I can reply this question.
If you loading a copy of software into memory to run it you don't infringe a copyright because:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
Like it or not, this is the current US law. It's not a precedent either.
Where do people get that WoW runs alright on a POS machine? I have a P4 3ghz with a gig of RAM and a 256MB GeForce6600 AGP card. That is a pretty craptastic machine and it isn't playable. I get 4fps in Shatt. I get 4fps in Gruuls. Maybe 10fps in Kara. There's something wrong with your PC or system. On my 2.4 Athlon, 2G RAM and Radeon 9800 Pro I get steady 10-15 fps in Shattrath and about 15-20 in larger raids or AV.
Maybe, maybe not - US code title 17 - copyrights says:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or
authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
So could mean that copying a program to memory in order to run it is not an infringement. But if you are doing it to do something else (as in Glider case), it might be.
Of course this is just my speculation on this part.
Just to nit-pick: none of the predictions from your link were scientific (even by their time standards). They were all religious/astrology/some random guy.
If it is illegal to translate, the Polish police was right in arresting the guilty. Translating for your own use is not illegal in Poland. Publishing is.
Same as with music and movies - we can download them, we can't publish (upload) them.
That's because people don't want to buy more expensive, good quality stuff. They want it cheap. They don't take proper care for it, so it breaks faster. Because it breaks, they want it cheap they can buy new one. Because it's cheap, it breaks more often.
Sorry for nit-picking, but started? Middle East countries were in a state of permanent war (more or less open) with each other or with someone else for as long as I remember.
OT: graphical validation picked for me the word 'warring'. What a coincidence.
If your tie gets caught in a printer, do you want to lose your tie or lose your neck?
Actually even ordinary tie should have diagonal seam with weaker thread in about 1/3 of its length (in 'around-the-neck' part) - and it should break when tie is caught in something and you pull it hard. Even my dad's oldest ties have it.
Why is this insightful? Does it "put a new spin on a given story (or aspect of a story)"? Not to mention it's not true. I always disable autorun and never seen any "error boxes" about disabled autorun since I can remember. Nor any of my friends.
Huh? Disabling autorun is amongst first things I do on new Windows installations (from Win98 to XP) and I *NEVER* saw any "we recommend to enable autorun" message. Not once.
This is not entrapment. You were already trading the drugs before the cop approached you.
Right, now prove that. All you have is hearsay from the barman. He hasn't ever actually seen me dealing crack, he just heard me mention once that I had crack, and so when the undercover policeman came asking for crack he directed him to me.
But he did. You sold it to him. He did not order you to sell it, you were not unwilling and had to be persuaded. He asked "can you sell me some crack" and you did.
Entrapment is when the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment.
Of course proving that in court is different matter.
Equivalent, in the drugs analogy: the cop asked the barman in a dodgy pub about who could get him some crack, the barman pointed me out, and the cop then asked me for crack. Still entrapment.
This is not entrapment. You were already trading the drugs before the cop approached you. And you were willing to trade them to someone else without cop's offer.
It would be entrapment if you did not deal with drugs at all and cop convinced you somehow to start the drug business.
It worked for me on Windows XP and all I did was add a tweak to config file to run with my graphic card (can't remember the details, but i just googled for an error message that came up).
> Since when is evolution a fact? Last I heard, it was still just a theory.
But evolution *IS* a fact (confirmed by excavations, observations and experiments on bacteriae). Theory of Evolution, explaining how evolution works is a theory.
Note that it is theory as in "theory of gravity" - scientific meaning - a set of rules that explain its behaviour. Not a theory as we commonly understand, like "conspiracy theory";)
>>"'Travelling' in general is a right. Travelling by plane (and using this specific airlines) is not a right." >I'm sorry, are you implying there is a law somewhere that says travelling is a right, exept when you want to take an airplane? With that definite exclusion? As a law?
Maybe I was a bit unclear:
My pre-poster said that there is "right to travel". And I agree with that. My point was that this "right to travel" is general. Your right to free travelling does not imply that every transportation company (or private person) has an obligation to allow you to use their service. An airplane was an example specific to the article.
And while I agree that refusal to present to John Gilmore the legal basis for this issue should not happen, I also do not think that if such law exists, requesting an ID is an invasion on your privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
Like it or not, this is the current US law. It's not a precedent either.
Does someone paying $200 for 5k gold to pay for their epic flyer negatively affect the me or the game? Nope.
If the gold comes from your hacked account or is "washed" through your hacked account it quite likely will affect your game.
