Here's the problem: NASA's projects *need* to run for decades. Often if you abandon the too quickly, you've spent most of the money without getting ANY of the reward. But their financial support is driven by election cycles. WHOOPS!
If this paper convinced ONE legislator to vote for NASA, then it as worth the minimal expense it entailed. (As others have said, there's nothing particularly original, surprising, about it, so it didn't take any research worth mentioning to produce.) If it satisfied one legialative or administratrive supporter, then it may have been worth the effort.
I will agree that it sounds obvious, but to a lot of people it may not be obvious.
For how much longer? Oil is a finite resource, and WILL run out. Then you've either got to synthesize it using some other source of energy or stop using it.
Unfortunately, we have already proven the existence of enough extractable hydorcarbons to raise the world's temperature by about 10 degrees Celsius. It's not clear that humanity would survive this. But most of this is coal, not oil. And extracting much of it would be inefficient (as in burning the coal in place at a controlled temperature and oxigenation level and extracting the methane produced). Because of the inefficiency we are likely to go through it much more rapidly than we did through the oil, because such a large percentage will be wasted.
It's not that simple. In the Americas civilizations failed without being cut off from trade with other countries (that they had ever traded with). This is believed to have been due to problems with climate change causing massive crop failures over a period of a decade or so. And it happened more than once.
This, of course, only proves that there is more than one mode of failure. But, AFAIK, there's no proof that there's any way that's proof against failure. (OTOH, given what we know I'm not sure there's any possibility of such a proof.)
All we really know is that every previous civilization has collapsed.
Worse, C is the speed of light in a vacuum. In any other medium it's slower. I'd need to check what current light fiber speeds are, but it's guaranteed to be less than C, unless there's a vacuum in the center of the fiber. (I think there needs to be a relatively smooth gradient of speeds, with the center being the fastest and the edges being the slowest for an optical fiber to work, but I'm less than certain.)
OTOH, a tetrahertz switch doesn't mean a tetrahertz CPU cycle. So I'm not at all sure that you can presume that we're talking about a speedup of 250. I don't know what the speed of a switch inside a fast CPU is currently.
If Bill Gates is involved, I suspect some devious plot, though not necessarily Microsoft based. Actually, history would suggest that it's also Microsoft based, but he hasn't been in charge for awhile now, so perhaps he's got something else to push.
Every time I've checked one of his "benevolent" actions, it's turned out to be control motivated (or wealth motivated) so I'm now suspicious whenever his name appears.
FWIW, axioms cannot be understood. They can only be postulated. If they are said to apply to reality, then they can also be observed to be invariably true. (Well, actually they can be observed to be true when you are noticing them, except in minor edge cases that can be explained away.)
What *can* be understood is how the axioms interact to describe an instance. (I'm being general here, so that I'm not *just* talking about math, but math is included.)
One useful way of talking about axioms is to use metaphors, some times historic. E.g., the equals sign is a symbol representing a balenced set of scales (as used in Babylon). In this system numbers are mapped to weights. So the scales remain balanced if you add or remove the same number from both pans of the scale. But this is an analogy, and there are places where it breaks down. (E.g., a square root has two valid answers...which doesn't fit the analogy, but does fit the axioms.)
But automation is continuing at a rapid pace. Currently the designs are such that complex machines are often replaced rather than being repaired. (When is the last time you heard of a disk drive or a keyboard being repaired? Refridgerator?) And that's NOW, not when those currently in grade schoold have graduated from college/vocational school.
FWIW, I would have no idea what to recommend people learn...beyond certain basics: logic, critical thinking, how to evaluate reliability, etc.
A few decades ago I recommended that one should "be a garbage man", on the grounds that this would probably not be quickly automated. Well, automation hasn't advanced quite as quickly as I expected, but garbageman has remained a viable career path, if not a particularly attractive one. Part of the reason for this recommendation was that there aren't many openings in top management, and they are the ones who decide what jobs won't be automated, so that's the last job that will go. Today, though, I'm not so sure. Automated trucks are on the horizon, and that will eliminate huge swaths of jobs. And garbage collection has already been redesigned to increase the automation. (I'm not real inspired by the efficiency of the automation, but it has reduced the number of workers/truck and, perhaps, increased the speed of collection.) Further redesign is clearly needed, however...and by the time that happens, it's quite likely that the truct will drive itself.
