No, it is a free game, if he didn't have a license to play it, they can kick him off that is all.
You don't have to have special contractual permission to do things for free. If you didn't provide any "consideration" (=money) to play the game, then the terms are only what they're allowed to do, it is just notice of their policies, it isn't a contract at all.
They can call it a "license" till they are blue in the face, but if you're not republishing their work you don't need any "license."
Also, their DMCA request was bogus and has nothing to do with EULAs.
"Free" software can be "used" however long it remains functioning. That's just the way it is. Sorry. It isn't enough to put a sign on your software that says, "Payment of $35 due if you use this software past 30 days." That doesn't create a requirement to pay anything! It is up to the software creator to build the software to cease functioning. OTOH, if you pay $5 for a 30 day paid trial, and it says the same thing, well then you do have a contract since you paid money and received something for it, so now they can hold you to the $35 payment.
"Piracy" is a criminal act because it involves theft of physical property on the high seas. Pirates are best dealt with by throwing them overboard, IMO.
No, your understanding of the US legal system is wrong. I am not a lawyer, so so is mine! But here is my understanding.
Parents are financially responsible for their children. Legal responsibility does not otherwise pass through to them. The contract is either valid for the minor, or it isn't. Contracts with children are often valid to the extent that the service was provided, but provisions restricting the cancellation of the contract don't apply. Also, the company is usually required to have to considered the person's age and if the contract was reasonable for a child. So if a child orders a steak dinner, it is reasonable to expect them to pay for it. If they order a $5000 "world's biggest cake" then the service provider would likely need to verify the order, either by verifying ability to pay, or talking to his parents.
For example, cell phone charges in a game are not valid if the child might not have realized they were making repeat purchases. But simply buying a game is a legit charge. Children can enter into financial contracts, but there is an increased requirement of reasonableness, and a decreased expectation that they understood what they were agreeing to. If everybody agrees they understood a contract, and the contract is reasonable, then it is valid.
Like most libertarians, you were unable even to tell if I had expressed an opinion or policy proposal, or if I was simply stating a fact.
The answer to your question is, hey dillweed, I didn't say if you should be able to or not, argue with yourself in the mirror not in "reply".
Oh, and if your State's laws tell you to just stand there and die at a broken traffic light, you're really from an exceptional backwater. In my State, a malfunctioning traffic signal is legally equivalent to a stop sign in every direction; which actually means not only that the pedestrian doesn't need to wait for a light, it actually means they can cross at any time and cars are required to yield!
The funniest part is that you agreed with what I said, but demanded I argue anyways. Yeah, happy to oblige, that makes you wrong by definition.
Programmed in the sense of "programming your VCR," or "television programming," not programming as in writing computer software.
program [proh-gram, -gruh m] noun 1. a plan of action to accomplish a specified end: a school lunch program. 2. a plan or schedule of activities, procedures, etc., to be followed. ...
It happens to me every time I use Google Maps for directions, because I keep location off until I need it, and I'm usually indoors with no GPS (and I don't let it use network location) and so it thinks I am starting from wherever I last used the GPS. Which is usually some remote place in the mountains, wherever I was parked when I returned to my vehicle and turned of GPS.
Unlike the Russian rocket though, it updates automatically as soon as I walk outside.
While that sounds right, and I thought the same thing at first, it may be that they also have newer upper stages with better error detection electronics.
We don't know. It might be accurate and a clue where they said too much, or it might be a mistake of translation or reporting.
Just because it is "custom made for each launch" doesn't mean all the parts were manufactured this year. Also, we don't know if the parts they claim to use are really the parts they do use; and they provide their own oversight so no Volkswagen type tricks would be needed.
We have no way of knowing if the coverage reflects reality or not, which is also true generally of all stories about rocket and satellite failures. We only know what they tell us, and what they leaked to somebody else to tell us, and what is bullshit but reported anyways. We have to choose between being credulous of the most mainstream reports, or credulous of the unsourced.
It is as simple as this: People against him using his legit enforcement powers want to muddy the moral waters to make him look bad, and even though this harms everybody involved, they're happy to drive users away with confusion as long as they can phrase it as if they have the moral high ground and are fighting the good fight.
They may not have considered the moral implications of their combination of licensing and code-sharing terms, but I sure did, and for clarity: When I release code under a Free Software license, I considered the license terms before selecting the license! I promise! People who want to add moral arguments after the fact should really try harder before the act in the first place; if the license terms were the terms they wanted, no moral addendum would be necessary.
