Unfortunately, without a successful legal test (or morals) case companies like Comcast can continue discriminating against this group of internet users and get away scott-free.
Cut the crap. Its expensive to help people with disabilities, and they are a minority of people. I personally believe that if any company doesn't want to cater to people with disabilities, they should not be forced to. There's no morality about it; you're not evil if you don't have a wheelchair ramp to get into your store.
The post you linked to is only three days old. I wonder how long the drivers have been changing permissions. Likely longer than three days, probably for quite some time.
Your last statement though reminds me, the program which I spoke of in my previous post was actually called Tripwire, and its been bundled with Redhat for quite some time now. Well, at least the last version of Redhat / Mandriva that I used did. Perhaps they've since removed it.
So, such a package does exist (I already knew that, I wasn't being facesous), it just seems no one user it.
I had it open, I didn't actually attempt to apply the changes, and mysteriously a bit after I get this lovely dialog.
Bullshit.
Try making a average of the top distros on DistroWatch.com, you will find the majority don't.
Again, bullshit. You can logon as root in any linux distro. Otherwise you'd be kinda fucked trying to modify your system at all.
Nope, I didn't say that.
From your previous post: I didn't initiate the Second action, and the system detecting a CD/DVD suddenly does not mean the user actually initiated that
With CDs that contain autorun.ini? It doesn't seem to prompt here at all if I want to browse the CD instead of running the default executable.
Yup; they open the standard "run or browse" prompt.
Are you sure? I can help troubleshoot a user if he can read the details off the screen to me. If there are no details, it's more difficult to provide support on certain issues. Additionally the dialogs in Vista don't help more computer literate users since they contain no details.
Fair enough, but then you could ask the user what they just attempted to do and you could figure it out, I'd hope.
Of course they don't, there is no details available (you can see for yourself), so if they want to see the details, there isn't any, plain and simple.
I only ever hit the details button out of curosity, i already knew what caused the prompt. My point that a knowledgable user likely won't even need to click details anyway. That point still stands.
It still doesn't hurt.
It doesn't help either, so why spend time on it?
Perhaps, but the information should still be there.
Why? Because YOU want it to?
Really? I don't know why that prompt appeared in my snapshot before even saving any settings after not interacting with the computer for a few minutes, I saw a GUID that lead to no results on Google at the time.
Again, I'm calling bullshit. Sorry, I don't buy your explaination. The most reasonable interpretation of your screen shot is that you clicked the OK button, not that it "just happened" to show up when you were on that screen.
Wow, nice spin. The code itself is secure I image. I didn't notice in the translation that the driver itself was vunerable to an attack, just that the installer changed file permissions it shouldn't have. So this has nothing to do or not whether the code itself is secure, it has to do with what the binary is doing.
I guess you've never heard of an old UNIX compiler that inserted malicious code into otherwise clean source code, have you? Open source doesn't stop that, does it?
This might have been discovered earlier, if it weren't for the closedness of the source.
Really? It could not have been detected by noticing that OpenOffice is not SetUID? I believe there is even a package for linux that monitors binaries in/bin,/usr, etc. and notifies you immediately if permissions have changed for anything. I know such a package was available for RedHat when I was using that. That could not have detected this sooner?
Stop with your lame "thousand eyes" theory. Apparently those thousand eyes couldn't see a permissions change on their own systems.
So you're saying Gator is a signed, trusted publisher? Didn't think so.
Except the message randomly appeared, I clicked nothing then after a few idle minutes that appears.
Its interesting then that you have the Windows Update control panel open. It just "happened" to be open when the popup "mysteriously" appeared. Sorry, I don't buy it.
I didn't initiate the Second action, and the system detecting a CD/DVD suddenly does not mean the user actually initiated that -- It could tell me it's a auto-run from the CD, it could give me a few options like opening the CD drive or executing the program etc. rather than just going "Hey setup.exe is unsigned!".
So you're saying that putting a cd or dvd into a drive isn't a user initiated action? With the CDs I've inserted, I do get the proper autorun prompt. I guess the cd you inserted immediately tries to launch the installer (which requires admin privledges).
Many distributions make it difficult for you to login as root. Especially on Ubuntu/Kubuntu since root has no login.
RedHat and Mandriva don't; you can easily login via X with root. I bet there are many more distros like those two than your examples. It would seem odd that ubuntu has no root logon whatsoever, given that many things require it.
I agree, but I really feel the dialogs in Vista were really poorly thought out.
Yet you've provided nothing except saying that some command line should be shown instead.. which doesn't help your typical user anyway.
