Right. Because it's never anyone's fault that they made a bad deal.
An absolute mischaracterization of my argument. Microsoft advertised one thing and then delivered another and you chalk it up to a "bad deal."
Yeah. Poor little microsoft. Heh. Embelish much?
So you deny the rest of that sentence as embellishment too -- that microsoft "doesn't have any responsibility at all?" And therefore you agree that microsoft has responsibility for what they did here. How's that petard working out?
Really, I think you are just being petty because I called you on your dramatics you feel that you can score points by trying to do the same thing back to me. Except your embellishment was completely without merit -- "It's not my fault" -- no one ever said it was. Yet you claim the responsibility here is not with microsoft and "poor little microsoft" is pretty much a mocking restatement of your own premise.
Its funny though, your entire argument has been reduced to trying to score points rather than arguing the logic of microsoft promising one thing in the big print and taking it away in the fine print. I guess scoring points is what you do when you don't have an argument to stand on.
On top of all this, these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you.
Indeed, we are already seeing the results of over-investigation.
And that will get rid of people who make content and use the proceeds to pay the bills, such as everyone I know who works creating computer games.
Hey, its cliffski the broken record. No surprise you would show up playing your same old song. Tell me, how do you make the leap from "funding creative endeavours" to "get rid of people who make content and use the proceeds to pay the bills?"
Why are you so incapable of seeing that copyright is not some holy divinity but just a tired old business model going the way of the buggy whip?
And making killing people legal is the only way to end murder....
Current copyright law is FUBAR, which doesn't mean we should get rid of copyright completely.
Not all laws are created equal. Murder is an aberration that destroys society, the sharing of ideas is the primary reason we have a society. You should be embarrassed for having made such an inept comparison.
Copyright is an anachronism that depends on distribution adding value. With the internet, distribution is essentially free so not only can anyone do it for zero marginal cost, but doing it adds no new value. Thus no rational consumer is going to pay for something that adds no value and that anyone can do.
Sane copyright laws should exist,
Why? What makes copyright so special that you are willing to unquestioningly appoint it to an absolute requirement? When alternate business models can do the job without the downsides of copyright why do you worship at the altar of a disproven ideology?
I believe the industry is just trying to make sure my dentist doesn't start downloading songs again.
That's what they like to think. But knowledge of how to use the latest piracy tools is just as unstoppable as the piracy itself. It is a variation on the same phenomenon that results in virus-construction-kits and script-kiddies.
They can only go so far to make piracy harder. What they can do without practical limit is to make alternatives to piracy easier. If typing a song name into google gets you 10 different places you can legitimately download it in various ways for various payments (outright purchase, or advertising supported, or streaming, etc all with different pricing based on the seller) then that goes a long ways to keeping the dentist from even thinking about piracy.
It's not my fault, nor Microsoft's, that folks don't read the things they agree to. It's not my fault, nor Microsoft's, that people don't think they're responsible for things after they've agreed to take part in them without further prompting.
"It's not my fault" - puhlease, skip the silly dramatics. You are soooo terribly put upon...
However, it is ABSOLUTELY microsoft's fault for choosing deliberately vague wording designed specifically to obscure the meaning of "we will do whatever the fuck we want and tough shit to you" while simultaneously marketing their update service as being specific to the updating of microsoft products. Just because they cover their ass in legalese doesn't mean they get to say and imply whatever they want everywhere else.
Besides, it didn't modify Firefox.
Oh boy, another semantic bullshiter. Microsoft just happened to randomly put those registry entries in there, they don't mean anything at all, its Firefox's own fault for reading its own configuration. Stupid Firefox, they should have known better! What kind of sycophancy motivates someone to come up with such a ridiculous apologia?
Please try to understand the situation in question.
That's rich. The situation in question is microsoft saying they will do one thing, doing it for about a decade or so, and then suddenly doing something else and when called on it a bunch of lawyer wannabes come out of the woodwork to say "everybody should have known better, everybody should be an expert in legal terms and language, you can't expect anything better of poor little microsoft, who doesn't have any responsibility at all."
