Would that fly, especially for games that you did not do anything wrong?
I doubt it.
Are the TOS of the box in large enough print that nobody could reasonably have missed them? If not then how can they claim you agreed to them when you purchased it?
I would think that requiring you to agree to the TOS before you are allowed online would be enough to show you agreed to them. You might not have when you bought the game, but going online would be reasonable proof that you were aware of them and chose to accept them in exchange for online access.
If the money you paid is "damages" for violating the TOS then it must be the same for everyone. Yet if you have more than one game you get penalized more so you are not treating people fairly.
There's no reason the dollar amount must be the same - if you violated the TOS and have more than 1 game then EA theoretically loses more money by banning you and so the damages are higher. I don't agree with that but can see how one could make that argument.
Usually contracts are required to "be reasonable". This is the way that online retailers get out of selling you that laptop which they accidentally priced as $15 instead of $1500 - it is completely unreasonable to expect to get it for $15. In the same way it is completely unreasonable to ban you from playing a game you bought because you swore on an online forum.
It's not unreasonable, the forums are their property and they have a right to operate them as they see fit; just as anyone has a right to ban someone from their private property if they behave in a fashion the owner finds objectionable or disruptive to other customers
Of course you need a high priced lawyer to make these arguments in court so why bother with that expense, just don't buy EA games.
That's the beauty of the marketplace - piss off customers and you'll suffer eventually. OTOH, if customers find that banning eliminates a few people who cause more grief than they are worth than EA may well find that it was a good idea.
I take objection to your "OSS" doesn't innovate line (that I hear way too often). Let me run down some stuff:
List of good examples snipped
A plethora of other stuff which was really too revolutionary to be accepted and ended up dying off because it didn't fit in the WIMP mold.
FOSS comes up with innovative new stuff all the time. The problem with really innovative stuff, though, is that people aren't used to it and don't accept it easily.
First, I did not say OSS does not innovate, but did say many OSS projects are not. Most people do not care about OSS, and free is only so much of a draw. For mainstream desktop applications the average user worries that it won't work in the Win/Mac environment (which is false) and so don't even try it; if they are aware of its existence.
Which brings up another challenge OSS faces - getting people to know it is available. It's generally a well kept secret so it's not even considered by most users. Until people are aware of what it can do it will remain relegated to the margins. I'll give you an example - a local school teacher told the class they'll need PowerPoint for their projects. Until I pointed out OO and NeoOffice can do the same things she did not even know their were alternatives and parents need not shell out $100 for Office.
I see far too many people undervalue the idea of marketing - when that's what FOSS really needs. Commercial products can simply adopt neat ideas that come out of the OSS community - the community needs to convince users they offer a better alternative. Great ideas are useless if you can't get people to adopt them.
As for innovation - that's where a FOSS product, in the mainstream market (Office / Photoshop / Desktop) could really make a splash by offering something radically better and attracting the mainstream presses attention. I do contend that would probably require a company behind it driving the process towards a goal; rather than a random walk down code street.
The advantage of FOSS is that the developers are not held to a narrow single corporate vision and goal, the disadvantage is the developers are not held to a narrow single corporate vision. The challenge is to get the talent to agree on a vision and then keep pursuing it. Like herding cats, that's easier said than done.
As a result, I think the adoption of Linux as a desktop OS will be slow and may never reach a critical mass; and most OSS will remain the choice of the more tech aware users.
Finally, you got to love/., where:
Disagree with post about OSS: -1 Overrated
Can't make a cogent counterargument: -1 Flamebait
Don't want others to read the post: -1 Troll
Thankfully, a few people are open to differing viewpoints and I have Karma to burn.
IANAL but I do have legal training. I doubt very much that the "damages" argument would fly. I can not even begin to imagine how that could work, legally speaking.
My guess is they're betting on nobody going to court over this.
I'm not familiar with EA's EULA; but my guess is that they would argue that their damages are equal to what they would have been paid if the user had remained in good standing for the term of their subscription. They may even have a liquidated damages clause; which would be up to a court to decide if the terms were reasonable and did not unjustly enrich EA.
