You keep changing tack all over the place - the point has been well established that inviting people to use a service gives explicit permission to USE that service, additionally there may be conditions of use however this is not required.
Therefore do you make it de facto impossible to give the gift of WiFi, or do you not? One way does require some pain - after all, users may have to (gosh!!!!) understand a little about what they're buying, however that should not stop this as this is the entirely correct and sensible extension to existing case laws.
Unfrotunately in the UK we already have an anti-common sense law; the Computer Misuse Act makes it illegial to use someones computer systems without their permission. Very difficult to use the web in theory....
However when your wireless netowrk invites someone to use it, is it their fault for accepting it, or your fault for sending an invitiation you had no intention of honouring?
The actual cost of providing the service is irrelevant in this case....
The differnece is that we have an "age of consent" - at and after that age, the majority of people are considerd old enough to willingly enter into a sexual relationship on their own terms. The age of consent is almost like a contract - if both parties are of age to consent, it is legal. Where homosexuality and homo/hetero paedophilia differ is that 1 party is normally below this age of consent, and therefore cannot enter into this "contract" - this means there is no social contract and their is a problem.
This age of consent is of course fairly arbitrary - the reason why marriage / sex is 16 and up for most countries is that it has been determined that people arent emotionally mature enough before this point. This could be revised up / down in the future, however like most arbitrary laws (eg adult at 18 - some people arent adult until 30!) some people will not fit with this. In this case you could say "minor attracted" - yet in other countries it would be ok. Hence help, not censorship
that is why they cannot be considered a "unit" as such, and it is particularly offensive ot equate homosexuality with this or indeed the other common one, bestiality. I know this wasn't your intent, however it is an argument that has been used to justify why i should be discriimated against in the past, so i try to oppose it often.
apologies for the rambling - woken at 3 by a friend who was locked out, and still not recovered!
Surely as it would no longer be a copyrighted work, being as it is now PD, the DMCA would not apply - it only protects reverse engineering encryption protecting copyrighted works.
The point here isn't that the contract was necessarily invalid, more that the company also couldn't show they ever enforced it elsewhere - you cannot enforce a policy on a single person, ignoring everyone else.
That is what contributed to the "automaticity" of the eula; that you had to click it everytime AND noone was enforcing it
No, wrong. The court has to determine if it has personal jurisdiction, that is whether it should even be hearing it in the first place - it is the first duty of any UK court, and i believe any US court. To not do so pretty much shows how much of a laughing stock your courts have become....
You're kind of missing something vital: MS does business in the EU. Really, they have offices and everything, just down the road from me (i live in Reading...
If you DO BUSINESS in a country then the assets of that business are in the jurisdiction of that country. E.g the offices down the road from me....
If you DON'T DO BUSINESS in a country then your assets (that are not in that country) are not in the jurisdiction of that country.
Guess which one Spamhaus is? Publishing a BL IN THE UK does NOT mean you are doing business in IL. it really is very, very, very simple.
However by responding they would have accepted the jurisdiction - as it is in order to obtain this rediculous sum of money the spammer now has to prove jurisdiction in the UK - kinda hard to do, when by appearing he would be arrested....
How about, when you have been released from prison and you have [i]paid your debt to society[/] which is what prison is therefore, you are assumed to be a responsible person?
I really cant believe you still have a screwed up system whereby removing someones abiltiy to vote for life, even if theyre rforemed, is the norm.
Erm, that house was used to fire rockets OTHER than Katushas - did you not see past that?
And your pointless "joooooos" bit is just insulting. Guess you stopped your debating tactics at the Ad Hominem stage?
Anyways, to point out Israels issues -
1) largest stockpile of illegial nuclear weapons in the world
2) consistently flouting even the watered down UN resolutions - you know, the ones that if they even sound like Israel could ever do anything wrong get veto'd by the US?
3) they caused the first civilian casualties - this started due to a cross border raid against military targets. Instead of hunting down the people that took them, tey started to bomb Lebanon INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
4) THey killed UN observers despite EVERY SINGLE ISRAELI MILITARY MAP FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS SHOWING THEIR LOCATION - oh wait, it's always an accident with Israel....
No side is blameless, however you are SO blinkered into thniking that Israel is always guiltess that you cannot see this - and you cannot accept that someone can be against Israel without being against "jooooooos" - you have some serious issues.
What effect will this have, if any, on the other RIAA cases currently going on?
NOt living in the US, I'm not sure how the legal system entirely works in the States, but could this, assuming she wins her suit, have an enjoining effect on the RIAA in other cases that have brought with similar (lack of) evidence?
Slashdot Mirror
Look, you're in the wrong, just give it up!
You keep changing tack all over the place - the point has been well established that inviting people to use a service gives explicit permission to USE that service, additionally there may be conditions of use however this is not required.
Therefore do you make it de facto impossible to give the gift of WiFi, or do you not? One way does require some pain - after all, users may have to (gosh!!!!) understand a little about what they're buying, however that should not stop this as this is the entirely correct and sensible extension to existing case laws.
Unfrotunately in the UK we already have an anti-common sense law; the Computer Misuse Act makes it illegial to use someones computer systems without their permission. Very difficult to use the web in theory....
However when your wireless netowrk invites someone to use it, is it their fault for accepting it, or your fault for sending an invitiation you had no intention of honouring?
The actual cost of providing the service is irrelevant in this case....
