Their error, as I understand it, is they imagine the universe entirely in terms of geometry, without trying to understand dynamics. How do they account for the path a satellite in a polar orbit takes over the earth?
You do realize that the widely accepted cosmological theory for the creation of the universe, the big bang, was introduced by a Roman Catholic priest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Also the Vatican operates an observatory and does real research:
They study meteorites to "give us insights into how these samples were formed more than *4.5 billion* years ago when the planets themselves were being formed." Did you note that number rather? Not the 6,000 or so you were expecting is it.
While looking for dark matter they were involved in the discovery of two extrasolar planets.
They have helped explain perceived anomalies as background stars appearing in a sparse portion of a nebula, unrelated to the structure of the nebula.
They are researching why an unexpected amount of UV radiation is emanating from some young active stars.
They are helping to map out the geography of some galaxies and identify regions of star formation.
etc... http://vaticanobservatory.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=38&Itemid=145
iPhone share on global smartphone market has hovered around 13-15% for some time now, and there's no signs of it actually getting higher - so, 10% or less can happen pretty soon.
Things are a little more complicated, looking only at smart phones is a little limiting. Apple's iOS is not merely a phone operating system. Note that the iPod touch is displacing the iPod Classic and iPod Nano, the later being somewhat downgraded into a touchscreen version of the iPod Shuffle. Also note that the iPad is displacing net books to some degree. Finally, return to the iPod touch again and notice that with a back facing camera and the FaceTime app you basically have video calling wherever you have wifi, both parties need to be using an iOS device but if a Skype type application is approved for the iPod touch that could change. Apple is not really in the phone business, rather the mobile device business. I doubt they care much if they sell an iPhone or an iPod touch or iPad.
Could Android be used on non-phone devices? Certainly. That would make things a little easier to compare iOS and Android.
The Wall Street Journal also had analysis; they said that Apple can afford to lose a chunk of market share (in a growing market) and instead should worry about the competition driving the price down. Here's the story (do the google-the-URL thing to get a good Referer: if it doesn't show the whole thing).
It is not a given that Apple will lose market share. Apple may not be the player that is displaced by Android. Android is more likely to displace all the in-house operating systems being used by the handset manufacturers. For example Nokia could announce that they have dropped Nokia OS and Symbian OS and will use Android for all upcoming handsets.
The situation is not unlike Linux and Microsoft. Despite Microsoft being widely perceived as the competitor to Linux, it was really Sun Microsystems and other traditional Unix vendors that were displaced. Similarly I expect it will largely be the traditional handset operating systems that will be displaced, not necessarily Apple.
You can be bound to the license if it is *reasonable* and you decide to use or sell the product.
It is absolutely insane to bind someone to the terms of a contract that he hasn't agreed to, no matter how reasonable that contract might be. It undermines the very concept of "contract", and we should be outraged.
There is a long standing legal concept that if you act as if you have agreed then you may be bound to it. Again, subject to the reasonableness of the terms and the judge's interpretation of the person's actions. It is not unreasonable to enforce a licensing term that prohibits resale when the other person is attempting to sell that licensed product.
To act as if this decision somehow allows any terms in any situation to be enforceable is just hysteria or political posturing. The reasonableness of terms will still be considered in each situation, the actions of both parties will still be considered, the legal and business sophistication of both parties will still be considered,...
Like I said, there's no line and with all respect, I think you're still trying to draw it. Keep in mind there are even such things as self censorship and soft censorship.
I think English is an imprecise language and that "censor" is an overloaded word with multiple meanings. The topic of this thread was government sponsored censorship, self censorship is something entirely different. "Homicide" is another overloaded word. Would you equate all forms of homicide, say murder and self defense, simply because the end result is the same? Would you refer to someone who acted in self defense by saying "he committed homicide"? I doubt it, without a context people tend to assume the most severe interpretation of the word. Similar story with "censorship", using "censorship" rather than "self censorship" is quite misleading.
It doesn't matter how you dress it up or what reason you have for doing it, censorship is censorship. You don't see the military asserting any right in the second edition, because that's the one that has all the unwanted bits already taken out. Note that I not condemning it or making any assertion about its morality.
Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I meant that I don't see the military asserting any right resulting in or necessitating the second printing.
In other words the court seems to have ruled that the default state is "undefined" and that a EULA is free to define the state as "sold" or "licensed".
