Reminds me of MSN messenger. The messenger used to limit sending of too many pokes per time unit, but it did nothing to limit receiving pokes. Catch the correct packet, and sent it 10,000 times a second on repeat; Good times.
I would imagine, like for software ToSes, that most companies are not setup to negotiate legal terms and that the person you hand you contract into has no authority to change them and no real way set up to contact the people who do.
Once I was a coop software engineer and the agreement they made me sign was clearly written simply to be signed and not read.
It clearly make it nearly impossible to continue being a coop software engineer after signing it, but I was told that they would not use it unless it was an extreme case and I should just sign it.
I think it might be very helpful to create an international organization of legal experts to help invalidate the ToS agreement under the grounds that no one ever reads them and everyone knows it.
They should not have any legal standing, because no one in their right mind takes them seriously (on both sides of the fence: I have seen ToS's with joke clauses).
They plan on summarising ToS, so that we have a simple and quick guide to what we are agreeing to. Personally I cannot see how a simple rating system would work, I think they would have to copy the games ESRB rating system. Giving a grade, the tell us a summary of why it is bad (or possibly good).
Which makes sense, except if you consider what is best for the users. A OS needs a set of basic included software products, and it is not at all better to ask the user for each one which one they prefer.
Are we going to fine Tim Hortons (THE canadian coffee shop) over not giving customers a choice over what type of beans goes in the default coffee? Are we going to fine Mcdonalds for not asking if a customer would possibly not prefer a Burger King burger instead?
This ruling shows an absolute disregard of what is best for the people, and an obvious contempt for their intelligence (give them a basic internet browser, and they can install another if they want to).
I agree, mostly. MS should be fined billions for creating and taking advantage of a monopoly. But I do not agree with the initial EU ruling, MS should not have to give users a choice in software. No idea if it was politically motivated or not, though.
Etymology: It was originally called "Georgium Sidus" after King George III, but since no one liked that name a bunch of unofficial alternatives were thought up. Uranus eventually won out and even became official in 1850. Uranus being the Latinized version of the Greek god of the sky, Ouranos. Bode argued that just as Saturn was the father of Jupiter, the new planet should be named after the father of Saturn. In 1789, Bode's Royal Academy colleague Martin Klaproth named his newly discovered element "uranium" in support of Bode's choice.
Well obviously not, or there would be no way to tell. I assume that they did their own translation, something that costs money (unless you know a translator who works for free) and is not a one to one relationship.
Just because there is a solution does not make it legally binding. Particularly since the default it to do it, you do not volunteer, you opt-out.
I can say, anyone who does not invite me to break into their house and steal their shit should hang a specific sign on their door. But the legal system will not suddenly be bound to count this standard as legally binding, even if the entire criminal community started to honour it.
Most laws do not care if there is something you could've done to prevent a crime being committed against you, they only care that it happened.
Just because I can phone anyone legally does not mean that I can legally write a program that will phone everyone. And just because I can summarize an article, providing the necessary citations, does not mean that I can legally write a program to summarize all of wikipedia and then post that online with advertizing.
Yes, that is basically it. If you make more money you will go to high class establishments to spend your cash on. Instead of a $2 dollar coffee, you can always spend $20 for basically the same thing. You can get a $10 box of wine, or a $1000 glass or wine, and you probably would not be able to tell the difference. You will might drive a 100K car, and wear a 2K suit, but most of the cost is only so that you can show off, and they do not function very differently or necessarily look better.
I might spend 20 cents on clothing myself, you might spend $20, and a Google employee might spend $200. You spend more, because you can, to show off. After minimum wage(well maybe not quite with American minimum wage) the only point of making more is so that you can spend more and feel more successful. And any money put aside will be a tiny percentage of salary. Neighborhoods cost more to live in because the average salary is high, so they do not want to "demean" themselves shopping at used stores or not paying $20 for a coffee, it costs more, because the price of goods will always increase too what you want to pay for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Which would be true if most religions were not interchangeably identical, and people did not always pick their parents religion.
Wars between religions are more like the fictional war between the United Atheist Alliance and the Allied Atheist Alliance, over the Great Question.
Reminds me of MSN messenger.
The messenger used to limit sending of too many pokes per time unit, but it did nothing to limit receiving pokes.
Catch the correct packet, and sent it 10,000 times a second on repeat; Good times.
Well never say never, I have encountered software EULAs that were in an editable text box...
And it seems to me that if you hacked into a games files and changed the EULA before you signed it, it should be fine legally.
Would the consensus be that it is good to lose your children once in awhile.
I agree.
I thought that was what child leashes were for?
And companies are willing to negotiate/listen?
