So, the FBI are interested in a free yahoo account that a VP *candidate* set up? It's beyond stupid to expect an account like that to be used for anything remotely important. If she did use it like that, I'd be looking for another VP candidate.
"Seriously, there is a good reason, Romans considered entertainers to be among the lowest class of citizens"
Seriously, do you want the US to behave like the Roman Empire?
Seriously, do you believe it isn't? I'm trying to work out which president maps to which emperor.
The question is: are people willing to use their imagination when they are force-fed every feature directX 10 has to offer (shading, tons of light sources, fog, environments, shadows, physics engine, ragdoll physics) at insane resolutions.
My imagination's resolution is still higher than the latest Nvidia has to offer...
I'm an "elitist fool" for pointing out the obvious fact that being dead and idiocy aren't conflicting states? Do you think that idiots never die, or what?
There's so many of them, it seems a reasonable conclusion to me.:)
And did you expect to post a saccharine, sanctimonious offen-sensitive response to an obvious joke and not get a prod or two? Even without the three unnecessary commas your post deserved a little mocking -- those were just icing on the cake. (And "Master degree"? I'm hoping English isn't your first language...)
I mentioned free speech at all only as an analogy. I said that saying "you have the right to free speech... oh, unless you say something we don't like" is hypocritical, which is true. I likened that to an ISP that has a user agreement which does not forbid any protocols or any forms of traffic,
Hmmm, let's call them Strawman Data ISP Inc. I've never seen an ISP that doesn't forbid some protocols or forms of traffic.
and then having that ISP covertly forge packets in order to forbid protocols or forms of traffic that they don't like, which is also hypocritical. The correct, non-hypocritical way for an ISP to proceed is either to keep the user agreement the same and never screw with users' traffic, or, openly spell out in the user agreement what they will and will not allow and follow it to the letter.
Or, perhaps, to ignore requests by bitTorrent for increased priority.
Whether I enjoy it or not, and I don't, I am forced to conclude that either you're dense and you sincerely believe that I was claiming that this is a free speech issue or you are deliberately using a straw man argument.
Me using a strawman? I wasn't the one drawing the analogy.
IANAL, but don't real contracts have more than just the purchaser signing them? Something like the other party signing too, having it witnessed, and a copy for both parties? Idea might be with one of these 'contracts' to say you want some time to read, sit down with a pen, and strike out paragraphs you don't like. Ever seen the sales types read them after?
You agreed to your AUP. If that says you can't do that, and you do, you've got to accept the consequences[1]. It doesn't have *anything* to do with free speech. BitTorrent shouldn't try and download that copy of BayWatch you absolutely *must* have using all of the ISP that it can grab. It should accept that it is low priority that this download happens.
I don't blame the academy for wanting tighter security, and they have a valid reason for WANTING to know the identity, but security at the Oscars isn't Craigslist's responsibility, and they're not ENTITLED to that identity.
Forcing Craig's to stop the auction and prevent the sale? Reasonable. I would think that the extent of their liability would be to remove the auction of (what are presumably) non-transferrable tickets. Had they actually shown up in court, they could have had a good shot at protecting the sellers identity.
There's potential here for an unfortunate precedent.
If they are non-transferrable, why is there a problem? WHy does it require court action? Simply ask for a matching ID at point of admission, No match, no enter.
What Glider should do is, become primarily an MP3 player that plays music while you play games, and its secondary purpose is a WoW bot.
Therefore it can have a legitimate purpose too. Some people might like it for its friendly user interface:)
In Australia, mod chips for playstations, xbox's and the like are legal so long as they allow you play different region movies. If they just bypass the copy protection to allow you to play copied discs then they aren't. Part of this whole dual purpose thing:)
You could in theory make a general purpose Windows box illegal if this scenario wasn't there. Some of the purposes of a general purpose computer are illegal. I'm stretching your use of the word dual into many... So sue me.
A EULA can compel you to use the software only while wearing a chicken costume and a tin foil hat. It need not be rational.
You have the option to use the software or not. If you don't like the EULA, don't use the software (or buy the car or whatever).
You have CHOICE!
A[sic] EULA can ask you to do that, you can choose to ignore it, confident that any sane court will throw it out. Ahh, silly of me to assume courts are sane. Your point.
Ok, a question. At the same time as running the Glider software on *what* processor? A separate box? What about one of the many other processors in the box? (take your pick which one, GPU, a separate core, keyboard, hell, even a different processor on the same core?) There's going to be a cutoff somewhere.
I wonder why people need bots to have fun for them, but that's another question
Slashdot Mirror
So, the FBI are interested in a free yahoo account that a VP *candidate* set up? It's beyond stupid to expect an account like that to be used for anything remotely important. If she did use it like that, I'd be looking for another VP candidate.
This, from someone who jumps on couches? So it was one of Oprah's couches, that's a mitigating circumstance I suppose, but still...
And Facebook is sooo .... Authoritative :)
Swoosh. It's a MP quote, and you answer it point by point?
"Seriously, there is a good reason, Romans considered entertainers to be among the lowest class of citizens" Seriously, do you want the US to behave like the Roman Empire?
Seriously, do you believe it isn't? I'm trying to work out which president maps to which emperor.
