I found with my Razr that I couldn't bear to buy the shit software or the expensive cable. I did discover however that it was perfectly happy transferring files to a computer over the bluetooth link, without the software. I discovered this with my then-girlfriend's mac, but I imagine it would work with any bluetooth equipped machine.
Please provide model numbers of good phones without extras. Seriously. Go to your handy-dandy electronics store and try to find a phone without a camera. Good luck.
"You can't argue from what makes sense to what the law means."
Actually, you can. It's called the "Reasonable Third Party" test, and it's used quite often in Contract law, to determine if two parties really have a contract or not. The judge asks herself, "if I explained the fact situation to a reasonable person (doesn't have to necessarily be a smart person), would that person say a contract existed?" If the answer's no, the judge can rule that no contract exists. Period.
Your little turd about how the sale price is really a deposit won't wash, because the key part of a contract, that makes it binding, is the agreement to the terms, not the exchange of money. There is no contract until you read the EULA, and accept it (a click through is not necessarily an acceptance).
The fact that once you open the box, nobody will take it back, could be a good argument that clicking the "I Agree" button doesn't actually signal your agreement, but instead signals that "I've been tricked out of my money, and I'm trying to mitigate my losses by enjoying the game." Migating your losses does not constitute acceptance of a contract, rather it's what you do after the contract has been broken.
I don't know if there is case law in the US yet either way on this point (I'm pretty sure it hasn't been tested in Canada) so really, nobody's right until a judge decides on an issue, and really it will take more than one decision to firm up the rules, since there are probably several different issues that will have to be decided.
Sorry, but it's not elitist for the middle class to be paid fair value for their work, and to be able to enjoy the fruits of their own labours. This idea that your primary function in society is to make other people richer (because this is what you're doing when you work harder for the same pay) is distinctly North American. Europeans don't look down on us because they think we're inherently inferior, they look down on us because we go around with "sucker" written on our heads, and let a small, elite minority take advantage of us.
The creatives and knowledge workers (in the music business) for the most part aren't getting paid. They are forced by the distribution cartel to sign away their copyright benefits to the cartel. The cartel, which has created nothing, then charges grossly inflated prices to distribute art, when it is common knowledge that said distribution costs many times less than what they're charging. Last time I checked, this was called "abusing the powers of a monopoly" or in some quarters, "racketeering".
Ask yourself this: if copyright laws are meant to protect the content creator, why do they grant rights that extend 50-75 years after the death of the content creator?
What's funny is that an artist's work is his property, but my work is my boss' property.
Seriously, the elephant in the room here is that copyright as it exists now is grossly unfair, with copyright terms expanding 50 years or so beyond the life of the copyright holder. Why do you need to be paid for your artistic creation after you're dead? There is a fundamental injustice at the heart of copyright law in America. This matters, you know. It isn't enough to say that unjust laws are laws, and must be obeyed anyway. The system has to have mechanisms to weed out bad laws.
File sharing has one rather important distinction from theft. Namely, the punishments for theft as defined in the law are generally just, while punishment for file sharing as a subset of copyright infringement is unjust (as are the laws governing copyright as they currently stand). Throwing the two terms together as synonyms glosses over this critical issue.
Well, in part because they're actually trying to make Blu-Ray another outlet for films sold to the home market, and up until recently many of those companies were trying to make HD-DVD into another method to sell movies to the home market. Many movies are also available on PSP as well, last I checked. DVD is, in this case, the overwhelmingly popular choice with consumers, not with companies. This is due in part to the fact that the DRM on DVDs has been cracked. Movie distributors want very badly to wean us all off DVDs for that reason, but consumers are just not willing to go.
I agree with most of what you said, but would add this: if anyone is interested in what's wrong with C61, check out Michael Geist's blog where he's running "61 Reforms to C61". It's scary as hell, C61 is MUCH worse than the DMCA.
And two, although Harper's government is complicit in the rendition of Maher Arar, Arar was actually rendered to Syria on Paul Martin's watch.
To be fair (and I'm not saying I agree with his selection process - I don't), the committee couldn't make a choice because the opposition members on it didn't show up, and quorum couldn't be reached. You can't blame Harper for that (but you can congratulate those MPs).