If it's average Joe, he'll just do it anyway, but for more knowledgeable users this is a great help for security.
It may be that the average Joe will just click continue anyway, but I'm sure there will be some that take the time to think about it. I'd argue the more knowledgeable users don't need any further details; I've yet been unable to figure out why a popup has occurred, likely because, as I've said before, I know which actions caused the prompt.
But they provide some GUID in some dialogs, expecting the more knowledgable users to actually know what those GUIDs somehow?
The more knowledgeable users likely won't even bother opening the details. And I've already agreed that it is kinda useless.
Still, providing details like this is better under "More details" than no details or random GUID gibberish. I think Microsoft did a really poor job with these dialogs, they could certainly of done something better than what's available on Linux/OS X.
I agreed with that already, but I have a feeling most won't bother with the details. Typical users don't care, and advanced users already know why the prompt appeared.
I think Vista could provide better details than this or this.
The first is an unsigned binary being executed. Once the publisher signs the binary, that prompt should disappear. Its doubtful that malware would sign the binary by a trusted cert authority. The second is to prevent changes while running as an administrator. If you run as a non-privledged user, you should get a password prompt. This is just a reminder, "hey you could really fuck things up."
On Linux, if I get such a dialog, it's often quite clear why I need to enter my password (after clicking something, never randomly like what happened in the second link -- First link was the CDROM driver CD, but it wouldn't even show the path of the executable so I couldn't be sure it was D:\setup.exe and not c:\secrettrojanfolderwaitingforcd\setup.exe).
Agreed, it could provide more information. However in both cases you initiated the action. You clearly were changing the settings, likely the prompt appeared when you clicked the OK button with the shield on it (which indicates that such a prompt will be presented if you click that button).
I'd like to point out though on Linux if you were running said tools as root, you'd get no such reminders or warnings. That's just because of the different paths; Windows users have been used to being admins always, and getting them to normal accounts will take some time.
At least Linux is a bit better by giving the exact command it's doing, usually it's even self describing (in this case, embedding a control panel element that requires root access under the application I'm using), rather than spewing some random GUID at me that I cannot even copy/paste and google while that dialog is asking.
I'm not sure that message is any better; do you really think your typical end user would even know what that command line would do? I think they'd just click "OK" to that as well. Which is perhaps why details are lacking... I don't know that end users would even understand the details given. I am not bothered by the prompts, as I know when and why they occur, so I don't need to know the details. An end user wouldn't care what the details are.
The fact that Mozilla Firefox is missing on that list is a symptom of the problem.
Well I see it wasn't in either screenshot. The one in the first screen shot which was highlite was Thunderbird, which does appear in both lists.
Other programs on that list that cannot be uninstalled include OpenOffice.org, PHP, Quicktime, and others; but those programs are listed while Firefox is not. As you can see in the third screenshot, the earliest installation date shown is 22 June 2007; programs whose installation date is not shown cannot be uninstalled from the Control Panel, which suggests that whatever caused the problem happened before that date. Also, in the fourth screenshot you can see all items listed in registry key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur rentVersion\Uninstall" -- I would expect to see more, given that I have installed more than 90 distinct applications on this computer.
Hmm, that certainly is odd. I can't say I've seen this particular behavior in Programs and Features, and I have Vista Business at work and Vista Ultimate at home. At work I can see that I have many more registry entries than you under uninstall. It would seem odd though that a patch would remove most of those entries, but not all of them.
Nice troll attempt. I'm using VS2005 pro on Vista right now. Its not broken, you simply need an additional patch after SP1. Everything has been working just fine in VS.
That doesn't prove a whole lot since you may not have had an uninstall for MySql tools a few days ago either. Is there a reason your current screen shot isn't also displaying Firefox as the selected application?
1. The obscene hardware requirements. I'm sorry, when an os RECCOMENDS 10+ gigs of install space, that's trouble
A 300GB hard drive can be had for $65. 10 gigs is nothing today.
2. The drm, the drm, the drm, did I mention the drm? My computer should not be phoning home to redmond, or anyone, nearly 40% of the time it is on.
It doesn't spend "nearly 40%" time phoning home, sorry to burst your bubble. If you don't like DRM, I suggest you avoid anything from Apple, HD-DVD and BluRay too.
3. Usability and Security for normal users. You are an exceptional user, who we assume knows what he 's doing. Most users click ok on dialogues because it's what they are supposed to do to make it close. Security has been sacrificed greatly by microsoft in the form of making everything require "approval" in an annoying way that quickly becomes habit and is so rendered harmful by giving false a sense of security.
