If they continue reinvesting and they continue making a profit, will they eventually own all the money that exists in the world leaving nothing for others?
You are either a 1) liberal that believes in a finite amount of money. 2) Never taken econ classes. The latter is forgivable, the former isn't.:)
MS has to have their 40b deposited in banks. Those banks don't just pay interest for fun; they take that 40b and loan it to others (you, me, etc.) and we use that money to build houses, buy cars, and do other things that stimulate the economy and create more wealth. The banks take the interest we pay, take their cut, and pay interest to those that have deposited their money with the banks (MS, IBM, you and me, etc.).
It's all a nice little system called capitalism and banks allow wealth to be PRODUCED, not confiscated by a single individual or company.
Don't worry; MS really ought to pay dividends with that money, but they're not hurting you or me by doing it. In fact, they're making more money available that banks can loan us to buy cars and houses.
It'd only be a matter of time before the rest of the world was paying microsoft (in intrest alone not even counting actual products and services) and all the banks would go 'bankrupt' as MS drained them of their monies.
You are either a 1) liberal that believes in a finite amount of money. 2) Never taken econ classes. The latter is forgivable, the former isn't.:)
MS has to have their 40b deposited in banks. Those banks don't just pay interest for fun; they take that 40b and loan it to others (you, me, etc.) and we use that money to build houses, buy cars, and do other things that stimulate the economy and create more wealth. The banks take the interest we pay, take their cut, and pay interest to those that have deposited their money with the banks (MS, IBM, you and me, etc.).
It's all a nice little system called capitalism and banks allow wealth to be PRODUCED, not confiscated by a single individual or company.
Don't worry; MS really ought to pay dividends with that money, but they're not hurting you or me by doing it. In fact, they're making more money available that banks can loan us to buy cars and houses.
You really ought to not assume who my candidate was, I wasn't any more interested in Gore than I was Bush. In any case, try bushneverwonflorida.com makes for some good reading. Also try Stupid White Men, by Michael Moore.
You are right, I shouldn't have assumed who you voted for. I actually thought of that right after you posted.
That said, I'm just not fond of any arguement, Democrat or Republican, that resorts to election fraud to refute an election. I believe we have much less election fraud than most countries. That said, I'm sure we have it. But I also believes it "comes out in the wash." In any given election some percentage will be fraud, the rest will be legitimate. Saying Bush was elected due to fraud is only a worthwhile discussion if we're willing to accept Clinton was elected because of fraud--there certainly was fraud in both.
The difference, granted, is that perhaps this time the amount of fraud was larger than the actual margins of the two candidates so it became a factor. But fraud is inherent in any system, just as piracy is a cost of doing business. It's a fact of life. All you can try to do is minimize it, but don't dwell on it when inherent defects always present in the system happen to affect the outcome from time to time.
You didn't quote where I said 1 out of every 8 people sentenced to die has been later released with all charges dropped. It seems insane to insist on an irreversible form of punishment with such a discomforting error rate.
Maybe, maybe not. I have not researched this lately. Of those 1 out of 8, I'd like to know how many were completely exhonerated of their crime and how many eventually got off on technical appeals, etc.
That said, perhaps we need to make some improvements in the justice process. I'd be for that. I might even be willing to suspend the death penalty for some time while the system is overhauled. But, in principle, I am in favor of the death penalty. Let's just make sure we're executing the right people.
You: Depleted uranium shells...
Me: Link/source?
You: Is the BBC reputable enough?
Probably. I'll check out. That said, they shouldn't have invaded Kuwait.
Me: But a national healthcare system for the entire country? No thank you, I'd rather pay.
You: Have you ever hunted for a health care provider? What a miserable way to spend your time.
Agreed. But have you ever stood in line to be waited on by a nationalized healthcare provider? What a miserable way to spend your time.
With public health care you at least don't run a risk of missing some detail in the contract that leaves you without coverage if you have a serious problem. Having that option to fall back on is something I'd gladly pay for in taxes.
It's a matter of quality. The nationalized healthcare systems I've seen are both very inefficient (huge wait times to get ANY of your guaranteed medical care), unreliable (don't have the medication you need "this week" or give you the wrong medication), and downright dangerous (many people from nationalized health care countries go to the U.S. for major treatment).
If that's the kind of medical service you want, more power to you. It's not the kind I want.
Me: Which would mean the government killed off that sect because.... why exactly??
You: I just said there were a lot of questions unanswered about the whole ordeal. Which is worrisome.
There may be unanswered questions. But I stopped LOOKING for conspiracy theories years ago. It was a fun pasttime when I was younger. I have come to believe that the most logical, non-conspiracy explanation is usually the right one. For all the bads of the U.S. government, I just don't see them as having any particular interest in bothering truly peaceful Chrisitans that aren't do anything. I just don't see a motivation. I do, however, see a motivation for survivors of the incident to try to paint themselves as a little more pure than they perhaps were.
Again, you can look for conspiracies if you want. Perhaps one of them will turn out to be true. Most, I think, are better taken at face value.
You say that like it's no big deal. What possible use could we have for a nuclear arsenal that could annihilate the planet with plenty to spare? Why would anyone feel that is acceptable?
Because it's a policy that's worked for 50+ years. It got us through perhaps the potentially most dangerous period in world history--the cold war.
Do I want them to be used? No. Do I think that having them tends to insure peace? Yes.
It's pretty obvious to me too that we're going to see a LOT of work moving overseas soon.
Nah, I've seen the same thing several others here have already mentioned. Offshore development seems to fail in a large majority of the cases. Think of the "offshore boom" as the next "dot com bust."
Right now, some companies may be trying to save every penny and may look at offshore development as a solution. The majority will more than likely get burned.
I know of several companies that have been in the same boat. They got lured by very attractive proposals from India. "3 months and $300k". They said, "Fsck yeah!" 3 months later they were told, "It's a little more work than we thought. It's going to be at least another 6 months and we need to hire another 50 programmers, and it's going to cost 1.5 mil." The companies, having already invested time and money and believing they were now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, go ahead and do it.
Offshore programming is not practical. Developing usually requires "close interface" with non-programmers and leads that intimately know the project including (ahem) salespeople. It's not easy to have this close interface when the developers don't speak English fluently, don't even share the same culture or underlying business knowledge, are 12 hours out of phase requiring that $1.50/minute conference call to be specially scheduled at 6am or 7am or so, and doing "on-site" requires the purchase of a $3k-$8k plane ticket and consumes at least 3 or 4 days when you consider the time zone differences, jet lag, etc.
The failures of offshore development are demonstrated daily. And, as others have also mentioned, they will only be willing to work for $10/hour so long. As their salary increases the demand for their work from the U.S. will decrease even more--if the whole "offshore bust" doesn't kill that industry first.
Your music collection must sound like crap. utter crap. Even if you just copy a cd, you lose audible sonic quality due to cd error and signal path error. Ignoreing the ethical factor all together, you are making a bad decision for your ears, unless of course our stereo is a set of jury rigged
When I was younger sound quality was everything. My stereo had to be perfect, the sound perfect, etc. I still am able to detect flaws in sound that many others can't--or just don't care about. My wife thinks I'm obsessed with sound quality.
That said, for pop music I find that 128 bit MP3 is perfectly adequate. For symphony or orchestra I usually go for 192 or 256. It's good enough for me. Perhaps 10 years ago it wouldn't have been, but these days it's more than adequate.
I think as you get older the obsession with 100% accurate sound reproduction fades. Perhaps it's a combination of ones ears naturally deteriorating with age and perhaps it's just a matter of moving on to more important things in life. Perhaps it's a matter of having grown up recording tapes to hear in my car only to have the speed of the tapes motor just slightly off or tape stretch working hours of recording time--one realizes that the quality we have now, even 128 bit, is much better for much longer than what I was used to growing up.
