probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy
If you talked like that face-to-face with someone, nobody would listen to you. Why are so many people on the Net childish and rude and still think they have a right to be taken seriously?:(
They are not really secret, though, only what they carry and the capabilities of the satellites are secret. The NRO mission patches are awesome, full of wizards, weird symbols and octopuses.
However, it's true that the Brits have once or twice asked hobby satellite trackers to pull down their web pages and I've always wondered why. Perhaps they don't want the public to know where and when they change to a lower orbit (assuming they do)?
Wouldn't it be hilarious if alien space craft actually looked that blurry due to the way their warp drives operate?
Oh shit, now that I've said that I realize that somebody will post this "theory" as a plain obvious "fact" somewhere...
Yes you do, or at least you did if you pay taxes and are a US citizen. The USA has actively funded terrorists in the past (and probably still does).
Moreover, there are many people who would classify targeted political assassinations via drone strikes as terrorist acts, especially because they kill (on the average) more civilians than 'intended targets'. Opinions differ, it hinges on how you define and interpret 'side effects' and what role they play in your moral system.
I'm using A4 notebooks which must be perforated and have holes for easy archival. For writing I've switched to the new generation of "Frixion" pens by Pilot. (The first generation was essentially useless.) They are less than ideal, for example your writing can disappear if you put a paper in the sun (!), but they are still better than pencil or ink with 'ink killer'. I need to be able to erase mistakes.
There are two things that annoy me about notepads in Europe, though. First, the squares and lines are practically always printed too strongly. Extremely annoying. Second, it's almost impossible to get pads with large squares, which would be ideal for me. Why only small squares *or* lines? Large squares are the perfect mixture between the two, yet apparently there is some conspiracy to withhold them from the whole of Europe. I believe in the US choices are better.
That's a rather uneducated opinion. Libertarianism can be divided into two major traditions, right-wing and left-wing libertarianism. Right-wing libertarianism has been worked out theoretically relatively recently and in response to classical liberalism. Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia has been very influential in this tradition as a response to Rawls. It has been taken up by politicians and policy-makers. Left-wing libertarianism is way older, similar ideas have already been defended during the French Revolution, and it is generally considered an offspring (or even used as a synonym) of Anarchism, Social Anarchism in particular.
Right-wing libertarians do not consider themselves anarchists, even though they share most of their views.
the whole point of the laws of war was that prisoners on both sides would be treated decently
There are many laws of war that might be interpreted in that way (e.g. providing adequate food and shelter for prisoners of war, releasing them when the war finished), and others that have nothing to do with that (e.g. wearing uniforms in order not to confuse civilians with combatants). The prohibition of torture does not fall in either category. Not to be tortured is really just a basic human right that no decent person would even consider to violate, no matter what the other side does.
We generally hear higher pitched sounds better than lower pitch sounds, that's the way our ears work probably due to the acoustic reason you've just laid out. That's why the low end is boosted way up in audio engineering (by the mixing process), as you can see easily on the frequency spectrum.
US contract laws favours companies over individual customers. That is what I said and none of what you are ranting about even speaks against this. To make this clearer to you, the difference to other laws is that in the US a frivolous clause such as a general rights waiver or 'do not sue' clause may be invalidated later in court, but is prima facie assumed to be valid when both parties agree. Also, even if it is invalid other clauses will remain intact. In other countries like Germany, for instance, a contract that contains frivolous clauses will be invalid in its entirety. The court might still decide to take into account other clauses of the contract in their verdict, but the contract is void. In fact, most EULAs of large corporations are void in Europe. The reason that this is not so well-known is that you first have to file a civil lawsuit in order for the contract to be nullified, and most end consumers do not have the money and stamina for such a civil lawsuit.
When I said that US contract law favours corporations I've meant exactly that -- it de facto, as a matter of actual practise, favours corporations over end consumers, because the latter rarely suggest changes or explicitly disagree, and frivolous clauses are more easily enforced in the US than in Europe (see above). Why corporations and not companies in general? Well, it seems to me that there are still a lot of smaller companies that have reasonable EULAs, but perhaps I'm wrong about that one and you're right that "mom-and-pop creative services and products" plaster their contracts with the same frivolous rights waiver clauses.
Anyway, I'm happy to live in a country where these EULAs are not worth the paper they are printed on and can be accepted without any consequences, because they are void. That's not the case in the US.
He should send his modified copy back to the company. Everybody should do that. The worst thing that can happen is that you have to give the product back and get a full refund for it.
This trick only works in the US, though, which apparently has a contract law that is biased very strongly in favour of corporations. In other parts of the world, frivolous clauses like this will cause the contract as a whole to become void.
I sense a strong reality distortion field in your post. Bernie is simply one of the remaining professional politicians with a consistent track record. He's fighting for the same goals since the early 70s and has decided to run for President because this is essentially his last chance - he'll be too old next time, given that most presidents are re-elected for a second term. He doesn't attack Hillary on certain points, because he's a man of principles who respects his adversaries. He has always been like that. Look at old speeches and you'll see. Since he's against big money and for the middle class, he has gained some support, but it was also clear from the start that he'd never get nominated. And he won't.
