These are the only sections I can disable in my Homepage preferences tab: Apache, Apple, Ask Slashdot, Book Reviews, BSD, Developers, Features, Games, Hardware, Interviews, IT, Linux, Politics, Science, Your Rights Online. I can also hide stories by author, but I don't think that'd help.
What is so difficult about moving a mouse and clicking on an icon?
You're mistaken if you think using and maintaining a Linux system requires nothing more than clicking on icons. Sooner or later you're going to need to know the location and format of certain config files, how to use several command line utilities, etc., even for tasks where Windows provides a GUI. Distributions like Ubuntu have gotten closer to your goal, but from what I've seen, they're not there yet.
Ever tried "cleaning out" a Microsoft Windows PC? You need to format and re-install - there is no cleaning out. Heck, most of the time it gets into such a state it won't even boot.
Yeah, actually, I have. Ad-aware, Spybot, and AVG take care of most everything. For the rest, there's regedit (though of course I wouldn't expect the average user to remove spyware that way).
I have never seen, nor heard of, spyware preventing a system from booting; in such a case, a repair installation might work, and if not, you'd need to reinstall. Much like any other OS.
Let me guess - you're a Windows 3.1 user?
Windows XP doesn't require you to set up an administrator password, and many (if not most) XP users don't have one.
Then if it continues, I start suggesting Linux. I show them via a demo system how easy it is to use, and they are usually sold on the idea pretty quickly.
I hope you offer to sell them those demo systems too.
A friend of mine installed Ubuntu on his new laptop and enlisted my help. Now, I've been using Linux for over 10 years, I've been programming since I was 5 years old, and I've got a wireless network at home... but even with the help of a HOWTO, I couldn't get WPA to work. We eventually had to downgrade his network to WEP just so he could get online.
Linux is plenty easy to use, once you have it set up. Getting it set up and working with all your existing hardware, I fear, is still beyond many users, especially the ones who would switch just because they can't stop themselves from installing Comet Cursor or punching the monkey.
What disgusts me about her is that she is clearly pandoring to a group that she does not represent in an attempt to soften her image. Yet if she ever got the top spot (if there really is a god, he/she/whatever must never let that happen), she'll turn back to the hard-as-concrete lib that she always has been -- up until a year or two ago, that is.
Well, to be fair, that can be said about many politicians from either side. If you compare the current President's actions to the claims he made before he was elected, there's plenty of contradiction. The very nature of politics is that you try to appeal to as many voters as possible... as long as you need them to get elected.
Ah, man. I'm still hurting from the liberal libertarian Democrat paradox.
["liberal"] I have no problem with paying taxes or regulation of business, since our laws and courts facilitated much of those businesses' success in the first place. I have no problem with spending that tax revenue on public services, such as health/retirement insurance or border security, in cases where the private sector can't provide them adequately to everyone who needs them. Government services obviously have some drawbacks, but they're different from the drawbacks of private services and sometimes preferable.
["libertarian"] But I absolutely do not want the government telling me what I can do with other consenting individuals, or what I can buy, sell, broadcast, distribute, put into my body or remove from my body (except for a handful of extreme cases--e.g. atomic bombs--and as long as no fraud is committed). Regulations shouldn't make a product or service unavailable unless there's a reasonable equivalent, nor should they be a substitute for learning about a product before you buy/use it or changing the damn channel. I want the government to step in, collect taxes, spend them on preventing force, fraud, and unnecessary discrimination (and providing a few other important services the market can't or won't address), and then get the hell out.
["Democrat"] I believe the two interests above are best served by a vote for this party, mainly because of the relative priorities I place on certain aspects and the amount of influence I think the kooks of each party wield. I don't think the recent bleating by Hillary and Schumer has enough support in the party to go anywhere; it's basically a publicity stunt for the idiots who care that they're "tough on red pixels".
If I think voting for another party will serve my interests better, I won't hesitate to vote for them instead, but unless the GOP kicks the religious right to the curb, or we reform our electoral system so third parties have some chance of getting power, I don't think that's likely to happen.
Do you really think the kind of person who (1) lets his PC fill up with spyware, then (2) chooses to spend $500 on a new PC instead of spending a couple hours cleaning it out, is going to want to learn Linux?
"OMG WTF happened to My Computer? Where's Internet Explorer? Why do I have to have a password?"
