Which works fine for an adult, who can choose not to associate with that establishment.
As educators, by law, these people are "in loco parentis" to the children under their care. As such, they DO have the right to set these rules
As such they CLAIM the right. People don't own their children, so the whole idea they could sign off on transferring their "rights" over their children to another entity is ridiculous.
Our anti-slavery laws merely have yet to catch up to child ownership and self-government in general.
As for your friends, if your college has rules regarding cell phone usage and your break them, you may be told to leave
Again, I bet she wishes she had the opportunity to leave.
Where do you get your assumption that a parent, let alone someone acting as a parent, has the right to make a rule which you get arrested if you break? Law - it's what a teacher's ruling, or a cop's, is not.
Do you honestly think they went over this in her mandatory law class? How to refuse unreasonable search requests? The limit of a teacher's authority, the limit of police authority, etc?
I highly doubt they ever covered this before she got arrested for something that wasn't criminal.
Regardless, court is where adults go when they break laws, because they're adult enough to understand the laws. Children go to detention because it is assumed they are not. If they were adult we'd be letting them exercise their judgment by voting and drinking and we do not, so clearly we don't think they deserve adult treatment. Of course, ignorance is an excuse, so this assumes that society actually attempts to teach people the laws of the land. You can't reasonably be bound to the finer points of a societal contract you've never heard of.
As for your anarchy, why do you think it is incompatible with responsibility? If for instance you have a plant, in an anarchy you would still be responsible for watering it. The only difference is that should you choose to abandon that responsibility it merely goes undone (and you, plantless) instead of society arbitrarily punishing you but watering the plant.
What else can you do when you don't know the technicalities and haven't been informed of your right to remain silent?
And why is lying to a cop so bad? Either they've got proof of you breaking a law or they don't.
By the time you get to a judge it seems more reasonable to compel people to talk, and demand honesty, because you theoretically have examined the basic issues at hand. Does the issue warrant ordering someone to reveal a secret. When a cop is demanding you answer his questions on the street he's in the worst possible place to be making that call.
Our current style of street-police who deal with criminals is out-dated. With modern rapid response teams possible the police should merely establish a perimeter around a violent subject or keep tabs on a non-violent one till the next team showed up. This team would contain someone analogous to a hostage negotiator. Someone who could talk the person down, explain legal realities, and help the person surrender non-violently to end the situation without any actual crime being committed. The other members of the team, more based on the chance of violence, would be armored as necessary but carry only sticky-tape and nets as weapons. Further specialized teams (translators, foreign-culture specialists, etc) can be called as needed and arrive in minutes.
And in the event the suspect busts out a gun and starts shooting the original police officer, who has until now stood mute and out of the way, watching but not drawing any attention, draws his civilian-legal sidearm and exercises any citizen's right to self defense when faced by a gun-wielding psycho... The same handling capability we have now, but without the needless escalation inherent in the usual interrogation/arrest process.
The AC was half-right. Your friend is actually sounds fairly lenient in individual punishments and likely doesn't see himself as an asshole. But, he does work to restrict people's freedom to use drugs as they see fit.
He himself may not publish misleading propaganda equating pot with crack, or confiscate vehicles from casual pot smokers, or jail people whose only crime was to make their own alcohol, but he's part of the same industrial machine and has to be considered as an interchangeable, equally-guilty part in activities that he ignored, if not participated in.
The war on drugs is pretty much a scam, where it isn't outright fraud. What that makes people who participate in it is an exercise for the reader, but it doesn't get much better than 'unwitting patsy' and goes all the way up to 'complicit in murder for terrorist goals'.
Never forget this country was founded by rich white land owners that didn't want to pay taxes. without representation in Parlimentbecause they refused such representation when offered, knowing they would then be taxed with representationwhich wasn't wanted because it was in a illegitimately ruled foreign government
Try that today..and the parent/neighbor is a criminal....
