> And you have positive proof this is true, or are you just making it up?
Mr. Vernor was trying to sell multiple copies of AutoCAD that he had picked up at garage sales and flea markets. Autodesk petitioned eBay to "take down" Vernor's auctions on several occasions explaining the terms of the software license. Vernor even admits that he discussed the licensing terms with Autodesk and was frustrated when they wouldn't alter their policies. Vernor clearly knew that buyers would not be able to use the software, yet he persisted in trying to sell it. eBay finally had to suspend Vernor's account because he would not stop posting auctions for AutoCAD software.
Does that sound like Vernor was acting on good faith?
> It's the eBay buyer's responsibility to make sure they can legally run any software they buy from eBay.
Ethically, the seller shouldn't sell something that they know is worthless. It may be that eBay doesn't hold sellers accountable unless a buyer complains, but that isn't right. Furthermore, eBay has no real way of enforcing ethical behavior after the fact. I know many buyers that were never reimbursed for their losses, even though eBay mediation ruled in favor of the buyer.
Caveat emptor.
Everyone wants to paint Autodesk as the bad guy in this scenario. It's human instinct to root for the underdog... but in this case, I think the underdog is just an opportunist that wants to take advantage of gullible people on eBay and he's just pissed off that Autodesk intervened.
I don't think this will ever go to court becasue the seller knows he was not acting on good faith.
> That's an appeal to popularity. It's still wrong. If I lose my copy of Autocad in a > fire, they will make me pay $4000 again.
That's an interesting assertion you're making. What evidence do you have to back it up? I suspect you're just projecting your own sense of fairplay. Based on my dealings with Autodesk, I feel fairly certain that they would confirm your license and send you a fresh copy. I've not tested this theory, though.
> Irrelevant. Once could also argue that the high price warrants better treatment from the seller.
By better treatment I suppose you mean that Autodesk should look the other way when people try to cheat the system and pirate their products? How many installations of PhotoShop do you think are out there in the wild? What percentage of them do you think are legitimate? Adobe estimates that less than 10% of PhotoShop installations have a valid license. Can you blame Autodesk for trying a different approach?
> Autocad doesn't care at what price you sell it-- they don't want you to sell it.
You are confused. Autodesk is actually protecting the potential eBay consumer. If I bought a copy of AutoCAD on eBAY, I'd be very disappointed to learn that it wouldn't install without authentication and I'd be very, very disappointed to learn that I cannot authenticate without a license.
Autodesk does have provisions for legitimately transferring a license, BTW, and it doesn't necessarily involve more money feeding their pockets.
> Limitations| The Plan does not cover:... unauthorized modification
Clearly unlocking a phone is unauthorized modification. There are laws that enable individuals to unlock their own cell phones, but these laws do not require the OEM to honor the warranties on the equipment. Unlocking a phone is something you do at your own risk.
Since the warranty is clear, I don't think Magnuson-Moss applies...
As for firmware that causes damage to unlocked phones, I think Apple would be overstepping it's bounds. There are other ways to skin that cat. A simpler, less volitile solution would be for Apple to patent a custom SIM package and the iPhone would only work with SIM cards that Apple produced.
Actually, under "Licensing, Registration, and Activation", Autodesk makes it very clear that you are not purchasing software, you are purchasing a license to use software. They also make it clear that this license is not universally transferable.
The licensing of software is not unusual for very expensive software, especially when external IP is involved. If Autodesk licenses certain IP from external sources, they are obligated to track it's use explicitly through their own licensing policies.
One might make the argument that Autodesk does not go out of it's way to make it clear to the casual shopper that they are not selling software, merely licensing software. However, if Autodesk is guilty of this, so is every other developer of licensed software. Also, AutoCAD isn't exactly an impulse item you pick up in the checkout line at Frys, next to the peanuts and the $4 laser pointers. If you're planning on plopping down $4000 on a software product, you'd better do a little research. And if you find that same product on eBay for $40, you should be very, very suspicious that something is not on the up-and-up.
Perhaps, but in the case of Autodesk software you can't just take it out of the box, install it and start using it. You have to authenticate the software which requires your explicit agreement. You can decide not to agree and are entitled to return the software to Autodesk Inc., but most users of Autodesk software know about the licensing and agree to the terms of the license.
