Living in Canada my whole life, I have to correct you. We're not a "pseudodictatorship" as you put it... we're a FRIENDLY dictatorship.:)
As for free speech... you're picking a single instance that happened 5 years ago. I agree, it's a grotesque violation of civil liberties, and we've never been able to shake the shame. However, saying that Canada is not the place for free speech... well, I can't diagree with you more. The fact I can watch the CBC at any time of day and see boobs, hear cussing, showing of the middle finger etc (in essence, no censorship), as well as on other canadian stations such as Bravo, this to me proves that Canada IS a place of freedom of speech.
And hey, if we're going to decide whether or not a country has free speech or not based on a single instance, the states is a goldmine of exmples. How about in December of 2002 when a man was arrested for making a joke about how God will speak to the world with a "Burning Bush" (I think it's witty...)? Is that not stifling free speach as well? My bookmark to this article is no longer working, but it was here: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/06/burning. bush.ap/index.html
I'm not much for cnn, but I saw this story on several newsites back in december...
You can unblock anything that comes in which you deem not to be spam, as well as block anything that comes in which you deem to be spam.
In other words, your personal definitions of spam override the definition sent to you by fellow peers... and it works great.
If you're interested, I now use a spam filter which works pretty good. It's a peer-to-peer filter, so the definitions you create for spam are shared across all users, and vice versa. Since I started using it, I've seen very little spam in my inbox. Unfortunately, I think it only plugs into outlook, but I'm not sure. Maybe somebody here can reverse engineer this baby and pump a new cross-client/platform net...
"Would people not get up in arms if IE or Windows had a security flaw that MS knew about but did nothing about it? Answer, Yes... It happens on/. all the time. But they will never be 100% secure either... so why don't they stop putting out security patches."
You make a good point in your posts, however (and lets just take this argument at face value.;) MS isn't racially profiling it's users, disallowing certain groups of people from using it's software, or videotaping you when you search the web... know what I mean? I believe in filling the holes which cause a compromise of security, but putting everybody into what is essentially a public, government supervised prison is not going to solve anything... if anything, it'll create an uprising of the people... that is, once they realise what has been done.
I fail to see how any of the new laws make the country a more secure place? All the government has done is strip away our rights and leverage their power. The Patriot Act is an attrocious piece of government garble, and if the excerpts of The Patriot Act II are accurate, it's going to get way, way worse.
Can somebody please explain to me how any of these new bills/agencies (The Office of Homeland Security? gimmie a break...) make the country "more" secure? If these bills and agencies existed at the time of 9/11, do you think it would have prevented a 747 flying at 450 mph into a building? The answer, plainly, is no. How can you predict such an attack? These new bills/agencies will most certainly NOT make the country more secure, all they will do is take away the rights and freedoms of honest citizens.
At the end of the day, we have to keep in mind that it's Poindexter that was the big pusher for the Homeland Security Act, and naturally, the Information Awareness Office. This is the same Poindexter who lost his job as National Security Adviser and was convicted of conspiracy, lying to congress, defrauding the government, and shredding evidence of the Iran Contra affair.
"By Breaking this seal, you blah blah blah..."
I don't think that's binding because the conditions of the EULA are not presented to you until after you break the seal. I'm pretty sure binding somebody to a contract without presenting them the terms of the contract is a big no no.
But has an EULA ever been challenged in a court of law? Would it stand? Here in Canada, when I go to purchase something (anything, not just software) I am entering a retail contractual agreement. However, the contract does not become binding until both parties "sign" the contract; ie, I receive the product I'm purchasing while they receive my hard earned cash. Not until the money passes hands is the contract considered legal (at this point, both parties have consideration). The retailer cannot force anything more upon me after that point.
For example, it used to be when I purchased a CD from Future Shop, after paying for the CD and I had the cd and the receipt, they would tell me "please sign here so you don't return it". I always told them no, they would say I have to, and I would say that legally, I don't. If they wanted extra conditions on the purchase of a cd, they should present those conditions before the actual purchase.
So, with the above in mind, how does it relate to software? If I purchase say, MS Office from some retailer, there is consideration for both parties (they get my money while I get some software). When I take it home and install it and am presented with an EULA, is that EULA contractually binding? From what I recall, one of the rules to make a contract binding is that both parties must have consideration. If I accept the EULA, what is my consideration? The manufacturer of the software's consideration is they get to rape me whenever they feel like it. What is my consideration? I get to use the software? I don't think this would stand because I've already legally purchased a license for this software, have I not?
Just my thoughts on it... not written very well, and my hand is cramped up, so hey. Any additional comments?
