I think there are some good points to the existence of the firewall. While the firewall itself is a bad thing, no doubt, the fact that the Chinese have access to the internet at all is a huge step forward for them. We're talking about a country that was totalitarian for centuries, with virtually no interest in or comprehension of indivdiual human freedoms.
It also speaks to the power of the internet's design. Here is a nation notorious for its control of information, and the techniques they use are easy to discover, and possible to circumvent. If China can't restrict the internet, then there's hope that other governments and maybe even multinational corporations won't be able to pull it off either.
With luck, the firewall will become an irony of the past, as the importance of human dignity becomes apparant to the Chinese government.
Suggest away, it isn't going to make you any more right. As I pointed out, the magna carta may have been a big deal in England, but it was in no way applicable to the rest of Europe. So it does not have the same characteristics, and resembles them in as much as it is written on paper with ink.
"Magna Carta Libertatum ("Great Charter of Freedoms"), was an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta is the most significant early influence on the long historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today" (Wikipedia)
Nope, you blundered and are trying to mislead your way out of it. Let me quote you here directly: "and exist only by way of a sovereign's decision to limit their own power". A sovereign. How else is one supposed to interpret that?
"and exist only by way of a sovereign state's decision to limit the state's own power"
Apologies for the ambiguity, but this is consistent with the rest of the paragraph, and certainly colloquially accepted. Learn to interpret more liberally; this is no longer ambiguous with the definition.
But isn't that exactly what you were saying with regard to the EU? Not to mention that what I said is perfectly valid, every government does have these powers and will operate in exactly this way. This top down bottom up assumption of rights is a large mound of twaddle. I don't know who modded this up, but its either a very clever troll or someone who is honestly mislead. In any case I call this a win, since I got to use the word twaddle in a conversation.
Also, consider constructive comments, rather than condescending ones. Your arguments are founded on your misunderstanding of the English language, rife with ad hominen and straw man. While you may not be able to solve the latter, you can at least be nice.
What sovereigns? First of all the Magna Carta was an English document that pertained only to England, not Europe as a whole (the UK is about 10% of the population of the EU), and second of all the Magna Carta has been almost entirely revoked, several times in fact.
Let me suggest a definition:
vis-a-vis (n)
1. a person or thing having the same function or characteristics as another
Hence: Magna Carta is a historical example of cessation of absolute authority, and while perhaps the origin of vested rights in modern society, certainly not the current authority for it (which would typically be a constitutional writ, but not always).
What you are really trying to say is that if a company is in flagrant violation of the directives of sovereign governments, those governments can apply such sanctions as they see fit. If the company refuses to pay fines, company assets can be siezed in lieu of payment. Exactly like anywhere else in the world, including the united states. I have no idea where you are getting this "royalty owns everything, not like in the US" idea. Model of law they are working under, my arse.
You are confused about what I am saying. See, e.g. definition:
Sovereign (n):
2. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other; possessing, or entitled to, original authority or jurisdiction; as, a sovereign state; a sovereign discretion.
You are confusing this with Sovereign meaning royalty.
As well, it is incorrect and presumptuous to say that every country has the same regulatory authority for seizure in lieu of arrears.
Microsoft is headquartered in the US. I don't think the EU has the authority to simply demand money from them.
As a matter of authority, that is a prima facie right of sovereignty. It is enforceability that is at issue, a practical matter. The EU can seize Microsoft assets therein, and elsewhere through the Doctrine of Comity and any reciprocity treaties.
Interestingly, and more fundamentally, Microsoft's assets exist only and precisely because sovereigns grant them. These are known as vested rights (or acquired rights), and exist only by way of a sovereign's decision to limit their own power, vis-a-vis the Magna Carta.
The American line of reasoning, bottom-up rights of a constituent superceding natural rights of the state is based upon experiences from a long history of absolute sovereignty that arose from the Peace of Westphalia. (Which was more interested in sovereignty and self-determination as against other states) These acquired rights should not be taken for granted in America, or elsewhere.
That's all pedantic, but underscores the model of law Microsoft is subject to. Their property rights are acquired from sovereign grants, not absolute entitlement, and their rights can be quashed within the EU as a matter of implicit state power, and without as a matter of international relations, notwithstanding the limitations the EU imbues upon its own powers.
I have close friends on every continent except Antarctica, and their long-distance friendship persists only because we can communicate over the internet.
I believe that the lack of close friendships in Western societies could be related to the internet, that the internet permits us to meet our most basic and fundamental psychological needs online. Once these basic needs are met, we lose our incentive to overcome the challenges to find and foster more rich and fruitful personal relationships. Why go out, when all you need is at your fingertips?
The point about entitlement here is quite relevant too, I believe. The substitute of money for happiness in consumer society takes away from the perceived benefit of friendship.
Of course, there are surely many more factors to consider, but these probably do contribute.
Ticketmaster doesn't supply seats, they supply a ticketing service. Their supply correlates to the shows themselves (not, as you say, the seats of any individual show), the demand is (for consumers) non-fungible/non-substitutable shows and (for producers) organized and mass ticket dissemination.
It's a horizontal monopoly (ticketmaster controls all equivalent ticketing services), in an economy of scale with critical mass (by being far-and-away the largest, ticketmaster is the only entity capable of ever providing this service).
Further, subject to market forces, Ticketmaster would produce their ticket service near to the cost of marketing, logistics, and production, or a competitor would produce an substitute market service for less and put them out of business. However, since there is no such competitior, they mark their service at monopolistic prices, which is maximized at consumer luxury spending.