In other words, that you can be bound by the terms of a contract you haven't agreed to, and maybe haven't even had a chance to read. Don't you think that's insane?
You can be bound to the license if it is *reasonable* and you decide to use or sell the product. Judges often consider reasonableness, public interest and the relative sophistication of both parties when determining if a "shrink wrap license" is valid. When one party is a company with a legal team and the other party is Joe Consumer judges often lean towards protecting the little guy when the deal is an un-negotiated take-it-or-leave it one. Judges also seem to require that a "shrink wrap license" be available on the company website in order to be valid.
We don't publish the names of rape victims.
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
Using your logic every time an author decides to omit a piece of information he deems more harmful than informative an act of censorship is being committed. Such a definition so broadens (or perhaps dilutes) the definition of censorship that the word becomes virtually meaningless.
If an author withholds the name of a rape victim because the law requires him to do so it is censorship. If the author withholds the name because he believe it is the right thing to do that is not censorship.
The operation was shut down by military officials concerned about offending Pakistan, according to Shaffer's account.
So, we shouldn't be able to know that high level terrorists are still running about planning and participating in violent bloodshed against their own people and others?
It is not censorship if the author does not want to embarrass Pakistan and agrees that the incident should be omitted. You may disagree with his decision but that does not make it censorship. I think all you can accuse the author of is being political.
... they just asserted the right to say what is ok and what isn't...
That's the issue here. I don't see the military asserting any right in this second printing edit. Asserting a right is a unilateral action, its using force in some manner. In this case both sides agree. This isn't wikileaks, this is a military guy relying on the military to help him avoid releasing sensitive information. I agree the censorship line can be fuzzy but this case seems to fall short of even the fuzzy line.
I think our government should just abolish the first amendment. They clearly don't believe in it. This just makes me so sick. Where is wikileaks when you need them?
The author is a vet and had the military review the book. After publishing someone thought something had erroneously been left in. The author and publisher are cooperating, a new version is already being printed without the part in question. Buying the first printing of books may be the simplest way to deal with them. The military reviewers goofed not the publisher so the publisher should not suffer any loss. Given that the author and publisher do not want to reveal anything sensitive and are cooperating with the government I don't see censorship. Censorship is when someone wants to publish and is prohibited, not when someones says is all this ok with you... no... ok lets edit.
The previous world war was fought over oil too. After the US cut off oil exports Imperial Japan decided to invade Indonesia to acquire its oil. The British in Singapore and the US in the Philippines were on the supply line that the oil would have to travel. Imperial Japan decided to remove the British and the US from the western pacific to secure that oil supply.
Bullshit.
Perhaps you need to edit wikipedia since it essentially agrees with me:
[Imperial] Japan quickly lost 93 percent of its oil supply after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued an executive order on 26 July 1941 which froze all of Japan's U.S. assets and embargoed all oil exports to Japan.[12] In addition, the Dutch government in exile, after the urging of the Allies and with the support of Queen Wilhelmina, broke its economic treaty with Japan and joined with the embargo in August.[10] Japan's military and economic reserves included only a year and a half's worth of oil.[8] As a U.S. declaration of war against Japan was likely if the latter took the East Indies, the Japanese planned to eliminate the U.S. Pacific Fleet, allowing them to overtake the islands; this led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.[13][14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies_campaign
Complete bullshit, WWII was a consequence of Hitler's actions.The US wasnt even involved in the war until 2 years in. This is a classic example of americanism - believing the world rotates solely around the US.
Guilty to a degree, I was referring only to US involvement in the Pacific. However aren't you doing the same thing by being Eurocentric? The war in Europe began in 1939 with the invasion of Poland but the war in the Pacific began in 1937 with the invasion of China.
After the US cut off oil exports Imperial Japan decided to invade Indonesia to acquire its oil.
And why did the US cut off oil exports? Could it have had anything to do with Japanese actions in China and their annexation of French Indochina (aka: Vietnam)?
The Japanese were acting like assholes long before FDR cut off their oil.
I apologize for not stating the obvious. I did not think anyone was unaware that the invasion of China prompted the oil and steel cut off.
I keep hearing that the next World Wars will be fought over resources
The previous world war was fought over oil too. After the US cut off oil exports Imperial Japan decided to invade Indonesia to acquire its oil. The British in Singapore and the US in the Philippines were on the supply line that the oil would have to travel. Imperial Japan decided to remove the British and the US from the western pacific to secure that oil supply.
