'The "Seperation of Church and State" does not exist as you think it does. It is a made up doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United States.'
No, it is an interpretation of the constitution performed by the supreme court of the united states. Since the constitution defines the supreme court the job of interpreting itself they are not merely correctly interpreting the document but literally define the correct interpretation. That said, even if they were not it would be hard to argue that a clear seperation of church and state isn't required to practice freedom of religion.
'The point is for the Government itself (an organization, not the people who comprise it) to not endorse a religion. However this does not mean that the people who make up said Government cannot act in the power of a citizen and pray, promote a relgious viewpoint, or use said beleifs to make a judgement of some sort.'
Correct. It does mean that the people who make up said Government cannot pray, promote a religious viewpoint, or use said beliefs when making a judgement IN THEIR ROLE AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OR IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY. In particular said officials are not to base the laws they write, pass, or interpret on their religious beliefs and values since doing so would infringe upon those who do not share those beliefs.
When they do so, they have acted unconstitutionally and it is the duty of the courts to see and correct those actions. If a particular individual does so habitually then it is up to the responsible party to impeach that individual. Contrary to rhetoric spread by those who don't like the consequences it is the duty of court system to act as a check against congress and strike down or redefine laws that violate the rights of the citizens.
If you don't like abortion try getting a law passed to outlaw the operation of abortion clinics rather than weakening our system of checks and balances or eroding the right to privacy. I think you'll find that you won't hear any congressmen arguing against weakening the supreme court or even saying outright that it is the duty of the supreme court to police and overrule them. That is your first hint of just how critical an advocate of the people the supreme court is.
'Well, this aside I think we could agree that regulation of said activity might be in society's best interest -- elimination of pimps/coercion/sex slave trade, then there's the public health factor (STDs), and then finally we have to acknowledge not-in-my-backyard (depressed real estate values in said neighbourhoods).'
Well my first counter would be that the legal code should priortize freedom and only regulate when needed for society to function and thus no laws that create victimless crimes like prostitution. Even if one believes the needs of society trump the needs of the individual one must keep in mind that the society is composed entirely of individuals and therefore individual rights and freedoms affect everyone in society. That said, yes there is room for laws around prostitution. Many of the negative things you refer to already break other laws and when a white market opens up the black market will get less dark in order to compete or will be utilized less. That is unless the white market is over regulated. After all, those in the black market aren't particularly concerned with obeying the law now, why would they comply with your regulations?
For instance, you have the pimp and crack whore system and you have the independent escort system. I'd argue that aside from mandatory routine STD testing there is no need for regulation of independent escorts. In a white market all the bad things they could do to you or you could do to them would already have consequences, be they civil or criminal.
As for the 'not in my backyard', I think you will find that there are escort services operating out of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Miami (which are some of the wealthiest neighbors anywhere) and they aren't reducing the property value at all. If anything they increase the property value for those looking for said services. This is one thing Nevada does wrong, they make prostitution dangerous by pushing it into dangerous neighborhoods. Nobody would want black market pimps and crack hoes walking their streets but there is certainly nothing wrong with your neighbor being a high class escort or an escort agency being anywhere that said business activities can be conducted. The independent could get away with operating out of a residence but just like any other home business they will quickly run into trouble if they have excessive traffic coming and going from their home.
Just my thoughts on the topic. Unfortunately for those who wish to engage in that business, we don't exactly get to negotiate the terms here anyway.;)
'Slamming my belief set without presenting evidence to the contrary isn't very scientific, Spanky...'
Those who hold spiritual beliefs shouldn't really invoke science. Holding beliefs without evidence is as unscientific as you can get, in fact is it contrary to the very concept of science. Actually, holding a belief either way is garbage since there is no credible evidence to support either stance. Before any supposed Christian archaeologist calls out, archaeological evidence that corresponds with events in the Bible serves only to date the original writings and is not evidence of the spiritual concepts contained therein.
That said, there is no question that the probabilities support the atheists. Occam's Razor tells us that a Universe is always easier to explain than both a universe and a creator capable of creating the universe. The probability of any of the given religions on Earth being correct are drastically lower and roughly equal to the probability of the FSM beliefs being correct. Some lend weight to religions simply because they are old or widely held, this is a common fallacy, things do not actually become more likely to be valid with age.