Sorry to spoil your tinfoil hat dream, but, realistically speaking, it is really damn hard to find a big conspiracy here. He's actually a big nuisance for Hillary.
Putin controls the media in Russia fairly well and the Kremlin has already issued the usual statement that this is a foreign information war campaign to discredit him and mother Russia.
So yeah, nothing will happen - except in case some of the offshore money is frozen during investigations, once billions are involved things will happen at one place or another.
None of what you say is new to anyone in Europe who is halfway educated. We have very detailed history lessons about the French Revolution at school, and I can assure you that nothing about it is romanticised.
But I can't speak for the US and believe it might be possible that some Americans romanticise European history as well as their own.
Not paying your taxes is a crime and must be treated as such. It's really that simple.
If you don't like the way the taxes are spent, you can move somewhere else, but then you really have to move, i.e., reside most of the time of the year in the country you've allegedly moved to. Otherwise it's tax fraud, and everybody knows that.
The other things you're talking about are also misleading. Social security is among the highest posts in the budget of most countries, and of course massive tax evasion will take away money that would otherwise be spent on it. We're talking about billions of dollars, so yes, people will likely starve if many rich people in a society evade taxes. (Your argument is basically the "yeah but if it's just me who breaks the law, then strictly speaking almost no harm is done" defence, which has always been lame.)
Here is what everyone should do (unless you absolutely need the product):
Print out the EULA and mark all passages you would like to change clearly. Indicate the changes you would like to suggest, point to reformulations and strike through passages you do not agree with. Make your changes reasonable. The last thing is important, don't make jokes.
Put the revised EULA in an envelope, address it to the company's customer service, and in a short polite covering letter point out that (a) you do not agree with the original EULA, and (b) have taken the liberty of suggesting changes of the contract that should be of a mutual benefit. Suggest a reasonable amount of time for review, say, six weeks, and inform them that in case you do not hear from them within that time frame, then you will assume their implicit agreement, in the form of a a social contract, that the new, improved EULA is in place. (The last point is probably moot, but so is the original EULA in most jurisdictions.) Point out that you are not a lawyer, that you like their company and the product, and that the changes are beneficial to both parties and also in your opinion comply better with the law.
A few thousands to tens of thousands of such letters would suffice to force the company to make a reasonable EULA.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that an argument against smoking in public? Is there a prohibition to fart in the US?
probably due to deep and perfectly valid feelings of inadequacy
If you talked like that face-to-face with someone, nobody would listen to you. Why are so many people on the Net childish and rude and still think they have a right to be taken seriously? :(
They are not really secret, though, only what they carry and the capabilities of the satellites are secret. The NRO mission patches are awesome, full of wizards, weird symbols and octopuses. However, it's true that the Brits have once or twice asked hobby satellite trackers to pull down their web pages and I've always wondered why. Perhaps they don't want the public to know where and when they change to a lower orbit (assuming they do)?
It's then zoomed into to "see more detail". Please, please, stop doing this. We're not in Bladerunner.
But... couldn't we 'electronically enhance' it such that after 3 days slowly a picture of dickbutt emerges?
Wouldn't it be hilarious if alien space craft actually looked that blurry due to the way their warp drives operate? Oh shit, now that I've said that I realize that somebody will post this "theory" as a plain obvious "fact" somewhere ...
I do not fund terrorist
Yes you do, or at least you did if you pay taxes and are a US citizen. The USA has actively funded terrorists in the past (and probably still does). Moreover, there are many people who would classify targeted political assassinations via drone strikes as terrorist acts, especially because they kill (on the average) more civilians than 'intended targets'. Opinions differ, it hinges on how you define and interpret 'side effects' and what role they play in your moral system.
I guess the journal ISIS by Chicago University Press has gotten funding problems...
I'm using A4 notebooks which must be perforated and have holes for easy archival. For writing I've switched to the new generation of "Frixion" pens by Pilot. (The first generation was essentially useless.) They are less than ideal, for example your writing can disappear if you put a paper in the sun (!), but they are still better than pencil or ink with 'ink killer'. I need to be able to erase mistakes. There are two things that annoy me about notepads in Europe, though. First, the squares and lines are practically always printed too strongly. Extremely annoying. Second, it's almost impossible to get pads with large squares, which would be ideal for me. Why only small squares *or* lines? Large squares are the perfect mixture between the two, yet apparently there is some conspiracy to withhold them from the whole of Europe. I believe in the US choices are better.
That's a rather uneducated opinion. Libertarianism can be divided into two major traditions, right-wing and left-wing libertarianism. Right-wing libertarianism has been worked out theoretically relatively recently and in response to classical liberalism. Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia has been very influential in this tradition as a response to Rawls. It has been taken up by politicians and policy-makers. Left-wing libertarianism is way older, similar ideas have already been defended during the French Revolution, and it is generally considered an offspring (or even used as a synonym) of Anarchism, Social Anarchism in particular. Right-wing libertarians do not consider themselves anarchists, even though they share most of their views.