Tickets should be cheaper if a competitor existed. Competition permits producers and consumers to choose the cheaper of two equivalent services, which lowers prices. However, the argument exists, which you alluded to, that as a luxury item, the price would remain the same - maximized consumer luxury spending - in which case wealth going to Ticketmaster would be redistributed to producers. However, money going to producers is different from going to Ticketmaster, in that it creates an incentive for producers to continue production. This is oversimplified, but not innaccurate.:)
You are describing free market exchange, one of several components of capitalism. Capitalism also implies competition, whereby the price changes as a result of varying supply and demand under pressure to simultaneously compete and profit. Here, price is a consequence of predetermined monopolistic formula, artificially higher than the market equilibrium for the service offered by Ticketmaster because they are not subject to market forces. So it is not how capitalist works, but rather how a monopoly exploits the absence of capitalism.
More subtle but pertinent economic theories may also imply that scalpers are an economically efficient method of redistributing to consumers by picking up slack, so to speak. Scalpers, unlike Ticketmaster, are subject to supply and demand.
When you extract the oil the rock remains. No huge caverns, no need for worry.
iirc, When you extract oil, you typically replace it with water. Otherwise (1) the caverns would collapse, and (2) vast amounts of oil would be impossible to extract due to low pressure/dropping reserves (oil rises to the top).
The problem is that your system relies on trust. How can I trust that my enemy is only going to confine this combat to the "fighting machine arena" or poker table, or whatever?
If my deadly robot destroys your deadly robot, my deadly robot army will probably be able to defeat your robot army. It's a combination of threat, plausibility, and feedback when measuring capacity for warfare. There is a presumption that the superior robot will be able to dominate inferiors. In all likelihood though, resolution will come only through bona fide field testing in actual combat.
You are right though, in asserting that it is unlikely to solve bona fide disputes. It is akin to a coin toss, with some engineering merit and technological foresight thrown in. Legal, historical, purpose, and political merit are probably better measures.
ButFTL acceleration is not impossible. It is completely meaningless as it simply violates causality. If FTL accn is possible, then our entire understanding of physics is almost completely wrong, and there is ample tangible evidence to suggest that is not so.
Indeed, carefully worded. I seem to recall that there are no restrictions on actually travelling faster than light, only that accelerating to the speed of light requires infinite energy, yes?
Let me see if I can address some of your concerns...
1) Step-Saver notwithstanding, fitness/implied warranty don't seem to require a phone conversation or other existing deal to be established when I go into a store and buy something like a video game or a word processor - certainly not to the point where an officious piece of short fiction written inside the box could override it let alone if....
Yes, there are two contracts at work in the purchase and use of software. The shrink-wrap when you buy it, and the click-wrap when you click something. The Step-Saver had a very strongly held out verbal warranty that the buyer relied upon. Possibly akin to Microsoft saying 'never crashes' in bright red letters on their software box - if, believing that statement, you buy the software and it crashes and causes you loss, according to Step-Saver you may have a case that a warranty held-out and relied upon caused you to buy the software. Now, the trick, according to Step-Saver, is that you would have to rely upon the software before you agree to another license (i.e. click-wrap) that clearly waives your rights.
2) The "click-wrap" license can't even be read until after you purchase and open the merchandise, and... 3) There is no way to tell if the user assented to it or not, after the fact. I know what you're thinking when I say this, and it's even worse than you think. It's ultimately reducible to the "paperless voting machine" conundrum. I say I didn't agree, the other party says I did, and the only way of determining it is to query a hard drive...
That's a factual query, not a legal one (maybe some evidentiary analysis). The facts probably indicate that you assent to the EULA by 1. purchasing software with a shrink-wrap agreement, or 2. installation and use requires agreement by clicking something like 'I agree'. Simplest, you can just ask the user under oath.
4) Not to mention that almost no clickwrap code even records a decision explicitly... that's because everyone knows its a joke, even the people who program it...
I can't imagine click-wrap would be an enforceable contract if you disagree and it installs anyay. Most software would presumably not install if you disagree with the EULA, for precisely this reason. If you intentionally disagree with a EULA, and it installs anyway, not only are you not bound to the EULA, the software author has probably committed a trespass if it causes any harm. (ala. the Sony music CD's) It's more likely a case of negligence on the case of the seller, rather than intentional trespass.
There are rights to, among other things, reverse engineer under federal copyright law (117, iirc, as came up in the Vault case, where Louisiana's statute denied reverse engineering).
Now, one grey area is when you install the software manually, circumventing the EULA. This question has not been answered, as far as I know.
5) To even make the blanket statement that "a click-wrap agreement will be enforceable" seems rather odd, since let's be frank, it entirely depends on what's in it, and I think we can agree that its degree of enforceability depends quite substantially on the intersection between what it is attempting to enforce (usually the legal equivalent of a consturction worker's sex fantasy) and its credibility as a formal, verifiable binding agreement that all parties have entered into with good representation and fully informed consent (virtually nil by conventional standards).
Certainly the EULA can't require your first-born. Consideration is required, and the greater the burden on the parties, the greater the consideration required. For example, very important clauses in contracts often require initials.
There are two other point of note regarding EULA's that address your concerns. First, EULA's are boilerplate ('standard form'; or contracts of adhesion), clauses applied to every buyer, just as they are when you sign virtually anything at a bank or car dealer. The courts are more likely to
Okay, there are a whack-load of new issues there. Let me see if I can say something useful.
Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.