So what do you propose as a solution? Home users expect to have computer do what it tells them. Also, many UAC prompts are caused by misbehaving applications. If a developer has been following best practices their application should not be triggering these dialogs. Vista is still new, in time I hope that develoeprs will fix their broken applications.
4. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - Windows Vista, like windows xp before it, has several of the EEE principals built into it, making it not function with some older hardware/software due to forced api rewrites. I know some incompatability is expected, but some of the compatability errors are in there for no other reason than to force outdating, in the same manner as it's predecessors, such as the serial port "revamp" that was featured with windows xp that rendered most serial devices unusuable.
At some point you need to break backward compatibility to move on to something better. Where did I hear that before? Oh yea, linux kernel developers that break driver APIs way more often than MS has. For reference, see the USB changes.
Well, a good place to start would be MS' KB. I would think anyone that's been working with MS platforms for any length of time knows what happens if you re-run a setup program.
Absolutely... just as you would with any other vendor patch to a production system.
Good policy. Delay patches to know issues because 1% of patches may cause other "problems." Nevermind that some of these problems are the result of application developers not following best practices, but hey, lets keep the vulnerablity open.
That's not an end user's job. That's the IT staff's job. End users shouldn't be applying patches. Period. End of story. That's what the IT staff is there for.
Applying patches is the IT depts. job yes, but testing software? Not sure I agree with that. Most IT people don't have a clue how to use end users software, let alone if its functioning correctly or not.
Those sysads should be retrained or fired.
Right, because if we had more people NOT applying patches, things like blaster wouldn't have happened right? Oh wait, the patch for that problem had been released a month earlier, but became a huge problem because nobody applied it.
If you allow things like that to happen automatically, you're going to have to deal with the consequences.
Like security holes being patched in a timely fashion? I think I can deal with that.
Your school isn't the new schools. But that was really a crack on their ability to educate in some cases. When we still have graduates that cannot read their diploma. you need all the help you can get.
Define "new school." I graduated in HS '96.
Also, There are more people then the Under god crowed wanting the pledge out. Even some Christian religious groups want it gone. There are several groups (religious and not) that think pledging to something is immoral an that is the purpose of the pledge.
I haven't heard of that before honestly. To my knowledge, the pledge has always been optional. You can sit or stand as you please and not say it. Hell, I used to do my homework during it.
I didn't assume you would. That's why I implied you wouldn't. Your sentence about not letting the majority ruling you around left that possibility open. And yes, I think we came to the same conclusion, quit telling us what to do.
Hmm, I read your statement as implying I would rather the minority dictating. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Personally I'd like to see a much much smaller federal goverment, and proper representation of the States in Congress... but I don't know I'll ever get to see that.
So a company is punished when the settlement has a clause that stipulates that anyone accepting the settlement money must also extend their cell contract by another year? Or anyone wronged gets 'coupons' to buy cell phone's on the offenders network? Wow, what a punishment!
Except that limits on being able to sue don't usually get held up. No court would uphold a contract where I can beat you senseless whenever I wanted for $500. Its simply too one sided. So are provisions removing the ability to sue and to use an arbitrator agreeable to the company.
The graphics are good, good games are out / are coming (zelda, re4, re:uc, etc). I'm finding RE4 to be plenty fun as a single player game, and honestly I like the controls a lot more than the typical console controllers.
don't blame him for this Idea. IT is being taught in schools right now. I think it is one of the reasons they want the Pledge out so bad, "I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the untied state of America, to the republic, for with it stands, one nation (under god) indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Funny, because my school is what taught me about the republic. As far as I can tell, nobody wants the pledge out, they want "under god" removed.
I also think they are steered this way because of the names of the political parties, republican and democrat.
I agree, and it seems the founders were right about political parties as well.
I'm not sure you would like the minority of people doing the same. I think the moral is that I don't want anyone telling me what to do unless it is absolutely necessary. And even then only to the extent that it is necessary.
Why do you assume I'd want a minority telling me what to do when I stated I don't want the majority dictating anything to me? I case its not obvious, I don't really want anyone telling me what to do, period.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, without a successful legal test (or morals) case companies like Comcast can continue discriminating against this group of internet users and get away scott-free.
Cut the crap. Its expensive to help people with disabilities, and they are a minority of people. I personally believe that if any company doesn't want to cater to people with disabilities, they should not be forced to. There's no morality about it; you're not evil if you don't have a wheelchair ramp to get into your store.