Whatever the reason, I'm perfectly happy with the quality of my collection. I invite you not to listen to it if you don't want to.:)
I've bought a lot of music that I discovered via "free" internet sources...
I haven't bought a CD in 2 years. I download all my music from someone that has chosen to share it. I hear it or remember it, hop online, and within 5 or 10 minutes I have it. Don't have to get in the car, don't have to deal with traffic, don't have to wait in line, don't have to pay $20 for one song. I just keep on programming while I download it in the background and it is instantly added to my partition dedicated exclusively to holding my sound library. Cheap and convenient.
I'm done being gouged by the RIAA. They had their chance to charge a reasonable price but chose to gouge instead. Now I wouldn't care if they charged $5 for a CD--I'll just grab it online for the reasons mentioned above and on general principle.
They'll have to conform with the 500 CDs I bought in the 90's earning them about $7500 because I won't be adding to that collection any longer--in fact, I only USE that collection to rip the songs I occasionally feel like hearing so that I never have to get up and look for the CD again.
Screw 'em.
Musicians, on the other hand, can earn money from me by touring. I will gladly pay $20 to see them live if they come through town.
I've never visited those countries, so I have no idea if I'm completely talking out of my ass, but you can easily make the United States look like a scary place.
Not to be insulting, but I think you DO need to visit these places before really knowing what you're talking about. I've been to both Colombia and Ecuador and currently live in Mexico (but AM an American!).
Believe me, it is easy to be cynical being an American living in the U.S. and never leaving the country--except maybe to Cancun or a few other tourist destinations in "safe" places of the world.
But when you've lived in one of these "other countries" for 6+ years, believe me, you will miss the petty problems the U.S. has. It really puts things in perspective.
Massive electoral fraud.
You haven't seen electoral fraud until you've been to Mexico--and they're supposedly "improving."
I'm kind of tired of the whole "Bush family election fraud" conspiracy theory. I know it's a bummer your candidate lost by so little, but he did. Get over it. If there had been fraud I think they would have at least stuffed enough ballots to make the win decisive.
(Sarcasm on) I'm sure Bush and the Republicans planned the butterfly ballots perfectly knowing that exactly X number of idiots wouldn't be able to read it and, thus, get GWB elected (sarcasm off).
Millions of people are in prison over drugs, many rights are suspended simply on unfounded suspicion of drug involvement.
Do you have evidence? If they were involved in drugs then I'm glad they are in prison. Sure, there may occasionally be errors. I do not believe there is any law enforcement conspiracy to wrongfully imprison anyone. What would they gain? Come on, they do their job just like the next guy.
Believe me, I'd rather be stopped by any American FBI, State Police or Local police on a dark road in the middle of a field than by their Mexican or Colombian equiavlent. ANY DAY.
The US on average takes military action against a nation at least once every 2 years, and has kept it up since 1990.
Being the last remaining superpower is a bummer sometimes. I think we got involved in a few conflicts that weren't our business while Clinton was in power. But Iraq? Afghanistan? Totally justified and our interests were threatend.
Corporations seem to be able to buy legislation to suit their needs. Many of the largest scandals are closely linked to the administration: Enron, Savings & Loan, etc.
There are some cases of corporations having too much power. They are vocal.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: If corporations or interest groups have too much power it is because WE THE PEOPLE aren't doing our job and keeping our congress-critters on a leash. We have no-one to blame but ourselves.
One of the only "civilized" nations to still have a death penalty
Yeah, it's so much more civilized to throw them in a dungeon and throw away the key... but pay $50k/year to do it.
The US has used and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Nukes, yes.
There's a pretty good chance the Anthrax mailer got his stuff from US labs (the whole story is actually much scarier, if true).
Yeah, he probably did. Does that bother me? No. It bothers me that he hasn't been caught but I really could care less whether he got it in the U.S. or in Afghanistan.
Depleted uranium shells used in the Gulf War by coalition forces are causing cancer in Iraqi civilians even today.
Link/source?
Law enforcement appears to be largely unaccountable.
Visit the countries previously mentioned. Believe me, you'll praise U.S. law enforcement.
Still no straight answer on what down at Waco Texas and why specific other agencies were involved (such as the Delta Force), but the end result is an entire, seemingly harmless community of Christians is dead.
Yeah, a bunch of harmless Christians with heavy artillery. Unless you buy into the whole conspiracy theory that weapons were placed there after the fact. Which would mean the government killed off that sect because.... why exactly??
Terrorist attacks against the nation take place on an almost yearly basis.
Yearly? I remember the original WTC attack. Then Oklahoma, then the final WTC? Did I miss any others?
Much better than, say, Israel that measures their terrorist attacks by the day or week rather than the year.
No public healthcare, which most other "civilized" nations offer.
You refer to the quasi-capitalist European nations with confiscatory levels of taxation?
I agree we ought to do something about health care for those that don't have insurance. I think we can and will. But a national healthcare system for the entire country? No thank you, I'd rather pay.
More than 50% of the nation's budget is allocated to the military.
50%? Please check that number again. Even these guys (that appear to probably be anti-military) only cite 23.7%.
I would invite you, in all seriousness, to live in a foreign country for a few years. Not Canada. Not the UK. A "typical" foreign country such as Mexico. Believe me, you'll more than appreciate what we've got in the U.S. Big time.
Wasn't that more or less encouraged by certain crackheads in the US? Seemed to be all around the media recently. Anyone know anything about this?
Wasn't the president of Venezuela democratically elected? What did he do to piss of GWB?
What's the story about this one?
It's mostly back to conspiracy theory. The U.S. was a little to quick in NOT condemning the coup, that is true. In fact the U.S. said something like, "Well, Chavez sort of brought this on himself."
However, I've seen absolutely no evidence that the U.S. supported the coup in any way. I currently live in Mexico and if there was any evidence of that believe me we'd hear about it down here.
Keep in mind that Chavez, although popularly elected, is basically a thug, a punk. He's essentially Fidel Castro but elected by the people. He has no business or political experience other than that which has has obtained during his presidency. He's there because of a poor public that think he'll look out for them (questionable).
Some people see the U.S.'s failure to condemn the coup as evidence as participating in it. I tend to believe that, more likely, the U.S. failed to condemn it because even though it WAS a coup, they were overthrowing a complete idiot that the country and the hemisphere would be better without in the long run.
First, it's Colombia, not Columbia. It's also one of the most dangerous countries in the world between rebel forces, drug trade, and kidnappers.
EC->ECUADOR
Better than Colombia, but still awfully close to the drug trade. Also has occasional skirmishes with its neighbor, Peru. Doesn't appear on the diagram, but the diagram doesn't give you the whole picture.
kr->Rebublic of Korea
From a military perspective this is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. They only have a million or so troops massed at the North Korea/South Korea border, ready to party.
Far from being a safe place, it's one of the most ripe for a future war.
ve->VENEZUELA
Just had a coup attempt in the last month or so. There are also cross-border rebels that move between Venezuela and Colombia. Drugs is a problem as well.
ph->Philipines
Along with Colombia and Inodonesia, Philipines is one of the current and/or expected new hotbeds for terrorist activity now that their powwow-station in Afghanistan is pretty much toast.
As the author of the material confessed, his analysis doesn't do much to predict wars. He thinks they are random. But, interestingly, the countries you selected as being "safe" are among the most ripe for war these days. Which confirms that the author is right: He proved nothing.
Wars cannot be predicted by math but by logical political analysis.
Still, it would be interesting to see taken into account the fact that in the past 200 years the US has managed to earn itself more enemies than many other countries which have had a headstart of centuries.