For those mods who clearly don't have a f*cking clue, Hillary (clearly not a conservative) is actively pursuing the current GTA3 situation and Tipper was one of the main activists who was responsible for the Senate hearings regarding language/violence/drugs in music several years back.
As far as I can tell, though, the problem comes when politicians from either side of the aisle try to pander to conservative "values voters". Republicans do it when those folks are their main base of support (as opposed to big business or libertarian voters); Democrats do it when they're trying to expand their base.
Hillary has been doing that a lot lately, and it's one reason why I, a liberal libertarian Democrat (wrap your brain around that one!), won't be voting for her if she ever makes a Presidential primary bid. This morality crusade does not represent what I, or most other liberals, believe in.
...or does fair use still exist? If they haven't, then ANY CD or DVD I buy I reserve the right to rip to another format for more easy use, keeping the original copy safe and secure. That simple. If they don't like it, petition the SCotUS to reverse itself. Otherwise, they can fark off.
Have you been living under a rock for the past 7 years? I'm surprised a Slashdot poster and 3 moderators would let this inaccuracy past, after all the publicity DRM has gotten here.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, commonly referred to as the DMCA, was signed in 1998 and makes it illegal to circumvent "access controls", even if you don't infringe the copyright on the protected content. The European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) was passed soon after and is basically equivalent to the DMCA in the countries where it's been implemented.
Fair use still exists, but you can't legally exercise your fair use rights if you have to break encryption to do so. Take DVDs, for example: the content on a DVD is encrypted. You can make a copy of that content (in encrypted form) under fair use, but it'll be useless because you can't copy the CSS key to a DVD-R. To make a copy you can actually play, you have to decrypt it - i.e. circumvent an access control. That's illegal.
The DMCA fundamentally shifted the balance of power WRT what you can do with content that's copyrighted by someone else. Instead of your rights being defined by the government, they can now be defined by the corporations that publish content, because whatever restrictions they decide to implement in hardware or software now have the force of law.
Here's fair-use compatible DRM: I get a file of information as usual such as name, address, phone, e-mail, secret questions I know the answer to, etc. I also pay them X$ for whatever. Public key encryption is used to ensure only the key holder can access it. I can copy the encrypted file to whatever device I like that can read and act on my key. Without my key, it won't work.
Other responses have already addressed why this system won't work. You seem to forget that the purpose of DRM is to keep you, the customer, from accessing the content you paid for, except in the specific ways the copyright holder wants you to. If all you need is PGP and a device to spit out the key, that's fine for you, but there's no way in hell Big Content will sign on.
Sure the stuff hasn't been tested in court. But you think any companies would take it to court? Cisco would stop any support of thier products if they tried, and charge them massive money.
Yeah, if the situation got bad enough, I think they would fight it in court. And I think they'd win. If Cisco wants to bend your company over a stump because you bought a few used routers, and they drop your service contracts because you don't pay up, you can always find someone else to offer support - maybe they won't be as good at it, but that's capitalism.
I'd be far more concerned if Cisco were actually able to use the courts to force people to pay or to stop using preowned equipment.
So since no one can or is able to stand up in court against them, it will continue. Kinda like RIAA and thier 10,000 lawsuits. Not one of those cases have gone to trial. Most have settled for a couple grand.
The difference there is that most of those cases are open and shut. If you're sued for copyright infringement, and you know they have proof that you infringed their copyrights, there's no sense in fighting it, because you know what the outcome will be anyway.
In this case, Cisco has no leg to stand on, and if they sued you, you might even be able to get them to pay your legal bills. Sure, they might be able to intimidate a few customers just like SCO did, but people will realize it's a scam soon enough.
As for physical objects, someone posted a link where a company selling a physical object (some sorta woodworking tool) has a EULA for it when you buy it.
Yes.. that was what I originally responded to, just a few posts up, when I said that part of the dovetail jig "license" agreement is unenforceable. Please try to keep up.;)
As for Cisco, yeah. [...] Essentially Cisco says its a liscense you are getting (not the ownership of your copy of the software) so they can control it anyway they want.
No, I think you misunderstood my question.
Cisco can write whatever they want on their web site, whether it's true or not. They can also set any conditions on their service contracts that they want.
My question is, has Cisco ever successfully sued someone for selling a router?