'Separation of Church and State does not equal Sterilization of Church from State.'
Actually it does, you see, after you separate things they are no longer combined. As you have already pointed out, it is not practical to represent everyone's beliefs (numbers are irrelevant, if a single person has a belief they are equally entitled to have that belief respected as another individual who happens to have a belief shared by many others); therefore the only way to respect ALL religions is not to represent any of them in government.
As I am sure you will agree, the best solution is to not include religious representations on city halls at all (particularly since they lack any legitimate function). Just as religious moral values have no place in our laws and should instead be instilled by family and friends and enforced through stigma in those same circles. An excellent example is prostitution, without a moral component defined by religious values there is no justification for laws against prostitution and thus there should be none. Instead, families with those beliefs should teach their children not to be or solicit prostitutes and leave those with other values alone.
'Standards of morality differ, and what's worse is that when something is 'immoral' people get much angrier than when something is illegal.'
True enough, that is why I don't believe in legislating morality. Not all things that are illegal are immoral and the laws should reflect what is needed for a stable and functioning society not what is needed to punish immorality. I believe that juries as originally empowered (with the duty to determine if the application of the law in a case is just, not merely whether the defendant violated it)are the best method available for discarding cases where applying the law is also immoral.
'But because of cases like this I would like to legal and social support for the right, such as laws making communications that were 'reasonably believed to be secure' inadmissable as evidence. I would also love to hear a group like the NRA saying that the right to secure communication is as essential as the right to bear arms. It certainly is in my mind.'
Agreed, and for many of the same reasons. That is one of the flaws in our corrupt two party system (how did they con people into believing a couple dozen independents is 'one party' and that only giving them two choices was somehow more?) one party supports free speech but would leave citizenry unarmed and at the mercy of the police state and the other claims they should be armed (for hunting) but supports every other aspect of the police state.
'Those people don't deserve their activities to be protected - they're illegal.'
They deserve to have their activities protected unless those activities are wrong and it really isn't for Hushmail to say whether or not they are wrong. Illegal really has nothing to do with it. Many things were illegal in Nazi Germany or are illegal in China, or Russia, or the United States, or that doesn't mean they are wrong or immoral. Many laws are innately immoral.
Unfortunately many people forget that even a democratic government is an entity in itself with interests that differ from yours and from the actual citizenry. Even if the books weren't filled with preposterous laws that would make criminals of good decent and ethical individuals total law enforcement would be a bad thing.
I should know better than to feed the trolls but you do know these guys are not responsible for Open Document and have no official status. They were more or less a fan club. Redmond is the most likely culprit in this case so the addage NEVER... NEVER trust Redmond would be appropriate. This isn't even substantial news to the open source world and won't impact anything in it.
'NASA proponents argue it makes more sense to give money to talented, productive people in exchange for scientific knowledge, than spend in on unproductive people in the form of straight welfare.'
Yes, of course it makes more sense to reward productive people than unproductive ones but that isn't the issue. Those productive people are being given a million dollar party in exchange for nothing, they got their salaries and great benefits in exchange for their knowledge. There are numerous places that money could go that have nothing to do with welfare. It could be left in the hands of the productive people who earned it. It could be used to raise the ridiculous federal poverty level a few dollars so that those who are BOTH productive AND poor in this country can breath a little easier and maybe scrounge together enough to start to make something of themselves and easily repay that debt in taxes later. It could be used to partially fund a federal medical/prescription/vision/dental insurance program that is a fundemental public service, not welfare.
'Grammar Nazis: Yes, I am aware that "ain't" really isn't a word.'
Generally I hate grammar nazis but I can't resist; "ain't" is a word. Language ain't defined by prudes it's defined by usage. The usage of the word "ain't" is widespread and long established. It is actually depressing that even the dictionary contains bigotry and stereotyping though. "Ain't" is not widely used by the uneducated, it is widely used by southerners and the idea that "ain't" is used by the uneducated stems from the false belief that southerners are ignorant and uneducated.
'This misses the point. You keep separating time and money. How much is your time worth?? It's not that time makes money, it's that time is money.'