(On another note: VMWare Workstation installed a "VMWare Remote Console Plugin" Firefox addon on my machine, and I certainly don't recall it ever asking me if it should be allowed to do so. Should everyone get all torches-and-pitchforks over this?)
Dunno, maybe so, I don't know a thing about what vmware does or doesn't do or claims to do. Regardless, its a red herring.
Hopefully they do leave Germany one of the things that annoyed me about Crysis is that the Koreans didn't respond to dead bodies.
That is such a surreal quote.
I thought it had something to do with their last president taking a jump of a cliff and nobody passing any new laws to prevent ex-presidents from committing suicide.
If you want to carefully shepherd every bit of software which is installed on your computer, then don't use automatic updates. It's very simple. There is no available version of Windows which updates itself automatically by default -- the user must choose to allow them to happen.
Whoop-dee-doo. Don't try to change the subject. Previous poster claimed that everyone who had firefox changed agreed to it because the very fine print said so. My point is that hiding behind very fine print is no excuse.
That said: Windows Update often offers up new drivers for my video card, sound card, and various bits of hardware that are built into my motherboard, and none of these drivers are Microsoft products.
Oh yeah? Then why are the drivers shipping on the microsoft installation media? They have been cryptographically signed by microsoft and included in the update repositories at the hardware vendor's request. That's a far cry from modifying an application that microsoft did not provide and has not been asked by anyone to maintain.
Wait, that sounds like it was a client-side attack on the CEO's machine. That also fails to test their email service.
Sounds like cross-site scripting to me. And if it can be done to the CEO to give other's access to his account, then it can also be done to any other user and their account too. If the company doesn't take precautions against that form of exploit then they are vulnerable and ultimately the bad guys don't give a shit about how they get access, they just care about getting access.
Of course it didn't explicitly mention a Firefox plugin, it does however talk of installing software on your machine. The fact it doesn't specify what doesn't mean you didn't agree, it just means you agreed to let them install whatever they deem necessary and they deemed a Firefox plugin necessary,
You still explicitly gave them permission however you cut it.
NO fucking way. It is not acceptable to hide behind deliberately obfuscative lawyer-generated language that produces a result that no regular user would expect. You would be hard pressed to find anyone other than microsoft sycophants who would expect that a service named "microsoft update" would modify non-microsoft software.
In fact, I'm pretty confident that even a microsoft sycophant would be hard pressed to find another case where the microsoft update service had modified any other non-microsoft software. Thus this situation is so out of the ordinary as to be a reinterpretation of the terms even by microsoft themselves.
Unless it involves homosexual identical twins, how can you even know it is incestuous anyway? Sure, someone can say it is incest, but that's just wish fullfillment on the part of law enforcement.
Way too much of Slashdot 2.0 seems to be designed by people who only use/test slashdot in one specific manner. Its as if they've forgotten that there are many ways to skin a cat.
There's a reason it's a sore point for open source fanatics, it's not merely a blob addon it basicly ripped out a whole chunk of open source, said "not good enough" and replaced it with their own blob.
No one gives a shit if Nvidia said the open source part was "not good enough" - we give shit because what nvidia replaced it with is broken and can't be fixed. I wasted over $600 on two top-end nvidia cards due to their supposed "great linux support" only to have them fail to work with my high end monitor because of an extremely simple TMDS configuration bug in their driver.
When I jumped through all the hoops of their ultimately bullshit support on a freakin webforum and gave them all the debug output they requested and then even spelled out what the problem was and suggestions for them to fix it, all I got was dead fucking silence. Not even, a "we'll get to that in the next release or two," nada.
Open source fanatics are fanatics because open source lets us fix problems the vendor won't or can't. I was moderately pro-open source beforehand, but Nvidia pushed me firmly into the camp of fanatics after they wasted my money with their bullshit and false promises.
'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.'
What? There weren't any terrorists or WMDs? Won't anyone think of the WMDs?
You are lying. No one ever changes their mind on slashdot! You were already pro-pot and are just pretending to apply a little critical thinking for the first time...
TechCrunch have provided no evidence of any kind. What they have come out with is a long-running stream of unsupported, often transparently vitriolic whinges, whines and allegations about Last.fm with never a scrap of evidence or a hint at how they'd have access to it if there ever were any.