Just because they say you need to buy a license to use the software built into the router doesn't make it true. You can resell a router under the first sale doctrine, just like you can resell a car or a microwave, even though they both have software inside. When you buy a used car, you don't need to buy a license for the software that controls the engine; if the car manufacturer claimed you did, you could tell them to get bent, and they'd have no leg to stand on if they tried to sue.
You don't need a license to use software as long as you aren't making tangible copies (e.g. installing it on your hard drive). Now, Cisco may make you buy a license before they'll agree to sell you a service contract, but that's something entirely different.
Yeah, but that's only a small part of the story that happens to only entertain certain types of people to a heightened degree, such as ourselves, and we are the few.
That didn't seem to stop Star Trek from being successful for many years. Do you think fewer people are interested in that type of SF now than used to be?
The series is extraordinarily entertaining, even with a bit (there is certainly some) of the techno babble and a tad of the physics removed.
I suppose it might be extraordinary if you're into westerns. But that's all it really is.. a human drama between tough guys, with some CGI thrown in to establish that it's taking place in the future in space, rather than 19th century Arizona.
Yeah too bad Cisco doesn't agree. Going after ebay ppl who sell used cisco stuff, and saying if you dare sell it on ebay it better not have any software, cause thats non-transferable
Have they actually succeeded? Sounds ridiculous. There's software in cars too (and printers, cameras, game consoles, microwaves, etc.), but that doesn't stop anyone from reselling them.
And that link you linked to. Try RTFA. Cause it says there are conflicting rulings by various courts.
Yeah.. so if you're in Missouri, YMMV. But that only has to do with software; physical objects are still protected by the first sale doctrine even in Missouri.
"Stots grants to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable (except as provided below) license"
Luckily, that's totally unenforceable. The first sale doctrine gives you the right to resell something you've bought, even software. Courts have even held that software is purchased, not licensed, for the purposes of the first sale doctrine, so there's no reason to think you're "licensing" this physical product when you exchange money for it.
Why ever would you have thought, past one instant of the series, that it WASN'T a western in space?
I was holding out hope based on all those glowing reviews I've seen here and elsewhere. You'd think if a bunch of self-described geeks rave about a show that takes in space, there'd probably be some technical or scientific aspect to the show.
I've never complained about a Firefly or Serenity post before, and I'm not asking the editors to stop posting them or the submitters to stop submitting them.
I would, however, like them to be placed in a category of their own so I can filter them out. Seems like these Serenity stories are coming faster than ever, and I know I'm not the only one who has no interest in this space western. (Let's hope the mods today aren't all Joss Whedon fans...)
I was finally interested, so I got Firefly Season 1 and watched it all in 2 days.
I wouldn't say I *hated* it, but I was completely unimpressed. I like science fiction, but there seems to be precious little of that in Firefly. It's basically a western in space, and I can't stand westerns. Blame it on growing up in a rural community where cliquish assholes came to school in belt buckles and cowboy hats.
I still have about 500 floppies laying around the house from 5+ years ago. Most of them have gone bad and are no longer usable.
Good point.. not only can floppy drives go bad, floppy disks are more likely to become unreadable (due to rot, stray magnets, misaligned heads, or static electricity) than CDs are. If a CD gets dirty, you can wash it in the sink; if it gets scratched, you can polish it.
Should people judge her based on who she used to be, what she did to survive within a specific context of existance?
No, they shouldn't judge her based on that. But that's a moral statement about what they should do, not what she should be able to do to keep them from judging. She has no right to erase the past; if she can't appeal to her employer's conscience and convince him that having made porn in the past won't interfere with doing her job today (or simply that it's none of his damn business), then he's an asshole and she should look somewhere else for employment.
But it appears that people don't have a right to remove their content from circulation. That is the problem.
That "problem" affects magazines, newspapers, books, movies, and every other form of publishing. The onus is on you to explain why webmasters should have the power to erase the past when those other publishers don't. Or do you think the New York Times should be allowed to recall every copy of their July 4th edition and sue anyone who refuses to give it back?
It is like jobs that do credit checks, to work as a secretary they want to know how much money you owe, and if you paid it off on time.
I agree that employers shouldn't discriminate against applicants based on details of their private lives, including credit checks and drug tests. The employer's interest in hiring people who are statistically less likely to steal or show up to work intoxicated, for example, does not outweigh the employees' right to privacy, especially since these behaviors can be prevented directly (security cameras and impairment tests). But I digress...
