In many places in the U.S. they have been shown to be legal and binding contracts even though you can't read them before you have to agree to them, like in many shrink-wrap packaged EULAs.
Hey, the chineese have elections. They get to choose their government. They can choose between the communist party, and the communist party. Oh, and occasionaly the have someone from the communist party on a ticket too.
Well, since a large percentage of the U.S. population has a criminal record it doesn't really matter where you work, there will be ex-cons there to prey on you. Bubba thinks you got a purdy mouth.
Or you can be talented at what you do. I don't make as much money as I could if I was willing to put up with more crap at work and not point up managements faults, like using corpspeak. They haven't gotten rid of me after all these years. Want to know why? Because when the shit drops in the pot, I can make really tasty shit stew. When they make a totaly unworkable app and roll it out I'm the one that finds the problems and tells them how to fix them. I am a poor programmer, but I understand how computers work and can find the faults in the application design. I am very unliked where I work, and as soon as they can find a replacement for me, my ass is going to bounce on the pavement when they kick me out, but they haven't found a replacement in ten years yet.
How about we just say, "Doesn't work with your DRM crap!", or "DRM Diabled". How about some stickers that say "Because it's MY computer you assholes!" Those work for me.:)
I'm assuming the author didn't mean all were female per se, but was going for as nonoffensive a term to describe the players profession as possible not caring that some are male.
Spreadsheets non-obvious? That was a joke, right? They are the representation of a physical ledger sheet on a computer screen with logic to allow the basic math that you would perform on paper. It is simply a ledger sheet on the computer. People have been doing it on paper for centuries. Pretty obvious if you ask me, not that USPTO would have gotten it right.
In physical patents there is a requirement that the patent applied for not be a simple transformation of an existing patent. You can't get another patent by changing the material something is made of. I can't replace the oxygen atoms in a molecule with chlorine and claim it as a new invention. They allow that kind of crap in software all the time.
Ok. In most countries, you are resposible for your actions whether the outcome of your actions are what you intended or not. Years ago, I'm guessing before you were born, A neighbor of mine was shooting bottle rockets on the fourth of july, the U.S. independence day, and one of them fell in a 1200 acre wheat field that was drying so it could be harvested. This set the the field on fire and threatened the destruction of 6 homes, including mine, that were on the edge of the field. Before it was extinguished they had to call in two other fire departments from neighboring towns. It cost my neighbor over $20,000 in restitution and fines. He had no intention of starting a fire, but he was responible for his actions. These kids may not have intended the consequences of their actions to be what they were, but they are resposible none the less.
So, what's next...litigation over kids spreading the chicken pox?
Well, there have been both civil and criminal charges brought against people who willingly exposed others to communicable diseases, so it's not the next thing, it's an old thing. One of the oldest was a case concering "typhoid Mary". I assume you are much too young to remember quarentine posters on house doors.
Ok. That is your take on it. Mine is different. Oh, and when we are "at war" in perpetuity, I guess we never get our rights back? Why does some vague "enemy" that you fear so much give the government the right to curtail the rights of it's citizens? There are many more people a year murdered by people who are not "enemies" than die in terrorist attacks. Does the government get to take even more of my rights away to combat that?
Yes, the federal government curtailed constitutional rights other times in the history of the U.S. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. I don't fear "them" nearly as much as you do. I do not harbor any fear that they can destroy "us". They can kill people, but there are many other causes of death than violent intollerant morons, and I'm not willing to give up my rights for those things either. I am a firm believer in Benjamin Franklins quote " Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Why weren't they prosecuted if they were thieves? That's a criminal court's jurisdiction, not a civil court's.
Lets see. Hmmmm. I can't find a damn thing that says that if a criminal act is committed it precludes a civil suit. Next non sequiter please.
What harm? He was embarassed
He spent time in mental institutions. Yes, some peoples grip on sanity is that tentative. That doesn't give the morons that did this some right to do it. Besides, it wasn't their video. they did not have a legal right to use it in any way, and simply for that they should be punished.
frankly, if you think that's worthy of wasting a CIVIL court's time, then I'm wasting my time with you.