Completely agree.
Add to that the fact that the original allegation makes no sense anyway since scrobbler data (containing a list of the track- & artist-name ID3 tags of the media files you've played... tags which are freely editable) would seem to be of no value as either evidence of "theft" or probable cause for further discovery of evidence. This data doesn't say where the track name came from - only that you played a media file with that label. Bought/resold/leant/borrowed/mislabelled... the genuine explanations are endless and nothing in the data should be grounds for any suspicion of "piracy".
Completely disagree.
Anyone with scrobbler data for music that hadn't been officially released (GnR Chinese Democracy for about 6 months prior to publication) or has only leaked in limited quantities (such as the U2 album that was actually sold something like 16 times online before the store realized their error) is going to be highly suspicious. In the US at least the MAFIAA has been able to get even more laws passed regarding the piracy of unpublished works - they really came down hard on that guy who leaked GnR's Chinese Democracy.
You've probably got some bad electrical wiring. I've noticed that some circuits in my house kill CFLs within a few weeks but bulbs from the same package had last indefinitely in other parts of the house. My UPS trips the low-voltage alarm for split second when I turn those lights on in the same room (different circuit though) sometimes other lights in the house will momentarily flicker when I turn those first lights on too - all of which I'm told are symptoms which most likely are the result of a loose wire somewhere in the circuit of the lights being turned on.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Because it's never anyone's fault that they made a bad deal.
An absolute mischaracterization of my argument. Microsoft advertised one thing and then delivered another and you chalk it up to a "bad deal."
Yeah. Poor little microsoft. Heh. Embelish much?
So you deny the rest of that sentence as embellishment too -- that microsoft "doesn't have any responsibility at all?"
And therefore you agree that microsoft has responsibility for what they did here. How's that petard working out?
Really, I think you are just being petty because I called you on your dramatics you feel that you can score points by trying to do the same thing back to me. Except your embellishment was completely without merit -- "It's not my fault" -- no one ever said it was. Yet you claim the responsibility here is not with microsoft and "poor little microsoft" is pretty much a mocking restatement of your own premise.
Its funny though, your entire argument has been reduced to trying to score points rather than arguing the logic of microsoft promising one thing in the big print and taking it away in the fine print. I guess scoring points is what you do when you don't have an argument to stand on.
On top of all this, these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you.
Indeed, we are already seeing the results of over-investigation.
87 percent of the 3,500 initial top-secret security clearance cases Defense approved last year were missing at least one interview or important record.
Security clearances: Faked investigations mount as deadlines tighten
And that will get rid of people who make content and use the proceeds to pay the bills, such as everyone I know who works creating computer games.
Hey, its cliffski the broken record. No surprise you would show up playing your same old song. Tell me, how do you make the leap from "funding creative endeavours" to "get rid of people who make content and use the proceeds to pay the bills?"
Why are you so incapable of seeing that copyright is not some holy divinity but just a tired old business model going the way of the buggy whip?
And making killing people legal is the only way to end murder....
Current copyright law is FUBAR, which doesn't mean we should get rid of copyright completely.
Not all laws are created equal. Murder is an aberration that destroys society, the sharing of ideas is the primary reason we have a society. You should be embarrassed for having made such an inept comparison.
Copyright is an anachronism that depends on distribution adding value. With the internet, distribution is essentially free so not only can anyone do it for zero marginal cost, but doing it adds no new value. Thus no rational consumer is going to pay for something that adds no value and that anyone can do.
Sane copyright laws should exist,
Why? What makes copyright so special that you are willing to unquestioningly appoint it to an absolute requirement? When alternate business models can do the job without the downsides of copyright why do you worship at the altar of a disproven ideology?
So how about we say, "as long as art exists, there will be piracy"?
No. Not at all.
You can't pirate something which is freely given.
As long as copyright exists, there will be piracy.
If and when society discards the crutch of copyright in favor of modern means of funding creative endeavours, piracy will end.
Getting rid of copyright is the only way to end piracy.
I believe the industry is just trying to make sure my dentist doesn't start downloading songs again.
That's what they like to think. But knowledge of how to use the latest piracy tools is just as unstoppable as the piracy itself. It is a variation on the same phenomenon that results in virus-construction-kits and script-kiddies.