Supermarket checkout clerk? RFID tags are already changing that. Currently there's no requirement that the cashier be more than very minimally literate. Self-checkout is spreading. How far will it spread?
Have you heard about the automated paralegal? It does searches through legal cases for useful references. This is work that used to be delegated to the entry lawyers of a firm. I don't know how widespread it is, but it's clearly something that is amenable to improvement.
Etc. I can't predict where automation will strike next, or how rapid will be its proliferation. But predicting what will be needed 20 years from now seems more than a bit risky. I might venture 5 years. At 10 years I'd be likely to overestimate the changes. At 20, however, I'd be likely to grossly underestimate the changes. That's enough time for something to be expected to come out of left field that will totally change things in unexpected ways. And education is supposed to prepare one for the long term.
One of the main problems with the current system is micro-management by distant administrators. This isn't going to improve that. The tax system restructuring that was supposed to fund schools equally has, surprisingly, resulted in schools in poor areas subsidizing those in wealthier areas.
I don't have a good answer, as high mobility has basically destroyed most local communities (and by local I'm including neighborhoods, as well as small towns). But it's also had lots of good effects. The basic problem is the increased spread of inequality of income, and the abuses of power that it leads to. (If it didn't lead to abuse of power, I'd be more willing to listen to the "free market" people despite the fact that there has never, in all of history, been a free market larger than an extended family, and even that size is uncommon.)
Well, FWIW, I was against the reform that replaced basic arithmetic via memorization with set theory. I'm still opposed. Mind you, I hated that memorization, and I'm not really convinced that it's a good idea as calculators become more ubiqutous, but "Set Theory"? Logic I could see, though I doubt that the students would like it much more than they do memorization, but it's a basic tool. Set theory was dreamed up by people who wanted to reduce the observed world to a minimal number of beliefs. Useful, but hardly appropriate for elementary math. Particularly as it leads immediately to things like the secretary of the non-secretaries club, and the Spanish barber. Wait at least until high school. (Even there I think classical Geometry, algebra, and trig, with possible analytic geometry is a better sequence. Set theory should be mentioned occasionally for those who want to investigate it, but not be central.)
I haven't investigated was the Core Curriculum is about, but if Bill Gates is in favor of it, I'm skeptical without checking further. If he proposed it, I suspect malicious entrapment. He may sometimes have done more good than harm, but I don't know. His PR agents tend to whitewash his deeds, and ignore any commercial ties. Whenever I've actually looked carefully, it has seemed to me that he has done more harm than good. (Admittedly, I usually rely on presuming that current actions are similar to prior actions, and don't investigate.)
That's what it says on the cover. It also says on the cover that Ada has optional garbage collection...but somehow nobody implements it, and no program dares to rely on it.
When I was in school we often did not get even half way through to mandated text...I don't think optional extras will get much coverage..
A point, but not enough of one to excuse her. It definitely comes across as she is objecting to herself, or her staff, being.... I don't know what to call it if she objects to calling it surveilance.
Sorry, but I must disagree. Ronald Reagan didn't have the mental capacity to be a traitor. (His wife is another matter...but she didn't take the oath of office.)
I only disagree when you get to "now she does". I don't believe that to be true. I think she only objects to their spying upon her and her staff. I would be quite happy were she to prove me wrong.
That's not totally incorrect, but it doesn't translate into a currency. Government issued currencies are backed by the threat that if you don't pey your taxes (in their currency) they will take your possessions. (Which is why your original statement is partially correct.)
N.B.: I'm not saying that this is either good or bad. It has aspects of both. Which predominates depends upon the fairness of tax policy and tax collection enforcement.
The concept of "justified war" has too major problems: 1) If you accept it, how do you avoid the slippery slope? I can't think of a government in history that has avoided it. 2) If you don't accept it, how do you defend yourself from an aggressor?
Perhaps the actual problem is the way idea space is being partitioned, but I don't see how it could be partitioned to solve the problem. I tend to suspect that the actual problem relates to centralized authority, but a decentralized authority tends to have a slow reaction time when decisions need to be made.
So far the only plausible solution I've seen involves centralized decision residing in an AI, but first a reliable AI needs to be created.
Given the way that gtk3 "improved" over gtk2, that's not a bad idea. I would really like to not be dependent upon it, because who knows what garbage they'll make and call gtk4.
OTOH, most of the KDE Office suite is unusable. This isn't because of the Qt libraries, though. I haven't been able to figure out WHAT their goal is, but its been nearly a decade and they haven't significantly improved. I used to use KMail, but at one point it broke, and other people's comments have dissuaded be from trying it again.
