Replies

1+2+4+…+2^63=2^64-1
18.4×10^18

1. If all Quarks are Quirks and some Quirks are Quorks, which of the following is necessarily true?

(A) All Quirks are Quarks
(B) Some Quorks are Quirks
(C) Some Quorks are Quarks
(D) No Quarks are Quorks
(E) Cannot be determined

Question is “Which of the following is necessarily true?” therefore a single false example eliminates the answer.
(A) No, Consider “All Squares are Rectangles”; reply “All Rectangles are Squares”.
(B) Yes, Some A=B therefore some B=A. Classic Union of Sets.
(C) No, Consider “All Female Cows are Cows, some Cows are Male Cows”; reply “Some Male Cows are Female Cows”.
(D) No, Consider “All Male Cows are Cows, some Cows are Mammals”; reply “No Mammals are Male Cows”.
(E) No, (B) can be determined to be “necessarily true”.

For DOS under Windows 7 (32 or 64) use DOSBox.com application DOSBox
Allows windowed mode and access to DOS files under Windows Explorer.
Caveat: Direct serial port calls are blocked by the operating system. Otherwist the programs will all operate normally.
Dump XP mode and use DOSBox instead.

DOSbox is better than any of the other emulators. I haven’t found any DOS programs that couldn’t be configured to run. See the Wiki if you get stuck.
DOSbox will run fullscreen or windowed (Alt-enter). You can access the DOS files directly from Windows Explorer and make changes with Notepad etc.
One caveat: Direct serial port calls are blocked by the operating system. The program will otherwise function correctly.
If you need DOS serial ports then use FreeDos. You’ll have to build a dedicated boot/box.

After going through the appeals court decision I noticed something significant. Despite the claims that this was a EULA violation, every example they used was actually a Fair-Use violation.

The short answer is that if you buy a product for an intended purpose then you not only can use it for that purpose but are restrained to that purpose also. Using your drill as a hammer voids all warranties and guarantees.

Zeidenberg bought a copy of ProCD in a private use package and then used it commercially. ProCD may or may not have grounds to protest if Zeidenberg answered telephone calls where he then looked up the information on his own computer. This isn’t what he did. He raided the content and made it commercially available. A simple violation of Fair-Use; the EULA is pointless.

A better example than those given by the courts would be to take a hardcopy book; scan it; then post it on the internet for fees. Just like Zeidenberg, all you’ve done is raid the content and make it commercially available. But because it’s a book we call it a copyright violation. It’s still a basic violation of Fair-Use. You are using someone else’s work. You are reasonably limited by Fair-Use to the product’s intended purpose. And that purpose is typically obvious.

Both the lower court and the appeals court based their decisions around the faulty EULA issue rather than the straight-forward Fair-Use issue. The finding should be for ProCD due to Fair-Use. The EULA issue here should be ignored.