Uh, no. A very low positive inflation figure does not magically become "rampant" inflation just because you think the figure should actually be negative. Inflation is measured in absolute terms, not relative to your subjective expectations.
If there was no inflation, you would have seen what really happens during recessions - deflation of prices.
If there were no inflation, that would be zero inflation, with prices staying the same. If prices were falling, that would be deflation, not "no inflation".
And prices should deflate, home prices should fall dramatically, much lower than they are now, and many other things should also deflate in prices.
That would be catastrophic, so it's a good thing that isn't happening.
Deflation is a bad thing for anyone who isn't sitting on a big pile of cash. If you have any household debt, like the average American does, deflation effectively jacks up your interest rates, since you owe the same number of dollars but those dollars are now worth more (and harder to obtain). And it certainly doesn't help a slow economy -- why would I buy a widget today for $500 if I think it might be $450 next week, or $400 the week after that?
You are looking for price inflation, but prices ARE inflated, they should have been much lower right now if the Fed didn't put its dirty little hands into this.
That's not what inflation means. If you have to start redefining terms to make your arguments sound correct, maybe it's time to reconsider your arguments.
First, all of the economists who believe this should not be considered actual economists.
The problem in USA is lack of production, not lack of consumption.
Maybe it's a good thing Slashdot doesn't have an economics section. We ought to be listening to professional economic experts, not random contrarians who think all the experts are wrong and manage to get their theories modded up.
Businesses in the US are sitting on cash, rather than using it to expand, because they see that there isn't enough demand for what they're already producing. Producing even more stuff that customers aren't willing to buy would not help.
Another mental exercise: what will happen if everybody in the country was given a newly printed stash of cash, let's say a million dollars? Would that help to restart the economy or would that crash the currency?
Both. A million is surely too high, but if everybody in the country were given a more reasonable sum, that would go a long way toward restarting the economy. Even better would be if that money were targeted toward the people who are most likely to spend it immediately, which is why the real plans that economists have suggested involve things like food stamps and lower-income tax breaks that are targeted in that way.
Of-course the US Fed can print US dollars until they cut down the last tree, but with every printed dollar there is less and less incentive to hold US debt (in fact there is no incentive to hold it now but fear of causing a major sell off, which would result in a completely devalued US dollar.)
If foreign investors become less willing to invest in US debt, we'll see a rise in interest rates. But we aren't seeing that. Interest rates are as low as ever, and people keep buying US bonds because they see it as a safe investment.
which sounds as if it is a positive for the economy that stocks rise on 'Hope for Fed Action', when in reality, those who understand can tell you that "Fed Action" means more money printing/borrowing, which implies more inflation and debt, so rising stocks (and rising gold) in this situation means that there is an expectation of yet more inflation
You say "more inflation" as if we've been experiencing high inflation already, when in fact inflation has been unusually low for quite some time (lower than the Fed's target level, and it's only just now they've considered doing anything to bring it back up).
so rising stocks (and rising gold) in this situation means that there is an expectation of yet more inflation, so stocks will go up in nominal terms, but all US holdings will lose more purchasing power.
Many economists believe that since the main problem with our economy now is a lack of demand, an increased money supply and higher inflation is what we need to get it moving again. In light of that, what makes you think the rise in stocks wouldn't be able to outpace inflation?
Also, if you're going to mention the negative effects of inflation on purchasing power, isn't it also worth mentioning the positive effects of inflation on debt?
What "countless" domestic terrorists? You could probably count them all on one hand: The OK City bomber(s) McVeigh and his buddy, Eric Rudolph (the Atlanta Olympics bomber), the Unabomber (Ted Kaczinsky), the DC snipers, and... that's all I can think of.
You left out the anthrax attacks, but more importantly you're leaving out an awful lot of religion- and race-based terrorism. Anti-abortion terrorism alone accounts for over 25 attacks since the 90s. Wikipedia's articles on terrorism in the United States and anti-abortion violence have more complete lists.
Now, about those "countless Islamic terrorists"... if we stick to attacks that took place in the US, I think you'll find that they're rather easy to count.
There's only one group of terrorists that are in the habit of blowing themselves up along with their targets. [...] To compare 5 domestic terrorists to the countless Islamic terrorists in the past couple of decades is just ridiculous.