What was the crime you think they should be spanked for? I might agree if they beat someone up and someone spanked them, in a limited fashion, with witnesses, etc.
But if you did what I imagine many would do and try to hit them for swearing... Well fuck. I don't consider it a crime and would be mighty displeased to find someone beating one of my family members for their choice of words.
Perhaps it was the more homogeneous ethics of the 50s largely-christian USA that allowed this communal punishment to work...?
As for age, I've never said to a child that age conveys anything other than wrinkles, nor would I ever suggest that they defer to anyone because of age on anything except bus seating and other physical concessions. For any given person age usually correlates to intelligence, reasoning ability, even temper, and so on, but for all of that I can point to any number of people of any age that are untrustworthy, dumb, panicky, or any other failure that would keep me from wanting to advise a child to trust them. I'd never assign permission on anything other than a personal basis. One teacher, cop, friend, or relative is not the same as another.
You're an alcoholic if you can't go a weekend without your drinks, regardless of how many you need.
No, I don't understand how throwing your money away to a neon machine (or blackjack, or anything short of Poker or other skill-based game) could be considered fun. But my problem isn't with the people who budget some amount of money and go expecting to lose it.
My problem with gamblers is with those who are sure they are up, even when they have to be totally deluded to do so.
I'm aware there are some people who play only Blackjack and count nearly perfectly, and make money. But the majority of the people who think they are that good aren't.
One guy who was insisting he was up, a ridiculous amount in total, was telling me how he hates people who don't play with perfect basic strategy because they fuck up his game - get cards that were meant to be his and so on... Well, he's obviously delusional about statistics/etc. And of course he had no answer for why he didn't quit his job and just gamble if he really was that good. But he was sure it was skill based, and HE had the skill.
When you install software you ALWAYS have to check the I AGREE box.
Yes, but by then I own the software. That's MY software asking the silly questions, so I ignore it. It can't offer me usage of the software as an incentive to agree to it because I bought that right at the store. Not having anything to offer, the EULA isn't a valid contract. Also, by not offering a way to use my product without agreeing the actions I take to dismiss the EULA can in no way be interpreted as assent.
Think about it. I'm a user, and I'm telling you that I never intend to agree to a contract when I bypass a EULA. As contracts require a meeting of the minds I must know about and agree to any provisions before they could possibly be binding. If I don't think I'm agreeing to a contract, I am not.
So I repeat, the ProCD case established nothing about the case where a regular user discovers the EULA post-sale, once they own the software. Contrary to what pro-EULA lawyers would have you believe, most people don't expect draconian contracts from things they already own, nor would expecting a certain class of contract mean that they automatically expected anything in that class.
Look, I don't want to waste any more time with this, because frankly, it's getting more obvious I'm wrong
Fixed that for you.
We wouldn't respect a law that was obviously racist [...]
Now, we wouldn't,
And when is it? If you look at the clock does it say "200 years ago", or "Now"?
The principle has been established that people cannot do unjust things under the protection of the law. Yes, more things will be realized to be unjust but that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands until we're sure all philosophy has been philisophized.
I require full knowledge of all contractual requirements involved in a transaction before I put out any money.
The law doesn't. I don't believe there's any requirement that both parties to one contract have to have full knowledge of all transactions they will enter into at any future time.
Ummm, hello, "a" transaction. The transaction. There's that plural/singular thing. You really don't understand the difference.
You buy a music CD - can you broadcast it, or play it in your nightclub?
You buy a hammer - can you legally bludgeon someone with it?
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Â 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.â" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) [archival use, etc]
If I buy ten items from my grocer and one turns out to be rotten, I am able to exercise my warranty rights for that item alone while leaving the other contracts fulfilled and valid.
And you think this proves there's a contract for each? And that this is somehow relevant to intangible property rights?
You do not have full rights to the intangible property because after purchase, the prior owner's rights are not fully extinguished.
You don't need to hold the copyright to use a work, as it says above. Essential copying is non-infringing copying.
