The issue here is that if the transaction looks and smells like a sale, the court is going to rule that it was a sale.
I wish they'd hurry up about it when it comes to software, so the US could get with the program. In the rest of the world, EULAs are understood to be exactly what they are: leonine contracts that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The sale of a copy of a program is the sale of a copy of a program, and right of first sale applies, which means you can't apply stupid restrictions to it.
In most of the world, that's true. But here in the US, it's still up in the air.
I can't speak for international law, but in the US operating a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal.
Not everywhere. I've been a cyclist for longer than I've been a driver. I've attended safety courses taught by police officers, and been told in no uncertain terms, "if you cannot go the speed limit, stay off the blacktop."
I'm curious now. In which states does this eminently sensible rule not apply?
Oh, I'd agree entirely. Unfortunately, the motorcyclists around here (Los Angeles) don't seem to understand that point, and almost without exception they're a menace to everyone on the road, themselves first and foremost.
They have this incredibly stupid habit of behaving as if, simply because their vehicle is thin enough to fit between two lanes of traffic, that that is an acceptable behavior pattern. I'm still young enough to remember when I was in Drivers' Ed, and they taught us very specifically that a motorcycle takes up the width of an entire lane, no matter how wide it isn't, and that if we as car drivers disregard that, we're putting the biker in danger. So what am I supposed to do when they do it?
It's as if they don't understand that mistakes and accidents do happen, both of the "operator error" and the "mechanical failure" variety. If you're that close to a vehicle, leaving the driver no margin of error, and an accident happens, someone's going to end up either in the ER or the morgue, and it's not gonna be the one protected by a ton of metal armor! And I'm getting sick of it. Even if I know that I'm a responsible driver, and that if something does happen and someone does get hurt, it won't be my fault, I still don't want to be stuck with those memories for the rest of my life!
There's nothing "entitled" or "elitist" about it. Those are the same rules I keep to when I ride. It's called being "reasonable" and "safety-minded." The simple fact of the matter is, with certain heavily-regulated exceptions (crosswalks), the blacktop is inherently not a safe place for anyone not protected by a ton of metal armor.
News flash: Any speed where you can't change lanes without requiring oncoming traffic to slam on their brakes is not safe.
Please take your elitist, entitled attitude elsewhere and realize roads are a shared resource.
...as are sidewalks, which are built for the explicit purpose of providing a safe place to accommodate travelers on the roadways who move too slowly to be safe among the motor vehicle traffic.
I wish they were required to follow the same laws as cars around here, particularly the one that says you need to move at (reasonably close to) the same speed as the cars around you! It drives me up the wall every time I get stuck behind YET ANOTHER cyclist doing 10-15 MPH in a 45 zone! When I first learned to ride my bike, and even later when I learned to drive, the rule was very simple, and very reasonable: if you can't go the speed limit, stay out of traffic. Apparently common sense has gone out the window since then.
> One party wants to gut the minimum wage, the other party wants to increase it.
...neither of which will do minimum wage earners any good. Lowering their wages, well, that's obvious why it's harmful. But increasing them? That's a bit more subtle.
First, ask the question, who earns minimum wage? When you start answering, most of the types of jobs you'll see in the answer are pretty similar: people who provide basic services, including things as fundamental as food.
Now ask yourself, under a modern, corporatist system, where the highest duty is to increase profits and improve shareholder value, what will happen if the cost of wages, which (even at such low wages) is a significant fraction of the operating cost of a business, goes up? Two very predictable things will happen: workers will be laid off, and the price of goods will go up, to compensate for the increased costs. Including the price of things as fundamental as food. And of course, with an excuse like this, the savings will will probably be more than enough to compensate for increased costs, because that's always how it works. (cf. the price of gasoline.)
Now if a worker's wages go up by 20%, and the cost of the fundamental things he needs to buy to support day-to-day life (which make up a significant percentage of his expenses because he's a low-wage worker without much discretionary income left over after taking care of the fundamentals) increases by more than 20%, how much better off is he? (Assuming he's not one of the ones who got laid off. How much better off are they?)
Meanwhile, if you're making 40% more than the minimum wage, and the minimum wage increases by 20%, and prices on fundamental things you need to support life go up by 20%, you didn't get a raise, but you're now worse off. The only people who come out of it better off are the corporatists.
Raising the minimum wage sounds like a good idea to people who can only think in one degree of cause and effect, but when you look at the later effects it turns out to be a horrible idea. What would actually work is finding a way to drive down the cost of living. Unfortunately, that doesn't make as good a soundbite as "raise the minimum wage!"
It's time to change the discussion. The copyright industry likes to say that copying is "theft." The truth is, copyright term extension is theft: the theft of public property. And not only that, it's blatantly unconstitutional: under Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US constitution, Congress is expressly forbidden from passing any ex post facto (retroactive) law. This means that Disney, the RIAA and the MPAA have been using Congress to create illegal laws to steal our property since the 1970s! The public domain is our property, yours, mine, everyone's, and it has been stolen from us.
Mickey Mouse belongs to me. And to you, and to everyone. Disney has stolen him from us.