True, the GP's statement about "nuts willing to blow themselves up" was hyperbolic, but it's no less ridiculous to discount the countless other domestic terrorists just because they didn't blow themselves up.
Most domestic terrorists aren't suicide bombers, but that doesn't make them any better. (Worse, I'd say, because a terrorist who doesn't kill himself lives to attack another day.)
So by this logic all I need is a few hundred counterexamples and the point is refuted?
If there are more examples of attacks by foreign terrorists than domestic ones, then yes, you will have refuted his point.
I don't think you'll be able to do that, though. In fact, I suspect that domestic anti-abortion terrorist acts alone outnumber all attacks by foreigners.
Do you actually believe that or is this just hyperbole? Has there even been a single American suicide bomber?
In February of this year, a Texas man crashed an airplane into an IRS office building as some sort of tax protest. Even if you don't count that as a suicide bombing, it's undeniably terrorism. There's also the Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber.
Here's another school requesting $50,000 to buy 81 iPads on Pepsi's "Refresh Everything" site. And so far there's a good chance they might get it. What a waste.
That unopened box on the retail shelf explicitly identifies the software as being licensed.
Does it? I don't have a copy of the software this story is about, but I do have a few Microsoft retail boxes nearby and they don't say anything about the box or its contents being licensed rather than sold. Neither does the Amazon page where I bought them.
(It does say "you must accept the enclosed License Terms before you can use this software"... but of course that's irrelevant if I'm just reselling it without using it.)
Exactly which parts of the package do you believe are "not sold", by the way? Only the CD, or is the box itself also still supposedly the property of the developer?
How about the plastic wrap the box came in? I've never seen an EULA grant the right to throw that away, so if I don't own the software I buy, am I breaking the law by throwing away plastic wrap that doesn't belong to me?
Depends what you mean by "hacking", I guess. The installation procedure is more complicated than installing an app, and (for some phones) relies on exploiting bugs in the stock OS, but you don't have to open anything up.
Yeah, except that this isn't a "choice is bad" argument. If Android phones really gave you a choice, you could choose your own "flavor" (i.e. distribution) to install on whatever phone you want. Instead, you're confined to only the choices that your manufacturer and carrier decide to allow you.
Copyright infringement is not an exact analogy with theft, as is regularly pointed out on/. , but there are some valid comparisons to be made.
Indeed there are.
One valid comparison is that copyright infringement and theft are both illegal.
Another is that they both involve the actor getting something for free.
However, they fail the most important comparison. Theft is wrong not because it's illegal, or because the thief gets something for free, but because the victim of theft suffers a tangible loss. Before the act of theft, the victim had X; after the act, he no longer has X; he is now poorer than he used to be, thanks to the thief's actions. That's precisely why theft is wrong.
Copyright infringement lacks that quality. You can draw some superficial comparisons to theft, but it's missing the most important aspect of theft, the one that makes theft wrong. The comparison really only serves to cheapen actual theft.
Just because the buyer rejects the license does not mean they can unilaterally create an alternative one that gives them the authority to resell the product.
They're not unilaterally creating an "alternative" license -- they're reselling a product they bought, just like they're free to do with any other product they buy. They don't need a license for that. And yes, they bought it: a transaction in which money is exchanged for goods is a sale, absent any agreement to the contrary.
Whoever has told you that shrinkwrap or clickrap licenses are not binding has misinformed you. Courts have routinely ruled them binding.
Courts have routinely ruled that they're binding when you agree to them, meaning that if you click "Yes, I agree" or break a seal that says "Breaking this seal means you agree", then you're bound by the license. But you don't need to agree to any license in order to resell the unopened box.
Whoever told you that a contract can be "binding" on a party that hasn't agreed to it has misinformed you.
It is common to license software, it may be damn near always the case that consumer software is licensed.
On the other hand, the fact that laws exist granting rights to the "owner of a copy of a software program", as a separate entity from the copyright holder, suggests that it's reasonable to assume that exchanging money for a copy makes you that owner.
You are erroneously comparing physical goods and software.
No, I'm accurately observing that boxed copies of software are physical goods. When I trade my money for a cardboard box containing a manual and a CD, I become the owner of that box, manual, and CD.