Shrink-wrap licenses are displayed outside software and execute on completion of purchase. A shrink-wrap license that requires agreement to unseen terms disclosed inside the box and after the sale is probably not enforceable due to lack of consideration.
Distinguish this from a click-wrap license where the terms are typically presented on the screen and scrollable (analogous to turning a page), and require a positive act. That act probably constitutes consideration, and American jurisprudence goes to this effect. I forget the New Jersey case, but there's a prototypical case in Canada called Rudder v. Microsoft where the MSN click-wrap agreement had a term requiring disputes to be resolved in Washington courts. The Canadian courts upheld the agreement, threw out the case. They would have done so only if they suspected, ironically, that Microsoft's rights under the EULA would be upheld in Washington. The Rudder case followed the New Jersey case (which has slipped my mind) in that a click-wrap EULA is not fine print.
However, addressing to the Step-Saver case - in that particular case, the object of the EULA was to undermine the warranty. Warranty occupies a funny bit of sales law; the law against disclaiming warranties is much, much stronger than any presumption against contract. The EULA may be either struck down or the warranty's exculpatory clause read out of the contract.
I just read the Step-Saver case and I think the Wikipedia editors have misinterpreted the ruling; it is not about whether the EULA is valid, but whether the buyer and seller made a contract before the product arrived and the buyer could read the on-the-box license, and whether it is enforceable in spite of the seller's acquiescence to the buyer's repeated acts in denial of the purported license.
The on-box license said there was express or implied no warranty, whereas on the telephone (a) the seller had made certain guarantees (i.e. compatible with 90% of MS-DOS software) that (b) the buyer relied upon. The warranty held out by the seller was part of the SALE contract, not the EULA license (look at the case: the "consent by opening" language is not sufficient to render TSL's acceptance conditional, and the offeree/counterofferor may be relying on the purchaser's investment in time and energy in reaching this point in the transaction and TSL was willing to proceed with the transaction despite the fact that one of the terms of the box-top license was not included in the contract).
Justice Wisdom of the circuit court is saying that the EULA was not part of the original contract for sale, and hence had no force and effect. This is not whether a generic EULA is enforceable, but whether in the above fact-specific situation the EULA, which materially alters the sale contract, should be part of that original sale contract. (Answer: no) A EULA on the box in a store might not be given the same treatment, since you can read it prior to the sale transaction.
So, according to the Step-Saver case (in my humble and possibly even correct interpretation) the warranty disclaimer portion of a EULA is unenforceable if:
1. that EULA has been sent only after the completion of the sale transaction,
2. the seller has made guarantees as to merchantability as part of that sale,
3. the buyer has never consented to the EULA, and
4. the seller has acquiesced to the buyer's non-consent.
This is NOT the same as saying EULA's are unenforceable. To rely on the Step-Saver case, you would require all of the elements 1-4. You may be able to argue for a lesser s
The role of the EULA in this fiasco is implicitly legitimized (the entire concept of a "EULA," for those few who don't know, is largely an obnoxious legal fiction - sans UCITA, anyway)
Not sure what you're trying to say here. To wit, EULA's have been legitimate contracts even after the purchase transaction since 1996. The strongest argument against click-wrap EULA's is that you are only bound to the "shrink-wrap" terms, which you are aware of at time of purchase. Shrink-wrap is one contract to which you are bound when you complete the purchase transaction. A "click-wrap" EULA is another contract to which you are bound with some act of acknowlegment, typically upon installation or first use, by clicking something like 'I agree'.
The ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg [Full decision] case created the precedent that that a user engaging in some acknowledgment of the contractual terms, e.g. clicking 'I agree', is bound to the terms, regardless of a sparcity of terms on the shrink-wrap. Incidentally, the contract can't be unconscionable; any clause permitting modification of the licensing terms will probably require reasonable notice; if you don't agree to the terms of the click-wrap, you are almost certainly legally entitled to refund (whether you can enforce that at a reasonable price is another question).
In either case, a EULA is most certainly a legal reality. The judiciary of virtually every industrialized country upholds EULAs on the grounds that they provide economic certainty and legal predictability. Enforceable and extensive click-wrap contractual obligations promote commercial incentives and protect corporate interests. Courts entertain that argument.
"side-effect of some early childhood or pre-natal infection"
Then one would be inclined to expect outbreaks of 'gay' infections. I buy that it is environmental at a very young age, and I agree that it is statistically improbable that it is purely genetic, but I find it hard to believe that an infection would be the (singular) cause of it. I suppose I could be wrong... it might explain the Ancient Greek's.
What's the purpose of a contract (or any law) that's not government-enforced?
Contracts and law can exist outside government enforcement. Government has a monopoly on force, otherwise known as sovereignty. In the absence of sanctioned sovereign force, you find yourself in a quasi-lawless space analogous to international law. Contracts become analogous to treaties in this space.
Treaties are "softly" enforced by reputation and fear of retaliation (or, in the case of the World Trade Organization, trade sanctions). I am not clear on the context in which you ask. But perhaps these forces, peer reputation and retaliation, are equally applicable. Or not at all. The point is there are other forces for enforcement besides government.
There is also a space where contracts and law (or quasi-law such as treaties) exist and have purpose without enforcement. They serve to clarify, publish and encode customary expectations. In a world absent implicit trust, contracts and laws, even in the absence of enforcement, provide a certainty where before there may have been nothing.
Revealing a case of fraud strengthens their reputation. If they had let the case die in the darkness after dismissing him--that would lessen their reputation. But admitting that fraud has happened and that the school will not stand for it--that can only gain respect.