You can't very well run around selling something that ends up being only half-sold, for exactly this reason.
A sale gives the purchaser ALL REQUIRED RIGHTS because the seller did any less, without clear warning (ie, not calling it a sale) it would be fraud.
I agree about these fakes. They aren't there to needlessly harass, they're there to show a better way. FakeChuck may not even care who gets the message, Nikon, Canon, or whoever, just that someone does.
More important, imho, than any product defects is how a company responds to them. I haven't looked into it, but if Canon swaps a bricked camera without hassle, even with modded firmware and such, then I'll be more apt to take the risk than if they had better quality but were hard to get to fix something that did go wrong.
Objectively, when it comes to Pidgey, the quality of information on Wikipedia has nosedived spectacularly in two years. [...] If a future researcher wishes to investigate the Pokemon phenomenon, Wikipedia, as a resource, will be less than useless.
Your whole post shows you confuse quantity with quality.
A typical bad example. Yes, it revolves around the EULA issue but what everyone misses is that Z knew the contents of the EULA and it had been communicated to him out-of-band as a requirement, after which he made a purchase. While it still superficially appears to validate EULAs, it says nothing about the usual case where someone just buys WinXP/etc from a box on a shelf.
Supporters of EULAs argue that by now we should all expect crippling-EULAs with software and by doing so we know well enough what we're getting into to be bound by any specific abusive nonsense contained.
Which is so obviously self-justifying that it shouldn't really need any refutation.
You should probably place an "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer on your post
No, it's implied in that I have a view of law as being something derived from the will of the people and thus limited to the intent of the people, regardless of the words of the corrupt officials.
We wouldn't respect a law that was obviously racist, or such, so obviously personal morals trump the law. Indeed it is widely recognized that we have a duty to NOT follow unjust laws and that doing so is no defense in highest courts of the world.
In that sense, a contract is understood to represent an agreement between two people. No matter how you slice it you can't have an agreement that one party didn't know they were agreeing to.
Any judge who does not understand that obviously does not understand something fairly fundamental. If nothing else, then about the source of their power.
[...] near where you say that judges don't understand how contracts work.
Big difference between all judges in the world, and any specific judge. Do you understand the difference between singular and plural?
You have to hit "I accept", so you expressly affirm knowledge of the contract
Too little, too late. Literally. I require full knowledge of all contractual requirements involved in a transaction before I put out any money.
If they gave you the software box for free, with the idea that it would merely save you the download part of a online purchase, then the EULA inside wouldn't be overridden by the implicit contract of sale which, of course, grants full usage rights. (To the extent of the power of the retailer or the publishers whose agents they act as, to absolve you of any issues.)
There are thus two separate contracts
You on the other hand need the warning 'IANAL - or am a shitty one'.
Multiple pieces and types of property are frequently exchanged in a single contract. Or do you buy each of your groceries separately?
Further, there's a required standard for offering something for sale - namely that you expect it to work as advertised. If two separate rights were involved and you sold it without making this clear, knowing it to be misleading, you would obviously be cheating the customer.
Yeah, card counting CAN be an edge, in the right circumstances, with perfect play, and a count that varies enough, if the casino doesn't kick you out when you start betting in time with their own count.
Besides, it's not like that slow small gain would explain all the stupid stories I hear. Every second gambler is apparently totally out of touch with reality.
And seriously, wouldn't you like to have some real answers about the addiction potential of gambling? Wouldn't it be interesting to see examples of the lies gamblers tell themselves to keep gambling? How can so many people be so delusional about something so easily tested?
I did. I was told Peak vs MAI was an example of EULAs being upheld. And it thoroughly is not. Anyone who could say that isn't capable of reading at a high-school level. The case was closer to testing automatic acceptance of contract changes similar to how Visa operates than it was to testing hidden contracts.
There's a Gateway case that takes the EULA for granted, but which doesn't seem to actually provide any support for that view.