No matter what any motivational speaker/tape/book says time is not money, Time is time. Most people waste a great deal of it. It doesn't matter how much I make at work. Two hours of my time is only worth as much as the activity I gave up to make the two hours.
Further, some of us actually enjoy working with technology. Building a computer is enjoyable, especially if you don't build them all the time. Each time you upgrade your machine there will be new hardware to become acquainted with.
The parent is also right, a chef who only boiled a couple eggs and never boiled another wouldn't know when the dish did not come out right because the eggs were cooked improperly, especially if the taste and texture of eggs changed every three months (that bit is needed for the analogy to work). A tech that doesn't build machines from time to time doesn't understand the problems that go with the various hardware configurations in those machines. Doesn't understand that say XP won't install because X memory used with Y chipset triggers a bug. A tech who works with hardware understands those issues and knows to look for them.
"Well, no, that's not right. They absolutely are valid contracts as a class. No court has ever said otherwise. Certain EULAs, and certain provisions contained in those specific EULAs, are invalid. You know the whole rumble about mandatory arbitration clauses? They're not categorically unlawful, and though they have been stricken down, it does not mean that the associated service contracts are invalid, or that the process of creating them is invalid, or that mandatory arbitration is unlawful."
It isn't that EULA's aren't valid contracts, it's that you can legally use the software in any way that isn't restricted by copyright law without agreeing to the EULA. If you legally acquire copyrighted material then you are more or less entitled to do whatever you please with it (including commercial use and resale) as long as it doesn't involve making copies and distributing them in some fashion.
'Apple's attitude, not questions of legality, is the real problem.'
Of course but questions of legality do persist. The problem is the DRM they have installed to prevent you from running the system on a PC. If you bypass that DRM then you have committed a criminal violation of the DMCA regardless of whether you have committed copyright infringment or not.
'No one but geeks would read the fine print. Joe Sixpack would still try to install on his $150 Wal-Mart PC, run into problems, call Apple, and complain loudly how much Apple sucked when they told him to read the disclaimer.'
The other reply is correct. I know a lot of joe sixpacks and they don't even know the big blue e is internet explorer and they certainly wouldn't attempt to install a new operating system. If apple was really afraid of this they could put a big yellow label on the side of the box that says the software is intended for mac's only and other usage could damage your computer.
That would scare away joe sixpack but wouldn't require turning innocent hackers into criminals guilty of dmca violations and copyright infringment.
'A better approach would be for Apple to allow one or two known high-quality boutique PC makers to ship OS X with their systems. At least that way the systems would be as stable as Macs out of the box.'
Or ditch the drm, leave the EULA restrictions as is and offer OEM licenses without the restriction. This way OSX is always preloaded by OEMS who will have tested their systems or hackers who know how to find OEM licenses. Joe sixpack won't install OSX because copies that could be installed won't be on the shelf at the store.
'Actually, they are not all that aggressive about some talented hackers getting OSX to run on whatever box they happen to own.'
That is a nice statement but the facts contradict it. Apple has used DRM and EULA terms to make doing so a criminal act as well as copyright infringment. Apple doesn't need to send their lawyers after anyone, the police will arrest you and the DA will prosecute you if you are caught using a hack to bypass their DRM. You don't get much more aggressive than that.
I know I know, it doesn't count because YOU'VE never been busted for cracking DRM.
'In the case of Apple's computers, they want to be able to give you that happy "Mac Experience" in which things don't go wrong on you. By controlling the hardware, Apple knows the possible configurations they need to test against, and can go a long way to ensuring that everything works.'
Yes, Apple isn't the only one doing that. Every software company does this to some degree and they call a tested configuration a 'supported configuration'. What Apple does is use technical and legal measures to stop you from running an 'unsupported configuration'.
Apple doesn't need to put technical and legal barriers in place in order to focus on their own hardware. They can deliver a 'mac experience' and let the geeks of world do as they wish at the same time.
'If people do hack the OS to run on whitebox hardware, do you think Apple wants to handle support calls for every single obscure piece of hardware that's floating about? It's probably not worth their time. If it's official, they know it plays well. If it isn't, then I bet they won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.'
