Good news: There's a job for someone with legacy COBOL skills because the State of California needs someone to update their payroll software to pay their workers minimum wage.
More importantly, I really want my debit card to store preferred language settings. I'm rather sick of the ATMs asking which language to use before doing anything.
Glad I'm not the only one amazed they haven't done that. Bad enough I have to specify English, much less do it every flipping time.
I was thinking the same thing--I'd never do something like that in an unknown environment without having already come up with some "good answer" for the low-level network fascist that might question what I was doing. I would think the least painful way to deal with restrictions in a NAC/NAP environment like often exists in residence halls (the test bed before they roll it out to everyone, unfortunately) is to hook up a healthy, compliant, good-boy Windows box and then connect your actual machine through the "blessed" Windows machine. Of course, if one of the conditions for NAC/NAP "health" is not running a DHCP server, that won't work.
While I've never bought one, they seem to be readilyavailable although buying one untraceably would be a bit more difficult (but not impossible) which would be a necessary step to avoid having the keylogger found and an investigator simply asking (perhaps under subpoena) the selling company for the purchase information for that (probably serialized) keylogger.
With DRM/TPMs being legally protected now there's a big push in the copyright industry to move to protected digital forms. When content is surrounded by DRM/TPMs then they can remove fair use or anything that law makers provide.
I'm normally among the first to smell a Treacherous Computing/Digital Restrictions Management dystopia, but can't "e-paper" be photocopied or scanned? I'm picturing a solenoid or two and a short program that synchronizes the "next page" button with the "scan/copy" button here.
I didn't offer you anything you didn't already have a right to, just like the software EULA doesn't. And while I agree that my posts are of limited pecuniary value, the warm fuzzies people all over the world get from them are sufficient to make them consideration.
Then given the consideration of your right to read this post, you agree to pay me one dollar. Pretty much the same thing--I just gave you the "consideration" of something you already own, just like a end user license "agreeement" claims to do.
If you accept the license he offers, and you receive something in return (you do - the right to install the software)
That's not consideration; the user already paid for that when he bought the box. Decisions based on it being consideration are erroneous--and yes, I'm a layman, but it's so damn obvious that judges ought to understand it too.
A couple of examples of unconscionable provisions in many EULAs: anti-benchmarking clauses; waiver of the right to resell. I'm sure there are more, but I don't bother reading them because they're not really contracts anyway:).
Forcing an end user to click an "I agree" button to install a product he already purchased is a contract of adhesion and invalid on it's face anyway. Software, which vendors claim to be "licensed" and not sold, passes the "duck test" for a sale, and it's only a matter of time and a shift in the generation in the judiciary before that truth is acknowledged and erroneous decisions of the past upholding end-user license "agreements" are overturned.
For all but pure legalists, compliance with most civil laws or contracts (and it's by no means certain EULAs are indeed contracts) is a decision based on whether the perceived personal gain for breaking the law/contract exceeds the expected penalty (i.e. the product of the magnitude of the penalty and the probability of it being applied). The post to which you replying to made the salient point that the probability of the punishment being applied is very near zero.
You forgot to make a car analogy in which the Mac is a Maserati or Bentley and the PC is a Hyundai or a Yugo. Of course, I'd lash out with anger and sarcasm at anyone who pointed out how stupid I was if I spent double on commodity hardware, too:).
At least one piece of U.S. case law disagrees with that contention. Adobe tried that argument (Softman v. Adobe) and lost. First Sale applies in the absence of a real contract--a software vendor's Diktat shrinkwrap "agreement" doesn't cut it.
Guidance Software? Talk about being hoisted on one's own petard! If I were plaintiff's counsel (IANAL), I'd fry them with their association with forensics and imply that it's awfully convenient that they "lost" incriminating email unrecoverably.
Read the Gramm-Leach-Bliley "privacy" notices your banks and insurance companies send you every year. They use that same "permitted by law" wording. They assume (sadly, correctly) that most of their customers don't know the difference between the words "permitted" and "required" and/or don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, Judge! I'd have never know it existed had you not tried to censor it.
Good news: There's a job for someone with legacy COBOL skills because the State of California needs someone to update their payroll software to pay their workers minimum wage.