I think it is good for people to remember that science fiction isn't only Star Trek, but also Snow Crash.
Surely we could do better than the current copyright regime, and surely we could do worse too.
What worries me about the "advisory" nonsense is that it muddies casual understanding of what the rules are without actually stopping anything or giving real clarity; to the extent a reader thinks it brings clarity, they're most likely just misunderstanding more!
It is perhaps a good policy, but it is unfortunate that the response is mostly about ideology instead of about the specific terms of license contracts with specific vendors who don't hold the copyright to everything under that license. You won't get sued by these companies prior to the deadline, but you might really still get sued over the same software.
It is the same here in the US, the dropping of it on the ground isn't speech, so it doesn't matter what the content of the pamphlet is.
Freedom of the Press, which is how our free speech is actually worded, prevents the government from measuring the content of the speech of the item dropped on the ground; they're required to solely assess if you abandoned it in public in violation of the littering law. They can't look at it and respond differently based on what it says unless it contains threats, evidence of a crime, or something similar.
If they were dropping them on the ground and then picking them back up, that would be protected, and would probably be considered speech. But actions are only considered speech to the extent that they are communicative; the non-communicative portion involved in the abandonment of said items gets left out of the speech analysis. So dropping it on the ground might be speech, but leaving it there is certainly not.
"Selective enforcement" can be a form of oppression, but when they are "selectively" doing enforcement against the people whose crime attracts the most attention, then it isn't. It just means he was an idiot for brazenly doing something that you have to do quietly to get away with.
The lack of a cellular network in their cellular network should be no cause for concern, because it just means they're implementing the latest Clientless infrastructure advancements. This is the future!
It isn't a non-sequitur at all, I simply didn't explain all the details. I incorrectly presumed you understand and be able to fill in the implicit details.
Non-sequitur means you didn't understand. When facing things you don't understand, the correct response would be to ask questions to increase your knowledge, instead of just deciding that everything you don't yet understand is absurd.
Also, profitability is not the antonym for bankruptcy. If you have positive cash flow you're probably not bankrupt yet, and you seem to recognize that cash flow was implied in my statement.
Instead of presuming parts that weren't explained in excruciating detail are false, consider instead what else would need to be true to make the statement true; that's how you can give yourself a chance to comprehend technical discussions.
You would have to look somewhere other than the network names to know if a network is public or private, I recommend considering drawing a network map and figuring out what network you're actually on! Instead of just guessing by the names.
It is like walking down a private street and insisting it is a public street because the houses have numbers.
No, my sport is chess and nobody cares about your rules. Nobody cares if you claim your proposed rule really is used in your neighborhood.
Why would you be making rules about what I say, anyways? Surely I would make my own rules.
You say a bunch of weird words, but they only underscore that you did not comprehend the comment you were replying to. Try again next time! (I know you will!)
Google doesn't own shit on people's private networks, that's just you not comprehending the contexts where a standard applies, and the contexts where their ownership of imaginary property exists.
My first question, is 6.5% error rate considered good? Surely it has uses, but it seems to be good for "things that aren't important enough to write down right now, but I want a half-ass transcription just in case."
Doesn't seem to be quite what an assistance would be writing down, one would hope.
Also, electrical current is heat. See also: Ohm's Law, Heat Exchanger. (hint: when considering heat dissipation, you left out conduction to everywhere other than air. You're missing convection in space, so you lose the fan on top of the heat sink, but you don't lose conduction so your heat sinks still all work.)
And people can hear you scream if you die in an explosion, or at least your suit gasses are released while you're screaming. (Yes, explosions make sound in space; duh. If you think they don't, go look up "explosion" and keep an eye out for the word "gasses" and a description of what happens to them. Then look up "sound" and see what it is.)
Slashdot Mirror
My auto liability insurance will hire and pay the lawyer if you sue me for damages related to my operating a motor vehicle.
No, it is a free game, if he didn't have a license to play it, they can kick him off that is all.
You don't have to have special contractual permission to do things for free. If you didn't provide any "consideration" (=money) to play the game, then the terms are only what they're allowed to do, it is just notice of their policies, it isn't a contract at all.
They can call it a "license" till they are blue in the face, but if you're not republishing their work you don't need any "license."
Also, their DMCA request was bogus and has nothing to do with EULAs.
