Preventing someone from using it just because they are not the original owner of it is contrary to the first-sale doctrine.
See, I really disagree with this, as it basically implies that "any contract you ever sign is bullshit."
If you install a piece of software, you click through an agreement. You are party to a contract(-ish thing, to get technical).
If one of the clauses is that you cannot resale the software, and you have agreed to that clause, then why do you all of a sudden feel entitled to sue because you should be able to resell the software (when you agreed that you wouldn't per the contract)?
Don't give me bullshit about how you didn't see the license until you bought the software, because you can still return the software if it's not been installed yet. It's the law.
I just got done with a software licenses class at my law school (wrote my paper on open source licenses, actually), and while I may not like the terms of these clickware license agreements, in my opinion they are valid and we should follow them or stop buying the software / return it and let the companies we don't like how they do business.
Thoughts? I'd love it if there were some argument to make me switch sides on this issue, as I really want to be on the other side, but I don't think the better arguments are on the other side. I think they're on the side of "obey the terms of the contract."
And I love the way you name ONE ACTOR from the trilogy who went on to success
Mark Hamill went on to a very successful voice acting career, Carrie Fisher went on to a very successful script doctoring career, and Star Wars freaking made Warwick Davis. Willow, Leprechaun, and Harry Potter, anyone?
You still didn't recognize my points about the vast technical advancements made by companies that have their start in Star Wars (ILM, etc.).
And I think other people cover well your (in my opinion) idiotic idea that Christianity has been a net negative on society. Same as how Islam has not been a net negative, nor has Buddhism, Judaism, etc.
A movie that has permeated practically every culture on the planet--Jedi is a religion in some countries; when people cup their hands over their mouth and slowly and loudly breath, people recognize it as a Vader impression; and its success made ILM, Skywalker Sound, Harrison Ford, Lucas Arts, Lucasfilm, THX, and the list goes on.
You may not like the movie, but to say it's "just a movie" is like saying "the Bible is just a book"--perhaps in some literal sense it's "a book," but it's one that has shaped the course of human history.
Alternatively, I think you'll find that almost no Christian in the world believes that those two verses are literally applicable.
I mean, there is the whole "love thy neighbor as thyself" thing in the entire Bible (from Leviticus of the Old Testament to the Gospels and beyond of the New Testament) to counteract any specious hatred speech.
Also, a note: You may think a lot of what Christians believe is silly, but to expect any sort of Slashdot debate on verses in the text to reveal how foolish the religion is is folly, in my opinion. People have been trying to take down the religion for 2000 years. That doesn't make the religion valid, but it does make it nigh bulletproof in (d)eBates.
I'd like to make a further comment about this. The day we develop replacement eyes for blind people, if we haven't developed a fix for asthma yet, I'd be behind legislation that favors banning seeing-eye dogs from public places provided that the blind person chose to stay blind rather than was simply unable to pay for the eye-replacement surgery.
Of course, that includes the pretty big "if" that someone blind would want to stay blind. Maybe there are some out there, but not being blind myself, I cannot imagine wanting to remain like that. Maybe someone would not want to lose their command over a heightened sense of smell, though...
I'm arguing two prongs (and I realize I didn't make this clear, but I've been replied to in this topic by about 3-4 different people so I was muddled):
The first is that a business is, by virtue of permitting smoking, is hanging a sign saying, "Hey, people who don't want lung cancer, we don't serve your type here." The anti-discrimination angle follows.
Second, and what I consider more important, is the employee issue. Employees who wait tables or even cook often don't have a safer job they can turn to. If all their jobs involve taking in massive amounts of carcinogens, then the government ought to step in, a la OSHA, and regulate to provide a safe working environment. Someone suggested that we could alternatively require facemasks and other breathing apparatus to protect employees in smoking establishments, and I have no problem with this.
However, it still doesn't take care of the anti-discrimination prong up top. Also, I think this would place an even greater burden on businesses (bearing the cost of safety equipment, loss of business because patrons can't understand the words coming out of the masked servers' mouths, etc.) than the alternative: all businesses (except a few liquor establishments) saying: smokers, you can come but you can't smoke.
So smokers choose to never eat out, or they choose to take smoking breaks, or they choose to (and here's my favorite one) cease their physiologically addicting, burden-on-society, deadly habit because of the burden they now bear.
Personally, I think it's damn good public policy.
You may argue that car emissions are worse, and that may be true, but it doesn't negate my argument. If we could, I'd have everyone not drive cars, too, but that's impossible in the US right now, so we have to provide carrots to encourage people to move away from gas guzzlers.
it's rubbish because it assumes people who are fat are that way because they eat more.
this is just plain wrong, it's usually WHAT they eat not how much
"what they eat" determines "how much"
For example, 30g of fat = 270Kcal ~.077lb of human fat 30g of protein = 150Kcal ~.042lb
Now, if you meant "volume of food" for "how much" as opposed to "caloric content" for "how much," then we agree. However, since we're discussing what makes people fat, there is a direct and strong correlation between "how much [i.e., how many calories] a person eats" and "how fat a person is."
My argument merely pointed out that the argument "I own it, therefore I can do whatever I want" is not true.
What's sad is that you pronounced judgment on my beliefs before we actually got into a debate. In a place like Slashdot, I can give an argument. You can respond. Then I can respond to your attacks on my perceived weak points and I can attack your perceived weak points. However, you decided that I must have presented all my arguments in one post on Slashdot, because as all debates here are carried out fully, that would be a tremendous use of my efforts without waiting to see if you even had the energy to continue a debate with me.