Globalism, dude. It's a lot easier to make enemies worldwide in 2002 than it was in 1492, or even 1902.
That said, the article was interesting and provided lots of interesting tidbits. War among neighbors is more common, there is no indication of war for economic reasons nor rich against poor, etc. These are all interesting.
But to reach the conclusion that wars are "random accidents" that can't be predicted just because there are no strong correlations (other than being neighbors) is hogwash. It's a classic example of science (in this case math) trying to explain something it wasn't meant to explain. Math is good to predict nuclear decay, as mentioned in the article. We really don't care which atom decays, we just have an interest in the total number that decay in a given amount of time.
This article is a good "first step" at analyzing war. The article shows us that there is no meaningful mathematical explanation for war, other than being neighbors. As far as math goes, it's random.
But it's not. It's politics. War is simply politics taken to an extreme. Some say that war occurs when politics fails--NO. War is a PART of politics, just instead of using words and treaty signatures, weapons are used.
Politics is an extension of human interaction. The day that can be truly explained by math is the day that, in effect, we will have a world with robots that use AI to be human-like.
Math cannot predict wars, but logic and political analysis can. The author was too quick to discard the REASONS for wars simply because the two sides might have conflicting explanations. While it can be hard to objectively look at these things, especially when looking at recent wars, any useful analysis of war has to look at the REASONS.
To throw out the declared reasons of both sides for a war and try to look for an answer in math or statistics is laughable.
Other than that, all we really know is that we should watch out for Canada and Mexico.:)
just because these became essential it doesnt automatically follow that mobile phones should be.
No, it doesn't mean the mobile phone should or must be.
It does explain, though, the painfully obvious fact that just because we got along with something for thousands of years doesn't mean it can't become a necessity. Original parent implied that since he had gotten along without a cell phone for years then why would it be a necessity now? It's an absurd rhetorical question that should be marked "troll", if it hasn't been already.
Technically, the only necessities are air, water, and food.
However, for me a computer and Internet are necessities. I need them both to work and earn a living. They might not be considered necessities by many in the world, but they are to me. Perhaps a cell phone is a necessity to many others.
In fact, I would suggest that perhaps the original parent post said that a cell phone is not a necessity because he has no-one to talk to. Poor unsocial bastard.:)
There is a fully functional prototype that flew one orbital mission before funding ran out and is currently mothballed somewhere in some hangar (probably not a ranway).
Can you provide a link? I remember the Soviets working on a Shuttle-like vehicle, but I'm with the rest of the audience here... I only heard about them making a prototype. I've NEVER heard of anyone launching a Shuttle/reusable space vehicle except for the U.S.
In my observation, unlicensened copying is common in *most* companies. 95 percent of any randomly-picked companies are probably guilty by more than just a handful of licenses.
That may be the case. But that's a fishing expedition.
Most people exceed the speed limit, but it would be patently unconsitutional for a police to come up to someone parked in a parking lot and ask them to prove that they haven't sped; and give them a speeding ticket if they couldn't prove it--even if 95% of the people sped on their way to the parking lot.
The fact that a large majority may be guilty of some crime doesn't mean their right to freedom from unreasonable search may be violated. The ends DON'T justify the means.
Having an agenda does not mean they are not right about copying.
That's true; the fact that they have an agenda doesn't mean they are wrong. But, mostly, it's just an excuse the BSA uses to test your theory that 95% of companies will probably have SOMETHING out-of-spec license-wise. At the very least some user will have installed something...
Me: It's just a matter of the BSA targetting the wrong company and that company fighting.
You: It is hard to defend such if you are guilty of copying.
Not necessarily. Even if a company has non-licensed software, they still can still refuse entry to the BSA and fight in court over the BSA's unreasonable "right" to do so. Whether they actually have unlicensed software doesn't affect whether or not BSA actually has the right to enter their private property and look. Of course, if they lose AND they have pirated software they'll probably be in a bad situation.
Mostly, I'm thinking of some company that is actually quite confident it is in spec license-wise, they get a threat from the BSA, tell the BSA to f off... Then when the BSA wants to come in they can calmly tell them to take a hike and argue it in court. If the BSA succeeds at getting the "right" to search their property, they'll look awfully stupid when they find nothing. If, however, the judge finds that the EULA doesn't give the BSA the right to invade a company's private property then a precedent will be set. The power of EULAs will be severely crippled or, better yet, completely invalidated.
The point is that the BSA probably won't want to fight it in court. Even if there's, say, a 70% chance that the BSA would win I doubt they'd want to risk that 30% chance of having a EULA invalidated. They'd rather just give up on that target and move to easier prey that doesn't risk setting a precedent against them.
Me: Doubtful. Do you have any examples of any company or organization being able to negotiate a EULA?
You: No, but it probably would not be made public.
Hmmm, well it's kind of hard to refute that logic. But in the absence of any evidence I would tend to believe that the EULAs simply have not been negotiated.
This may indeed be the case with MS software, but it is a minor, side issue being that you have a bunch of other companies in BSA.
I am speculating here, I'll admit, but I think when the BSA goes in the software they most often find "not properly licensed" is Microsoft. I also suspect Microsoft is probably the largest software vendor, sales-wise, in the BSA.
Appearently it *is* possible for an organization to sign away certain privacy rights. Whether you like it or not.
How do you figure? The EULAs haven't been tested yet. There may be companies that have decided not to defend their rights but there certainly isn't any proof that the EULAs force them to do so.
It's not a matter of me liking it or not. It's a legal precedent that is established. What needs to be tested is whether or not the EULA is 1) A binding contract. 2) An adhesion contract. 3) An unconscionable contract. For the an EULA to allow the BSA to search your (or an organization's) private property then the BSA would have to prove that each of these are invalid.
Again, if a company just rolls over and lets them inspect then there is nothing the law nor a contract can do for them. But the EULA "contract" isn't what has gotten BSA into companies thusfar--the companies themselves have chosen not to defend their rights. Very different.
It is my understanding that somebody has to rat on a company first. Usually it is a disgruntled worker, something that isn't that hard to find these days.
Re-read the original "header"/article of this particualr thread. No-one ratted on the university. They just inquired as to correct licensing requirements/procedures. Now they are facing an audit.
That said, I don't personally feel that a disgruntled worker is a good source for that kind of information. So if I get laid off and I'm pissed, what the heck, I'll just sick the BSA on the company. The disgruntled worker obviously has an agenda.
Maybe, maybe not. Most people don't really care what happens to companies, as long as individuals are not targeted.
People don't, but the target company does. It's just a matter of the BSA targetting the wrong company and that company fighting. Like someone else mentioned, if a company ever resists and decides to take the BSA to court and demand a search warrant the BSA will probably back off because they DON'T want a legal precedent to be set. If they lose, their job is done. No-one nor no company will ever let them in again.
Thus it might be awhile until it's fully tested precisely because the BSA will be scared of a precedent being set against them.
Besides, there is software that reads MS formats (although not perfect. But then again neither is MS's own software.) In fact, I think MS offers a *free* Word reader/viewer.
So you can receive files from your business partners but can't send them anything? That's not not acceptable.
This may indeed apply to a consumer or even a small business, but a university is not a "small business". They have a full-time legal staff. If they don't didn't like the contract, then they could take their business eslewhere or negotiate with the software companies.
Doubtful. Do you have any examples of any company or organization being able to negotiate a EULA? Not counting MS strategic partners...
Again, I'd argue that they could take their business elsewhere, especially in light of Microsoft being declared a monopoly.
Besides, the BSA is almost the *only* defense software companies have against piracy. It is not reasonable to expect them to negotiate away prevention of freeloading of their product.
