There have been a few very narrow cases involving the installation of software from purchased media. I don't believe that there has yet been a suit filed over a Web site TOS agreement or over an EULA on downloaded software. As I understand it the existing rulings are too narrow to set useful precedents.
> Call me crazy, but since you built a device to allow your cat to agree to EULAs, > wouldn't that mean you authorized the cat to act on your behalf - regardless of how > inept a decision maker it may be?
Cats are property. Property cannot be "authorized", cannot "act", and cannot make decisions. The cat is merely a tool she uses to push the button.
"I didn't sign that contract. My pen did. Sue it."
...pushing the button with a stick. Most of the EULAs and TOS that she has used her cat to click are probably unenforceable but for other reasons, not this.
They are a private company and can do whatever they want (within the limits of the law). This includes doing stupid things and suffering the consequences.
> Community organization and political action has once again carried the day.
People threatening to take their business elsewhere is not "political action".
> Just because you haven't found Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist, I can't find most of > the constellations in the night sky but apparently they exist.
Like God, the constellations are illusions that exist only in the human imagination.
Microsoft Windows is optional. You can easily opt out of it: there are many Web sites devoted to helping you do so. It need not even cost you any money.
> You're still missing the distinction between failing to observe (because we don't have > enough sensitivity), and having enough sensitivity to say it is definitely not there.
But we do have enough sensitivity. The Standard Model predicts that LHC will find the Higgs.
The only reason politicians fund physics is that it gave them the bomb. The way to revive their flagging enthusiasm is to give them another superweapon.
It's more like "License my patent, or get sued after the operation and end up paying me somewhat more money than you would have if you'd bought a license."
And some lawyers would make a pile of money at the expense of Facebook and the porno company. A few attorneys general would probably get themselves so publicity as well.
Slashdot Mirror
There have been a few very narrow cases involving the installation of software from purchased media. I don't believe that there has yet been a suit filed over a Web site TOS agreement or over an EULA on downloaded software. As I understand it the existing rulings are too narrow to set useful precedents.
> Call me crazy, but since you built a device to allow your cat to agree to EULAs,
> wouldn't that mean you authorized the cat to act on your behalf - regardless of how
> inept a decision maker it may be?
Cats are property. Property cannot be "authorized", cannot "act", and cannot make decisions. The cat is merely a tool she uses to push the button.
"I didn't sign that contract. My pen did. Sue it."
...pushing the button with a stick. Most of the EULAs and TOS that she has used her cat to click are probably unenforceable but for other reasons, not this.
Have you considered the possibility that you are seeing the opinions of two different groups pf people?
They are a private company and can do whatever they want (within the limits of the law). This includes doing stupid things and suffering the consequences.
> Community organization and political action has once again carried the day.
People threatening to take their business elsewhere is not "political action".
> And by quarrying the fossils in bulk sections, the geomorphic relationship is completely
> lost.
I wouldn't have thought that there would be a whole lot of stratigraphy in a tar pit to begin with.
> Just because you haven't found Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist, I can't find most of
> the constellations in the night sky but apparently they exist.
Like God, the constellations are illusions that exist only in the human imagination.
> If it can be defeated with a 2D picture, why not up the ante and ensure that the target
> is 3d by scanning it with a cheap laser?
Because the whole point was to offer biometric identification without spending any money on hardware. The camera was already there.
> Are you saying that we should remove the photos from our IDs?
You probably can't convince a security guard that you are me by pasting a photo of me to your forhead.
> If you create a blog, you might be able to get a grant.
And then again you might not. Depends on whether or not the government likes what you are saying in your blog.
> By the looks of things you're conflating "net neutrality" with "any government
> regulation of the Internet".
That is because "net neutrality" is a euphemism for "government regulation of the internet".
..."Personnel"?
Microsoft Windows is optional. You can easily opt out of it: there are many Web sites devoted to helping you do so. It need not even cost you any money.
> You're still missing the distinction between failing to observe (because we don't have
> enough sensitivity), and having enough sensitivity to say it is definitely not there.
But we do have enough sensitivity. The Standard Model predicts that LHC will find the Higgs.
The only reason politicians fund physics is that it gave them the bomb. The way to revive their flagging enthusiasm is to give them another superweapon.
> Just like aliens only visit [the USA].
Who's responsible for all those crop circles in the UK then?
It might be just out of reach of Fermilab but if LHC can't find it i think significant revisions will be required.
They aren't searching. They are performing experiments for which current theory predicts certain results.
Higgs
The newsies will never understand this, but it would actually be more interesting and significant if both Fermilab and LHC fail to detect the Higgs.
Repealing the DRM clause of the DMCA would suffice.
It's more like "License my patent, or get sued after the operation and end up paying me somewhat more money than you would have if you'd bought a license."
You are.
And some lawyers would make a pile of money at the expense of Facebook and the porno company. A few attorneys general would probably get themselves so publicity as well.
The recipient of a letter does not have the right to make copies of it.