I've seen this type of agenda from a lot of liberals [...] What troubles me, is on RMS's long laundrey list of causes, there is nothing denouncing Hamas, Hezbollah, Isamic Jihad, etc. It seems somewhat anti-semitic to criticize Israel without bothering to criticize Israel's enemies, given their goals and tactics.
And I've seen that type of agenda from a lot of right-wingers: equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Israel is a country led by politicians, and criticizing their government's actions is a political statement, not a religious or ethnic one.
There's already plenty of criticism directed towards terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. They don't have to be denounced in every discussion of the conflict, just like al-Qaeda doesn't have to be denounced in every discussion of the 9/11 attacks - it's implied because we all know who they are and what they do.
Of course, "downloading" the music directly from a CD was simply too hard.
I know you were joking, but "downloading digital music" is about more than just being able to listen on your PC or your iPod - ripping tracks from a CD is no substitute. It means being able to hear any song instantly. If your friend sends you an IM saying "check out this song by band X", a minute later you can be hearing it, looking up related bands, and listening to their tracks too.
To do that with CDs, you'd have to (1) live at the record store, and (2) run back and forth between the shelves and listening stations, trying everyone's patience, if the store even has stations where you can listen to all the CDs they sell.
No, no, no. I don't know how you got modded up this far. (Well, actually, I do. Bashing Windows = instant karma.)
My point was that Windows is easy to use and insecure. Getting spyware is a sign of insecurity, not difficulty of use. People can start programs, edit documents, and change settings easily.
It's true that many of them don't know where to get antivirus and antispyware programs, or don't know that they need them at all, but that doesn't mean Windows is hard to use, it means the users are uneducated. And those uneducated users like Windows precisely because it is easy to use.
Slashdot Mirror
You can hide these topics, you know.
No, you can't.
These are the only sections I can disable in my Homepage preferences tab: Apache, Apple, Ask Slashdot, Book Reviews, BSD, Developers, Features, Games, Hardware, Interviews, IT, Linux, Politics, Science, Your Rights Online. I can also hide stories by author, but I don't think that'd help.
What is so difficult about moving a mouse and clicking on an icon?
You're mistaken if you think using and maintaining a Linux system requires nothing more than clicking on icons. Sooner or later you're going to need to know the location and format of certain config files, how to use several command line utilities, etc., even for tasks where Windows provides a GUI. Distributions like Ubuntu have gotten closer to your goal, but from what I've seen, they're not there yet.
Ever tried "cleaning out" a Microsoft Windows PC? You need to format and re-install - there is no cleaning out. Heck, most of the time it gets into such a state it won't even boot.
Yeah, actually, I have. Ad-aware, Spybot, and AVG take care of most everything. For the rest, there's regedit (though of course I wouldn't expect the average user to remove spyware that way).
I have never seen, nor heard of, spyware preventing a system from booting; in such a case, a repair installation might work, and if not, you'd need to reinstall. Much like any other OS.
Let me guess - you're a Windows 3.1 user?
Windows XP doesn't require you to set up an administrator password, and many (if not most) XP users don't have one.
Then if it continues, I start suggesting Linux. I show them via a demo system how easy it is to use, and they are usually sold on the idea pretty quickly.
I hope you offer to sell them those demo systems too.
A friend of mine installed Ubuntu on his new laptop and enlisted my help. Now, I've been using Linux for over 10 years, I've been programming since I was 5 years old, and I've got a wireless network at home... but even with the help of a HOWTO, I couldn't get WPA to work. We eventually had to downgrade his network to WEP just so he could get online.
Linux is plenty easy to use, once you have it set up. Getting it set up and working with all your existing hardware, I fear, is still beyond many users, especially the ones who would switch just because they can't stop themselves from installing Comet Cursor or punching the monkey.
What disgusts me about her is that she is clearly pandoring to a group that she does not represent in an attempt to soften her image. Yet if she ever got the top spot (if there really is a god, he/she/whatever must never let that happen), she'll turn back to the hard-as-concrete lib that she always has been -- up until a year or two ago, that is.
Well, to be fair, that can be said about many politicians from either side. If you compare the current President's actions to the claims he made before he was elected, there's plenty of contradiction. The very nature of politics is that you try to appeal to as many voters as possible... as long as you need them to get elected.