They can only go so far to make piracy harder. What they can do without practical limit is to make alternatives to piracy easier. If typing a song name into google gets you 10 different places you can legitimately download it in various ways for various payments (outright purchase, or advertising supported, or streaming, etc all with different pricing based on the seller) then that goes a long ways to keeping the dentist from even thinking about piracy.
It's not my fault, nor Microsoft's, that folks don't read the things they agree to. It's not my fault, nor Microsoft's, that people don't think they're responsible for things after they've agreed to take part in them without further prompting.
"It's not my fault" - puhlease, skip the silly dramatics. You are soooo terribly put upon...
However, it is ABSOLUTELY microsoft's fault for choosing deliberately vague wording designed specifically to obscure the meaning of "we will do whatever the fuck we want and tough shit to you" while simultaneously marketing their update service as being specific to the updating of microsoft products. Just because they cover their ass in legalese doesn't mean they get to say and imply whatever they want everywhere else.
Besides, it didn't modify Firefox.
Oh boy, another semantic bullshiter. Microsoft just happened to randomly put those registry entries in there, they don't mean anything at all, its Firefox's own fault for reading its own configuration. Stupid Firefox, they should have known better! What kind of sycophancy motivates someone to come up with such a ridiculous apologia?
Please try to understand the situation in question.
That's rich. The situation in question is microsoft saying they will do one thing, doing it for about a decade or so, and then suddenly doing something else and when called on it a bunch of lawyer wannabes come out of the woodwork to say "everybody should have known better, everybody should be an expert in legal terms and language, you can't expect anything better of poor little microsoft, who doesn't have any responsibility at all."
(On another note: VMWare Workstation installed a "VMWare Remote Console Plugin" Firefox addon on my machine, and I certainly don't recall it ever asking me if it should be allowed to do so. Should everyone get all torches-and-pitchforks over this?)
Dunno, maybe so, I don't know a thing about what vmware does or doesn't do or claims to do. Regardless, its a red herring.
Hopefully they do leave Germany one of the things that annoyed me about Crysis is that the Koreans didn't respond to dead bodies.
That is such a surreal quote.
I thought it had something to do with their last president taking a jump of a cliff and nobody passing any new laws to prevent ex-presidents from committing suicide.
If you want to carefully shepherd every bit of software which is installed on your computer, then don't use automatic updates. It's very simple. There is no available version of Windows which updates itself automatically by default -- the user must choose to allow them to happen.
Whoop-dee-doo. Don't try to change the subject. Previous poster claimed that everyone who had firefox changed agreed to it because the very fine print said so. My point is that hiding behind very fine print is no excuse.
That said: Windows Update often offers up new drivers for my video card, sound card, and various bits of hardware that are built into my motherboard, and none of these drivers are Microsoft products.
Oh yeah? Then why are the drivers shipping on the microsoft installation media? They have been cryptographically signed by microsoft and included in the update repositories at the hardware vendor's request. That's a far cry from modifying an application that microsoft did not provide and has not been asked by anyone to maintain.
Wrong. There IS more security today. Lots of it - just go to an airport and look.
Security definition. Check 3(b).
Wooo-hoo! Dictionary flame! You are kicking ass in this fight!
Semantic dickweed for the win!
Wait, that sounds like it was a client-side attack on the CEO's machine. That also fails to test their email service.
Sounds like cross-site scripting to me. And if it can be done to the CEO to give other's access to his account, then it can also be done to any other user and their account too. If the company doesn't take precautions against that form of exploit then they are vulnerable and ultimately the bad guys don't give a shit about how they get access, they just care about getting access.
Of course it didn't explicitly mention a Firefox plugin, it does however talk of installing software on your machine. The fact it doesn't specify what doesn't mean you didn't agree, it just means you agreed to let them install whatever they deem necessary and they deemed a Firefox plugin necessary,
You still explicitly gave them permission however you cut it.
NO fucking way. It is not acceptable to hide behind deliberately obfuscative lawyer-generated language that produces a result that no regular user would expect. You would be hard pressed to find anyone other than microsoft sycophants who would expect that a service named "microsoft update" would modify non-microsoft software.
