Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Really Quite Disgusting (Score 1) 289

But it's hard to define 'consensual' with children. If a parent/trusted adult tells a young child that something is good, the child will likely trust him/her and do it. So for example a girl could agree to have her genitals mutilated, since it would make look 'pretty'. Would that be considered consensual?
The 'legal age' is a bit arbitrarily set, but there has to be some way to protect children until they are old enough and have enough information about what they are consenting to.

Yes. but your analogy is terrible.

At what age do you think a woman is mature enough to choose to have her genitals mutilated in order to make herself look pretty? How about having her face mutilated? Would you EVER consider such consent to be valid?

Comment Re:Trickle Down Theory? (Score 2) 269

I know it's been said a dozen times in response to you, but you described exactly what is necessary for trickle-down to work. If the rich guys are spending money, then that money is circulating and doing our economy good. If the rich guys are sitting on a pile of cash in the bank and not spending it (or investing, or anything else to keep it moving) then that is when it actually hurts the economy. Having them spend metric buttloads of cash on crazy inventions is not only good for the economy and the lower-class folks in it, but it's also good for society because, heaven forbid, they might actually discover something useful -- even if it's not quite what they were trying to do.

If the government is spending money, then that money is circulating and doing our economy good. If the government is sitting on a pile of cash in the bank and not spending it (or investing, or anything else to keep it moving) then that is when it actually hurts the economy. Having it spend metric buttloads of cash on crazy inventions is not only good for the economy and the lower-class folks in it, but it's also good for society because, heaven forbid, the government might actually discover something useful -- even if it's not quite what it was trying to do.

if I have a choice between letting rich guys waste money and letting the government tax the rich guys and waste the money. I have more reason to support the system that actually lets me vote and participate and is at least officially supposed to be looking out for the publics best interests and not merely itself. That system is a democratic government - not private ownership.

Hell... with enough courage the government might even figure out how to put a man on the moon someday. oh wait.. it did that already!

Comment Re:and speed limits mean you can't drive? (Score 1) 369

By that reasoning, a 70 MPH speed limit would be the wedge which inevitably lead to making driving illegal. That hasn't happened.

It's not a wedge, it is what it is - it will show what it thinks you're looking for. If it thinks you're not looking for porn, it won't show porn. If it thinks you want porn, it'll give you porn.

By your reasoning, anything that is non-sequitur can be falsely claimed to be analogous to anything else thus proving whatever you want to prove.

Comment Re:And? (Score 3, Insightful) 183

You should be more irritated that a handful of US citizens in the form of soon-to-be-paid creditors will absorb every penny of that as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, following the $256M sale. And those creditors are not stockholders, who will be left empty-handed.

China didn't get a $250M check from the US government -- a group of nameless American creditors did.

And rightly so! Why should the owners of a failed company get to keep cash if there are still debts left unpaid?

Comment Re:If you volunteer, then you are not qualified... (Score 1) 453

I'm a fair bit younger than you, but I've already begun to think in some classic old man ways. What is my legacy? What will I leave behind when my short life finishes, to live on through my deeds? I don't want to be remembered for gorging myself on blackberries and ice cream. So: (a) stop handwaving over the fact that you expect others to pay for your retirement on Mars - (b) Stop thinking that the object of your desire has some inherent, universal "good" - it doesn't. It's just something you want.

And yet, all you will be remembered for is gorging yourself on blackberries and ice cream and someone else will be remembered for being the first living human being to step foot on mars.

It's too bad you can't figure out why 1 accomplishment is more significant than the other.

Enjoy the rest of your meaningless life.

Comment Re:Half the length of a novelette (Score 2) 224

Under copyright law you don't need their permission to use the software, anymore than you need Stephen King's permission to read one of his books. To use software you need a computer and a legally obtained copy of the software. Copyright law takes care of the rest (by giving you the right to execute the software on a computer and even make modifications for the limited purpose of getting it to execute on the computer).

This is all true. However, the catch is in the "legally obtained copy" part.

Without agreeing to the license, you haven't legally obtained ownership of a copy.

if the copy was made by someone authorized to make the copy (for instance the copyright holder), and someone authorized by to sell the copy sold you the copy (for instance an authorized distributor) then the copy is an authorized copy - i.e. "legally obtained copy" to re-use the phrase we both agree on. There is no additional requirement in copyright law beyond possession of the authorized copy to execute software on the computer even though the computer makes its own internal copies as a result of execution.

At least - this is explicit in Canadian Copyright Law. I'm not going to argue about US law.

So in Canadian law, unless you agreed to some kind of restriction in connection to that act of Distribution then once the distribution is concluded you may rely on the full extent of copyright law and execute it on your computer. You can tear up that EULA because you don't NEED a license. You have the law.

your analogy of a ticket is invalid. You can be denied entry to the venue in accordance with terms because those terms are terms for entry into the venue. A venue which does not belong to you.

On the other hand, your copy DOES belong to you. so nobody can impose additional terms without your consent.

it would be more like if you buy a hair drier for $20 from an authorized distributor: Then it arrives at your house with a sticker on the "on" button, saying that "you must agree to the following EULA in exchange for the license to use the hair drier. pressing the ON button on the hair drier indicates that you agree."

Since you don't need permission to press the "on" button on your own property, you can freely ignore the sticker and use the hair drier. Further more since pressing the ON button does not communicate anything to anybody except yourself, it can't be said to signify an agreement. agreements require a meeting of the minds.

having sold you the hair drier, they can't hold YOUR "on" button hostage in order to compel you to agree to their additional terms.

This may almost all be moot as software has largely moved beyond consisting of merely a physical copy, but often now depends on access to online services. Access which in fact DOES require permission to access somebody elses computer system.

Comment Re:Half the length of a novelette (Score 2) 224

Don't you think your example is specious? In the case of the product, the exchange requires that I give them $50. If I do so, then they allow me to take the product out of the store. In the case of an EULA, the exchange requires that I a click on a button. If I do so, then they allow me to use the software.

Under copyright law you don't need their permission to use the software, anymore than you need Stephen King's permission to read one of his books. To use software you need a computer and a legally obtained copy of the software. Copyright law takes care of the rest (by giving you the right to execute the software on a computer and even make modifications for the limited purpose of getting it to execute on the computer).

Comment Re:Rooting for You Hosers (Score 1) 208

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Supreme Law of the Land, not to be superseded by anything but another Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Good luck to you, Canadians. Here's hoping your judges are far less "activist" than our own.

Our judges are not elected. They don't have to impress anybody.

Comment Re:Dangerously spreading islamic radicalism (Score 1) 591

Firstly, genetics isn't the only form of hereditary. Cultural values are transmitted from parents to children - including attitudes to women. Secondly, the GP was talking about Muslims, which is a religious group, not a racial group.

So, yeah, you're stupid on two counts.

The GP clearly does not think religion is genetically transmitted. he was accusing the GPP of thinking that religion is genetically transmitted.

So you are the stupid one.

Comment Re:was this ever resolved? (Score 4, Informative) 218

We'e seen a few stories recently like this, where a judge has demanded someone to turn over information that they've already agreed not to in a TOS.

Was this ever resolved, whether a judge can order you to violate a TOS? Either it's legally binding or it's not. Not variable on who's asking or whether or not it's convenient. They need to make up their minds.

Yes a judge can order you to violate a TOS. A judge's order obligates you and you can't be legally bound by contract to violate a judges order.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...