Can YOU, presumably the lawyer (student?), post a reference to a case that you claim is both valid precedent AND actually supports the idea that a EULA is equivalent to a real contract.
Regardless, it's clear to anyone WITHOUT a legal degree that a EULA isn't a valid contract. You may think otherwise but you probably also think the emperor is beautifully dressed. Even if a judge were to clearly state "EULAs are dandy contracts" that wouldn't change that he'd be wrong. Maybe wrong with the power to sentence you to jail, but that's just like GW Bush - dangerously wrong.
Contracts are already defined as things that require agreement and a meeting of minds. You can't have that in a hidden post-sale contract so you can't have a contract...
The joke of this is that the ONLY person whose opinion matters is the customer. If they think (at all reasonably) that they bought something, they should have.
I really wouldn't have (much of) a problem with software coming with contracts if you had to read and agree to them up front. It wouldn't be valid if you just signed some 20+ page contract at the checkout without glancing at it (they couldn't claim to honestly believe you agree on the terms) so they'd have to give you time to read it, etc. If they could actually sell their software after that you could perhaps be said to agree to their terms.
What goes through a judge's mind when they decide that contracts no-longer require a meeting of the minds or agreement? WTF?
Bullshit. Nobody has tested the basic assumptions of a EULA, that a contract requires you to know about it before it you can be bound by it.
There's a big difference between a retarded judge who doesn't understand how contracts work and someone actually upholding post-sale contracts. We'll never be free of idiotic rulings, and never be safe from unfair charges, but there's a big difference between that and actual law.
In fact, many of the pro-EULA rulings don't actually hinge on a EULA as many proponents say. MAI corp for instance, is based on a signed agreement to respect any EULAs, not just a EULA. Total difference.
Lawyers just masturbate to the idea of EULAs and other abusive laws.
Math, Science, and Literature/Writing - where do you see the benefits in using computers?
Ummm, Math, Science, and Lit.
Playing physics games can teach you a lot, math programs can graph equations and really help in understanding even basic things. And literature - can you imagine being able to grep and diff in a classroom? Not only would people not need to carry the paper books, but they could see various versions of a work side-by-side, look for similar constructs, plots, etc...
If you had a truly useful PDA - Star Trek-level useful - what wouldn't it make easier? Should we just sit and wait till one spontaneously creates itself, or should we work on intermediate tools in the meantime?
Actual Damages multiplied by Counts... Seems fair to me. You must have missed that the RIAA was hideously inflating the damages. Typical troll, too stupid to know the subject matter.
Sure, if they think you win randomly. If there's a suspicion that you're a capable card counter they'll throw you out.
If casinos don't want counters they should have to offer only games that don't give a positive payout for counting.
But, yeah, I'm in the burn them crowd. (Can anyone spare a pitchfork?) Sure, it's legal, but it's also incredibly destructive to the people (most?) who get hooked. Technically the owners are only feeding on the willing, but still... what kind of person needs to profit on the destruction of another?
For every casino owner we feed to the sharks we could adopt a refuge and take a chance on finding a person whose best feature was more than "stayed within the law while ruining the lives of countless others."
So if all someone is doing is stealing from a casino, why on earth should we care? Except to laugh. Like when spammers get attacked by pit bulls.
You're delusional. Almost everyone I know who gambles says they're up, and almost every time, just like you.
I'd really love to see people like you studied. Are you totally lying, or is there some weird justification like having only lost money you already won on something and thus not counting found money, or WHAT!?
I guess you simply have to be delusional to bother gambling.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't like the rules? Work to change them.
Which works fine for an adult, who can choose not to associate with that establishment.
As educators, by law, these people are "in loco parentis" to the children under their care. As such, they DO have the right to set these rules
As such they CLAIM the right. People don't own their children, so the whole idea they could sign off on transferring their "rights" over their children to another entity is ridiculous.
