OK, but in the specific discussion here, the service agreement complaint is a complaint that Apple should provide a service they never agreed to provide - it is not a complaint about a TOS agreement that governs how you may behave when using a service, which seems to be the sort of thing you are referring to. In this specific case, I don't see how these complaints are anything like complaints about a EULA.
You're serious? The difference in the real world is that one is an agreement by another human being (or group of human beings) to perform a service; the other is an attempt to by other humans to constrain what you can actually do with a physical product that you have paid for and hold in your hand (often before seeing the agreement). We're not talking about whether MS can agree to provide a service (whether it is working software or whatever). We're talking about an agreement that limits what you are allowed to do after they provide the service (or, in this case, the product).
But then you actually have to listen to the music in order to make a copy of it. Like software and movies, most of us want the right to collect copies of songs on our hard drives; not really to actually, um, listen to the music.
a "terms of service" agreement isn't the same as a EULA. This is about someone complaining that Apple won't provide a service that they never agreed to provide. When MS puts something shady in their EULA people complain about not being allowed to do something with property that they purchased with their own money. Presumably it would be objectionable if Apple put such things in their EULA too.
A string of Supreme Court decisions would disagree with you, and their opinion carries a lot more weight. Commercial speech was considered totally without Constitutional protection until the 1970s; today it is protected but it is considered far less valuable than non-commercial speech in First Amendment jurisprudence.
especially the precious few I have published in obscure journals. Nobody reads them as it is, and since you're throwing money around, I'd be happy to sell them at $100,000 a piece!
I'm a little unclear as to how Friday the 13th could fall on October 31st?
On another note, that urban legends article is pretty interesting; it cites a study from the British Medical Journal that claims that although the number of people driving goes significantly down on a friday the 13th, the number of accidents goes significantly up. Anyone know anything about this study, or if anyone has tried to replicate these disconcerting results?
On another note, I fell down half a flight of stairs today -- stairs I have never fallen down before, despite using them at least 3 times a week. My friend got a flat tire. This anecdotal evidence proves... well, nothing, but I'm still interested in that study.
Yep, it's called prior restraint, and it is widely considered the worst form of censorship. The Pentagon Papers case was the first time in history the judicial branch had exercised prior restraint and that was at the request of the executive over a national security matter (and the restraint was lifted within a week). Things have gone downhill since then in national security issues - prior review by the military is routine in war reporting, though it's totally ineffective thanks to the internet and the international press - but as far as prior restraint by the judicial branch over something like a "dangerous" videogame -- I don't know of any case comparable.
He wants to hang out on the island and kill a million boars so he can grind his way up the levels. Then in court he will wield the Sword of a Thousand Truths against the complainant and say "you're totally pwned, dude!"
Your evidence is mostly about serial killers. Most murderers are not serial killers. Crimes of passion like this one (if it was one; we don't know much about the case yet) are usually committed by people who have never killed before rather than psychopaths. Certainly these extreme cases exist, but they are a very different case study than the overwhelming majority of murders.
Slashdot Mirror
Four buttons is entirely too many. He will get confused and wind up posting silly things to slashdot.
OK, but in the specific discussion here, the service agreement complaint is a complaint that Apple should provide a service they never agreed to provide - it is not a complaint about a TOS agreement that governs how you may behave when using a service, which seems to be the sort of thing you are referring to. In this specific case, I don't see how these complaints are anything like complaints about a EULA.
You're serious? The difference in the real world is that one is an agreement by another human being (or group of human beings) to perform a service; the other is an attempt to by other humans to constrain what you can actually do with a physical product that you have paid for and hold in your hand (often before seeing the agreement). We're not talking about whether MS can agree to provide a service (whether it is working software or whatever). We're talking about an agreement that limits what you are allowed to do after they provide the service (or, in this case, the product).
Because it would apply to pretty much everything we say here.
But then you actually have to listen to the music in order to make a copy of it. Like software and movies, most of us want the right to collect copies of songs on our hard drives; not really to actually, um, listen to the music.
a "terms of service" agreement isn't the same as a EULA. This is about someone complaining that Apple won't provide a service that they never agreed to provide. When MS puts something shady in their EULA people complain about not being allowed to do something with property that they purchased with their own money. Presumably it would be objectionable if Apple put such things in their EULA too.
A string of Supreme Court decisions would disagree with you, and their opinion carries a lot more weight. Commercial speech was considered totally without Constitutional protection until the 1970s; today it is protected but it is considered far less valuable than non-commercial speech in First Amendment jurisprudence.
In my line of work, I see a lot of boobies, and I gotta say, those are some really nice boobies!!! All naked and hanging out in the sun... WOW!!!
(My line of work is ornithology of course)
especially the precious few I have published in obscure journals. Nobody reads them as it is, and since you're throwing money around, I'd be happy to sell them at $100,000 a piece!
They accidentally spilled blue paint on the iMac prototype... the rest is history.
yes, but that's easily fixed with a few changes to the wikipedia page!
Clearly, the only equitable solution is to amputate everyone's hands and make everyone wear RFID-implanted artificial hands.
the 52nd time's a charm!
I'm a little unclear as to how Friday the 13th could fall on October 31st?
On another note, that urban legends article is pretty interesting; it cites a study from the British Medical Journal that claims that although the number of people driving goes significantly down on a friday the 13th, the number of accidents goes significantly up. Anyone know anything about this study, or if anyone has tried to replicate these disconcerting results?
On another note, I fell down half a flight of stairs today -- stairs I have never fallen down before, despite using them at least 3 times a week. My friend got a flat tire. This anecdotal evidence proves... well, nothing, but I'm still interested in that study.
It's punk rock bands.
"Imagine, reading Beowulf by the light of a cluster of these snails..."
Much better.
Yep, it's called prior restraint, and it is widely considered the worst form of censorship. The Pentagon Papers case was the first time in history the judicial branch had exercised prior restraint and that was at the request of the executive over a national security matter (and the restraint was lifted within a week). Things have gone downhill since then in national security issues - prior review by the military is routine in war reporting, though it's totally ineffective thanks to the internet and the international press - but as far as prior restraint by the judicial branch over something like a "dangerous" videogame -- I don't know of any case comparable.
The Mac Pro is a threat to our children. Especially the Quad Core 3GHz version! Where can I pick up my review copy?
He wants to hang out on the island and kill a million boars so he can grind his way up the levels. Then in court he will wield the Sword of a Thousand Truths against the complainant and say "you're totally pwned, dude!"
OK, 20%. Not "most." Now, this figure is from which peer-reviewed study? Oh, the one by Mr. "Pulled-it-out-of-my-ass"?
Your evidence is mostly about serial killers. Most murderers are not serial killers. Crimes of passion like this one (if it was one; we don't know much about the case yet) are usually committed by people who have never killed before rather than psychopaths. Certainly these extreme cases exist, but they are a very different case study than the overwhelming majority of murders.