Ah, man. I'm still hurting from the liberal libertarian Democrat paradox.
["liberal"] I have no problem with paying taxes or regulation of business, since our laws and courts facilitated much of those businesses' success in the first place. I have no problem with spending that tax revenue on public services, such as health/retirement insurance or border security, in cases where the private sector can't provide them adequately to everyone who needs them. Government services obviously have some drawbacks, but they're different from the drawbacks of private services and sometimes preferable.
["libertarian"] But I absolutely do not want the government telling me what I can do with other consenting individuals, or what I can buy, sell, broadcast, distribute, put into my body or remove from my body (except for a handful of extreme cases--e.g. atomic bombs--and as long as no fraud is committed). Regulations shouldn't make a product or service unavailable unless there's a reasonable equivalent, nor should they be a substitute for learning about a product before you buy/use it or changing the damn channel. I want the government to step in, collect taxes, spend them on preventing force, fraud, and unnecessary discrimination (and providing a few other important services the market can't or won't address), and then get the hell out.
["Democrat"] I believe the two interests above are best served by a vote for this party, mainly because of the relative priorities I place on certain aspects and the amount of influence I think the kooks of each party wield. I don't think the recent bleating by Hillary and Schumer has enough support in the party to go anywhere; it's basically a publicity stunt for the idiots who care that they're "tough on red pixels".
If I think voting for another party will serve my interests better, I won't hesitate to vote for them instead, but unless the GOP kicks the religious right to the curb, or we reform our electoral system so third parties have some chance of getting power, I don't think that's likely to happen.
Do you really think the kind of person who (1) lets his PC fill up with spyware, then (2) chooses to spend $500 on a new PC instead of spending a couple hours cleaning it out, is going to want to learn Linux?
"OMG WTF happened to My Computer? Where's Internet Explorer? Why do I have to have a password?"
For those mods who clearly don't have a f*cking clue, Hillary (clearly not a conservative) is actively pursuing the current GTA3 situation and Tipper was one of the main activists who was responsible for the Senate hearings regarding language/violence/drugs in music several years back.
And don't forget Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who's railing against the upcoming game "25 to Life".
As far as I can tell, though, the problem comes when politicians from either side of the aisle try to pander to conservative "values voters". Republicans do it when those folks are their main base of support (as opposed to big business or libertarian voters); Democrats do it when they're trying to expand their base.
Hillary has been doing that a lot lately, and it's one reason why I, a liberal libertarian Democrat (wrap your brain around that one!), won't be voting for her if she ever makes a Presidential primary bid. This morality crusade does not represent what I, or most other liberals, believe in.
...or does fair use still exist? If they haven't, then ANY CD or DVD I buy I reserve the right to rip to another format for more easy use, keeping the original copy safe and secure. That simple. If they don't like it, petition the SCotUS to reverse itself. Otherwise, they can fark off.
Have you been living under a rock for the past 7 years? I'm surprised a Slashdot poster and 3 moderators would let this inaccuracy past, after all the publicity DRM has gotten here.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, commonly referred to as the DMCA, was signed in 1998 and makes it illegal to circumvent "access controls", even if you don't infringe the copyright on the protected content. The European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) was passed soon after and is basically equivalent to the DMCA in the countries where it's been implemented.
Fair use still exists, but you can't legally exercise your fair use rights if you have to break encryption to do so. Take DVDs, for example: the content on a DVD is encrypted. You can make a copy of that content (in encrypted form) under fair use, but it'll be useless because you can't copy the CSS key to a DVD-R. To make a copy you can actually play, you have to decrypt it - i.e. circumvent an access control. That's illegal.
The DMCA fundamentally shifted the balance of power WRT what you can do with content that's copyrighted by someone else. Instead of your rights being defined by the government, they can now be defined by the corporations that publish content, because whatever restrictions they decide to implement in hardware or software now have the force of law.
Here's fair-use compatible DRM: I get a file of information as usual such as name, address, phone, e-mail, secret questions I know the answer to, etc. I also pay them X$ for whatever. Public key encryption is used to ensure only the key holder can access it. I can copy the encrypted file to whatever device I like that can read and act on my key. Without my key, it won't work.
Other responses have already addressed why this system won't work. You seem to forget that the purpose of DRM is to keep you, the customer, from accessing the content you paid for, except in the specific ways the copyright holder wants you to. If all you need is PGP and a device to spit out the key, that's fine for you, but there's no way in hell Big Content will sign on.