Obviously you are wasting your time then. Also, the lawyers for the defendants must not have thought it was a waste. They weren't able to get the charges dismissed, and they settled out of court. If there was no case they would have simply carried it through. I doubt it would be cheaper to settle than get an aquittal, but can't say for sure since the settlement is sealed.
You might not like it, and you can make up all the stupid justifications for why you feel how you feel, but all you've done is support a rich spoiled brat abusing the courts to get something his parents never gave him and can't buy him. Self respect.
You have your opinion, and I have mine. I don't need to make up any "stupid justifications", my opinion is just as valid whether you like it or not. Apparently our difference of opinion comes down to the fact that I feel that they were in the wrong and deserved to be punished for their actions, and you think it was funny and cool.
Everyone violates laws in the U.S. It's impossible not to. We have so many contradictory laws that in some cases to folllow one law you must violate another.
So let me get this staight. You have a definition on what makes a GOOD citizen, and if someone doesn't meet those criteria then you believe that they should lose their rights as a citizen? That is ludicrious, but not unexpected. Who made you the arbiter of what makes a GOOD citizen? I feel that people who abdicate their rights as enumerated in the Constitution are BAD citizens. You appear to be abdicating you rights in an effort to gain greater personal security. Does that mean I should be able to revoke your rights?
I believe that people who fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe people that plan and conspire to fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe that the government should attempt to find people who are conspiring to commit these crimes. I do not believe that citizens should have to give up their rights for the government to do that.
No, he didn't waste the courts time. The little morons took something that wasn't theirs with the intent to cause harm to "Star Wars Kid" (Ghyslain Raza). They and their parents deserved to be slapped silly in the courts. You just want to stick up for the little thieves because you liked the video and are glad they stole it so you could have a laugh at Ghyslains expense.
Oh fucking well, put that way, how could I disagree with you. One americans life is worth much more than the rights and freedoms of all of them. Part of why they hate about us is that we have the freedoms to hold differing beliefs and worship as we wish. We have "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Getting rid of things like that annoying restriction on our government will make the bad guys fucking love us, I guess. Notice the fucking Bill of Rights doesn't enumerate the rights of the fucking government? It enumerates the rights of the citizens.
If you don't think slippery slopes are real just do a bit of research on seatbelt laws. First they were just for issuing warnings, then they could issue tickets, but couldn't pull you over for not wearing them, then they could pull you over for not wearing them. Now, some places are issuing tickets if the traffic control cammeras snap a picture of you even if you weren't breaking the law the the cammeras are ostencibly there for. Slippery slopes are real, and get steeper every day. By the way, seatbelt laws are mainly to save the insurance companies money not lives.
p.s. Before you think I am against wearing seat belts, I wear mine, and I did before the laws were passed. I just think it should be the citizens choice, not the governments.
And we're not. At least those of us who are reasonably sane are not.
You do realize that almost all insane people believe themselves to be sane? Well, with that out of the way...
The U.S. isn't a totalitarian hell hole. At least not yet. What many people wish to do is to stop it from becoming one. There is no guarantee that it would without people defending the U.S. Constitution, but many would rather not simply wait around and find out which way it goes under it's own inertia. That's what the whole bill of rights is about. It was MEANT to make law enforcement less than an easy job. The government is supposed to have to bust its ass and dodge roadblocks to get the evidence required to convict criminals. There is a reason for this. The country exists for the citizens, not the government. If the founding fathers knew we had, litteraly, millions of laws on the books, they would shit themselves. Even the ones that were for a large centralized government.
I am infuriated by this but no more so than I am by surveys that show that 23% of all Americans believe that the first amendment goes TOO FAR in the rights it guarantees!
Well, someone's saying things they don't like, and they don't want to hear them. Don't their ears have a right not to have to listen to these blasphemies? Should they have to ignore the obscene rantings of someone that holds a view other than themselves? Why should those people have a right to their own damned opinion, especially when THEY ARE WRONG?
