At no point do I agree that EA can revoke their license. There is no law that says they can come into my house and take the disc back.
With Steam you explicitly give them permission to revoke your access as they see fit. For any or no reason. You explicitly say you want no compensation if they do this. Read the EULA.
The EULA is a legally binding contract. That's not my opinion. That's the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion. The case is ProCD v Zeidenberg.
"the driver feels compelled to maintain a constant I/O of communication because the other person will never know if the driver is comprehending at all times."
You're saying that they will hit a tree rather than shut up for fear of being misunderstood. That's nonsensical.
Holding a conversation is holding a conversation. If you're inattentive during that conversation it's your fault not the techs fault.
What about the head turners who drive. My mother is notorious with this. She'll turn to look at the passenger. This has lead to many instances of near rear ends.
What about talking to a passenger that's not looking at the road or is otherwise engaged with something inside the car? By the cell haters logic you shouldn't do that.
The only common theme with anything in this thread is the driver focusing on something else. This happens with the radio, wild life outside the vehicle, trying to help your kids in the back seat, anything.
Citing cellphones is luddite. If you have a hands free system to be against talking on the cell phone is to be against talking to anyone in the car. Is to be against doing anything but driving in an empty car with no radio.
Inattentive drivers are inattentive. Address them not cell phones.
My car will unlock the doors if it thinks I'm in danger of locking myself out. When I first bought it I had a little fight with it. I pushed the lock button down. It popped it up. I pushed it down. it popped them all up.
Also if I unlock the doors and don't open a door within a certain time frame it will lock them again.
It has cruise control.
It has a thermostat similar to a house. You set the temp and it will try and keep it constant.
The fact that they never distributed them is meaningless.
The copies that Lincoln's estate have are the property of Lincoln's estate. Lincoln's estate can do what ever it wants with it's property. Period.
This whole issue has nothing to do with copyright law anymore. Any citation of copyright law is meaningless as the works are no longer covered under it. The only thing that matters at this point is property law.
The shows (journals) are the property of CBS (Lincoln's estate) and they are free to do what ever they want with them.
"FYI: If the proper keywords are there, they alone trigger alerts for further review by an analyst; I am not the arrogant one."
That's quite simply impossible. The amount of data your suggesting is both effectively 100% false positive and so large in size that we can never review it by hand.
I'm worried about your paranoia. Please seek professional help.
More or less arrogance than thinking you're important enough for the government to be watching you even though you're one of the "good" people?
You're post indicates a flaw in thinking. You don't bypass security. I think you mean bypass baggage screening check points. There's nothing wrong with having a method to allow people to bypass baggage screening check points as long as that method is secure and part of the security plan as a whole. For example you should know who's going to bypass the check point before they arrive at the check point. Screeners should not have the authority to remove security.
They solved the DRM problem decades ago. Macrovision worked. DVD_CSS works.
They both stopped people from making casual copies.
I don't understand this drive for unbreakable DRM. It can't work. At some point you must possess both the lock and key in order to view the content.
You're never going to stop the motivated ones. Someone will always break the DRM. If for no other reason than to prove they can.
Both macrovision and DVD_CSS stop the casual copier and unless you tried to copy you didn't even know they were there. You still had your rights of first sale. You could play on any device. You could lend it out.
The only flaw they both have is the physical media requirement.
My school did also. It's just a small one. They gave tours. It was really neat to look down into the core. Until I realized that I was looking down into the core.
If we haven't been able to fix the social problems that cause terrorism over the last tens of thousands of years how do you expect to do it in the next hundred years.
There's also the little problem of how do you stop a tactic? As long as you have a small cowardly group that won't fight directly, guerrilla, you will have terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
So when you get a new computer how does offline mode move the games to your new computer?
That's completely untrue.
At no point do I agree that EA can revoke their license. There is no law that says they can come into my house and take the disc back.
With Steam you explicitly give them permission to revoke your access as they see fit. For any or no reason. You explicitly say you want no compensation if they do this. Read the EULA.
The EULA is a legally binding contract. That's not my opinion. That's the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion. The case is ProCD v Zeidenberg.
Lot's of people claim the existence of this mythical patch.
Every time I see a claim I call them on it.
No one has yet to cite a source.
Please provide some evidence of this patch.
Urban legend.
I've seen this myth many many many times. No one has ever been able to cite a source.
Please provide a source.
Urban legend.
I've seen this myth many many times. No one has ever been able to cite a source.
Please provide citation.
Urban legend.
I've seen this myth many many many times. No one has ever been able to cite a source.
Please provide citation.
Impulse does not work that way.
You can download an archive of your game that can be installed offline.
No phoning home asking permission to play like Steam.