The EULA in this case, on the other hand, takes away rights that you already have by default (possibly in addition to granting you other rights that you don't already have). If you don't agree to the EULA, you don't get whatever new rights it grants you, but neither do you lose the rights that you already had. Right?\
No. Your argument is based on the assumption that you owned something and therefore could sell it. The publisher argues that they don't sell software, that they license it. The court ruling seems to address whether it is reasonable for a EULA to say that something is licensed rather than sold. Since the licensing model is deemed reasonable there never was a sale and no rights were lost.
In other words the court seems to have ruled that the default state is "undefined" and that a EULA is free to define the state as "sold" or "licensed".
This court decision seems to imply that I could market software with a EULA on the back of the box which says, "By holding this box, you agree to purchase it for a price of $5000". Even if they don't look at the back they still have to pay for it.
No. Judges often consider reasonableness, public interest and the relative sophistication of both parties when deciding if a "shrink wrap EULA" is enforceable.
A EULA is being enforced on someone that never even so much as opened the box in question.
This just highlights the absurdity of this EULA nonsense. People that have never done anything to be a party to these "contracts" are being bound by them.
Again, that is exactly how the GPL works. The only *legal* way to distribute the copyrighted material is as described in the license. Ignorance of the GPL does not entitle someone to distribute in a manner inconsistent with the license (GPL).
Books and audio CDs aren't routinely shipped with known defects that affect the product, and their publishers don't have a "Ship it now, we'll patch it later" attitude.
Just this week I found an error in my old statistics textbook, a number was incorrectly rounded. I once had a class where we used the first printing of our professor's textbook. Extra credit was awarded to anyone finding errors and many people earned extra credit. A friend who uses books on tape during commutes has mentioned finding various errors.
Also some software never gets patched, perhaps a game cartridge with code burned into ROM. So patching is not a given and perhaps this ongoing service tips the scales in terms of the licensing model rather than the sales model. If we were talking about a un-patchable game cartridge then perhaps the sales model would be the better fit.
Not quite. Judges often consider reasonableness, public interest and the relative sophistication of both parties. When one party is a company with a legal team and the other party is Joe Consumer judges often lean towards protecting the little guy when the deal is an un-negotiated take-it-or-leave it one.
Except in this case. This ruling by judges is in direct opposition to protecting the little guy. They have ruled that an EULA is enforceable on someone that never even agreed to the EULA.
That's an opinion not a fact. Again, given that the software in question works more as an ongoing service (patches, etc) rather than a single interaction (a game cartridge?) its not unreasonable to accept the licensing idea. Given the licensing model ignorance of the EULA would not entitle a user to violate the EULA. Take a look at things from a FOSS perspective. If a user is ignorant of the GPL and never agreed to the GPL, does that mean they can violate the GPL?
Manufacturing may return to the west but jobs won't be.
You got it - which is why we should be happy that we have "service jobs" in Cupertino designing iPhones!
High end service jobs are in jeopardy too. No nation is satisfied doing all the low end manufacturing or service work Those doing it today plan to move up to higher end manufacturing and services. The general plan is to follow Japan's post war model. Start with the low quality products, upgrade infrastructure and capabilities, move up the ladder to higher quality products, repeat. The main difference is that the current players want to do it much faster than Japan.
... Short of signing over constitutionally protected rights, anything goes...
Not quite. Judges often consider reasonableness, public interest and the relative sophistication of both parties. When one party is a company with a legal team and the other party is Joe Consumer judges often lean towards protecting the little guy when the deal is an un-negotiated take-it-or-leave it one.
The issue here is whether licensing software is reasonable or not. Software is kind of service-like, free patches and updates are often offered. You don't get patches/updates for paper books or audio CDs. I don't think this topic is a clear as many people claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Occam's razor would suggest that the website merely has not changed since 1995, except for changing conference dates.
I wasn't trying to characterize Catholics as geocentrists. I was simply stating, from past experience online, that some geocentrists are Catholic.
No problem. What large group does not have it's crackpots? In the future it might be fun to refer them to *their own* observatory. ;-)
My post was stupid anyway, and I regretted it as soon as I put it up. I was just killing time on my phone, waiting for something.
Who around here hasn't been there, done that!