Right. They're not going to negotiate. And the BSA's purpose is fine. Their tactics are not. Regardless of their goals I just don't think any court will enforce a "contract" provision that gives them sweeping privacy invasion powers.
They have a right to reduce piracy and pursue pirates, but they must do that within the confines of the law.
If a company simply tracks their software licenses and does periodic self-audits and keeps those records, they won't usually have a problem. It is just a cost of using commercial desktop software that must be factored in.
Their store receipt should be sufficient. Additionally, they should not have to produce them to the BSA or Microsoft unless one of them has evidence that they are pirating software. They need a court order and then it should be the police that come to your door, not the BSA.
The law requires accounting for money, and software seems to belong in the same category now.
But it shouldn't be. The assumption that something is stolen because you can't prove that it was purchased legally is NOT acceptable. It WILL be struck down eventually by courts.
Gas Monopoly. Pemex is a government-owned monopoly of gas in Mexico. Mexico is a top producer of oil and exports it to the United States. Yet Mexicans, domestically, pay twice as much for gas for the cars than a typical American does.
Energy Monopoly. CFE is a government-run monopoly on energy production and distribution. Mexicans pay between 50% to 100% more than Americans do for their energy, despite plenty of natural gas sources being available.
Telephone Monopoly. Telmex is the de-facto telephone monopoly in Mexico. While there is some local and long-distance competition now, in reality Telmex is still the monopoly based on market penetration. A domestic long distance call within Mexico costs about the same as what an overseas call costs from the United States.
The point being that monopolies are pretty much a way of life in Mexico. Microsoft probably sees that and says, "Hey, we'll fit right in."
I wonder if the future will find Mexican copies of Windows, sold for pennies on the dollar, available next to the Rogaine in glass display cases in Mexican border towns.
If you go to Mexico City you will find that there are folk selling copies of virtually every software under the sun (Windows, Excel, Word, Adobe, whatever) for about 40 pesos (US$5 or so). You go up to them, they show you a catalog, you pick the software you want, they call someone on their little hand radio, and a few minutes later someone comes riding by on a bike and drops the CD-ROM off and disappears. You pay 40 pesos, take the CD, and you're done.
So, yes, you already can get Windows for pennies in Mexico. As far as I know that doesn't happen in the border towns, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time.
You better know who you're greasing, and whether they're really on your side. Bribes are illegal (even in Mexico:) so if they don't really like you, they take your money and then you're arrested for trying to bribe a public official.
I'm an American living in Mexico. No-one ever gets arrested for bribing in Mexico--not the briber or the person that accepts the bribe.
Mexican studies have also shown that as much as 30% of Mexico's GDP is spent on bribes.
Believe me, the politicians really don't care about protecting a "budding industry"--especially one such as Internet that very few people in Mexico even use. They'd rather just pocket the bribe, say, "Go ahead," and probably piss off next to no-one since few people use Internet and, of those people, few of the users know enough to realize that Microsoft will trample them.
A deal is a deal. If company A makes an agreement that B can search, then it is a contract.
It's a contract, but it isn't necessarily an enforceable contract. Courts will not enforce contracts that violate public policy or which are unconscionable.
Nobody held a gun to their head.
Not a physical gun, no. But it can certainly be argued that most businesses have no choice but to use Microsoft products (Word, Excel, etc.) because they need to be able to communicate with the rest of the world. Failure to use those products could, in many cases, make it difficult or impossible to do business. So, yes, it's a virtual gun in some cases.
Besides, it is not "unreasonable" if you make a contract to give up that right to that org.
Wrong. A contract can contain unreasonable or, more accurately, "unconscionable," clauses which a court will NOT enforce. Here's an excerpt from a Busines Law 101 course: (West's Business Law, Fifth Edition, pg 270-271)
Modern courts are beginning to strike down terms dictated by a party with overwhelming bargaining power. ADHESION CONTRACTS arise in situations in which the signer must agree to certain dictated terms or go without the commodity or service in question. An adhesion contract is written EXCLUSIVELY by one party (the dominant party, usually the seller or creditor) and presented to the other party (the adhering party, usually the buyer or borrower) with no opportunity to negotiate. Adhesion contracts usually contain copious amounts of fine print disclaiming the maker's liability for everything imaginable. Standard lease forms are often called adhesion contracts. Many automobile retailers have used contracts containing several pages of fine print when selling a car. In the past, nearly every automobile company excluded liability for personal injuries suffered as a result of using the product. The average consumer buying a car was in no position to bargain for personal injury coverage. The consumer could either go without an automobile or buy the auto, risking personal injury for which he or she could not hold the auto manufacturer liable.
Standard form contracts are used by a variety of businesses and include life insurance poilicies, residential leases, loan agreements, and employment agency contracts. To avoid enforcement of the contract or of a particular clause, the aggrieved party must show substantially unequal bargaining positions and show that enforcement would be manifestly unfair or oppresive. If the required showing is made, the contract or particular term is deemed unconscionable and not enforced.
It seems to me that EULAs fit the above description to the T... You (or even 99.9% of all companies) have substanially unequal (none) bargaining power, the contract is not open to negotiation, if you don't agree to the terms you must go without the product, and the enforcement would be mainfestly unfair and oppresive--especially in the case of the "search your property" clause.
Even if click-thru EULAs were considered a valid and agreed-to contract--which they may not be--it is still entirely possible the above "adhesion" situation applies. That means even if click-thru EULAs are valid, it is entirely reasonable to assume that a court would find the clause that allows the BSA to search your property and install monitoring software "unconscionable" and would not enforce it.
The gist of the article was that they were developing software (er, video drivers) that put out not only your video display information, but also caused the monitor to emit your license number as well (basically, it did display it on the monitor, they just pulled some fancy Sampling-theorem techniques so you could not see it...unless you had the technology). The article predicted a fleet of M$ vans sitting in neighborhoods etc, seeing who had legal software.
Hmmm. Seems like a laptop or a cool LCD flat-screen monitor solves that problem.
Testing the EULA in court would be great, but with Micro$oft giving much more money than Enron last year to political campaigns, I imagine they'll have some pull in political circles.
I may be dreaming, but I personally have not seen that companies have that much pull in the justice system itself. I know they can "buy" laws because politicians are for sale. Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments.
While there is always going to be a court decision you don't agree with, I don't think it's as simple as buying laws.
Of the three branches of government, the judicial branch is the one I have the most faith and respect in, followed generally by the executive, and last the legislative.
Another example of their political power and influence is Micro$oft's passport ID being considered for a national ID.
It's not actively being considered. As mentioned in a past Slashdot article they are more kicking around ideas. It's a far cry from being accepted as a national ID and I'm pretty sure you will find that it would not be accepted as such.
Then, of course, there is the anti-trust lawsuit debacle by the Department of Justice.
I agree it was bogus, but it was more a political decision that a judicial one. It was also an antitrust case, not a matter of fundamental constitutional rights. The courts have traditionally been pretty keen in defending constitutional rights, sometimes to extremes.
When I talk to Lusers about this, they don't understand all the great points people have made so far in this article. Moreover, I don't think they really care. This is the problem we need to overcome to make this work. The mainstream doesn't understand how much the BSA (M$, Adobe, et al.) bullies the heck out of them.
Agreed, which is why, as someone else pointed out, the BSA doesn't go after individuals. That'd get them bad PR real fast and it would all come crumbling down around them.
The BSA will continue doing this until they pick on the wrong company. Sooner or later they will find one--probably privately held--that's not going to roll over and die but is going to put them to the test. And I think they (the BSA) will fail.
Consumer purchasers are usually treated differently than a large organization, such as a campus, in the courts. The campus certainly has lawyers, so they cannot claim that they don't understand the license agreement.