I agree that most people won't go to court since the amount is so small.
So, they take away something I paid for - will they refund? Probably not. I wonder how that would play out in a court of law.
My guess is they would argue you agreed to the TOS which allows them to ban you; and that the money you paid was damages for violating the TOS and hence non-refundable.
Would that fly, especially for games that you did not do anything wrong? Who knows, certainly not me since IANAL.
People claiming Linux has difficulty moving to the mainstream have not worked recently with real data centres making money for big companies.
To state that Linux is not mainstream is ludicrous nowadays, Linux is a recognized solution, it may or may not be used, but is an option no longer laughed at in any serious company.
Considering the original discussion revolved around desktop migration data center usage of Linux is not "mainstream" in this context. Specialized uses where companies make money off of support is an area that OSS can thrive, since the money is not in the software but the support.
The desktop, OTOH, is just the opposite and an area where OSS will continue to struggle to gain acceptance.
You've totally missed the point of the open source model. Linux doesn't *need* a profitable parent company. Projects like PostgreSQL, FreeBSD, the Linux kernel itself and others prove that companies are not needed in order to create excellent software. Debian existed long before Ubuntu, and will live long after it, should Ubuntu die. If Ubuntu dies, you can be damn sure a community will spring up to take the slack up now that demand for an apt based distro that isn't 3 years behind has been proven and an appetite created.
While OSS certainly produces good software; in many ways it's a self licking ice cream cone - it can create a self sustaining community that finds it satisfies their needs but has trouble moving beyond that into the mainstream. They are often content in copying the features they find useful in closed source commercial products but see no need to really innovate.
As a result, many OSS projects remain somewhat quirky copies of existing commercial products; with just enough differences to prevent them from being more widely adopted. They simply are not better than the commercial products (other than being free) - so people simply stick with what they currently use or what is the "standard."
Companies, OTOH, provide direction and assess customer needs to drive features - which requires some degree of control and expertise beyond coding. Would OO have gotten to where it is today without Sun? Maybe, but it doesn't hurt to have cash and direction to spur development.
The other issue with communities is that people will eventually lose interest and move on; or decide they don't like the direction and fork development. In the former that eventually leads to orphaned projects with promise (GIMPShop anyone?) and in the latter confusion in the broader market over which one to use.
OSS development is great, but there are some fundamental issues that hinder wider adoption of it.
As for the impossibility of Linux profitability, Red Hat's financial statements show a consistent, increasing profit, quarter over quarter, for the last 2 years. Go troll elsewhere please.
Yes, they realized that the money is in consulting and services; Linux is merely the road in. Not a bad model; and one that many Windows consultants use as well.
I've worked with people during various research projects who decided to encrypt, for some very good reasons. I've had one admin die, and one researcher have a stroke. In both cases they had information necessary for the project that nobody else could get to, even when their hard drives were retrieved. The results are that after several years, the stuff is still sitting somewhere unusable because the people who attempted to get to it were stymied.
Your experience points out why it is necessary to keep the passwords in a secure location for such an eventuality.
We had safe codes that were known to 1 person - with the combo locked away in another safe. That way, if the 1 person could not open the safe; we had a secure backup plan to gain entry.
The goal is to keep the information safe from unauthorized access; storing the keys (hardcopy) in a secure, locked location would still maintain security while providing a way to gain access if needed in an emergency.
If he maintained his innocence and demanded a jury trial he'd have a good chance of being found innocent and if not the penalty would probably be minor. His behaviour just isn't that of a criminal. The whole system is broken. It's a game of bluff, but the stakes are the liberty of innocent people.
While many assume a jury would see things the/. way; would you want to risk 20+ years on the outcome? They're just as likely to think "he broke in and that's no different than if he walked into my house" vs. "He did them a favor by showing the weakness." They'll wonder "Why didn't he just tell them about the problem instead of accessing the system?" If there's any inkling of blackmail as the article alludes to then a jury trial may be a big mistake.