Most wouldn't complain if this was apples tact but it isn't. Apple aggressively attacks anyone who hacks the OS to run on whitebox hardware, they attack the ones making the hack and they have seen to it that it is actually illegal for you and me to use said hack.
Unfortunately that site seems to assume that anyone will immediately recognize fluoride as evil and doesn't bother to explain what is wrong with putting fluoride in the water. Aside from whitening and strengthening teeth, what is the problem with fluoride?
He was talking about chinese taps not US ones. Actually here in the US filtering technology is the best its ever been, the water is dramatically cleaner than ever before and even our ability to check and see if it is clean is better than ever. Now, when drinking water is incredibly clean here in the states everyone refuses to drink tap water anymore. I decided to get the best of both, I installed a reverse osmosis system on my tap;P That's all their doing with your bottled water anyway.
'Please provide legal citations to back up your claim that postdating checks is illegal.
I do not have citations handy myself, but my understanding is that while nothing stops you from postdating a check, and people aren't supposed to cash/deposit it until the date written on the check (keep in mind a date is a required component of a check legally), the bank is explicitly protected against any claims based on their cashing the check early.
The bank could charge NSF fees and the rest even if the check was presented early. Can't remember if you would have a claim against the person who presented it to the bank early. Contract terms can also alter the situation (such as "we process all checks electronically and don't look at the date" or something).'
Actually a quick google reveals that technically postdating a check is not illegal. However, it is illegal to write a check without having the funds available WHEN THE CHECK IS WRITTEN as opposed to having them available at the date on the check. Most people post date checks because they don't have the funds yet and post dating a check for that reason is illegal. Post dating a check in and of itself apparently is not.
As for the person you've given a postdated check to, they have a moral/ethical obligation to wait IF they agreed to accept a post dated check (but not a legal one). Otherwise they aren't supposed to wait to cash the check at all. After all, without a prior agreement you either made a clerical error or were attempting to fraudulently delay payment possibly with the intent of avoiding late fees or penalties that you should have been charged. If your postdated check bounces the person you wrote it to can turn it into the states attorney just like any other bad check and have you prosecuted.
'(keep in mind a date is a required component of a check legally)'
Yes but the date is for record keeping, not for defining when the check can be cashed. The inconvenience of waiting until you receive your funds and they become available and having to schedule around those things belongs to you, not to your creditors.
I can confirm what the other poster said. It is illegal to post date a check but its pretty much impossible to enforce, especially when you consider those who post date checks by mistake. The result is that all banks go by the day presented and not the post date.
'The 27 countries in the EU do total out to just edge out the US alone. Add Canada to the US and their GDP passes those 27 countries.'
The EU is a combined political entity composed of 27 sovereign states. The US is a combined political entity composed of 50 sovereign states. The diffence is only in mindshare. The states of the US had a common enemy and since they repelled the enemy together they quickly formed a strong union. The EU states only formed a union very recently and had a great deal of independent history before banding together. There has been a great deal of time and history in the US that has strengthened the central political body and led to citizens being legally and mentally considered citizens of that central authority rather than of their own state. This will eventually be true of the EU given enough time.
The amendment to make all men equal didn't free the slaves, it made everyone a US citizen. They used to be citizens of their given state. It actually wasn't that long ago that the central government made laws that pertained to relations between states and laws that affected individual citizens were made by the states themselves.
That said, what does Canada have to do with anything? Canadians have nothing to do with the US, there isn't even any hard evidence they exist!
You'd think a bunch of lawyers would know that copyright law doesn't grant the copyright holder any ability to restrict usage of the material, only distribution and copying. Provided you obtain the material legally, you can do anything you like with it. View it, use it as kindling in a fire, etc.
Since the copyright holder is distributing the material to you, you have every right to view it and they have no legal right to stop you.
Slashdot Mirror
'The "Seperation of Church and State" does not exist as you think it does. It is a made up doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United States.'
No, it is an interpretation of the constitution performed by the supreme court of the united states. Since the constitution defines the supreme court the job of interpreting itself they are not merely correctly interpreting the document but literally define the correct interpretation. That said, even if they were not it would be hard to argue that a clear seperation of church and state isn't required to practice freedom of religion.