The blow is to MIT's hiring practice and peer review. An instance of fraud indicates that the faculty there is verifiably capable of fraud. It indicates that their hiring practices are not infalliable, as may have previously been thought, and to which there was previously no example to turn to. While it may not produce any overwhelming skepticism of their other results, particularly with their reaction, it does show a falliability in hiring practice, and a lack of internal peer review prior to publication.
It is a blow to their reputation. MIT hired someone capable of lying, who lacks the foresight to expect to be caught in a system of skepticism and peer review, who is more ambitious than smart. Otherwise impecable hiring practices are tarnished by this mistake. Respect that may have been inherent and implicit to authors at MIT now stands next to the possibility fraud such as this. In my mind, this paints everyone who arrived at MIT in the same way with the same brush.
While admirable, I do not think their reaction can actually produce greater respect than would have otherwise been there had they not hired a charlatan. The respect I hold for their reaction is different from, and in no way increases, my faith in their capacity to hire appropriately and produce reliable work. Their reaction was the lesser blow to reputation, and in my mind necessary. Had they let the case die in the darkness, if it ever came to light it would undermine their reputation, not tarnish it.
In general, this is a 'contract to the world', an offer of reward on completion. It's often called a "race across the desert", a unilateral contract with neither consideration nor quid pro quo. The first one who completes the contract gets the reward. If revoked prior to completion, you generally have no recourse. If that is not the case, there are two common ways to sue, or offer as a baseline for negotition, for failure to fulfill his end of the promise.
First, if you complete the contract first and give sufficient notification of such, and it is prior to his unilateral revocation, you can argue that he breached the contract. As the first person across the line, you are typically entitled to the reward. Breach of that may entitle you to estop the contract. In other words, entitlement to fulfillment of his promise.
Second, if you say that you relied on his contract and had sufficient reason to believe that the contract would be fulfilled (i.e. there is precedent for this type of contract, e.g. auctions for services to be rendered; or it would be unreasonable economic policy to not enforce payment because your reliance on his statement was reasonable and it would be poor form to permit his type of statement when it incurs your type of economically inefficient reliance), you might be able to sue for your costs, your lost opportunity, or his benefit.
Dr Matthias Oehm, chief executive officer of Eurockot, said they had not received the expected signals from either the spacecraft or the upper stage of the rocket that should have injected it into orbit.
In Massachusetts, is it considered criminal to mislead the government or the administration in such a fashion?
Why would it be?
There are valid reasons to put restrictions on authoritative speech, particularly to the government or the public. Two of these are:
Perjury: lying under oath, such as in court. Libel: Harming a reputation through written words.
The check and balance of harmful speech is especially important in cases where you have an "expert" opinion. Microsoft's comments on OASIS compatible software could be analogous to Bayer saying their antibiotics (Ciprofloxacin), while more expensive, is the only one that works. We do not want Bayer, or Microsoft, lying about these things.
Interestingly, the more broadly the statement was made, the more likely it is to be considered a "puffery", an accepted norm of bullshit in advertising. If it was made directly to an official's office, in court, or in any situation analogous to 'under oath', then maybe it could be considered perjury. The hyperbole of this would be lying about the capacity to cheaply produce an influenza cure on the brink of a pandemic; there is a general public policy consideration to honest statements in general, and in particular in situations of potentially grave risk. That opens up liability in fraud.
So a couple of things of importance. First, the context of the statement: under oath, or an analogous situation, opens liability to perjury for false statements. Second, a concise and defamatory statement can create liability in libel. Finally, there is a public policy consideration to the impact of the statement, especially if it can have grave ramifications, that we deter by incurring liability for fraud.
If we were all to take Caltrain (which is subsidized) it would cost about $36 for us to go. We can take a car for under $10, even adding in the actual purchase cost of the car, I would imagine its under $20. And my car isn't the cheapest or more efficient.
There are a lot of hidden costs with cars. The cost of building, maintaining, and policing the roads. Unless you are on a private highway, those are subsidies. As well, cars are much less economical than centralized energy production for mass transit. Trains and the like can all run on the same power grid, from the same industrial power plant with better environmental scrubbers than ever be viably put into cars.
There is also the cost of lost space and real estate. Most American cities are 60% road. Reducing the amount of roads required for day-to-day transit would dramatically decrease the cost of real estate.
Also, there are serious health considerations to such prolific driving. It is one of the most dangerous activities. I believe more people die in car accidents in a week than have ever in public transit accidents. As well, driving can be conducive to a sedentary lifestyle. New York is said to have the least obese Americans because of the high use of public transit. Houston is said to be the fattest for precisely the opposite reason: no viable public transit. While I am not sure I buy the causation, there is a definite correlation. Obesity causes an enormous burden on health care, particularly public health care. Let us not even mention the cost to health care from air pollution.
Finally, the permanent destruction of non-renewable oil resources is not truly reflected in the market price of oil. So, looking way down the road, when oil becomes truly scarce, the transition costs to alternate fuels will be staggering for defunct cars and useless roads. Public transit on an electrical grid can switch transparently to more readily available sources.
So while you can say that it costs 3 times as much to take transit to to San Francisco, it is only so because the government has done a splendid job of hiding the real costs of facilitating that cheap driving. But these externalized costs are real, and their aggregate is only now becoming readily apparent.
A lot of that comes from the fact that much of the country was developed in a time when driving anywhere you wanted to go was a possibility, so things here tend to be very spread out, which makes efficient public transportation difficult to implement.
