For those who used an "early" electronic voting method, what happens to your vote if something dramatic happens to a candidate between the time you voted and "election day"?
Maybe some huge story comes out that would swing the whole election (illegal campaining finance, or maybe some major skeleton in their closet).
It seems to me that if you vote two weeks early, you're running that risk, unless you are absolutely sure of who you're voting for regardless of what might happen in the next two weeks (and as firm as I was in my choices, I'm not sure I wouldn't have chosen to wait, just in case).
Ah yes... living in Massachusetts. The state where any fringe group, if organized well enough, can get a deceptive question on the ballot, get it passed by the naive voters, and have it become law without the legislature ever having a chance to review it.
It happened 4 years ago with the "ban cruel traps" question. That question had NOTHING to do with banning traps that were already banned. There was a paragraph buried in the verbiage of the question that re-organized how the fish and game commission gets appointed. The idea being that if they could get a liberal enough governor in office, that person could single handedly outlaw fishing and hunting and Massachusetts, no questions asked. It passed.
This year, another extremist, but well organized animal rights organization is proposing the banning of greyhound racing in Massachusetts. ALL of the footage they've used in their ads showing suffering greyhounds was either extremely old or taken out of state or outside of the country. They've brought forth absolutely no evidence that greyhounds in Massachusetts are being treated cruelly. The fact is that the greyhound racing industry is very well regulated in Massachusetts and is monitored by the MSPCA (Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, although they of course would love to see the question passed). But yet again, idiot Massachusetts voters will very likely vote for it because of the extremely deceptive and misleading advertising put forth by proponents of this question.
Are there other states where an individual can get something into law without it ever seeing the legislature? In these cases where these questions are approved, the only way to get them off the books is to sue. And only then will it be brought before the courts to challenge the constitutionality.
I've seen several comments here about people going into the booth and voting for unopposed candidates that they know nothing about, or that they might even disagree with. That's just plain silly.
If there's an office that's running unopposed and you don't like that candidate, or they're from a party you don't like, then don't vote for them! If 10,000 people in your town go and vote, but only 6,000 vote for that unopposed candidate, then the 4,000 that intentionally left that space blank sends a message loud and clear.
Same for national offices. Don't like any of the presidential candidates? The way you express that is to go into the voting booth and don't check any of those boxes. Your vote will be registered, and when the totals are made, you'll be counted as someone who voted, but didn't like any of the choices. That sends the message louder than not voting at all. By not voting, you say "I don't care." By doing this you say "I care, and I don't like any of you bums."
It's crazy to hear people say "I held my nose and voted for so-and-so." Ugh. There are other ways to show your displeasure than by picking from the lesser of evils.
-S
(who drew the line between the dots next to Browne/Olivier, voted libertarian when possible, didn't vote for offices running un-opposed by candidates I didn't like, voted for tax-cut plans, and voted to keep extremist animal-rights groups who use deceptive and misleading advertising away from non-cruel forms of animal entertainment)
Ugh, have you done hardware design? Yes, you're right, you could probably get away with it if you were doing it by yourself for yourself (although apparently you've never seen the aftermath of a serious short on a PCB... it's not just a smoking resistor or capacitor).
But you absolutely could NOT sell it to others, and you sure as heck wouldn't be able to even try to sell in Europe.
And watch the stupid comments until you know what you're talking about...
Somebody mod this guy up, because this is EXACTLY the point.
If the ISP acknowledges that they are indeed blocking sites, for whatever reason they choose, then users can choose to stay with them or they can choose to go elsewhere. They are a business, and like it or not they can choose to relay some content.
Is it OK that Walmart chooses not to sell albums with Parental Advisory stickers on them? Some call that censorship. It's not. They also choose not to sell hard-core xxx rated movies, but no one seems to care about that (well, I'm sure that SOME care about it).
Censorship is when the government chooses what we can see and say. The ISP is a business... they can do pretty much what they want.
Now it seems that they're doing this in the open, and that it's not a secret. If they blocked it and never said anything about it, then that might be wrong. But I don't think that's the case here.
Maybe the college of his choice is iffy on him and decides to reject his application based on his suspension. That decision of the college admissions board could send his life down an entirely different path.
