A store does not have to honor their sales. They can sell you a piece of shit and not accept it as a return
I'm amazed at the number of people that think this. It's simply not true. In most (all?) states you've got laws of fitness and merchantability which specifically address this. For Massachusetts, at least, See MGL - Chapter 106, especially sections 2-314 & 2-315. Also note section 2-316: For consumer goods sales in particular, a store cannot even expressly exclude these warrenties.
Now realize that none of this means you can just waltz in to a store and return anything you want on a whim, but it does mean that a store can NOT simply sell you a peice of shit and walk away.
But have you ever had a billing error in YOUR favor?
Never on my cell phone bill, but I did on my credit card once. They cashed a check I sent them for $1300 instead of $300. I yelled at the bank and they put the $1000 back in my checking account right away, but I didn't saw a word to the credit card company.
I put the $1000 credit I had into my money market account. Eight months later when they figured it out, I gave it back to them. But I was still up $50 or so on the interest. Ok, so not enough to retire on, but might as well take advantage of the rare error in my favor, right?
Well, to be fair to the professor, this was in 1990, before the age of Google et al. Also she didn't straight out accuse me, but instead said she suspected me and she never really pressed much further. Perhaps this was because I was innocent and so wasn't really fazed by the accusation and readily gave her my outline, rough draft copies, etc.
I didn't begrudge her the accusation. I'd rather false accusations than freeloaders who slip by.
But my own simple rule is as follows: if an essay sounds professional, it probably is. The writing standards of most undergraduate students are so low that anything well written really stands out.
I was once falsely accused of plagiarism in an English class on these grounds. I didn't know whether to be pleased the professor thought my paper was that good, or to be insulted that she thought my last few were crap.:-)
Yes it does. And the RIAA (and their apologists) are using this fact to blur the line between actual, in-the-legal-sense "theft" and mere copyright violation. And having blurred this distinction, they want to apply theft penalties to a situation they were never intended for.
I disagree. I think filesharers (and their appologists) are the ones trying to manipulate the meaning of the word into the narrowest possible definition in an attempt to defend they're position that they're not breaking the law.
To debate the ethics and legalities of sharing copyrighted files is useful and worthwhile (and I honestly hope the RIAA burns in hell for their anti-consumer attitudes) but to pretend that the word 'stealing' doesn't encompass copyright infringement as well as theft of physical property is purely political and not based in reality. To further insult people because they don't 'understand' the word because they're not using the politically chosen definition does nothing but fan the flames.
Should NO information cost money? Your "I'm taking, but you're not losing" argument boils down to solely that copyright is an artificial restriction placed on information. The whole point of copyright is that we, as a society, have decided that information should be artificially restricted. I don't think many people on either side are arguing against copyright (but I don't know, maybe you specifically are). The real question is where exactly the restrictions should be placed.
Get this through your skull, it's not stealing.
The word stealing has more than one meaning. "I stole the book", "I stole his research", "I stole a kiss". Insisting people only use your definition is a political move, so please don't treat people as ignorant or stupid as to the meaning of a word because they don't agree with your meaning.
Sounds like Slashdotters want the GPL to be legal but for EULAs to be illegal.
Hey, I dislike the GPL as much as the next guy, but your comment here makes little sense. The GPL is about distribution, EULAs are about use. You're free to disagree with the GPL on any peice of software just the same as you can disagree with any EULA you'd like. Same result: Use the software any way you like, but distribute it and you've violated copyright.
Are you trying to imply that there is not such thing as SG-1????
I wouldn't ever dream of implying that! In fact, I keep trying to tell my wife that my weekly meetings at the SGC are extremely important. "Damn it, forget American Idle. Don't you understand? We've got teams off world!!!!"
I just wanted to point out that the reasoning "it is mentioned in some ancient story so it must be myth" is invalid
Agreed. But I think the grandparent post's original point was simply that Plato's myth isn't very convincing evidence of Atlantis' existance because it was meant as political allegory, not historical documentation.