Juries aren't a bunch of tech savvy folks; they're whoever the state can get to show up and serve. Having been in jury pools (but not selected), most of them just want to get this over with; collect their $25/day and go home.
Most cases that request a jury trial do not actually go to trial; since as a judge put it "You, the jury, are the scariest thing in this room - because no one knows how you will decide."
Yea, bluffing is involved, prosecutors want to get plea bargains without going to trial. Judges don't want clogged dockets and the accused may want a sure thing if they think winning isn't a slam dunk.
However, the US government is still restrained by the US Constititution when it comes to US citizens.
Eh? I guess I do not understand your point at all.
It's simple - the US Constitution limits the US ability to restrict US citizen's rights,,no matter where those citizen';s are located.
The Monroe Doctrine said stay of our backyard and we'll leave you alone. The Bush Doctrine says if I don't like what I think you're thinking, I'm going to kick the shit out of you. Foreign policy has never had a basis in the constitution other than setting up the broadest of guidelines for such.
This has nothing to do with foreign policy; it's about the fundemental rights of US citizens wrt actions by the US government.
And the US Constitution actually gives government some broad latitude for action as well as specifically calling out things it cannot do.
And as all the recent attacks on the Bill of Rights demonstrates - gun grabbing, the "Patriot" act, civil forfeiture, warrantless spying, etc. the US Government rarely bothers to restrain itself to the constitution.
The legality of such actions ultimately are up to the SCOTUS; and have recently demonstrated some spine such as their decision in the DC gun case.
Of course, there is a wide range of opinions on exactly how to interpret the US Constitution.
Do you have a point?
As I stated above. You seem to be confusing the extra-territoriality of the US Constitution wrt US citizens and limits placed by it upon their government with US foreign policy and foreign government's ability to take actions within their territory.
Of course, I could just be doing this just to get you to endlessly respond. Your choice.
In short, a US citizen loses none of their constitutional protections from US governmental actions simply because they leave the US.
not sure that makes any sense.
A US citizen is very much under local laws, and the US government is not obligated to do anything should said citizen run afoul of said local laws.
If I am in Harare and exercise my "constitutional right" to free speech and say "Mugabe is a thief" and get put in jail by governmental goons, the US government is *not* going to come to my rescue
You can't seem to understand the difference between US and foreign government actions. You certainly are subject, as I have repeatedly said, to foreign laws when in a foreign country. However, the US government is still restrained by the US Constititution when it comes to US citizens.
In short, in your example the Zimabwian government can do whatever they want; the US government could not exercise prior restraint on your rights under the US Constitution. It's not about you having the same rights in a foreign country as you would in the US; rather it's about limits placed on US government actions. no matter where you are.
a US citizen's rights, under the US constitution, extend worldwide
Nope. This is not the Empire of the USA. I suggest you read the sign prominently posted in your nearest US Embassy in the US citizens section explaining that you are no longer in the United States and what that means in legal terms.
The US embassy is informing citizens that they are subject to the laws of the country they are in; which is different than the constitutional guarantees a US citizen enjoys with respect to the US government's action. The constitution limits the US government's actions wrt to US citizens anywhere, even outside of US territorial limits. In short, a US citizen loses none of their constitutional protections from US governmental actions simply because they leave the US.
It (the US constitution), of course, imposes no limits on foreign government's actions wrt to US citizen's in their territory.
That's imprecise. If you wish to go outside of the US, a US citizen's constitutional rights ends whereever they declare the border to be.
US Embassies are considered to be under US law, but anywhere else...
I'm not sure what you consider imprecise - at any rate, a US citizen's rights, under the US constitution, extend worldwide and limit the US government's ability to act and provides a US citizen the same protections abroad as in the US from US government actions. However, if you leave US territory you are also subject to the laws of whatever country you are also subject to their laws; and US protections do not extend to you under their laws.
You cannot waive your constitutional rights (or ammendments therein)
You certainly can; the US government can't *waive* them for you, regardless of what GW believes.
People waive rights all the time - to jury trials, counsel, etc. The right to search (or more correctly consent for a search) is can be a condition for entry - most (if not all) US military bases have signs stating you consent to a search as a condition of being allowed on base.