The first amendment goes too far because it protects things I don't like, and we all know enforcement of constitutional law should revolve around MY sensibilities!
- If you're not doing anything wrong what are you worried about?
But I am breaking laws. Every day. So are you, and so is everyone in the U.S. We have, literally, millions of laws on the books. There is no way that you can be alive in this country and not be breaking laws. The thing is that the government selectively applies the laws so that the people they like are not seriously impacted. If you do something a bit too annoying, they will pull out the "obscure laws you can't avoid breaking" stick and start to whack you with it until you get in line.
Um... They will realize it when a majority of the citizens in America actually DO take their rights seriously. There are huge numbers of people that I have met that are not just willing, but eager to give up their rights for security. They are happy to do this because the people who will be tread upon are people they do not know. They are not their friends and familiy, they are "Those People." The people who are abdicating their rights do so not realizing that as rights errode and laws become broader and more encompasing, that they and theirs will eventually be swept up in the "gill net" of justice.
No it doesn't. It stands for "I have truly found paradise". That's what I told my boss when I put an IHTFP poster on my cubical wall, and I'm sticking to it.
Well, yes. I believe they are also implying that the vendors are missing out on additional sales, but I bet the PC vendors may be supprised when it comes time to renegotiate the OEM licensing agreement with Microsoft.
But they are not giving it away for free. They are telling the vendors that they need to install windows on the systems and pay Microsoft their standard licensing fee. They are even getting "feet on the street" to "help you get the value proposition for pre-installed software and related services."
The "value proposition" is apparently that you had better not cut into Microsofts income stream by selling customers what they want.
Punishment for 2nd degree murder = 3 years house arrest (monitored), and 5 years parole/probation. Well, at least for my mother-in-law's neighbor. Not a hell of a lot worse than the RIAA settlement, that's for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
In many places in the U.S. they have been shown to be legal and binding contracts even though you can't read them before you have to agree to them, like in many shrink-wrap packaged EULAs.
e-motes are for the humor challanged. You know, people like me. ;)
Hey, the chineese have elections. They get to choose their government. They can choose between the communist party, and the communist party. Oh, and occasionaly the have someone from the communist party on a ticket too.
Well, since a large percentage of the U.S. population has a criminal record it doesn't really matter where you work, there will be ex-cons there to prey on you. Bubba thinks you got a purdy mouth.
Or you can be talented at what you do. I don't make as much money as I could if I was willing to put up with more crap at work and not point up managements faults, like using corpspeak. They haven't gotten rid of me after all these years. Want to know why? Because when the shit drops in the pot, I can make really tasty shit stew. When they make a totaly unworkable app and roll it out I'm the one that finds the problems and tells them how to fix them. I am a poor programmer, but I understand how computers work and can find the faults in the application design. I am very unliked where I work, and as soon as they can find a replacement for me, my ass is going to bounce on the pavement when they kick me out, but they haven't found a replacement in ten years yet.
How about we just say, "Doesn't work with your DRM crap!", or "DRM Diabled". How about some stickers that say "Because it's MY computer you assholes!" Those work for me. :)
I'm assuming the author didn't mean all were female per se, but was going for as nonoffensive a term to describe the players profession as possible not caring that some are male.
Spreadsheets non-obvious? That was a joke, right? They are the representation of a physical ledger sheet on a computer screen with logic to allow the basic math that you would perform on paper. It is simply a ledger sheet on the computer. People have been doing it on paper for centuries. Pretty obvious if you ask me, not that USPTO would have gotten it right.
In physical patents there is a requirement that the patent applied for not be a simple transformation of an existing patent. You can't get another patent by changing the material something is made of. I can't replace the oxygen atoms in a molecule with chlorine and claim it as a new invention. They allow that kind of crap in software all the time.