Your argument is built upon the fallacy that the software was sold. The buyer's erroneous assumption that they were buying rather than licensing does not make it so.
You've got it backwards. When you exchange money for a product, that's a sale by default. The only reason to believe the software wasn't sold, but rather licensed, is the fact that the EULA asks the buyer to treat the transaction as something other than a sale!
You seem to be arguing that that particular section of the EULA should take effect even if the buyer rejects the whole thing.
You are alternatively arguing that the person was unaware of the license and rejected the license. You can't have it both ways.
I can, actually, because I'm referring to two different points in time. The buyer was unaware of the license terms at the time of the transaction, and he rejected the license once he opened the box and read its terms.
Actually a more accurate characterization of the situation is the seller says you get X and the buyer erroneously believes they are getting Z. Such a misunderstanding does not entitle the buyer to the normal privileges of Z.
Actually, it's more like the buyer believes he's getting Z -- because Z is what he gets every other time he exchanges his money for a physical good, and this transaction seemed no different -- and after he gets home and opens the box, the seller pops out and says "Surprise! You really got X!"
That's not a misunderstanding, it's bait-and-switch.
There is a long standing legal concept that if you act as if you have agreed then you may be bound to it.
Yes, and...? When, exactly, did this person act as if he had agreed to the license?
You don't need a license to resell, install, or use software that you buy. So if you do any of those things, you aren't "acting as if you have agreed"; you're just exercising your legal rights.
It is not unreasonable to enforce a licensing term that prohibits resale when the other person is attempting to sell that licensed product.
On the contrary, it is absolutely unreasonable to enforce a licensing term that prohibits resale when the other person rejected that license, did not agree to its terms, and has not taken any actions that require agreeing to that license.
To act as if this decision somehow allows any terms in any situation to be enforceable is just hysteria or political posturing.
No, not really.
There's a contract that says "if you agree to this, you get X and I get Y". You reject the contract, because you don't want or need X. And now you seem to be saying it's "reasonable" for the other guy to still get Y even though you rejected his offer.
But, how many stupids are there in the world? How many people exist that are too immature and not evolved enough to have the sense not to swallow the entire content? Who pays to clean up that mess?
The consumers can pay for it, by way of a tax on the drugs, like they already do for tobacco and alcohol.
You are honestly suggesting we legalize all drugs? No controls at all?
I'm not him, but I think that's the right idea. The problems caused by prohibition far outweigh the problems caused by the drugs themselves.
What about the medical profession, prescriptions exist for good reason, far more than just limiting supply to drug users.
Such as?
I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason to require prescriptions for anything except antibiotics (since improper use can create resistant strains).
You can be bound to the license if it is *reasonable* and you decide to use or sell the product.
Yes, it would appear so, and that's crazy.
It is absolutely insane to bind someone to the terms of a contract that he hasn't agreed to, no matter how reasonable that contract might be. It undermines the very concept of "contract", and we should be outraged.
In other words the court seems to have ruled that the default state is "undefined" and that a EULA is free to define the state as "sold" or "licensed".
In other words, that you can be bound by the terms of a contract you haven't agreed to, and maybe haven't even had a chance to read. Don't you think that's insane?
You can agree to a contract without knowing what that contract is, or even knowing that you're agreeing to one?
What a coincidence, because as you may or may not know, posting a comment on Slashdot is agreeing to my secret license agreement!
No, you don't get to see it yet, but you've already agreed to it. And boy, are you in for a surprise when you find out what you've agreed to. But hey, you shouldn't have posted the comment if you weren't prepared to agree to the terms, right?
If a user is ignorant of the GPL and never agreed to the GPL, does that mean they can violate the GPL?
The difference is that the GPL grants you rights that you don't already have under basic copyright law (e.g. the right to make your own copies or derived works and redistribute them). If you don't agree to the GPL, you don't get those rights. When you "violate the GPL" without having agreed to it, you're simply infringing copyright; the license agreement is irrelevant.
In other words: copyright law says "you can't copy this without permission from the author". The GPL says "I, the author, will give you that permission if you agree to these terms (providing source code, etc.)". If you don't agree, you don't get permission, and copying remains illegal.