Let's face it, at $4000 a pop, AutoCAD isn't exactly an impulse item near the checkout of your local Frys. Most people who need a copy have done the research and know the licensing requirements.
If the user agrees to the license, by installing and authenticating, then the license is valid and the terms of the licensing agreement are binding.
If the first purchaser never used or installed the product, then you might have a point. However Autodesk Inc. claims that Vernor agreed to the license agreement when he installed and authenticated his copy.
> Ethically they should not presume guilt over inocence
I don't presume that my neighbors are criminals, but I still lock my doors...
> and should also not potentially commit perjury....
I think Autodesk is technically and ethically within the rights of the law and I think their issue is less about ringing up more sales and more about preventing piracy.
Their license is no different than you might see for high cost software like the Electronic Design Automation software that a company might purchase from a company like Cadence. Cadence does not allow users to transfer licenses to other users, why should Autodesk? The only difference is the way the companies choose to market their products. Autodesk makes their software more accessible, but they pay a price for that in that users can purchase a legitimate copy, install it, then sell the discs to recoup some of their costs.
That is technically and ethically theft. Autodesk is simply trying to protect themselves.
Autodesk software uses an activation process which authenticates a particular user and (in some cases) a particular machine. This is part of the license agreement and is required. Anyone purchasing a used Autodesk product from eBay will be sorely disappointed to learn that they will not be able to re-authenticate a license to a new user. So, in this sense, Autodesk was doing potential buyers a favor by requesting the takedown of these adds preventing buyers from getting ripped off.
A legitimate purchaser of Autodesk products will be aware of this and should have no problem with these requirements and, in fact, Autodesk does offer mechanisms to legitimately transfer licenses.
Also, for the record, not only am I not a lawyer, I also have no affiliation with Autodesk other than I use some of their products.
People send me stuff via snail mail all the time. Businesses touting their products, banks pushing credit cards, shampoo samples, politicians, tons and tons of ads. I throw them in the trash... All those advertisers paid good money to print all those glossy color advertisements and mail their crap to me. If I just throw them in the trash, am I guilty of theft? Of course not.
The sender is taking a calculated risk that some portion of that crap will get through to someone who cares. The same thing is true of internet advertising. The advertiser is taking a gamble that not everyone will be blocking their ads, or ignoring their ads, or avoiding the site because of their ads...
The bottom line is this: Blocking ads is not theft any more than ignoring ads is not theft any more than not visiting the site in the first place is not theft. To the potential advertiser these are all equivalent because no matter how they try to push it, I'm not buying...
And no, I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt because some advertiser gambled poorly!
Sorry, I was paraphrasing. Maybe I shouldn't have used quotes... I just wasn't sure how to set the ideas apart from my sentence structure.
However, I stand by my point. Hansen's actual quotes are these:
Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits.
and
The real deal is this: the 'royalty' controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children.
Do you think my paraphrasing is off the mark or do you merely find fault with my choice of representation? If the latter, then I humbly appologize for any confusion it caused.
My real point is that Hansen is making a political statement guised as a scientific statement...
What makes us think that any sufficiently advanced civilization would resort to communicating with something so primitive as radio waves?
Two crickets are talking in a bar. The first cricket says, "What do you think of those big hairless apes lumbering around?" The second cricket replies, "Can't be too intelligent; they never stridulate by rubbing any appendages together."
In terms of cost, features and reliability the Mac Pro is less crappy than, say, a Sun Ultra 20 with a comparable configuration (I know you can really strip down an Ultra 20 for very low cost).
If you're comparing to something like a Blade, then I agree, but point out that an extra $12,000 goes a long way towards helping the Blade be less crappy...
What is supposedly news is that Cramer thinks he can use this technology to send INFORMATION faster than light. All previous entanglement demonstrations have been demonstrated retrospectively so there was no possibility of communicating information.
Also, for the record, while Einstein used the expression "spooky action at a distance", he did not "postulate faster than light" action. In fact, Einstein was intent on disproving the validity of quantum mechanics and dismissed many theories associated with QM, thus the use of the 'scientific' term 'spooky'.