'The point is for the Government itself (an organization, not the people who comprise it) to not endorse a religion. However this does not mean that the people who make up said Government cannot act in the power of a citizen and pray, promote a relgious viewpoint, or use said beleifs to make a judgement of some sort.'
Correct. It does mean that the people who make up said Government cannot pray, promote a religious viewpoint, or use said beliefs when making a judgement IN THEIR ROLE AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OR IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY. In particular said officials are not to base the laws they write, pass, or interpret on their religious beliefs and values since doing so would infringe upon those who do not share those beliefs.
When they do so, they have acted unconstitutionally and it is the duty of the courts to see and correct those actions. If a particular individual does so habitually then it is up to the responsible party to impeach that individual. Contrary to rhetoric spread by those who don't like the consequences it is the duty of court system to act as a check against congress and strike down or redefine laws that violate the rights of the citizens.
If you don't like abortion try getting a law passed to outlaw the operation of abortion clinics rather than weakening our system of checks and balances or eroding the right to privacy. I think you'll find that you won't hear any congressmen arguing against weakening the supreme court or even saying outright that it is the duty of the supreme court to police and overrule them. That is your first hint of just how critical an advocate of the people the supreme court is.
'Well, this aside I think we could agree that regulation of said activity might be in society's best interest -- elimination of pimps/coercion/sex slave trade, then there's the public health factor (STDs), and then finally we have to acknowledge not-in-my-backyard (depressed real estate values in said neighbourhoods).'
;)
Well my first counter would be that the legal code should priortize freedom and only regulate when needed for society to function and thus no laws that create victimless crimes like prostitution. Even if one believes the needs of society trump the needs of the individual one must keep in mind that the society is composed entirely of individuals and therefore individual rights and freedoms affect everyone in society. That said, yes there is room for laws around prostitution. Many of the negative things you refer to already break other laws and when a white market opens up the black market will get less dark in order to compete or will be utilized less. That is unless the white market is over regulated. After all, those in the black market aren't particularly concerned with obeying the law now, why would they comply with your regulations?
For instance, you have the pimp and crack whore system and you have the independent escort system. I'd argue that aside from mandatory routine STD testing there is no need for regulation of independent escorts. In a white market all the bad things they could do to you or you could do to them would already have consequences, be they civil or criminal.
As for the 'not in my backyard', I think you will find that there are escort services operating out of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Miami (which are some of the wealthiest neighbors anywhere) and they aren't reducing the property value at all. If anything they increase the property value for those looking for said services. This is one thing Nevada does wrong, they make prostitution dangerous by pushing it into dangerous neighborhoods. Nobody would want black market pimps and crack hoes walking their streets but there is certainly nothing wrong with your neighbor being a high class escort or an escort agency being anywhere that said business activities can be conducted. The independent could get away with operating out of a residence but just like any other home business they will quickly run into trouble if they have excessive traffic coming and going from their home.
Just my thoughts on the topic. Unfortunately for those who wish to engage in that business, we don't exactly get to negotiate the terms here anyway.
'Slamming my belief set without presenting evidence to the contrary isn't very scientific, Spanky...'
Those who hold spiritual beliefs shouldn't really invoke science. Holding beliefs without evidence is as unscientific as you can get, in fact is it contrary to the very concept of science. Actually, holding a belief either way is garbage since there is no credible evidence to support either stance. Before any supposed Christian archaeologist calls out, archaeological evidence that corresponds with events in the Bible serves only to date the original writings and is not evidence of the spiritual concepts contained therein.
That said, there is no question that the probabilities support the atheists. Occam's Razor tells us that a Universe is always easier to explain than both a universe and a creator capable of creating the universe. The probability of any of the given religions on Earth being correct are drastically lower and roughly equal to the probability of the FSM beliefs being correct. Some lend weight to religions simply because they are old or widely held, this is a common fallacy, things do not actually become more likely to be valid with age.
'Separation of Church and State does not equal Sterilization of Church from State.'
Actually it does, you see, after you separate things they are no longer combined. As you have already pointed out, it is not practical to represent everyone's beliefs (numbers are irrelevant, if a single person has a belief they are equally entitled to have that belief respected as another individual who happens to have a belief shared by many others); therefore the only way to respect ALL religions is not to represent any of them in government.
