Because it's not a stable democracy. Stable democracies "are allowed" (whatever that means) to have nukes, unstable democracies and non-democracies are not. Ideally this eventually allows us to slowly inch back to a non-nuclear world, but that could take hundreds of years.
Yes. That's right. None of those were valid contracts until sometime during your lifetime (probably, depending on your age). It shouldn't shock you that a contract is invalid if someone doesn't read it. Of course that isn't a valid contract! He didn't even read it how could it be valid?!
And that is how it should be, and that is what we should go back to. Absent a contract, the law applies. That is how most interactions should be governed, by the law not by private contract, with the exception of times when two knowledgeable consenting adults have a meeting of the minds and establish mutually understood conditions, bound by contract. Except in those exceptional circumstances, with a high bar for validity of a contract, laws should rule.
Nobody's kilogram is exactly 1 kilogram, either. But your bathroom scale, which shows your weight in Kg, and it "works well enough", just like msuave said about the units at that time. They were exact enough.
Yes, preach it brother! I would also like to complain because LEGOs are advertised as offering "endless fun"! There are a limited number of combinations and permutations for any collection of LEGO bricks, and even if you kept making the same shapes over and over, the fun will certainly end before the heat death of the universe. FALSE ADVERTISING!
Of course it's valid. For a contract to be binding there must be a 'meeting of the minds' so that both parties understands the agreement. If one party writes a contract that is difficult/impossible for laypeople to understand, and the other party doesn't even read it, then it's not a valid contract....and that was true for hundreds of years in our legal tradition, until sometime in the 1970s or 1980s. Now it's false. Now you don't even have to be aware of the contract for it to be enforced against you,
Yes, but no. The guy wasn't providing internet service to his friends, he was providing access to files for his friends. They were using their own bandwidth to download those files; the man's bandwidth was only used to upload the files. The point is that his TOS doesn't allow him to provide files in that way. Also, another point is that nothing in the universe is "unlimited" so "unlimited" has to be understood in non-absolute terms. So, yeah, he was behaving unreasonably with his internet connection. He got called on it, which sucks for him, but he got away with it for a while which is pretty awesome.
"Any sane individual realises "all you can eat" means 'all you can eat within reason'."
We have an entire national political party which refuses to accept that "the right to [x]" means "the right to [x] within reason".
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So, then, suicidal high-security prison inmates have the right to keep nuclear missiles in their prison cells? WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
The USSR picked winners well enough to be the most powerful nation on Earth, well enough to embarrass the also-ran United States in the space race and well enough to defeat them in proxy wars. If you think they were unlucky then imagine what they could do by picking winners and being lucky!
Do you believe that is true for all new technologies which don't provide 100% of the benefits of the former technology at a lower cost? I don't believe that's true. That wouldn't comport with my experiences with new technologies.
Also, much money has been made by selling status symbols.
The patentability of software only applies when it is run on a computer. If you never run it on the physical object of a computer, then you can't violate its patent.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's not a stable democracy. Stable democracies "are allowed" (whatever that means) to have nukes, unstable democracies and non-democracies are not. Ideally this eventually allows us to slowly inch back to a non-nuclear world, but that could take hundreds of years.
The best way to use them is to learn not to use them. Learn to use their superior counterparts that run on non-toy operating systems.
"They" isn't always plural. Why would you proffer something so obviously wrong?
Agreed, and this has been true since the middle of the Bush administration.
Mmm hmm. Me too. It was 5th grade for me.
Wow, what law school did you graduate from?
Because your comment should serve as a warning to students who might want to go there.
Yes. That's right. None of those were valid contracts until sometime during your lifetime (probably, depending on your age). It shouldn't shock you that a contract is invalid if someone doesn't read it. Of course that isn't a valid contract! He didn't even read it how could it be valid?!
And that is how it should be, and that is what we should go back to. Absent a contract, the law applies. That is how most interactions should be governed, by the law not by private contract, with the exception of times when two knowledgeable consenting adults have a meeting of the minds and establish mutually understood conditions, bound by contract. Except in those exceptional circumstances, with a high bar for validity of a contract, laws should rule.
Fair enough, and totally agreed. Well put.
ha ha @ 'tiny majority'
"my arbitrary system is better than yours"
Yes. That is the claim.
Nobody's kilogram is exactly 1 kilogram, either. But your bathroom scale, which shows your weight in Kg, and it "works well enough", just like msuave said about the units at that time. They were exact enough.
The critique of the metric system isn't the unit ratios but rather the units. Imperial units are more useful as base units.
It depends on how strict you are being: "Most of mankind has used the day and its non-decimal subdivisions as a basis of time ... The catalogued units are minute, hour, day...".
So, GGP made a point, GP tried to get pedantic, you upped his pedantry, and now I've upped yours. We are approaching the asymptotic limit of pedantry.
Yes, preach it brother! I would also like to complain because LEGOs are advertised as offering "endless fun"! There are a limited number of combinations and permutations for any collection of LEGO bricks, and even if you kept making the same shapes over and over, the fun will certainly end before the heat death of the universe. FALSE ADVERTISING!
There are a limited number of photons in the universe. So what is your understanding of "unlimited"?
"Well, I didn't read the contract, first"
Of course it's valid. For a contract to be binding there must be a 'meeting of the minds' so that both parties understands the agreement. If one party writes a contract that is difficult/impossible for laypeople to understand, and the other party doesn't even read it, then it's not a valid contract. ...and that was true for hundreds of years in our legal tradition, until sometime in the 1970s or 1980s. Now it's false. Now you don't even have to be aware of the contract for it to be enforced against you,
Yes, but no. The guy wasn't providing internet service to his friends, he was providing access to files for his friends. They were using their own bandwidth to download those files; the man's bandwidth was only used to upload the files. The point is that his TOS doesn't allow him to provide files in that way. Also, another point is that nothing in the universe is "unlimited" so "unlimited" has to be understood in non-absolute terms. So, yeah, he was behaving unreasonably with his internet connection. He got called on it, which sucks for him, but he got away with it for a while which is pretty awesome.
"Any sane individual realises "all you can eat" means 'all you can eat within reason'."
We have an entire national political party which refuses to accept that "the right to [x]" means "the right to [x] within reason".
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So, then, suicidal high-security prison inmates have the right to keep nuclear missiles in their prison cells? WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
She's hot in a world where this is hot:
http://www.therichest.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/marissa-mayer.jpg
Everyone is entitled to their own sexual opinions, but when graded on a curve of American CEOs, judged by American hetero men, she's hot.
The USSR picked winners well enough to be the most powerful nation on Earth, well enough to embarrass the also-ran United States in the space race and well enough to defeat them in proxy wars. If you think they were unlucky then imagine what they could do by picking winners and being lucky!
Do you believe that is true for all new technologies which don't provide 100% of the benefits of the former technology at a lower cost? I don't believe that's true. That wouldn't comport with my experiences with new technologies.
Also, much money has been made by selling status symbols.
Is the link he provided not good enough?
Governments are incredibly good at picking winners. Government does a much better job of it than, say, the market does.
No, they don't, except in the fantasies of nutters.
The patentability of software only applies when it is run on a computer. If you never run it on the physical object of a computer, then you can't violate its patent.