Lest we forget the monopolistic practices, for example by GM, of buying public transit pointedly to destroy it. (For which they were ultimately fined around $1000, if I recall correctly)
Force is not quite what you think, I believe. The most powerful force is widely regarded to be compound interest (Einstein himself so said). Rule of law is up there as well. They both supercede, and subsume, soldiers with guns. Economies command armies. Lawyers command armies. Soldiers with guns die as pawns.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there are some good points to the existence of the firewall. While the firewall itself is a bad thing, no doubt, the fact that the Chinese have access to the internet at all is a huge step forward for them. We're talking about a country that was totalitarian for centuries, with virtually no interest in or comprehension of indivdiual human freedoms.
It also speaks to the power of the internet's design. Here is a nation notorious for its control of information, and the techniques they use are easy to discover, and possible to circumvent. If China can't restrict the internet, then there's hope that other governments and maybe even multinational corporations won't be able to pull it off either.
With luck, the firewall will become an irony of the past, as the importance of human dignity becomes apparant to the Chinese government.
Rent seeking.
Also, consider constructive comments, rather than condescending ones. Your arguments are founded on your misunderstanding of the English language, rife with ad hominen and straw man. While you may not be able to solve the latter, you can at least be nice.
Well, I guess that depends on how old you are.
What sovereigns? First of all the Magna Carta was an English document that pertained only to England, not Europe as a whole (the UK is about 10% of the population of the EU), and second of all the Magna Carta has been almost entirely revoked, several times in fact.
Let me suggest a definition:
vis-a-vis (n)
1. a person or thing having the same function or characteristics as another
Hence: Magna Carta is a historical example of cessation of absolute authority, and while perhaps the origin of vested rights in modern society, certainly not the current authority for it (which would typically be a constitutional writ, but not always).
What you are really trying to say is that if a company is in flagrant violation of the directives of sovereign governments, those governments can apply such sanctions as they see fit. If the company refuses to pay fines, company assets can be siezed in lieu of payment. Exactly like anywhere else in the world, including the united states. I have no idea where you are getting this "royalty owns everything, not like in the US" idea. Model of law they are working under, my arse.
You are confused about what I am saying. See, e.g. definition:
Sovereign (n):
2. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other; possessing, or entitled to, original authority or jurisdiction; as, a sovereign state; a sovereign discretion.
You are confusing this with Sovereign meaning royalty.
As well, it is incorrect and presumptuous to say that every country has the same regulatory authority for seizure in lieu of arrears.
Microsoft is headquartered in the US. I don't think the EU has the authority to simply demand money from them.
As a matter of authority, that is a prima facie right of sovereignty. It is enforceability that is at issue, a practical matter. The EU can seize Microsoft assets therein, and elsewhere through the Doctrine of Comity and any reciprocity treaties.
Interestingly, and more fundamentally, Microsoft's assets exist only and precisely because sovereigns grant them. These are known as vested rights (or acquired rights), and exist only by way of a sovereign's decision to limit their own power, vis-a-vis the Magna Carta.
The American line of reasoning, bottom-up rights of a constituent superceding natural rights of the state is based upon experiences from a long history of absolute sovereignty that arose from the Peace of Westphalia. (Which was more interested in sovereignty and self-determination as against other states) These acquired rights should not be taken for granted in America, or elsewhere.
That's all pedantic, but underscores the model of law Microsoft is subject to. Their property rights are acquired from sovereign grants, not absolute entitlement, and their rights can be quashed within the EU as a matter of implicit state power, and without as a matter of international relations, notwithstanding the limitations the EU imbues upon its own powers.
I have close friends on every continent except Antarctica, and their long-distance friendship persists only because we can communicate over the internet.
I believe that the lack of close friendships in Western societies could be related to the internet, that the internet permits us to meet our most basic and fundamental psychological needs online. Once these basic needs are met, we lose our incentive to overcome the challenges to find and foster more rich and fruitful personal relationships. Why go out, when all you need is at your fingertips?
The point about entitlement here is quite relevant too, I believe. The substitute of money for happiness in consumer society takes away from the perceived benefit of friendship.
Of course, there are surely many more factors to consider, but these probably do contribute.
Ticketmaster doesn't supply seats, they supply a ticketing service. Their supply correlates to the shows themselves (not, as you say, the seats of any individual show), the demand is (for consumers) non-fungible/non-substitutable shows and (for producers) organized and mass ticket dissemination.
:)
It's a horizontal monopoly (ticketmaster controls all equivalent ticketing services), in an economy of scale with critical mass (by being far-and-away the largest, ticketmaster is the only entity capable of ever providing this service).
Further, subject to market forces, Ticketmaster would produce their ticket service near to the cost of marketing, logistics, and production, or a competitor would produce an substitute market service for less and put them out of business. However, since there is no such competitior, they mark their service at monopolistic prices, which is maximized at consumer luxury spending.
Tickets should be cheaper if a competitor existed. Competition permits producers and consumers to choose the cheaper of two equivalent services, which lowers prices. However, the argument exists, which you alluded to, that as a luxury item, the price would remain the same - maximized consumer luxury spending - in which case wealth going to Ticketmaster would be redistributed to producers. However, money going to producers is different from going to Ticketmaster, in that it creates an incentive for producers to continue production. This is oversimplified, but not innaccurate.
I hope that clarifies.