Heh.. lots of people seem to feel that way. I certainly did, and when my city rolled out fiber, I jumped off of Comcast. I'm now much, much happier.
The post you linked to is only three days old. I wonder how long the drivers have been changing permissions. Likely longer than three days, probably for quite some time.
Your last statement though reminds me, the program which I spoke of in my previous post was actually called Tripwire, and its been bundled with Redhat for quite some time now. Well, at least the last version of Redhat / Mandriva that I used did. Perhaps they've since removed it.
So, such a package does exist (I already knew that, I wasn't being facesous), it just seems no one user it.
Yes, eventually, but not as the OP claimed with This might have been discovered earlier.
I had it open, I didn't actually attempt to apply the changes, and mysteriously a bit after I get this lovely dialog.
Bullshit.
Try making a average of the top distros on DistroWatch.com, you will find the majority don't.
Again, bullshit. You can logon as root in any linux distro. Otherwise you'd be kinda fucked trying to modify your system at all.
Nope, I didn't say that.
From your previous post: I didn't initiate the Second action, and the system detecting a CD/DVD suddenly does not mean the user actually initiated that
With CDs that contain autorun.ini? It doesn't seem to prompt here at all if I want to browse the CD instead of running the default executable.
Yup; they open the standard "run or browse" prompt.
Are you sure? I can help troubleshoot a user if he can read the details off the screen to me. If there are no details, it's more difficult to provide support on certain issues. Additionally the dialogs in Vista don't help more computer literate users since they contain no details.
Fair enough, but then you could ask the user what they just attempted to do and you could figure it out, I'd hope.
Of course they don't, there is no details available (you can see for yourself), so if they want to see the details, there isn't any, plain and simple.
I only ever hit the details button out of curosity, i already knew what caused the prompt. My point that a knowledgable user likely won't even need to click details anyway. That point still stands.
It still doesn't hurt.
It doesn't help either, so why spend time on it?
Perhaps, but the information should still be there.
Why? Because YOU want it to?
Really? I don't know why that prompt appeared in my snapshot before even saving any settings after not interacting with the computer for a few minutes, I saw a GUID that lead to no results on Google at the time.
Again, I'm calling bullshit. Sorry, I don't buy your explaination. The most reasonable interpretation of your screen shot is that you clicked the OK button, not that it "just happened" to show up when you were on that screen.
Wow, nice spin. The code itself is secure I image. I didn't notice in the translation that the driver itself was vunerable to an attack, just that the installer changed file permissions it shouldn't have. So this has nothing to do or not whether the code itself is secure, it has to do with what the binary is doing.
I guess you've never heard of an old UNIX compiler that inserted malicious code into otherwise clean source code, have you? Open source doesn't stop that, does it?
This might have been discovered earlier, if it weren't for the closedness of the source.
/bin, /usr, etc. and notifies you immediately if permissions have changed for anything. I know such a package was available for RedHat when I was using that. That could not have detected this sooner?
Really? It could not have been detected by noticing that OpenOffice is not SetUID? I believe there is even a package for linux that monitors binaries in
Stop with your lame "thousand eyes" theory. Apparently those thousand eyes couldn't see a permissions change on their own systems.
Hormel is amused with the term spam for junk mail. I guess you've never looked at their site huh?
Wrong, the popular spyware, Gator did this.
So you're saying Gator is a signed, trusted publisher? Didn't think so.
Except the message randomly appeared, I clicked nothing then after a few idle minutes that appears.
Its interesting then that you have the Windows Update control panel open. It just "happened" to be open when the popup "mysteriously" appeared. Sorry, I don't buy it.
I didn't initiate the Second action, and the system detecting a CD/DVD suddenly does not mean the user actually initiated that -- It could tell me it's a auto-run from the CD, it could give me a few options like opening the CD drive or executing the program etc. rather than just going "Hey setup.exe is unsigned!".
So you're saying that putting a cd or dvd into a drive isn't a user initiated action? With the CDs I've inserted, I do get the proper autorun prompt. I guess the cd you inserted immediately tries to launch the installer (which requires admin privledges).
Many distributions make it difficult for you to login as root. Especially on Ubuntu/Kubuntu since root has no login.
RedHat and Mandriva don't; you can easily login via X with root. I bet there are many more distros like those two than your examples. It would seem odd that ubuntu has no root logon whatsoever, given that many things require it.
I agree, but I really feel the dialogs in Vista were really poorly thought out.
Yet you've provided nothing except saying that some command line should be shown instead.. which doesn't help your typical user anyway.
