Would you feel the same if he had won? No. I would've been quite happy if he'd won. Both he and Gore reflected most of my values. If we lived in a country with approval voting or IRV, I would've voted for the both of them. I actually almost *did* vote for Nader since I lived in a red state that was going to Bush anyway, but I thought that there *might* be a chance for Gore to pull the state.
He didn't cost the election. He provided an alternative to the Party. You speak like those are mutually opposed. The mathematics of the electoral college combined with the winner-take-all voting in most US states is the reason why a 3rd party candidate has *never* won the election. The only person to come in 2nd was Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party which split the Republican base and put Woodrow Wilson into office. Thurmond and Wallace almost cost Truman reelection, Ross Perot cost Bush the election to Clinton, and Nader gave New Hampshire and Florida to Bush.
Nader cost Gore the election by taking away a larger margin of liberal voters than Bush won each of those states by. If either state had gone to Gore, we wouldn't have had this bunch of yahoos in office when the planes took off on September 11th, and this country might still be respected in the world. At the very least a consumer advocate like Nader wouldn't have managed to let Bush put foxes in all the henhouses in Washington, thus directly curbstomping the very cause that made him famous.
Besides, I can guarantee you that Lieberman is every bit as evil as Cheney. THAT'S what cost the democrats the election. Oh, Lieberman's a political opportunist and quite a bit of an old-school neocon (as in the pre-Reagan sense), but there are some huge degrees of difference there, and I can't imagine him wielding anything like the unprecedented power and influence that Cheney has as vice president, which has largely been a ceremonial role in the past.
Also, I'd like to see you back up the "Lieberman cost the election" theory. The numbers on Nader's influence in NH & FL are easy to find, but I'd like to see some numbers on Lieberman. I can't imagine that that many people were terribly influenced by him.
After all Rick Santorum's campaign directly funded putting a Green party candidate on the ballot in 2006 to try to take votes away from the Democratic front-runner, Casey. It didn't work out for him in the end, but it shows just how little principle was involved with either side of that cold-blooded, strategic transaction.
I'll bet we see a lot of Republican money flowing into Nader's coffers if he announces a run.
Never mind that the vast majority of Democrats, on a given issue, side with him, and that compromises are almost always made only due to pressure from Republicans. No, because all don't fall in lockstep with his views, both parties are clearly the same. Oh, and in the meantime, his stubborn lack of willingness to consider Democrats as different from Republicans has cost the county eight years of leadership opposed to every single thing he stands for. I think I'll go absolutely off the deep end insane if he manages to lose us a swing state and cost the election in 2008 like he did in 2000. Like crawling up the walls, growing a beard and braiding it, and mailing pipe-bombs filed with candy corn insane.
No, I just don't give a fuck. What's the law going to do? I just opened 5,000 various auctions in my Firefox browser and set them to auto-refresh at the same time. The fact that their servers couldn't stand up to a simulation of 5,000 people clicking 'refresh' at the same time doesn't constitute a violation of law. The key word in the sentence is 'TRIED' not 'successfully carried out' My bad. You *attempted* to commit a felony. Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers there, chief.
In that case, never mind. It's much more likely that you executed a denial of service attack on your *own* machine than on eBay. I mean, you do know that Firefox has an upper limit on how many connections it will actually open at the same time, right? (Go to about:config and filter for "connect.") All other connections are just placed in a queue until Firefox has an available slot. The slowdown was entirely on your own machine and LAN.
I mean, honestly... Did you really think that you were being some sort of 1337 super-hax0r by using *one* machine on a single home or school connection to bog down one of the largest e-commerce sites on the planet?
(Oh, also, your proposed Million Loser March is more likely to DoS your proxy service than eBay itself.)
The law's tried it before anyways. I run rings around them every time, simpyly because most judges aren't smart enough to know what they're trying to charge me for. Sure thing, kid. Keep saying things like that in a public forum. We're all in awe of your brilliance and eagerly await to see the way in which your intellect would dazzle the courtroom.
Note that a lot of this will be changing for 4e. They're backing away from a true "open" license in favor of a new license they've tentatively called the Game System License. They will also not be releasing an SRD which is little more than the PHB with a little Product Identity filed off. They do NOT want people just playing with the SRD and not buying the PHB anymore, so that's going to go away.
See the Pit Fiend they put forth, which basically is a WoW ripoff. See how most of the monsters have a set of feats that basically boil down to "do this, then this, then this, lather, rinse, repeat" with no tactical points.