"Free" software can be "used" however long it remains functioning. That's just the way it is. Sorry. It isn't enough to put a sign on your software that says, "Payment of $35 due if you use this software past 30 days." That doesn't create a requirement to pay anything! It is up to the software creator to build the software to cease functioning. OTOH, if you pay $5 for a 30 day paid trial, and it says the same thing, well then you do have a contract since you paid money and received something for it, so now they can hold you to the $35 payment.
"Piracy" is a criminal act because it involves theft of physical property on the high seas. Pirates are best dealt with by throwing them overboard, IMO.
No, your understanding of the US legal system is wrong. I am not a lawyer, so so is mine! But here is my understanding.
Parents are financially responsible for their children. Legal responsibility does not otherwise pass through to them. The contract is either valid for the minor, or it isn't. Contracts with children are often valid to the extent that the service was provided, but provisions restricting the cancellation of the contract don't apply. Also, the company is usually required to have to considered the person's age and if the contract was reasonable for a child. So if a child orders a steak dinner, it is reasonable to expect them to pay for it. If they order a $5000 "world's biggest cake" then the service provider would likely need to verify the order, either by verifying ability to pay, or talking to his parents.
For example, cell phone charges in a game are not valid if the child might not have realized they were making repeat purchases. But simply buying a game is a legit charge. Children can enter into financial contracts, but there is an increased requirement of reasonableness, and a decreased expectation that they understood what they were agreeing to. If everybody agrees they understood a contract, and the contract is reasonable, then it is valid.
Like most libertarians, you were unable even to tell if I had expressed an opinion or policy proposal, or if I was simply stating a fact.
The answer to your question is, hey dillweed, I didn't say if you should be able to or not, argue with yourself in the mirror not in "reply".
Oh, and if your State's laws tell you to just stand there and die at a broken traffic light, you're really from an exceptional backwater. In my State, a malfunctioning traffic signal is legally equivalent to a stop sign in every direction; which actually means not only that the pedestrian doesn't need to wait for a light, it actually means they can cross at any time and cars are required to yield!
The funniest part is that you agreed with what I said, but demanded I argue anyways. Yeah, happy to oblige, that makes you wrong by definition.
Programmed in the sense of "programming your VCR," or "television programming," not programming as in writing computer software.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
It happens to me every time I use Google Maps for directions, because I keep location off until I need it, and I'm usually indoors with no GPS (and I don't let it use network location) and so it thinks I am starting from wherever I last used the GPS. Which is usually some remote place in the mountains, wherever I was parked when I returned to my vehicle and turned of GPS.
Unlike the Russian rocket though, it updates automatically as soon as I walk outside.
whats russian for YOUR FIRED!!
I don't know, but the unemployment insurance is called Gulag.
While that sounds right, and I thought the same thing at first, it may be that they also have newer upper stages with better error detection electronics.
We don't know. It might be accurate and a clue where they said too much, or it might be a mistake of translation or reporting.
Just because it is "custom made for each launch" doesn't mean all the parts were manufactured this year. Also, we don't know if the parts they claim to use are really the parts they do use; and they provide their own oversight so no Volkswagen type tricks would be needed.
We have no way of knowing if the coverage reflects reality or not, which is also true generally of all stories about rocket and satellite failures. We only know what they tell us, and what they leaked to somebody else to tell us, and what is bullshit but reported anyways. We have to choose between being credulous of the most mainstream reports, or credulous of the unsourced.
It is as simple as this: People against him using his legit enforcement powers want to muddy the moral waters to make him look bad, and even though this harms everybody involved, they're happy to drive users away with confusion as long as they can phrase it as if they have the moral high ground and are fighting the good fight.
They may not have considered the moral implications of their combination of licensing and code-sharing terms, but I sure did, and for clarity: When I release code under a Free Software license, I considered the license terms before selecting the license! I promise! People who want to add moral arguments after the fact should really try harder before the act in the first place; if the license terms were the terms they wanted, no moral addendum would be necessary.
I think every single libertarian I've talked to believes that they have a natural right to kill an uninvited guest found in their living room!
I think it is good for people to remember that science fiction isn't only Star Trek, but also Snow Crash.
Surely we could do better than the current copyright regime, and surely we could do worse too.
What worries me about the "advisory" nonsense is that it muddies casual understanding of what the rules are without actually stopping anything or giving real clarity; to the extent a reader thinks it brings clarity, they're most likely just misunderstanding more!
