You're very right. Consenting adults do have every write to enter into a contract. But eBay (and every other site I've ever seen) also tack on the bottom their right to change their mind to whatever the damn well please. Even if I enter into the agreement knowing that they won't give away my info, who knows what they'll be doing 6 months from now.
As long as the click-through agreements can be changed at a whim by only one of the parties, I won't treat it like a binding contract
-- Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...
Cry me a river. The 1996 Telecommunications Act that these baby bells lobbied their hearts out for is the reason for this scenario. They wanted into the long distance market, and traded the local market for it. Oh, shit, the long distance market's collapsing and local-loop distribution is the way to go. "We don't like the laws we got passed. We gotta lobby the other way so that we can chase the new moving target."
They got exactly what they wanted with the legislators in 1996 and can't stand what they created. Personally, I'm waiting for Grande Communication to get to my house and I'll be away from the whole frickin' mess and clear of conscious.
Why can't I go (read) anywhere without someone saying "Hey, I knew this guy back at NCSA/UIUC who used a Braille outputter and had a seeing-eye dog under his desk".
You're confusing 'wanting to make changes' with 'having changes forced upon'. The big issue is Lucas changing the movie (again) and saying "No! Really! This is the right and only version! Those other ones don't exist! No you can't have them." I can't hop into the Lucas CVS repository and pull out a previous version.
It looks like a well drafted letter. I do think you should include that you are a voter and will be supporting his opponents if he continues in his current path.
I applaud you for following through with legislation that you truly believe in despite the overwhelming odds. This takes a tremendous amount of intestinal fortitude. Good luck in your quest.
You must understand, however, that I do not support your quest. The SSSCA legislation presumes that anyone with an unencrypted media player, computer, or consumer device would engage in rampant piracy. It does not matter that I wish to use my duly purchased movie in the appropriate manner. I'm still treated as a criminal. This would be equivalent to assuming that every Senator that received $300,000 from special interest groups would craft legislation favoring that group. Being a Senator, you can see the falacy in the previous statement. The average Senator is above such things; they write laws for the betterment of the US and not specific interest groups. Likewise, the average consumer is above piracy and should be treated as such.
Anyway, good luck in your legislative quest. Don't let them tell you its against the interests of the United States. You know what's good for us.
>Basically, the one question that there have been tons upon tons of papers in the
>recent literature for is "where is this gigantic particle accelerator nearby us?"
Maybe its this interocitor I've got here in my basement. I was using it to make coffee. Sorry about the high energy particles. I'll only make decaf in the future
Right, because the FBI really wants "appropriate legal process" to mean "need a warrent". Remember the stink they put up when the infrared camera pictures of someone's home were about to be thrown out? They'll slide across the letter of the law as close as they can until someone slaps 'em for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets see here...
> no antivirus software
And no viruses
> no agents for our desktop license management
And software that doesn't require licenses
What was the problem again?!?!
- Tash
You're very right. Consenting adults do have every write to enter into a contract. But eBay (and every other site I've ever seen) also tack on the bottom their right to change their mind to whatever the damn well please. Even if I enter into the agreement knowing that they won't give away my info, who knows what they'll be doing 6 months from now.
As long as the click-through agreements can be changed at a whim by only one of the parties, I won't treat it like a binding contract
-- Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...Yes, beat the horse! It had it coming!
Cry me a river. The 1996 Telecommunications Act that these baby bells lobbied their hearts out for is the reason for this scenario. They wanted into the long distance market, and traded the local market for it. Oh, shit, the long distance market's collapsing and local-loop distribution is the way to go. "We don't like the laws we got passed. We gotta lobby the other way so that we can chase the new moving target."
They got exactly what they wanted with the legislators in 1996 and can't stand what they created. Personally, I'm waiting for Grande Communication to get to my house and I'll be away from the whole frickin' mess and clear of conscious.
- TashWhy can't I go (read) anywhere without someone saying "Hey, I knew this guy back at NCSA/UIUC who used a Braille outputter and had a seeing-eye dog under his desk".
You think I'm joking? Who else knows Keith?
- Tash
You're confusing 'wanting to make changes' with 'having changes forced upon'. The big issue is Lucas changing the movie (again) and saying "No! Really! This is the right and only version! Those other ones don't exist! No you can't have them." I can't hop into the Lucas CVS repository and pull out a previous version.
Tash
It looks like a well drafted letter. I do think you should include that you are a voter and will be supporting his opponents if he continues in his current path.
Tashanna
Sen. Fritz Hollings,
I applaud you for following through with legislation that you truly believe in despite the overwhelming odds. This takes a tremendous amount of intestinal fortitude. Good luck in your quest.
You must understand, however, that I do not support your quest. The SSSCA legislation presumes that anyone with an unencrypted media player, computer, or consumer device would engage in rampant piracy. It does not matter that I wish to use my duly purchased movie in the appropriate manner. I'm still treated as a criminal. This would be equivalent to assuming that every Senator that received $300,000 from special interest groups would craft legislation favoring that group. Being a Senator, you can see the falacy in the previous statement. The average Senator is above such things; they write laws for the betterment of the US and not specific interest groups. Likewise, the average consumer is above piracy and should be treated as such.
Anyway, good luck in your legislative quest. Don't let them tell you its against the interests of the United States. You know what's good for us.
Sincerely,
Tashanna
>Basically, the one question that there have been tons upon tons of papers in the
>recent literature for is "where is this gigantic particle accelerator nearby us?"
Maybe its this interocitor I've got here in my basement. I was using it to make coffee. Sorry about the high energy particles. I'll only make decaf in the future
- Tash
Right, because the FBI really wants "appropriate legal process" to mean "need a warrent". Remember the stink they put up when the infrared camera pictures of someone's home were about to be thrown out? They'll slide across the letter of the law as close as they can until someone slaps 'em for it.
- Tash