Slashdot Mirror
Living in Canada my whole life, I have to correct you. We're not a "pseudodictatorship" as you put it... we're a FRIENDLY dictatorship. :)
. bush.ap/index.html
As for free speech... you're picking a single instance that happened 5 years ago. I agree, it's a grotesque violation of civil liberties, and we've never been able to shake the shame. However, saying that Canada is not the place for free speech... well, I can't diagree with you more. The fact I can watch the CBC at any time of day and see boobs, hear cussing, showing of the middle finger etc (in essence, no censorship), as well as on other canadian stations such as Bravo, this to me proves that Canada IS a place of freedom of speech.
And hey, if we're going to decide whether or not a country has free speech or not based on a single instance, the states is a goldmine of exmples. How about in December of 2002 when a man was arrested for making a joke about how God will speak to the world with a "Burning Bush" (I think it's witty...)? Is that not stifling free speach as well? My bookmark to this article is no longer working, but it was here: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/06/burning
I'm not much for cnn, but I saw this story on several newsites back in december...
You can unblock anything that comes in which you deem not to be spam, as well as block anything that comes in which you deem to be spam. In other words, your personal definitions of spam override the definition sent to you by fellow peers... and it works great.
If you're interested, I now use a spam filter which works pretty good. It's a peer-to-peer filter, so the definitions you create for spam are shared across all users, and vice versa. Since I started using it, I've seen very little spam in my inbox. Unfortunately, I think it only plugs into outlook, but I'm not sure. Maybe somebody here can reverse engineer this baby and pump a new cross-client/platform net...
Here it is
"Would people not get up in arms if IE or Windows had a security flaw that MS knew about but did nothing about it? Answer, Yes... It happens on /. all the time. But they will never be 100% secure either... so why don't they stop putting out security patches."
You make a good point in your posts, however (and lets just take this argument at face value. ;) MS isn't racially profiling it's users, disallowing certain groups of people from using it's software, or videotaping you when you search the web... know what I mean? I believe in filling the holes which cause a compromise of security, but putting everybody into what is essentially a public, government supervised prison is not going to solve anything... if anything, it'll create an uprising of the people... that is, once they realise what has been done.
I fail to see how any of the new laws make the country a more secure place? All the government has done is strip away our rights and leverage their power. The Patriot Act is an attrocious piece of government garble, and if the excerpts of The Patriot Act II are accurate, it's going to get way, way worse.
Can somebody please explain to me how any of these new bills/agencies (The Office of Homeland Security? gimmie a break...) make the country "more" secure? If these bills and agencies existed at the time of 9/11, do you think it would have prevented a 747 flying at 450 mph into a building? The answer, plainly, is no. How can you predict such an attack? These new bills/agencies will most certainly NOT make the country more secure, all they will do is take away the rights and freedoms of honest citizens.
At the end of the day, we have to keep in mind that it's Poindexter that was the big pusher for the Homeland Security Act, and naturally, the Information Awareness Office. This is the same Poindexter who lost his job as National Security Adviser and was convicted of conspiracy, lying to congress, defrauding the government, and shredding evidence of the Iran Contra affair.
Wow! I feel so secure!
"By Breaking this seal, you blah blah blah..." I don't think that's binding because the conditions of the EULA are not presented to you until after you break the seal. I'm pretty sure binding somebody to a contract without presenting them the terms of the contract is a big no no.
But has an EULA ever been challenged in a court of law? Would it stand? Here in Canada, when I go to purchase something (anything, not just software) I am entering a retail contractual agreement. However, the contract does not become binding until both parties "sign" the contract; ie, I receive the product I'm purchasing while they receive my hard earned cash. Not until the money passes hands is the contract considered legal (at this point, both parties have consideration). The retailer cannot force anything more upon me after that point.
For example, it used to be when I purchased a CD from Future Shop, after paying for the CD and I had the cd and the receipt, they would tell me "please sign here so you don't return it". I always told them no, they would say I have to, and I would say that legally, I don't. If they wanted extra conditions on the purchase of a cd, they should present those conditions before the actual purchase.
So, with the above in mind, how does it relate to software? If I purchase say, MS Office from some retailer, there is consideration for both parties (they get my money while I get some software). When I take it home and install it and am presented with an EULA, is that EULA contractually binding? From what I recall, one of the rules to make a contract binding is that both parties must have consideration. If I accept the EULA, what is my consideration? The manufacturer of the software's consideration is they get to rape me whenever they feel like it. What is my consideration? I get to use the software? I don't think this would stand because I've already legally purchased a license for this software, have I not?
Just my thoughts on it... not written very well, and my hand is cramped up, so hey. Any additional comments?