Granted, "Atlantis is Stupid" is not exactly the most adult way to make that point.
But don't forget, not so long ago Troy was also believed to be non-existant.
That's the same tired old argument as believing in the Loch Ness monster because of the coelacanth or buying lottery tickets because *somebody* won last night. That only shows that unlikely things are possible, not probable.
That's enough for creative fantasizing, but not nearly enough for a rational belief. So it's great fun to imagine if Atlantis might be, and to watch SG-1 go looking for it every week. But when people start making claims that they've really found it, it's time for the skepticism to come front and center.
Joseph H. Allen. He used to be at WPI in the early 90's. Don't know where he's gotten to these days though. He was a big H.P. Lovecraft fan as I recall.
The solution would therefore seem to be the practice of keeping a bottle of vodka near your computer and taking a couple shots before accepting each EULA. Since you were drunk, you can probably successfully argue that it isn't legally binding...
I know the comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I think in the case of getting drunk to avoid responsibility, it could be pretty easily argued by the other party that 1) you specifically understood the EULA to be a contract, and 2) you were acting in bad faith when you agreed to it.
I think you'd be much better off either claiming ignorance that it was a contract, or arguing that you knew exactly what you were doing but that you didn't consider it a contract. (insert usual lack-of-lawyerhood acronym here)
Why bother passing raw materials around? You can just sell your logo to your subsidiary and then license it back to put on each box for whatever price you want.
Well you can probably blame me for that. Back in '92 or so, the UCC (they're called something else now, ACS maybe?) were starting to lock down what users could do on the main campus servers. Since I was the CIF SysAdmin at the time, I worked a deal to get them to give us their just decommissioned Sun 3/260 in exchange for setting up accounts for the general student population to 'fool around' outside of their servers. They accepted, and after that point when anybody wanted to do something funky, they'd say "Use CIF".
Maybe you're the reason the Unix group is so paranooid;)
:-)
That's the first move I made. I cozied up to the Unix group, and eventually became the student TA. It was definately a very different group back then though. But then again, the whole Internet was different back in those days. I remember lobbying them to switch Uhura to use to DNS instead of/etc/hosts.
Don't worry, UofR still doesn't have email aliases (the address you get is the address you get), single sign-on (like RIT's DCE), or university web servers that are actually useful to students doing anything beyond static HTML.
Back in the early 90's when I attended UR, one of the nice things was that they had a very good computing resource/student ratio. They didn't have the best or most equipment, but I pretty quickly got access to pretty much anything and everything I wanted. Email aliases or anything else was not a problem, I had root access on a good number of the machines on the network.
the reason the name brands cost more is because they're better.
It's all about value really. I find the brand names are (sometimes) better, but not very often worth it. In other words, the brand name may work, say, 1.5x better, but it's priced at 3x the generic. (just an example, don't quote me on multiplication factors:-) Anyway, I'll usually buy the generic, cause it's not worth it to me to pay so much extra for the additional advantages of the brand name.
Additionally, I'll always try the generics first, and only then fall back on a more expensive brand name. It's a small financial expense if it doesn't pay off, but a huge gain if it does
Finally, often on food related items, you'll find that what you think is "better" is actually just "familiar". Once you've become used to the off-brand product, the brand name becomes the one that tastes "wrong".
Yes, point taken, somebody else also mentioned it. FWIW I believe vinegar was the traditional agent used, but I am not expert on cleaning agents, just knowledgable enough to realize that it's All The Same Stuff.
Yes, agreed. Your real point, "Windex is nothing special guys" was a damn good one. Could be that Windex was originally vinegar, I dunno. As with you, I'm not an expert in cleaning agents.
While I pretty much agree with your bitter rant against name brands, I have to point out that the above statement is false. Windex is basically ~5% Isopropyl alcohol in water (with a few other added ingredients), while distilled vinegar is ~5% Acetic acid in water.
