> scientology is not a religion, it's a business. if you want to drive them out of > business, compete with them. make up a story that is even crazier...
How about one that involves priests who can magically transform cookies into human flesh which the followers then eat? Think that would fly?
While it is true that it is illegal to set other people's property on fire without their permission, I don't need a license to light up my barbecue, turn on my furnace, or use my acetylene torch (and the latter, correctly adjusted, can generate quite a few buckyballs and nanotubes).
So we should all just squat in the mud until the sun goes out, living in grass huts and eating windfalls (but only in the manner of our grandfathers: Don't you dare do anything new.)
If you believe that carbon nanotubes are dangerous get some (they are available for sale) and demonstrate their hazardous nature in controlled experiments. BTW buckyballs and carbon nanotubes occur naturally in soot. You might want to look into outlawing fire.
Terrible, isn't it? People doing things without permission! Unregulated activity! We must bring this irresponsible "scientific research" under government control! After all, we know that government can be trusted to never do anything irresponsible such as, oh, I don't know, maybe spraying crowds of people with poison gas or setting off nuclear explosives in the atmosphere? And no government would ever enslave large numbers of young men and send them off to try to kill young men similarly enslaved by another government. No. Let's have government control everything. We know we can trust them, after all. Just look at history.
> In the UK, they probably wouldn't be allowed to put the clause in the purchase contract...
Not even if they agreed to reimburse you for the cost of the killed software?
> that's what our Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation is for. It > places restrictions on companies that enter into cookie-cutter (ie not individually > negotiated) contracts with consumers, and prevents the company from attempting to insert > clauses that are unfair and wouldn't be accepted in a contract between equals.
That's pretty much covered here by the common law on "contracts of adhesion" and "unconsciousable contracts". There are "consumer protection" statutes that might apply as well, of course. I'm fairly sure (IANAL) that the contract would fly with a reimbursement clause. It might fly even without it, but they'd be risking a class-action lawsuit.
That would mean that they could remove stuff that was not installed via their store.
I suspect that the phone contains the equivalent of a "package manager" for programs installed via their "store" and the the "kill switch" does the equivalent of 'apt-get remove --purge ' to kill .
> But that being said, I don't think it's a terrible feature, and I'm sure that in the > near future, there will be plenty of ways to install software onto Android without going > through the app store, and thereby take Google out of that part of the loop.
But Google will still have a backdoor into your phone. Until someone reverse-engineers it or they release the source you won't know what they can do with it.
...someone will be able to distribute a patch that disables the kill switch. If no such patch is possible or violates the purchase contract then the "phone" is not Open Source.
If such a patch is possible but results in termination of service the system is technically Opne Source but useless as such.
Exactly. IPV6 will probably need replacing in 20 or 30 years, but it probably won't be for lack of address space. It will be due to some irreparable failing that we cannot now anticipate.
Slashdot Mirror
On Linux xdotool will do what you want.
> Would there be anything gained by tolerating more diverse surfaces if you're never going
> to use them?
I can think of none.
> I can recommend everyone to go out and buy one, it's great.
I second that. I can't imagine why anyone who has ever tried a trackball would go back to a mouse.
> The Cyborg has a intrusive shelf on the bottom...
Don't you own a Dremel tool?
> scientology is not a religion, it's a business. if you want to drive them out of
> business, compete with them. make up a story that is even crazier...
How about one that involves priests who can magically transform cookies into human flesh which the followers then eat? Think that would fly?
While it is true that it is illegal to set other people's property on fire without their permission, I don't need a license to light up my barbecue, turn on my furnace, or use my acetylene torch (and the latter, correctly adjusted, can generate quite a few buckyballs and nanotubes).
So we should all just squat in the mud until the sun goes out, living in grass huts and eating windfalls (but only in the manner of our grandfathers: Don't you dare do anything new.)
If you believe that carbon nanotubes are dangerous get some (they are available for sale) and demonstrate their hazardous nature in controlled experiments. BTW buckyballs and carbon nanotubes occur naturally in soot. You might want to look into outlawing fire.
Terrible, isn't it? People doing things without permission! Unregulated activity! We must bring this irresponsible "scientific research" under government control! After all, we know that government can be trusted to never do anything irresponsible such as, oh, I don't know, maybe spraying crowds of people with poison gas or setting off nuclear explosives in the atmosphere? And no government would ever enslave large numbers of young men and send them off to try to kill young men similarly enslaved by another government. No. Let's have government control everything. We know we can trust them, after all. Just look at history.
Prior restraint
> Americans, what's the best way forward to make my voice heard?!
Point out that this would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. That will kill it dead.
Oh. Wait...
But of course that's what they'd want you to think, isn't it?
If you were the CIA you'd be using AES as that is the US Government standard.
...is obviously what we need. Get to work, Bruce.
Backed up toilet?
> In the UK, they probably wouldn't be allowed to put the clause in the purchase contract...
Not even if they agreed to reimburse you for the cost of the killed software?
> that's what our Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation is for. It
> places restrictions on companies that enter into cookie-cutter (ie not individually
> negotiated) contracts with consumers, and prevents the company from attempting to insert
> clauses that are unfair and wouldn't be accepted in a contract between equals.
That's pretty much covered here by the common law on "contracts of adhesion" and "unconsciousable contracts". There are "consumer protection" statutes that might apply as well, of course. I'm fairly sure (IANAL) that the contract would fly with a reimbursement clause. It might fly even without it, but they'd be risking a class-action lawsuit.
So can you install your own "application" that disables the kill switch?
That would mean that they could remove stuff that was not installed via their store.
I suspect that the phone contains the equivalent of a "package manager" for programs installed via their "store" and the the "kill switch" does the equivalent of 'apt-get remove --purge ' to kill .
> If Google deleted an application that I'd previously paid for, they'd be skating on some
> very thin leagal ice.
They would in the US as well if they did not put permission for that in the purchase contract. Is that not the case in the UK?
> But that being said, I don't think it's a terrible feature, and I'm sure that in the
> near future, there will be plenty of ways to install software onto Android without going
> through the app store, and thereby take Google out of that part of the loop.
But Google will still have a backdoor into your phone. Until someone reverse-engineers it or they release the source you won't know what they can do with it.
...someone will be able to distribute a patch that disables the kill switch. If no such patch is possible or violates the purchase contract then the "phone" is not Open Source.
If such a patch is possible but results in termination of service the system is technically Opne Source but useless as such.
So Webmasters are not human? I've often suspected that.
Exactly. IPV6 will probably need replacing in 20 or 30 years, but it probably won't be for lack of address space. It will be due to some irreparable failing that we cannot now anticipate.
It may just be a minor bug in their software. They have little reason to make efficent use of their bots a high priority.
> And why can't some authority just make a purchase and then trace where the money's going to track them down?
They could, but they are too busy looking under their beds for "terrorists".
> Is selling this pseudo-medical crap and prescription drugs even legal?
No.
Not that simple. Almost any property or rights that you acquire and could sell for real money can be taxed as income.
> That question is easy for a human...
I know several that could not handle it.