Which is precisely what will happen if your mom forces you to get it removed and then bills you for the procedure by taking it out of your allowance for the next 10 years.
Which just goes to show you, if you're a minor, make sure your parents are ok with it.
One thing that corporate overlords like about IE6 is that it breaks sites like facebook, youtube, etc that the PHB's don't want their wage serfs looking at while on duty.
All this talk about blaming the investors just because they're the ones who happen to get caught holding the bag is a blatant cop-out attempt to avoid doing the digging to find out who really blew it.
A fuckup this bad is borderline gross negligence and the shareholders have every right to cry out for management blood. That, after all, is the reason the investors aren't running the company themselves, because presumably the management, in exchange for a salary, handles that for them.
Suppose they are a bunch of sheep that don't like ads, but would rather have a game with ads than no game at all.
It doesn't depend on whether or not the customer likes the ads, it depends on whether or not the ad sales bring the company more money than they lose due to customer frustration with the ads.
The only problem I have with the apt tax is taxation of withdrawals and deposits.
For withdrawals, presumably that money has already been taxed once when it was paid to me.
For deposits, especially for businesses, it has already been taxed at the register.
For both of them, I despise taxation on my property when it doesn't legally change hands. The bank account is in my name, I legally own that money, and it's even federally insured.
This is akin to being required to deal with DRM that forces you to rebuy content just because you want to shift it to a different device.
Purchasing savings bonds, stocks, etc, go ahead since it's a trade. Moving money in and out of a bank account, no thanks.
And something you don't agree to (or maybe even decline, as hollow and symbolic as it would be after the fact) until after the purchase lacks consideration and is unenforceable.
This bullshit of "If you do not agree to the terms, return it to the store you bought it from" tries to force you to presume on a generous returns policy, and additionally attempts to burden the store with an agreement *they* never agreed to, namely, to accept a return of your product in the event that you are not satisfied with the shrinkwrap contract.
I'm sure GP was being sarcastic, but any agreement that requires a 900 page ToS to spell out everything is either too complicated anyway, or deliberately complex so that the vendor can hide something in legalese.
As far as unconscionable terms, the fact that they were included in the first place is shameful to begin with. We shouldn't *have* to rely on the courts to protect us from what good sense, aka the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, should already cover.
Companies that try to pull this kind of shit are just plain evil, and I would never do business with them if I had the choice. Often times, thankfully, I *can* vote with my wallet. I pity the fool who is stuck with a local monopoly that doesn't afford such an option.
Slashdot Mirror
The bible isn't the only textual work that people will bend to their own use.
See also copyright and patent law.
Nice life you have there, would be a shame if someone ruined it with a costly lawsuit...
Yup, about as friendly as the local mafioso "selling" you "insurance"
Sadly, it doesn't really matter where, or even if, he breached copyright.
The bottom line is that Sony doesn't want this published, and they have a high powered legal team to muscle him into compliance.
The legal issues are barely even relevant when even having an airtight defense doesn't protect you from getting bankrupted by legal fees.
After what Mark Zuckerberg said about users being dumb fucks for trusting him, I will not touch Facebook with a 10 mile pole.
No, it's more like not burning bridges before you've crossed them.
This is the reason you only Defect in the last round of a Prisoner's Dilemma competition.
It can even be considered protection of goodwill.
And this is exactly why Google can't win.
The last line is "kenya believe it".
If you're going to post a meme at least get it right, doofus.
What I really hate about stare decisis is that it sets fuckups in stone.
Only the supreme court can reverse its own precedent. Other courts can't even overrule themselves.
The earth is flat, locally.
Just like spacetime is flat, locally.
Which is precisely what will happen if your mom forces you to get it removed and then bills you for the procedure by taking it out of your allowance for the next 10 years.
Which just goes to show you, if you're a minor, make sure your parents are ok with it.
Tell me what legal right Wikipedia even has to change licensing in such a manner. I licensed my contributions to them under the GFDL, not CC.
One thing that corporate overlords like about IE6 is that it breaks sites like facebook, youtube, etc that the PHB's don't want their wage serfs looking at while on duty.
Don't feed the trolls.
All this talk about blaming the investors just because they're the ones who happen to get caught holding the bag is a blatant cop-out attempt to avoid doing the digging to find out who really blew it.
A fuckup this bad is borderline gross negligence and the shareholders have every right to cry out for management blood. That, after all, is the reason the investors aren't running the company themselves, because presumably the management, in exchange for a salary, handles that for them.
No, but if the signers had known their names would be made public, they might not have signed.
This is like dad grounding you for catching your hands in a cookie jar that your mom said you could raid.
In many places using a fictitious name is either fraud or perjury or both.
In a way, the fact that we bitch about vandalism instead of worrying about losing our necks shows how much progress we've made.
To have the luxury of affording a gripe session about your car instead of something worse is quite the gift those brave founders gave us.
As long as the one griping about their car remembers and honors the founding fathers that gave them that luxury, I see no problem.
Suppose they are a bunch of sheep that don't like ads, but would rather have a game with ads than no game at all.
It doesn't depend on whether or not the customer likes the ads, it depends on whether or not the ad sales bring the company more money than they lose due to customer frustration with the ads.
In-game ads can enhance the game if they are done correctly.
What would a racing track be without billboards, for example?
The only problem I have with the apt tax is taxation of withdrawals and deposits.
For withdrawals, presumably that money has already been taxed once when it was paid to me.
For deposits, especially for businesses, it has already been taxed at the register.
For both of them, I despise taxation on my property when it doesn't legally change hands. The bank account is in my name, I legally own that money, and it's even federally insured.
This is akin to being required to deal with DRM that forces you to rebuy content just because you want to shift it to a different device.
Purchasing savings bonds, stocks, etc, go ahead since it's a trade. Moving money in and out of a bank account, no thanks.
Ditto for loans and payments on a loan.
80 percent of the people who installed it later uninstalled it because of how bad it sucked.
While that doesn't absolve Google of their responsibility, it does mitigate the evil of what they did.
And mind you, Google is still *by far* the lesser of many evils.
And something you don't agree to (or maybe even decline, as hollow and symbolic as it would be after the fact) until after the purchase lacks consideration and is unenforceable.
This bullshit of "If you do not agree to the terms, return it to the store you bought it from" tries to force you to presume on a generous returns policy, and additionally attempts to burden the store with an agreement *they* never agreed to, namely, to accept a return of your product in the event that you are not satisfied with the shrinkwrap contract.
I'm sure GP was being sarcastic, but any agreement that requires a 900 page ToS to spell out everything is either too complicated anyway, or deliberately complex so that the vendor can hide something in legalese.
As far as unconscionable terms, the fact that they were included in the first place is shameful to begin with. We shouldn't *have* to rely on the courts to protect us from what good sense, aka the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, should already cover.
Companies that try to pull this kind of shit are just plain evil, and I would never do business with them if I had the choice. Often times, thankfully, I *can* vote with my wallet. I pity the fool who is stuck with a local monopoly that doesn't afford such an option.
For not being a govt agency they sure have a funny position in their headquarters called the OIG.