I cringe when I see people pretending it's somehow scientific to call an unproved hypothesis an 'explanation' just because it fits the current materialist paradigms, and to dismiss wholesale the whole realm of new age thinking
Attempting to find parsimonious answers to various questions is not a wholesale dismissal of anything. Consider that it may be you who are close-minded, unwilling to accept the possibility that what you want to believe may not be the truth.
This sort of closed-mindedness led to 'experts' being sure it was safe to turn cows into cannibals [..] The same cynical BS is responsible for hundreds of thousands of birth defects.
I'm encouraged by your skepticism toward what you call "materialism". Now, all you need to do is apply the same skepticism to what you call "new age thinking" and you're on the right path!
Some further thoughts:
The view of "Scientist" vs "New Ager" is a false dichotomy.
There's a whole specrum of people with all kinds of different beliefs.
Everyone can be wrong- scientists, new ager, and everyone in the middle.
Science is about objectivity, not materialism.
Objectivity is how we approach truth.
Without objectivity, there is no truth.
Failing of a scientist is not a failing of objectivity.
A failed belief is not support for an unrelated belief.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm amazed at the number of people that think this. It's simply not true. In most (all?) states you've got laws of fitness and merchantability which specifically address this. For Massachusetts, at least, See MGL - Chapter 106, especially sections 2-314 & 2-315. Also note section 2-316: For consumer goods sales in particular, a store cannot even expressly exclude these warrenties.
Now realize that none of this means you can just waltz in to a store and return anything you want on a whim, but it does mean that a store can NOT simply sell you a peice of shit and walk away.
Serial port connections...
Never on my cell phone bill, but I did on my credit card once. They cashed a check I sent them for $1300 instead of $300. I yelled at the bank and they put the $1000 back in my checking account right away, but I didn't saw a word to the credit card company.
I put the $1000 credit I had into my money market account. Eight months later when they figured it out, I gave it back to them. But I was still up $50 or so on the interest. Ok, so not enough to retire on, but might as well take advantage of the rare error in my favor, right?
I didn't begrudge her the accusation. I'd rather false accusations than freeloaders who slip by.
I was once falsely accused of plagiarism in an English class on these grounds. I didn't know whether to be pleased the professor thought my paper was that good, or to be insulted that she thought my last few were crap. :-)
I disagree. I think filesharers (and their appologists) are the ones trying to manipulate the meaning of the word into the narrowest possible definition in an attempt to defend they're position that they're not breaking the law.
To debate the ethics and legalities of sharing copyrighted files is useful and worthwhile (and I honestly hope the RIAA burns in hell for their anti-consumer attitudes) but to pretend that the word 'stealing' doesn't encompass copyright infringement as well as theft of physical property is purely political and not based in reality. To further insult people because they don't 'understand' the word because they're not using the politically chosen definition does nothing but fan the flames.
I "steal" your music, you have one less CD. Wait, no... How is copyright infringement like stealing again?
I steal the show, people love me.
I "steal" cars, and people love me. Wait, no... How is grand theft auto like stealing again?
Should NO information cost money? Your "I'm taking, but you're not losing" argument boils down to solely that copyright is an artificial restriction placed on information. The whole point of copyright is that we, as a society, have decided that information should be artificially restricted. I don't think many people on either side are arguing against copyright (but I don't know, maybe you specifically are). The real question is where exactly the restrictions should be placed.
Get this through your skull, it's not stealing.
The word stealing has more than one meaning. "I stole the book", "I stole his research", "I stole a kiss". Insisting people only use your definition is a political move, so please don't treat people as ignorant or stupid as to the meaning of a word because they don't agree with your meaning.
Hey, I dislike the GPL as much as the next guy, but your comment here makes little sense. The GPL is about distribution, EULAs are about use. You're free to disagree with the GPL on any peice of software just the same as you can disagree with any EULA you'd like. Same result: Use the software any way you like, but distribute it and you've violated copyright.
I wouldn't ever dream of implying that! In fact, I keep trying to tell my wife that my weekly meetings at the SGC are extremely important. "Damn it, forget American Idle. Don't you understand? We've got teams off world!!!!"