"the driver feels compelled to maintain a constant I/O of communication because the other person will never know if the driver is comprehending at all times."
You're saying that they will hit a tree rather than shut up for fear of being misunderstood. That's nonsensical.
Holding a conversation is holding a conversation. If you're inattentive during that conversation it's your fault not the techs fault.
What about the head turners who drive. My mother is notorious with this. She'll turn to look at the passenger. This has lead to many instances of near rear ends.
What about talking to a passenger that's not looking at the road or is otherwise engaged with something inside the car? By the cell haters logic you shouldn't do that.
The only common theme with anything in this thread is the driver focusing on something else. This happens with the radio, wild life outside the vehicle, trying to help your kids in the back seat, anything.
Citing cellphones is luddite. If you have a hands free system to be against talking on the cell phone is to be against talking to anyone in the car. Is to be against doing anything but driving in an empty car with no radio.
Inattentive drivers are inattentive. Address them not cell phones.
Replace talking on cell phone with talking to person sitting next to them.
Is your position consistent then?
My car will unlock the doors if it thinks I'm in danger of locking myself out. When I first bought it I had a little fight with it. I pushed the lock button down. It popped it up. I pushed it down. it popped them all up.
Also if I unlock the doors and don't open a door within a certain time frame it will lock them again.
It has cruise control.
It has a thermostat similar to a house. You set the temp and it will try and keep it constant.
It has antilock brakes/traction control.
That's a bit of autonomousness[sic].
Actually there is a third possibility.
Read boingboing.net. Apparently the summary here is completely fabricated and in no way represents the actual situation.
The fan/whistleblower appears to be the bad and CBS the good in this case.
The fact that they never distributed them is meaningless.
The copies that Lincoln's estate have are the property of Lincoln's estate. Lincoln's estate can do what ever it wants with it's property. Period.
This whole issue has nothing to do with copyright law anymore. Any citation of copyright law is meaningless as the works are no longer covered under it. The only thing that matters at this point is property law.
The shows (journals) are the property of CBS (Lincoln's estate) and they are free to do what ever they want with them.
Just because a work is public doesn't mean they have to make their copy available.
Their copy is still their property. All public domain means is that if they show said work any copies made are fully legal.
Can you cite a source for these contingencies or are you just making them up?
Occam:
CBS wants to monetize these shows. They don't have copyright so they don't know how. So they're not going to do anything.
"FYI: If the proper keywords are there, they alone trigger alerts for further review by an analyst; I am not the arrogant one."
That's quite simply impossible. The amount of data your suggesting is both effectively 100% false positive and so large in size that we can never review it by hand.
I'm worried about your paranoia. Please seek professional help.
A man named Aesop pointed out the flaw in this logic some 2500 years ago.
You forgot something from number 3.
You loose credibility.
If you keep making a big deal out of things that aren't a big deal people will start to ignore you.
What you've described is identical to the plain old flu. Secondary infections, pneumonia, are a huge risk with the plain old flu.
You also describe a range of illness. Some people were meh. Some got hit hard. Again you are describing something identical to the the plain old flu.
It wasn't a more deadly flu molecule it was a differently shaped flu molecule.
More or less arrogance than thinking you're important enough for the government to be watching you even though you're one of the "good" people?
You're post indicates a flaw in thinking. You don't bypass security. I think you mean bypass baggage screening check points. There's nothing wrong with having a method to allow people to bypass baggage screening check points as long as that method is secure and part of the security plan as a whole. For example you should know who's going to bypass the check point before they arrive at the check point. Screeners should not have the authority to remove security.
They solved the DRM problem decades ago. Macrovision worked. DVD_CSS works.
They both stopped people from making casual copies.
I don't understand this drive for unbreakable DRM. It can't work. At some point you must possess both the lock and key in order to view the content.
You're never going to stop the motivated ones. Someone will always break the DRM. If for no other reason than to prove they can.
Both macrovision and DVD_CSS stop the casual copier and unless you tried to copy you didn't even know they were there. You still had your rights of first sale. You could play on any device. You could lend it out.
The only flaw they both have is the physical media requirement.
My school did also. It's just a small one. They gave tours. It was really neat to look down into the core. Until I realized that I was looking down into the core.
I thought most large universities had one.
Got it. I see it now. My bad.
On the topic of G.
The image of a mushroom cloud over a US city would be highly effective regardless of the kill-rate.
If we haven't been able to fix the social problems that cause terrorism over the last tens of thousands of years how do you expect to do it in the next hundred years.
There's also the little problem of how do you stop a tactic? As long as you have a small cowardly group that won't fight directly, guerrilla, you will have terrorism.
How did Wii, PSP, and XBOX1 become all consoles?