>>I also wonder if anyone who provides such open-source legal templates might be exposing himself to liability.
The same liability as a closed-source program. The ones I use have very long disclaimers on them that you have to click through to get anything done. But then again, what software doesn't have mile-long EULAs these days?
When I formed my S-corp, the guy who assisted us with our incorporation gave us software for all the needs the OP was asking for. Along with a binder to keep all our important documents together, a neat little paper embosser thing with our seal on it, and some other neat little things. I think he charged a few hundred dollars for walking us through the process.
>>What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not. Since then, no published work for or against.
There was a large one that came out a couple weeks ago that also found no correlation.
The types of things that people have found that indicates it causes tumors is all circumstantial, like what side of the head brain tumors appear on.
>>From his earlier movie, I learned that Nash equilibrium was a theory developed as a way to maximize a guy's chances of picking up hot chicks in a bar.
Which, being Hollywood, was not actually an example of a Nash equilibrium at all.
Again, you're on that "worldwide" trip, which includes poor countries with most people unable to afford a $600 mobile phone.
In Japan, I believe Smartphones are the rule rather than the exception, and in America they should make up the majority of sales in the next couple years if current trending continues.
>>And you're thinking very provincially. The USA is not the entire world
Right, because the EU really matters?
Just kidding.
But isn't the iPhone at almost half the market share of Japan as well?
More I was responding to the claim that the iPhone is a small market share of a small market share (smartphones), when smartphone penetration is actually rather large, and probably will be the majority of sales in two years or so.
>>The iPhone is still a smaller player in the smartphone market and even if it became the entire smartphone market, it'd still be a small player in the total market.
>>Err... WTF are you smoking? Just about every intelligence agency on the planet said before the Afghan campaign that invading Afghanistan would not yield a positive result vis a vis terrorism, and every intelligence agency AND the IAEA said that Iraq had no WMDs. Both have been proved true.
Just like how everyone "knows" that Iran isn't making nuclear weapons now, am I right?
But I'm sure their nuclear triggers are intended for civilian use.
>>Haha, now tell me another. Corporatism is almost exclusively a right-wing ideology.
Look at the number of big businesses that failed in left-wing France between 1960 and the present, then look at the number of big businesses in America that failed. Left wing ideology protects large businesses. Ever wonder why big companies love regulations? Because it edges out their smaller foes.
Right wing ideology believes in competition that tends to displace large companies.
>>It protects business from competition. The right-wing love protecting big business. Not to mention, IP law is more or less written by big business.
I think you're confusing the right wing with the left wing. Left wing loves big business, and engages in regulations and protectionist behaviors to keep the large companies around. The right wing likes all business, both big and small. Hence the tendency for right wing people to lower corporate taxes for smaller businesses, etc.
>>Again, when it comes to utilities, free market = fail.
Then you haven't read your history. Many municipalities originally had their own power companies. Then guys like Insull or Wilkie would come in, and offer power to the city at half the price. And then... well, there's no but. People would get power for cheaper than the government making it.
Insull and Wilkie made tons of money, because they knew how to run a profitable company, and this angered the common man. Because as much as we Americans like to pretend we're fervent capitalists, there's still a lot of dislike for "fat cats" floating around.
The TVA was Roosevelt's answer to private power companies, with the notion that the government should be in the business of doing power. He attacked power companies for overcharging customers, etc., notwithstanding that Wilkie had a letter from FDR begging Commonwealth and Southern (his power company) to install power in Warm Springs, because the government-run power company was charging twice as much as what Wilkie's company did!
The TVA, by contrast, showed the government could get into the business of producing and distributing power.
Long story short, that's why we've ended up with this weird situation of private power companies, heavily regulated by state utility boards on what they can charge.
>>I think they could all come with a giant "Correlation!=Causation" red box warning.
>>On the other, maybe it just so happens that more of the poor tend to have psychological problems, which would explain their (and their children's) difficulties in progressing up within the society.
In related news, the ACLU recently sued the prison system because it appears that criminals tend to get more jail time than the normal citizen.
My music usually doesn't surprise me with sudden shifts of maximum volume. But every time a program switches to commercial on TV, the max volume is a shit load louder and with more commercials than ever before that means fiddling with the remote every other minute. It wasn't always this way and is way annoying. Fortunately the nanny state has heard your plea, and there's legislation in congress to ban loud commericals.
>>They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.
What??
The emails were quite clear that they were not only going to boycott a journal because they allowed a skeptic on their editorial board, but they were conspiring to remove references to articles in the journal and do everything they could to blackball it unofficially. And we'd never have known about it if it wasn't for Climategate.
And how do you know if they're weeding out bad science when the scientists refuse to publish the data they drew their conclusions from?
While I agree a lot of the claims of Climategate were overstated, these two points show something fundamentally rotten at the heart of climate science.