The point isn't that your (or I) read all the code, but that the author can't control who will look at it, and lots of people are likely to, particularly if they notice anything suspicious about how it acts.
As for you being a customer of Fedora...how much did you pay them? I could see you claiming to be a customer of Red Hat, but of Fedora? (OTOH, it's true this code is likely to eventually make its way into Red Hat's commercial offerings...so if you are a customer of Red Hat, i.e. purchase one of their commercial packages with support contract), you do have reasonable grounds to claim to be a customer. But I rather doubt that you are.
P.S.: I rarely look at the code, but I do occasionally look at some piece if I want to figure out how they are doing some particular thing. And I suspect that the number of people who occasionally look at a piece of the code here and there is much higher than you expect, even though very few do it full time, or even very much of the time.
IIUC, Fedora is not increasing the export of code, but rather allowing the import of code. As such, I don't see why the law should have anything to do with it. If it does, then this needs to be explained more clearly.
What this seems to be doing is allowing Fedora to import code with names assigned, but without geocoding it. It is true that this would imply that the contributor had, in some manner, got hold of the original code, but this doesn't mean that Fedora gave them access. Probably they got it from some other source which legally got the code from Fedora (i.e., Red Hat).
And, if I am understanding correctly, this does not violate any intentional wording of the law. It may, of course, violate a carelessly worded portion of the law...but so might anything. Legal bugs rarely get corrected except via legal interpretations by appellate courts...and though are nearly as likely to introduce bugs as to fix the old one, and often seem to introduce new bugs while still not fixing the old one. Which is a small part of why there are so many stupid, ill-conceived, and harmful laws on the books. Bribery of legislators is, of course, the predominate reason.
FWIW, I have little respect the for US legal system. There are worse ones, but the percentage of worse legal systems is growing fewer each year...usually without the rest of the world improving. The wholesale bribery of legislative bodies without anyone being punished does not inspire ANY respect. Neither does the wealthy blatantly abusing the less powerful. Neither does the choice of viable candidates for office.
There have been supreme court justices that disagree with your opinion, though I agree that it is by far the majority opinion.
FWIW, when I am on a jury, I decide based on justice. And I don't let any judge tell me what justice is, not with the corrupt way they have gamified the court system, to the point where I will not call it a "justice system".
As it happens, every time I've been on a jury, the case was, AFAIKT, a valid case, and I happened to agree with the judge. This doesn't mean that if I felt that equity and justice were being violated I would accept his dicta WRT how and on what basis I should vote.
There's not much justification for that, but what about teaching them that pi == 3? There's authority for that in the Bible. (Somewhere about the building of the temple by Solomon, there's described a round vessel with a circumference 3 times its diameter.)
Sorry, but voluntary ignorance is necessary in an age of information overload. I routinely decline to inform myself of the contents of junk mail, e.g.
You need to rethink your statement. You might also want to think carefully about what your definitions are for good and evil. It torturing bacteria good or evil? Why? What about nematodes? Grasshoppers? Does it depend on your motives? All or them, or only the ones you admit?
Please note, it is possible to teach children how to make explosives. Is it evil to keep them in ignorance?
You don't know his use case. He may have a very good reason.
FWIW, I don't know how to do it either, but I don't do web programming, so that's not surprising. But I would expect that there would be some client-side javascript, or possibly java, that could acquire and retransmit the information.
The reason that the people who took the loans aren't held as guilty as the people who loaned the money is because many people have experienced being talked into something by a fast-talking salesman who sold them something they didn't really understand. It's happened to me. You don't expect the people who take out loans to be experts at understanding contract law, and those are the only people who had a reasonable chance of being certain what they had signed. (Even then it's only a reasonable chance. Let me hand you an obfuscated program you've never studied and press you for a quick signature while I tell you about the wonderful things it will do for you.)
For that matter, when is the last time you actually read and understood the EULA for the software you've just installed? Are you sure?
P.S.: The main reason I am now running Linux rather than Apple is that I actually read some of the EULAs. MS was worse, and I left them earlier. And as IANAL, I must admit that perhaps they weren't quite as bad as I believed that they were...but they could as easily have been much worse. But the Real Estate market doesn't have anything analogous to the GPL or BSD licenses.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the problem:
NASA's projects *need* to run for decades. Often if you abandon the too quickly, you've spent most of the money without getting ANY of the reward. But their financial support is driven by election cycles. WHOOPS!