The Slashdot blurb and the ABC article are misleading. They claim that the algebraic description of a Mobius strip has escaped algebraic description for 8 decades. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mathematically and algebraically, the Mobius strip has been adequately comprehended from the beginning. In fact, this understanding has been fundamental to the work of Roger Penrose and Wolfgang Rindler in their development of spinors and twistor theory (one of the leading approaches to merging Relativity and Quantum mechanics). The actual discovery from Starostin and Heijden relates materials science to deformations of the Mobius shape. Interestingly, even this seems to be quite similar to Penrose's work tiling Mobius shapes.
Actually, it also looks a lot like the work of Andrzej Sitarz in 2001...
I'm starting to wonder where is the inovation of this "discovery"?
Guitar tabs are not music in the same way that sketches are not paintings.
Music is a combination of notes and timings. Most internet based tabs do not include the timings. They only tell the player which notes on which strings are to be played. And truth be told, they don't always do this very faithfully. It's up to the player to use his or her knowledge of the piece to inject the rhythms, inflection, and other subtleties to reconstruct the music.
In short, internet guitar tabs are partial frameworks and guides, not faithful representations of the music that is being supposedly infringed upon.
...unless the planet has spawned beings that are at least as clever as we are. As part of the SETI Institute's Project Phoenix, we twice aimed large antennas in the direction of Gliese 581, hoping to pick up a signal that would bespeak technology... Neither search turned up a signal.
Perhaps they are MORE clever than we are...
Perhaps radio communication is archaic and they assume there's no intelligent life here. After all, there are no subspace transmissions emanating from this planet...
Or maybe they are really smart and just make sure not to send any signals our way for fear that we might just "drop in". This strategy seems to work pretty well for me. I've got one neighbor that I never acknowledge and he pretty much leaves me alone...
If you want to know which is better, Windows or Mac OSX, don't ask a Windows geek. Likewise, don't ask the guy who only uses Mac OSX. Ask the guy who uses both every day...
Well, technically you don't have to ask. 98% of people who use both OSes use Windows at work because that's what their employer dictates and they use Mac OSX at home because they have a choice...
"The Macintosh may only have 10% of the market, but it is clearly the top 10%."
"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
The author writes:
From a transmitting standpoint, they are either on or off...
Too true. Since a cell phone is essentially useless if it's turned off, then I propose you replace your cell phone with a quarter so you can use public phones and not worry about big brother. The nice thing about a quarter is it weighs a lot less than a cell phone and the batteries never go dead. Just make sure that you don't have one of those quarters that is really a listening device!!!
Slashdot Mirror
> And you have positive proof this is true, or are you just making it up?
Mr. Vernor was trying to sell multiple copies of AutoCAD that he had picked up at garage sales and flea markets. Autodesk petitioned eBay to "take down" Vernor's auctions on several occasions explaining the terms of the software license. Vernor even admits that he discussed the licensing terms with Autodesk and was frustrated when they wouldn't alter their policies. Vernor clearly knew that buyers would not be able to use the software, yet he persisted in trying to sell it. eBay finally had to suspend Vernor's account because he would not stop posting auctions for AutoCAD software.
Does that sound like Vernor was acting on good faith?
> It's the eBay buyer's responsibility to make sure they can legally run any software they buy from eBay.
Ethically, the seller shouldn't sell something that they know is worthless. It may be that eBay doesn't hold sellers accountable unless a buyer complains, but that isn't right. Furthermore, eBay has no real way of enforcing ethical behavior after the fact. I know many buyers that were never reimbursed for their losses, even though eBay mediation ruled in favor of the buyer.
Caveat emptor.
Everyone wants to paint Autodesk as the bad guy in this scenario. It's human instinct to root for the underdog... but in this case, I think the underdog is just an opportunist that wants to take advantage of gullible people on eBay and he's just pissed off that Autodesk intervened.
I don't think this will ever go to court becasue the seller knows he was not acting on good faith.
> That's an appeal to popularity. It's still wrong. If I lose my copy of Autocad in a
> fire, they will make me pay $4000 again.
That's an interesting assertion you're making. What evidence do you have to back it up? I suspect you're just projecting your own sense of fairplay. Based on my dealings with Autodesk, I feel fairly certain that they would confirm your license and send you a fresh copy. I've not tested this theory, though.