If it's average Joe, he'll just do it anyway, but for more knowledgeable users this is a great help for security.
It may be that the average Joe will just click continue anyway, but I'm sure there will be some that take the time to think about it. I'd argue the more knowledgeable users don't need any further details; I've yet been unable to figure out why a popup has occurred, likely because, as I've said before, I know which actions caused the prompt.
But they provide some GUID in some dialogs, expecting the more knowledgable users to actually know what those GUIDs somehow?
The more knowledgeable users likely won't even bother opening the details. And I've already agreed that it is kinda useless.
Still, providing details like this is better under "More details" than no details or random GUID gibberish. I think Microsoft did a really poor job with these dialogs, they could certainly of done something better than what's available on Linux/OS X.
I agreed with that already, but I have a feeling most won't bother with the details. Typical users don't care, and advanced users already know why the prompt appeared.
No, you really didn't. At least not the one you wanted to. If it was a "common problem" I'd expect pages and pages of threads all across the internet.
I think Vista could provide better details than this or this.
The first is an unsigned binary being executed. Once the publisher signs the binary, that prompt should disappear. Its doubtful that malware would sign the binary by a trusted cert authority. The second is to prevent changes while running as an administrator. If you run as a non-privledged user, you should get a password prompt. This is just a reminder, "hey you could really fuck things up."
On Linux, if I get such a dialog, it's often quite clear why I need to enter my password (after clicking something, never randomly like what happened in the second link -- First link was the CDROM driver CD, but it wouldn't even show the path of the executable so I couldn't be sure it was D:\setup.exe and not c:\secrettrojanfolderwaitingforcd\setup.exe).
Agreed, it could provide more information. However in both cases you initiated the action. You clearly were changing the settings, likely the prompt appeared when you clicked the OK button with the shield on it (which indicates that such a prompt will be presented if you click that button).
I'd like to point out though on Linux if you were running said tools as root, you'd get no such reminders or warnings. That's just because of the different paths; Windows users have been used to being admins always, and getting them to normal accounts will take some time.
At least Linux is a bit better by giving the exact command it's doing, usually it's even self describing (in this case, embedding a control panel element that requires root access under the application I'm using), rather than spewing some random GUID at me that I cannot even copy/paste and google while that dialog is asking.
I'm not sure that message is any better; do you really think your typical end user would even know what that command line would do? I think they'd just click "OK" to that as well. Which is perhaps why details are lacking... I don't know that end users would even understand the details given. I am not bothered by the prompts, as I know when and why they occur, so I don't need to know the details. An end user wouldn't care what the details are.
The fact that Mozilla Firefox is missing on that list is a symptom of the problem.
r rentVersion\Uninstall" -- I would expect to see more, given that I have installed more than 90 distinct applications on this computer.
Well I see it wasn't in either screenshot. The one in the first screen shot which was highlite was Thunderbird, which does appear in both lists.
Other programs on that list that cannot be uninstalled include OpenOffice.org, PHP, Quicktime, and others; but those programs are listed while Firefox is not. As you can see in the third screenshot, the earliest installation date shown is 22 June 2007; programs whose installation date is not shown cannot be uninstalled from the Control Panel, which suggests that whatever caused the problem happened before that date. Also, in the fourth screenshot you can see all items listed in registry key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cu
Hmm, that certainly is odd. I can't say I've seen this particular behavior in Programs and Features, and I have Vista Business at work and Vista Ultimate at home. At work I can see that I have many more registry entries than you under uninstall. It would seem odd though that a patch would remove most of those entries, but not all of them.
Perhaps a virus can kill the pesky mitochondria. We could call it the T-virus. Yes, I think that has a nice sound.
Nice troll attempt. I'm using VS2005 pro on Vista right now. Its not broken, you simply need an additional patch after SP1. Everything has been working just fine in VS.
So four threads with five or less posts indicates a common problem now?
That doesn't prove a whole lot since you may not have had an uninstall for MySql tools a few days ago either. Is there a reason your current screen shot isn't also displaying Firefox as the selected application?
1. The obscene hardware requirements. I'm sorry, when an os RECCOMENDS 10+ gigs of install space, that's trouble
A 300GB hard drive can be had for $65. 10 gigs is nothing today.
2. The drm, the drm, the drm, did I mention the drm? My computer should not be phoning home to redmond, or anyone, nearly 40% of the time it is on.
It doesn't spend "nearly 40%" time phoning home, sorry to burst your bubble. If you don't like DRM, I suggest you avoid anything from Apple, HD-DVD and BluRay too.
