Surely the ToS relates to using CCleaner which is totally irrelevant as he's not using their software. I don't see how copyright comes into play if he's not distributing the ini file and as far as I can tell, the purpose of importing the file is for user generated rules.
The only thing that I can see that could apply would be if CCleaner has patented the ini text format, but that would be absurd and I can't see that standing up in court.
A simple letter stating that he doesn't use the CCleaner software and that the ToS are irrelevant to him should suffice. Let them come back with lawyers and see how much money they want to waste.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Reducing calorific intake is not necessarily an easy thing to do (especially if you're feeling hungry all the time). The biggest problem is that evolution has prepared us for a world of limited available food and we live in a world (or maybe just some parts of the world) of ridiculous availability of calories.
However, it doesn't matter what kind of metabolism you've got if you're put on a low calorie diet without access to other food (think concentration camps), then you will definitely lose weight. It makes little sense to talk about "true at the cellular level" when it's true at any level of a system. This doesn't help people who are unwilling/unable to endure a strict calorie controlled diet, but it's probably more useful to examine where/how/why the extra calories are coming from.
My personal opinion is that sugar is one of the biggest obstacles to losing weight. It seems that whenever people eat sugar, it produces a craving for more sugar. When you see someone eat a biscuit, it's almost as though it creates the desire to eat more biscuits and pretty soon the whole packet has gone (and 1000 calories added to your daily intake).
The other problem with going downhill on a regular unicycle is that when you fall off and jump off the front, sometimes the unicycle gets caught in your legs. Going uphill, when you jump off, the unicycle lands behind you.
Ultimately though, reducing calorific intake below calorific expenditure will result in eventual loss of weight due to simple physics. It gets a lot more complicated with things like biological availability of the calories, but unless you've got insane water retention, the body can't gain mass that you're not eating.
I don't need to lose weight myself as I've been doing a lot of cycling which makes it easy to shift excess weight. I do pay a lot of interest in my diet, though as I eat gluten free (helps with my psoriasis) and am also a pescetarian (fish, no meat) which is a tricky combination.
The simple answer to most diet issues is to switch to a non-processed diet - lots of fresh produce. If it doesn't rot, then it's not good food.
I don't know any details, but I recall reading studies that long term low-carbohydrate diets (which I assume Atkins is one of) can cause liver/kidney disease. I'm not a biologist or nutritionist, so I haven't got a clue as to why that may be.
If she wants to lose weight, then eating less is definitely what she needs to do. However, it sounds like she's perfectly fit and healthy, so she might not need or want to lose weight. Sammo Hung is a good example of an agile fit martial artist who carries a few extra pounds.
Ultimately, it boils down to calories in vs calories expended, but it's a lot easier to discuss than to put into action for a lot of people.
Maybe you're surrounded by more observant people than I am. Most of the people I know would not really understand that they are buying their phone with their monthly contract fees. Instead they're more likely to say "look, I got a free phone with my contract!".
It sounds like misrepresentation to me when the majority of people believe that they are buying a phone. The fact that you need lawyer skills and have to carefully read the contract indicates that this is not a straight-forward deal and that the carrier is relying on people not understanding what they are signing up for.
I vote for the "most people are stupid" option. It wouldn't even occur to most people that their phone isn't their phone and that they can't switch providers.
You're partially right about excercise and diet, but combining the two can be very effective. If you excercise in the aerobic range (about 50-65% of max heart rate) then your body is going to burn your fat resources for energy. Also, if you increase your muscle mass, it becomes easier to metabolise excess calories.
Carbohydrates aren't necessarily bad; it's the amount of them that causes the problem. If you keep carbs limited to fruit and vegetables, then you're extremely unlikely to put on weight. Your diet sounds like it's almost an Atkins style diet which is not the most healthy - it can punish your liver if you eat like that forever.
You're right, but I just thought the post was so good that the writer deserved good karma. I haven't got any mod points at the moment, so I couldn't mod up his post anyway, but thought that my reply might bring more attention to his post.
Doesn't copyright cover distribution rights? I would guess that downloading it would be perfectly legal in the US, but you wouldn't be able to distribute it.
There's a quote from a lawyer on BBC's website about how it would be perfectly legal to download in the UK from an Antiguan service (as long as it's not widely advertised).
I don't see that it would make any difference to GPL software as Antigua wouldn't have to pay the US copyright holders, but the price is free anyway. It doesn't sound like the deal is to nullify copyright in Antigua, but to just allow them to get back the money that they've lost. Also, a lot of GPL software is multi-national, so Antigua would still have to respect the non-US copyrights.
However, isn't the $21M supposed to be the profit limit that Antigua can make per year from this? Presumably, Antigua could sell films/books/software for a very small price (especially as they're not going to have to re-imburse the US copyright holders) and it could cost the US a lot more than $21M in "lost" sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely the ToS relates to using CCleaner which is totally irrelevant as he's not using their software. I don't see how copyright comes into play if he's not distributing the ini file and as far as I can tell, the purpose of importing the file is for user generated rules.
The only thing that I can see that could apply would be if CCleaner has patented the ini text format, but that would be absurd and I can't see that standing up in court.
A simple letter stating that he doesn't use the CCleaner software and that the ToS are irrelevant to him should suffice. Let them come back with lawyers and see how much money they want to waste.