Also, I find it amusing that/. would have an article talking about "The Limits of Skepticism" when skepticism is "bad" (you know, like AGW), but you'd never see such a thing for, say, being skeptical about God - there's no limits on skepticism about God here, no matter what. It's really quite stupid, the bias.
>>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.
It's called price differentiation. Also known as charging what the markets will bear. When a new top of the line CPU or GPU comes out, they cost some ridiculous amount of money. The people that want that 10% FPS gain in exchange for $600 will rush out and buy them. Then a couple months later they drop the price, and the people that are willing to gain a 10% FPS for $400 will rush out and buy them. And so forth until they're priced down at the commodity level, and then a new cycle comes out, and they do it all again.
If they charged a single price, they'd lose quite a bit of money.
The only difference here is that they're tying in the price differentiation to the customer himself, and at the same period of time, instead of making people wait to get their products.
"Oh, you make $20,000 a year? Then the new copy of Gears of War will only run you $30."
Of course, this will be amazingly susceptible to fraud. Companies which do this right now (power companies are a big one), often require proof of the lower income levels before they give you a discount.
>>The fines are nothing but a cash grab by the government, and the settlements benefit no one but the lawyers.
Pshaw. I'm sure the government will use its $800m or so to locate all the people that bought LCD screens during this time period and give them all $50 refunds.
Slashdot Mirror
>>I also wonder if anyone who provides such open-source legal templates might be exposing himself to liability.
The same liability as a closed-source program. The ones I use have very long disclaimers on them that you have to click through to get anything done. But then again, what software doesn't have mile-long EULAs these days?
When I formed my S-corp, the guy who assisted us with our incorporation gave us software for all the needs the OP was asking for. Along with a binder to keep all our important documents together, a neat little paper embosser thing with our seal on it, and some other neat little things. I think he charged a few hundred dollars for walking us through the process.
>>Ummm... writing good, foss apps to do the things you need/want to do? Seems obvious.
Can't wait to put OpenSSH on my Android phone.
Why should iPhone users be the only ones who get lucky enough to be rootkitted? I want to spam my Facebook friends about colon cleansers, too!
Wow, so if people have a smartphone but don't "need" one, it doesn't count?
Amazing statistical powers of nonsense you possess.
>>What I did find was that there were two large scale studies done in 2000-2001 that showed there was no difference between cell use and not. Since then, no published work for or against.
There was a large one that came out a couple weeks ago that also found no correlation.
The types of things that people have found that indicates it causes tumors is all circumstantial, like what side of the head brain tumors appear on.
>>From his earlier movie, I learned that Nash equilibrium was a theory developed as a way to maximize a guy's chances of picking up hot chicks in a bar.
Which, being Hollywood, was not actually an example of a Nash equilibrium at all.
Again, you're on that "worldwide" trip, which includes poor countries with most people unable to afford a $600 mobile phone.
In Japan, I believe Smartphones are the rule rather than the exception, and in America they should make up the majority of sales in the next couple years if current trending continues.
>>Pretty soon, we'll be buying phones with data plans and the voice plan will be optional (if needed at all).
Yes, because data plans are so cheap from Verizon and their "competitors" in the market. :p
I think last time I checked, Verizon made about a third of its money from overcharging for data access.
>>And you're thinking very provincially. The USA is not the entire world
Right, because the EU really matters?
Just kidding.
But isn't the iPhone at almost half the market share of Japan as well?
More I was responding to the claim that the iPhone is a small market share of a small market share (smartphones), when smartphone penetration is actually rather large, and probably will be the majority of sales in two years or so.
>>Last I checked, Symbian was the largest OS on smartphones. After that was Windows Mobile, and then BlackBerry OS.
You're about 3 years out of date.
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/10/28/apple-iphone-closing-in-on-blackberry-market-share/
>>The iPhone is still a smaller player in the smartphone market and even if it became the entire smartphone market, it'd still be a small player in the total market.
Again, about three years out of date.
>>There is, outside of Iran, a general consensus that Iran is attempting to create nuclear weapons.
You'd be right, except you're wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Such as:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL312024420090703?sp=true
>>Err... WTF are you smoking? Just about every intelligence agency on the planet said before the Afghan campaign that invading Afghanistan would not yield a positive result vis a vis terrorism, and every intelligence agency AND the IAEA said that Iraq had no WMDs. Both have been proved true.
Just like how everyone "knows" that Iran isn't making nuclear weapons now, am I right?
But I'm sure their nuclear triggers are intended for civilian use.
>>Haha, now tell me another. Corporatism is almost exclusively a right-wing ideology.
Look at the number of big businesses that failed in left-wing France between 1960 and the present, then look at the number of big businesses in America that failed. Left wing ideology protects large businesses. Ever wonder why big companies love regulations? Because it edges out their smaller foes.
Right wing ideology believes in competition that tends to displace large companies.
Agreed. And when I'm on the road, they take a photo of it and email it to me.
