the blame and possibly a lawsuit. If you had info that showed that your employer is doing something harmful, it would be nice if you did post it.
Nonsense. GPL isn't needed without copyright. Freeware has existed long before anyone dreamed up the GPL. GPL was developed to counteract proprietary copyrights.
So, a post advocating breaking the law is Insightful?
Yes! When its bad law.
...when someone takes GPLed code...
You didn't catch the memo. Let 'em have it! I can extract the source code with my handy-dandy dis-assembler, bit by bit if I have to. If you want to be legal about it, expose the GPL code in their program, and show the world that the program just became GPL'd due to its use. This should be obvious, and it may be to the people you're complaining to. That might be why they don't bring it up.
Just a reminder, there are no such things as IP "rights". IP laws are a gov't service. A right would imply that it lasts forever and needs no gov't recognition. IP does neither.
I used to say "vote with your wallet" on these very threads, but I've become disillusioned, and no longer even try.:-(
Same here. It's like telling a voter not to fall for the FUD that comes from their favorite politician. It just isn't going to happen. This just adds one more reason to hack the DRM and simply tell the copyright holders to go to hell. This what will happen anyway. Besides, there is no voting with your wallet unless you stop buying anything. What these people may lose in DVD sales will be made up in laundry detergent, or clothing, or toy sales from the other companies they have investments in. Cable companies lose sales to telcos? They just buy the telcos. Or vise versa...I can't remember. No more worries about competition, etc. So I'm not going to worry about DRM, DMCA, or any of that other crap. It will be "fixed" before the shopping season is over...if it hits the streets by then(only 3 hacking days left). DRM is damage, and like the internet, we'll get around it. In that I have faith.
Too bad you and the others keep getting side-tracked by the "piracy" thing. Piracy is one of the distractions used by the industry as they try to outlaw self-distribution through P2P. They know that their market outside the U.S. and Europe would dry up if not for piracy. It's just the industry's un-official distribution network. I don't care one way or the other about piracy, GPL, etc. We should assure that the law protects everyone equally. Copyright can't do that. But you go on harping about piracy all you want. You're just ignoring the real issue. You would like to think it's about distributing other people's work, but it's really about people's ability to distribute their own work without the industry middle-men.
Bad law is bad law. You are no better than me, and your work is no better than mine, and it's certainly not deserving of any special privileges that I don't recieve. See my other posts on the subject of piracy. Copyright holders should not talk about free rides. That's what the gov't gives with copyright.
Granting privileges to any person or group over another person or group is discrimination. No matter what those privileges are. I hope that you too aren't equating illegal with immoral. That would nullify anything you have to say on the subject. You don't have a monopoly on suffering. You are just the most recent and most visible of a long line. Your suffering is no more important than the Cambodians, the Vietnamese, Central Americans, the North American Indians, present day Africans, the Germans, The French, the Palestinians, the Iranians, the Iraqis, or anybody else I failed to mention. It's the same, and just as horrible and unnecessary. Another thing I am sure of is that if the positions were reversed, it would have been exactly the same. The powerful tend to inflict suffering on the weak. No matter what race or nationality. I would hope you could understand that. These days those that have suffered past atrocities are trying to exploit the possibly guilty feelings one may have for the atrocoties commited br their grandfathers. This is what we are seeing in the present day Middle East. That in itself is an atrocity and indeed offensive to those have suffered and continue to suffer from those atrocities. What I'm basically saying is that we are all the same, and no line of work or person is more valuable than the other. If you can't understand the necessity of breaking bad law to make it impossible to enforce and to get it repealed, then I don't believe you actually remember the suffering those laws cause. Present day prohibition comes to mind here. If you look at history of copyrights and patents, you will find quite a few who have suffered and died penniless because of IP law. To you the the others it's about free entertainment. To me it's about assuring that everybody recieves equal protection under the law. Failure to provide that makes the law invalid, and worthy of no respect what so ever.
It's not "greed" to want to make money to survive.
Never said that, but you and all the other drones prefer to ignore that and choose to mis-interpret what was said in order to justify your arugment, which is bogus. The manner in which you expect to make your money is important. I do have a job when I want it, and I get paid when I show up and perform(work). I can't perform my job once and get paid for that job for next 75 years. Why should you? Why should you be granted special privileges that I don't get? That's the greed I talk about. You try to maintain these laws in order to make other people's work subservient to yours. You want to star on the E! channel so you can look down on the "little" people who don't measure up to your "creative genius". This way you think you can justify your arrogance. If you haven't gotten that far yet, you don't want any changes as long as there's a chance you can cash in. Well the time has come to level the playing field. You better come down to earth before it all comes crashing down upon you.