3. Usability and Security for normal users. You are an exceptional user, who we assume knows what he 's doing. Most users click ok on dialogues because it's what they are supposed to do to make it close. Security has been sacrificed greatly by microsoft in the form of making everything require "approval" in an annoying way that quickly becomes habit and is so rendered harmful by giving false a sense of security.
So what do you propose as a solution? Home users expect to have computer do what it tells them. Also, many UAC prompts are caused by misbehaving applications. If a developer has been following best practices their application should not be triggering these dialogs. Vista is still new, in time I hope that develoeprs will fix their broken applications.
4. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - Windows Vista, like windows xp before it, has several of the EEE principals built into it, making it not function with some older hardware/software due to forced api rewrites. I know some incompatability is expected, but some of the compatability errors are in there for no other reason than to force outdating, in the same manner as it's predecessors, such as the serial port "revamp" that was featured with windows xp that rendered most serial devices unusuable.
At some point you need to break backward compatibility to move on to something better. Where did I hear that before? Oh yea, linux kernel developers that break driver APIs way more often than MS has. For reference, see the USB changes.
Well, a good place to start would be MS' KB. I would think anyone that's been working with MS platforms for any length of time knows what happens if you re-run a setup program.
Absolutely... just as you would with any other vendor patch to a production system.
Good policy. Delay patches to know issues because 1% of patches may cause other "problems." Nevermind that some of these problems are the result of application developers not following best practices, but hey, lets keep the vulnerablity open.
That's not an end user's job. That's the IT staff's job. End users shouldn't be applying patches. Period. End of story. That's what the IT staff is there for.
Applying patches is the IT depts. job yes, but testing software? Not sure I agree with that. Most IT people don't have a clue how to use end users software, let alone if its functioning correctly or not.
Those sysads should be retrained or fired.
Right, because if we had more people NOT applying patches, things like blaster wouldn't have happened right? Oh wait, the patch for that problem had been released a month earlier, but became a huge problem because nobody applied it.
If you allow things like that to happen automatically, you're going to have to deal with the consequences.
Like security holes being patched in a timely fashion? I think I can deal with that.
If other states have cleaned up their act, I certainly think they have every right to "throw stones."
Your school isn't the new schools. But that was really a crack on their ability to educate in some cases. When we still have graduates that cannot read their diploma. you need all the help you can get.
Define "new school." I graduated in HS '96.
Also, There are more people then the Under god crowed wanting the pledge out. Even some Christian religious groups want it gone. There are several groups (religious and not) that think pledging to something is immoral an that is the purpose of the pledge.
I haven't heard of that before honestly. To my knowledge, the pledge has always been optional. You can sit or stand as you please and not say it. Hell, I used to do my homework during it.
I didn't assume you would. That's why I implied you wouldn't. Your sentence about not letting the majority ruling you around left that possibility open. And yes, I think we came to the same conclusion, quit telling us what to do.
Hmm, I read your statement as implying I would rather the minority dictating. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Personally I'd like to see a much much smaller federal goverment, and proper representation of the States in Congress... but I don't know I'll ever get to see that.
So a company is punished when the settlement has a clause that stipulates that anyone accepting the settlement money must also extend their cell contract by another year? Or anyone wronged gets 'coupons' to buy cell phone's on the offenders network? Wow, what a punishment!
Except that limits on being able to sue don't usually get held up. No court would uphold a contract where I can beat you senseless whenever I wanted for $500. Its simply too one sided. So are provisions removing the ability to sue and to use an arbitrator agreeable to the company.
The graphics are good, good games are out / are coming (zelda, re4, re:uc, etc). I'm finding RE4 to be plenty fun as a single player game, and honestly I like the controls a lot more than the typical console controllers.
don't blame him for this Idea. IT is being taught in schools right now. I think it is one of the reasons they want the Pledge out so bad, "I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the untied state of America, to the republic, for with it stands, one nation (under god) indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Funny, because my school is what taught me about the republic. As far as I can tell, nobody wants the pledge out, they want "under god" removed.
I also think they are steered this way because of the names of the political parties, republican and democrat.
I agree, and it seems the founders were right about political parties as well.
I'm not sure you would like the minority of people doing the same. I think the moral is that I don't want anyone telling me what to do unless it is absolutely necessary. And even then only to the extent that it is necessary.
Why do you assume I'd want a minority telling me what to do when I stated I don't want the majority dictating anything to me? I case its not obvious, I don't really want anyone telling me what to do, period.