I agree with you. But I don't even think it's necessary to say you didn't understand the EULA. A worker that signs an employment contract that says "I agree to work 80 hours a week and forego any and all protection from labor laws" can understand exactly what he's signing and a court still will not enforce it. He has a legal right to the protection of labor laws and he cannot sign that right away, even if he understands what he's doing.
That said, my issue (in this specific case) is that a team of lawyers can understand what the EULA says but that doesn't mean they can legally sign off the protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Plus the main issue of whether or not a EULA forced upon the user during the install process truly is a binding contract. I think it is not.
It'd be like buying a car without being able to test drive it. It is delivered to your home and the dealer leaves the site; you insert the key, turn it, and a message appears on the dashboard, "By turning this car on you agree that the manufacturer may, at any time, search your private property to look for spare parts made by the manufacturer or any of its partners. If we find the part you will have to provide evidence that you purchased it; a receipt is not sufficient--you must produce a piece of paper that was delivered with the part. If you fail to produce such piece of paper that will be prima fascist (grin) evidence of theft. If you do not agree to this, do not start the car--rather, have the dealer return for the car and a refund."
That'd be just as bogus as what the EULAs do in respect to granting themselves "the right" to audit you, and I don't think such a car "EULA" would be enforced on an indivudal nor a lawyer-full organization. It's bogus any way you look at it.
Slashdot Mirror
You are either a 1) liberal that believes in a finite amount of money. 2) Never taken econ classes. The latter is forgivable, the former isn't. :)
MS has to have their 40b deposited in banks. Those banks don't just pay interest for fun; they take that 40b and loan it to others (you, me, etc.) and we use that money to build houses, buy cars, and do other things that stimulate the economy and create more wealth. The banks take the interest we pay, take their cut, and pay interest to those that have deposited their money with the banks (MS, IBM, you and me, etc.).
It's all a nice little system called capitalism and banks allow wealth to be PRODUCED, not confiscated by a single individual or company.
Don't worry; MS really ought to pay dividends with that money, but they're not hurting you or me by doing it. In fact, they're making more money available that banks can loan us to buy cars and houses.
You are either a 1) liberal that believes in a finite amount of money. 2) Never taken econ classes. The latter is forgivable, the former isn't. :)
MS has to have their 40b deposited in banks. Those banks don't just pay interest for fun; they take that 40b and loan it to others (you, me, etc.) and we use that money to build houses, buy cars, and do other things that stimulate the economy and create more wealth. The banks take the interest we pay, take their cut, and pay interest to those that have deposited their money with the banks (MS, IBM, you and me, etc.).
It's all a nice little system called capitalism and banks allow wealth to be PRODUCED, not confiscated by a single individual or company.
Don't worry; MS really ought to pay dividends with that money, but they're not hurting you or me by doing it. In fact, they're making more money available that banks can loan us to buy cars and houses.
You are right, I shouldn't have assumed who you voted for. I actually thought of that right after you posted.
That said, I'm just not fond of any arguement, Democrat or Republican, that resorts to election fraud to refute an election. I believe we have much less election fraud than most countries. That said, I'm sure we have it. But I also believes it "comes out in the wash." In any given election some percentage will be fraud, the rest will be legitimate. Saying Bush was elected due to fraud is only a worthwhile discussion if we're willing to accept Clinton was elected because of fraud--there certainly was fraud in both.
The difference, granted, is that perhaps this time the amount of fraud was larger than the actual margins of the two candidates so it became a factor. But fraud is inherent in any system, just as piracy is a cost of doing business. It's a fact of life. All you can try to do is minimize it, but don't dwell on it when inherent defects always present in the system happen to affect the outcome from time to time.
You didn't quote where I said 1 out of every 8 people sentenced to die has been later released with all charges dropped. It seems insane to insist on an irreversible form of punishment with such a discomforting error rate.
Maybe, maybe not. I have not researched this lately. Of those 1 out of 8, I'd like to know how many were completely exhonerated of their crime and how many eventually got off on technical appeals, etc.
That said, perhaps we need to make some improvements in the justice process. I'd be for that. I might even be willing to suspend the death penalty for some time while the system is overhauled. But, in principle, I am in favor of the death penalty. Let's just make sure we're executing the right people.
You: Depleted uranium shells...
Me: Link/source? You: Is the BBC reputable enough?
Probably. I'll check out. That said, they shouldn't have invaded Kuwait.
Me: But a national healthcare system for the entire country? No thank you, I'd rather pay.
You: Have you ever hunted for a health care provider? What a miserable way to spend your time.
Agreed. But have you ever stood in line to be waited on by a nationalized healthcare provider? What a miserable way to spend your time.
With public health care you at least don't run a risk of missing some detail in the contract that leaves you without coverage if you have a serious problem. Having that option to fall back on is something I'd gladly pay for in taxes.
It's a matter of quality. The nationalized healthcare systems I've seen are both very inefficient (huge wait times to get ANY of your guaranteed medical care), unreliable (don't have the medication you need "this week" or give you the wrong medication), and downright dangerous (many people from nationalized health care countries go to the U.S. for major treatment).
If that's the kind of medical service you want, more power to you. It's not the kind I want.
Me: Which would mean the government killed off that sect because.... why exactly??
You: I just said there were a lot of questions unanswered about the whole ordeal. Which is worrisome.
There may be unanswered questions. But I stopped LOOKING for conspiracy theories years ago. It was a fun pasttime when I was younger. I have come to believe that the most logical, non-conspiracy explanation is usually the right one. For all the bads of the U.S. government, I just don't see them as having any particular interest in bothering truly peaceful Chrisitans that aren't do anything. I just don't see a motivation. I do, however, see a motivation for survivors of the incident to try to paint themselves as a little more pure than they perhaps were.
Again, you can look for conspiracies if you want. Perhaps one of them will turn out to be true. Most, I think, are better taken at face value.
You say that like it's no big deal. What possible use could we have for a nuclear arsenal that could annihilate the planet with plenty to spare? Why would anyone feel that is acceptable?
Because it's a policy that's worked for 50+ years. It got us through perhaps the potentially most dangerous period in world history--the cold war.
Do I want them to be used? No. Do I think that having them tends to insure peace? Yes.
Nah, I've seen the same thing several others here have already mentioned. Offshore development seems to fail in a large majority of the cases. Think of the "offshore boom" as the next "dot com bust."
Right now, some companies may be trying to save every penny and may look at offshore development as a solution. The majority will more than likely get burned.
I know of several companies that have been in the same boat. They got lured by very attractive proposals from India. "3 months and $300k". They said, "Fsck yeah!" 3 months later they were told, "It's a little more work than we thought. It's going to be at least another 6 months and we need to hire another 50 programmers, and it's going to cost 1.5 mil." The companies, having already invested time and money and believing they were now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, go ahead and do it.
Offshore programming is not practical. Developing usually requires "close interface" with non-programmers and leads that intimately know the project including (ahem) salespeople. It's not easy to have this close interface when the developers don't speak English fluently, don't even share the same culture or underlying business knowledge, are 12 hours out of phase requiring that $1.50/minute conference call to be specially scheduled at 6am or 7am or so, and doing "on-site" requires the purchase of a $3k-$8k plane ticket and consumes at least 3 or 4 days when you consider the time zone differences, jet lag, etc.
The failures of offshore development are demonstrated daily. And, as others have also mentioned, they will only be willing to work for $10/hour so long. As their salary increases the demand for their work from the U.S. will decrease even more--if the whole "offshore bust" doesn't kill that industry first.
When I was younger sound quality was everything. My stereo had to be perfect, the sound perfect, etc. I still am able to detect flaws in sound that many others can't--or just don't care about. My wife thinks I'm obsessed with sound quality.