On a large enough scale, vulcanism would be reduced. It's a win^3 situation.
Sure, you'd win, but what about Spock and T'Pol? What about Tuvok?
You're a Romulan in disguise! Admit it!
Sure the stuff hasn't been tested in court. But you think any companies would take it to court? Cisco would stop any support of thier products if they tried, and charge them massive money.
Yeah, if the situation got bad enough, I think they would fight it in court. And I think they'd win. If Cisco wants to bend your company over a stump because you bought a few used routers, and they drop your service contracts because you don't pay up, you can always find someone else to offer support - maybe they won't be as good at it, but that's capitalism.
I'd be far more concerned if Cisco were actually able to use the courts to force people to pay or to stop using preowned equipment.
So since no one can or is able to stand up in court against them, it will continue. Kinda like RIAA and thier 10,000 lawsuits. Not one of those cases have gone to trial. Most have settled for a couple grand.
The difference there is that most of those cases are open and shut. If you're sued for copyright infringement, and you know they have proof that you infringed their copyrights, there's no sense in fighting it, because you know what the outcome will be anyway.
In this case, Cisco has no leg to stand on, and if they sued you, you might even be able to get them to pay your legal bills. Sure, they might be able to intimidate a few customers just like SCO did, but people will realize it's a scam soon enough.
Remote Desktop isn't turned on by default in Windows XP SP2 either.
As for physical objects, someone posted a link where a company selling a physical object (some sorta woodworking tool) has a EULA for it when you buy it.
;)
Yes.. that was what I originally responded to, just a few posts up, when I said that part of the dovetail jig "license" agreement is unenforceable. Please try to keep up.
As for Cisco, yeah. [...] Essentially Cisco says its a liscense you are getting (not the ownership of your copy of the software) so they can control it anyway they want.
No, I think you misunderstood my question.
Cisco can write whatever they want on their web site, whether it's true or not. They can also set any conditions on their service contracts that they want.
My question is, has Cisco ever successfully sued someone for selling a router?
Just because they say you need to buy a license to use the software built into the router doesn't make it true. You can resell a router under the first sale doctrine, just like you can resell a car or a microwave, even though they both have software inside. When you buy a used car, you don't need to buy a license for the software that controls the engine; if the car manufacturer claimed you did, you could tell them to get bent, and they'd have no leg to stand on if they tried to sue.
You don't need a license to use software as long as you aren't making tangible copies (e.g. installing it on your hard drive). Now, Cisco may make you buy a license before they'll agree to sell you a service contract, but that's something entirely different.
Yeah, but that's only a small part of the story that happens to only entertain certain types of people to a heightened degree, such as ourselves, and we are the few.
That didn't seem to stop Star Trek from being successful for many years. Do you think fewer people are interested in that type of SF now than used to be?
The series is extraordinarily entertaining, even with a bit (there is certainly some) of the techno babble and a tad of the physics removed.
I suppose it might be extraordinary if you're into westerns. But that's all it really is.. a human drama between tough guys, with some CGI thrown in to establish that it's taking place in the future in space, rather than 19th century Arizona.
1: Why? I've seen geeks rave about 24, American Idol, and Survivor, for crying out loud.
None of those take place in outer space. Furthermore, it seems to me that westerns are about as ungeeky as you can get.
Yeah too bad Cisco doesn't agree.
Going after ebay ppl who sell used cisco stuff, and saying if you dare sell it on ebay it better not have any software, cause thats non-transferable
Have they actually succeeded? Sounds ridiculous. There's software in cars too (and printers, cameras, game consoles, microwaves, etc.), but that doesn't stop anyone from reselling them.
And that link you linked to. Try RTFA. Cause it says there are conflicting rulings by various courts.
Yeah.. so if you're in Missouri, YMMV. But that only has to do with software; physical objects are still protected by the first sale doctrine even in Missouri.
"Stots grants to you a non-exclusive, non-transferable (except as provided below) license"
Luckily, that's totally unenforceable. The first sale doctrine gives you the right to resell something you've bought, even software. Courts have even held that software is purchased, not licensed, for the purposes of the first sale doctrine, so there's no reason to think you're "licensing" this physical product when you exchange money for it.
Why ever would you have thought, past one instant of the series, that it WASN'T a western in space?