Star Wars belongs to me. And to you, and to everyone. George Lucas (and now Disney!) has stolen it from us.
The fall of SOPA and ACTA, and the impending fall of the TPP, shows us that the public is starting to wake up and realize that the current copyright schemes are not in our interests. It may seem like a small issue right now, but most really big ideas do, right up until a little while after they hit the tipping point and explode into something huge. We're getting close to that point now.
Put the word out. Copyright extension is theft, and it's unconstitutional. We want our public domain back, and we will have it. The job of any Congresscritter who opposes our agenda is not secure.
If the problem is the Berne Convention, (and it is, I agree,) then why not simply withdraw from the treaty? That's what nations do when they find the provisions of a treaty to no longer be in their interest.
No, he's right. It's kind of brilliant. If I were running an organization that was up to no good, one of the first things I would do was quietly set up a very loud and obnoxious conspiracy site dedicated to "exposing" my wrongdoings as vociferously as possible, mixed in with plenty of crazy and plenty of stupid crap that's easily proven wrong with five seconds of fact-checking. That way, anyone who actually did discover my wrongdoing could be easily discredited and mocked by associating him with those nutty conspiracy theorists, and no one would take my detractors seriously.
So the number of trials is more important than the number of crimes? I'm not sure I follow, because it just sort of seems that if that logic is carried to its conclusion, a serial killer with 10 dead bodies buried in the backyard but no previous record deserves leniency due to being a first-time offender.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. In today's society, broadband service shares certain characteristics with electricity and water: everyone (within epsilon) uses it, losing service would have an immediate adverse impact on quality-of-life, and technical and economic factors tend toward natural monopolies with high barriers to entry.
Let's call a spade a spade. ISPs fill the role of public utilities; let's legally recognize (and regulate) them as such.
The unusually long sentence stemmed from a controversial practice known as "stacking," in which each charge in an indictment is counted as a separate crime. The policy transforms a first-time offender into a "habitual criminal" subject to multiple sentences and mandatory sentencing guidelines.
I must be missing something. Isn't each charge, by definition, a separate (alleged) crime? If you get charged with three counts of murder, for example, that means that you are accused of having murdered three people, right? And doesn't this make a person guilty of these multiple offenses not a first time offender, again by definition?
What kind of phone do you have that can support a HDMI-out connector? Most smartphones I've seen have either a single USB-slave connector, or some crappy proprietary connector if you got an iPhone instead of something worthwhile. The only Android device I've ever seen with HTMI-out is the OUYA, and that's not a smartphone!
Exactly. This is what I've been saying for years. In today's society, broadband service shares certain characteristics with electricity and water: everyone (within epsilon) uses it, losing service would have an immediate adverse impact on quality-of-life, and technical and economic factors tend toward natural monopolies with high barriers to entry.
Let's call a spade a spade. ISPs fill the role of public utilities; let's legally recognize (and regulate) them as such.
On the post: After Pledge Of Sunlight, Gov. Cuomo Officials Keep Their Email In The Shadows
Re:
On the post: Washington State Files First Consumer Protection Lawsuit Against Kickstarter Project That Failed To Deliver
Re:
I wish they'd hurry up about it when it comes to software, so the US could get with the program. In the rest of the world, EULAs are understood to be exactly what they are: leonine contracts that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The sale of a copy of a program is the sale of a copy of a program, and right of first sale applies, which means you can't apply stupid restrictions to it.
In most of the world, that's true. But here in the US, it's still up in the air.
On the post: Second Apple v. Samsung Patent Trial Ends With A Partial Victory For Apple, But Far From What It Wanted
Re: Apple Is Neglecting Its Business
On the post: Second Apple v. Samsung Patent Trial Ends With A Partial Victory For Apple, But Far From What It Wanted
Re: Apple announces it's latest release...
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not everywhere. I've been a cyclist for longer than I've been a driver. I've attended safety courses taught by police officers, and been told in no uncertain terms, "if you cannot go the speed limit, stay off the blacktop."
I'm curious now. In which states does this eminently sensible rule not apply?
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They have this incredibly stupid habit of behaving as if, simply because their vehicle is thin enough to fit between two lanes of traffic, that that is an acceptable behavior pattern. I'm still young enough to remember when I was in Drivers' Ed, and they taught us very specifically that a motorcycle takes up the width of an entire lane, no matter how wide it isn't, and that if we as car drivers disregard that, we're putting the biker in danger. So what am I supposed to do when they do it?
It's as if they don't understand that mistakes and accidents do happen, both of the "operator error" and the "mechanical failure" variety. If you're that close to a vehicle, leaving the driver no margin of error, and an accident happens, someone's going to end up either in the ER or the morgue, and it's not gonna be the one protected by a ton of metal armor! And I'm getting sick of it. Even if I know that I'm a responsible driver, and that if something does happen and someone does get hurt, it won't be my fault, I still don't want to be stuck with those memories for the rest of my life!
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's nothing "entitled" or "elitist" about it. Those are the same rules I keep to when I ride. It's called being "reasonable" and "safety-minded." The simple fact of the matter is, with certain heavily-regulated exceptions (crosswalks), the blacktop is inherently not a safe place for anyone not protected by a ton of metal armor.
