Dell offers a no OS option. If the vendor you're buying your computer from doesn't offer this as an option, buy your computer somewhere else. Don't like how Burger King makes their burgers? Go try Wendy's.
Thankfully, you're not, because you're required to pay your share of taxes. However, it's clear by your whining that you don't think it's fair that you have to pay your share.
I don't think its fair to have me pay to educate someone else's kid. Why can't the parents pay the cost of that? I find it very amusing that you acuse me of enjoying free services and then turn around and say I'm not. Dumbass.
As many others have pointed out on this thread, it's not about YOUR education or YOUR KIDS education, it's about being able to live in a country that isn't filled with roving gangs of illiterate dead-end thugs.
You tried to claim that my education was free, fuckhead.
Having parents pay 100% of the costs for thier kids education won't put us into a country 'filled with roving gangs of illiterate dead-end thugs.' I'll also have you take note that much of the country is like that right now.
(BTW, if your private education was run by a religious organization, as most of them are, your parents only paid a fraction of the cost of your education. In that case, it would have been heavily subsidized by those who wanted a chance to indoctrinate impressionable young minds into their belief system, and you would have to be grateful to them as well.)
That 'heavy subsizding' you're talking about is donations to the church. And it was the donor's CHOICE to donate their money to the church, it wasn't forced upon them. Please, go play in traffic now, you're clearly nothing but an idiot whose taking up too much space.
If MySpace is used by predators to target teens, they should have a record retention policy.
Or parents can educate their kids about meeting people from myspace, and to be careful about how much detail they put on their account.
It also holds people more accountable to law enforcement too.
Like we don't already have enough laws to turn normal citizens into criminals.
If they have illegal information on there and they "delete" it before the cops see it, they data retention would be the only way for the police to get evidence.
Um, what exactly is 'illegal information'? Are you claiming it violates the law to know something? Wow, that's a pretty hard stance. Lets just solve all of our problems, and put an officer in every home.
I could be wrong, and highly so, but I think a lot of people view giving out vouchers for software isn't the same as paying cold hard cash.
Well, you are wrong. The millions is the amount they could have made if MS had the chance to sell the schools the software, instead of being forced to give it away free. This is different than Verizon being forced to give away free phones, because you end up signing a contract and paying Verizon money. The school never has to upgrade if it doesn't want to.
1) The software might very easily be accounted for at full retail price with no breaks. No crime in and of itself, not implying that doing so is. Point is that on any other volume transaction, most vendors will allow for a price break as an example. For all I know, Microsoft does this even under penalty conditions but factualy I do not know.
What difference does it make they claim full retail price or discounted price? How would MS even know which licensing path the school would have chosen? Finally, you admit you don't even know if this is the case. Lets assume its not and that the people deciding the punishment know about volume discounts (since pretty much EVERY product can be bought at a volume discount).
2) Consider the fact that some software may not be redeemed by the people receiving the penalty award. Not Microsofts fault by any means, again not implying that Microsoft has to ensure "people harmed" stand up and be counted for their compensation; ineptitude falls on the shoulder of ther responsible afterall. I am asking you to consider how much penalty does Microsoft actually pay with this method. Keep in mind that even in a cash settlement this can still go on, however when it comes to cash you'll find most people don't let that slide by without paying closer attention to getting their piece of the pie.
You claim its not MS's fault, yet claim they aren't being punished enough. Its not different than other suits being settled which people have to make a claim in. What if some people who bought overpriced CDs didn't sign up for their $5? Well, maybe they didn't care about it.
3) The biggest reason why giving away software under these conditions is that, ultimately, Microsoft is allowed to legally propogate software which in the long run has a high probability of actually generating more customers to purchase newer versions of software down the road - thus subsidizing the original penalty. You can't do this with a cash settlement to my knowledge.
But that's the schools choice. They aren't being forced to buy upgrades, they are CHOOSING to do so. And it doesn't erase the amount of software which had to be given away. Put it this way; if the school had to buy it instead of getting it free, MS would have made $5. The school chooses to buy the upgrade, another $5, for a total of $10. Since the school got it for free, MS didn't get the first $5, so if they didn't get fined, they would have had $10 today instead of just $5.