I was holding out hope based on all those glowing reviews I've seen here and elsewhere. You'd think if a bunch of self-described geeks rave about a show that takes in space, there'd probably be some technical or scientific aspect to the show.
I've never complained about a Firefly or Serenity post before, and I'm not asking the editors to stop posting them or the submitters to stop submitting them.
I would, however, like them to be placed in a category of their own so I can filter them out. Seems like these Serenity stories are coming faster than ever, and I know I'm not the only one who has no interest in this space western. (Let's hope the mods today aren't all Joss Whedon fans...)
I have a similar story:
/. articles about Firefly.
I had never seen the series.
Then I kept reading
I was finally interested, so I got Firefly Season 1 and watched it all in 2 days.
I wouldn't say I *hated* it, but I was completely unimpressed. I like science fiction, but there seems to be precious little of that in Firefly. It's basically a western in space, and I can't stand westerns. Blame it on growing up in a rural community where cliquish assholes came to school in belt buckles and cowboy hats.
I still have about 500 floppies laying around the house from 5+ years ago. Most of them have gone bad and are no longer usable.
Good point.. not only can floppy drives go bad, floppy disks are more likely to become unreadable (due to rot, stray magnets, misaligned heads, or static electricity) than CDs are. If a CD gets dirty, you can wash it in the sink; if it gets scratched, you can polish it.
You think that's bad? With Wells Fargo, I have to choose between English and Hmoob.
Should people judge her based on who she used to be, what she did to survive within a specific context of existance?
No, they shouldn't judge her based on that. But that's a moral statement about what they should do, not what she should be able to do to keep them from judging. She has no right to erase the past; if she can't appeal to her employer's conscience and convince him that having made porn in the past won't interfere with doing her job today (or simply that it's none of his damn business), then he's an asshole and she should look somewhere else for employment.
But it appears that people don't have a right to remove their content from circulation. That is the problem.
That "problem" affects magazines, newspapers, books, movies, and every other form of publishing. The onus is on you to explain why webmasters should have the power to erase the past when those other publishers don't. Or do you think the New York Times should be allowed to recall every copy of their July 4th edition and sue anyone who refuses to give it back?
It is like jobs that do credit checks, to work as a secretary they want to know how much money you owe, and if you paid it off on time.
I agree that employers shouldn't discriminate against applicants based on details of their private lives, including credit checks and drug tests. The employer's interest in hiring people who are statistically less likely to steal or show up to work intoxicated, for example, does not outweigh the employees' right to privacy, especially since these behaviors can be prevented directly (security cameras and impairment tests). But I digress...
I've seen this type of agenda from a lot of liberals [...] What troubles me, is on RMS's long laundrey list of causes, there is nothing denouncing Hamas, Hezbollah, Isamic Jihad, etc. It seems somewhat anti-semitic to criticize Israel without bothering to criticize Israel's enemies, given their goals and tactics.
And I've seen that type of agenda from a lot of right-wingers: equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Israel is a country led by politicians, and criticizing their government's actions is a political statement, not a religious or ethnic one.
There's already plenty of criticism directed towards terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. They don't have to be denounced in every discussion of the conflict, just like al-Qaeda doesn't have to be denounced in every discussion of the 9/11 attacks - it's implied because we all know who they are and what they do.
Best Buy has a lot of CDs for $12.99 or less.
Of course, "downloading" the music directly from a CD was simply too hard.
I know you were joking, but "downloading digital music" is about more than just being able to listen on your PC or your iPod - ripping tracks from a CD is no substitute. It means being able to hear any song instantly. If your friend sends you an IM saying "check out this song by band X", a minute later you can be hearing it, looking up related bands, and listening to their tracks too.
To do that with CDs, you'd have to (1) live at the record store, and (2) run back and forth between the shelves and listening stations, trying everyone's patience, if the store even has stations where you can listen to all the CDs they sell.
No, no, no. I don't know how you got modded up this far. (Well, actually, I do. Bashing Windows = instant karma.)
My point was that Windows is easy to use and insecure. Getting spyware is a sign of insecurity, not difficulty of use. People can start programs, edit documents, and change settings easily.
It's true that many of them don't know where to get antivirus and antispyware programs, or don't know that they need them at all, but that doesn't mean Windows is hard to use, it means the users are uneducated. And those uneducated users like Windows precisely because it is easy to use.