I sometimes think about how different my life would be now had something been different at those critical junctures in my life... meeting my wife... getting into college... taking my first professional job. Any small change would mean a huge difference now.
So yes, he deserves to have this removed from his records.
As a new parent, I'm note sure if I'm fretting or looking forward to things like this. Woe is the school department that pulls this kind of stuff on my kid. I'll be ready to stomp down on them... hard.
Is it fair to charge the same amount for a CD to a guy who lives right near a CD store vs. a guy who has to drive 50 miles to get to a CD store?
Is it fair if a guy's got a cable connection split 50 ways with 50 VCRs so he can record 50 shows at once vs. the guy with one VCR?
Is it fair that one guy has a computer and another guy doesn't?
If the guy with the 28.8 wants life to be "fair" then maybe he should belly up to the bar and get himself a faster connection (if one isn't available, well, sucks to be him then... just like the guy 50 miles from the CD store).
$5/month sounds OK. Even $20/month (maybe higher), if it were open to just about all music available, would be fine. That's still far less than I spend on CDs every month. Why do this rather than just take what's already free? If I download for free instead of buy, I feel that's stealing... no ifs ands or buts about it. Hard-to-find stuff is a different matter.
A couple of caveats before I sign up...
It must be HIGH quality. The best MP3 is barely good enough. I've got a high speed connection, so I wouldn't mind pulling down a couple hundred meg per CD.
No watermarking. That will kill the sound quality and it disturbs music intentionally recorded in surround (messes up the pro-logic steering). Plus I don't like being tracked.
It has to be a portable format with no restrictions. MP3 is fine (except for the sound quality issue) because I can convert to.wav and burn onto a CD. None of this proprietary "gotta use our player" stuff.
I want privacy options. What I download and the type of music I listen to is between me and the company I download from. I don't want to be a part of their marketing statistics, either as an individual or as part of a demographic.
I want cover art and inserts. Downloadable is fine, but make it high quality.
Finally, I'd like to know how my monthly fee gets distributed to artists.
Damn right we're winning. And we need to step up the fight against all things that are potentially dangerous. Drugs are just the beginning. Next we outlaw tobacco. Lots of tobacco deaths every year. Then fatty and high-cholesterol foods. Heart disease is a leading killer. Lawsuits agains Hershey and M&M Mars begin shortly. Cars are also a big cause of death. The danger involved surely isn't worth the benefit of being able to transport yourself from one place to another.
2) Minority Religions...
All non-Slahsdot readers will surely burn in hell.
3) Why give a tax cut?
Everyone will give 100% of their pay to the US government. We'll then keep 50% to run things and the other 50% will be evenly distributed to everyone. That's the only way to keep it fair for everyone.
4) electoral reform
No more elections. Once this one is over, and I'm in power, that's it. I rule.
5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
If you want to keep it your own, then you should keep it in your brain. The only way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone.
6) Encryption....
Ab Pbzzrag.
7) Rising Political Protests
Once I'm in power, there will be no need for political protests.
8) Asteroid Defenses
At this point, we pretty much deserve to be taken out by a huge asteriod. I just hope I'm around to see it.
WIPO has been given WAY too much power here. I don't blame Guinness for asking to get those sites back. They're a business, they have a right to ask.
But WIPO should have simply said that they were an expression of free speech, a parody, or whatever. There is NO WAY those sites could be "confused" with being official Guinness sites.
It's ironic that guinnessstout.com isn't back in the hands of Guinness LLC. I guess they don't mind if people register pro-Guinness sites.
And there's no way in hell I'd boycott Guinness. A lot of things, yes. But Guinness? I don't care what they do. I have to draw the line somewhere, and Guinness is it.
And as much as it would be nice to see a 3rd party get some funds, this is EXACTLY what's wrong with campain finance today.
Ok, so they get their 5%. They get their funds. Maybe they do really well, and now we have 3 powerful parties instead of 2. How about the others? Libertarians? Socialists? Etc. Now they're locked out, and the cycle repeats.
How about NONE of them get funds. And no soft money. Done.
I just realized that Peta got their domain name back, Peta.org. Crap! If there's ever an organization that deserves to have their domain name usurped, they're it.
It used to be a guy who registered it as "People Eating Tasty Animals." The site is at mtd.com.
But looking around at mtd.com it looks like the WIPO yanked it.