Agreed. But I think the grandparent post's original point was simply that Plato's myth isn't very convincing evidence of Atlantis' existance because it was meant as political allegory, not historical documentation.
Granted, "Atlantis is Stupid" is not exactly the most adult way to make that point.
That's the same tired old argument as believing in the Loch Ness monster because of the coelacanth or buying lottery tickets because *somebody* won last night. That only shows that unlikely things are possible, not probable.
That's enough for creative fantasizing, but not nearly enough for a rational belief. So it's great fun to imagine if Atlantis might be, and to watch SG-1 go looking for it every week. But when people start making claims that they've really found it, it's time for the skepticism to come front and center.
Joseph H. Allen. He used to be at WPI in the early 90's. Don't know where he's gotten to these days though. He was a big H.P. Lovecraft fan as I recall.
I know the comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I think in the case of getting drunk to avoid responsibility, it could be pretty easily argued by the other party that 1) you specifically understood the EULA to be a contract, and 2) you were acting in bad faith when you agreed to it.
I think you'd be much better off either claiming ignorance that it was a contract, or arguing that you knew exactly what you were doing but that you didn't consider it a contract. (insert usual lack-of-lawyerhood acronym here)
Why bother passing raw materials around? You can just sell your logo to your subsidiary and then license it back to put on each box for whatever price you want.
Well you can probably blame me for that. Back in '92 or so, the UCC (they're called something else now, ACS maybe?) were starting to lock down what users could do on the main campus servers. Since I was the CIF SysAdmin at the time, I worked a deal to get them to give us their just decommissioned Sun 3/260 in exchange for setting up accounts for the general student population to 'fool around' outside of their servers. They accepted, and after that point when anybody wanted to do something funky, they'd say "Use CIF".
That's the first move I made. I cozied up to the Unix group, and eventually became the student TA. It was definately a very different group back then though. But then again, the whole Internet was different back in those days. I remember lobbying them to switch Uhura to use to DNS instead of /etc/hosts.
Back in the early 90's when I attended UR, one of the nice things was that they had a very good computing resource/student ratio. They didn't have the best or most equipment, but I pretty quickly got access to pretty much anything and everything I wanted. Email aliases or anything else was not a problem, I had root access on a good number of the machines on the network.
Maybe that's all changed now...
It's all about value really. I find the brand names are (sometimes) better, but not very often worth it. In other words, the brand name may work, say, 1.5x better, but it's priced at 3x the generic. (just an example, don't quote me on multiplication factors :-) Anyway, I'll usually buy the generic, cause it's not worth it to me to pay so much extra for the additional advantages of the brand name.
Additionally, I'll always try the generics first, and only then fall back on a more expensive brand name. It's a small financial expense if it doesn't pay off, but a huge gain if it does
Finally, often on food related items, you'll find that what you think is "better" is actually just "familiar". Once you've become used to the off-brand product, the brand name becomes the one that tastes "wrong".
Yes, agreed. Your real point, "Windex is nothing special guys" was a damn good one. Could be that Windex was originally vinegar, I dunno. As with you, I'm not an expert in cleaning agents.
Here's the MSDS
While I pretty much agree with your bitter rant against name brands, I have to point out that the above statement is false. Windex is basically ~5% Isopropyl alcohol in water (with a few other added ingredients), while distilled vinegar is ~5% Acetic acid in water.
Our vintage computing shirts are just the ticket for all you old computer nerds. See below.
Attempting to find parsimonious answers to various questions is not a wholesale dismissal of anything. Consider that it may be you who are close-minded, unwilling to accept the possibility that what you want to believe may not be the truth.
This sort of closed-mindedness led to 'experts' being sure it was safe to turn cows into cannibals [..] The same cynical BS is responsible for hundreds of thousands of birth defects.
I'm encouraged by your skepticism toward what you call "materialism". Now, all you need to do is apply the same skepticism to what you call "new age thinking" and you're on the right path! Some further thoughts:
I bet he doesn't... He's been at odds with them ever since they refused to back him against the Uri Gellar lawsuit.