The differnece is that we have an "age of consent" - at and after that age, the majority of people are considerd old enough to willingly enter into a sexual relationship on their own terms. The age of consent is almost like a contract - if both parties are of age to consent, it is legal. Where homosexuality and homo/hetero paedophilia differ is that 1 party is normally below this age of consent, and therefore cannot enter into this "contract" - this means there is no social contract and their is a problem.
This age of consent is of course fairly arbitrary - the reason why marriage / sex is 16 and up for most countries is that it has been determined that people arent emotionally mature enough before this point. This could be revised up / down in the future, however like most arbitrary laws (eg adult at 18 - some people arent adult until 30!) some people will not fit with this. In this case you could say "minor attracted" - yet in other countries it would be ok. Hence help, not censorship
that is why they cannot be considered a "unit" as such, and it is particularly offensive ot equate homosexuality with this or indeed the other common one, bestiality. I know this wasn't your intent, however it is an argument that has been used to justify why i should be discriimated against in the past, so i try to oppose it often.
apologies for the rambling - woken at 3 by a friend who was locked out, and still not recovered!
thought it was amyl nitrate normally ;)
at least thats what i've tried in the past. hell of a headache, but better than the possible blindness of meths!
Surely as it would no longer be a copyrighted work, being as it is now PD, the DMCA would not apply - it only protects reverse engineering encryption protecting copyrighted works.
Sounds like fun. Can me and my boyfriend join you?
The point here isn't that the contract was necessarily invalid, more that the company also couldn't show they ever enforced it elsewhere - you cannot enforce a policy on a single person, ignoring everyone else.
That is what contributed to the "automaticity" of the eula; that you had to click it everytime AND noone was enforcing it
and the best roleplayers use fighting fantasy.....
Actually the SI unit for thousands IS the point, we just dont use it....
There is nothing that can mae a private UK company, which does not trade in the US, comply with a US decision.
erm
neither do they in the UK. Mine is 0-60 in about 9 and averages 36mpg, which is about 30mpUSg
"safety standards" - that would be the same safety standards the europeans have had for many, many years now? and can still average above 30?
In other words all your calculations are meaningless, as you have hit upon the actual figure you need - average mileage per person.
Average in the uk is in the 12,000 mark as well, so yes you DO have "gas" cheaper for the amount you actually use....
And the jurisdiction was so completely wrong the judge should have raised that himself and thrown the case out.
But then its a hellhole down in IL....
No, wrong. The court has to determine if it has personal jurisdiction, that is whether it should even be hearing it in the first place - it is the first duty of any UK court, and i believe any US court. To not do so pretty much shows how much of a laughing stock your courts have become....
You're kind of missing something vital: MS does business in the EU. Really, they have offices and everything, just down the road from me (i live in Reading...
If you DO BUSINESS in a country then the assets of that business are in the jurisdiction of that country. E.g the offices down the road from me....
If you DON'T DO BUSINESS in a country then your assets (that are not in that country) are not in the jurisdiction of that country.
Guess which one Spamhaus is? Publishing a BL IN THE UK does NOT mean you are doing business in IL. it really is very, very, very simple.
However by responding they would have accepted the jurisdiction - as it is in order to obtain this rediculous sum of money the spammer now has to prove jurisdiction in the UK - kinda hard to do, when by appearing he would be arrested....
and historically exit polls are accurate to around .3 to 1% - iirc German exit polls havent event fallen outside the .3% mark!
Head. Sand. You know your place...
That is NOT, repeat NOT far left - you really have no clue what far left actually means do you?
To put it plainly - american "far left" = just left of centre to the rest of the world.
Americans think he was a socialist, because that was the original party name. I kid you not.
Statutory damages, unfortunately!
which is the most stupid crime here, that unlike most other place no actualy damages need to be shown....
How about, when you have been released from prison and you have [i]paid your debt to society[/] which is what prison is therefore, you are assumed to be a responsible person?
I really cant believe you still have a screwed up system whereby removing someones abiltiy to vote for life, even if theyre rforemed, is the norm.
Erm, that house was used to fire rockets OTHER than Katushas - did you not see past that?
And your pointless "joooooos" bit is just insulting. Guess you stopped your debating tactics at the Ad Hominem stage?
Anyways, to point out Israels issues -
1) largest stockpile of illegial nuclear weapons in the world
2) consistently flouting even the watered down UN resolutions - you know, the ones that if they even sound like Israel could ever do anything wrong get veto'd by the US?
3) they caused the first civilian casualties - this started due to a cross border raid against military targets. Instead of hunting down the people that took them, tey started to bomb Lebanon INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
4) THey killed UN observers despite EVERY SINGLE ISRAELI MILITARY MAP FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS SHOWING THEIR LOCATION - oh wait, it's always an accident with Israel....
No side is blameless, however you are SO blinkered into thniking that Israel is always guiltess that you cannot see this - and you cannot accept that someone can be against Israel without being against "jooooooos" - you have some serious issues.
What effect will this have, if any, on the other RIAA cases currently going on?
NOt living in the US, I'm not sure how the legal system entirely works in the States, but could this, assuming she wins her suit, have an enjoining effect on the RIAA in other cases that have brought with similar (lack of) evidence?
Would be fantastic to see them crushed down.....!
Wrong, it saves me about an hour each way on a trip
Means i can turn up with 30 minutes to go, wal through the fast gate, through security, into the lounge then onto the plane.
Well worth it!