Now THIS makes me VERY angry. People Eating Tasty Animals is COMPLETELY legit. If the veggie eating people failed to register the domain in time, well that's their problem.
I shouldn't hang around Salshdot (er... Slashdot) anymore. The more time I spend here, the more I loath the direction this country is taking and decisions our judges make.
A few weeks ago when the 2600 trial / DeCSS / DMCA issues were front and center around
here, I wrote letters to my representatives to express my displeasure with the DMCA, with
the initial rulings in the 2600 trial, and the continuing erosion of "fair use"
rights. I received a reply from one of them, John F. Kerry (D), US Senator from
Massachusetts. His entire letter is presented below, verbatim.
Since the DMCA was passed on a "show of hands" vote, there is no public
record of our representatives voting records on this issue. Well, here we have one.
Senator Kerry states that he supported the Act. His comments are interesting. He pretty much says (my inturpretation)"we knowingly passed a vague law and left it up to the courts to figure out". Woah! Talk about a crap shoot! Our legislature hard at work.
Has anyone else here heard from their representatives about these issues? What
did they have to say?
-S
"October 23, 2000
Mr. ***** ****
*** **** ****
**********, Massachusetts *****
Dear Mr. ****:
Thank you for contacting me regarding pending litigation between DeCSS users and
the Motion Picture Industry Association. I appreciate hearing from you.
During the 105th Congress, I supported enactment of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, P.L. 105-304. The Act brings the United States into compliance with
two landmark treaties: the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright
Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonogram Treaty. Under these treaties,
writers, artists, and other creators of copyrighted material are protected from piracy in
the information age.
As you know, technological innovations have made it easier to distribute written
works, music, and other materials quickly. Unfortunately, these technologies also
make it easier to pirate and widely distribute copyrighted materials. The treaties
require participating countries to provide ''adequate legal protection'' and ''effective
legal remedies'' to the owners of copyrighted works, balancing the interests of creators
and users of copyrighted materials.
Section 1201(A)(1) of the Act provides that ''No person shall circumvent a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this
title.'' Certainly, the courts' interpretation of this language will, to a large
extent, determine the strength of the law and the effectiveness of its provisions. I
will not seek to influence the courts but I hope that their decisions will protect the
intellectual property rights of creators and provide incentives to innovate within the
technology community. I will be watching developments in this area carefully.
Thank you again for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to
write to me in the future about this or any other issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
[signature stamp]
John F. Kerry
United States Senator
The DMCA came about to bring us into compliance with two global treaties as part of the World Intellectual Property Organzation. (WIPO... the same body that's giving legitimate domain names back to the companies with the biggest checkbooks).
This isn't just the United States Government acting stupidly because lawmakers have sold out to the highest donors, it's being driven from abroad.
Don't think the "anti-hacking" treaty could find its way into US law? Just wait!
We, the users who's rights are being stripped away, are far to small of a voice, even if we all yelled together. Fair Use Rights are unknown to the vast majority of the population. They won't even notice when they've lost them because they never knew they had them.
The best that we can do right now is to keep up the fight. Continue to violate the DMCA because we know it's a bogus law and unconstitutional. Copy DeCSS. Copy the Cue-Cat code. Support EFF. Buy a t-shirt from 2600. And most of all, don't let something as stupid as the DMCA stand in the way of exercising your fair use rights.
What if the EULA said "By using this software, you agree to send us your first born son."
That rediculous, right? Is it enforceable? What if you go ahead and use the software anyway? Are you bound by that agreement?
The bottom line is that most EULAs are simply scare tactics and they have absolutely no teeth at all. And why are EULAs for software only? If I buy some widget with a EULA, is it illegal for me to violate that EULA. If it says I can only use it in the manner prescribed, what if I decide that I'd rather drop it out of a plane?
I hope Microsoft does sue them. Then we can end these rediculous EULAs once and for all.
Slashdot Mirror
For those who used an "early" electronic voting method, what happens to your vote if something dramatic happens to a candidate between the time you voted and "election day"?
Maybe some huge story comes out that would swing the whole election (illegal campaining finance, or maybe some major skeleton in their closet).