You are describing free market exchange, one of several components of capitalism. Capitalism also implies competition, whereby the price changes as a result of varying supply and demand under pressure to simultaneously compete and profit. Here, price is a consequence of predetermined monopolistic formula, artificially higher than the market equilibrium for the service offered by Ticketmaster because they are not subject to market forces. So it is not how capitalist works, but rather how a monopoly exploits the absence of capitalism.
More subtle but pertinent economic theories may also imply that scalpers are an economically efficient method of redistributing to consumers by picking up slack, so to speak. Scalpers, unlike Ticketmaster, are subject to supply and demand.
When you extract the oil the rock remains. No huge caverns, no need for worry.
iirc, When you extract oil, you typically replace it with water. Otherwise (1) the caverns would collapse, and (2) vast amounts of oil would be impossible to extract due to low pressure/dropping reserves (oil rises to the top).
The problem is that your system relies on trust. How can I trust that my enemy is only going to confine this combat to the "fighting machine arena" or poker table, or whatever?
If my deadly robot destroys your deadly robot, my deadly robot army will probably be able to defeat your robot army. It's a combination of threat, plausibility, and feedback when measuring capacity for warfare. There is a presumption that the superior robot will be able to dominate inferiors. In all likelihood though, resolution will come only through bona fide field testing in actual combat.
You are right though, in asserting that it is unlikely to solve bona fide disputes. It is akin to a coin toss, with some engineering merit and technological foresight thrown in. Legal, historical, purpose, and political merit are probably better measures.
ButFTL acceleration is not impossible. It is completely meaningless as it simply violates causality. If FTL accn is possible, then our entire understanding of physics is almost completely wrong, and there is ample tangible evidence to suggest that is not so.
Indeed, carefully worded. I seem to recall that there are no restrictions on actually travelling faster than light, only that accelerating to the speed of light requires infinite energy, yes?
Let me see if I can address some of your concerns...
1) Step-Saver notwithstanding, fitness/implied warranty don't seem to require a phone conversation or other existing deal to be established when I go into a store and buy something like a video game or a word processor - certainly not to the point where an officious piece of short fiction written inside the box could override it let alone if....
Yes, there are two contracts at work in the purchase and use of software. The shrink-wrap when you buy it, and the click-wrap when you click something. The Step-Saver had a very strongly held out verbal warranty that the buyer relied upon. Possibly akin to Microsoft saying 'never crashes' in bright red letters on their software box - if, believing that statement, you buy the software and it crashes and causes you loss, according to Step-Saver you may have a case that a warranty held-out and relied upon caused you to buy the software. Now, the trick, according to Step-Saver, is that you would have to rely upon the software before you agree to another license (i.e. click-wrap) that clearly waives your rights.
2) The "click-wrap" license can't even be read until after you purchase and open the merchandise, and...
3) There is no way to tell if the user assented to it or not, after the fact. I know what you're thinking when I say this, and it's even worse than you think. It's ultimately reducible to the "paperless voting machine" conundrum. I say I didn't agree, the other party says I did, and the only way of determining it is to query a hard drive...
That's a factual query, not a legal one (maybe some evidentiary analysis). The facts probably indicate that you assent to the EULA by 1. purchasing software with a shrink-wrap agreement, or 2. installation and use requires agreement by clicking something like 'I agree'. Simplest, you can just ask the user under oath.
4) Not to mention that almost no clickwrap code even records a decision explicitly... that's because everyone knows its a joke, even the people who program it...
I can't imagine click-wrap would be an enforceable contract if you disagree and it installs anyay. Most software would presumably not install if you disagree with the EULA, for precisely this reason. If you intentionally disagree with a EULA, and it installs anyway, not only are you not bound to the EULA, the software author has probably committed a trespass if it causes any harm. (ala. the Sony music CD's) It's more likely a case of negligence on the case of the seller, rather than intentional trespass.
There are rights to, among other things, reverse engineer under federal copyright law (117, iirc, as came up in the Vault case, where Louisiana's statute denied reverse engineering).
Now, one grey area is when you install the software manually, circumventing the EULA. This question has not been answered, as far as I know.
5) To even make the blanket statement that "a click-wrap agreement will be enforceable" seems rather odd, since let's be frank, it entirely depends on what's in it, and I think we can agree that its degree of enforceability depends quite substantially on the intersection between what it is attempting to enforce (usually the legal equivalent of a consturction worker's sex fantasy) and its credibility as a formal, verifiable binding agreement that all parties have entered into with good representation and fully informed consent (virtually nil by conventional standards).
Certainly the EULA can't require your first-born. Consideration is required, and the greater the burden on the parties, the greater the consideration required. For example, very important clauses in contracts often require initials.
There are two other point of note regarding EULA's that address your concerns. First, EULA's are boilerplate ('standard form'; or contracts of adhesion), clauses applied to every buyer, just as they are when you sign virtually anything at a bank or car dealer. The courts are more likely to
Okay, there are a whack-load of new issues there. Let me see if I can say something useful.
Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.
Shrink-wrap licenses are displayed outside software and execute on completion of purchase. A shrink-wrap license that requires agreement to unseen terms disclosed inside the box and after the sale is probably not enforceable due to lack of consideration.
Distinguish this from a click-wrap license where the terms are typically presented on the screen and scrollable (analogous to turning a page), and require a positive act. That act probably constitutes consideration, and American jurisprudence goes to this effect. I forget the New Jersey case, but there's a prototypical case in Canada called Rudder v. Microsoft where the MSN click-wrap agreement had a term requiring disputes to be resolved in Washington courts. The Canadian courts upheld the agreement, threw out the case. They would have done so only if they suspected, ironically, that Microsoft's rights under the EULA would be upheld in Washington. The Rudder case followed the New Jersey case (which has slipped my mind) in that a click-wrap EULA is not fine print.