As I am sure you will agree, the best solution is to not include religious representations on city halls at all (particularly since they lack any legitimate function). Just as religious moral values have no place in our laws and should instead be instilled by family and friends and enforced through stigma in those same circles. An excellent example is prostitution, without a moral component defined by religious values there is no justification for laws against prostitution and thus there should be none. Instead, families with those beliefs should teach their children not to be or solicit prostitutes and leave those with other values alone.
'Standards of morality differ, and what's worse is that when something is 'immoral' people get much angrier than when something is illegal.'
True enough, that is why I don't believe in legislating morality. Not all things that are illegal are immoral and the laws should reflect what is needed for a stable and functioning society not what is needed to punish immorality. I believe that juries as originally empowered (with the duty to determine if the application of the law in a case is just, not merely whether the defendant violated it)are the best method available for discarding cases where applying the law is also immoral.
'But because of cases like this I would like to legal and social support for the right, such as laws making communications that were 'reasonably believed to be secure' inadmissable as evidence. I would also love to hear a group like the NRA saying that the right to secure communication is as essential as the right to bear arms. It certainly is in my mind.'
Agreed, and for many of the same reasons. That is one of the flaws in our corrupt two party system (how did they con people into believing a couple dozen independents is 'one party' and that only giving them two choices was somehow more?) one party supports free speech but would leave citizenry unarmed and at the mercy of the police state and the other claims they should be armed (for hunting) but supports every other aspect of the police state.
'Those people don't deserve their activities to be protected - they're illegal.'
They deserve to have their activities protected unless those activities are wrong and it really isn't for Hushmail to say whether or not they are wrong. Illegal really has nothing to do with it. Many things were illegal in Nazi Germany or are illegal in China, or Russia, or the United States, or that doesn't mean they are wrong or immoral. Many laws are innately immoral.
Unfortunately many people forget that even a democratic government is an entity in itself with interests that differ from yours and from the actual citizenry. Even if the books weren't filled with preposterous laws that would make criminals of good decent and ethical individuals total law enforcement would be a bad thing.
I should know better than to feed the trolls but you do know these guys are not responsible for Open Document and have no official status. They were more or less a fan club. Redmond is the most likely culprit in this case so the addage NEVER... NEVER trust Redmond would be appropriate. This isn't even substantial news to the open source world and won't impact anything in it.
'NASA proponents argue it makes more sense to give money to talented, productive people in exchange for scientific knowledge, than spend in on unproductive people in the form of straight welfare.'
Yes, of course it makes more sense to reward productive people than unproductive ones but that isn't the issue. Those productive people are being given a million dollar party in exchange for nothing, they got their salaries and great benefits in exchange for their knowledge. There are numerous places that money could go that have nothing to do with welfare. It could be left in the hands of the productive people who earned it. It could be used to raise the ridiculous federal poverty level a few dollars so that those who are BOTH productive AND poor in this country can breath a little easier and maybe scrounge together enough to start to make something of themselves and easily repay that debt in taxes later. It could be used to partially fund a federal medical/prescription/vision/dental insurance program that is a fundemental public service, not welfare.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aint
'Grammar Nazis: Yes, I am aware that "ain't" really isn't a word.'
Generally I hate grammar nazis but I can't resist; "ain't" is a word. Language ain't defined by prudes it's defined by usage. The usage of the word "ain't" is widespread and long established. It is actually depressing that even the dictionary contains bigotry and stereotyping though. "Ain't" is not widely used by the uneducated, it is widely used by southerners and the idea that "ain't" is used by the uneducated stems from the false belief that southerners are ignorant and uneducated.
'This misses the point. You keep separating time and money. How much is your time worth?? It's not that time makes money, it's that time is money.'
No matter what any motivational speaker/tape/book says time is not money, Time is time. Most people waste a great deal of it. It doesn't matter how much I make at work. Two hours of my time is only worth as much as the activity I gave up to make the two hours.
Further, some of us actually enjoy working with technology. Building a computer is enjoyable, especially if you don't build them all the time. Each time you upgrade your machine there will be new hardware to become acquainted with.
