Because classic Liberalism is based on the idea that humans, as a part of their natural state, have rights. Rights exist, regardless of citizenship, or even whether or not we have any States in existence.
It's a demand that you either click "I agree" on or you lose value of what you purchased. You are being coerced. The "value" is being held hostage after it has already been paid for.
No, because you can return it for a full refund.
But "valid" in what sense? Is it a contract? It seems to meet none of the legal requirements of a contract. I get no consideration. I've already paid for it, I already own it, and I get nothing from the EULA (I gain from clicking the "I agree" button, but the EULA itself grants me nothing).
No, you get to use the software at the price you paid. That's your consideration. What the OP said is that you were informed there are terms which you can see when you install the program and to complete the sale you must agree to those terms. So the sale doesn't end when you walk out of the store. It ends when you read the EULA and accept or reject it. If you reject it, you back out of the sale and can get your money back. If you accept it, well you've accepted it.
It isn't even executed properly. Who is the agreement with? "Autodesk" can't make an agreement.
Um, it would be with Autodesk. Companies can't make an agreement? Since when?
No real contract is signed with the company name. They are always signed by a human, with explanation of how they represent the corporation.
What? Ever applied for a credit card? The application doesn't even HAVE a place for a company rep to sign. And do you know how you accept the contract once they accept it on their end? You USE the card, or activate it via an automated system. Oh, and its all legal too.
Where do you get this nonsense that a contract must be in a certain form and executed a certain way?
The inability to negotiate a contract (as opposed to the unwillingness, which is always allowed) is another disqualifying factor. So I can't see how a EULA can be a contract when it doesn't follow contract law.
Again, where do you get this nonsense? Theres no law saying a contract has to be negotiable to be valid. Have you ever signed up for ANYTHING? You can't negotate your cell phone agreement, nor can you your electric agreement. If I hand you a contract, tell you these are the terms, take it or leave it, you can do just that... take it or leave it. But you can't take it and then say "oh the contract isn't valid because he didn't let me negotiate."
At the very best you can get out of a contract... but then both parties take what they were offering back.
Ugh... what nonsense. Nobody is trying to strip away your property rights. But the fact remains its whats ON the disc that you care to purchase, NOT the disc itself.
You can't hold software in your hand; you can only hold the media on which its stored.
If you want a blank disc, they are available, and no one is debating your right to own blank discs.
SQL Server itself is lacking some extremely important features without which it cannot really compete with real RDBMSes
Care to name some others?
not least regular expressions
Huh? I don't think I've ever needed to use a regex in a query... and if you wanted to, it seems like it'd be fairly easy to use the CLR integration to do so.
case discrimination
Ahh, I know what you're problem is. You have no idea how to use the product, likely because you don't use it at all. If you ever need to use sql server, the setting to check is Collation. The last part of the collation name tells you about case senstivity and accent sensitivity: _CI_AS means Case Insenstive, Accent Sensitive. Try to find one _CS_AS.
Who made you an expert to be able to claim I'm not? Yes, the founders were influenced by many philosphies, but the lions share of their influence came from Liberalism, and you can tell by studying their writings, which I have done, BTW.
I tend to think that one should not be able to be held indefinately, or searched without warrant, regardless of citizenship. That's what "being secure in one's persons and possessions" means, which is what the judge (incorrectly, IMO) says applies to corporations.
Hmm, never heard of that before. Anytime anyone has talked assemblies which I've seen, its always been in reference to.Net. Of course,.Net was released only months after XP itself was.
I've never heard sxs described like that. From what I understand, it can load different versions if available, but usually the first one loaded "wins." Oh, even if that's not the case, I would expect the "second" copy wouldn't be loaded until actually needed.
I know this is how it is in.Net by the way. Assemblies are loaded only on demand. Once they are loaded, a second attempt to load another assembly with the same name but different version will cause an error. I've had this come up a few times when assembly A wanted 1.2 of assembly C, but assembly B was built against version 1.1 of C. Depending on whther I used a function from A or B first, it would get the version it wanted loaded, but trying to use the other one would result in a FileLoadException.