> Irrelevant. Once could also argue that the high price warrants better treatment from the seller.
By better treatment I suppose you mean that Autodesk should look the other way when people try to cheat the system and pirate their products? How many installations of PhotoShop do you think are out there in the wild? What percentage of them do you think are legitimate? Adobe estimates that less than 10% of PhotoShop installations have a valid license. Can you blame Autodesk for trying a different approach?
> Autocad doesn't care at what price you sell it-- they don't want you to sell it.
You are confused. Autodesk is actually protecting the potential eBay consumer. If I bought a copy of AutoCAD on eBAY, I'd be very disappointed to learn that it wouldn't install without authentication and I'd be very, very disappointed to learn that I cannot authenticate without a license.
Autodesk does have provisions for legitimately transferring a license, BTW, and it doesn't necessarily involve more money feeding their pockets.
I'm confused. Apple's iPhone warranty clearly states:
... unauthorized modification
> Limitations| The Plan does not cover:
Clearly unlocking a phone is unauthorized modification. There are laws that enable individuals to unlock their own cell phones, but these laws do not require the OEM to honor the warranties on the equipment. Unlocking a phone is something you do at your own risk.
Since the warranty is clear, I don't think Magnuson-Moss applies...
As for firmware that causes damage to unlocked phones, I think Apple would be overstepping it's bounds. There are other ways to skin that cat. A simpler, less volitile solution would be for Apple to patent a custom SIM package and the iPhone would only work with SIM cards that Apple produced.
Actually, under "Licensing, Registration, and Activation", Autodesk makes it very clear that you are not purchasing software, you are purchasing a license to use software. They also make it clear that this license is not universally transferable.
The licensing of software is not unusual for very expensive software, especially when external IP is involved. If Autodesk licenses certain IP from external sources, they are obligated to track it's use explicitly through their own licensing policies.
One might make the argument that Autodesk does not go out of it's way to make it clear to the casual shopper that they are not selling software, merely licensing software. However, if Autodesk is guilty of this, so is every other developer of licensed software. Also, AutoCAD isn't exactly an impulse item you pick up in the checkout line at Frys, next to the peanuts and the $4 laser pointers. If you're planning on plopping down $4000 on a software product, you'd better do a little research. And if you find that same product on eBay for $40, you should be very, very suspicious that something is not on the up-and-up.
Perhaps, but in the case of Autodesk software you can't just take it out of the box, install it and start using it. You have to authenticate the software which requires your explicit agreement. You can decide not to agree and are entitled to return the software to Autodesk Inc., but most users of Autodesk software know about the licensing and agree to the terms of the license.
Let's face it, at $4000 a pop, AutoCAD isn't exactly an impulse item near the checkout of your local Frys. Most people who need a copy have done the research and know the licensing requirements.
If the user agrees to the license, by installing and authenticating, then the license is valid and the terms of the licensing agreement are binding.
If the first purchaser never used or installed the product, then you might have a point. However Autodesk Inc. claims that Vernor agreed to the license agreement when he installed and authenticated his copy.
> Ethically they should not presume guilt over inocence
I don't presume that my neighbors are criminals, but I still lock my doors...
> and should also not potentially commit perjury....
Huh? Where did perjury come into this discussion?
I think Autodesk is technically and ethically within the rights of the law and I think their issue is less about ringing up more sales and more about preventing piracy.
Their license is no different than you might see for high cost software like the Electronic Design Automation software that a company might purchase from a company like Cadence. Cadence does not allow users to transfer licenses to other users, why should Autodesk? The only difference is the way the companies choose to market their products. Autodesk makes their software more accessible, but they pay a price for that in that users can purchase a legitimate copy, install it, then sell the discs to recoup some of their costs.
That is technically and ethically theft. Autodesk is simply trying to protect themselves.
Autodesk software uses an activation process which authenticates a particular user and (in some cases) a particular machine. This is part of the license agreement and is required. Anyone purchasing a used Autodesk product from eBay will be sorely disappointed to learn that they will not be able to re-authenticate a license to a new user. So, in this sense, Autodesk was doing potential buyers a favor by requesting the takedown of these adds preventing buyers from getting ripped off.
