Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
wow, this is one of those real, “feel good stories of the year” type stories.
canada looks better every day.
Tag Archive for 'daily politics'
Paul Thurrott’s SuperSite for Windows: Licensing Changes to Windows Vista Windows transfer rights
“There’s a funny myth going around that says you have a right to transfer a single copy of Windows XP (or any previous Windows version) to as many computers as you like, as often as you like, and for any reason you like. This myth exists because the Windows XP EULA is vaguely worded. It states, “You may move [Windows XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove [Windows XP] from the former Workstation Computer.” Pundits argue, incorrectly, that this EULA implicitly allows any user to continually move a single copy of Windows XP from machine to machine as often as they’d like. One online pundit decided this meant that “there are no restrictions on the number of times you can transfer the software from one computer to another in your household or office.” That person is, however, incorrect. As it turns out, the Windows license is pretty simple: Windows is tied to a single device (typically a PC), and not to a person.”
no, sorry, it doesn’t work that way, and you my friend are an idiot. if the language of the end user license agreement does not explicitly outline the way by which the license may be transferred, nor does it explicitly outline the number of times the license may be transferred, nor the manor by which the license can be transferred, then it is as we say, “open to interpretation.” ya know how this goes, right? i mean, the supreme court has been making judgments on parts of the united states constitution that are “open for interpretation” since its inception.
lets say i buy a new piece of software for my mac (lets face it, it is and will always be better than windows) and the end user license agreement only states that the license is transferable so long as the software is removed from the transferring computer once installed on the transferred computer. the licensor has no legal recourse to tell me how many times i can transfer a license so long as i comply with their terms (making sure the software is only on the new computer) and i can transfer the software as long as i want. the legal system (uncorrupted of course) is very simple in this regards, i’m abiding by the terms of our agreement, so if you don’t like what i’m doing, you have to change your license agreement, which of course is what microsoft did. they didn’t like the fact that tech-savvy comptuer users who upgrade hardware often were “transferring” their license of windows to a new computer everytime they made a couple hardware changes, cause lets face it, microsoft are a bunch of greedy assholes that irrespective of the fact that less than 10% of the total windows licensees were even allowed to transfer their license, still wants more money every time you upgrade your computer.
thus, this new license in windows vista IS a new restriction on customers rights when it comes to transferring the operating system, and the only way it would not be so was if previous versions of the windows eula explicitly stated that the license is only transferable once or not transferable at all.
remember kids, just because uncle-microsoft says the language in the eula means one thing, doesn’t mean that it actually does mean that.
and to all microsoft fanboys that wish to defend this senseless restriction of rights, i say this, quit being stupid tools. for everyone else? just ditch windows altogether and buy a mac, or if you can’t, at least run linux (remember free software is your friend)
well… the united states senate today, following in the footsteps laid down by the house of representatives, passed hr 6166, the military commissions act of 2006, effectively making the president of the united states supreme dictator of everything, with the ability to detain indefinitely, and person, citizen or non-citizen under the pretense of their potentially being a(n) lawful enemy combatant/unlawful enemy combatant, etc., without any chance of release, lacking any writ of habeas corpus, and the sustained subjection to severe “tough” (remember these are the same tactics that the head of army intelligence deemed as torture and declared were not in line with the rules of the geneva convention and that any information attained from a detainee through the use of these tactics would likely be useless) interrogation tactics, all while being denied a trial by jury, a right to a quick and speedy trial, and other rights guaranteed to citizens by the Bill of Rights, and non-citizens by the Geneva Convention.
how is denying people liberty, including our own citizens, in anyway supportive of our push to spread democracy globally?
does this not seem a little fucked up to anyone else?
is this not a failure of representative democracy?
surely the american people don’t want this…