There's no recent(within 300 years) history to base this on, but I belive the public domain would increase exponentially without copyright. We shouldn't encourage greed as a way of motivation. Copyright was simply created to restrict access to new technology(the printing press). Corps and gov't were looking for a way to control who gets to be widely published. It's censorship by proxy.
Your constant complaints about piracy show that you don't how much the BIG copyright holders benefit from it. Maybe you should look into just how much market share Microsoft, Adobe, and many others achieved through piracy. Hint: Apple doesn't seem to suffer much from piracy even though they have a superior product. But it's still hard to pirate hardware. So there aren't too many bootleg Macs out there. How big is Apple's market share again? 5%? You should understand that the big copyright holders don't want to stop piracy in any real way. That would kill their Asian, Eastern European, Russian, Central American, and future African market share. Why they are trying to insure is that they own and control all widely distributed works. They have the real "piracy" thing under pretty tight control. But now there's the internet. We don't need the industry pirates any more. We don't need the industry middle men. That's what they don't like. They're losing control over what gets published and distributed,and they're going nuts over it. So now they will vilify anything can could enable individual self-distribution. All those things that you accuse slahdotters and others of, are exactly the things that the copyrights holders are actually doing now. They are the ones trying to maintain their free ride.
Your whole second paragraph could just as easliy be applied to the immorality of copyright. Copyright holders want to do something once and then sit back and paid for that thing for the rest of their lives. They want to "collect the rent", and then they complain like hell the moment people try to challenge their system as it becomes more obvious that it's a crooked system working to benefit a select few. You also seem to equate illegal with immoral. That's a mistake and really shows that you don't know the meaning of morality. You apparently need to have it spelled out. Copyright is a gov't service provided in the mistaken belief that people will produce more if they can maintain control over their discoveries. How nice. "Please sir, here's some easy money from the public. We are begging you to have mercy and leave us a few crumbs." It's the same thing as trickle down economics. There's just as much money to be made without copyright. It just won't come through gov't edict. You'll actually have to show up for work and perform. Just like I do. Everybody is treated equally. Now there's a novel thought.
How convenient for you to ignore the immorality of copyright, prohibition, or Jim Crow laws. Some of those laws were repealed(we're working on the rest) due to the "immorality" of the people who had the guts to tell the lawmakers and police to go to hell and to ignore or openly violate bad law. As one that's dependant on the status quo, you could hardly know or care who the bad guys really are. You just believe what the authorities tell you.
any Mozilla products. I don't have to. I just download the zip file, decompress, and run it right there if I want. However, I do move the decompressed folder to my "Program files" folder just for consistancy. This is the beauty of Mozilla et al. It doesn't require installation, just like old Mac stuff. If I don't like it, or when I download a newer version, I just toss out the folder and...done. What could be better? All programs should be so easy. Does this Microsoft guy have stock in Verisign or something? Is Microsoft going to buy Verisign?
That doesn't make it a right just because a gov't says so. Copyright expires(eventually). Natural rights don't. The U.S. has a thing called the PATRIOT act. It's a lot of things. Patriotic is not one of them. Just because a law has a warm, fuzzy name, doesn't make it a good law. Calling something like the Jim Crow laws the "Furry Kitten" laws doesn't make them any less despicable.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what references you're looking for. Is anonymity is possible using a wire? If it is, then great. We'll never know until someone gets caught and finds out how it happened. At this point however, I still believe that wireless is far and away the more secure solution. I hope somebody is working on it. So far, the evidence indicates the the guy who owns the wire will be more than happy to turn you over whenever the authorities request it. It's usually stated in your contract with them, and if you want service, you're going to sign the contract. I would prefer to have access without having to sign a contract with anyone. Unless you use an internet cafe exclusively(and a different one at that each time you need access), how are you going to have real, free(as in speech) access without wireless? How are you going to stop the ISP from sniffing your packets? What if your one and only ISP demands that you send only plain text over the wire so they can eavesdrop(With a "signed warrant" of course)? Aren't these valid concerns? It seems to me that only wireless can really address these concerns adequately. If I'm wrong, please refer me to the possibilities. The things I've seen so far are too easy to take down and put many people at risk.
a bunch of muk-muks slam planes into our buildings, drive bomb loaded busses into our buildings, push our citizens in wheelchairs off of boats, and of course blow up our planes.