Sorry for the bad link. I didn't notice the non-ASCII character. Lets try again ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre
Their error, as I understand it, is they imagine the universe entirely in terms of geometry, without trying to understand dynamics. How do they account for the path a satellite in a polar orbit takes over the earth?
You do realize that the widely accepted cosmological theory for the creation of the universe, the big bang, was introduced by a Roman Catholic priest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Also the Vatican operates an observatory and does real research:
They study meteorites to "give us insights into how these samples were formed more than *4.5 billion* years ago when the planets themselves were being formed." Did you note that number rather? Not the 6,000 or so you were expecting is it.
While looking for dark matter they were involved in the discovery of two extrasolar planets.
They have helped explain perceived anomalies as background stars appearing in a sparse portion of a nebula, unrelated to the structure of the nebula.
They are researching why an unexpected amount of UV radiation is emanating from some young active stars.
They are helping to map out the geography of some galaxies and identify regions of star formation.
etc...
http://vaticanobservatory.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=38&Itemid=145
iPhone share on global smartphone market has hovered around 13-15% for some time now, and there's no signs of it actually getting higher - so, 10% or less can happen pretty soon.
Things are a little more complicated, looking only at smart phones is a little limiting. Apple's iOS is not merely a phone operating system. Note that the iPod touch is displacing the iPod Classic and iPod Nano, the later being somewhat downgraded into a touchscreen version of the iPod Shuffle. Also note that the iPad is displacing net books to some degree. Finally, return to the iPod touch again and notice that with a back facing camera and the FaceTime app you basically have video calling wherever you have wifi, both parties need to be using an iOS device but if a Skype type application is approved for the iPod touch that could change. Apple is not really in the phone business, rather the mobile device business. I doubt they care much if they sell an iPhone or an iPod touch or iPad.
Could Android be used on non-phone devices? Certainly. That would make things a little easier to compare iOS and Android.
The Wall Street Journal also had analysis; they said that Apple can afford to lose a chunk of market share (in a growing market) and instead should worry about the competition driving the price down. Here's the story (do the google-the-URL thing to get a good Referer: if it doesn't show the whole thing).
It is not a given that Apple will lose market share. Apple may not be the player that is displaced by Android. Android is more likely to displace all the in-house operating systems being used by the handset manufacturers. For example Nokia could announce that they have dropped Nokia OS and Symbian OS and will use Android for all upcoming handsets.
The situation is not unlike Linux and Microsoft. Despite Microsoft being widely perceived as the competitor to Linux, it was really Sun Microsystems and other traditional Unix vendors that were displaced. Similarly I expect it will largely be the traditional handset operating systems that will be displaced, not necessarily Apple.
You can be bound to the license if it is *reasonable* and you decide to use or sell the product.
It is absolutely insane to bind someone to the terms of a contract that he hasn't agreed to, no matter how reasonable that contract might be. It undermines the very concept of "contract", and we should be outraged.
There is a long standing legal concept that if you act as if you have agreed then you may be bound to it. Again, subject to the reasonableness of the terms and the judge's interpretation of the person's actions. It is not unreasonable to enforce a licensing term that prohibits resale when the other person is attempting to sell that licensed product.
...
To act as if this decision somehow allows any terms in any situation to be enforceable is just hysteria or political posturing. The reasonableness of terms will still be considered in each situation, the actions of both parties will still be considered, the legal and business sophistication of both parties will still be considered,
Like I said, there's no line and with all respect, I think you're still trying to draw it. Keep in mind there are even such things as self censorship and soft censorship.
I think English is an imprecise language and that "censor" is an overloaded word with multiple meanings. The topic of this thread was government sponsored censorship, self censorship is something entirely different. "Homicide" is another overloaded word. Would you equate all forms of homicide, say murder and self defense, simply because the end result is the same? Would you refer to someone who acted in self defense by saying "he committed homicide"? I doubt it, without a context people tend to assume the most severe interpretation of the word. Similar story with "censorship", using "censorship" rather than "self censorship" is quite misleading.
It doesn't matter how you dress it up or what reason you have for doing it, censorship is censorship. You don't see the military asserting any right in the second edition, because that's the one that has all the unwanted bits already taken out. Note that I not condemning it or making any assertion about its morality.
Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I meant that I don't see the military asserting any right resulting in or necessitating the second printing.
In other words the court seems to have ruled that the default state is "undefined" and that a EULA is free to define the state as "sold" or "licensed".