If you want to travel by air; a condition of that travel is consenting to searches of person and baggage - your choice is to fly or go by other means.
As with any idea you want to sell, you have to pitch it in terms of what the company wants. Most companies aren't going to be motivated by a philosophical argument. You have to ask yourself: If the company started using open source software, would it have a significant postive effect on the bottom line? If not, your unlikely to succeed.
Wow, a reasonable approach. I'd add "try to understand the person's viewpoint and work with them if you feel you have a better solution than one they are currently using."
Not surprisingly, most/. posts are of the "find a way to stick it to him by going over his head." Great idea - make an enemy and paint a target on you back. All he has to do is wait for you to screw up and you're gone.
Others suggest using it anyway - another great idea. Get fired for installing unauthorized software on a company machine.
Quit? Well, that is an honorable action if you can't live without OSS.
Being an OSS zealot will not get you far in most organization - if you really believe some OSS is a better tool, make a reasoned, cogent argument, after you understand why OSS is resisted, and try to convince the decision maker. Even if you lose you still will be viewed as someone who works with people and wants to find better ways to do things; rather than as some troublemaker who needs to be watched. Welcome to reality.
But more important, why did the controls not respond to the pilots? Why would the computers be programmed to prevent a Stall in an *diving* aircraft?
But even with the autopilot off, the plane's flight control computers still command key controls in order to protect the jet from dangerous conditions, such as stalling, the ATSB said.
Airbus' design philosophy is that the flight control system will maintain the aircraft within the design envelop, preventing a pilot from executing a maneuver that would place the aircraft outside of the allowable envelop. While this is good during normal conditions, emergencies and unexpected problems can cause unintended consequences and possible unplanned impact with the ground. There have been other incidents and accidents resulting from FCS override of pilot commands or responding in a manner that was correct by the programming but wrong for the situation.
It's a fundamental design philosophy - the software can do a better job than humans - that is fundamentally a bad approach to system design in dynamic environments.
Lesson - designers can't anticipate all circumstances that software will face; the ability to manually override and take corrective action is needed for trained operators to be able to make the decisions they are there to make.
Unfortunately, most people play them way to loud so the only technical solution is to limit the output.
However, since many people find louder music *sounds* better unless every device maker does it those who don't may be at a competitive advantage; leading none to do so other than as Apple did as an option; which was probably more about limiting legal liability than anything else.
Well, there are two kinds of people in the US who buy BMWs: those who love driving and scrape every last dime together to buy one, and those who have a lot of money and buy one because they are owned by other rich people.
Yes, and those of use in the former who remember when Bimmer drivers were a relatively small group who flashed their headlights at each as greeting; argued over round vs square tail lights; there was no space in BMWCCA, and drove them because they were great handling cars really wish the yuppies would have fallen in love some other brand.
I actually like hearing about a company that is innovating in the marketplace rather than shouting, "ME2!!!!!!!!" Can't think of the last time I saw $MS actually invent something they couldn't sue, buy out or copy.
MS does that because they can make a ton of money that way - let someone else do the market research for them, and then swoop in and buy or obliterate the innovator if they succeed; and not spend the R&D dollars if they fail.
Overall, not a bad strategy; fast followers can be very successful if they can execute rapidly.
You had me until the "college sports with world wide fan bases". I seriously hope our dear friends in the US of A don't think the rest of the world cares about OSU vs. LSU football, much less baseball, which admittedly have a huge domestic fan base.
Actually, I was referring to the worldwide alumni base of just such universities - including expats, US military, and others who attended such schools and now live abroad.
I realize most non-Americans care as much about US college football as Americans care about soccer; but there are bases of support for each of those sports outside of their traditional markets. I even know a few non-Americans who are big football (our football, not the round ball version) fans.
My main point, however is that they'd now have a way to reach that audience in a targeted fashion as part of a wider base; rather than as it's own small set.
tOSU streams an audio play by play already; video is not that much of a stretch once the legal issues are ironed out and if an existing licensee can do the streaming in a profitable manner they will.