The parent is also right, a chef who only boiled a couple eggs and never boiled another wouldn't know when the dish did not come out right because the eggs were cooked improperly, especially if the taste and texture of eggs changed every three months (that bit is needed for the analogy to work). A tech that doesn't build machines from time to time doesn't understand the problems that go with the various hardware configurations in those machines. Doesn't understand that say XP won't install because X memory used with Y chipset triggers a bug. A tech who works with hardware understands those issues and knows to look for them.
"Well, no, that's not right. They absolutely are valid contracts as a class. No court has ever said otherwise. Certain EULAs, and certain provisions contained in those specific EULAs, are invalid. You know the whole rumble about mandatory arbitration clauses? They're not categorically unlawful, and though they have been stricken down, it does not mean that the associated service contracts are invalid, or that the process of creating them is invalid, or that mandatory arbitration is unlawful."
It isn't that EULA's aren't valid contracts, it's that you can legally use the software in any way that isn't restricted by copyright law without agreeing to the EULA. If you legally acquire copyrighted material then you are more or less entitled to do whatever you please with it (including commercial use and resale) as long as it doesn't involve making copies and distributing them in some fashion.
'Apple's attitude, not questions of legality, is the real problem.'
Of course but questions of legality do persist. The problem is the DRM they have installed to prevent you from running the system on a PC. If you bypass that DRM then you have committed a criminal violation of the DMCA regardless of whether you have committed copyright infringment or not.
'No one but geeks would read the fine print. Joe Sixpack would still try to install on his $150 Wal-Mart PC, run into problems, call Apple, and complain loudly how much Apple sucked when they told him to read the disclaimer.'
The other reply is correct. I know a lot of joe sixpacks and they don't even know the big blue e is internet explorer and they certainly wouldn't attempt to install a new operating system. If apple was really afraid of this they could put a big yellow label on the side of the box that says the software is intended for mac's only and other usage could damage your computer.
That would scare away joe sixpack but wouldn't require turning innocent hackers into criminals guilty of dmca violations and copyright infringment.
'A better approach would be for Apple to allow one or two known high-quality boutique PC makers to ship OS X with their systems. At least that way the systems would be as stable as Macs out of the box.'
Or ditch the drm, leave the EULA restrictions as is and offer OEM licenses without the restriction. This way OSX is always preloaded by OEMS who will have tested their systems or hackers who know how to find OEM licenses. Joe sixpack won't install OSX because copies that could be installed won't be on the shelf at the store.
'Actually, they are not all that aggressive about some talented hackers getting OSX to run on whatever box they happen to own.'
That is a nice statement but the facts contradict it. Apple has used DRM and EULA terms to make doing so a criminal act as well as copyright infringment. Apple doesn't need to send their lawyers after anyone, the police will arrest you and the DA will prosecute you if you are caught using a hack to bypass their DRM. You don't get much more aggressive than that.
I know I know, it doesn't count because YOU'VE never been busted for cracking DRM.
'In the case of Apple's computers, they want to be able to give you that happy "Mac Experience" in which things don't go wrong on you. By controlling the hardware, Apple knows the possible configurations they need to test against, and can go a long way to ensuring that everything works.'
Yes, Apple isn't the only one doing that. Every software company does this to some degree and they call a tested configuration a 'supported configuration'. What Apple does is use technical and legal measures to stop you from running an 'unsupported configuration'.
Apple doesn't need to put technical and legal barriers in place in order to focus on their own hardware. They can deliver a 'mac experience' and let the geeks of world do as they wish at the same time.
'If people do hack the OS to run on whitebox hardware, do you think Apple wants to handle support calls for every single obscure piece of hardware that's floating about? It's probably not worth their time. If it's official, they know it plays well. If it isn't, then I bet they won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.'
Most wouldn't complain if this was apples tact but it isn't. Apple aggressively attacks anyone who hacks the OS to run on whitebox hardware, they attack the ones making the hack and they have seen to it that it is actually illegal for you and me to use said hack.
'And the relevance of that is what, exactly?'
This is a US site, the assumption is that everyone here is in the US and therefore only US taps are relevant to our drinking water.