That said, for pop music I find that 128 bit MP3 is perfectly adequate. For symphony or orchestra I usually go for 192 or 256. It's good enough for me. Perhaps 10 years ago it wouldn't have been, but these days it's more than adequate.
I think as you get older the obsession with 100% accurate sound reproduction fades. Perhaps it's a combination of ones ears naturally deteriorating with age and perhaps it's just a matter of moving on to more important things in life. Perhaps it's a matter of having grown up recording tapes to hear in my car only to have the speed of the tapes motor just slightly off or tape stretch working hours of recording time--one realizes that the quality we have now, even 128 bit, is much better for much longer than what I was used to growing up.
Whatever the reason, I'm perfectly happy with the quality of my collection. I invite you not to listen to it if you don't want to. :)
The MPAA would sell more music if they sold music to start with...
I haven't bought a CD in 2 years. I download all my music from someone that has chosen to share it. I hear it or remember it, hop online, and within 5 or 10 minutes I have it. Don't have to get in the car, don't have to deal with traffic, don't have to wait in line, don't have to pay $20 for one song. I just keep on programming while I download it in the background and it is instantly added to my partition dedicated exclusively to holding my sound library. Cheap and convenient.
I'm done being gouged by the RIAA. They had their chance to charge a reasonable price but chose to gouge instead. Now I wouldn't care if they charged $5 for a CD--I'll just grab it online for the reasons mentioned above and on general principle.
They'll have to conform with the 500 CDs I bought in the 90's earning them about $7500 because I won't be adding to that collection any longer--in fact, I only USE that collection to rip the songs I occasionally feel like hearing so that I never have to get up and look for the CD again.
Screw 'em.
Musicians, on the other hand, can earn money from me by touring. I will gladly pay $20 to see them live if they come through town.
Not to be insulting, but I think you DO need to visit these places before really knowing what you're talking about. I've been to both Colombia and Ecuador and currently live in Mexico (but AM an American!).
Believe me, it is easy to be cynical being an American living in the U.S. and never leaving the country--except maybe to Cancun or a few other tourist destinations in "safe" places of the world.
But when you've lived in one of these "other countries" for 6+ years, believe me, you will miss the petty problems the U.S. has. It really puts things in perspective.
Massive electoral fraud.
You haven't seen electoral fraud until you've been to Mexico--and they're supposedly "improving."
I'm kind of tired of the whole "Bush family election fraud" conspiracy theory. I know it's a bummer your candidate lost by so little, but he did. Get over it. If there had been fraud I think they would have at least stuffed enough ballots to make the win decisive.
(Sarcasm on) I'm sure Bush and the Republicans planned the butterfly ballots perfectly knowing that exactly X number of idiots wouldn't be able to read it and, thus, get GWB elected (sarcasm off).
Millions of people are in prison over drugs, many rights are suspended simply on unfounded suspicion of drug involvement.
Do you have evidence? If they were involved in drugs then I'm glad they are in prison. Sure, there may occasionally be errors. I do not believe there is any law enforcement conspiracy to wrongfully imprison anyone. What would they gain? Come on, they do their job just like the next guy.
Believe me, I'd rather be stopped by any American FBI, State Police or Local police on a dark road in the middle of a field than by their Mexican or Colombian equiavlent. ANY DAY.
The US on average takes military action against a nation at least once every 2 years, and has kept it up since 1990.
Being the last remaining superpower is a bummer sometimes. I think we got involved in a few conflicts that weren't our business while Clinton was in power. But Iraq? Afghanistan? Totally justified and our interests were threatend.
Corporations seem to be able to buy legislation to suit their needs. Many of the largest scandals are closely linked to the administration: Enron, Savings & Loan, etc.
There are some cases of corporations having too much power. They are vocal.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: If corporations or interest groups have too much power it is because WE THE PEOPLE aren't doing our job and keeping our congress-critters on a leash. We have no-one to blame but ourselves.
One of the only "civilized" nations to still have a death penalty
Yeah, it's so much more civilized to throw them in a dungeon and throw away the key... but pay $50k/year to do it.
The US has used and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Nukes, yes.
There's a pretty good chance the Anthrax mailer got his stuff from US labs (the whole story is actually much scarier, if true).
Yeah, he probably did. Does that bother me? No. It bothers me that he hasn't been caught but I really could care less whether he got it in the U.S. or in Afghanistan.
Depleted uranium shells used in the Gulf War by coalition forces are causing cancer in Iraqi civilians even today.
Link/source?
Law enforcement appears to be largely unaccountable.
Visit the countries previously mentioned. Believe me, you'll praise U.S. law enforcement.
Still no straight answer on what down at Waco Texas and why specific other agencies were involved (such as the Delta Force), but the end result is an entire, seemingly harmless community of Christians is dead.
Yeah, a bunch of harmless Christians with heavy artillery. Unless you buy into the whole conspiracy theory that weapons were placed there after the fact. Which would mean the government killed off that sect because.... why exactly??
Terrorist attacks against the nation take place on an almost yearly basis.
Yearly? I remember the original WTC attack. Then Oklahoma, then the final WTC? Did I miss any others?
Much better than, say, Israel that measures their terrorist attacks by the day or week rather than the year.
No public healthcare, which most other "civilized" nations offer.
You refer to the quasi-capitalist European nations with confiscatory levels of taxation?
I agree we ought to do something about health care for those that don't have insurance. I think we can and will. But a national healthcare system for the entire country? No thank you, I'd rather pay.
More than 50% of the nation's budget is allocated to the military.
50%? Please check that number again. Even these guys (that appear to probably be anti-military) only cite 23.7%.
I would invite you, in all seriousness, to live in a foreign country for a few years. Not Canada. Not the UK. A "typical" foreign country such as Mexico. Believe me, you'll more than appreciate what we've got in the U.S. Big time.
It's mostly back to conspiracy theory. The U.S. was a little to quick in NOT condemning the coup, that is true. In fact the U.S. said something like, "Well, Chavez sort of brought this on himself."
However, I've seen absolutely no evidence that the U.S. supported the coup in any way. I currently live in Mexico and if there was any evidence of that believe me we'd hear about it down here.
Keep in mind that Chavez, although popularly elected, is basically a thug, a punk. He's essentially Fidel Castro but elected by the people. He has no business or political experience other than that which has has obtained during his presidency. He's there because of a poor public that think he'll look out for them (questionable).
Some people see the U.S.'s failure to condemn the coup as evidence as participating in it. I tend to believe that, more likely, the U.S. failed to condemn it because even though it WAS a coup, they were overthrowing a complete idiot that the country and the hemisphere would be better without in the long run.
First, it's Colombia, not Columbia. It's also one of the most dangerous countries in the world between rebel forces, drug trade, and kidnappers.
EC->ECUADOR
Better than Colombia, but still awfully close to the drug trade. Also has occasional skirmishes with its neighbor, Peru. Doesn't appear on the diagram, but the diagram doesn't give you the whole picture.
kr->Rebublic of Korea
From a military perspective this is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. They only have a million or so troops massed at the North Korea/South Korea border, ready to party.
Far from being a safe place, it's one of the most ripe for a future war.
ve->VENEZUELA
Just had a coup attempt in the last month or so. There are also cross-border rebels that move between Venezuela and Colombia. Drugs is a problem as well.
ph->Philipines
Along with Colombia and Inodonesia, Philipines is one of the current and/or expected new hotbeds for terrorist activity now that their powwow-station in Afghanistan is pretty much toast.
As the author of the material confessed, his analysis doesn't do much to predict wars. He thinks they are random. But, interestingly, the countries you selected as being "safe" are among the most ripe for war these days. Which confirms that the author is right: He proved nothing.