Slashdot Mirror
They are often content in copying the features they find useful in closed source commercial products but see no need to really innovate.
Yeah, like that crazy knock-off Apache...oh, wait...
Yeah, because "often" means every ... oh, wait...
Would that fly, especially for games that you did not do anything wrong?
I doubt it.
I would think that requiring you to agree to the TOS before you are allowed online would be enough to show you agreed to them. You might not have when you bought the game, but going online would be reasonable proof that you were aware of them and chose to accept them in exchange for online access.
There's no reason the dollar amount must be the same - if you violated the TOS and have more than 1 game then EA theoretically loses more money by banning you and so the damages are higher. I don't agree with that but can see how one could make that argument.
It's not unreasonable, the forums are their property and they have a right to operate them as they see fit; just as anyone has a right to ban someone from their private property if they behave in a fashion the owner finds objectionable or disruptive to other customers
Of course you need a high priced lawyer to make these arguments in court so why bother with that expense, just don't buy EA games.
That's the beauty of the marketplace - piss off customers and you'll suffer eventually. OTOH, if customers find that banning eliminates a few people who cause more grief than they are worth than EA may well find that it was a good idea.
I take objection to your "OSS" doesn't innovate line (that I hear way too often). Let me run down some stuff:
FOSS comes up with innovative new stuff all the time. The problem with really innovative stuff, though, is that people aren't used to it and don't accept it easily.
First, I did not say OSS does not innovate, but did say many OSS projects are not. Most people do not care about OSS, and free is only so much of a draw. For mainstream desktop applications the average user worries that it won't work in the Win/Mac environment (which is false) and so don't even try it; if they are aware of its existence.
Which brings up another challenge OSS faces - getting people to know it is available. It's generally a well kept secret so it's not even considered by most users. Until people are aware of what it can do it will remain relegated to the margins. I'll give you an example - a local school teacher told the class they'll need PowerPoint for their projects. Until I pointed out OO and NeoOffice can do the same things she did not even know their were alternatives and parents need not shell out $100 for Office.
I see far too many people undervalue the idea of marketing - when that's what FOSS really needs. Commercial products can simply adopt neat ideas that come out of the OSS community - the community needs to convince users they offer a better alternative. Great ideas are useless if you can't get people to adopt them.
As for innovation - that's where a FOSS product, in the mainstream market (Office / Photoshop / Desktop) could really make a splash by offering something radically better and attracting the mainstream presses attention. I do contend that would probably require a company behind it driving the process towards a goal; rather than a random walk down code street.
The advantage of FOSS is that the developers are not held to a narrow single corporate vision and goal, the disadvantage is the developers are not held to a narrow single corporate vision. The challenge is to get the talent to agree on a vision and then keep pursuing it. Like herding cats, that's easier said than done.
As a result, I think the adoption of Linux as a desktop OS will be slow and may never reach a critical mass; and most OSS will remain the choice of the more tech aware users.
Finally, you got to love /., where:
Thankfully, a few people are open to differing viewpoints and I have Karma to burn.
IANAL but I do have legal training. I doubt very much that the "damages" argument would fly. I can not even begin to imagine how that could work, legally speaking.
My guess is they're betting on nobody going to court over this.
I'm not familiar with EA's EULA; but my guess is that they would argue that their damages are equal to what they would have been paid if the user had remained in good standing for the term of their subscription. They may even have a liquidated damages clause; which would be up to a court to decide if the terms were reasonable and did not unjustly enrich EA.
I agree that most people won't go to court since the amount is so small.
So, they take away something I paid for - will they refund? Probably not. I wonder how that would play out in a court of law.
My guess is they would argue you agreed to the TOS which allows them to ban you; and that the money you paid was damages for violating the TOS and hence non-refundable.
Would that fly, especially for games that you did not do anything wrong? Who knows, certainly not me since IANAL.
People claiming Linux has difficulty moving to the mainstream have not worked recently with real data centres making money for big companies.
To state that Linux is not mainstream is ludicrous nowadays, Linux is a recognized solution, it may or may not be used, but is an option no longer laughed at in any serious company.