... which happens to be every culture on earth.
the whole point of the laws of war was that prisoners on both sides would be treated decently
There are many laws of war that might be interpreted in that way (e.g. providing adequate food and shelter for prisoners of war, releasing them when the war finished), and others that have nothing to do with that (e.g. wearing uniforms in order not to confuse civilians with combatants). The prohibition of torture does not fall in either category. Not to be tortured is really just a basic human right that no decent person would even consider to violate, no matter what the other side does.
That's an extremely relevant remark. The word "Zeigzeug" is so much more precise than "blinker".
We generally hear higher pitched sounds better than lower pitch sounds, that's the way our ears work probably due to the acoustic reason you've just laid out. That's why the low end is boosted way up in audio engineering (by the mixing process), as you can see easily on the frequency spectrum.
When I said that US contract law favours corporations I've meant exactly that -- it de facto, as a matter of actual practise, favours corporations over end consumers, because the latter rarely suggest changes or explicitly disagree, and frivolous clauses are more easily enforced in the US than in Europe (see above). Why corporations and not companies in general? Well, it seems to me that there are still a lot of smaller companies that have reasonable EULAs, but perhaps I'm wrong about that one and you're right that "mom-and-pop creative services and products" plaster their contracts with the same frivolous rights waiver clauses. Anyway, I'm happy to live in a country where these EULAs are not worth the paper they are printed on and can be accepted without any consequences, because they are void. That's not the case in the US.
He should send his modified copy back to the company. Everybody should do that. The worst thing that can happen is that you have to give the product back and get a full refund for it.
This trick only works in the US, though, which apparently has a contract law that is biased very strongly in favour of corporations. In other parts of the world, frivolous clauses like this will cause the contract as a whole to become void.
I sense a strong reality distortion field in your post. Bernie is simply one of the remaining professional politicians with a consistent track record. He's fighting for the same goals since the early 70s and has decided to run for President because this is essentially his last chance - he'll be too old next time, given that most presidents are re-elected for a second term. He doesn't attack Hillary on certain points, because he's a man of principles who respects his adversaries. He has always been like that. Look at old speeches and you'll see. Since he's against big money and for the middle class, he has gained some support, but it was also clear from the start that he'd never get nominated. And he won't. Sorry to spoil your tinfoil hat dream, but, realistically speaking, it is really damn hard to find a big conspiracy here. He's actually a big nuisance for Hillary.
Putin controls the media in Russia fairly well and the Kremlin has already issued the usual statement that this is a foreign information war campaign to discredit him and mother Russia. So yeah, nothing will happen - except in case some of the offshore money is frozen during investigations, once billions are involved things will happen at one place or another.
None of what you say is new to anyone in Europe who is halfway educated. We have very detailed history lessons about the French Revolution at school, and I can assure you that nothing about it is romanticised. But I can't speak for the US and believe it might be possible that some Americans romanticise European history as well as their own.
Not paying your taxes is a crime and must be treated as such. It's really that simple. If you don't like the way the taxes are spent, you can move somewhere else, but then you really have to move, i.e., reside most of the time of the year in the country you've allegedly moved to. Otherwise it's tax fraud, and everybody knows that. The other things you're talking about are also misleading. Social security is among the highest posts in the budget of most countries, and of course massive tax evasion will take away money that would otherwise be spent on it. We're talking about billions of dollars, so yes, people will likely starve if many rich people in a society evade taxes. (Your argument is basically the "yeah but if it's just me who breaks the law, then strictly speaking almost no harm is done" defence, which has always been lame.)
Nobody is starving just because people with money are using legal tax shelters.
That claim is almost certainly false.
I guess you've already answered your question.
Print out the EULA and mark all passages you would like to change clearly. Indicate the changes you would like to suggest, point to reformulations and strike through passages you do not agree with. Make your changes reasonable. The last thing is important, don't make jokes. Put the revised EULA in an envelope, address it to the company's customer service, and in a short polite covering letter point out that (a) you do not agree with the original EULA, and (b) have taken the liberty of suggesting changes of the contract that should be of a mutual benefit. Suggest a reasonable amount of time for review, say, six weeks, and inform them that in case you do not hear from them within that time frame, then you will assume their implicit agreement, in the form of a a social contract, that the new, improved EULA is in place. (The last point is probably moot, but so is the original EULA in most jurisdictions.) Point out that you are not a lawyer, that you like their company and the product, and that the changes are beneficial to both parties and also in your opinion comply better with the law. A few thousands to tens of thousands of such letters would suffice to force the company to make a reasonable EULA.
Thank God that there are plenty of distinguished meteorologists like you on Slashdot to put sensationalist headlines into perspective.
There is an easier fix. Just make repeated copyright take-downs a criminal offence when in fact no copyright was violated.