Wars cannot be predicted by math but by logical political analysis.
Globalism, dude. It's a lot easier to make enemies worldwide in 2002 than it was in 1492, or even 1902.
That said, the article was interesting and provided lots of interesting tidbits. War among neighbors is more common, there is no indication of war for economic reasons nor rich against poor, etc. These are all interesting.
But to reach the conclusion that wars are "random accidents" that can't be predicted just because there are no strong correlations (other than being neighbors) is hogwash. It's a classic example of science (in this case math) trying to explain something it wasn't meant to explain. Math is good to predict nuclear decay, as mentioned in the article. We really don't care which atom decays, we just have an interest in the total number that decay in a given amount of time.
This article is a good "first step" at analyzing war. The article shows us that there is no meaningful mathematical explanation for war, other than being neighbors. As far as math goes, it's random.
But it's not. It's politics. War is simply politics taken to an extreme. Some say that war occurs when politics fails--NO. War is a PART of politics, just instead of using words and treaty signatures, weapons are used.
Politics is an extension of human interaction. The day that can be truly explained by math is the day that, in effect, we will have a world with robots that use AI to be human-like.
Math cannot predict wars, but logic and political analysis can. The author was too quick to discard the REASONS for wars simply because the two sides might have conflicting explanations. While it can be hard to objectively look at these things, especially when looking at recent wars, any useful analysis of war has to look at the REASONS.
To throw out the declared reasons of both sides for a war and try to look for an answer in math or statistics is laughable.
Other than that, all we really know is that we should watch out for Canada and Mexico. :)
No, it doesn't mean the mobile phone should or must be.
It does explain, though, the painfully obvious fact that just because we got along with something for thousands of years doesn't mean it can't become a necessity. Original parent implied that since he had gotten along without a cell phone for years then why would it be a necessity now? It's an absurd rhetorical question that should be marked "troll", if it hasn't been already.
Technically, the only necessities are air, water, and food.
However, for me a computer and Internet are necessities. I need them both to work and earn a living. They might not be considered necessities by many in the world, but they are to me. Perhaps a cell phone is a necessity to many others.
In fact, I would suggest that perhaps the original parent post said that a cell phone is not a necessity because he has no-one to talk to. Poor unsocial bastard. :)
Can you provide a link? I remember the Soviets working on a Shuttle-like vehicle, but I'm with the rest of the audience here... I only heard about them making a prototype. I've NEVER heard of anyone launching a Shuttle/reusable space vehicle except for the U.S.
That may be the case. But that's a fishing expedition.
Most people exceed the speed limit, but it would be patently unconsitutional for a police to come up to someone parked in a parking lot and ask them to prove that they haven't sped; and give them a speeding ticket if they couldn't prove it--even if 95% of the people sped on their way to the parking lot.
The fact that a large majority may be guilty of some crime doesn't mean their right to freedom from unreasonable search may be violated. The ends DON'T justify the means.
Having an agenda does not mean they are not right about copying.
That's true; the fact that they have an agenda doesn't mean they are wrong. But, mostly, it's just an excuse the BSA uses to test your theory that 95% of companies will probably have SOMETHING out-of-spec license-wise. At the very least some user will have installed something...
Me: It's just a matter of the BSA targetting the wrong company and that company fighting.
You: It is hard to defend such if you are guilty of copying.
Not necessarily. Even if a company has non-licensed software, they still can still refuse entry to the BSA and fight in court over the BSA's unreasonable "right" to do so. Whether they actually have unlicensed software doesn't affect whether or not BSA actually has the right to enter their private property and look. Of course, if they lose AND they have pirated software they'll probably be in a bad situation.
Mostly, I'm thinking of some company that is actually quite confident it is in spec license-wise, they get a threat from the BSA, tell the BSA to f off... Then when the BSA wants to come in they can calmly tell them to take a hike and argue it in court. If the BSA succeeds at getting the "right" to search their property, they'll look awfully stupid when they find nothing. If, however, the judge finds that the EULA doesn't give the BSA the right to invade a company's private property then a precedent will be set. The power of EULAs will be severely crippled or, better yet, completely invalidated.
The point is that the BSA probably won't want to fight it in court. Even if there's, say, a 70% chance that the BSA would win I doubt they'd want to risk that 30% chance of having a EULA invalidated. They'd rather just give up on that target and move to easier prey that doesn't risk setting a precedent against them.
You: No, but it probably would not be made public.
Hmmm, well it's kind of hard to refute that logic. But in the absence of any evidence I would tend to believe that the EULAs simply have not been negotiated.
This may indeed be the case with MS software, but it is a minor, side issue being that you have a bunch of other companies in BSA.
I am speculating here, I'll admit, but I think when the BSA goes in the software they most often find "not properly licensed" is Microsoft. I also suspect Microsoft is probably the largest software vendor, sales-wise, in the BSA.
Appearently it *is* possible for an organization to sign away certain privacy rights. Whether you like it or not.
How do you figure? The EULAs haven't been tested yet. There may be companies that have decided not to defend their rights but there certainly isn't any proof that the EULAs force them to do so.
It's not a matter of me liking it or not. It's a legal precedent that is established. What needs to be tested is whether or not the EULA is 1) A binding contract. 2) An adhesion contract. 3) An unconscionable contract. For the an EULA to allow the BSA to search your (or an organization's) private property then the BSA would have to prove that each of these are invalid.
Again, if a company just rolls over and lets them inspect then there is nothing the law nor a contract can do for them. But the EULA "contract" isn't what has gotten BSA into companies thusfar--the companies themselves have chosen not to defend their rights. Very different.
It is my understanding that somebody has to rat on a company first. Usually it is a disgruntled worker, something that isn't that hard to find these days.
Re-read the original "header"/article of this particualr thread. No-one ratted on the university. They just inquired as to correct licensing requirements/procedures. Now they are facing an audit.
That said, I don't personally feel that a disgruntled worker is a good source for that kind of information. So if I get laid off and I'm pissed, what the heck, I'll just sick the BSA on the company. The disgruntled worker obviously has an agenda.
Maybe, maybe not. Most people don't really care what happens to companies, as long as individuals are not targeted.
People don't, but the target company does. It's just a matter of the BSA targetting the wrong company and that company fighting. Like someone else mentioned, if a company ever resists and decides to take the BSA to court and demand a search warrant the BSA will probably back off because they DON'T want a legal precedent to be set. If they lose, their job is done. No-one nor no company will ever let them in again.
Thus it might be awhile until it's fully tested precisely because the BSA will be scared of a precedent being set against them.
So you can receive files from your business partners but can't send them anything? That's not not acceptable.
This may indeed apply to a consumer or even a small business, but a university is not a "small business". They have a full-time legal staff. If they don't didn't like the contract, then they could take their business eslewhere or negotiate with the software companies.
Doubtful. Do you have any examples of any company or organization being able to negotiate a EULA? Not counting MS strategic partners...
Again, I'd argue that they could take their business elsewhere, especially in light of Microsoft being declared a monopoly.
Besides, the BSA is almost the *only* defense software companies have against piracy. It is not reasonable to expect them to negotiate away prevention of freeloading of their product.
Right. They're not going to negotiate. And the BSA's purpose is fine. Their tactics are not. Regardless of their goals I just don't think any court will enforce a "contract" provision that gives them sweeping privacy invasion powers.
They have a right to reduce piracy and pursue pirates, but they must do that within the confines of the law.
If a company simply tracks their software licenses and does periodic self-audits and keeps those records, they won't usually have a problem. It is just a cost of using commercial desktop software that must be factored in.
Their store receipt should be sufficient. Additionally, they should not have to produce them to the BSA or Microsoft unless one of them has evidence that they are pirating software. They need a court order and then it should be the police that come to your door, not the BSA.
