Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? (Score 1) 435

by AK Marc (#48921013) Attached to: Police Organization Wants Cop-Spotting Dropped From Waze App
It is true. It's easy for you to look up the years those things happened and deaths in the US. Though the small minded people like yourself will refuse to look at the science, and will cling to the religion of "speed kills" no matter what proof you are presented with.

Comment: Re:First Sale (Score 1) 438

But that is irrelevant anyway, unlike the case of Ubisoft revoking keys for games no ECU has a requirement that ties it to an owner but if it did then it would still satisfy the First Sale doctrine because it is not about being able to use the goods after they were sold but to be able to sell the copyrighted goods in the first place.

So if GM remotely disabled your car through OnStar because you bought/sold it used, that's perfectly acceptable, under the law, and by your personal moral code?

Comment: Re:First Sale (Score 1) 438

Yes, the "no, you tell me" answer. It's not a phonorecord, but the ECU of my car is copyrighted. Am I allowed to transfer the license to my ECU (and the car along with it)?

My house is copyrighted. It's a "creative work" as are all architectural designs, unless proven otherwise.

But you are asserting that it doesn't apply to those copyrighted items. Why?

Comment: Re:First Sale (Score 1) 438

Now if you have educated yourself on this can you see how ridiculous your assertion that this applies to your house or your car is?

My car and house are covered under copyright. The ECU and other things are copyrighted. I have notes in my owner's manual to that effect. The structure of my house is a "creative work" as asserted by all architects everywhere, and thus is also copyrighted.

What's your problem? That you don't know that the software in your car is copyrighted?

Comment: Re:pirate the games and you get no DRM as well (Score 1) 438

I tried to check, but I didn't find any reference to DRM on the wiki page, despite it being well detailed for SH4. I remember having bought it, but ending up pirating it, but I may not have known why at the time (nor cared).

That and on Steam, it doesn't have Starforce anymore. Though it seems Steam does sell some copy protected Ubisoft games.

Comment: Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? (Score 1) 435

by AK Marc (#48917887) Attached to: Police Organization Wants Cop-Spotting Dropped From Waze App
That's "preventable" deaths. Auto deaths aren't "preventable" in that you must travel. They craft statistics like that to hide cancer, heart disease and other "preventable" deaths that are less directly caused. It's amazing how much the statistics are crafted to prove a point, not to describe reality.

Comment: Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? (Score 1) 435

by AK Marc (#48917851) Attached to: Police Organization Wants Cop-Spotting Dropped From Waze App

Yes, telling people to 'slow down' when driving cars is bad advice. This must be why auto accidents are a leading cause of death and injury in the US.

When the national speed limit went from 55 to 65, deaths dropped. When the limit was removed (many going to 70, one up to 100), the deaths dropped. The higher the limits, the lower the deaths. The higher the speeds, the lower the deaths.

Comment: Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? (Score 1) 435

by AK Marc (#48917813) Attached to: Police Organization Wants Cop-Spotting Dropped From Waze App

How about just slow the fsck down when you are piloting 2,000 lbs of metal?

Because the stats show that the faster you go, the safer you are. No, really. I know your "common sense" says the opposite. But reality trumps an unsupported opinion.

I guarantee that your life will not be adversely affected if you were to just drive 5mph BELOW the speed limit everywhere you went,

Aside from getting killed by the other drivers you are holding up.

Comment: Re:In related news (Score 1) 240

by AK Marc (#48917757) Attached to: Dish Network Violated Do-Not-Call 57 Million Times

No better then pretending the SS trust fund is an asset that can be tapped.

I've never seen that. I've just seen that the SS fund buys bonds from the general fund. So it's not "real" money, but is a "real" debt.

In the end it will be who's story becomes laughable first. Lots of capital is looking for safe places to park. Look at the price of productive farmland. That has nothing to do with the price of crops. It's big money buying up land, then renting it to farmers at a short term loss.

I saw that. I laughed. And sold my farmland (only about 100 acres). But the truth is that land always goes up. There are more people and no more land (except for tiny areas reclaimed, or developments "under water" such as Holland and New Orelans.

I have land, but rather than owning a farm rented out for 3% return, I own houses rented out for 10-15% return. When the crash happens, people will still need a place to live. I know the standard answers about people just stealing land, but in most cases, a written deed is honored by new governments, even if the interim anarchy doesn't care.

Comment: Re:grandmother reference (Score 1) 438

The details of this indicate that the "key" is legal, but followed a supply chain that didn't maximize Ubisoft's profits, so Ubisoft canceled it. It's very hard to parallel import something "illegally". Drugs are the main exception to that rule. Viagra made in the US, shipped to Canada for sale, bought in Canada, and re-imported to the US, is illegal because the quality of the drug, made in the USA and factory sealed could be inferior to the US standard. But other than that one bit of protectionism, there's precious little that can't be re-imported. The Supreme Court even upheld that right.

Comment: Re:First Sale (Score 1) 438

The assertion in this case is that the EULA is violated if the first End User agrees to it and abides by it.

That proves a lack of legal standing of the EULA, and EULAs should be judged illegal. In practice, any boiler plate contract not written by the State is illegal. Except EULAs, and sometimes cell phone contracts.

In this particular case I suspect UPlay, Origin, Steam are reasoning that the licence is non transferrable, and since it WAS transferred from one person to another it has become void.

So it's a violation to buy something from anyone other than uPlay, Origin, or Steam. If you buy it off the shelf in Target/Wal-Mart, or online at EB Games/Amazon, it obviously was "re-sold" (distributed) at least once. Thus, is invalid.

"Videogame makers declare video games illegal" (unless you buy directly from them) should be the headlines run in the NYT. Because that's exactly what they are saying. Only the publishers know which keys they'll honor, and the end buyer can't ever know, unless they buy directly from the publisher.

and if you want to avoid it, don't buy licences off some reseller.

Yeah, well, EB games should be sued, if they don't have that warning printed in every store in large print. As well as Amazon and thousands of others.

2 pints = 1 Cavort