Our anti-slavery laws merely have yet to catch up to child ownership and self-government in general.
As for your friends, if your college has rules regarding cell phone usage and your break them, you may be told to leave
Again, I bet she wishes she had the opportunity to leave.
Where do you get your assumption that a parent, let alone someone acting as a parent, has the right to make a rule which you get arrested if you break? Law - it's what a teacher's ruling, or a cop's, is not.
Do you honestly think they went over this in her mandatory law class? How to refuse unreasonable search requests? The limit of a teacher's authority, the limit of police authority, etc?
I highly doubt they ever covered this before she got arrested for something that wasn't criminal.
Regardless, court is where adults go when they break laws, because they're adult enough to understand the laws. Children go to detention because it is assumed they are not. If they were adult we'd be letting them exercise their judgment by voting and drinking and we do not, so clearly we don't think they deserve adult treatment. Of course, ignorance is an excuse, so this assumes that society actually attempts to teach people the laws of the land. You can't reasonably be bound to the finer points of a societal contract you've never heard of.
As for your anarchy, why do you think it is incompatible with responsibility? If for instance you have a plant, in an anarchy you would still be responsible for watering it. The only difference is that should you choose to abandon that responsibility it merely goes undone (and you, plantless) instead of society arbitrarily punishing you but watering the plant.
What else can you do when you don't know the technicalities and haven't been informed of your right to remain silent?
And why is lying to a cop so bad? Either they've got proof of you breaking a law or they don't.
By the time you get to a judge it seems more reasonable to compel people to talk, and demand honesty, because you theoretically have examined the basic issues at hand. Does the issue warrant ordering someone to reveal a secret. When a cop is demanding you answer his questions on the street he's in the worst possible place to be making that call.
Our current style of street-police who deal with criminals is out-dated. With modern rapid response teams possible the police should merely establish a perimeter around a violent subject or keep tabs on a non-violent one till the next team showed up. This team would contain someone analogous to a hostage negotiator. Someone who could talk the person down, explain legal realities, and help the person surrender non-violently to end the situation without any actual crime being committed. The other members of the team, more based on the chance of violence, would be armored as necessary but carry only sticky-tape and nets as weapons. Further specialized teams (translators, foreign-culture specialists, etc) can be called as needed and arrive in minutes.
And in the event the suspect busts out a gun and starts shooting the original police officer, who has until now stood mute and out of the way, watching but not drawing any attention, draws his civilian-legal sidearm and exercises any citizen's right to self defense when faced by a gun-wielding psycho... The same handling capability we have now, but without the needless escalation inherent in the usual interrogation/arrest process.
The AC was half-right. Your friend is actually sounds fairly lenient in individual punishments and likely doesn't see himself as an asshole. But, he does work to restrict people's freedom to use drugs as they see fit.
He himself may not publish misleading propaganda equating pot with crack, or confiscate vehicles from casual pot smokers, or jail people whose only crime was to make their own alcohol, but he's part of the same industrial machine and has to be considered as an interchangeable, equally-guilty part in activities that he ignored, if not participated in.
The war on drugs is pretty much a scam, where it isn't outright fraud. What that makes people who participate in it is an exercise for the reader, but it doesn't get much better than 'unwitting patsy' and goes all the way up to 'complicit in murder for terrorist goals'.
Can I play?
Never forget this country was founded by rich white land owners that didn't want to pay taxes. without representation in Parliment because they refused such representation when offered, knowing they would then be taxed with representation which wasn't wanted because it was in a illegitimately ruled foreign government
this student is known to the administration as a "problem".
She's not obeyed them before on at least one occasion? Well whatever then, burn her.
Or, um, maybe conclude that they were likely overzealous with punishment for non-crimes in the past too?
Try that today..and the parent/neighbor is a criminal....
What was the crime you think they should be spanked for? I might agree if they beat someone up and someone spanked them, in a limited fashion, with witnesses, etc.