I've never played WoW. I don't have the free time to commit to an MMO, and I never will. In you mind, what exactly about this is like WoW, and why is it bad that it is like it?
From my perspective, a high-level D&D combat doesn't usually last more than 4 rounds in 3e, so exactly what is the use of giving a Pit Fiend a hideously long list of abilities that will have you chasing across the PHB's spell list to understand when only a few of them are going to actually be used? I personally like the approach to reducing clutter in the new edition.
Also, keep in mind that 4e fights are intended to involve more monsters in a single fight than 3e. This means that tactics will largely rely on the mix and positioning of monsters instead of the extensive abilities of a single monster. I think it will work out better in the long run.
[L]ast I tried a DOS on eBay for fucking with my mother's account, it only took a mere 5,000 simulataneous requests every ten seconds to DOS them. Err, did you forget to click the Post Anonymously checkbox before admitting to an act which may carry civil and/or criminal penalties?
Looks like somebody wants more funding and is raising the China bogeyman to do it. I for one am disturbed by the potential for Chinese manufacturing practices to lead to a tainted and unreliable product due to cost cutting and corruption. Gentlemen, we face the threat that the world may have deal with a true Gray Goo Gai Pan disaster.
The Great Leap Forward was Chairman Mao's utterly disastrous attempt at kickstarting the Chinese economy from an agrarian society into an industrial society in the late 1950s. The Great Leap Forward essentially destroyed the Chinese economy and delayed China's emergence as a major economic power for decades. Read more history.
Ah. I see your problem. You're a "High Cinema" snob who's too "good" for an 80's popcorn classic, and you're too stubborn to admit that you were really just piggy-backing on the first post to elevate the attention to your post like some sort of forum remora once someone pointed out your ignorance of the joke.
Congratulations. You have now made a fool of yourself in front of a crowd by trying to prove that you're better than them for being ignorant of "low cinema." Few things are more sad than a defense of ignorance. Also, giving your autobiography in response to questions about your taste on the internet just shows your own insecurity. Lurk more.
*Pfft* I remember all that. You've got to come up with something a little more impressive than all of that for a 3-digit ID. I mean, you're like someone in their 60s talking about how they remember when Duran Duran was at the top of the charts and denim jackets were in.
The idea behind Spore is this; you are God, the Alpha, Omega and Almighty. You are omniscient, omnipresent and capable of creating a rock so big you can't possibly lift it. Then you can lift it. You're God and that type of feat is your bread and butter. [...] In the climax to this universe in a box you'll be aiding your civilisation in spreading to other stars and planets. But what does God need with a starship?
To cut the above short, threads like this are basically useless for shedding light rather than heat, because the majority of contributors are IANALs who'll try to (incorrectly) apply pseudo-logical reason to cover their lack of legal expertise. I think, that with this post, I am at this point thoroughly pwned. I'm going to go crawl back into my pit and study more.
If there was a breach, it was only the failure to notify the buyer of the order cancellation. I'm not sure from the contract terms whether a court would find there was a breach. The terms may be read as suggesting Amazon's current policy of notification rather than binding themselves to do so. In any event, a buyer would not be able to recover for the contract price - the best available price because that does not reflect the damages actually suffered. The buyer's expectation damages ought to put him in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed. Since Amazon's only failure was to notify him of the order cancellation, damages should be assessed based on the harm which resulted from lack of notification. Very well put. I bow to your superior expertise on this was well as the UCC commentary that I didn't quote. This is what happens when one posts right before passing out to sleep.
Another element of a contract it the "meeting of the minds". Where one party clearly makes an unreasonable pricing mistake, contract law allows the contract to be repudiated. Well put. I stand corrected. I originally thought that this would be within reason for a DVD boxed set, but then I followed the link to the product, realized as the summary noted that it was actually a music CD boxed set and that the picture makes amply clear that there's no way it could sell for so little.
Well, the complete and total lack of evidence would quickly get any case dismissed, but assuming that they did complete such a transaction, it would be a fact that the contract at some point existed, even if its existence cannot be proven (without some discovery motions which probably wouldn't be granted).
That's why I called it a "phantom" contract. A court is probably going to be quite skeptical with the idea that such a contract ever existed unless a lot of plaintiffs got together to make the same allegations.
Well, your situation doesn't really apply since there's no shipping guarantee from Amazon. They could ship your delivery tomorrow, or they could ship it six months from now. Their shipping policies are pretty clear on that -- you have no basis to rely on their shipping for a scheduled event.