All the arguing, debating and nit-picking aside, there is a reason that they say, "If you have a problem teaching someone math, put $(CURRENCY_SIGN) in front of the numbers. People always understand money."
If anything, Open Source will likely cause a patent revolution for that reason alone (just as downloaded music is changing the face of copyright as we know it).
You mean the copyright laws which are becoming more and more draconian?
But who uses recovery CDs. Most of the time you just want a clean slate, and don't want an OS loaded with all sorts of Free ISP offers and annoying desktop icons that you don't need. You want to stick to what you know.
Then select a no-OS option, and buy the retail version of Windows, which allows you to move the OS to a different computer (after wiping it from the original one).
MS can't stop people from putting the license key on the side ofa computer, either..
United in that there is a federal level governing all the states, but the states (are supposed to) have much more of the power. Basically independant states which share a common army and same basic laws (like the bill of rights, for example).
Ever notice how all cops speed just in their normal driving? These same people will then yell at you for going 75 in a 65. Speeding tickets are about safety, they are about making money for the state.
I don't think he was distorting anything you said at all. The officer in the story tried to enter the house without a warrant. Clearly illegal and the homeowner is well within his rights to refuse to allow entry.
Be a cop for 18 years and then reply? Fuck off, you CHOSE your line of work, just like everyone else did.
The cops in the article are way out of line, and are violating the family's rights. Theres no excuse for that, it doesn't matter how often you're shot at.
Continued cursing or yelling probably falls under the "makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop" clause commonly found in Disorderly Conduct laws (most likely varying a little from location to location).
You do realize that 'unreasonable noise' is aimed at loud sounds usually in the middle of the night, correct? Its not to get someone to stop speaking, or cursing.
Lets not ignore one very enlightening part of that article either: "This offence is committed, in essence, whenever a person engages in activities that annoy police officers." I'm sorry, but being 'annoying' to a police office is a crime? Give it a rest.
and the general rule of thumb they repeat when dealing with police is to be courteous, and don't give them an excuse to charge you with something.
It sounds like you can be arrested at the whim of the officer. Isn't that part of the definition of police state? Seriously, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you should not be able to be arrested, and bullshit laws like this should be thrown out.
Different laws were created to give police officers the tools they need to catch crooks, but it's very easy for them to use a few of them to penalize people that annoy them. They have enough tricks in their book, that are legal, that they can use on occasion to stick it to us normal people. I'm not judging the legality of these types of actions, but I am aware that these things happen.
I think abuse of power should be punishable by 5 years prison time; served with the general populance. Maybe that would cause cops to rethink wielding their power willy nilly.
I'm not going to respond to a troll anymore after this. I just find it amusing that you don't believe something which benefits me can possibly benefit anyone else. The fact is that my actions do benefit me, at the same time they benefit society.
Please list the benefits I'm enjoying free of charge, I'd love to hear them. I think you just need to shut up though, because, as I already mentioned (and which you ignored) I didn't get a 'free' eduction at all; my parents paid for it. For that I am greatful.
Actually, that's not quite true. If the officer asked the individual to watch his language or curb his swearing, and the individual went ahead and still swore away, the police can charge him with disorderly conduct. From my understanding, "disorderly conduct" is usually written in a vague enough fashion so that police can charge any person who disobeys (does not follow) a police warning or order, no matter how rediculous it may be. If the officer's request is later found to be illegal you can sue, but it's best to do what the officer says to avoid legal headaches.
What reason does the officer have to tell you to stop cursing? Does it matter if you call him a motherfucker or not? What if the officer tells you to do jumping jacks? Do you have to listen then? I would say no, a police officer should not have the ability to take total control of you. If that is the case, we are most certainly in a police state.
The police are ostensibly there to protect the public. Financial hardship would leave them less able to perform that task. Longer response times to emergency calls, crimes going uninvestigated, because the police force cannot afford enough employees to do their job properly.
I would argue the police are already failing miserably to 'protect the public.' How many crimes are stopped by them? Not many I'd wager.
If you want to be safe, learn to protect yourself (and try to live in a carry state).
Now arguably it shouldn't be that way since the cops should be expected to behave professionaly even if the citizen doesn't.
This is what I would expect and I totally agree with you.