Ok. In most countries, you are resposible for your actions whether the outcome of your actions are what you intended or not. Years ago, I'm guessing before you were born, A neighbor of mine was shooting bottle rockets on the fourth of july, the U.S. independence day, and one of them fell in a 1200 acre wheat field that was drying so it could be harvested. This set the the field on fire and threatened the destruction of 6 homes, including mine, that were on the edge of the field. Before it was extinguished they had to call in two other fire departments from neighboring towns. It cost my neighbor over $20,000 in restitution and fines. He had no intention of starting a fire, but he was responible for his actions. These kids may not have intended the consequences of their actions to be what they were, but they are resposible none the less.
So, what's next...litigation over kids spreading the chicken pox?
Well, there have been both civil and criminal charges brought against people who willingly exposed others to communicable diseases, so it's not the next thing, it's an old thing. One of the oldest was a case concering "typhoid Mary". I assume you are much too young to remember quarentine posters on house doors.
Ok. That is your take on it. Mine is different. Oh, and when we are "at war" in perpetuity, I guess we never get our rights back? Why does some vague "enemy" that you fear so much give the government the right to curtail the rights of it's citizens? There are many more people a year murdered by people who are not "enemies" than die in terrorist attacks. Does the government get to take even more of my rights away to combat that? Yes, the federal government curtailed constitutional rights other times in the history of the U.S. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. I don't fear "them" nearly as much as you do. I do not harbor any fear that they can destroy "us". They can kill people, but there are many other causes of death than violent intollerant morons, and I'm not willing to give up my rights for those things either. I am a firm believer in Benjamin Franklins quote " Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Why weren't they prosecuted if they were thieves? That's a criminal court's jurisdiction, not a civil court's.
Lets see. Hmmmm. I can't find a damn thing that says that if a criminal act is committed it precludes a civil suit. Next non sequiter please.
What harm? He was embarassed
He spent time in mental institutions. Yes, some peoples grip on sanity is that tentative. That doesn't give the morons that did this some right to do it. Besides, it wasn't their video. they did not have a legal right to use it in any way, and simply for that they should be punished.
frankly, if you think that's worthy of wasting a CIVIL court's time, then I'm wasting my time with you.
Obviously you are wasting your time then. Also, the lawyers for the defendants must not have thought it was a waste. They weren't able to get the charges dismissed, and they settled out of court. If there was no case they would have simply carried it through. I doubt it would be cheaper to settle than get an aquittal, but can't say for sure since the settlement is sealed.
You might not like it, and you can make up all the stupid justifications for why you feel how you feel, but all you've done is support a rich spoiled brat abusing the courts to get something his parents never gave him and can't buy him. Self respect.
You have your opinion, and I have mine. I don't need to make up any "stupid justifications", my opinion is just as valid whether you like it or not. Apparently our difference of opinion comes down to the fact that I feel that they were in the wrong and deserved to be punished for their actions, and you think it was funny and cool.
Everyone violates laws in the U.S. It's impossible not to. We have so many contradictory laws that in some cases to folllow one law you must violate another.
So let me get this staight. You have a definition on what makes a GOOD citizen, and if someone doesn't meet those criteria then you believe that they should lose their rights as a citizen? That is ludicrious, but not unexpected. Who made you the arbiter of what makes a GOOD citizen? I feel that people who abdicate their rights as enumerated in the Constitution are BAD citizens. You appear to be abdicating you rights in an effort to gain greater personal security. Does that mean I should be able to revoke your rights?
I believe that people who fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe people that plan and conspire to fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe that the government should attempt to find people who are conspiring to commit these crimes. I do not believe that citizens should have to give up their rights for the government to do that.
No, he didn't waste the courts time. The little morons took something that wasn't theirs with the intent to cause harm to "Star Wars Kid" (Ghyslain Raza). They and their parents deserved to be slapped silly in the courts. You just want to stick up for the little thieves because you liked the video and are glad they stole it so you could have a laugh at Ghyslains expense.