It seems to me that if you vote two weeks early, you're running that risk, unless you are absolutely sure of who you're voting for regardless of what might happen in the next two weeks (and as firm as I was in my choices, I'm not sure I wouldn't have chosen to wait, just in case).
-S
Ah yes... living in Massachusetts. The state where any fringe group, if organized well enough, can get a deceptive question on the ballot, get it passed by the naive voters, and have it become law without the legislature ever having a chance to review it.
It happened 4 years ago with the "ban cruel traps" question. That question had NOTHING to do with banning traps that were already banned. There was a paragraph buried in the verbiage of the question that re-organized how the fish and game commission gets appointed. The idea being that if they could get a liberal enough governor in office, that person could single handedly outlaw fishing and hunting and Massachusetts, no questions asked. It passed.
This year, another extremist, but well organized animal rights organization is proposing the banning of greyhound racing in Massachusetts. ALL of the footage they've used in their ads showing suffering greyhounds was either extremely old or taken out of state or outside of the country. They've brought forth absolutely no evidence that greyhounds in Massachusetts are being treated cruelly. The fact is that the greyhound racing industry is very well regulated in Massachusetts and is monitored by the MSPCA (Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, although they of course would love to see the question passed). But yet again, idiot Massachusetts voters will very likely vote for it because of the extremely deceptive and misleading advertising put forth by proponents of this question.
Are there other states where an individual can get something into law without it ever seeing the legislature? In these cases where these questions are approved, the only way to get them off the books is to sue. And only then will it be brought before the courts to challenge the constitutionality.
-S
I've seen several comments here about people going into the booth and voting for unopposed candidates that they know nothing about, or that they might even disagree with. That's just plain silly.
If there's an office that's running unopposed and you don't like that candidate, or they're from a party you don't like, then don't vote for them! If 10,000 people in your town go and vote, but only 6,000 vote for that unopposed candidate, then the 4,000 that intentionally left that space blank sends a message loud and clear.
Same for national offices. Don't like any of the presidential candidates? The way you express that is to go into the voting booth and don't check any of those boxes. Your vote will be registered, and when the totals are made, you'll be counted as someone who voted, but didn't like any of the choices. That sends the message louder than not voting at all. By not voting, you say "I don't care." By doing this you say "I care, and I don't like any of you bums."
It's crazy to hear people say "I held my nose and voted for so-and-so." Ugh. There are other ways to show your displeasure than by picking from the lesser of evils.
-S
(who drew the line between the dots next to Browne/Olivier, voted libertarian when possible, didn't vote for offices running un-opposed by candidates I didn't like, voted for tax-cut plans, and voted to keep extremist animal-rights groups who use deceptive and misleading advertising away from non-cruel forms of animal entertainment)
Ugh, have you done hardware design? Yes, you're right, you could probably get away with it if you were doing it by yourself for yourself (although apparently you've never seen the aftermath of a serious short on a PCB... it's not just a smoking resistor or capacitor).
But you absolutely could NOT sell it to others, and you sure as heck wouldn't be able to even try to sell in Europe.
And watch the stupid comments until you know what you're talking about...
-S
If it weren't for the fact that sometimes components do in fact short out and catch fire, this might not be such a bad idea.
I doubt you'll be able to buy UL rated wood to build them though...
-S
Is there room for a big subwoofer in the trunk of one of those?
I'd hate to see the PC go the way of the Corolla.
-S
Somebody mod this guy up, because this is EXACTLY the point.
If the ISP acknowledges that they are indeed blocking sites, for whatever reason they choose, then users can choose to stay with them or they can choose to go elsewhere. They are a business, and like it or not they can choose to relay some content.
Is it OK that Walmart chooses not to sell albums with Parental Advisory stickers on them? Some call that censorship. It's not. They also choose not to sell hard-core xxx rated movies, but no one seems to care about that (well, I'm sure that SOME care about it).
Censorship is when the government chooses what we can see and say. The ISP is a business... they can do pretty much what they want.
Now it seems that they're doing this in the open, and that it's not a secret. If they blocked it and never said anything about it, then that might be wrong. But I don't think that's the case here.
-S
"Mr. Reality Master 101? Yes, I'm a lawyer with the ACLU...."
How about not zero?
Maybe the college of his choice is iffy on him and decides to reject his application based on his suspension. That decision of the college admissions board could send his life down an entirely different path.