The reality, though, is that police are people too and just like we probably would not react perfectly to someone treating us with disresect on the job, police probably don't either. Treating others how you want to be treated is a good way to live life and usually brings the exact results you're looking for.
The reality is that 99% of cops are assholes; these are the people that were bullies in school, and don't have above a 6th grade education (at least here they don't, because the department won't higher people more intelligent, on the belief more educated people would get bored with the job).
Its been my experience that it doesn't matter if you are polite or rude, the cop is an ass.
Now something definitely seems wrong with this police department since the charges are nonsense and it seems like, at that point, they are harassing the citizen.
This is likely true.
But they do mention the guy's kid is being investigated for some crimes
The charges are likely bogus. I was 'investigated' as well. What really was going on was bad police work, since both of my parents said I wasn't even in town at the time I supposedly committed the crime, and had a movie stub to prove it. The reason they thought it was me? Very sloppy police work combined with kids naming people so they'd get a lighter sentence.
the guy hasn't been cooperative in the past, and has been verbally abusive
A perfectly acceptable response given the harrasment the cops have been giving the family.
And my completely inappropriate "judge a book by its cover" sensors tell me that by looking at the guy's picture in the article, he rather looks like an uncooperative, verbally abusive redneck
Rednecks don't usually own houses worth $350,000 though, so I suggest you abandon that particular sensor.
So I suspect that while these charges against him are completely wrong and inappropriate, I get the distinct feeling this isn't some average Joe that's being randomly victimized for no reason by the police. I think there's more to the story here than we know.
Given my past experience with police, I'm willing to bet there isn't anything more than we know.
Slashdot Mirror
Dell offers a no OS option. If the vendor you're buying your computer from doesn't offer this as an option, buy your computer somewhere else. Don't like how Burger King makes their burgers? Go try Wendy's.
But it IS legal to sell software under terms of a contract.
Thankfully, you're not, because you're required to pay your share of taxes. However, it's clear by your whining that you don't think it's fair that you have to pay your share.
I don't think its fair to have me pay to educate someone else's kid. Why can't the parents pay the cost of that? I find it very amusing that you acuse me of enjoying free services and then turn around and say I'm not. Dumbass.
As many others have pointed out on this thread, it's not about YOUR education or YOUR KIDS education, it's about being able to live in a country that isn't filled with roving gangs of illiterate dead-end thugs.
You tried to claim that my education was free, fuckhead.
Having parents pay 100% of the costs for thier kids education won't put us into a country 'filled with roving gangs of illiterate dead-end thugs.' I'll also have you take note that much of the country is like that right now.
(BTW, if your private education was run by a religious organization, as most of them are, your parents only paid a fraction of the cost of your education. In that case, it would have been heavily subsidized by those who wanted a chance to indoctrinate impressionable young minds into their belief system, and you would have to be grateful to them as well.)
That 'heavy subsizding' you're talking about is donations to the church. And it was the donor's CHOICE to donate their money to the church, it wasn't forced upon them. Please, go play in traffic now, you're clearly nothing but an idiot whose taking up too much space.
So your solution is to allow our government to take away our other rights? Go fuck yourself.
It'd be nice if we had the same goverment as in the early 20s, which realized that the amendment banning alcohol created more problems than it solved.
The war on drugs is idential to prohibition; in the end, its not a war worth fighting.
Why stop there? Surely the phone can be used as well; perhaps we should now record every call anyone makes.
If MySpace is used by predators to target teens, they should have a record retention policy.
Or parents can educate their kids about meeting people from myspace, and to be careful about how much detail they put on their account.
It also holds people more accountable to law enforcement too.
Like we don't already have enough laws to turn normal citizens into criminals.
If they have illegal information on there and they "delete" it before the cops see it, they data retention would be the only way for the police to get evidence.
Um, what exactly is 'illegal information'? Are you claiming it violates the law to know something? Wow, that's a pretty hard stance. Lets just solve all of our problems, and put an officer in every home.
You want my child to listen to me? Let me beat the crap out of him, so I don't have someone outside my household do it.
While I think physical punishment can be appropriate, I think 'beating the crap' out of anyone is wrong and crossing the line.
I could be wrong, and highly so, but I think a lot of people view giving out vouchers for software isn't the same as paying cold hard cash.