The EULA in this case, on the other hand, takes away rights that you already have by default (possibly in addition to granting you other rights that you don't already have). If you don't agree to the EULA, you don't get whatever new rights it grants you, but neither do you lose the rights that you already had. Right?
In other words: copyright law says "you can resell this, but you can't do XYZ without permission from the author". The EULA says "I, the author, will let you do XYZ if you agree not to resell your copy". If you don't agree, you don't get to do XYZ but you still get to resell your copy -- at least under a sensible reading of the law.
Not just absurd - it's patently false, too. When you own a copy of a software program, 17 USC 117 grants you the explicit right to make copies (or adaptations) as necessary to run it.
I suppose YMMV in jurisdictions like the 9th Circuit where courts are playing along with the lie that you don't really "own" the disc that you paid for, but elsewhere in the US, you're fine.
Intel doesn't take much revenue from software. Nor AMD, nVidia, Dell, Apple....
I mean the constant progression of software keeps demand up for hardware. Components often become obsolete and need replacing long before they break.
The same kind of benefit accrues to manufacturers of consumable goods: deflation isn't going to make anyone think twice about buying toilet paper.
It might kill off economic models based on constant borrowing and overspending though.
Not just overspending, but any borrowing and spending, since deflation effectively raises interest rates. That means less demand for expensive, long-lived products like houses and cars.
It also means less business expansion, first because deflation discourages them from borrowing money (higher effective interest rates), and second because deflation discourages investment (I don't want a piece of a company whose revenue is falling).
So it might even work out better than what we have now.
Well, it's not like this hasn't been tried. We've seen deflation in action here and elsewhere, and it hasn't been beneficial.
Most industries face that situation to some extent: manufacturing gets more efficient and manufactured goods get cheaper. Deflation makes it worse, though.
The computer industry has the evolution of software to continue driving sales. Most industries don't have an equivalent. A ten year old car still works fine and gets you to all the same places as a brand new car.
Slashdot Mirror
The inflation is rampant.
Uh, no. A very low positive inflation figure does not magically become "rampant" inflation just because you think the figure should actually be negative. Inflation is measured in absolute terms, not relative to your subjective expectations.
If there was no inflation, you would have seen what really happens during recessions - deflation of prices.
If there were no inflation, that would be zero inflation, with prices staying the same. If prices were falling, that would be deflation, not "no inflation".
And prices should deflate, home prices should fall dramatically, much lower than they are now, and many other things should also deflate in prices.
That would be catastrophic, so it's a good thing that isn't happening.
Deflation is a bad thing for anyone who isn't sitting on a big pile of cash. If you have any household debt, like the average American does, deflation effectively jacks up your interest rates, since you owe the same number of dollars but those dollars are now worth more (and harder to obtain). And it certainly doesn't help a slow economy -- why would I buy a widget today for $500 if I think it might be $450 next week, or $400 the week after that?
You are looking for price inflation, but prices ARE inflated, they should have been much lower right now if the Fed didn't put its dirty little hands into this.
That's not what inflation means. If you have to start redefining terms to make your arguments sound correct, maybe it's time to reconsider your arguments.
First, all of the economists who believe this should not be considered actual economists.
The problem in USA is lack of production, not lack of consumption.
Maybe it's a good thing Slashdot doesn't have an economics section. We ought to be listening to professional economic experts, not random contrarians who think all the experts are wrong and manage to get their theories modded up.
Businesses in the US are sitting on cash, rather than using it to expand, because they see that there isn't enough demand for what they're already producing. Producing even more stuff that customers aren't willing to buy would not help.
Another mental exercise: what will happen if everybody in the country was given a newly printed stash of cash, let's say a million dollars? Would that help to restart the economy or would that crash the currency?
Both. A million is surely too high, but if everybody in the country were given a more reasonable sum, that would go a long way toward restarting the economy. Even better would be if that money were targeted toward the people who are most likely to spend it immediately, which is why the real plans that economists have suggested involve things like food stamps and lower-income tax breaks that are targeted in that way.
Of-course the US Fed can print US dollars until they cut down the last tree, but with every printed dollar there is less and less incentive to hold US debt (in fact there is no incentive to hold it now but fear of causing a major sell off, which would result in a completely devalued US dollar.)