I sometimes think about how different my life would be now had something been different at those critical junctures in my life... meeting my wife... getting into college... taking my first professional job. Any small change would mean a huge difference now.
So yes, he deserves to have this removed from his records.
-S
As a new parent, I'm note sure if I'm fretting or looking forward to things like this. Woe is the school department that pulls this kind of stuff on my kid. I'll be ready to stomp down on them... hard.
-S
Now what exactly is a Captain in the RAF supposed to say? "Yes, our pilots do that"??? I doubt it.
If it is true, I wouldn't put any weight in his debunking at all.
-S
[foghorn leghorn voice]
It was a joke son... a joke I say.
[/foghorn leghorn voice]
Is it fair to charge the same amount for a CD to a guy who lives right near a CD store vs. a guy who has to drive 50 miles to get to a CD store?
Is it fair if a guy's got a cable connection split 50 ways with 50 VCRs so he can record 50 shows at once vs. the guy with one VCR?
Is it fair that one guy has a computer and another guy doesn't?
If the guy with the 28.8 wants life to be "fair" then maybe he should belly up to the bar and get himself a faster connection (if one isn't available, well, sucks to be him then... just like the guy 50 miles from the CD store).
-S
$5/month sounds OK. Even $20/month (maybe higher), if it were open to just about all music available, would be fine. That's still far less than I spend on CDs every month. Why do this rather than just take what's already free? If I download for free instead of buy, I feel that's stealing... no ifs ands or buts about it. Hard-to-find stuff is a different matter.
.wav and burn onto a CD. None of this proprietary "gotta use our player" stuff.
A couple of caveats before I sign up...
It must be HIGH quality. The best MP3 is barely good enough. I've got a high speed connection, so I wouldn't mind pulling down a couple hundred meg per CD.
No watermarking. That will kill the sound quality and it disturbs music intentionally recorded in surround (messes up the pro-logic steering). Plus I don't like being tracked.
It has to be a portable format with no restrictions. MP3 is fine (except for the sound quality issue) because I can convert to
I want privacy options. What I download and the type of music I listen to is between me and the company I download from. I don't want to be a part of their marketing statistics, either as an individual or as part of a demographic.
I want cover art and inserts. Downloadable is fine, but make it high quality.
Finally, I'd like to know how my monthly fee gets distributed to artists.
-S
Damn right we're winning. And we need to step up the fight against all things that are potentially dangerous. Drugs are just the beginning. Next we outlaw tobacco. Lots of tobacco deaths every year. Then fatty and high-cholesterol foods. Heart disease is a leading killer. Lawsuits agains Hershey and M&M Mars begin shortly. Cars are also a big cause of death. The danger involved surely isn't worth the benefit of being able to transport yourself from one place to another.
2) Minority Religions...
All non-Slahsdot readers will surely burn in hell.
3) Why give a tax cut?
Everyone will give 100% of their pay to the US government. We'll then keep 50% to run things and the other 50% will be evenly distributed to everyone. That's the only way to keep it fair for everyone.
4) electoral reform
No more elections. Once this one is over, and I'm in power, that's it. I rule.
5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
If you want to keep it your own, then you should keep it in your brain. The only way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone.
6) Encryption....
Ab Pbzzrag.
7) Rising Political Protests
Once I'm in power, there will be no need for political protests.
8) Asteroid Defenses
At this point, we pretty much deserve to be taken out by a huge asteriod. I just hope I'm around to see it.
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
See 8)
-S
But WIPO should have simply said that they were an expression of free speech, a parody, or whatever. There is NO WAY those sites could be "confused" with being official Guinness sites.
It's ironic that guinnessstout.com isn't back in the hands of Guinness LLC. I guess they don't mind if people register pro-Guinness sites.
And there's no way in hell I'd boycott Guinness. A lot of things, yes. But Guinness? I don't care what they do. I have to draw the line somewhere, and Guinness is it.
-S
And as much as it would be nice to see a 3rd party get some funds, this is EXACTLY what's wrong with campain finance today.
Ok, so they get their 5%. They get their funds. Maybe they do really well, and now we have 3 powerful parties instead of 2. How about the others? Libertarians? Socialists? Etc. Now they're locked out, and the cycle repeats.