However, addressing to the Step-Saver case - in that particular case, the object of the EULA was to undermine the warranty. Warranty occupies a funny bit of sales law; the law against disclaiming warranties is much, much stronger than any presumption against contract. The EULA may be either struck down or the warranty's exculpatory clause read out of the contract.
I just read the Step-Saver case and I think the Wikipedia editors have misinterpreted the ruling; it is not about whether the EULA is valid, but whether the buyer and seller made a contract before the product arrived and the buyer could read the on-the-box license, and whether it is enforceable in spite of the seller's acquiescence to the buyer's repeated acts in denial of the purported license.
The on-box license said there was express or implied no warranty, whereas on the telephone (a) the seller had made certain guarantees (i.e. compatible with 90% of MS-DOS software) that (b) the buyer relied upon. The warranty held out by the seller was part of the SALE contract, not the EULA license (look at the case: the "consent by opening" language is not sufficient to render TSL's acceptance conditional, and the offeree/counterofferor may be relying on the purchaser's investment in time and energy in reaching this point in the transaction and TSL was willing to proceed with the transaction despite the fact that one of the terms of the box-top license was not included in the contract).
Justice Wisdom of the circuit court is saying that the EULA was not part of the original contract for sale, and hence had no force and effect. This is not whether a generic EULA is enforceable, but whether in the above fact-specific situation the EULA, which materially alters the sale contract, should be part of that original sale contract. (Answer: no) A EULA on the box in a store might not be given the same treatment, since you can read it prior to the sale transaction.
So, according to the Step-Saver case (in my humble and possibly even correct interpretation) the warranty disclaimer portion of a EULA is unenforceable if:
1. that EULA has been sent only after the completion of the sale transaction,
2. the seller has made guarantees as to merchantability as part of that sale,
3. the buyer has never consented to the EULA, and
4. the seller has acquiesced to the buyer's non-consent.
This is NOT the same as saying EULA's are unenforceable. To rely on the Step-Saver case, you would require all of the elements 1-4. You may be able to argue for a lesser s
The role of the EULA in this fiasco is implicitly legitimized (the entire concept of a "EULA," for those few who don't know, is largely an obnoxious legal fiction - sans UCITA, anyway)
Not sure what you're trying to say here. To wit, EULA's have been legitimate contracts even after the purchase transaction since 1996. The strongest argument against click-wrap EULA's is that you are only bound to the "shrink-wrap" terms, which you are aware of at time of purchase. Shrink-wrap is one contract to which you are bound when you complete the purchase transaction. A "click-wrap" EULA is another contract to which you are bound with some act of acknowlegment, typically upon installation or first use, by clicking something like 'I agree'.
The ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg [Full decision] case created the precedent that that a user engaging in some acknowledgment of the contractual terms, e.g. clicking 'I agree', is bound to the terms, regardless of a sparcity of terms on the shrink-wrap. Incidentally, the contract can't be unconscionable; any clause permitting modification of the licensing terms will probably require reasonable notice; if you don't agree to the terms of the click-wrap, you are almost certainly legally entitled to refund (whether you can enforce that at a reasonable price is another question).
In either case, a EULA is most certainly a legal reality. The judiciary of virtually every industrialized country upholds EULAs on the grounds that they provide economic certainty and legal predictability. Enforceable and extensive click-wrap contractual obligations promote commercial incentives and protect corporate interests. Courts entertain that argument.
"side-effect of some early childhood or pre-natal infection"
Then one would be inclined to expect outbreaks of 'gay' infections. I buy that it is environmental at a very young age, and I agree that it is statistically improbable that it is purely genetic, but I find it hard to believe that an infection would be the (singular) cause of it. I suppose I could be wrong... it might explain the Ancient Greek's.
What's the purpose of a contract (or any law) that's not government-enforced?
Contracts and law can exist outside government enforcement. Government has a monopoly on force, otherwise known as sovereignty. In the absence of sanctioned sovereign force, you find yourself in a quasi-lawless space analogous to international law. Contracts become analogous to treaties in this space.
Treaties are "softly" enforced by reputation and fear of retaliation (or, in the case of the World Trade Organization, trade sanctions). I am not clear on the context in which you ask. But perhaps these forces, peer reputation and retaliation, are equally applicable. Or not at all. The point is there are other forces for enforcement besides government.
There is also a space where contracts and law (or quasi-law such as treaties) exist and have purpose without enforcement. They serve to clarify, publish and encode customary expectations. In a world absent implicit trust, contracts and laws, even in the absence of enforcement, provide a certainty where before there may have been nothing.
Revealing a case of fraud strengthens their reputation. If they had let the case die in the darkness after dismissing him--that would lessen their reputation. But admitting that fraud has happened and that the school will not stand for it--that can only gain respect.
The blow is to MIT's hiring practice and peer review. An instance of fraud indicates that the faculty there is verifiably capable of fraud. It indicates that their hiring practices are not infalliable, as may have previously been thought, and to which there was previously no example to turn to. While it may not produce any overwhelming skepticism of their other results, particularly with their reaction, it does show a falliability in hiring practice, and a lack of internal peer review prior to publication.