All it might do is fix the market price at the point at which you had to go buy TVs from somewhere else. That said, I'm not sure that your case could move forward on grounds of reasonability. After all, DVD boxes sets are regularly priced in the $40 range. Plasma TVs are almost never priced in the $30 range. There's a question of good faith here.
Since we've established that there was one... By that, I mean a contract -- not a breach. Sorry, that was error from rewording another part of the post.
Your points are all really irrelevant to whether or not they performed the contract. Harm, for purposes of recovery, is the difference between the price listed and the next best price. Also, an industry standard practice of not living up to one's contracts is generally not held to be a legal excuse for not doing so if someone calls you on it.
Also, a contract of this sort is generally considered to be binding when the site gives you order confirmation, and you submit it. At that point, offer and acceptance has been had (even under the older UCC Article 2). The time at which they charge you or not is irrelevant in this situation.
The question essentially is, "Was there a breach of contract?" Since we've established that there was one, the question of whether deleting an order without sending you a message is a breach needs to be answered. Most likely (not knowing any further information about their ordering policies), it seems like there would be one under the notification rule the earlier poster made.
However, It's really a tempest in a teacup because no one is likely to sue them for it, and without a print-out of the order confirmation, there's no evidence the contract was ever made. Courts are unlikely to allow people to claim phantom orders on websites without any proof, and most states would make you go to small claims court for damages this small (which wouldn't allow you the discovery necessary to make Amazon.com cough up the proof that they did it). For a mere $350 bucks, most sane people wouldn't bother.
If you sell and ship regularly, then getting surprised at FedEx is no excuse. You should know how to price things by now as an experienced merchant, so #1 & #2 are no excuse.
#3 & #4 are nothing less than sleazy used car salesman scamming. You are using deceptive practices to hide the real cost of a product you're selling from a customer. You are not negotiating your sale in good faith.
Slashdot Mirror
Nader cost Gore the election by taking away a larger margin of liberal voters than Bush won each of those states by. If either state had gone to Gore, we wouldn't have had this bunch of yahoos in office when the planes took off on September 11th, and this country might still be respected in the world. At the very least a consumer advocate like Nader wouldn't have managed to let Bush put foxes in all the henhouses in Washington, thus directly curbstomping the very cause that made him famous. Besides, I can guarantee you that Lieberman is every bit as evil as Cheney. THAT'S what cost the democrats the election. Oh, Lieberman's a political opportunist and quite a bit of an old-school neocon (as in the pre-Reagan sense), but there are some huge degrees of difference there, and I can't imagine him wielding anything like the unprecedented power and influence that Cheney has as vice president, which has largely been a ceremonial role in the past.
Also, I'd like to see you back up the "Lieberman cost the election" theory. The numbers on Nader's influence in NH & FL are easy to find, but I'd like to see some numbers on Lieberman. I can't imagine that that many people were terribly influenced by him.
After all Rick Santorum's campaign directly funded putting a Green party candidate on the ballot in 2006 to try to take votes away from the Democratic front-runner, Casey. It didn't work out for him in the end, but it shows just how little principle was involved with either side of that cold-blooded, strategic transaction.
I'll bet we see a lot of Republican money flowing into Nader's coffers if he announces a run.
I'd like to hear more about methods of breaking out of a chroot jail without becoming root during the process.
In that case, never mind. It's much more likely that you executed a denial of service attack on your *own* machine than on eBay. I mean, you do know that Firefox has an upper limit on how many connections it will actually open at the same time, right? (Go to about:config and filter for "connect.") All other connections are just placed in a queue until Firefox has an available slot. The slowdown was entirely on your own machine and LAN.
I mean, honestly... Did you really think that you were being some sort of 1337 super-hax0r by using *one* machine on a single home or school connection to bog down one of the largest e-commerce sites on the planet?
(Oh, also, your proposed Million Loser March is more likely to DoS your proxy service than eBay itself.) The law's tried it before anyways. I run rings around them every time, simpyly because most judges aren't smart enough to know what they're trying to charge me for. Sure thing, kid. Keep saying things like that in a public forum. We're all in awe of your brilliance and eagerly await to see the way in which your intellect would dazzle the courtroom.
Link to the Software FAQ.
Note that a lot of this will be changing for 4e. They're backing away from a true "open" license in favor of a new license they've tentatively called the Game System License. They will also not be releasing an SRD which is little more than the PHB with a little Product Identity filed off. They do NOT want people just playing with the SRD and not buying the PHB anymore, so that's going to go away.
See the Pit Fiend they put forth, which basically is a WoW ripoff. See how most of the monsters have a set of feats that basically boil down to "do this, then this, then this, lather, rinse, repeat" with no tactical points.