But if you did what I imagine many would do and try to hit them for swearing... Well fuck. I don't consider it a crime and would be mighty displeased to find someone beating one of my family members for their choice of words.
Perhaps it was the more homogeneous ethics of the 50s largely-christian USA that allowed this communal punishment to work...?
As for age, I've never said to a child that age conveys anything other than wrinkles, nor would I ever suggest that they defer to anyone because of age on anything except bus seating and other physical concessions. For any given person age usually correlates to intelligence, reasoning ability, even temper, and so on, but for all of that I can point to any number of people of any age that are untrustworthy, dumb, panicky, or any other failure that would keep me from wanting to advise a child to trust them. I'd never assign permission on anything other than a personal basis. One teacher, cop, friend, or relative is not the same as another.
You're an alcoholic if you can't go a weekend without your drinks, regardless of how many you need.
No, I don't understand how throwing your money away to a neon machine (or blackjack, or anything short of Poker or other skill-based game) could be considered fun. But my problem isn't with the people who budget some amount of money and go expecting to lose it.
My problem with gamblers is with those who are sure they are up, even when they have to be totally deluded to do so.
I'm aware there are some people who play only Blackjack and count nearly perfectly, and make money. But the majority of the people who think they are that good aren't.
One guy who was insisting he was up, a ridiculous amount in total, was telling me how he hates people who don't play with perfect basic strategy because they fuck up his game - get cards that were meant to be his and so on... Well, he's obviously delusional about statistics/etc. And of course he had no answer for why he didn't quit his job and just gamble if he really was that good. But he was sure it was skill based, and HE had the skill.
How it would hurt Wikipedia is also beyond you, yet you're a deletionist anyways. Maybe you're just an asshole.
When you install software you ALWAYS have to check the I AGREE box.
Yes, but by then I own the software. That's MY software asking the silly questions, so I ignore it. It can't offer me usage of the software as an incentive to agree to it because I bought that right at the store. Not having anything to offer, the EULA isn't a valid contract. Also, by not offering a way to use my product without agreeing the actions I take to dismiss the EULA can in no way be interpreted as assent.
Think about it. I'm a user, and I'm telling you that I never intend to agree to a contract when I bypass a EULA. As contracts require a meeting of the minds I must know about and agree to any provisions before they could possibly be binding. If I don't think I'm agreeing to a contract, I am not.
So I repeat, the ProCD case established nothing about the case where a regular user discovers the EULA post-sale, once they own the software. Contrary to what pro-EULA lawyers would have you believe, most people don't expect draconian contracts from things they already own, nor would expecting a certain class of contract mean that they automatically expected anything in that class.
Look, I don't want to waste any more time with this, because frankly, it's getting more obvious I'm wrong
Fixed that for you.
We wouldn't respect a law that was obviously racist [...]
Now, we wouldn't,
And when is it? If you look at the clock does it say "200 years ago", or "Now"?
The principle has been established that people cannot do unjust things under the protection of the law. Yes, more things will be realized to be unjust but that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands until we're sure all philosophy has been philisophized.
I require full knowledge of all contractual requirements involved in a transaction before I put out any money.
The law doesn't. I don't believe there's any requirement that both parties to one contract have to have full knowledge of all transactions they will enter into at any future time.
Ummm, hello, "a" transaction. The transaction. There's that plural/singular thing. You really don't understand the difference.
You buy a music CD - can you broadcast it, or play it in your nightclub?
You buy a hammer - can you legally bludgeon someone with it?
Regular usage is specifically allowed, even where copying of the work is performed.
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Â 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.â" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) [archival use, etc]
If I buy ten items from my grocer and one turns out to be rotten, I am able to exercise my warranty rights for that item alone while leaving the other contracts fulfilled and valid.
And you think this proves there's a contract for each? And that this is somehow relevant to intangible property rights?
You do not have full rights to the intangible property because after purchase, the prior owner's rights are not fully extinguished.