If foreign investors become less willing to invest in US debt, we'll see a rise in interest rates. But we aren't seeing that. Interest rates are as low as ever, and people keep buying US bonds because they see it as a safe investment.
which sounds as if it is a positive for the economy that stocks rise on 'Hope for Fed Action', when in reality, those who understand can tell you that "Fed Action" means more money printing/borrowing, which implies more inflation and debt, so rising stocks (and rising gold) in this situation means that there is an expectation of yet more inflation
You say "more inflation" as if we've been experiencing high inflation already, when in fact inflation has been unusually low for quite some time (lower than the Fed's target level, and it's only just now they've considered doing anything to bring it back up).
so rising stocks (and rising gold) in this situation means that there is an expectation of yet more inflation, so stocks will go up in nominal terms, but all US holdings will lose more purchasing power.
Many economists believe that since the main problem with our economy now is a lack of demand, an increased money supply and higher inflation is what we need to get it moving again. In light of that, what makes you think the rise in stocks wouldn't be able to outpace inflation?
Also, if you're going to mention the negative effects of inflation on purchasing power, isn't it also worth mentioning the positive effects of inflation on debt?
What "countless" domestic terrorists? You could probably count them all on one hand: The OK City bomber(s) McVeigh and his buddy, Eric Rudolph (the Atlanta Olympics bomber), the Unabomber (Ted Kaczinsky), the DC snipers, and... that's all I can think of.
You left out the anthrax attacks, but more importantly you're leaving out an awful lot of religion- and race-based terrorism. Anti-abortion terrorism alone accounts for over 25 attacks since the 90s. Wikipedia's articles on terrorism in the United States and anti-abortion violence have more complete lists.
Now, about those "countless Islamic terrorists"... if we stick to attacks that took place in the US, I think you'll find that they're rather easy to count.
There's only one group of terrorists that are in the habit of blowing themselves up along with their targets. [...] To compare 5 domestic terrorists to the countless Islamic terrorists in the past couple of decades is just ridiculous.
True, the GP's statement about "nuts willing to blow themselves up" was hyperbolic, but it's no less ridiculous to discount the countless other domestic terrorists just because they didn't blow themselves up.
Most domestic terrorists aren't suicide bombers, but that doesn't make them any better. (Worse, I'd say, because a terrorist who doesn't kill himself lives to attack another day.)
So by this logic all I need is a few hundred counterexamples and the point is refuted?
If there are more examples of attacks by foreign terrorists than domestic ones, then yes, you will have refuted his point.
I don't think you'll be able to do that, though. In fact, I suspect that domestic anti-abortion terrorist acts alone outnumber all attacks by foreigners.
Do you actually believe that or is this just hyperbole? Has there even been a single American suicide bomber?
In February of this year, a Texas man crashed an airplane into an IRS office building as some sort of tax protest. Even if you don't count that as a suicide bombing, it's undeniably terrorism. There's also the Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber.
If they weren't willing to pay for it, why should they get to enjoy/use it?
If they aren't harming you by using it, why should you be able to force them to stop?
Here's another school requesting $50,000 to buy 81 iPads on Pepsi's "Refresh Everything" site. And so far there's a good chance they might get it. What a waste.
That unopened box on the retail shelf explicitly identifies the software as being licensed.
Does it? I don't have a copy of the software this story is about, but I do have a few Microsoft retail boxes nearby and they don't say anything about the box or its contents being licensed rather than sold. Neither does the Amazon page where I bought them.
(It does say "you must accept the enclosed License Terms before you can use this software"... but of course that's irrelevant if I'm just reselling it without using it.)
Exactly which parts of the package do you believe are "not sold", by the way? Only the CD, or is the box itself also still supposedly the property of the developer?
How about the plastic wrap the box came in? I've never seen an EULA grant the right to throw that away, so if I don't own the software I buy, am I breaking the law by throwing away plastic wrap that doesn't belong to me?
Depends what you mean by "hacking", I guess. The installation procedure is more complicated than installing an app, and (for some phones) relies on exploiting bugs in the stock OS, but you don't have to open anything up.
OK, they may have names, but as I said you go to the store and you don't know what you are getting.
er.. you'd buy a phone without trying it out first? They're all set up there at the store for you to play with.
The problem is they aren't naming their distros
Sure they are, with names like "HTC Sense" and "Motoblur".