I've never played WoW. I don't have the free time to commit to an MMO, and I never will. In you mind, what exactly about this is like WoW, and why is it bad that it is like it?
From my perspective, a high-level D&D combat doesn't usually last more than 4 rounds in 3e, so exactly what is the use of giving a Pit Fiend a hideously long list of abilities that will have you chasing across the PHB's spell list to understand when only a few of them are going to actually be used? I personally like the approach to reducing clutter in the new edition.
Also, keep in mind that 4e fights are intended to involve more monsters in a single fight than 3e. This means that tactics will largely rely on the mix and positioning of monsters instead of the extensive abilities of a single monster. I think it will work out better in the long run.
The Great Leap Forward was Chairman Mao's utterly disastrous attempt at kickstarting the Chinese economy from an agrarian society into an industrial society in the late 1950s. The Great Leap Forward essentially destroyed the Chinese economy and delayed China's emergence as a major economic power for decades. Read more history.
Ah. I see your problem. You're a "High Cinema" snob who's too "good" for an 80's popcorn classic, and you're too stubborn to admit that you were really just piggy-backing on the first post to elevate the attention to your post like some sort of forum remora once someone pointed out your ignorance of the joke.
Congratulations. You have now made a fool of yourself in front of a crowd by trying to prove that you're better than them for being ignorant of "low cinema." Few things are more sad than a defense of ignorance. Also, giving your autobiography in response to questions about your taste on the internet just shows your own insecurity. Lurk more.
*Pfft* I remember all that. You've got to come up with something a little more impressive than all of that for a 3-digit ID.
I mean, you're like someone in their 60s talking about how they remember when Duran Duran was at the top of the charts and denim jackets were in.
[...]
In the climax to this universe in a box you'll be aiding your civilisation in spreading to other stars and planets. But what does God need with a starship?
If you don't see the difference between bottom-up power structures and top-down power structures, then I really hope you don't vote.
They make cocktail weenies?
Slashdot has ads? Wow, I almost forgot!
I'm going to go crawl back into my pit and study more.
Yeah. Not a chance in hell in this case.
Well, the complete and total lack of evidence would quickly get any case dismissed, but assuming that they did complete such a transaction, it would be a fact that the contract at some point existed, even if its existence cannot be proven (without some discovery motions which probably wouldn't be granted).
That's why I called it a "phantom" contract. A court is probably going to be quite skeptical with the idea that such a contract ever existed unless a lot of plaintiffs got together to make the same allegations.
Well, your situation doesn't really apply since there's no shipping guarantee from Amazon. They could ship your delivery tomorrow, or they could ship it six months from now. Their shipping policies are pretty clear on that -- you have no basis to rely on their shipping for a scheduled event.
All it might do is fix the market price at the point at which you had to go buy TVs from somewhere else. That said, I'm not sure that your case could move forward on grounds of reasonability. After all, DVD boxes sets are regularly priced in the $40 range. Plasma TVs are almost never priced in the $30 range. There's a question of good faith here.
Your points are all really irrelevant to whether or not they performed the contract. Harm, for purposes of recovery, is the difference between the price listed and the next best price. Also, an industry standard practice of not living up to one's contracts is generally not held to be a legal excuse for not doing so if someone calls you on it.
Also, a contract of this sort is generally considered to be binding when the site gives you order confirmation, and you submit it. At that point, offer and acceptance has been had (even under the older UCC Article 2). The time at which they charge you or not is irrelevant in this situation.
The question essentially is, "Was there a breach of contract?" Since we've established that there was one, the question of whether deleting an order without sending you a message is a breach needs to be answered. Most likely (not knowing any further information about their ordering policies), it seems like there would be one under the notification rule the earlier poster made.
However, It's really a tempest in a teacup because no one is likely to sue them for it, and without a print-out of the order confirmation, there's no evidence the contract was ever made. Courts are unlikely to allow people to claim phantom orders on websites without any proof, and most states would make you go to small claims court for damages this small (which wouldn't allow you the discovery necessary to make Amazon.com cough up the proof that they did it). For a mere $350 bucks, most sane people wouldn't bother.
If you sell and ship regularly, then getting surprised at FedEx is no excuse. You should know how to price things by now as an experienced merchant, so #1 & #2 are no excuse.
#3 & #4 are nothing less than sleazy used car salesman scamming. You are using deceptive practices to hide the real cost of a product you're selling from a customer. You are not negotiating your sale in good faith.