Assuming he could *reach* my face. :)
The question is: are people willing to use their imagination when they are force-fed every feature directX 10 has to offer (shading, tons of light sources, fog, environments, shadows, physics engine, ragdoll physics) at insane resolutions.
My imagination's resolution is still higher than the latest Nvidia has to offer...
Your peg is square? How did you accomplish that?
Who cares about EULAs? Who even reads them? (except for important ones, like the WOW TOS & AUP:)
I'm an "elitist fool" for pointing out the obvious fact that being dead and idiocy aren't conflicting states? Do you think that idiots never die, or what?
There's so many of them, it seems a reasonable conclusion to me. :)
And did you expect to post a saccharine, sanctimonious offen-sensitive response to an obvious joke and not get a prod or two? Even without the three unnecessary commas your post deserved a little mocking -- those were just icing on the cake. (And "Master degree"? I'm hoping English isn't your first language...)
Some master baiting there. :^)
I mentioned free speech at all only as an analogy. I said that saying "you have the right to free speech ... oh, unless you say something we don't like" is hypocritical, which is true. I likened that to an ISP that has a user agreement which does not forbid any protocols or any forms of traffic,
Hmmm, let's call them Strawman Data ISP Inc. I've never seen an ISP that doesn't forbid some protocols or forms of traffic.
and then having that ISP covertly forge packets in order to forbid protocols or forms of traffic that they don't like, which is also hypocritical. The correct, non-hypocritical way for an ISP to proceed is either to keep the user agreement the same and never screw with users' traffic, or, openly spell out in the user agreement what they will and will not allow and follow it to the letter.
Or, perhaps, to ignore requests by bitTorrent for increased priority.
Whether I enjoy it or not, and I don't, I am forced to conclude that either you're dense and you sincerely believe that I was claiming that this is a free speech issue or you are deliberately using a straw man argument.
Me using a strawman? I wasn't the one drawing the analogy.
IANAL, but don't real contracts have more than just the purchaser signing them? Something like the other party signing too, having it witnessed, and a copy for both parties? Idea might be with one of these 'contracts' to say you want some time to read, sit down with a pen, and strike out paragraphs you don't like. Ever seen the sales types read them after?
You agreed to your AUP. If that says you can't do that, and you do, you've got to accept the consequences[1]. It doesn't have *anything* to do with free speech. BitTorrent shouldn't try and download that copy of BayWatch you absolutely *must* have using all of the ISP that it can grab. It should accept that it is low priority that this download happens.
[1] bandwidth shaping, account cancellation, whatever.
Should I mention Microsoft's recent history of "also-ran" products?
Yeah, why not. I'm sure a day has passed since they've last been posted.
Here, have this irony implant.
googlebot == a Beowulf cluster of DDOS
Hope they've got lubricant.
I don't blame the academy for wanting tighter security, and they have a valid reason for WANTING to know the identity, but security at the Oscars isn't Craigslist's responsibility, and they're not ENTITLED to that identity.
Forcing Craig's to stop the auction and prevent the sale? Reasonable. I would think that the extent of their liability would be to remove the auction of (what are presumably) non-transferrable tickets. Had they actually shown up in court, they could have had a good shot at protecting the sellers identity.
There's potential here for an unfortunate precedent.
If they are non-transferrable, why is there a problem? WHy does it require court action? Simply ask for a matching ID at point of admission, No match, no enter.
Must! resist! Urge to check this on snopes is becoming too great!
What Glider should do is, become primarily an MP3 player that plays music while you play games, and its secondary purpose is a WoW bot.
Therefore it can have a legitimate purpose too. Some people might like it for its friendly user interface :)
In Australia, mod chips for playstations, xbox's and the like are legal so long as they allow you play different region movies. If they just bypass the copy protection to allow you to play copied discs then they aren't. Part of this whole dual purpose thing :)
You could in theory make a general purpose Windows box illegal if this scenario wasn't there. Some of the purposes of a general purpose computer are illegal. I'm stretching your use of the word dual into many... So sue me.
As a disclaimer, I don't play WoW, let alone go through the trouble to set up programs to help me not play it.
That occurs to me too. I'm going to pay $20 or so a month for a bot's enjoyment? I don't think so!
It's like buying a lvl 70 account. Sure, you could do that, but not having played that class, you'd be awful at playing it.
A EULA can compel you to use the software only while wearing a chicken costume and a tin foil hat. It need not be rational.
You have the option to use the software or not. If you don't like the EULA, don't use the software (or buy the car or whatever).
You have CHOICE!
A[sic] EULA can ask you to do that, you can choose to ignore it, confident that any sane court will throw it out. Ahh, silly of me to assume courts are sane. Your point.
Ok, a question. At the same time as running the Glider software on *what* processor? A separate box? What about one of the many other processors in the box? (take your pick which one, GPU, a separate core, keyboard, hell, even a different processor on the same core?) There's going to be a cutoff somewhere.
I wonder why people need bots to have fun for them, but that's another question
Oops, yeah. I forgot private servers. Well, aren't they exciting? :)
Woah.
So, if I let my WoW subscription lapse, simply starting the game is copyright infringement?
You can't start WoW in any *meaningful* sense of the word without a subscription.