I would imagine, like for software ToSes, that most companies are not setup to negotiate legal terms and that the person you hand you contract into has no authority to change them and no real way set up to contact the people who do.
Once I was a coop software engineer and the agreement they made me sign was clearly written simply to be signed and not read.
It clearly make it nearly impossible to continue being a coop software engineer after signing it, but I was told that they would not use it unless it was an extreme case and I should just sign it.
That might actually be better.
I think it might be very helpful to create an international organization of legal experts to help invalidate the ToS agreement under the grounds that no one ever reads them and everyone knows it.
They should not have any legal standing, because no one in their right mind takes them seriously (on both sides of the fence: I have seen ToS's with joke clauses).
I was there and read "We are a user rights initiative to rate and label website terms & privacy policies, from very good Class A to very bad Class E"
The rest was TL;DR, but unless they are lying or exaggerating this sentence seems pretty clear.
They plan on summarising ToS, so that we have a simple and quick guide to what we are agreeing to. Personally I cannot see how a simple rating system would work, I think they would have to copy the games ESRB rating system. Giving a grade, the tell us a summary of why it is bad (or possibly good).
Which makes sense, except if you consider what is best for the users. A OS needs a set of basic included software products, and it is not at all better to ask the user for each one which one they prefer.
Are we going to fine Tim Hortons (THE canadian coffee shop) over not giving customers a choice over what type of beans goes in the default coffee? Are we going to fine Mcdonalds for not asking if a customer would possibly not prefer a Burger King burger instead?
This ruling shows an absolute disregard of what is best for the people, and an obvious contempt for their intelligence (give them a basic internet browser, and they can install another if they want to).
This should not be modded flamebate.
I agree, mostly.
MS should be fined billions for creating and taking advantage of a monopoly.
But I do not agree with the initial EU ruling, MS should not have to give users a choice in software. No idea if it was politically motivated or not, though.
But they are getting away with it....
This case is not about past wrongs, it is about activity over the last year or so.
But 70%, easily, of their market share is because of their monopoly. So while they are no longer a monopoly on browser users they do on PCs.
But personally I do not even agree with the initial ruling.
After rewatching the series a few times, I would say yes, definitely.
They really have to change that planet's name.
Etymology:
It was originally called "Georgium Sidus" after King George III, but since no one liked that name a bunch of unofficial alternatives were thought up. Uranus eventually won out and even became official in 1850. Uranus being the Latinized version of the Greek god of the sky, Ouranos. Bode argued that just as Saturn was the father of Jupiter, the new planet should be named after the father of Saturn. In 1789, Bode's Royal Academy colleague Martin Klaproth named his newly discovered element "uranium" in support of Bode's choice.
So Amazon has completely cornered the market because of stupidity? how does not make any sense?
Well obviously not, or there would be no way to tell.
I assume that they did their own translation, something that costs money (unless you know a translator who works for free) and is not a one to one relationship.
I wonder how they will "know" who is torrenting and who is not.It would take a lot of work to monitor everyone for copyrighted content.
They may just go the easy way and consider everyone who torrents much as pirating.
Just because there is a solution does not make it legally binding.
Particularly since the default it to do it, you do not volunteer, you opt-out.
I can say, anyone who does not invite me to break into their house and steal their shit should hang a specific sign on their door.
But the legal system will not suddenly be bound to count this standard as legally binding, even if the entire criminal community started to honour it.
Most laws do not care if there is something you could've done to prevent a crime being committed against you, they only care that it happened.
Just because I can phone anyone legally does not mean that I can legally write a program that will phone everyone.
And just because I can summarize an article, providing the necessary citations, does not mean that I can legally write a program to summarize all of wikipedia and then post that online with advertizing.
I would start charging French media sites for all click throughs to their website.
If they did not pay, they would not get indexed in the future.
No matter what the media or the government decide, there is no scenario where the media comes out ahead in this deal.
Yes, that is basically it. If you make more money you will go to high class establishments to spend your cash on. Instead of a $2 dollar coffee, you can always spend $20 for basically the same thing. You can get a $10 box of wine, or a $1000 glass or wine, and you probably would not be able to tell the difference. You will might drive a 100K car, and wear a 2K suit, but most of the cost is only so that you can show off, and they do not function very differently or necessarily look better.
I might spend 20 cents on clothing myself, you might spend $20, and a Google employee might spend $200. You spend more, because you can, to show off. After minimum wage(well maybe not quite with American minimum wage) the only point of making more is so that you can spend more and feel more successful. And any money put aside will be a tiny percentage of salary. Neighborhoods cost more to live in because the average salary is high, so they do not want to "demean" themselves shopping at used stores or not paying $20 for a coffee, it costs more, because the price of goods will always increase too what you want to pay for them.