You don't need to hold the copyright to use a work, as it says above. Essential copying is non-infringing copying.
You can't very well run around selling something that ends up being only half-sold, for exactly this reason.
A sale gives the purchaser ALL REQUIRED RIGHTS because the seller did any less, without clear warning (ie, not calling it a sale) it would be fraud.
I agree about these fakes. They aren't there to needlessly harass, they're there to show a better way. FakeChuck may not even care who gets the message, Nikon, Canon, or whoever, just that someone does.
More important, imho, than any product defects is how a company responds to them. I haven't looked into it, but if Canon swaps a bricked camera without hassle, even with modded firmware and such, then I'll be more apt to take the risk than if they had better quality but were hard to get to fix something that did go wrong.
Objectively, when it comes to Pidgey, the quality of information on Wikipedia has nosedived spectacularly in two years.
[...]
If a future researcher wishes to investigate the Pokemon phenomenon, Wikipedia, as a resource, will be less than useless.
Your whole post shows you confuse quantity with quality.
Idiot. Read it again.
A typical bad example. Yes, it revolves around the EULA issue but what everyone misses is that Z knew the contents of the EULA and it had been communicated to him out-of-band as a requirement, after which he made a purchase. While it still superficially appears to validate EULAs, it says nothing about the usual case where someone just buys WinXP/etc from a box on a shelf.
Supporters of EULAs argue that by now we should all expect crippling-EULAs with software and by doing so we know well enough what we're getting into to be bound by any specific abusive nonsense contained.
Which is so obviously self-justifying that it shouldn't really need any refutation.
You should probably place an "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer on your post
No, it's implied in that I have a view of law as being something derived from the will of the people and thus limited to the intent of the people, regardless of the words of the corrupt officials.
We wouldn't respect a law that was obviously racist, or such, so obviously personal morals trump the law. Indeed it is widely recognized that we have a duty to NOT follow unjust laws and that doing so is no defense in highest courts of the world.
In that sense, a contract is understood to represent an agreement between two people. No matter how you slice it you can't have an agreement that one party didn't know they were agreeing to.
Any judge who does not understand that obviously does not understand something fairly fundamental. If nothing else, then about the source of their power.
[...] near where you say that judges don't understand how contracts work.
Big difference between all judges in the world, and any specific judge. Do you understand the difference between singular and plural?
You have to hit "I accept", so you expressly affirm knowledge of the contract
Too little, too late. Literally. I require full knowledge of all contractual requirements involved in a transaction before I put out any money.
If they gave you the software box for free, with the idea that it would merely save you the download part of a online purchase, then the EULA inside wouldn't be overridden by the implicit contract of sale which, of course, grants full usage rights. (To the extent of the power of the retailer or the publishers whose agents they act as, to absolve you of any issues.)
There are thus two separate contracts
You on the other hand need the warning 'IANAL - or am a shitty one'.
Multiple pieces and types of property are frequently exchanged in a single contract. Or do you buy each of your groceries separately?
Further, there's a required standard for offering something for sale - namely that you expect it to work as advertised. If two separate rights were involved and you sold it without making this clear, knowing it to be misleading, you would obviously be cheating the customer.
Yeah, card counting CAN be an edge, in the right circumstances, with perfect play, and a count that varies enough, if the casino doesn't kick you out when you start betting in time with their own count.
Besides, it's not like that slow small gain would explain all the stupid stories I hear. Every second gambler is apparently totally out of touch with reality.
And seriously, wouldn't you like to have some real answers about the addiction potential of gambling? Wouldn't it be interesting to see examples of the lies gamblers tell themselves to keep gambling? How can so many people be so delusional about something so easily tested?
I did. I was told Peak vs MAI was an example of EULAs being upheld. And it thoroughly is not. Anyone who could say that isn't capable of reading at a high-school level. The case was closer to testing automatic acceptance of contract changes similar to how Visa operates than it was to testing hidden contracts.