The law requires accounting for money, and software seems to belong in the same category now.
But it shouldn't be. The assumption that something is stolen because you can't prove that it was purchased legally is NOT acceptable. It WILL be struck down eventually by courts.
Gas Monopoly. Pemex is a government-owned monopoly of gas in Mexico. Mexico is a top producer of oil and exports it to the United States. Yet Mexicans, domestically, pay twice as much for gas for the cars than a typical American does.
Energy Monopoly. CFE is a government-run monopoly on energy production and distribution. Mexicans pay between 50% to 100% more than Americans do for their energy, despite plenty of natural gas sources being available.
Telephone Monopoly. Telmex is the de-facto telephone monopoly in Mexico. While there is some local and long-distance competition now, in reality Telmex is still the monopoly based on market penetration. A domestic long distance call within Mexico costs about the same as what an overseas call costs from the United States.
The point being that monopolies are pretty much a way of life in Mexico. Microsoft probably sees that and says, "Hey, we'll fit right in."
If you go to Mexico City you will find that there are folk selling copies of virtually every software under the sun (Windows, Excel, Word, Adobe, whatever) for about 40 pesos (US$5 or so). You go up to them, they show you a catalog, you pick the software you want, they call someone on their little hand radio, and a few minutes later someone comes riding by on a bike and drops the CD-ROM off and disappears. You pay 40 pesos, take the CD, and you're done.
So, yes, you already can get Windows for pennies in Mexico. As far as I know that doesn't happen in the border towns, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time.
You joke, right?
I live in Mexico. Believe me, I am not aware of any Microsoft effort in Mexico except for sales. I don't think MS does any programming down here.
I'm an American living in Mexico. No-one ever gets arrested for bribing in Mexico--not the briber or the person that accepts the bribe.
Mexican studies have also shown that as much as 30% of Mexico's GDP is spent on bribes.
Believe me, the politicians really don't care about protecting a "budding industry"--especially one such as Internet that very few people in Mexico even use. They'd rather just pocket the bribe, say, "Go ahead," and probably piss off next to no-one since few people use Internet and, of those people, few of the users know enough to realize that Microsoft will trample them.
It's a contract, but it isn't necessarily an enforceable contract. Courts will not enforce contracts that violate public policy or which are unconscionable.
Nobody held a gun to their head.
Not a physical gun, no. But it can certainly be argued that most businesses have no choice but to use Microsoft products (Word, Excel, etc.) because they need to be able to communicate with the rest of the world. Failure to use those products could, in many cases, make it difficult or impossible to do business. So, yes, it's a virtual gun in some cases.
Besides, it is not "unreasonable" if you make a contract to give up that right to that org.
Wrong. A contract can contain unreasonable or, more accurately, "unconscionable," clauses which a court will NOT enforce. Here's an excerpt from a Busines Law 101 course: (West's Business Law, Fifth Edition, pg 270-271)
- Modern courts are beginning to strike down terms dictated by a party with overwhelming bargaining power. ADHESION CONTRACTS arise in situations in which the signer must agree to certain dictated terms or go without the commodity or service in question. An adhesion contract is written EXCLUSIVELY by one party (the dominant party, usually the seller or creditor) and presented to the other party (the adhering party, usually the buyer or borrower) with no opportunity to negotiate. Adhesion contracts usually contain copious amounts of fine print disclaiming the maker's liability for everything imaginable. Standard lease forms are often called adhesion contracts. Many automobile retailers have used contracts containing several pages of fine print when selling a car. In the past, nearly every automobile company excluded liability for personal injuries suffered as a result of using the product. The average consumer buying a car was in no position to bargain for personal injury coverage. The consumer could either go without an automobile or buy the auto, risking personal injury for which he or she could not hold the auto manufacturer liable.
It seems to me that EULAs fit the above description to the T... You (or even 99.9% of all companies) have substanially unequal (none) bargaining power, the contract is not open to negotiation, if you don't agree to the terms you must go without the product, and the enforcement would be mainfestly unfair and oppresive--especially in the case of the "search your property" clause.Standard form contracts are used by a variety of businesses and include life insurance poilicies, residential leases, loan agreements, and employment agency contracts. To avoid enforcement of the contract or of a particular clause, the aggrieved party must show substantially unequal bargaining positions and show that enforcement would be manifestly unfair or oppresive. If the required showing is made, the contract or particular term is deemed unconscionable and not enforced.
Even if click-thru EULAs were considered a valid and agreed-to contract--which they may not be--it is still entirely possible the above "adhesion" situation applies. That means even if click-thru EULAs are valid, it is entirely reasonable to assume that a court would find the clause that allows the BSA to search your property and install monitoring software "unconscionable" and would not enforce it.
At least that's my take on it...
Once you have your own money-making "idea" perhaps you will understand.
Hmmm. Seems like a laptop or a cool LCD flat-screen monitor solves that problem.
I may be dreaming, but I personally have not seen that companies have that much pull in the justice system itself. I know they can "buy" laws because politicians are for sale. Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments.
While there is always going to be a court decision you don't agree with, I don't think it's as simple as buying laws.
Of the three branches of government, the judicial branch is the one I have the most faith and respect in, followed generally by the executive, and last the legislative.
Another example of their political power and influence is Micro$oft's passport ID being considered for a national ID.
It's not actively being considered. As mentioned in a past Slashdot article they are more kicking around ideas. It's a far cry from being accepted as a national ID and I'm pretty sure you will find that it would not be accepted as such.
Then, of course, there is the anti-trust lawsuit debacle by the Department of Justice.
I agree it was bogus, but it was more a political decision that a judicial one. It was also an antitrust case, not a matter of fundamental constitutional rights. The courts have traditionally been pretty keen in defending constitutional rights, sometimes to extremes.
When I talk to Lusers about this, they don't understand all the great points people have made so far in this article. Moreover, I don't think they really care. This is the problem we need to overcome to make this work. The mainstream doesn't understand how much the BSA (M$, Adobe, et al.) bullies the heck out of them.
Agreed, which is why, as someone else pointed out, the BSA doesn't go after individuals. That'd get them bad PR real fast and it would all come crumbling down around them.
The BSA will continue doing this until they pick on the wrong company. Sooner or later they will find one--probably privately held--that's not going to roll over and die but is going to put them to the test. And I think they (the BSA) will fail.
I agree with you. But I don't even think it's necessary to say you didn't understand the EULA. A worker that signs an employment contract that says "I agree to work 80 hours a week and forego any and all protection from labor laws" can understand exactly what he's signing and a court still will not enforce it. He has a legal right to the protection of labor laws and he cannot sign that right away, even if he understands what he's doing.
That said, my issue (in this specific case) is that a team of lawyers can understand what the EULA says but that doesn't mean they can legally sign off the protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Plus the main issue of whether or not a EULA forced upon the user during the install process truly is a binding contract. I think it is not.
It'd be like buying a car without being able to test drive it. It is delivered to your home and the dealer leaves the site; you insert the key, turn it, and a message appears on the dashboard, "By turning this car on you agree that the manufacturer may, at any time, search your private property to look for spare parts made by the manufacturer or any of its partners. If we find the part you will have to provide evidence that you purchased it; a receipt is not sufficient--you must produce a piece of paper that was delivered with the part. If you fail to produce such piece of paper that will be prima fascist (grin) evidence of theft. If you do not agree to this, do not start the car--rather, have the dealer return for the car and a refund."
That'd be just as bogus as what the EULAs do in respect to granting themselves "the right" to audit you, and I don't think such a car "EULA" would be enforced on an indivudal nor a lawyer-full organization. It's bogus any way you look at it.