It is a blow to their reputation. MIT hired someone capable of lying, who lacks the foresight to expect to be caught in a system of skepticism and peer review, who is more ambitious than smart. Otherwise impecable hiring practices are tarnished by this mistake. Respect that may have been inherent and implicit to authors at MIT now stands next to the possibility fraud such as this. In my mind, this paints everyone who arrived at MIT in the same way with the same brush.
While admirable, I do not think their reaction can actually produce greater respect than would have otherwise been there had they not hired a charlatan. The respect I hold for their reaction is different from, and in no way increases, my faith in their capacity to hire appropriately and produce reliable work. Their reaction was the lesser blow to reputation, and in my mind necessary. Had they let the case die in the darkness, if it ever came to light it would undermine their reputation, not tarnish it.
In general, this is a 'contract to the world', an offer of reward on completion. It's often called a "race across the desert", a unilateral contract with neither consideration nor quid pro quo. The first one who completes the contract gets the reward. If revoked prior to completion, you generally have no recourse. If that is not the case, there are two common ways to sue, or offer as a baseline for negotition, for failure to fulfill his end of the promise.
First, if you complete the contract first and give sufficient notification of such, and it is prior to his unilateral revocation, you can argue that he breached the contract. As the first person across the line, you are typically entitled to the reward. Breach of that may entitle you to estop the contract. In other words, entitlement to fulfillment of his promise.
Second, if you say that you relied on his contract and had sufficient reason to believe that the contract would be fulfilled (i.e. there is precedent for this type of contract, e.g. auctions for services to be rendered; or it would be unreasonable economic policy to not enforce payment because your reliance on his statement was reasonable and it would be poor form to permit his type of statement when it incurs your type of economically inefficient reliance), you might be able to sue for your costs, your lost opportunity, or his benefit.
I believe it was called a spoon.
Dr Matthias Oehm, chief executive officer of Eurockot, said they had not received the expected signals from either the spacecraft or the upper stage of the rocket that should have injected it into orbit.
That's probably because it broke up and crashed into the ocean.
In Massachusetts, is it considered criminal to mislead the government or the administration in such a fashion?
Why would it be?
There are valid reasons to put restrictions on authoritative speech, particularly to the government or the public. Two of these are:
Perjury: lying under oath, such as in court.
Libel: Harming a reputation through written words.
The check and balance of harmful speech is especially important in cases where you have an "expert" opinion. Microsoft's comments on OASIS compatible software could be analogous to Bayer saying their antibiotics (Ciprofloxacin), while more expensive, is the only one that works. We do not want Bayer, or Microsoft, lying about these things.
Interestingly, the more broadly the statement was made, the more likely it is to be considered a "puffery", an accepted norm of bullshit in advertising. If it was made directly to an official's office, in court, or in any situation analogous to 'under oath', then maybe it could be considered perjury. The hyperbole of this would be lying about the capacity to cheaply produce an influenza cure on the brink of a pandemic; there is a general public policy consideration to honest statements in general, and in particular in situations of potentially grave risk. That opens up liability in fraud.
So a couple of things of importance. First, the context of the statement: under oath, or an analogous situation, opens liability to perjury for false statements. Second, a concise and defamatory statement can create liability in libel. Finally, there is a public policy consideration to the impact of the statement, especially if it can have grave ramifications, that we deter by incurring liability for fraud.
If we were all to take Caltrain (which is subsidized) it would cost about $36 for us to go. We can take a car for under $10, even adding in the actual purchase cost of the car, I would imagine its under $20. And my car isn't the cheapest or more efficient.
There are a lot of hidden costs with cars. The cost of building, maintaining, and policing the roads. Unless you are on a private highway, those are subsidies. As well, cars are much less economical than centralized energy production for mass transit. Trains and the like can all run on the same power grid, from the same industrial power plant with better environmental scrubbers than ever be viably put into cars.
There is also the cost of lost space and real estate. Most American cities are 60% road. Reducing the amount of roads required for day-to-day transit would dramatically decrease the cost of real estate.
Also, there are serious health considerations to such prolific driving. It is one of the most dangerous activities. I believe more people die in car accidents in a week than have ever in public transit accidents. As well, driving can be conducive to a sedentary lifestyle. New York is said to have the least obese Americans because of the high use of public transit. Houston is said to be the fattest for precisely the opposite reason: no viable public transit. While I am not sure I buy the causation, there is a definite correlation. Obesity causes an enormous burden on health care, particularly public health care. Let us not even mention the cost to health care from air pollution.
Finally, the permanent destruction of non-renewable oil resources is not truly reflected in the market price of oil. So, looking way down the road, when oil becomes truly scarce, the transition costs to alternate fuels will be staggering for defunct cars and useless roads. Public transit on an electrical grid can switch transparently to more readily available sources.
So while you can say that it costs 3 times as much to take transit to to San Francisco, it is only so because the government has done a splendid job of hiding the real costs of facilitating that cheap driving. But these externalized costs are real, and their aggregate is only now becoming readily apparent.
A lot of that comes from the fact that much of the country was developed in a time when driving anywhere you wanted to go was a possibility, so things here tend to be very spread out, which makes efficient public transportation difficult to implement.
Lest we forget the monopolistic practices, for example by GM, of buying public transit pointedly to destroy it. (For which they were ultimately fined around $1000, if I recall correctly)
Force is not quite what you think, I believe. The most powerful force is widely regarded to be compound interest (Einstein himself so said). Rule of law is up there as well. They both supercede, and subsume, soldiers with guns. Economies command armies. Lawyers command armies. Soldiers with guns die as pawns.