I agree, but brand awareness isn't a good thing for a company if it's also accompanied by brand erosion. It doesn't help a company if whenever you think of their product, all you can think about is how shitty it is.
It only works if it convinces people to buy a Microsoft product when they otherwise wouldn't. That's the true metric of the success of an ad, not the popularity of the ad.
If the ad is as bad as the summary says, this could actually hurt the Microsoft brand, not boost it. The more we talk about how bad it is, the worse the effect on the brand will be.
I can see it happening if the Companies in question wanted underline how serious the issue is. Nothing says "we're gonna stomp you" better than saying "This is George, he's chief legal counsel for my Company. Now what were you saying?"
Where in my post did I suggest this? Personally, I think this time around the Democrats have the fix in, and you may see irregularities in Republican districts come Election Day.
As for reforms, the system we use here in Canada seems to work well, namely paper and pencil ballots, polling stations manned by volunteers for all official parties, ballots counted by hand, with members of all official parties observing. It's a method open to attack, but is more secure to massive attacks on a national scale.
Nice red herring there. Government bureaucracy has nothing to do with why you're in Iraq. In fact, Iraq is probably the most privatized war the USA has ever fought.
Government bureaucracy promotes inefficiency through civil servants using regulations to protect their jobs and their budgets, not through sending troops to far away lands (which is not to say they wouldn't be happy to let people die to protect budgets, and jobs). The US is in Iraq because George Bush, his advisors, and many corporations want the US to be in Iraq. Not because of government inefficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
I found with my Razr that I couldn't bear to buy the shit software or the expensive cable. I did discover however that it was perfectly happy transferring files to a computer over the bluetooth link, without the software. I discovered this with my then-girlfriend's mac, but I imagine it would work with any bluetooth equipped machine.
Please provide model numbers of good phones without extras. Seriously. Go to your handy-dandy electronics store and try to find a phone without a camera. Good luck.
And because I forgot....
"You can't argue from what makes sense to what the law means."
Actually, you can. It's called the "Reasonable Third Party" test, and it's used quite often in Contract law, to determine if two parties really have a contract or not. The judge asks herself, "if I explained the fact situation to a reasonable person (doesn't have to necessarily be a smart person), would that person say a contract existed?" If the answer's no, the judge can rule that no contract exists. Period.
Your little turd about how the sale price is really a deposit won't wash, because the key part of a contract, that makes it binding, is the agreement to the terms, not the exchange of money. There is no contract until you read the EULA, and accept it (a click through is not necessarily an acceptance).
The fact that once you open the box, nobody will take it back, could be a good argument that clicking the "I Agree" button doesn't actually signal your agreement, but instead signals that "I've been tricked out of my money, and I'm trying to mitigate my losses by enjoying the game." Migating your losses does not constitute acceptance of a contract, rather it's what you do after the contract has been broken.
I don't know if there is case law in the US yet either way on this point (I'm pretty sure it hasn't been tested in Canada) so really, nobody's right until a judge decides on an issue, and really it will take more than one decision to firm up the rules, since there are probably several different issues that will have to be decided.
You need to quote case law on that or stop talking out of your ass. Really.
Sorry, but it's not elitist for the middle class to be paid fair value for their work, and to be able to enjoy the fruits of their own labours.
This idea that your primary function in society is to make other people richer (because this is what you're doing when you work harder for the same pay) is distinctly North American. Europeans don't look down on us because they think we're inherently inferior, they look down on us because we go around with "sucker" written on our heads, and let a small, elite minority take advantage of us.
"The West"!= the USA.
The creatives and knowledge workers (in the music business) for the most part aren't getting paid. They are forced by the distribution cartel to sign away their copyright benefits to the cartel. The cartel, which has created nothing, then charges grossly inflated prices to distribute art, when it is common knowledge that said distribution costs many times less than what they're charging. Last time I checked, this was called "abusing the powers of a monopoly" or in some quarters, "racketeering".
Ask yourself this: if copyright laws are meant to protect the content creator, why do they grant rights that extend 50-75 years after the death of the content creator?