There's a Gateway case that takes the EULA for granted, but which doesn't seem to actually provide any support for that view.
Can YOU, presumably the lawyer (student?), post a reference to a case that you claim is both valid precedent AND actually supports the idea that a EULA is equivalent to a real contract.
Regardless, it's clear to anyone WITHOUT a legal degree that a EULA isn't a valid contract. You may think otherwise but you probably also think the emperor is beautifully dressed. Even if a judge were to clearly state "EULAs are dandy contracts" that wouldn't change that he'd be wrong. Maybe wrong with the power to sentence you to jail, but that's just like GW Bush - dangerously wrong.
Contracts are already defined as things that require agreement and a meeting of minds. You can't have that in a hidden post-sale contract so you can't have a contract...
The joke of this is that the ONLY person whose opinion matters is the customer. If they think (at all reasonably) that they bought something, they should have.
I really wouldn't have (much of) a problem with software coming with contracts if you had to read and agree to them up front. It wouldn't be valid if you just signed some 20+ page contract at the checkout without glancing at it (they couldn't claim to honestly believe you agree on the terms) so they'd have to give you time to read it, etc. If they could actually sell their software after that you could perhaps be said to agree to their terms.
What goes through a judge's mind when they decide that contracts no-longer require a meeting of the minds or agreement? WTF?
Bullshit. Nobody has tested the basic assumptions of a EULA, that a contract requires you to know about it before it you can be bound by it.
There's a big difference between a retarded judge who doesn't understand how contracts work and someone actually upholding post-sale contracts. We'll never be free of idiotic rulings, and never be safe from unfair charges, but there's a big difference between that and actual law.
In fact, many of the pro-EULA rulings don't actually hinge on a EULA as many proponents say. MAI corp for instance, is based on a signed agreement to respect any EULAs, not just a EULA. Total difference.
Lawyers just masturbate to the idea of EULAs and other abusive laws.
Math, Science, and Literature/Writing - where do you see the benefits in using computers?
Ummm, Math, Science, and Lit.
Playing physics games can teach you a lot, math programs can graph equations and really help in understanding even basic things. And literature - can you imagine being able to grep and diff in a classroom? Not only would people not need to carry the paper books, but they could see various versions of a work side-by-side, look for similar constructs, plots, etc...
If you had a truly useful PDA - Star Trek-level useful - what wouldn't it make easier? Should we just sit and wait till one spontaneously creates itself, or should we work on intermediate tools in the meantime?
It becomes less of a simple corruption case and closer to slavery.
Personally I consider slavery to be roughly treason against the whole human race.
Actual Damages multiplied by Counts... Seems fair to me. You must have missed that the RIAA was hideously inflating the damages. Typical troll, too stupid to know the subject matter.
Sure, if they think you win randomly. If there's a suspicion that you're a capable card counter they'll throw you out.
If casinos don't want counters they should have to offer only games that don't give a positive payout for counting.
But, yeah, I'm in the burn them crowd. (Can anyone spare a pitchfork?) Sure, it's legal, but it's also incredibly destructive to the people (most?) who get hooked. Technically the owners are only feeding on the willing, but still... what kind of person needs to profit on the destruction of another?
For every casino owner we feed to the sharks we could adopt a refuge and take a chance on finding a person whose best feature was more than "stayed within the law while ruining the lives of countless others."
So if all someone is doing is stealing from a casino, why on earth should we care? Except to laugh. Like when spammers get attacked by pit bulls.
Suck at gambling? It's random, idiot.
You're delusional. Almost everyone I know who gambles says they're up, and almost every time, just like you.
I'd really love to see people like you studied. Are you totally lying, or is there some weird justification like having only lost money you already won on something and thus not counting found money, or WHAT!?
I guess you simply have to be delusional to bother gambling.
Slashdot has passworded accounts, but still doesn't "know" who we are. Shared secrets are possible even among anonymous people.