Oh fucking well, put that way, how could I disagree with you. One americans life is worth much more than the rights and freedoms of all of them. Part of why they hate about us is that we have the freedoms to hold differing beliefs and worship as we wish. We have "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Getting rid of things like that annoying restriction on our government will make the bad guys fucking love us, I guess. Notice the fucking Bill of Rights doesn't enumerate the rights of the fucking government? It enumerates the rights of the citizens.
If you don't think slippery slopes are real just do a bit of research on seatbelt laws. First they were just for issuing warnings, then they could issue tickets, but couldn't pull you over for not wearing them, then they could pull you over for not wearing them. Now, some places are issuing tickets if the traffic control cammeras snap a picture of you even if you weren't breaking the law the the cammeras are ostencibly there for. Slippery slopes are real, and get steeper every day. By the way, seatbelt laws are mainly to save the insurance companies money not lives.
p.s. Before you think I am against wearing seat belts, I wear mine, and I did before the laws were passed. I just think it should be the citizens choice, not the governments.
And we're not. At least those of us who are reasonably sane are not.
You do realize that almost all insane people believe themselves to be sane? Well, with that out of the way... The U.S. isn't a totalitarian hell hole. At least not yet. What many people wish to do is to stop it from becoming one. There is no guarantee that it would without people defending the U.S. Constitution, but many would rather not simply wait around and find out which way it goes under it's own inertia. That's what the whole bill of rights is about. It was MEANT to make law enforcement less than an easy job. The government is supposed to have to bust its ass and dodge roadblocks to get the evidence required to convict criminals. There is a reason for this. The country exists for the citizens, not the government. If the founding fathers knew we had, litteraly, millions of laws on the books, they would shit themselves. Even the ones that were for a large centralized government.
I am infuriated by this but no more so than I am by surveys that show that 23% of all Americans believe that the first amendment goes TOO FAR in the rights it guarantees!
Well, someone's saying things they don't like, and they don't want to hear them. Don't their ears have a right not to have to listen to these blasphemies? Should they have to ignore the obscene rantings of someone that holds a view other than themselves? Why should those people have a right to their own damned opinion, especially when THEY ARE WRONG? The first amendment goes too far because it protects things I don't like, and we all know enforcement of constitutional law should revolve around MY sensibilities!
- If you're not doing anything wrong what are you worried about?
But I am breaking laws. Every day. So are you, and so is everyone in the U.S. We have, literally, millions of laws on the books. There is no way that you can be alive in this country and not be breaking laws. The thing is that the government selectively applies the laws so that the people they like are not seriously impacted. If you do something a bit too annoying, they will pull out the "obscure laws you can't avoid breaking" stick and start to whack you with it until you get in line.
Um... They will realize it when a majority of the citizens in America actually DO take their rights seriously. There are huge numbers of people that I have met that are not just willing, but eager to give up their rights for security. They are happy to do this because the people who will be tread upon are people they do not know. They are not their friends and familiy, they are "Those People." The people who are abdicating their rights do so not realizing that as rights errode and laws become broader and more encompasing, that they and theirs will eventually be swept up in the "gill net" of justice.
No it doesn't. It stands for "I have truly found paradise". That's what I told my boss when I put an IHTFP poster on my cubical wall, and I'm sticking to it.
Well, yes. I believe they are also implying that the vendors are missing out on additional sales, but I bet the PC vendors may be supprised when it comes time to renegotiate the OEM licensing agreement with Microsoft.
But they are not giving it away for free. They are telling the vendors that they need to install windows on the systems and pay Microsoft their standard licensing fee. They are even getting "feet on the street" to "help you get the value proposition for pre-installed software and related services."
The "value proposition" is apparently that you had better not cut into Microsofts income stream by selling customers what they want.
Also any member of the DMAA can not also be a member of the RIAA
Well, that would go without saying since your proposed DMAA is apparently for artists, and the RIAA is for record labels. http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Punishment for 2nd degree murder = 3 years house arrest (monitored), and 5 years parole/probation. Well, at least for my mother-in-law's neighbor. Not a hell of a lot worse than the RIAA settlement, that's for sure.
Got it. I was a bit slow there. Sorry.