'The guy was talking about Denmark, which is in neither country.'
No, he was talking about a Danish TV show about CHINESE taps.
'And it doen't matter how clean the water is if the tap is filling it with shit.'
That's the point, the tap isn't filling it with shit unless you are in China.
'Take a break from eating burgers and learn to read, you big fat idiot.'
Clearly I should drink deeply of the milk shared by so wise a boob as thee.
'Except for all the fluoride they are using'
Unfortunately that site seems to assume that anyone will immediately recognize fluoride as evil and doesn't bother to explain what is wrong with putting fluoride in the water. Aside from whitening and strengthening teeth, what is the problem with fluoride?
He was talking about chinese taps not US ones. Actually here in the US filtering technology is the best its ever been, the water is dramatically cleaner than ever before and even our ability to check and see if it is clean is better than ever. Now, when drinking water is incredibly clean here in the states everyone refuses to drink tap water anymore. I decided to get the best of both, I installed a reverse osmosis system on my tap ;P That's all their doing with your bottled water anyway.
'Please provide legal citations to back up your claim that postdating checks is illegal.
I do not have citations handy myself, but my understanding is that while nothing stops you from postdating a check, and people aren't supposed to cash/deposit it until the date written on the check (keep in mind a date is a required component of a check legally), the bank is explicitly protected against any claims based on their cashing the check early.
The bank could charge NSF fees and the rest even if the check was presented early. Can't remember if you would have a claim against the person who presented it to the bank early. Contract terms can also alter the situation (such as "we process all checks electronically and don't look at the date" or something).'
Actually a quick google reveals that technically postdating a check is not illegal. However, it is illegal to write a check without having the funds available WHEN THE CHECK IS WRITTEN as opposed to having them available at the date on the check. Most people post date checks because they don't have the funds yet and post dating a check for that reason is illegal. Post dating a check in and of itself apparently is not.
As for the person you've given a postdated check to, they have a moral/ethical obligation to wait IF they agreed to accept a post dated check (but not a legal one). Otherwise they aren't supposed to wait to cash the check at all. After all, without a prior agreement you either made a clerical error or were attempting to fraudulently delay payment possibly with the intent of avoiding late fees or penalties that you should have been charged. If your postdated check bounces the person you wrote it to can turn it into the states attorney just like any other bad check and have you prosecuted.
'(keep in mind a date is a required component of a check legally)'
Yes but the date is for record keeping, not for defining when the check can be cashed. The inconvenience of waiting until you receive your funds and they become available and having to schedule around those things belongs to you, not to your creditors.
Because that is the country CNN wrote the story about. Why not Brazil?
I can confirm what the other poster said. It is illegal to post date a check but its pretty much impossible to enforce, especially when you consider those who post date checks by mistake. The result is that all banks go by the day presented and not the post date.
Dunno what is someone from the US called, USian? That's what they call them on Slashdot, so why not EUian?
'The 27 countries in the EU do total out to just edge out the US alone. Add Canada to the US and their GDP passes those 27 countries.'
The EU is a combined political entity composed of 27 sovereign states. The US is a combined political entity composed of 50 sovereign states. The diffence is only in mindshare. The states of the US had a common enemy and since they repelled the enemy together they quickly formed a strong union. The EU states only formed a union very recently and had a great deal of independent history before banding together. There has been a great deal of time and history in the US that has strengthened the central political body and led to citizens being legally and mentally considered citizens of that central authority rather than of their own state. This will eventually be true of the EU given enough time.
The amendment to make all men equal didn't free the slaves, it made everyone a US citizen. They used to be citizens of their given state. It actually wasn't that long ago that the central government made laws that pertained to relations between states and laws that affected individual citizens were made by the states themselves.
That said, what does Canada have to do with anything? Canadians have nothing to do with the US, there isn't even any hard evidence they exist!
You'd think a bunch of lawyers would know that copyright law doesn't grant the copyright holder any ability to restrict usage of the material, only distribution and copying. Provided you obtain the material legally, you can do anything you like with it. View it, use it as kindling in a fire, etc.
Since the copyright holder is distributing the material to you, you have every right to view it and they have no legal right to stop you.