Considering the original discussion revolved around desktop migration data center usage of Linux is not "mainstream" in this context.
Specialized uses where companies make money off of support is an area that OSS can thrive, since the money is not in the software but the support.
The desktop, OTOH, is just the opposite and an area where OSS will continue to struggle to gain acceptance.
In the original context, OSS is not mainstream.
You've totally missed the point of the open source model. Linux doesn't *need* a profitable parent company. Projects like PostgreSQL, FreeBSD, the Linux kernel itself and others prove that companies are not needed in order to create excellent software. Debian existed long before Ubuntu, and will live long after it, should Ubuntu die. If Ubuntu dies, you can be damn sure a community will spring up to take the slack up now that demand for an apt based distro that isn't 3 years behind has been proven and an appetite created.
While OSS certainly produces good software; in many ways it's a self licking ice cream cone - it can create a self sustaining community that finds it satisfies their needs but has trouble moving beyond that into the mainstream. They are often content in copying the features they find useful in closed source commercial products but see no need to really innovate.
As a result, many OSS projects remain somewhat quirky copies of existing commercial products; with just enough differences to prevent them from being more widely adopted. They simply are not better than the commercial products (other than being free) - so people simply stick with what they currently use or what is the "standard."
Companies, OTOH, provide direction and assess customer needs to drive features - which requires some degree of control and expertise beyond coding. Would OO have gotten to where it is today without Sun? Maybe, but it doesn't hurt to have cash and direction to spur development.
The other issue with communities is that people will eventually lose interest and move on; or decide they don't like the direction and fork development. In the former that eventually leads to orphaned projects with promise (GIMPShop anyone?) and in the latter confusion in the broader market over which one to use.
OSS development is great, but there are some fundamental issues that hinder wider adoption of it.
As for the impossibility of Linux profitability, Red Hat's financial statements show a consistent, increasing profit, quarter over quarter, for the last 2 years. Go troll elsewhere please.
Yes, they realized that the money is in consulting and services; Linux is merely the road in. Not a bad model; and one that many Windows consultants use as well.
I've worked with people during various research projects who decided to encrypt, for some very good reasons. I've had one admin die, and one researcher have a stroke. In both cases they had information necessary for the project that nobody else could get to, even when their hard drives were retrieved. The results are that after several years, the stuff is still sitting somewhere unusable because the people who attempted to get to it were stymied.
Your experience points out why it is necessary to keep the passwords in a secure location for such an eventuality.
We had safe codes that were known to 1 person - with the combo locked away in another safe. That way, if the 1 person could not open the safe; we had a secure backup plan to gain entry.
The goal is to keep the information safe from unauthorized access; storing the keys (hardcopy) in a secure, locked location would still maintain security while providing a way to gain access if needed in an emergency.
What kind of retard thinks that one of the responsibilities of the president of the United States is to control the price of gasoline?
What kind of retard cannot recognise a joke?
Since eternal September, many.
If he maintained his innocence and demanded a jury trial he'd have a good chance of being found innocent and if not the penalty would probably be minor. His behaviour just isn't that of a criminal. The whole system is broken. It's a game of bluff, but the stakes are the liberty of innocent people.
While many assume a jury would see things the /. way; would you want to risk 20+ years on the outcome? They're just as likely to think "he broke in and that's no different than if he walked into my house" vs. "He did them a favor by showing the weakness." They'll wonder "Why didn't he just tell them about the problem instead of accessing the system?" If there's any inkling of blackmail as the article alludes to then a jury trial may be a big mistake.
Juries aren't a bunch of tech savvy folks; they're whoever the state can get to show up and serve. Having been in jury pools (but not selected), most of them just want to get this over with; collect their $25/day and go home.
Most cases that request a jury trial do not actually go to trial; since as a judge put it "You, the jury, are the scariest thing in this room - because no one knows how you will decide."
Yea, bluffing is involved, prosecutors want to get plea bargains without going to trial. Judges don't want clogged dockets and the accused may want a sure thing if they think winning isn't a slam dunk.