Or, perhaps the OO people are just hacks that can't be bothered to learn how to do things properly on windows. Everytime I see an open source app "ported" to Windows, it turns to crap. Yet many apps written for windows from the get go (and I'm talking 3rd party stuff) seems to work just fine.
What does "DLL Hell" or side by side assemblies even have to do with it?
Indeed. A stanard Windows DLL is not quite the same thing as an assembly, and as far as i know only assemblies have ever been "side by side." If you're doing plain old C++ on Windows, sxs doesn't enter into it, because side by side is a feature of the.net runtime.
Well, the flip side is that a stupid fast food restraunt STILL can't get orders right in 2009, and it becomes quite irrating when 99% of businesses are run in a way that indicates they simply don't care about their customers. Given that situtation, and that sometimes you just can't avoid dealing with these busineses, I can see why people go from 0 to 60 so quickly.
I've tried both being nice and being nasty... being nasty works much more often then not.
I fail to see why people should not have rights, regardless of their citizenship. Your line of thinking is out of skew with the philosophy on which this country was founded.
Consumers spending what they can afford is good for the economy. Banks loaning to people who can't afford to repay is not. Yes, government did contribute to the economic meltdown; we just had 16 years of Bush & Clinton undoing much of the regulations put in place in the 1930s. Guess where the meltdown largely started? In the completely UNREGULATED mortage backed securities market.
Um, yes, is is legal to discrimate based on ability to repay the loan. Would you loan someone money if you thought you'd never see it again? That's not really a great way to run a bank. I'm curious, would it be discimination to you to not hire someone lacking a degree in computer science for a programming job? Should i have to hire a black person even though they don't have the skills required by the job? Should I have to hire ANYONE that didn't have the requisite skills?
And while you're right that poor minotiries are not loaned money, neither are poor majorities. The discriminate that's the problem was banks not loaning to black people, even if they COULD repay the loan, or not loaning to a black family trying to buy a house in a white neighborhood.
As far as the "majority" goes, that's who's suffering most right now. Check out the sob stories on CNN about people losing their homes and jobs.. I don't think I've seen a single lower class family featured, they're all middle class. Especially heart wrenching was a story on CNN about a upper-middle class family that had to give up their landscaper, gardnerer and chef.
Did I miss a memo somewhere that simply being a minority makes you poor? Racist indeed.
You're incorrect... all the bank has to do is show it applies its standard formulas it applies to everyone else and that's why a minority was classified as high risk, and the bank is scott free.
As homework, go look and see where most of the foreclosures are.... they are white middle class families living in expensive areas (CA, FL, etc).
Aww, poor baby, lost the point and now look like an idiot? Check out MSDFCU, a reputable credit union, which offers exactly what I said (most credit unions never practiced the risky kind of lending practices that hit the banks), oh and the application is legally binding.
I'm actually glad for the recession; because of it, I was able to refinance my fixed 7% mortgage and 9% home equity loan (which totals were still less than the full value of the home), down to a fixed 4%, get money back to do major renovations (~$20,000 worth), and I'll STILL have the loan paid off only two months later than I would have with the original mortgage, which itself was only a 25 yr loan, and I still have 25% of my equity like before.
You are right about one thing though; I didn't put any money down.
Well, before you even get to whether or not they have to refund money for a returned item, you have to actually prove that they would accept returns to begin with.
Anyway, you can claim pedantry all you want, but the OP is passing this off as if its a good way to resolve the situtation, when its clearly not.
like when Congress mandated banks *must* sell houses even if the people could not afford them
That's a myth. What congress did is mandate that banks must loan to minorities, but no where do regulations force them to loan to people who are high risk. They did that because they turn around and sell the mortgage to someone else, who buys insurance against it to protect them if the borrower defaults.
If you want to claim that congress mandated banks loan to high risk people, please cite your source and preferably, the actual regulation / legilsation.