Well, you are wrong. The millions is the amount they could have made if MS had the chance to sell the schools the software, instead of being forced to give it away free. This is different than Verizon being forced to give away free phones, because you end up signing a contract and paying Verizon money. The school never has to upgrade if it doesn't want to.
1) The software might very easily be accounted for at full retail price with no breaks. No crime in and of itself, not implying that doing so is. Point is that on any other volume transaction, most vendors will allow for a price break as an example. For all I know, Microsoft does this even under penalty conditions but factualy I do not know.
What difference does it make they claim full retail price or discounted price? How would MS even know which licensing path the school would have chosen? Finally, you admit you don't even know if this is the case. Lets assume its not and that the people deciding the punishment know about volume discounts (since pretty much EVERY product can be bought at a volume discount).
2) Consider the fact that some software may not be redeemed by the people receiving the penalty award. Not Microsofts fault by any means, again not implying that Microsoft has to ensure "people harmed" stand up and be counted for their compensation; ineptitude falls on the shoulder of ther responsible afterall. I am asking you to consider how much penalty does Microsoft actually pay with this method. Keep in mind that even in a cash settlement this can still go on, however when it comes to cash you'll find most people don't let that slide by without paying closer attention to getting their piece of the pie.
You claim its not MS's fault, yet claim they aren't being punished enough. Its not different than other suits being settled which people have to make a claim in. What if some people who bought overpriced CDs didn't sign up for their $5? Well, maybe they didn't care about it.
3) The biggest reason why giving away software under these conditions is that, ultimately, Microsoft is allowed to legally propogate software which in the long run has a high probability of actually generating more customers to purchase newer versions of software down the road - thus subsidizing the original penalty. You can't do this with a cash settlement to my knowledge.
But that's the schools choice. They aren't being forced to buy upgrades, they are CHOOSING to do so. And it doesn't erase the amount of software which had to be given away. Put it this way; if the school had to buy it instead of getting it free, MS would have made $5. The school chooses to buy the upgrade, another $5, for a total of $10. Since the school got it for free, MS didn't get the first $5, so if they didn't get fined, they would have had $10 today instead of just $5.
All the arguing, debating and nit-picking aside, there is a reason that they say, "If you have a problem teaching someone math, put $(CURRENCY_SIGN) in front of the numbers. People always understand money."
Well, I just did that, didn't I?
If anything, Open Source will likely cause a patent revolution for that reason alone (just as downloaded music is changing the face of copyright as we know it).
You mean the copyright laws which are becoming more and more draconian?
But who uses recovery CDs. Most of the time you just want a clean slate, and don't want an OS loaded with all sorts of Free ISP offers and annoying desktop icons that you don't need. You want to stick to what you know.
Then select a no-OS option, and buy the retail version of Windows, which allows you to move the OS to a different computer (after wiping it from the original one).
MS can't stop people from putting the license key on the side ofa computer, either..
Your analogy does not stand; its not legal to give custody of your kid to someone else (except through the proper state channels).
As other people have pointed out, giving away "millions" of dollars in software to schools that only sets them back the cost of the media.
So Windows and Office take zero effort to develop? They don't have to pay their developers, testings, artists and managers?
United in that there is a federal level governing all the states, but the states (are supposed to) have much more of the power. Basically independant states which share a common army and same basic laws (like the bill of rights, for example).
Thank you, well said.
Of course, his buddies would make sure you never saw the inside of the courtroom...
And then of course they claim they are law enforcement officers...
Ever notice how all cops speed just in their normal driving? These same people will then yell at you for going 75 in a 65. Speeding tickets are about safety, they are about making money for the state.
I don't think he was distorting anything you said at all. The officer in the story tried to enter the house without a warrant. Clearly illegal and the homeowner is well within his rights to refuse to allow entry.
Be a cop for 18 years and then reply? Fuck off, you CHOSE your line of work, just like everyone else did.
The cops in the article are way out of line, and are violating the family's rights. Theres no excuse for that, it doesn't matter how often you're shot at.
Continued cursing or yelling probably falls under the "makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop" clause commonly found in Disorderly Conduct laws (most likely varying a little from location to location).
You do realize that 'unreasonable noise' is aimed at loud sounds usually in the middle of the night, correct? Its not to get someone to stop speaking, or cursing.