You seem to be under the impression it would somehow be different if the situation was reversed. You would be mistaken. Desperate people do desperate things. It makes no difference who they are. We, who sit nice and comfy in front of our tv's, don't feel the necessity to kill people in that manner. I would really like to know how you would react as people are blowing up your house and kicking you off your property with absolutely nobody to call upon for help.
Arab terrorists...You argue for appeasement...
to Israel? There are terrorists are on both sides of that fence. The Israelis just aren't attacking Americans...that we know of, but make no mistake, they do employ assassins outside of their borders. Of course they claim to be targeting only "terrorists". But we're not allowed to talk about them. Are we? They gave up much of their moral high ground in 1948. They completely blew it away in '67.
What they want is absolute power. They want to destroy western civilization...
What they want is absolute power. They want to destroy Indian civilization... I wonder if that's what the natives were thinking as the Americans were charging across the continent. Somebody stopped the muk-muks as you call them. Who was there to stop the Americans? At least the Arabs don't make false claims of democracy as the westerners do as they continue to support the corruption in Saudi Arabia and put Halliburton in charge of Iraq. If you think that the Americans or anybody else selling weapons in the region want peace or democracy there, then it is you that are the fool.
The hardliners in Iran wouldn't be overturning Democratic reforms.
I believe they tried democracy once or twice. The Americans did some overturning of their own in...1953, was it? Did you ever think that they might still be pissed? I think they did the same thing in Syria. What year was that? 1947? And what was up with that Suez Canal thing(or was it the dam?) in '56? Let's not forget Saddam himself. Propped up by the Americans and its allies throughout the 80's... and the 90's actually. Maybe the Arabs don't want democracy. One thing for sure is that neither does Europe or the U.S. Their constant meddling since the beginning of the 20th century(probably long before that) has proven that.
What he wants is to affect American foreign policy.
Oh please. American policy hasn't changed one bit. In fact it has accelerated. He is being used for that purpose. He has been part of American policy since they hired him back in...when? 1980 something?
The problem is authority rarely gives it back.
The real problem is that we rarely take it back. It is we who let them keep it. Why would they give it back if we don't even ask?
As much as I apreciate the efforts put into this, I can't help feeling you're feeding a false sense of security to the users. Since my posts aren't widely read here, I'll tell you directly what I just finished posting to another person: "We can never, ever be anonymous as long as there is somebody else's wire attached to our machine. It is impossible! I repeat, once AGAIN. Only true, ad hoc, mobile, encrypted wireless will ever give us even the remotest chance at anonymity and true P2P. There is simply no other way. Anything else is exactly the illusion that the bad guys want you to believe. If you're wired they will find you! Remember that please." Sorry to be so redundant, but this message must be spread far and wide. So far I'm not sure how much effert is being put into this. I do see stories about improved wireless this and that, and I hope it leads to what I asking for.
Very good article. I also believe they should have "shut down with a warning that JAP can no longer fulfill its stated obligation to protect anonymity due to police interference". It would have more in keeping with their stated purpose. In light of what they(JAP) did, I don't believe they were ever very trustworthy to begin with. All the other anonymizer services are equally suspect to me for this very reason. That includes this, freenet, and whatever else is running these claims. We can never, ever be anonymous as long as there is somebody else's wire attached to our machine. It is impossible! I repeat, once AGAIN. Only true, ad hoc, mobile, encrypted wireless will ever give us even the remotest chance at anonymity and true P2P. There is simply no other way. Anything else is exactly the illusion that the bad guys want you to believe. If you're wired they will find you! Remember that please.
Ha! My thoughts exactly. May I assume that these lawyers are on retainer, normally sitting around doing "nothing", but getting paid anyway? Why not use them to complement the sales staff? Their personalities are similar. I bet they work well together. Sometimes the buzz created by the lawsuits are more exciting than the product they're suing over. The lawsuit is the ad, and CNET, Slashdot, and probably more than a few others just carried the ad for free.
One reason why you'll never see me posting stuff that I find out at work.