The french in the revolutionary war as well as WWI and WWII were killing military objectives. The difference is that innocent civilians weren't targeted. The British targeted civilians and that is a large reason why the french aided the colonists.
And the British justified this saying the revolutionaries were terrorists. Amazing huh?
In the context of Iranians, we are actually talking about religious Identity not ethnic makeup. There are Iranians living in Israel just as there are jews living in Iran.
But they don't outnumber Jews in Israel by 20 to 1, which was the claim.
I'm not confusing anyone. Palestinians work in Israel and some live there too. about 20% of the Israeli population is Arab or Persian and about 18% of Israel is Muslim. About 1 million Palestinians cross into Israel for work each month.
Yes, you're making my point... their numbers are still far less than the number of Jews, and they don't outnumber the Israeli jews by 20 to 1.
Iran sponsors terrorism. They fund terrorist groups and supply them with weapons and training and to some degree, direct their activities. Regardless of you wanting to argue semantics or ignore the realities of the area, the statement is overall accurate and reflects the different between the US and Iran and why we should worried about one country getting Nuclear weapons and not so much about another who may already have them.
Your post was incorrect on a rather major point. Attacks in Israel aren't only killing two jews for every 40 Iranian jews. You can't be "overall acurate" when you have such a huge misstatement. I'm not saying Iran might not sponser terrorism, but your knowledge of the facts is very much in question.
Whoa, don't go misrepresenting what I said. I never said anything about EULAs not being contracts. The quote in my post was from the bottom of the Wiki link cited above, which was quoting a ruling regarding a case of a reseller selling comic books for $0.89 in 1908.
Slashdot Mirror
Because classic Liberalism is based on the idea that humans, as a part of their natural state, have rights. Rights exist, regardless of citizenship, or even whether or not we have any States in existence.
What about accepting reality that pirates already enjoy the premium service - and providing legit customers with the something similar??
You're argument is that Sony should make it even easier for pirates (and people that may not have pirated before)?
Or Sony felt compelled to feed the pirates with new and more justifications to do what they did before?
Heh... well people that steal do so and rationalize it all the time. Its irrelevent what Sony does, because people will steal anyway.
It's a demand that you either click "I agree" on or you lose value of what you purchased. You are being coerced. The "value" is being held hostage after it has already been paid for.
No, because you can return it for a full refund.
But "valid" in what sense? Is it a contract? It seems to meet none of the legal requirements of a contract. I get no consideration. I've already paid for it, I already own it, and I get nothing from the EULA (I gain from clicking the "I agree" button, but the EULA itself grants me nothing).
No, you get to use the software at the price you paid. That's your consideration. What the OP said is that you were informed there are terms which you can see when you install the program and to complete the sale you must agree to those terms. So the sale doesn't end when you walk out of the store. It ends when you read the EULA and accept or reject it. If you reject it, you back out of the sale and can get your money back. If you accept it, well you've accepted it.
It isn't even executed properly. Who is the agreement with? "Autodesk" can't make an agreement.
Um, it would be with Autodesk. Companies can't make an agreement? Since when?
No real contract is signed with the company name. They are always signed by a human, with explanation of how they represent the corporation.
What? Ever applied for a credit card? The application doesn't even HAVE a place for a company rep to sign. And do you know how you accept the contract once they accept it on their end? You USE the card, or activate it via an automated system. Oh, and its all legal too.
Where do you get this nonsense that a contract must be in a certain form and executed a certain way?
The inability to negotiate a contract (as opposed to the unwillingness, which is always allowed) is another disqualifying factor. So I can't see how a EULA can be a contract when it doesn't follow contract law.
Again, where do you get this nonsense? Theres no law saying a contract has to be negotiable to be valid. Have you ever signed up for ANYTHING? You can't negotate your cell phone agreement, nor can you your electric agreement. If I hand you a contract, tell you these are the terms, take it or leave it, you can do just that... take it or leave it. But you can't take it and then say "oh the contract isn't valid because he didn't let me negotiate."
