I immediately thought of a myriad of ways they could implement this (disastrously) in the name of stopping "cheaters."
-No moving to a new server that X people have moved to this day/week/month
-No moving to a new server with X people already existing
-No moving to a new server more than X times per day/week/month
-No moving to a new server unless you are level/age X
-No moving to a new server because the server move daemon is down...
Your example doesn't make sense. Once you sign the lease, that property is (temporarily) yours. Your right to be sovereign on your own property trumps whatever he made you sign. He can't very well require you to hide drugs in your apartment, can he? (just as illegal as owning livestock)
And I'm pretty sure I didn't invent the right to property. In fact, it's mentioned in the fifth amendment. A corporation telling limiting you in the use of your property should be the same as them trying to take it from you entirely.
Of course, the above is only my opinion. Hence my mention that courts haven't seen it the same way in regards to the liscence of digital property.
That would be undouted, wholehearted yes.
By all means, keep an eye out for updates that will patch vulnerabilities. But research them (both from the company's page and out on the interwebs) before installing. This may save you from the following problems:
1) Loss of necessary function in existing program (intentional or not)
2) Conflicts involving said program and others on your system
3) The (though currently unlikely) introduction of a vulnerability whereby a virus can spoof the auto-update routine.
Invalid analogy. Contracts do not allow you to sign away certain rights. The right to use your own personal property as you see fit should probably be one of them.
The question of course, is whether or not the courts will eventually see your personal itunes.mp3 and word.doc files in this manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, so just outright bankrupt them? I like the way you think, citizen 4678707! Keep it up and there might be an extra choclate ration in it for you.
The right to property, that "The Law" can force someone to change their business because it might prevent crime.
I immediately thought of a myriad of ways they could implement this (disastrously) in the name of stopping "cheaters."
-No moving to a new server that X people have moved to this day/week/month
-No moving to a new server with X people already existing
-No moving to a new server more than X times per day/week/month
-No moving to a new server unless you are level/age X
-No moving to a new server because the server move daemon is down...
within certain restrictions
I see that and immediately think: "bend over, here it comes..."
FOB = Fresh Off the Boat (slang for immigrants coming from Asia to America)
I think it's a little older than that. We don't even have boats like that anymore.
It's an unelected international body. Therefore not binding law. Right?
The career chip police. You gotta do what ya gotta do.
Excellent riposte :)
So, how long do you think we have until burka laws start getting passed?
Seriously, it's amazing how anything questionable on this site gets pointed back at Bush
That's called "responsibility." When you're in charge of the country, yes, you have to answer for everything that goes on.
Well, at least, that's the idea...
No need to cry ...over spilled milk.
Pfft. I only cry over spilled blue milk.
Let's crack Microsoft Word to make Clippy flash us on command. We can finally bring those fuckers down!
Your example doesn't make sense. Once you sign the lease, that property is (temporarily) yours. Your right to be sovereign on your own property trumps whatever he made you sign. He can't very well require you to hide drugs in your apartment, can he? (just as illegal as owning livestock)
And I'm pretty sure I didn't invent the right to property. In fact, it's mentioned in the fifth amendment. A corporation telling limiting you in the use of your property should be the same as them trying to take it from you entirely.
Of course, the above is only my opinion. Hence my mention that courts haven't seen it the same way in regards to the liscence of digital property.
That would be undouted, wholehearted yes. By all means, keep an eye out for updates that will patch vulnerabilities. But research them (both from the company's page and out on the interwebs) before installing. This may save you from the following problems:
1) Loss of necessary function in existing program (intentional or not)
2) Conflicts involving said program and others on your system
3) The (though currently unlikely) introduction of a vulnerability whereby a virus can spoof the auto-update routine.
That's just another ter'ist attack or war away from hitting an easy 51% again
Colombia's narco-guerrila terrorists, the FARCS
That's the goofiest thing I've heard all week.
You're far too trusting. Letting random strangers automagically execute code on your machine?
I can't wait for this month's issue of Mozilla Jihad to come in the mail
Invalid analogy. Contracts do not allow you to sign away certain rights. The right to use your own personal property as you see fit should probably be one of them.
.mp3 and word .doc files in this manner.
The question of course, is whether or not the courts will eventually see your personal itunes
Raise AdBlock, Mr. Worf. Continual fire, all bannings.
we'll get a little closer to becoming a third world economy.
Hello! Anybody home, Mcfly? We're running under a deficit. That means we have negative money.
That is why you're not supposed to let people with an emotional interest have any say in an important decision.
Because the end user is already paying for the call. Verizon is trying to get the ISP to pay as well, on the exact same data.
actually, you make a pretty good point
Can I buy a system without paying the $100 XP tax, considering I already own a legitimate copy of windows?