I didn't see a single bot for a very long time, yet the gold (and the stories of hacked accounts left with no money is items) are flowing.
Maybe, maybe not - US code title 17 - copyrights says:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
So could mean that copying a program to memory in order to run it is not an infringement. But if you are doing it to do something else (as in Glider case), it might be.
Of course this is just my speculation on this part.
Just to nit-pick: none of the predictions from your link were scientific (even by their time standards). They were all religious/astrology/some random guy.
Tetris? Where you have to push a "block" into a fitting "hole"? You pervert, stop corrupting our children!
Same as with music and movies - we can download them, we can't publish (upload) them.
E-330 was first (at least for consumer cameras, don't know about professional ones) DSLR with live view of the captured image.
Internet Explorer 6.0 sp2 is not affected.
That's because people don't want to buy more expensive, good quality stuff. They want it cheap. They don't take proper care for it, so it breaks faster. Because it breaks, they want it cheap they can buy new one. Because it's cheap, it breaks more often.
The circle continues...
My diesel Seat (1900cc engine) takes about 5-6.5 liters per 100km (depending on whether in city traffic, how fast i drive and so on).
That makes it about 37-46 mpg
Most newer gasoline engines (although smaller, up to 1600cc i guess) will get similiar rate.
Sorry for nit-picking, but started? Middle East countries were in a state of permanent war (more or less open) with each other or with someone else for as long as I remember.
OT: graphical validation picked for me the word 'warring'. What a coincidence.
No it doesn't. It means 'boom' as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_(sailing)
Actually even ordinary tie should have diagonal seam with weaker thread in about 1/3 of its length (in 'around-the-neck' part) - and it should break when tie is caught in something and you pull it hard. Even my dad's oldest ties have it.
Why is this insightful? Does it "put a new spin on a given story (or aspect of a story)"? Not to mention it's not true. I always disable autorun and never seen any "error boxes" about disabled autorun since I can remember. Nor any of my friends.
Huh? Disabling autorun is amongst first things I do on new Windows installations (from Win98 to XP) and I *NEVER* saw any "we recommend to enable autorun" message. Not once.
But he did. You sold it to him. He did not order you to sell it, you were not unwilling and had to be persuaded. He asked "can you sell me some crack" and you did.
Entrapment is when the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment.
Of course proving that in court is different matter.
This is not entrapment. You were already trading the drugs before the cop approached you. And you were willing to trade them to someone else without cop's offer.
It would be entrapment if you did not deal with drugs at all and cop convinced you somehow to start the drug business.
It worked for me on Windows XP and all I did was add a tweak to config file to run with my graphic card (can't remember the details, but i just googled for an error message that came up).
> Since when is evolution a fact? Last I heard, it was still just a theory.
;)
But evolution *IS* a fact (confirmed by excavations, observations and experiments on bacteriae). Theory of Evolution, explaining how evolution works is a theory.
Note that it is theory as in "theory of gravity" - scientific meaning - a set of rules that explain its behaviour. Not a theory as we commonly understand, like "conspiracy theory"
>>"'Travelling' in general is a right. Travelling by plane (and using this specific airlines) is not a right."
>I'm sorry, are you implying there is a law somewhere that says travelling is a right, exept when you want to take an airplane? With that definite exclusion? As a law?
Maybe I was a bit unclear:
My pre-poster said that there is "right to travel". And I agree with that. My point was that this "right to travel" is general. Your right to free travelling does not imply that every transportation company (or private person) has an obligation to allow you to use their service. An airplane was an example specific to the article.
And while I agree that refusal to present to John Gilmore the legal basis for this issue should not happen, I also do not think that if such law exists, requesting an ID is an invasion on your privacy.
> A mortgage, a phone, a bank account, a credit card, are NOT rights. They're things of value given to me in return for something ELSE of value.
...
But exactly the same thing applies to this case.
'Travelling' in general is a right. Travelling by plane (and using this specific airlines) is not a right.
You can travel by car, foot or train - and no one will require your ID (unless you drive a car yourself - than you obviously need one).
> Thanks for twisting my comments into a completely ridiculous argument
And yet you did the same with comment with the registration to speak or buy a radio metaphor.
> If YOU took two seconds to think about the issues, you'd probably understand.
> I will chalk it up to you being an idiot and call it a day.
Not to mention 'you don't agree with me so you're stupid' is not a very convincing argument.
> Sheep think about the two seconds. Wolves think about the damage done to the their privacy and their freedom.
;)
You're not a wolf, you're a paranoiac