I subscribe to Analog magazine for example
You're just an analog person living in a digital world.
Your post, however, did rekindle my interest in reading science fiction...
However, the US government is still restrained by the US Constititution when it comes to US citizens.
Eh? I guess I do not understand your point at all.
It's simple - the US Constitution limits the US ability to restrict US citizen's rights, ,no matter where those citizen';s are located.
The Monroe Doctrine said stay of our backyard and we'll leave you alone. The Bush Doctrine says if I don't like what I think you're thinking, I'm going to kick the shit out of you. Foreign policy has never had a basis in the constitution other than setting up the broadest of guidelines for such.
This has nothing to do with foreign policy; it's about the fundemental rights of US citizens wrt actions by the US government.
And the US Constitution actually gives government some broad latitude for action as well as specifically calling out things it cannot do.
And as all the recent attacks on the Bill of Rights demonstrates - gun grabbing, the "Patriot" act, civil forfeiture, warrantless spying, etc. the US Government rarely bothers to restrain itself to the constitution.
The legality of such actions ultimately are up to the SCOTUS; and have recently demonstrated some spine such as their decision in the DC gun case.
Of course, there is a wide range of opinions on exactly how to interpret the US Constitution.
Do you have a point?
As I stated above. You seem to be confusing the extra-territoriality of the US Constitution wrt US citizens and limits placed by it upon their government with US foreign policy and foreign government's ability to take actions within their territory.
Of course, I could just be doing this just to get you to endlessly respond. Your choice.
In short, a US citizen loses none of their constitutional protections from US governmental actions simply because they leave the US.
not sure that makes any sense.
A US citizen is very much under local laws, and the US government is not obligated to do anything should said citizen run afoul of said local laws.
If I am in Harare and exercise my "constitutional right" to free speech and say "Mugabe is a thief" and get put in jail by governmental goons, the US government is *not* going to come to my rescue
You can't seem to understand the difference between US and foreign government actions. You certainly are subject, as I have repeatedly said, to foreign laws when in a foreign country. However, the US government is still restrained by the US Constititution when it comes to US citizens.
In short, in your example the Zimabwian government can do whatever they want; the US government could not exercise prior restraint on your rights under the US Constitution. It's not about you having the same rights in a foreign country as you would in the US; rather it's about limits placed on US government actions. no matter where you are.
a US citizen's rights, under the US constitution, extend worldwide
Nope. This is not the Empire of the USA. I suggest you read the sign prominently posted in your nearest US Embassy in the US citizens section explaining that you are no longer in the United States and what that means in legal terms.
The US embassy is informing citizens that they are subject to the laws of the country they are in; which is different than the constitutional guarantees a US citizen enjoys with respect to the US government's action. The constitution limits the US government's actions wrt to US citizens anywhere, even outside of US territorial limits. In short, a US citizen loses none of their constitutional protections from US governmental actions simply because they leave the US.
It (the US constitution), of course, imposes no limits on foreign government's actions wrt to US citizen's in their territory.
If you want to travel by air
That's imprecise. If you wish to go outside of the US, a US citizen's constitutional rights ends whereever they declare the border to be.
US Embassies are considered to be under US law, but anywhere else ...
I'm not sure what you consider imprecise - at any rate, a US citizen's rights, under the US constitution, extend worldwide and limit the US government's ability to act and provides a US citizen the same protections abroad as in the US from US government actions. However, if you leave US territory you are also subject to the laws of whatever country you are also subject to their laws; and US protections do not extend to you under their laws.
Taking Stuff from Airtravelers
You cannot waive your constitutional rights (or ammendments therein)
You certainly can; the US government can't *waive* them for you, regardless of what GW believes.
People waive rights all the time - to jury trials, counsel, etc. The right to search (or more correctly consent for a search) is can be a condition for entry - most (if not all) US military bases have signs stating you consent to a search as a condition of being allowed on base.
If you want to travel by air; a condition of that travel is consenting to searches of person and baggage - your choice is to fly or go by other means.