A legitimate purchaser of Autodesk products will be aware of this and should have no problem with these requirements and, in fact, Autodesk does offer mechanisms to legitimately transfer licenses.
Also, for the record, not only am I not a lawyer, I also have no affiliation with Autodesk other than I use some of their products.
People send me stuff via snail mail all the time. Businesses touting their products, banks pushing credit cards, shampoo samples, politicians, tons and tons of ads. I throw them in the trash... All those advertisers paid good money to print all those glossy color advertisements and mail their crap to me. If I just throw them in the trash, am I guilty of theft? Of course not.
The sender is taking a calculated risk that some portion of that crap will get through to someone who cares. The same thing is true of internet advertising. The advertiser is taking a gamble that not everyone will be blocking their ads, or ignoring their ads, or avoiding the site because of their ads...
The bottom line is this: Blocking ads is not theft any more than ignoring ads is not theft any more than not visiting the site in the first place is not theft. To the potential advertiser these are all equivalent because no matter how they try to push it, I'm not buying...
And no, I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt because some advertiser gambled poorly!
My real point is that Hansen is making a political statement guised as a scientific statement...
What makes us think that any sufficiently advanced civilization would resort to communicating with something so primitive as radio waves?
Two crickets are talking in a bar. The first cricket says, "What do you think of those big hairless apes lumbering around?" The second cricket replies, "Can't be too intelligent; they never stridulate by rubbing any appendages together."
Well, without you being more specific...
In terms of cost, features and reliability the Mac Pro is less crappy than, say, a Sun Ultra 20 with a comparable configuration (I know you can really strip down an Ultra 20 for very low cost).
If you're comparing to something like a Blade, then I agree, but point out that an extra $12,000 goes a long way towards helping the Blade be less crappy...
Compared to what?
Also, for the record, while Einstein used the expression "spooky action at a distance", he did not "postulate faster than light" action. In fact, Einstein was intent on disproving the validity of quantum mechanics and dismissed many theories associated with QM, thus the use of the 'scientific' term 'spooky'.
'cept for the part where I misspelled "innovation"...
The Slashdot blurb and the ABC article are misleading. They claim that the algebraic description of a Mobius strip has escaped algebraic description for 8 decades. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mathematically and algebraically, the Mobius strip has been adequately comprehended from the beginning. In fact, this understanding has been fundamental to the work of Roger Penrose and Wolfgang Rindler in their development of spinors and twistor theory (one of the leading approaches to merging Relativity and Quantum mechanics). The actual discovery from Starostin and Heijden relates materials science to deformations of the Mobius shape. Interestingly, even this seems to be quite similar to Penrose's work tiling Mobius shapes. Actually, it also looks a lot like the work of Andrzej Sitarz in 2001... I'm starting to wonder where is the inovation of this "discovery"?
Guitar tabs are not music in the same way that sketches are not paintings.
Music is a combination of notes and timings. Most internet based tabs do not include the timings. They only tell the player which notes on which strings are to be played. And truth be told, they don't always do this very faithfully. It's up to the player to use his or her knowledge of the piece to inject the rhythms, inflection, and other subtleties to reconstruct the music.
In short, internet guitar tabs are partial frameworks and guides, not faithful representations of the music that is being supposedly infringed upon.
I'm confused... Do they still broadcast using radio waves?
Perhaps radio communication is archaic and they assume there's no intelligent life here. After all, there are no subspace transmissions emanating from this planet...
Or maybe they are really smart and just make sure not to send any signals our way for fear that we might just "drop in". This strategy seems to work pretty well for me. I've got one neighbor that I never acknowledge and he pretty much leaves me alone...
How can it be stalking if they never left their house?
I have machines at work that are rendered totally useless from locked down desktops.
True, I can't do any harm... but I can't do anything productive either!
Clever, these guys, the machines are locked down so tight I can't even submit a help ticket!
Maybe you should just take away those pesky computers and leave a pad an pencil in their place... [wink]
Well, technically you don't have to ask. 98% of people who use both OSes use Windows at work because that's what their employer dictates and they use Mac OSX at home because they have a choice...
-- Douglas Adams