How about NONE of them get funds. And no soft money. Done.
-S
What do I have to do to get Special Agent Dana Scully to show up at my door?
-S
Knowing how many times the DeCSS code has been posted here, he probably feared the legal ramifications of linking directly.
It used to be a guy who registered it as "People Eating Tasty Animals." The site is at mtd.com.
But looking around at mtd.com it looks like the WIPO yanked it.
Now THIS makes me VERY angry. People Eating Tasty Animals is COMPLETELY legit. If the veggie eating people failed to register the domain in time, well that's their problem.
I shouldn't hang around Salshdot (er... Slashdot) anymore. The more time I spend here, the more I loath the direction this country is taking and decisions our judges make.
-S
A few weeks ago when the 2600 trial / DeCSS / DMCA issues were front and center around here, I wrote letters to my representatives to express my displeasure with the DMCA, with the initial rulings in the 2600 trial, and the continuing erosion of "fair use" rights. I received a reply from one of them, John F. Kerry (D), US Senator from Massachusetts. His entire letter is presented below, verbatim.
Since the DMCA was passed on a "show of hands" vote, there is no public record of our representatives voting records on this issue. Well, here we have one. Senator Kerry states that he supported the Act. His comments are interesting. He pretty much says (my inturpretation)"we knowingly passed a vague law and left it up to the courts to figure out". Woah! Talk about a crap shoot! Our legislature hard at work.
Has anyone else here heard from their representatives about these issues? What did they have to say?
-S
"October 23, 2000
Mr. ***** ****
*** **** ****
**********, Massachusetts *****
Dear Mr. ****:
Thank you for contacting me regarding pending litigation between DeCSS users and the Motion Picture Industry Association. I appreciate hearing from you.
During the 105th Congress, I supported enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, P.L. 105-304. The Act brings the United States into compliance with two landmark treaties: the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonogram Treaty. Under these treaties, writers, artists, and other creators of copyrighted material are protected from piracy in the information age.
As you know, technological innovations have made it easier to distribute written works, music, and other materials quickly. Unfortunately, these technologies also make it easier to pirate and widely distribute copyrighted materials. The treaties require participating countries to provide ''adequate legal protection'' and ''effective legal remedies'' to the owners of copyrighted works, balancing the interests of creators and users of copyrighted materials.
Section 1201(A)(1) of the Act provides that ''No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.'' Certainly, the courts' interpretation of this language will, to a large extent, determine the strength of the law and the effectiveness of its provisions. I will not seek to influence the courts but I hope that their decisions will protect the intellectual property rights of creators and provide incentives to innovate within the technology community. I will be watching developments in this area carefully.
Thank you again for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to write to me in the future about this or any other issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
[signature stamp]
John F. Kerry
United States Senator
JFK/jdwb"
-S
The two treaties in question are The WIPO Copyright Treaty and The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.
This isn't just the United States Government acting stupidly because lawmakers have sold out to the highest donors, it's being driven from abroad.
Don't think the "anti-hacking" treaty could find its way into US law? Just wait!
We, the users who's rights are being stripped away, are far to small of a voice, even if we all yelled together. Fair Use Rights are unknown to the vast majority of the population. They won't even notice when they've lost them because they never knew they had them.
The best that we can do right now is to keep up the fight. Continue to violate the DMCA because we know it's a bogus law and unconstitutional. Copy DeCSS. Copy the Cue-Cat code. Support EFF. Buy a t-shirt from 2600. And most of all, don't let something as stupid as the DMCA stand in the way of exercising your fair use rights.
-S
What if the EULA said "By using this software, you agree to send us your first born son."
That rediculous, right? Is it enforceable? What if you go ahead and use the software anyway? Are you bound by that agreement?
The bottom line is that most EULAs are simply scare tactics and they have absolutely no teeth at all. And why are EULAs for software only? If I buy some widget with a EULA, is it illegal for me to violate that EULA. If it says I can only use it in the manner prescribed, what if I decide that I'd rather drop it out of a plane?
I hope Microsoft does sue them. Then we can end these rediculous EULAs once and for all.
-S
Yea yea, replying to my own message is bad form.
But go back and take a look at what he got for it. Now tell me that waiting out overnight for some folks still sounds like a bad idea....
-S