As with any idea you want to sell, you have to pitch it in terms of what the company wants. Most companies aren't going to be motivated by a philosophical argument. You have to ask yourself: If the company started using open source software, would it have a significant postive effect on the bottom line? If not, your unlikely to succeed.
Wow, a reasonable approach. I'd add "try to understand the person's viewpoint and work with them if you feel you have a better solution than one they are currently using."
Not surprisingly, most /. posts are of the "find a way to stick it to him by going over his head." Great idea - make an enemy and paint a target on you back. All he has to do is wait for you to screw up and you're gone.
Others suggest using it anyway - another great idea. Get fired for installing unauthorized software on a company machine.
Quit? Well, that is an honorable action if you can't live without OSS.
Being an OSS zealot will not get you far in most organization - if you really believe some OSS is a better tool, make a reasoned, cogent argument, after you understand why OSS is resisted, and try to convince the decision maker. Even if you lose you still will be viewed as someone who works with people and wants to find better ways to do things; rather than as some troublemaker who needs to be watched. Welcome to reality.
I think the real question is this:
How exactly does one pay online for a credit card number?
With a credit card?
What shock and a jolt to the green car movement. Although, with current economic events; it's not surprising they lack the juice to continue.
But more important, why did the controls not respond to the pilots? Why would the computers be programmed to prevent a Stall in an *diving* aircraft?
But even with the autopilot off, the plane's flight control computers still command key controls in order to protect the jet from dangerous conditions, such as stalling, the ATSB said.
Airbus' design philosophy is that the flight control system will maintain the aircraft within the design envelop, preventing a pilot from executing a maneuver that would place the aircraft outside of the allowable envelop. While this is good during normal conditions, emergencies and unexpected problems can cause unintended consequences and possible unplanned impact with the ground. There have been other incidents and accidents resulting from FCS override of pilot commands or responding in a manner that was correct by the programming but wrong for the situation.
It's a fundamental design philosophy - the software can do a better job than humans - that is fundamentally a bad approach to system design in dynamic environments.
Lesson - designers can't anticipate all circumstances that software will face; the ability to manually override and take corrective action is needed for trained operators to be able to make the decisions they are there to make.
Unfortunately, most people play them way to loud so the only technical solution is to limit the output.
However, since many people find louder music *sounds* better unless every device maker does it those who don't may be at a competitive advantage; leading none to do so other than as Apple did as an option; which was probably more about limiting legal liability than anything else.
Well, there are two kinds of people in the US who buy BMWs: those who love driving and scrape every last dime together to buy one, and those who have a lot of money and buy one because they are owned by other rich people.
Yes, and those of use in the former who remember when Bimmer drivers were a relatively small group who flashed their headlights at each as greeting; argued over round vs square tail lights; there was no space in BMWCCA, and drove them because they were great handling cars really wish the yuppies would have fallen in love some other brand.
I actually like hearing about a company that is innovating in the marketplace rather than shouting, "ME2!!!!!!!!" Can't think of the last time I saw $MS actually invent something they couldn't sue, buy out or copy.
MS does that because they can make a ton of money that way - let someone else do the market research for them, and then swoop in and buy or obliterate the innovator if they succeed; and not spend the R&D dollars if they fail.
Overall, not a bad strategy; fast followers can be very successful if they can execute rapidly.
You had me until the "college sports with world wide fan bases". I seriously hope our dear friends in the US of A don't think the rest of the world cares about OSU vs. LSU football, much less baseball, which admittedly have a huge domestic fan base.
Actually, I was referring to the worldwide alumni base of just such universities - including expats, US military, and others who attended such schools and now live abroad.
I realize most non-Americans care as much about US college football as Americans care about soccer; but there are bases of support for each of those sports outside of their traditional markets. I even know a few non-Americans who are big football (our football, not the round ball version) fans.
My main point, however is that they'd now have a way to reach that audience in a targeted fashion as part of a wider base; rather than as it's own small set.
tOSU streams an audio play by play already; video is not that much of a stretch once the legal issues are ironed out and if an existing licensee can do the streaming in a profitable manner they will.