Lets not ignore one very enlightening part of that article either: "This offence is committed, in essence, whenever a person engages in activities that annoy police officers." I'm sorry, but being 'annoying' to a police office is a crime? Give it a rest.
and the general rule of thumb they repeat when dealing with police is to be courteous, and don't give them an excuse to charge you with something.
It sounds like you can be arrested at the whim of the officer. Isn't that part of the definition of police state? Seriously, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you should not be able to be arrested, and bullshit laws like this should be thrown out.
Different laws were created to give police officers the tools they need to catch crooks, but it's very easy for them to use a few of them to penalize people that annoy them. They have enough tricks in their book, that are legal, that they can use on occasion to stick it to us normal people. I'm not judging the legality of these types of actions, but I am aware that these things happen.
I think abuse of power should be punishable by 5 years prison time; served with the general populance. Maybe that would cause cops to rethink wielding their power willy nilly.
They ususally show up to write the report.
Indeed, or they are there to give you a ticket for violating some arbirtary speed limit.
I'm not going to respond to a troll anymore after this. I just find it amusing that you don't believe something which benefits me can possibly benefit anyone else. The fact is that my actions do benefit me, at the same time they benefit society.
Please list the benefits I'm enjoying free of charge, I'd love to hear them. I think you just need to shut up though, because, as I already mentioned (and which you ignored) I didn't get a 'free' eduction at all; my parents paid for it. For that I am greatful.
Actually, that's not quite true. If the officer asked the individual to watch his language or curb his swearing, and the individual went ahead and still swore away, the police can charge him with disorderly conduct. From my understanding, "disorderly conduct" is usually written in a vague enough fashion so that police can charge any person who disobeys (does not follow) a police warning or order, no matter how rediculous it may be. If the officer's request is later found to be illegal you can sue, but it's best to do what the officer says to avoid legal headaches.
What reason does the officer have to tell you to stop cursing? Does it matter if you call him a motherfucker or not? What if the officer tells you to do jumping jacks? Do you have to listen then? I would say no, a police officer should not have the ability to take total control of you. If that is the case, we are most certainly in a police state.
The police are ostensibly there to protect the public. Financial hardship would leave them less able to perform that task. Longer response times to emergency calls, crimes going uninvestigated, because the police force cannot afford enough employees to do their job properly.
I would argue the police are already failing miserably to 'protect the public.' How many crimes are stopped by them? Not many I'd wager.
If you want to be safe, learn to protect yourself (and try to live in a carry state).
Now arguably it shouldn't be that way since the cops should be expected to behave professionaly even if the citizen doesn't.
This is what I would expect and I totally agree with you.
The reality, though, is that police are people too and just like we probably would not react perfectly to someone treating us with disresect on the job, police probably don't either. Treating others how you want to be treated is a good way to live life and usually brings the exact results you're looking for.
The reality is that 99% of cops are assholes; these are the people that were bullies in school, and don't have above a 6th grade education (at least here they don't, because the department won't higher people more intelligent, on the belief more educated people would get bored with the job).
Its been my experience that it doesn't matter if you are polite or rude, the cop is an ass.
Now something definitely seems wrong with this police department since the charges are nonsense and it seems like, at that point, they are harassing the citizen.
This is likely true.
But they do mention the guy's kid is being investigated for some crimes
The charges are likely bogus. I was 'investigated' as well. What really was going on was bad police work, since both of my parents said I wasn't even in town at the time I supposedly committed the crime, and had a movie stub to prove it. The reason they thought it was me? Very sloppy police work combined with kids naming people so they'd get a lighter sentence.
the guy hasn't been cooperative in the past, and has been verbally abusive
A perfectly acceptable response given the harrasment the cops have been giving the family.
And my completely inappropriate "judge a book by its cover" sensors tell me that by looking at the guy's picture in the article, he rather looks like an uncooperative, verbally abusive redneck
Rednecks don't usually own houses worth $350,000 though, so I suggest you abandon that particular sensor.
So I suspect that while these charges against him are completely wrong and inappropriate, I get the distinct feeling this isn't some average Joe that's being randomly victimized for no reason by the police. I think there's more to the story here than we know.
Given my past experience with police, I'm willing to bet there isn't anything more than we know.
That would work, as long as I'm not forced to be a shareholder.