It's more cost-effective for them to collect payment for delivery then repeatedly mark you as 'not at home' without actually having your parcel leave their distribution hub. I'm surprised they've failed to fully-deploy this cost-saving measure, although they appear to be trialling it in 'my area' (their hub is 30 miles from my home.)
Additionally, they never know when the driver will be returning to 'attempt redelivery' nor when he'll return to base - making it nigh on impossible to drive the 30 miles to collect the damn thing myself. You've got to hand it to them - last time I had a parcel 'delivered' by them, by the time I'd managed to recover it, I was ready to pay ransom money and had driven a total of 120 miles! so, on top of the charge paid by the sender, the local hub has got to be way up the leader-board for efficiency.
If the magazine's title described the level of article, the magazine would be entitled 'PCN00b'. Presumably, they believe that their reader aspires to be a PC-Pro and should be gradually helped out of the primordial swamp of n00bdom.
Disclaimer: I say this as a long-time reader of the print version of PCN00b:-(
Sounds like he's internalized the idea that "having two monitors is verboten" and started to suffer from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome where having one monitor is seen as a good thing.
What a messed-up world we live in when one needs to know the law simply so that someone whose job it is to enforce the law can't get away with breaking it without you knowing:/
... there is a fortune to be made by building internet software that would enable us to do all the things we want to do on the web in a way that preserves our privacy.
I'll get right on that now. I'll be giving it away for free and funding it using micro-targeted embedded ads. w00t!
Well, if the company clearly writes it down somewhere and doesn't lie, then I see no problem.
That's the issue. Legalese isn't clear to 99.6% of Americans.
It certainly isn't their fault that the customer is either stupid or doesn't have time to read it (or some other reason). It's unfortunate, yes, but it isn't their fault.
Once again, Yes it is. One mark of intelligence is the ability to explain a concept to anyone, regardless of their level of intelligence. Like an onion where outer layers contain inner layers.
It's a little more than unfortunate. If the company is unable to secure their customer's understanding they are unable to secure their consent. In this situation, lack of understanding should mean that the EULA isn't binding. One would imagine that in a world where EULAs are deemed necessary, a company would have a interest in ensuring that their unduly-restrictive terms are legally-binding.
Taking the time to learn a completely different language is quite different than taking the time to read something in your own language.
A little too short for my liking and a little too specific - focusing on Siegel's own work.
I'd have liked to see a talk offering general advice on how to truly incentivize society to require maximal simplicity - difficult in a world where increasing financial reward comes to masters of increasing complexity.
At the root of this is the idea that one party is seeking agreement from another. I believe it's clear that agreement cannot exist without understanding. It's not acceptable for the legal profession to disregard this truism simply to keep the wheels turning.
I'm not clear what the solution might be. Perhaps:
* Educate the population (*)
* Make it a requirement that EULAs are kept as simple as possible such that they are able to be 'translated' into everyday English understandable by someone whose agreement the EULA seeks.
(*) Sure that's likely to remove many of them from the poverty-trap and thus there'll be no grateful underclass to perform the country's unpleasant tasks but let's take one problem at a time.
My initial thought was that if there's an argument that the legal-profession's meanderings simply cannot be 'translated' into everyday English and that a legal mind is a necessity for every situation then this service should be made freely available to the 99.6% of Americans who need it. i.e. they are given free legal advice until they answer Yes to the plain english sentence "do you understand what I have just explained to you?"
And when an ambulance chaser uses a loophole contained in the plain-English document that didn't exist in the very specific legal language document...
At no point did I suggest changing the meaning of the document - merely its presentation.
Just for grins, let's take this a step farther. How far down the scale of least common denominator do you have to go? Not everyone in the U.S. graduated from high school...
If you're trying to communicate with someone and seek their acceptance, you need to speak their language - one way or another.
Of course, if you merely wish to demonstrate a pretence at seeking their acceptance then this should be disregarded as within that scenario, recipients of the document are able to meaningfully consent to terms they cannot understand.
You may argue that it makes more sense for 99.6% of people to take the service of a lawyer so-as to read a document addressed to them than for the author to ensure that an understandable equivalent document is prepared although I suspect high levels of disagreement.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, LulzSec ate my dog :-(
For future readers, today's footnote-comment seems appropriate:
"The better the state is established, the fainter is humanity. To make the individual uncomfortable, that is my task. -- Nietzsche"
China are too open-minded and so don't censor heavily enough for the UK?
to whom?
To be safe, perhaps one should avoid posting anything online? There are a very large number of points-of-view out there.