In fact, I'm pretty confident that even a microsoft sycophant would be hard pressed to find another case where the microsoft update service had modified any other non-microsoft software. Thus this situation is so out of the ordinary as to be a reinterpretation of the terms even by microsoft themselves.
You mind if I borrow your signature?
I'm sure he won't mind, but you should probably spell "javascrpt" correctly. :-)
Yeah, what he said.
Unless it involves homosexual identical twins, how can you even know it is incestuous anyway?
Sure, someone can say it is incest, but that's just wish fullfillment on the part of law enforcement.
Way too much of Slashdot 2.0 seems to be designed by people who only use/test slashdot in one specific manner. Its as if they've forgotten that there are many ways to skin a cat.
There's a reason it's a sore point for open source fanatics, it's not merely a blob addon it basicly ripped out a whole chunk of open source, said "not good enough" and replaced it with their own blob.
No one gives a shit if Nvidia said the open source part was "not good enough" - we give shit because what nvidia replaced it with is broken and can't be fixed. I wasted over $600 on two top-end nvidia cards due to their supposed "great linux support" only to have them fail to work with my high end monitor because of an extremely simple TMDS configuration bug in their driver.
When I jumped through all the hoops of their ultimately bullshit support on a freakin webforum and gave them all the debug output they requested and then even spelled out what the problem was and suggestions for them to fix it, all I got was dead fucking silence. Not even, a "we'll get to that in the next release or two," nada.
Open source fanatics are fanatics because open source lets us fix problems the vendor won't or can't. I was moderately pro-open source beforehand, but Nvidia pushed me firmly into the camp of fanatics after they wasted my money with their bullshit and false promises.
'Pricewert hosts very little legitimate content and vast quantities of illegal, malicious, and harmful content, including child pornography, botnet command and control servers, spyware, viruses, trojans, phishing related sites, illegal online pharmacies, investment and other Web-based scams, and pornography featuring violence, bestiality, and incest.'
What? There weren't any terrorists or WMDs? Won't anyone think of the WMDs?
OMG! Monoponies!
You are lying. No one ever changes their mind on slashdot!
You were already pro-pot and are just pretending to apply a little critical thinking for the first time...
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
No, it's just the logical conclusion of a culture of worshipping money.
And lawyers are the new priesthood.
TechCrunch have provided no evidence of any kind. What they have come out with is a long-running stream of unsupported, often transparently vitriolic whinges, whines and allegations about Last.fm with never a scrap of evidence or a hint at how they'd have access to it if there ever were any.
Completely agree.
Add to that the fact that the original allegation makes no sense anyway since scrobbler data (containing a list of the track- & artist-name ID3 tags of the media files you've played... tags which are freely editable) would seem to be of no value as either evidence of "theft" or probable cause for further discovery of evidence. This data doesn't say where the track name came from - only that you played a media file with that label. Bought/resold/leant/borrowed/mislabelled... the genuine explanations are endless and nothing in the data should be grounds for any suspicion of "piracy".
Completely disagree.
Anyone with scrobbler data for music that hadn't been officially released (GnR Chinese Democracy for about 6 months prior to publication) or has only leaked in limited quantities (such as the U2 album that was actually sold something like 16 times online before the store realized their error) is going to be highly suspicious. In the US at least the MAFIAA has been able to get even more laws passed regarding the piracy of unpublished works - they really came down hard on that guy who leaked GnR's Chinese Democracy.
As to Last.fm's statements that they've given that information to noone?
Today the RIAA announced that Richard Noone Esq. has been promoted to head of the copyright enforcement division.
You've probably got some bad electrical wiring. I've noticed that some circuits in my house kill CFLs within a few weeks but bulbs from the same package had last indefinitely in other parts of the house. My UPS trips the low-voltage alarm for split second when I turn those lights on in the same room (different circuit though) sometimes other lights in the house will momentarily flicker when I turn those first lights on too - all of which I'm told are symptoms which most likely are the result of a loose wire somewhere in the circuit of the lights being turned on.
Too bad it's the Dingoo A320 and not the Airbus A320, which would have been considerably more impressive,
Already been done.