In other words, that you can be bound by the terms of a contract you haven't agreed to, and maybe haven't even had a chance to read. Don't you think that's insane?
You can be bound to the license if it is *reasonable* and you decide to use or sell the product. Judges often consider reasonableness, public interest and the relative sophistication of both parties when determining if a "shrink wrap license" is valid. When one party is a company with a legal team and the other party is Joe Consumer judges often lean towards protecting the little guy when the deal is an un-negotiated take-it-or-leave it one. Judges also seem to require that a "shrink wrap license" be available on the company website in order to be valid.
We don't publish the names of rape victims. Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
Using your logic every time an author decides to omit a piece of information he deems more harmful than informative an act of censorship is being committed. Such a definition so broadens (or perhaps dilutes) the definition of censorship that the word becomes virtually meaningless.
If an author withholds the name of a rape victim because the law requires him to do so it is censorship. If the author withholds the name because he believe it is the right thing to do that is not censorship.
The operation was shut down by military officials concerned about offending Pakistan, according to Shaffer's account.
So, we shouldn't be able to know that high level terrorists are still running about planning and participating in violent bloodshed against their own people and others?
It is not censorship if the author does not want to embarrass Pakistan and agrees that the incident should be omitted. You may disagree with his decision but that does not make it censorship. I think all you can accuse the author of is being political.
... they just asserted the right to say what is ok and what isn't ...
That's the issue here. I don't see the military asserting any right in this second printing edit. Asserting a right is a unilateral action, its using force in some manner. In this case both sides agree. This isn't wikileaks, this is a military guy relying on the military to help him avoid releasing sensitive information. I agree the censorship line can be fuzzy but this case seems to fall short of even the fuzzy line.
I think our government should just abolish the first amendment. They clearly don't believe in it. This just makes me so sick. Where is wikileaks when you need them?
The author is a vet and had the military review the book. After publishing someone thought something had erroneously been left in. The author and publisher are cooperating, a new version is already being printed without the part in question. Buying the first printing of books may be the simplest way to deal with them. The military reviewers goofed not the publisher so the publisher should not suffer any loss. Given that the author and publisher do not want to reveal anything sensitive and are cooperating with the government I don't see censorship. Censorship is when someone wants to publish and is prohibited, not when someones says is all this ok with you ... no ... ok lets edit.
The previous world war was fought over oil too. After the US cut off oil exports Imperial Japan decided to invade Indonesia to acquire its oil. The British in Singapore and the US in the Philippines were on the supply line that the oil would have to travel. Imperial Japan decided to remove the British and the US from the western pacific to secure that oil supply.
Bullshit.
Perhaps you need to edit wikipedia since it essentially agrees with me:
[Imperial] Japan quickly lost 93 percent of its oil supply after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued an executive order on 26 July 1941 which froze all of Japan's U.S. assets and embargoed all oil exports to Japan.[12] In addition, the Dutch government in exile, after the urging of the Allies and with the support of Queen Wilhelmina, broke its economic treaty with Japan and joined with the embargo in August.[10] Japan's military and economic reserves included only a year and a half's worth of oil.[8] As a U.S. declaration of war against Japan was likely if the latter took the East Indies, the Japanese planned to eliminate the U.S. Pacific Fleet, allowing them to overtake the islands; this led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.[13][14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies_campaign
Complete bullshit, WWII was a consequence of Hitler's actions.The US wasnt even involved in the war until 2 years in. This is a classic example of americanism - believing the world rotates solely around the US.
Guilty to a degree, I was referring only to US involvement in the Pacific. However aren't you doing the same thing by being Eurocentric? The war in Europe began in 1939 with the invasion of Poland but the war in the Pacific began in 1937 with the invasion of China.
After the US cut off oil exports Imperial Japan decided to invade Indonesia to acquire its oil.
And why did the US cut off oil exports? Could it have had anything to do with Japanese actions in China and their annexation of French Indochina (aka: Vietnam)?
The Japanese were acting like assholes long before FDR cut off their oil.
I apologize for not stating the obvious. I did not think anyone was unaware that the invasion of China prompted the oil and steel cut off.
Bullshit. The War in the Pacific was caused because Imperial Japan thought they were superior humans and decided to start by raping Manchuria.
Not the U.S. War in the Pacific. Our response to the invasion of China was to stop exporting steel and oil among other things.
Then they started in on Indochina.