It is perhaps a good policy, but it is unfortunate that the response is mostly about ideology instead of about the specific terms of license contracts with specific vendors who don't hold the copyright to everything under that license. You won't get sued by these companies prior to the deadline, but you might really still get sued over the same software.
Oh, snap, OK.
You're right on that; if you say I'm a moron, you did say I'm a moron!
You've succeeded in proving you choose your words, you haven't presented any evidence of ownership over somebody else's private network.
I don't think any side of the debate really cares about what insults neckbeards spew.
OK, defender of truth and fighter of Wrongthing(TM):
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
My goodness, with a neckbeard that thick I'm surprised you haven't been kidnapped and sold to Bukharan markhor smugglers.
It is the same here in the US, the dropping of it on the ground isn't speech, so it doesn't matter what the content of the pamphlet is.
Freedom of the Press, which is how our free speech is actually worded, prevents the government from measuring the content of the speech of the item dropped on the ground; they're required to solely assess if you abandoned it in public in violation of the littering law. They can't look at it and respond differently based on what it says unless it contains threats, evidence of a crime, or something similar.
If they were dropping them on the ground and then picking them back up, that would be protected, and would probably be considered speech. But actions are only considered speech to the extent that they are communicative; the non-communicative portion involved in the abandonment of said items gets left out of the speech analysis. So dropping it on the ground might be speech, but leaving it there is certainly not.
I am not a lawyer, but I do read SCOTUSblog.
"Selective enforcement" can be a form of oppression, but when they are "selectively" doing enforcement against the people whose crime attracts the most attention, then it isn't. It just means he was an idiot for brazenly doing something that you have to do quietly to get away with.
Be advised: Google Voice is a thing, and does work.
Just because they shut off 3rd party access doesn't mean it didn't work.
The lack of a cellular network in their cellular network should be no cause for concern, because it just means they're implementing the latest Clientless infrastructure advancements. This is the future!
In Soviet Russia, satellites orient you!
It isn't a non-sequitur at all, I simply didn't explain all the details. I incorrectly presumed you understand and be able to fill in the implicit details.
Non-sequitur means you didn't understand. When facing things you don't understand, the correct response would be to ask questions to increase your knowledge, instead of just deciding that everything you don't yet understand is absurd.
Also, profitability is not the antonym for bankruptcy. If you have positive cash flow you're probably not bankrupt yet, and you seem to recognize that cash flow was implied in my statement.
Instead of presuming parts that weren't explained in excruciating detail are false, consider instead what else would need to be true to make the statement true; that's how you can give yourself a chance to comprehend technical discussions.
You would have to look somewhere other than the network names to know if a network is public or private, I recommend considering drawing a network map and figuring out what network you're actually on! Instead of just guessing by the names.
It is like walking down a private street and insisting it is a public street because the houses have numbers.
No, my sport is chess and nobody cares about your rules. Nobody cares if you claim your proposed rule really is used in your neighborhood.
Why would you be making rules about what I say, anyways? Surely I would make my own rules.
You say a bunch of weird words, but they only underscore that you did not comprehend the comment you were replying to. Try again next time! (I know you will!)
Google doesn't own shit on people's private networks, that's just you not comprehending the contexts where a standard applies, and the contexts where their ownership of imaginary property exists.
My first question, is 6.5% error rate considered good? Surely it has uses, but it seems to be good for "things that aren't important enough to write down right now, but I want a half-ass transcription just in case."
Doesn't seem to be quite what an assistance would be writing down, one would hope.
Right, if the best defense of science is a jobs program, maybe we should silo that part of the data, and let the science part just be smaller?
America's arrogance is why it's becoming less important every day.
Or is it because we stopped being arrogant and started buying all our consumer goods from the Others?
Good news! Electricity is radiation!
Also, electrical current is heat. See also: Ohm's Law, Heat Exchanger. (hint: when considering heat dissipation, you left out conduction to everywhere other than air. You're missing convection in space, so you lose the fan on top of the heat sink, but you don't lose conduction so your heat sinks still all work.)
And people can hear you scream if you die in an explosion, or at least your suit gasses are released while you're screaming. (Yes, explosions make sound in space; duh. If you think they don't, go look up "explosion" and keep an eye out for the word "gasses" and a description of what happens to them. Then look up "sound" and see what it is.)