At the very best you can get out of a contract... but then both parties take what they were offering back.
Ugh... what nonsense. Nobody is trying to strip away your property rights. But the fact remains its whats ON the disc that you care to purchase, NOT the disc itself.
You can't hold software in your hand; you can only hold the media on which its stored.
If you want a blank disc, they are available, and no one is debating your right to own blank discs.
Well, then go back and read this site from 2001/2.
On TV. A little girl that says "more happy is coming" and "this is getting good."
SQL Server itself is lacking some extremely important features without which it cannot really compete with real RDBMSes
Care to name some others?
not least regular expressions
Huh? I don't think I've ever needed to use a regex in a query... and if you wanted to, it seems like it'd be fairly easy to use the CLR integration to do so.
case discrimination
Ahh, I know what you're problem is. You have no idea how to use the product, likely because you don't use it at all. If you ever need to use sql server, the setting to check is Collation. The last part of the collation name tells you about case senstivity and accent sensitivity: _CI_AS means Case Insenstive, Accent Sensitive. Try to find one _CS_AS.
Who made you an expert to be able to claim I'm not? Yes, the founders were influenced by many philosphies, but the lions share of their influence came from Liberalism, and you can tell by studying their writings, which I have done, BTW.
I tend to think that one should not be able to be held indefinately, or searched without warrant, regardless of citizenship. That's what "being secure in one's persons and possessions" means, which is what the judge (incorrectly, IMO) says applies to corporations.
Hmm, never heard of that before. Anytime anyone has talked assemblies which I've seen, its always been in reference to .Net. Of course, .Net was released only months after XP itself was.
I've never heard sxs described like that. From what I understand, it can load different versions if available, but usually the first one loaded "wins." Oh, even if that's not the case, I would expect the "second" copy wouldn't be loaded until actually needed.
I know this is how it is in .Net by the way. Assemblies are loaded only on demand. Once they are loaded, a second attempt to load another assembly with the same name but different version will cause an error. I've had this come up a few times when assembly A wanted 1.2 of assembly C, but assembly B was built against version 1.1 of C. Depending on whther I used a function from A or B first, it would get the version it wanted loaded, but trying to use the other one would result in a FileLoadException.
Or, perhaps the OO people are just hacks that can't be bothered to learn how to do things properly on windows. Everytime I see an open source app "ported" to Windows, it turns to crap. Yet many apps written for windows from the get go (and I'm talking 3rd party stuff) seems to work just fine.
What does "DLL Hell" or side by side assemblies even have to do with it?
Indeed. A stanard Windows DLL is not quite the same thing as an assembly, and as far as i know only assemblies have ever been "side by side." If you're doing plain old C++ on Windows, sxs doesn't enter into it, because side by side is a feature of the .net runtime.
Well, the flip side is that a stupid fast food restraunt STILL can't get orders right in 2009, and it becomes quite irrating when 99% of businesses are run in a way that indicates they simply don't care about their customers. Given that situtation, and that sometimes you just can't avoid dealing with these busineses, I can see why people go from 0 to 60 so quickly.
I've tried both being nice and being nasty... being nasty works much more often then not.
I don't think rights apply to non-citizens
I fail to see why people should not have rights, regardless of their citizenship. Your line of thinking is out of skew with the philosophy on which this country was founded.
Consumers spending what they can afford is good for the economy. Banks loaning to people who can't afford to repay is not. Yes, government did contribute to the economic meltdown; we just had 16 years of Bush & Clinton undoing much of the regulations put in place in the 1930s. Guess where the meltdown largely started? In the completely UNREGULATED mortage backed securities market.
Um, yes, is is legal to discrimate based on ability to repay the loan. Would you loan someone money if you thought you'd never see it again? That's not really a great way to run a bank. I'm curious, would it be discimination to you to not hire someone lacking a degree in computer science for a programming job? Should i have to hire a black person even though they don't have the skills required by the job? Should I have to hire ANYONE that didn't have the requisite skills?