If this paper convinced ONE legislator to vote for NASA, then it as worth the minimal expense it entailed. (As others have said, there's nothing particularly original, surprising, about it, so it didn't take any research worth mentioning to produce.) If it satisfied one legialative or administratrive supporter, then it may have been worth the effort.
I will agree that it sounds obvious, but to a lot of people it may not be obvious.
For how much longer? Oil is a finite resource, and WILL run out. Then you've either got to synthesize it using some other source of energy or stop using it.
Unfortunately, we have already proven the existence of enough extractable hydorcarbons to raise the world's temperature by about 10 degrees Celsius. It's not clear that humanity would survive this. But most of this is coal, not oil. And extracting much of it would be inefficient (as in burning the coal in place at a controlled temperature and oxigenation level and extracting the methane produced). Because of the inefficiency we are likely to go through it much more rapidly than we did through the oil, because such a large percentage will be wasted.
It's not that simple. In the Americas civilizations failed without being cut off from trade with other countries (that they had ever traded with). This is believed to have been due to problems with climate change causing massive crop failures over a period of a decade or so. And it happened more than once.
This, of course, only proves that there is more than one mode of failure. But, AFAIK, there's no proof that there's any way that's proof against failure. (OTOH, given what we know I'm not sure there's any possibility of such a proof.)
All we really know is that every previous civilization has collapsed.
He didn't say it was doing a good job, he said he couldn't see a better alternative. And you didn't propose one either.
Worse, C is the speed of light in a vacuum. In any other medium it's slower. I'd need to check what current light fiber speeds are, but it's guaranteed to be less than C, unless there's a vacuum in the center of the fiber. (I think there needs to be a relatively smooth gradient of speeds, with the center being the fastest and the edges being the slowest for an optical fiber to work, but I'm less than certain.)
OTOH, a tetrahertz switch doesn't mean a tetrahertz CPU cycle. So I'm not at all sure that you can presume that we're talking about a speedup of 250. I don't know what the speed of a switch inside a fast CPU is currently.
If Bill Gates is involved, I suspect some devious plot, though not necessarily Microsoft based. Actually, history would suggest that it's also Microsoft based, but he hasn't been in charge for awhile now, so perhaps he's got something else to push.
Every time I've checked one of his "benevolent" actions, it's turned out to be control motivated (or wealth motivated) so I'm now suspicious whenever his name appears.
FWIW, axioms cannot be understood. They can only be postulated. If they are said to apply to reality, then they can also be observed to be invariably true. (Well, actually they can be observed to be true when you are noticing them, except in minor edge cases that can be explained away.)
What *can* be understood is how the axioms interact to describe an instance. (I'm being general here, so that I'm not *just* talking about math, but math is included.)
One useful way of talking about axioms is to use metaphors, some times historic. E.g., the equals sign is a symbol representing a balenced set of scales (as used in Babylon). In this system numbers are mapped to weights. So the scales remain balanced if you add or remove the same number from both pans of the scale. But this is an analogy, and there are places where it breaks down. (E.g., a square root has two valid answers...which doesn't fit the analogy, but does fit the axioms.)
Yet.
But automation is continuing at a rapid pace. Currently the designs are such that complex machines are often replaced rather than being repaired. (When is the last time you heard of a disk drive or a keyboard being repaired? Refridgerator?) And that's NOW, not when those currently in grade schoold have graduated from college/vocational school.
FWIW, I would have no idea what to recommend people learn...beyond certain basics: logic, critical thinking, how to evaluate reliability, etc.
A few decades ago I recommended that one should "be a garbage man", on the grounds that this would probably not be quickly automated. Well, automation hasn't advanced quite as quickly as I expected, but garbageman has remained a viable career path, if not a particularly attractive one. Part of the reason for this recommendation was that there aren't many openings in top management, and they are the ones who decide what jobs won't be automated, so that's the last job that will go. Today, though, I'm not so sure. Automated trucks are on the horizon, and that will eliminate huge swaths of jobs. And garbage collection has already been redesigned to increase the automation. (I'm not real inspired by the efficiency of the automation, but it has reduced the number of workers/truck and, perhaps, increased the speed of collection.) Further redesign is clearly needed, however...and by the time that happens, it's quite likely that the truct will drive itself.
Supermarket checkout clerk? RFID tags are already changing that. Currently there's no requirement that the cashier be more than very minimally literate. Self-checkout is spreading. How far will it spread?