Yeah, except that this isn't a "choice is bad" argument. If Android phones really gave you a choice, you could choose your own "flavor" (i.e. distribution) to install on whatever phone you want. Instead, you're confined to only the choices that your manufacturer and carrier decide to allow you.
Not true.
Copyright infringement is not an exact analogy with theft, as is regularly pointed out on /. , but there are some valid comparisons to be made.
Indeed there are.
One valid comparison is that copyright infringement and theft are both illegal.
Another is that they both involve the actor getting something for free.
However, they fail the most important comparison. Theft is wrong not because it's illegal, or because the thief gets something for free, but because the victim of theft suffers a tangible loss. Before the act of theft, the victim had X; after the act, he no longer has X; he is now poorer than he used to be, thanks to the thief's actions. That's precisely why theft is wrong.
Copyright infringement lacks that quality. You can draw some superficial comparisons to theft, but it's missing the most important aspect of theft, the one that makes theft wrong. The comparison really only serves to cheapen actual theft.
Just because the buyer rejects the license does not mean they can unilaterally create an alternative one that gives them the authority to resell the product.
They're not unilaterally creating an "alternative" license -- they're reselling a product they bought, just like they're free to do with any other product they buy. They don't need a license for that. And yes, they bought it: a transaction in which money is exchanged for goods is a sale, absent any agreement to the contrary.
Whoever has told you that shrinkwrap or clickrap licenses are not binding has misinformed you. Courts have routinely ruled them binding.
Courts have routinely ruled that they're binding when you agree to them, meaning that if you click "Yes, I agree" or break a seal that says "Breaking this seal means you agree", then you're bound by the license. But you don't need to agree to any license in order to resell the unopened box.
Whoever told you that a contract can be "binding" on a party that hasn't agreed to it has misinformed you.
It is common to license software, it may be damn near always the case that consumer software is licensed.
On the other hand, the fact that laws exist granting rights to the "owner of a copy of a software program", as a separate entity from the copyright holder, suggests that it's reasonable to assume that exchanging money for a copy makes you that owner.
You are erroneously comparing physical goods and software.
No, I'm accurately observing that boxed copies of software are physical goods. When I trade my money for a cardboard box containing a manual and a CD, I become the owner of that box, manual, and CD.
Your argument is built upon the fallacy that the software was sold. The buyer's erroneous assumption that they were buying rather than licensing does not make it so.
You've got it backwards. When you exchange money for a product, that's a sale by default. The only reason to believe the software wasn't sold, but rather licensed, is the fact that the EULA asks the buyer to treat the transaction as something other than a sale!
You seem to be arguing that that particular section of the EULA should take effect even if the buyer rejects the whole thing.
You are alternatively arguing that the person was unaware of the license and rejected the license. You can't have it both ways.
I can, actually, because I'm referring to two different points in time. The buyer was unaware of the license terms at the time of the transaction, and he rejected the license once he opened the box and read its terms.
Actually a more accurate characterization of the situation is the seller says you get X and the buyer erroneously believes they are getting Z. Such a misunderstanding does not entitle the buyer to the normal privileges of Z.
Actually, it's more like the buyer believes he's getting Z -- because Z is what he gets every other time he exchanges his money for a physical good, and this transaction seemed no different -- and after he gets home and opens the box, the seller pops out and says "Surprise! You really got X!"
That's not a misunderstanding, it's bait-and-switch.
There is a long standing legal concept that if you act as if you have agreed then you may be bound to it.
Yes, and...? When, exactly, did this person act as if he had agreed to the license?
You don't need a license to resell, install, or use software that you buy. So if you do any of those things, you aren't "acting as if you have agreed"; you're just exercising your legal rights.
It is not unreasonable to enforce a licensing term that prohibits resale when the other person is attempting to sell that licensed product.
On the contrary, it is absolutely unreasonable to enforce a licensing term that prohibits resale when the other person rejected that license, did not agree to its terms, and has not taken any actions that require agreeing to that license.
To act as if this decision somehow allows any terms in any situation to be enforceable is just hysteria or political posturing.
No, not really.
There's a contract that says "if you agree to this, you get X and I get Y". You reject the contract, because you don't want or need X. And now you seem to be saying it's "reasonable" for the other guy to still get Y even though you rejected his offer.