And while you're right that poor minotiries are not loaned money, neither are poor majorities. The discriminate that's the problem was banks not loaning to black people, even if they COULD repay the loan, or not loaning to a black family trying to buy a house in a white neighborhood.
As far as the "majority" goes, that's who's suffering most right now. Check out the sob stories on CNN about people losing their homes and jobs.. I don't think I've seen a single lower class family featured, they're all middle class. Especially heart wrenching was a story on CNN about a upper-middle class family that had to give up their landscaper, gardnerer and chef.
Did I miss a memo somewhere that simply being a minority makes you poor? Racist indeed.
You're incorrect... all the bank has to do is show it applies its standard formulas it applies to everyone else and that's why a minority was classified as high risk, and the bank is scott free.
As homework, go look and see where most of the foreclosures are.... they are white middle class families living in expensive areas (CA, FL, etc).
Aww, poor baby, lost the point and now look like an idiot? Check out MSDFCU, a reputable credit union, which offers exactly what I said (most credit unions never practiced the risky kind of lending practices that hit the banks), oh and the application is legally binding.
I'm actually glad for the recession; because of it, I was able to refinance my fixed 7% mortgage and 9% home equity loan (which totals were still less than the full value of the home), down to a fixed 4%, get money back to do major renovations (~$20,000 worth), and I'll STILL have the loan paid off only two months later than I would have with the original mortgage, which itself was only a 25 yr loan, and I still have 25% of my equity like before.
You are right about one thing though; I didn't put any money down.
Well, before you even get to whether or not they have to refund money for a returned item, you have to actually prove that they would accept returns to begin with.
Anyway, you can claim pedantry all you want, but the OP is passing this off as if its a good way to resolve the situtation, when its clearly not.
Well you're free to believe what you want, but you don't really know, because you haven't seen the code.
like when Congress mandated banks *must* sell houses even if the people could not afford them
That's a myth. What congress did is mandate that banks must loan to minorities, but no where do regulations force them to loan to people who are high risk. They did that because they turn around and sell the mortgage to someone else, who buys insurance against it to protect them if the borrower defaults.
If you want to claim that congress mandated banks loan to high risk people, please cite your source and preferably, the actual regulation / legilsation.
So cite the law.
The french in the revolutionary war as well as WWI and WWII were killing military objectives. The difference is that innocent civilians weren't targeted. The British targeted civilians and that is a large reason why the french aided the colonists.
And the British justified this saying the revolutionaries were terrorists. Amazing huh?
In the context of Iranians, we are actually talking about religious Identity not ethnic makeup. There are Iranians living in Israel just as there are jews living in Iran.
But they don't outnumber Jews in Israel by 20 to 1, which was the claim.
I'm not confusing anyone. Palestinians work in Israel and some live there too. about 20% of the Israeli population is Arab or Persian and about 18% of Israel is Muslim. About 1 million Palestinians cross into Israel for work each month.
Yes, you're making my point... their numbers are still far less than the number of Jews, and they don't outnumber the Israeli jews by 20 to 1.
Iran sponsors terrorism. They fund terrorist groups and supply them with weapons and training and to some degree, direct their activities. Regardless of you wanting to argue semantics or ignore the realities of the area, the statement is overall accurate and reflects the different between the US and Iran and why we should worried about one country getting Nuclear weapons and not so much about another who may already have them.
Your post was incorrect on a rather major point. Attacks in Israel aren't only killing two jews for every 40 Iranian jews. You can't be "overall acurate" when you have such a huge misstatement. I'm not saying Iran might not sponser terrorism, but your knowledge of the facts is very much in question.
Whoa, don't go misrepresenting what I said. I never said anything about EULAs not being contracts. The quote in my post was from the bottom of the Wiki link cited above, which was quoting a ruling regarding a case of a reseller selling comic books for $0.89 in 1908.