Have you heard about the automated paralegal? It does searches through legal cases for useful references. This is work that used to be delegated to the entry lawyers of a firm. I don't know how widespread it is, but it's clearly something that is amenable to improvement.
Etc. I can't predict where automation will strike next, or how rapid will be its proliferation. But predicting what will be needed 20 years from now seems more than a bit risky. I might venture 5 years. At 10 years I'd be likely to overestimate the changes. At 20, however, I'd be likely to grossly underestimate the changes. That's enough time for something to be expected to come out of left field that will totally change things in unexpected ways. And education is supposed to prepare one for the long term.
One of the main problems with the current system is micro-management by distant administrators. This isn't going to improve that. The tax system restructuring that was supposed to fund schools equally has, surprisingly, resulted in schools in poor areas subsidizing those in wealthier areas.
I don't have a good answer, as high mobility has basically destroyed most local communities (and by local I'm including neighborhoods, as well as small towns). But it's also had lots of good effects. The basic problem is the increased spread of inequality of income, and the abuses of power that it leads to. (If it didn't lead to abuse of power, I'd be more willing to listen to the "free market" people despite the fact that there has never, in all of history, been a free market larger than an extended family, and even that size is uncommon.)
Well, FWIW, I was against the reform that replaced basic arithmetic via memorization with set theory. I'm still opposed. Mind you, I hated that memorization, and I'm not really convinced that it's a good idea as calculators become more ubiqutous, but "Set Theory"? Logic I could see, though I doubt that the students would like it much more than they do memorization, but it's a basic tool. Set theory was dreamed up by people who wanted to reduce the observed world to a minimal number of beliefs. Useful, but hardly appropriate for elementary math. Particularly as it leads immediately to things like the secretary of the non-secretaries club, and the Spanish barber. Wait at least until high school. (Even there I think classical Geometry, algebra, and trig, with possible analytic geometry is a better sequence. Set theory should be mentioned occasionally for those who want to investigate it, but not be central.)
I haven't investigated was the Core Curriculum is about, but if Bill Gates is in favor of it, I'm skeptical without checking further. If he proposed it, I suspect malicious entrapment. He may sometimes have done more good than harm, but I don't know. His PR agents tend to whitewash his deeds, and ignore any commercial ties. Whenever I've actually looked carefully, it has seemed to me that he has done more harm than good. (Admittedly, I usually rely on presuming that current actions are similar to prior actions, and don't investigate.)
That's what it says on the cover. It also says on the cover that Ada has optional garbage collection...but somehow nobody implements it, and no program dares to rely on it.
When I was in school we often did not get even half way through to mandated text...I don't think optional extras will get much coverage..
A point, but not enough of one to excuse her. It definitely comes across as she is objecting to herself, or her staff, being .... I don't know what to call it if she objects to calling it surveilance.
Sorry, but I must disagree. Ronald Reagan didn't have the mental capacity to be a traitor. (His wife is another matter...but she didn't take the oath of office.)
I only disagree when you get to "now she does". I don't believe that to be true. I think she only objects to their spying upon her and her staff. I would be quite happy were she to prove me wrong.
That's not totally incorrect, but it doesn't translate into a currency. Government issued currencies are backed by the threat that if you don't pey your taxes (in their currency) they will take your possessions. (Which is why your original statement is partially correct.)
N.B.: I'm not saying that this is either good or bad. It has aspects of both. Which predominates depends upon the fairness of tax policy and tax collection enforcement.
The concept of "justified war" has too major problems:
1) If you accept it, how do you avoid the slippery slope? I can't think of a government in history that has avoided it.
2) If you don't accept it, how do you defend yourself from an aggressor?
Perhaps the actual problem is the way idea space is being partitioned, but I don't see how it could be partitioned to solve the problem. I tend to suspect that the actual problem relates to centralized authority, but a decentralized authority tends to have a slow reaction time when decisions need to be made.
So far the only plausible solution I've seen involves centralized decision residing in an AI, but first a reliable AI needs to be created.
Given the way that gtk3 "improved" over gtk2, that's not a bad idea. I would really like to not be dependent upon it, because who knows what garbage they'll make and call gtk4.
OTOH, most of the KDE Office suite is unusable. This isn't because of the Qt libraries, though. I haven't been able to figure out WHAT their goal is, but its been nearly a decade and they haven't significantly improved. I used to use KMail, but at one point it broke, and other people's comments have dissuaded be from trying it again.