Why? Because that was where the nearest oil was. When? After we cut off their oil.
The U.S. did enforce an embargo which the Japanese took umbrage over...
By umbrage you mean bombed Pearl Harbor. And of course the Philippines within hours and Singapore soon thereafter (days? not sure).
I keep hearing that the next World Wars will be fought over resources
The previous world war was fought over oil too. After the US cut off oil exports Imperial Japan decided to invade Indonesia to acquire its oil. The British in Singapore and the US in the Philippines were on the supply line that the oil would have to travel. Imperial Japan decided to remove the British and the US from the western pacific to secure that oil supply.
The EULA in this case, on the other hand, takes away rights that you already have by default (possibly in addition to granting you other rights that you don't already have). If you don't agree to the EULA, you don't get whatever new rights it grants you, but neither do you lose the rights that you already had. Right?\
No. Your argument is based on the assumption that you owned something and therefore could sell it. The publisher argues that they don't sell software, that they license it. The court ruling seems to address whether it is reasonable for a EULA to say that something is licensed rather than sold. Since the licensing model is deemed reasonable there never was a sale and no rights were lost.
In other words the court seems to have ruled that the default state is "undefined" and that a EULA is free to define the state as "sold" or "licensed".
This court decision seems to imply that I could market software with a EULA on the back of the box which says, "By holding this box, you agree to purchase it for a price of $5000". Even if they don't look at the back they still have to pay for it.
No. Judges often consider reasonableness, public interest and the relative sophistication of both parties when deciding if a "shrink wrap EULA" is enforceable.
A EULA is being enforced on someone that never even so much as opened the box in question.
This just highlights the absurdity of this EULA nonsense. People that have never done anything to be a party to these "contracts" are being bound by them.
Again, that is exactly how the GPL works. The only *legal* way to distribute the copyrighted material is as described in the license. Ignorance of the GPL does not entitle someone to distribute in a manner inconsistent with the license (GPL).
Books and audio CDs aren't routinely shipped with known defects that affect the product, and their publishers don't have a "Ship it now, we'll patch it later" attitude.
Just this week I found an error in my old statistics textbook, a number was incorrectly rounded. I once had a class where we used the first printing of our professor's textbook. Extra credit was awarded to anyone finding errors and many people earned extra credit. A friend who uses books on tape during commutes has mentioned finding various errors.
Also some software never gets patched, perhaps a game cartridge with code burned into ROM. So patching is not a given and perhaps this ongoing service tips the scales in terms of the licensing model rather than the sales model. If we were talking about a un-patchable game cartridge then perhaps the sales model would be the better fit.
Not quite. Judges often consider reasonableness, public interest and the relative sophistication of both parties. When one party is a company with a legal team and the other party is Joe Consumer judges often lean towards protecting the little guy when the deal is an un-negotiated take-it-or-leave it one.
Except in this case. This ruling by judges is in direct opposition to protecting the little guy. They have ruled that an EULA is enforceable on someone that never even agreed to the EULA.
That's an opinion not a fact. Again, given that the software in question works more as an ongoing service (patches, etc) rather than a single interaction (a game cartridge?) its not unreasonable to accept the licensing idea. Given the licensing model ignorance of the EULA would not entitle a user to violate the EULA. Take a look at things from a FOSS perspective. If a user is ignorant of the GPL and never agreed to the GPL, does that mean they can violate the GPL?
Manufacturing may return to the west but jobs won't be.
You got it - which is why we should be happy that we have "service jobs" in Cupertino designing iPhones!
High end service jobs are in jeopardy too. No nation is satisfied doing all the low end manufacturing or service work Those doing it today plan to move up to higher end manufacturing and services. The general plan is to follow Japan's post war model. Start with the low quality products, upgrade infrastructure and capabilities, move up the ladder to higher quality products, repeat. The main difference is that the current players want to do it much faster than Japan.
... Short of signing over constitutionally protected rights, anything goes ...
Not quite. Judges often consider reasonableness, public interest and the relative sophistication of both parties. When one party is a company with a legal team and the other party is Joe Consumer judges often lean towards protecting the little guy when the deal is an un-negotiated take-it-or-leave it one.
The issue here is whether licensing software is reasonable or not. Software is kind of service-like, free patches and updates are often offered. You don't get patches/updates for paper books or audio CDs. I don't think this topic is a clear as many people claim.