You can't seriously believe that.
But, how many stupids are there in the world? How many people exist that are too immature and not evolved enough to have the sense not to swallow the entire content? Who pays to clean up that mess?
The consumers can pay for it, by way of a tax on the drugs, like they already do for tobacco and alcohol.
You are honestly suggesting we legalize all drugs? No controls at all?
I'm not him, but I think that's the right idea. The problems caused by prohibition far outweigh the problems caused by the drugs themselves.
What about the medical profession, prescriptions exist for good reason, far more than just limiting supply to drug users.
Such as?
I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason to require prescriptions for anything except antibiotics (since improper use can create resistant strains).
You can be bound to the license if it is *reasonable* and you decide to use or sell the product.
Yes, it would appear so, and that's crazy.
It is absolutely insane to bind someone to the terms of a contract that he hasn't agreed to, no matter how reasonable that contract might be. It undermines the very concept of "contract", and we should be outraged.
In other words the court seems to have ruled that the default state is "undefined" and that a EULA is free to define the state as "sold" or "licensed".
In other words, that you can be bound by the terms of a contract you haven't agreed to, and maybe haven't even had a chance to read. Don't you think that's insane?
BTW, buying the software is agreeing to the EULA.
You can agree to a contract without knowing what that contract is, or even knowing that you're agreeing to one?
What a coincidence, because as you may or may not know, posting a comment on Slashdot is agreeing to my secret license agreement!
No, you don't get to see it yet, but you've already agreed to it. And boy, are you in for a surprise when you find out what you've agreed to. But hey, you shouldn't have posted the comment if you weren't prepared to agree to the terms, right?
If a user is ignorant of the GPL and never agreed to the GPL, does that mean they can violate the GPL?
The difference is that the GPL grants you rights that you don't already have under basic copyright law (e.g. the right to make your own copies or derived works and redistribute them). If you don't agree to the GPL, you don't get those rights. When you "violate the GPL" without having agreed to it, you're simply infringing copyright; the license agreement is irrelevant.
In other words: copyright law says "you can't copy this without permission from the author". The GPL says "I, the author, will give you that permission if you agree to these terms (providing source code, etc.)". If you don't agree, you don't get permission, and copying remains illegal.
The EULA in this case, on the other hand, takes away rights that you already have by default (possibly in addition to granting you other rights that you don't already have). If you don't agree to the EULA, you don't get whatever new rights it grants you, but neither do you lose the rights that you already had. Right?
In other words: copyright law says "you can resell this, but you can't do XYZ without permission from the author". The EULA says "I, the author, will let you do XYZ if you agree not to resell your copy". If you don't agree, you don't get to do XYZ but you still get to resell your copy -- at least under a sensible reading of the law.
Not just absurd - it's patently false, too. When you own a copy of a software program, 17 USC 117 grants you the explicit right to make copies (or adaptations) as necessary to run it.
I suppose YMMV in jurisdictions like the 9th Circuit where courts are playing along with the lie that you don't really "own" the disc that you paid for, but elsewhere in the US, you're fine.
Intel doesn't take much revenue from software. Nor AMD, nVidia, Dell, Apple....
I mean the constant progression of software keeps demand up for hardware. Components often become obsolete and need replacing long before they break.
The same kind of benefit accrues to manufacturers of consumable goods: deflation isn't going to make anyone think twice about buying toilet paper.
It might kill off economic models based on constant borrowing and overspending though.
Not just overspending, but any borrowing and spending, since deflation effectively raises interest rates. That means less demand for expensive, long-lived products like houses and cars.
It also means less business expansion, first because deflation discourages them from borrowing money (higher effective interest rates), and second because deflation discourages investment (I don't want a piece of a company whose revenue is falling).
So it might even work out better than what we have now.
Well, it's not like this hasn't been tried. We've seen deflation in action here and elsewhere, and it hasn't been beneficial.
Most industries face that situation to some extent: manufacturing gets more efficient and manufactured goods get cheaper. Deflation makes it worse, though.
The computer industry has the evolution of software to continue driving sales. Most industries don't have an equivalent. A ten year old car still works fine and gets you to all the same places as a brand new car.