*IS* Red Hat giving them a compilable version? I doubt it. I think they acquire it from a third party who legally acquired it.
The point isn't that your (or I) read all the code, but that the author can't control who will look at it, and lots of people are likely to, particularly if they notice anything suspicious about how it acts.
As for you being a customer of Fedora...how much did you pay them? I could see you claiming to be a customer of Red Hat, but of Fedora? (OTOH, it's true this code is likely to eventually make its way into Red Hat's commercial offerings...so if you are a customer of Red Hat, i.e. purchase one of their commercial packages with support contract), you do have reasonable grounds to claim to be a customer. But I rather doubt that you are.
P.S.: I rarely look at the code, but I do occasionally look at some piece if I want to figure out how they are doing some particular thing. And I suspect that the number of people who occasionally look at a piece of the code here and there is much higher than you expect, even though very few do it full time, or even very much of the time.
IIUC, Fedora is not increasing the export of code, but rather allowing the import of code. As such, I don't see why the law should have anything to do with it. If it does, then this needs to be explained more clearly.
What this seems to be doing is allowing Fedora to import code with names assigned, but without geocoding it. It is true that this would imply that the contributor had, in some manner, got hold of the original code, but this doesn't mean that Fedora gave them access. Probably they got it from some other source which legally got the code from Fedora (i.e., Red Hat).
And, if I am understanding correctly, this does not violate any intentional wording of the law. It may, of course, violate a carelessly worded portion of the law...but so might anything. Legal bugs rarely get corrected except via legal interpretations by appellate courts...and though are nearly as likely to introduce bugs as to fix the old one, and often seem to introduce new bugs while still not fixing the old one. Which is a small part of why there are so many stupid, ill-conceived, and harmful laws on the books. Bribery of legislators is, of course, the predominate reason.
FWIW, I have little respect the for US legal system. There are worse ones, but the percentage of worse legal systems is growing fewer each year...usually without the rest of the world improving. The wholesale bribery of legislative bodies without anyone being punished does not inspire ANY respect. Neither does the wealthy blatantly abusing the less powerful. Neither does the choice of viable candidates for office.
There have been supreme court justices that disagree with your opinion, though I agree that it is by far the majority opinion.
FWIW, when I am on a jury, I decide based on justice. And I don't let any judge tell me what justice is, not with the corrupt way they have gamified the court system, to the point where I will not call it a "justice system".
As it happens, every time I've been on a jury, the case was, AFAIKT, a valid case, and I happened to agree with the judge. This doesn't mean that if I felt that equity and justice were being violated I would accept his dicta WRT how and on what basis I should vote.
There's not much justification for that, but what about teaching them that pi == 3? There's authority for that in the Bible. (Somewhere about the building of the temple by Solomon, there's described a round vessel with a circumference 3 times its diameter.)
Sorry, but voluntary ignorance is necessary in an age of information overload. I routinely decline to inform myself of the contents of junk mail, e.g.
You need to rethink your statement. You might also want to think carefully about what your definitions are for good and evil. It torturing bacteria good or evil? Why? What about nematodes? Grasshoppers? Does it depend on your motives? All or them, or only the ones you admit?
Please note, it is possible to teach children how to make explosives. Is it evil to keep them in ignorance?
You don't know his use case. He may have a very good reason.
FWIW, I don't know how to do it either, but I don't do web programming, so that's not surprising. But I would expect that there would be some client-side javascript, or possibly java, that could acquire and retransmit the information.
The reason that the people who took the loans aren't held as guilty as the people who loaned the money is because many people have experienced being talked into something by a fast-talking salesman who sold them something they didn't really understand. It's happened to me. You don't expect the people who take out loans to be experts at understanding contract law, and those are the only people who had a reasonable chance of being certain what they had signed. (Even then it's only a reasonable chance. Let me hand you an obfuscated program you've never studied and press you for a quick signature while I tell you about the wonderful things it will do for you.)
For that matter, when is the last time you actually read and understood the EULA for the software you've just installed? Are you sure?
P.S.: The main reason I am now running Linux rather than Apple is that I actually read some of the EULAs. MS was worse, and I left them earlier. And as IANAL, I must admit that perhaps they weren't quite as bad as I believed that they were...but they could as easily have been much worse. But the Real Estate market doesn't have anything analogous to the GPL or BSD licenses.