We're digital!!
>>It protects business from competition. The right-wing love protecting big business. Not to mention, IP law is more or less written by big business.
I think you're confusing the right wing with the left wing. Left wing loves big business, and engages in regulations and protectionist behaviors to keep the large companies around. The right wing likes all business, both big and small. Hence the tendency for right wing people to lower corporate taxes for smaller businesses, etc.
>>I, for one, will be avoiding this. Existing services work fine and this is one more way Google is headed towards info omniscience.
If a friend emails a Google shortened URL to you, you'll avoid clicking on it?
BUT HOW WILL YOU KNOW IF IT'S A RICKROLL OR GOATSE LINK?
The not-knowing will drive you slowly insane.
>>Perhaps if they charged less than $60 for a tier one new release, sales would go up.
This.
>>Again, when it comes to utilities, free market = fail.
Then you haven't read your history. Many municipalities originally had their own power companies. Then guys like Insull or Wilkie would come in, and offer power to the city at half the price. And then... well, there's no but. People would get power for cheaper than the government making it.
Insull and Wilkie made tons of money, because they knew how to run a profitable company, and this angered the common man. Because as much as we Americans like to pretend we're fervent capitalists, there's still a lot of dislike for "fat cats" floating around.
The TVA was Roosevelt's answer to private power companies, with the notion that the government should be in the business of doing power. He attacked power companies for overcharging customers, etc., notwithstanding that Wilkie had a letter from FDR begging Commonwealth and Southern (his power company) to install power in Warm Springs, because the government-run power company was charging twice as much as what Wilkie's company did!
The TVA, by contrast, showed the government could get into the business of producing and distributing power.
Long story short, that's why we've ended up with this weird situation of private power companies, heavily regulated by state utility boards on what they can charge.
>>I think they could all come with a giant "Correlation!=Causation" red box warning.
>>On the other, maybe it just so happens that more of the poor tend to have psychological problems, which would explain their (and their children's) difficulties in progressing up within the society.
In related news, the ACLU recently sued the prison system because it appears that criminals tend to get more jail time than the normal citizen.
Our society is so unfair.
>>Step 1: Set off a bunch of Nukes in a desert somewhere, excavating giant holes in the ground.
The feds have already done some preliminary work on this. They had plans to set off four nukes to build a new harbor in Alaska.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare
My music usually doesn't surprise me with sudden shifts of maximum volume. But every time a program switches to commercial on TV, the max volume is a shit load louder and with more commercials than ever before that means fiddling with the remote every other minute. It wasn't always this way and is way annoying.
Fortunately the nanny state has heard your plea, and there's legislation in congress to ban loud commericals.
(Don't mod this +funny, it's true.)
>>They weren't preventing dissenting opinions from being accepting into peer reviewed journals - they expressed disappointment in the fact that the peer review process wasn't doing its job: weeding out bad science.
What??
The emails were quite clear that they were not only going to boycott a journal because they allowed a skeptic on their editorial board, but they were conspiring to remove references to articles in the journal and do everything they could to blackball it unofficially. And we'd never have known about it if it wasn't for Climategate.
And how do you know if they're weeding out bad science when the scientists refuse to publish the data they drew their conclusions from?
While I agree a lot of the claims of Climategate were overstated, these two points show something fundamentally rotten at the heart of climate science.
Also, I find it amusing that /. would have an article talking about "The Limits of Skepticism" when skepticism is "bad" (you know, like AGW), but you'd never see such a thing for, say, being skeptical about God - there's no limits on skepticism about God here, no matter what. It's really quite stupid, the bias.
>>Essentially, you need only one individual, whatever the motivation. It's easy to offense people.
It's *too* easy to offense people. It's hard to get people to stay on defense with you.
>>Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work.
It's called price differentiation. Also known as charging what the markets will bear. When a new top of the line CPU or GPU comes out, they cost some ridiculous amount of money. The people that want that 10% FPS gain in exchange for $600 will rush out and buy them. Then a couple months later they drop the price, and the people that are willing to gain a 10% FPS for $400 will rush out and buy them. And so forth until they're priced down at the commodity level, and then a new cycle comes out, and they do it all again.
If they charged a single price, they'd lose quite a bit of money.
The only difference here is that they're tying in the price differentiation to the customer himself, and at the same period of time, instead of making people wait to get their products.
"Oh, you make $20,000 a year? Then the new copy of Gears of War will only run you $30."
Of course, this will be amazingly susceptible to fraud. Companies which do this right now (power companies are a big one), often require proof of the lower income levels before they give you a discount.
>>The fines are nothing but a cash grab by the government, and the settlements benefit no one but the lawyers.
Pshaw. I'm sure the government will use its $800m or so to locate all the people that bought LCD screens during this time period and give them all $50 refunds.
Stupid fucking autocorrect... Chiba City, you damn android.