Bad news: The gig pays minimum age.
Nice spam there. Is your commission based on referrer?
Glad I'm not the only one amazed they haven't done that. Bad enough I have to specify English, much less do it every flipping time.
I was thinking the same thing--I'd never do something like that in an unknown environment without having already come up with some "good answer" for the low-level network fascist that might question what I was doing. I would think the least painful way to deal with restrictions in a NAC/NAP environment like often exists in residence halls (the test bed before they roll it out to everyone, unfortunately) is to hook up a healthy, compliant, good-boy Windows box and then connect your actual machine through the "blessed" Windows machine. Of course, if one of the conditions for NAC/NAP "health" is not running a DHCP server, that won't work.
While I've never bought one, they seem to be readily available although buying one untraceably would be a bit more difficult (but not impossible) which would be a necessary step to avoid having the keylogger found and an investigator simply asking (perhaps under subpoena) the selling company for the purchase information for that (probably serialized) keylogger.
I'm normally among the first to smell a Treacherous Computing/Digital Restrictions Management dystopia, but can't "e-paper" be photocopied or scanned? I'm picturing a solenoid or two and a short program that synchronizes the "next page" button with the "scan/copy" button here.
Chicks dig the subjunctive.
I didn't offer you anything you didn't already have a right to, just like the software EULA doesn't. And while I agree that my posts are of limited pecuniary value, the warm fuzzies people all over the world get from them are sufficient to make them consideration.
Then given the consideration of your right to read this post, you agree to pay me one dollar. Pretty much the same thing--I just gave you the "consideration" of something you already own, just like a end user license "agreeement" claims to do.
That's not consideration; the user already paid for that when he bought the box. Decisions based on it being consideration are erroneous--and yes, I'm a layman, but it's so damn obvious that judges ought to understand it too.
Sure I can, Mr. AC. An invalid contract is the same thing as no contract.
Ow, my wrist!
A couple of examples of unconscionable provisions in many EULAs: anti-benchmarking clauses; waiver of the right to resell. I'm sure there are more, but I don't bother reading them because they're not really contracts anyway :).
Forcing an end user to click an "I agree" button to install a product he already purchased is a contract of adhesion and invalid on it's face anyway. Software, which vendors claim to be "licensed" and not sold, passes the "duck test" for a sale, and it's only a matter of time and a shift in the generation in the judiciary before that truth is acknowledged and erroneous decisions of the past upholding end-user license "agreements" are overturned.
I don't think it's that cut and dried. See Softman v. Adobe.
For all but pure legalists, compliance with most civil laws or contracts (and it's by no means certain EULAs are indeed contracts) is a decision based on whether the perceived personal gain for breaking the law/contract exceeds the expected penalty (i.e. the product of the magnitude of the penalty and the probability of it being applied). The post to which you replying to made the salient point that the probability of the punishment being applied is very near zero.
You forgot to make a car analogy in which the Mac is a Maserati or Bentley and the PC is a Hyundai or a Yugo. Of course, I'd lash out with anger and sarcasm at anyone who pointed out how stupid I was if I spent double on commodity hardware, too :).
At least one piece of U.S. case law disagrees with that contention. Adobe tried that argument (Softman v. Adobe) and lost. First Sale applies in the absence of a real contract--a software vendor's Diktat shrinkwrap "agreement" doesn't cut it.
I don't know if it'll run the current version of MVS/OS390/zOS, but have you seen this?
In that ruling, I'm pretty certain the MAFIAA had more money with which to buy any necessary rulings than did Napster.
Guidance Software? Talk about being hoisted on one's own petard! If I were plaintiff's counsel (IANAL), I'd fry them with their association with forensics and imply that it's awfully convenient that they "lost" incriminating email unrecoverably.
The first rule of unauthorized archives is "don't talk about unauthorized archives."
Actually, given the reactive nature of typical organizations, I'd say that's a safe bet.
Read the Gramm-Leach-Bliley "privacy" notices your banks and insurance companies send you every year. They use that same "permitted by law" wording. They assume (sadly, correctly) that most of their customers don't know the difference between the words "permitted" and "required" and/or don't care.