If you were to post information from work, find a way to do it anonymously. It's just like posting info on software exploits. Don't put your name anywhere near it. Just get the info out. Don't look for attribution. All you'll get is the blame and possibly a lawsuit. If you had info that showed that your employer is doing something harmful, it would be nice if you did post it.
Nonsense. GPL isn't needed without copyright. Freeware has existed long before anyone dreamed up the GPL. GPL was developed to counteract proprietary copyrights.
What are you smoking?
I'm not. Got any loco weed?
So, a post advocating breaking the law is Insightful?
...when someone takes GPLed code...
Yes! When its bad law.
You didn't catch the memo. Let 'em have it! I can extract the source code with my handy-dandy dis-assembler, bit by bit if I have to. If you want to be legal about it, expose the GPL code in their program, and show the world that the program just became GPL'd due to its use. This should be obvious, and it may be to the people you're complaining to. That might be why they don't bring it up.
Just a reminder, there are no such things as IP "rights". IP laws are a gov't service. A right would imply that it lasts forever and needs no gov't recognition. IP does neither.
I used to say "vote with your wallet" on these very threads, but I've become disillusioned, and no longer even try. :-(
Same here. It's like telling a voter not to fall for the FUD that comes from their favorite politician. It just isn't going to happen. This just adds one more reason to hack the DRM and simply tell the copyright holders to go to hell. This what will happen anyway. Besides, there is no voting with your wallet unless you stop buying anything. What these people may lose in DVD sales will be made up in laundry detergent, or clothing, or toy sales from the other companies they have investments in. Cable companies lose sales to telcos? They just buy the telcos. Or vise versa...I can't remember. No more worries about competition, etc. So I'm not going to worry about DRM, DMCA, or any of that other crap. It will be "fixed" before the shopping season is over...if it hits the streets by then(only 3 hacking days left). DRM is damage, and like the internet, we'll get around it. In that I have faith.
...when you're watching Attack of the Killer Tomatos for the 42nd time...
Only if it's being hosted by Elvira...
Too bad you and the others keep getting side-tracked by the "piracy" thing. Piracy is one of the distractions used by the industry as they try to outlaw self-distribution through P2P. They know that their market outside the U.S. and Europe would dry up if not for piracy. It's just the industry's un-official distribution network. I don't care one way or the other about piracy, GPL, etc. We should assure that the law protects everyone equally. Copyright can't do that. But you go on harping about piracy all you want. You're just ignoring the real issue. You would like to think it's about distributing other people's work, but it's really about people's ability to distribute their own work without the industry middle-men.
Bad law is bad law. You are no better than me, and your work is no better than mine, and it's certainly not deserving of any special privileges that I don't recieve. See my other posts on the subject of piracy. Copyright holders should not talk about free rides. That's what the gov't gives with copyright.
Granting privileges to any person or group over another person or group is discrimination. No matter what those privileges are. I hope that you too aren't equating illegal with immoral. That would nullify anything you have to say on the subject. You don't have a monopoly on suffering. You are just the most recent and most visible of a long line. Your suffering is no more important than the Cambodians, the Vietnamese, Central Americans, the North American Indians, present day Africans, the Germans, The French, the Palestinians, the Iranians, the Iraqis, or anybody else I failed to mention. It's the same, and just as horrible and unnecessary. Another thing I am sure of is that if the positions were reversed, it would have been exactly the same. The powerful tend to inflict suffering on the weak. No matter what race or nationality. I would hope you could understand that. These days those that have suffered past atrocities are trying to exploit the possibly guilty feelings one may have for the atrocoties commited br their grandfathers. This is what we are seeing in the present day Middle East. That in itself is an atrocity and indeed offensive to those have suffered and continue to suffer from those atrocities. What I'm basically saying is that we are all the same, and no line of work or person is more valuable than the other. If you can't understand the necessity of breaking bad law to make it impossible to enforce and to get it repealed, then I don't believe you actually remember the suffering those laws cause. Present day prohibition comes to mind here. If you look at history of copyrights and patents, you will find quite a few who have suffered and died penniless because of IP law. To you the the others it's about free entertainment. To me it's about assuring that everybody recieves equal protection under the law. Failure to provide that makes the law invalid, and worthy of no respect what so ever.
Did I just get fished in...again? Should I care?