This law* appears to be badly-thought-out.
Disclaimer: I've read neither the article nor the text of the law and so am basing my point-of-view on the summary :D
I'm offended that you're offended. I'll see you in jail.
Yeah. Pretty good going to make £250K (and presumably another £200K) from selling something obsolete.
It's more cost-effective for them to collect payment for delivery then repeatedly mark you as 'not at home' without actually having your parcel leave their distribution hub. I'm surprised they've failed to fully-deploy this cost-saving measure, although they appear to be trialling it in 'my area' (their hub is 30 miles from my home.)
Additionally, they never know when the driver will be returning to 'attempt redelivery' nor when he'll return to base - making it nigh on impossible to drive the 30 miles to collect the damn thing myself. You've got to hand it to them - last time I had a parcel 'delivered' by them, by the time I'd managed to recover it, I was ready to pay ransom money and had driven a total of 120 miles! so, on top of the charge paid by the sender, the local hub has got to be way up the leader-board for efficiency.
Uhh, wasn't he saying that technology trumps religion?
If the magazine's title described the level of article, the magazine would be entitled 'PCN00b'. Presumably, they believe that their reader aspires to be a PC-Pro and should be gradually helped out of the primordial swamp of n00bdom.
Disclaimer: I say this as a long-time reader of the print version of PCN00b :-(
It took me a while to realise that PCW had died :-(
In future Soviet Russia, you observe TVs.
Reply-FAIL :-)
Please help us understand where the GP made his/her mistake...
Sounds like he's internalized the idea that "having two monitors is verboten" and started to suffer from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome where having one monitor is seen as a good thing.
The question is, why would you want to?
It appears to be about lying more than working. Did they get a politics degree thrown-in for free after demonstrating such creativity?
What a messed-up world we live in when one needs to know the law simply so that someone whose job it is to enforce the law can't get away with breaking it without you knowing :/
+1 Feeling your pain.
It's always a hard-sell to tell management that "they" are the problem and should be removed ASAP.
I'll get right on that now. I'll be giving it away for free and funding it using micro-targeted embedded ads. w00t!
That's the issue. Legalese isn't clear to 99.6% of Americans.
Once again, Yes it is. One mark of intelligence is the ability to explain a concept to anyone, regardless of their level of intelligence. Like an onion where outer layers contain inner layers.
It's a little more than unfortunate. If the company is unable to secure their customer's understanding they are unable to secure their consent. In this situation, lack of understanding should mean that the EULA isn't binding. One would imagine that in a world where EULAs are deemed necessary, a company would have a interest in ensuring that their unduly-restrictive terms are legally-binding.
Legalese isn't English - despite sharing words.
Thanks.
A little too short for my liking and a little too specific - focusing on Siegel's own work.
I'd have liked to see a talk offering general advice on how to truly incentivize society to require maximal simplicity - difficult in a world where increasing financial reward comes to masters of increasing complexity.
At the root of this is the idea that one party is seeking agreement from another. I believe it's clear that agreement cannot exist without understanding. It's not acceptable for the legal profession to disregard this truism simply to keep the wheels turning.
I'm not clear what the solution might be. Perhaps:
* Educate the population (*)
* Make it a requirement that EULAs are kept as simple as possible such that they are able to be 'translated' into everyday English understandable by someone whose agreement the EULA seeks.
(*) Sure that's likely to remove many of them from the poverty-trap and thus there'll be no grateful underclass to perform the country's unpleasant tasks but let's take one problem at a time.
My initial thought was that if there's an argument that the legal-profession's meanderings simply cannot be 'translated' into everyday English and that a legal mind is a necessity for every situation then this service should be made freely available to the 99.6% of Americans who need it. i.e. they are given free legal advice until they answer Yes to the plain english sentence "do you understand what I have just explained to you?"
At no point did I suggest changing the meaning of the document - merely its presentation.
If you're trying to communicate with someone and seek their acceptance, you need to speak their language - one way or another.
Of course, if you merely wish to demonstrate a pretence at seeking their acceptance then this should be disregarded as within that scenario, recipients of the document are able to meaningfully consent to terms they cannot understand.
You may argue that it makes more sense for 99.6% of people to take the service of a lawyer so-as to read a document addressed to them than for the author to ensure that an understandable equivalent document is prepared although I suspect high levels of disagreement.
If the document purports to communicate with a layperson, it should be written in a language understood by a layperson.
If the document is intended for consumption by another legal-professional, let's do-away with the pretence that it's addressed to the layperson.