What's funny is that an artist's work is his property, but my work is my boss' property.
Seriously, the elephant in the room here is that copyright as it exists now is grossly unfair, with copyright terms expanding 50 years or so beyond the life of the copyright holder. Why do you need to be paid for your artistic creation after you're dead? There is a fundamental injustice at the heart of copyright law in America. This matters, you know. It isn't enough to say that unjust laws are laws, and must be obeyed anyway. The system has to have mechanisms to weed out bad laws.
File sharing has one rather important distinction from theft. Namely, the punishments for theft as defined in the law are generally just, while punishment for file sharing as a subset of copyright infringement is unjust (as are the laws governing copyright as they currently stand). Throwing the two terms together as synonyms glosses over this critical issue.
Well, in part because they're actually trying to make Blu-Ray another outlet for films sold to the home market, and up until recently many of those companies were trying to make HD-DVD into another method to sell movies to the home market. Many movies are also available on PSP as well, last I checked. DVD is, in this case, the overwhelmingly popular choice with consumers, not with companies. This is due in part to the fact that the DRM on DVDs has been cracked. Movie distributors want very badly to wean us all off DVDs for that reason, but consumers are just not willing to go.
for anyone still confused by the summary, it would make more sense if you changed the title from "Apple Admits IPod Is From 1970s UK" to
"Patent Troll Foiled by Original Inventor of Digital Music Player"
Repeat after me boys and girls; Barack Obama is not a Socialist.
"One more reason to make sure the conservatives do not form a government."
There, fixed that for ya.
Mulroney did pretty well for two terms...big majorities in each.
I agree with most of what you said, but would add this: if anyone is interested in what's wrong with C61, check out Michael Geist's blog where he's running "61 Reforms to C61". It's scary as hell, C61 is MUCH worse than the DMCA.
And two, although Harper's government is complicit in the rendition of Maher Arar, Arar was actually rendered to Syria on Paul Martin's watch.
To be fair (and I'm not saying I agree with his selection process - I don't), the committee couldn't make a choice because the opposition members on it didn't show up, and quorum couldn't be reached. You can't blame Harper for that (but you can congratulate those MPs).
I agree, but brand awareness isn't a good thing for a company if it's also accompanied by brand erosion. It doesn't help a company if whenever you think of their product, all you can think about is how shitty it is.
It only works if it convinces people to buy a Microsoft product when they otherwise wouldn't. That's the true metric of the success of an ad, not the popularity of the ad.
If the ad is as bad as the summary says, this could actually hurt the Microsoft brand, not boost it. The more we talk about how bad it is, the worse the effect on the brand will be.
I can see it happening if the Companies in question wanted underline how serious the issue is. Nothing says "we're gonna stomp you" better than saying "This is George, he's chief legal counsel for my Company. Now what were you saying?"
Are they ill-tempered?
Well, yeah, but I subscribe to the idea that if you don't vote (or at least spoil your ballot) then you don't count.
Where in my post did I suggest this? Personally, I think this time around the Democrats have the fix in, and you may see irregularities in Republican districts come Election Day.
As for reforms, the system we use here in Canada seems to work well, namely paper and pencil ballots, polling stations manned by volunteers for all official parties, ballots counted by hand, with members of all official parties observing. It's a method open to attack, but is more secure to massive attacks on a national scale.
Unless the ruling judge strikes that too. Judges get pissy about being told they can't do stuff.
Oh right, Diebold, Sequoia Systems, ESS, and almost half of the ordinary folks. You're correct.
Nice red herring there. Government bureaucracy has nothing to do with why you're in Iraq. In fact, Iraq is probably the most privatized war the USA has ever fought.
Government bureaucracy promotes inefficiency through civil servants using regulations to protect their jobs and their budgets, not through sending troops to far away lands (which is not to say they wouldn't be happy to let people die to protect budgets, and jobs). The US is in Iraq because George Bush, his advisors, and many corporations want the US to be in Iraq. Not because of government inefficiency.
The test exists to test for Mad Cow in cattle older than 2 years old.