It's not "greed" to want to make money to survive.
Never said that, but you and all the other drones prefer to ignore that and choose to mis-interpret what was said in order to justify your arugment, which is bogus. The manner in which you expect to make your money is important. I do have a job when I want it, and I get paid when I show up and perform(work). I can't perform my job once and get paid for that job for next 75 years. Why should you? Why should you be granted special privileges that I don't get? That's the greed I talk about. You try to maintain these laws in order to make other people's work subservient to yours. You want to star on the E! channel so you can look down on the "little" people who don't measure up to your "creative genius". This way you think you can justify your arrogance. If you haven't gotten that far yet, you don't want any changes as long as there's a chance you can cash in. Well the time has come to level the playing field. You better come down to earth before it all comes crashing down upon you.
There's no recent(within 300 years) history to base this on, but I belive the public domain would increase exponentially without copyright. We shouldn't encourage greed as a way of motivation. Copyright was simply created to restrict access to new technology(the printing press). Corps and gov't were looking for a way to control who gets to be widely published. It's censorship by proxy.
Your constant complaints about piracy show that you don't how much the BIG copyright holders benefit from it. Maybe you should look into just how much market share Microsoft, Adobe, and many others achieved through piracy. Hint: Apple doesn't seem to suffer much from piracy even though they have a superior product. But it's still hard to pirate hardware. So there aren't too many bootleg Macs out there. How big is Apple's market share again? 5%? You should understand that the big copyright holders don't want to stop piracy in any real way. That would kill their Asian, Eastern European, Russian, Central American, and future African market share. Why they are trying to insure is that they own and control all widely distributed works. They have the real "piracy" thing under pretty tight control. But now there's the internet. We don't need the industry pirates any more. We don't need the industry middle men. That's what they don't like. They're losing control over what gets published and distributed ,and they're going nuts over it. So now they will vilify anything can could enable individual self-distribution. All those things that you accuse slahdotters and others of, are exactly the things that the copyrights holders are actually doing now. They are the ones trying to maintain their free ride.
Your whole second paragraph could just as easliy be applied to the immorality of copyright. Copyright holders want to do something once and then sit back and paid for that thing for the rest of their lives. They want to "collect the rent", and then they complain like hell the moment people try to challenge their system as it becomes more obvious that it's a crooked system working to benefit a select few. You also seem to equate illegal with immoral. That's a mistake and really shows that you don't know the meaning of morality. You apparently need to have it spelled out. Copyright is a gov't service provided in the mistaken belief that people will produce more if they can maintain control over their discoveries. How nice. "Please sir, here's some easy money from the public. We are begging you to have mercy and leave us a few crumbs." It's the same thing as trickle down economics. There's just as much money to be made without copyright. It just won't come through gov't edict. You'll actually have to show up for work and perform. Just like I do. Everybody is treated equally. Now there's a novel thought.
How convenient for you to ignore the immorality of copyright, prohibition, or Jim Crow laws. Some of those laws were repealed(we're working on the rest) due to the "immorality" of the people who had the guts to tell the lawmakers and police to go to hell and to ignore or openly violate bad law. As one that's dependant on the status quo, you could hardly know or care who the bad guys really are. You just believe what the authorities tell you.
...address arthritis pain by giving you a heart attack.
At least you've forgotten about your arthritis...
...brilliant bit about drug ads.
Another excelent one was the "Doggie Downers-Puppy Uppers" skit on SNL a long, long time ago.
any Mozilla products. I don't have to. I just download the zip file, decompress, and run it right there if I want. However, I do move the decompressed folder to my "Program files" folder just for consistancy. This is the beauty of Mozilla et al. It doesn't require installation, just like old Mac stuff. If I don't like it, or when I download a newer version, I just toss out the folder and...done. What could be better? All programs should be so easy. Does this Microsoft guy have stock in Verisign or something? Is Microsoft going to buy Verisign?
Well, if they wish to make it an actual binding agreement, I would think so.
Remember, its a copyRIGHT.
That doesn't make it a right just because a gov't says so. Copyright expires(eventually). Natural rights don't. The U.S. has a thing called the PATRIOT act. It's a lot of things. Patriotic is not one of them. Just because a law has a warm, fuzzy name, doesn't make it a good law. Calling something like the Jim Crow laws the "Furry Kitten" laws doesn't make them any less despicable.