Are you sure you want electric shocks and your genitals in close vicinity?
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Reducing calorific intake is not necessarily an easy thing to do (especially if you're feeling hungry all the time). The biggest problem is that evolution has prepared us for a world of limited available food and we live in a world (or maybe just some parts of the world) of ridiculous availability of calories.
However, it doesn't matter what kind of metabolism you've got if you're put on a low calorie diet without access to other food (think concentration camps), then you will definitely lose weight. It makes little sense to talk about "true at the cellular level" when it's true at any level of a system. This doesn't help people who are unwilling/unable to endure a strict calorie controlled diet, but it's probably more useful to examine where/how/why the extra calories are coming from.
My personal opinion is that sugar is one of the biggest obstacles to losing weight. It seems that whenever people eat sugar, it produces a craving for more sugar. When you see someone eat a biscuit, it's almost as though it creates the desire to eat more biscuits and pretty soon the whole packet has gone (and 1000 calories added to your daily intake).
The other problem with going downhill on a regular unicycle is that when you fall off and jump off the front, sometimes the unicycle gets caught in your legs. Going uphill, when you jump off, the unicycle lands behind you.
Ultimately though, reducing calorific intake below calorific expenditure will result in eventual loss of weight due to simple physics. It gets a lot more complicated with things like biological availability of the calories, but unless you've got insane water retention, the body can't gain mass that you're not eating.
I don't need to lose weight myself as I've been doing a lot of cycling which makes it easy to shift excess weight. I do pay a lot of interest in my diet, though as I eat gluten free (helps with my psoriasis) and am also a pescetarian (fish, no meat) which is a tricky combination.
The simple answer to most diet issues is to switch to a non-processed diet - lots of fresh produce. If it doesn't rot, then it's not good food.
I don't know any details, but I recall reading studies that long term low-carbohydrate diets (which I assume Atkins is one of) can cause liver/kidney disease. I'm not a biologist or nutritionist, so I haven't got a clue as to why that may be.
If she wants to lose weight, then eating less is definitely what she needs to do. However, it sounds like she's perfectly fit and healthy, so she might not need or want to lose weight. Sammo Hung is a good example of an agile fit martial artist who carries a few extra pounds.
Ultimately, it boils down to calories in vs calories expended, but it's a lot easier to discuss than to put into action for a lot of people.
Maybe you're surrounded by more observant people than I am. Most of the people I know would not really understand that they are buying their phone with their monthly contract fees. Instead they're more likely to say "look, I got a free phone with my contract!".
Maybe I'm underestimating people.
To be honest, most revolutions don't require justifications, just lots of willing people.
Why would you need to run an unlicensed version of the OS to unlock a phone?
It sounds like misrepresentation to me when the majority of people believe that they are buying a phone. The fact that you need lawyer skills and have to carefully read the contract indicates that this is not a straight-forward deal and that the carrier is relying on people not understanding what they are signing up for.
I vote for the "most people are stupid" option. It wouldn't even occur to most people that their phone isn't their phone and that they can't switch providers.
Are you tigger?
You're partially right about excercise and diet, but combining the two can be very effective. If you excercise in the aerobic range (about 50-65% of max heart rate) then your body is going to burn your fat resources for energy. Also, if you increase your muscle mass, it becomes easier to metabolise excess calories.
Carbohydrates aren't necessarily bad; it's the amount of them that causes the problem. If you keep carbs limited to fruit and vegetables, then you're extremely unlikely to put on weight. Your diet sounds like it's almost an Atkins style diet which is not the most healthy - it can punish your liver if you eat like that forever.
Looks like someone's a bit tetchy today.
Don't forget how much more stylish and hip cyclists are. Also, we get to really annoy car drivers.
You're right, but I just thought the post was so good that the writer deserved good karma. I haven't got any mod points at the moment, so I couldn't mod up his post anyway, but thought that my reply might bring more attention to his post.
Next time you post something like this, please login first. That way I can mod you up, if I had mod points.
It must be as we know to put 'u' in colour, honour etc. You lot can't even spell 'aluminium' correctly.
Doesn't copyright cover distribution rights? I would guess that downloading it would be perfectly legal in the US, but you wouldn't be able to distribute it.
There's a quote from a lawyer on BBC's website about how it would be perfectly legal to download in the UK from an Antiguan service (as long as it's not widely advertised).
If Microsoft can determine that you've got nude pictures in your SkyDrive, then you must be sharing them with someone - even if it's only Microsoft.
They won't have to pay for it, but I don't think they just get to ignore copyright.
I was under the impression that copyright covers distribution rights, so as long as you're not distributing it in the US you should be fine.
I don't see that it would make any difference to GPL software as Antigua wouldn't have to pay the US copyright holders, but the price is free anyway. It doesn't sound like the deal is to nullify copyright in Antigua, but to just allow them to get back the money that they've lost. Also, a lot of GPL software is multi-national, so Antigua would still have to respect the non-US copyrights.
However, isn't the $21M supposed to be the profit limit that Antigua can make per year from this? Presumably, Antigua could sell films/books/software for a very small price (especially as they're not going to have to re-imburse the US copyright holders) and it could cost the US a lot more than $21M in "lost" sales.