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
News flash: Any speed where you can't change lanes without requiring oncoming traffic to slam on their brakes is not safe.
...as are sidewalks, which are built for the explicit purpose of providing a safe place to accommodate travelers on the roadways who move too slowly to be safe among the motor vehicle traffic.
On the post: History Repeating: Google Glass Getting Same Treatment As Walkman And Cameras Once Did
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Tech Companies Increasingly Telling Users When Law Enforcement Comes Asking For Data
Re: Re:
On the post: Obama Complains That TPP Critics Are 'Conspiracy Theorists' Who 'Lack Knowledge' About Negotiations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...neither of which will do minimum wage earners any good. Lowering their wages, well, that's obvious why it's harmful. But increasing them? That's a bit more subtle.
First, ask the question, who earns minimum wage? When you start answering, most of the types of jobs you'll see in the answer are pretty similar: people who provide basic services, including things as fundamental as food.
Now ask yourself, under a modern, corporatist system, where the highest duty is to increase profits and improve shareholder value, what will happen if the cost of wages, which (even at such low wages) is a significant fraction of the operating cost of a business, goes up? Two very predictable things will happen: workers will be laid off, and the price of goods will go up, to compensate for the increased costs. Including the price of things as fundamental as food. And of course, with an excuse like this, the savings will will probably be more than enough to compensate for increased costs, because that's always how it works. (cf. the price of gasoline.)
Now if a worker's wages go up by 20%, and the cost of the fundamental things he needs to buy to support day-to-day life (which make up a significant percentage of his expenses because he's a low-wage worker without much discretionary income left over after taking care of the fundamentals) increases by more than 20%, how much better off is he? (Assuming he's not one of the ones who got laid off. How much better off are they?)
Meanwhile, if you're making 40% more than the minimum wage, and the minimum wage increases by 20%, and prices on fundamental things you need to support life go up by 20%, you didn't get a raise, but you're now worse off. The only people who come out of it better off are the corporatists.
Raising the minimum wage sounds like a good idea to people who can only think in one degree of cause and effect, but when you look at the later effects it turns out to be a horrible idea. What would actually work is finding a way to drive down the cost of living. Unfortunately, that doesn't make as good a soundbite as "raise the minimum wage!"
On the post: New Paper Says It's Time To Reasonably Decrease Copyright Term And Rethink Putting Copyright In Treaties
Re: A good read
It's time to change the discussion. The copyright industry likes to say that copying is "theft." The truth is, copyright term extension is theft: the theft of public property. And not only that, it's blatantly unconstitutional: under Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US constitution, Congress is expressly forbidden from passing any ex post facto (retroactive) law. This means that Disney, the RIAA and the MPAA have been using Congress to create illegal laws to steal our property since the 1970s! The public domain is our property, yours, mine, everyone's, and it has been stolen from us.
Mickey Mouse belongs to me. And to you, and to everyone. Disney has stolen him from us.
Star Wars belongs to me. And to you, and to everyone. George Lucas (and now Disney!) has stolen it from us.
The fall of SOPA and ACTA, and the impending fall of the TPP, shows us that the public is starting to wake up and realize that the current copyright schemes are not in our interests. It may seem like a small issue right now, but most really big ideas do, right up until a little while after they hit the tipping point and explode into something huge. We're getting close to that point now.
Put the word out. Copyright extension is theft, and it's unconstitutional. We want our public domain back, and we will have it. The job of any Congresscritter who opposes our agenda is not secure.
On the post: New Paper Says It's Time To Reasonably Decrease Copyright Term And Rethink Putting Copyright In Treaties
How to fix Copyright plenty easily
On the post: Obama Complains That TPP Critics Are 'Conspiracy Theorists' Who 'Lack Knowledge' About Negotiations
Re: Re:
On the post: Obama Complains That TPP Critics Are 'Conspiracy Theorists' Who 'Lack Knowledge' About Negotiations
Re: Re: Insolence
On the post: Florida Convict Appealing 162 Year Sentence Over Warrantless GPS Evidence
Re: Re:
On the post: Some Good News: FCC's Wheeler Claims FCC Will Preempt State Laws Blocking Broadband Competition
Let's call a spade a spade. ISPs fill the role of public utilities; let's legally recognize (and regulate) them as such.
On the post: Florida Convict Appealing 162 Year Sentence Over Warrantless GPS Evidence
I must be missing something. Isn't each charge, by definition, a separate (alleged) crime? If you get charged with three counts of murder, for example, that means that you are accused of having murdered three people, right? And doesn't this make a person guilty of these multiple offenses not a first time offender, again by definition?
On the post: Jeffrey Katzenberg: The New Pricing Model For Movies Will Be Based On The Viewer's Screen Size
Re: Re: Re: You're wrong!
On the post: FCC's Wheeler Says That If These Lame Net Neutrality Rules Don't Work, He'll Implement The Real Rules Next Time
Re: Re:
Let's call a spade a spade. ISPs fill the role of public utilities; let's legally recognize (and regulate) them as such.
Next >>