That being said, after reading your last statement, I can see we don't have much of an argument (i.e., we're on the same side of the argument), as I agree that
[i]f you choose to smoke, please take it where you're not giving someone else lung cancer / COPD / heart disease.
I would have no problem with this being an option. I suggest you start lobbying the public, because it can only go as far as voters are willing to let it.
It's related because the assertion was that if you're a private business owner, then you can absolutely control how your business is run. I provided evidence that that is not true.
Now, you can either refine your argument to show why "smoking is a choice, being non-white is not" has any bearing on "private business owners should have complete control over how their business is run" or you can concede the point.
They don't require damaging and dangerous modifications to the body like replacing your legs with prosthetics or pumping yourself full of steroids.
But I'd be completely fine with watching nude olympics. Although the idiots watching only female competitions and complaining about the "gayness" of mens wrestling would bother me.
But fat people also stop producing when they die as well. In fact, they spend a larger portion of their life being basically 100% consumers (ages 0-18) than fit people (perhaps age 65-80). That also ignores that many people continue to produce in some fashion until they die (investments, etc.).
Instead of the state governments (dominated by the elites) getting a voice in the federal government, isn't it better to give the state's citizens a voice by allowing direct election?
Have you really watched state
And right there is where I realized: Oh my God, repealing the 17th Amendment makes a lot of sense. It's a lot less "media-oriented" to be elected to state government. It makes so much sense to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Thanks, maxume. You've raised a nice point and I'm going to spend time investigating it more. As a law student, it's always exciting to be challenged like this!
That population is incredibly small. If you need proof, unless we had some sort of radical mutation occur across the US in the past 30 years, why was there virtually no obesity in the 70s and earlier?
I'll second this: I lost 20 pounds in about ONE MONTH (I don't understand how it happened, I just know that when I got to Japan the scale said 80 and one month later it said 70).
I was on the Japanese-food diet: lots of miso soup for dinner, salad for breakfast with some eggs, and curried rice and ramen and soba and katsudon and the like for lunch.
OK, fine. But in that case, grammar/punctuation point: The use of quotes around "obese" in this case would be "required" even if you weren't quoting others--when using a word as a term, you should put quotation marks around it (or italicize it, in some sources).
I put quotes around "required" because I know Slashdotters like to argue against formal rules of spelling.
This is actually a prime example of why knowledge of punctuation rules is essential: Because Belial6 did not know the rules of punctuation, Belial6 failed to correctly convey the intended message.
And yes, I do find I disagree less. I'm raging less at your comments now;)
In any case, get the heck off Slashdot and go running! I should be doing the same.
I just made a 6-week move to another town with only books, a laptop for work, exercise clothes, and work clothes; this minimizes distractions. I really shouldn't be on Slashdot right now. I should be running!
*sigh* Everyone arguing the pro-smoker side keeps setting up straw men.
The law shouldn't (and in this case, doesn't) arbitrarily decree. The law is constantly engaged in a cost-benefit analysis.
The costs of forbidding high-rise buildings are much higher to society: no trees left on earth to produce oxygen for us to breathe, no roads left to drive on, etc.
On the other hand, the costs of banning smoking in public vastly outweigh any benefit. In my opinion, the right for a shopkeeper to 90% control his premises instead of 91% (note that he was already told he couldn't discriminate on many bases, couldn't violate building codes, etc.) is vastly inferior to the right of employees to not die of cancer because they were not from the right background in which they could have risen out of the poverty waiting tables is geared towards.
Slashdot Mirror
If you install a piece of software, you click through an agreement. You are party to a contract(-ish thing, to get technical).
If one of the clauses is that you cannot resale the software, and you have agreed to that clause, then why do you all of a sudden feel entitled to sue because you should be able to resell the software (when you agreed that you wouldn't per the contract)?
Don't give me bullshit about how you didn't see the license until you bought the software, because you can still return the software if it's not been installed yet. It's the law.
I just got done with a software licenses class at my law school (wrote my paper on open source licenses, actually), and while I may not like the terms of these clickware license agreements, in my opinion they are valid and we should follow them or stop buying the software / return it and let the companies we don't like how they do business.
Thoughts? I'd love it if there were some argument to make me switch sides on this issue, as I really want to be on the other side, but I don't think the better arguments are on the other side. I think they're on the side of "obey the terms of the contract."
Also I clearly did not RTFA.
You still didn't recognize my points about the vast technical advancements made by companies that have their start in Star Wars (ILM, etc.).
And I think other people cover well your (in my opinion) idiotic idea that Christianity has been a net negative on society. Same as how Islam has not been a net negative, nor has Buddhism, Judaism, etc.
A movie that has permeated practically every culture on the planet--Jedi is a religion in some countries; when people cup their hands over their mouth and slowly and loudly breath, people recognize it as a Vader impression; and its success made ILM, Skywalker Sound, Harrison Ford, Lucas Arts, Lucasfilm, THX, and the list goes on.
You may not like the movie, but to say it's "just a movie" is like saying "the Bible is just a book"--perhaps in some literal sense it's "a book," but it's one that has shaped the course of human history.
Explanation.
Alternatively, I think you'll find that almost no Christian in the world believes that those two verses are literally applicable.
I mean, there is the whole "love thy neighbor as thyself" thing in the entire Bible (from Leviticus of the Old Testament to the Gospels and beyond of the New Testament) to counteract any specious hatred speech.
Also, a note: You may think a lot of what Christians believe is silly, but to expect any sort of Slashdot debate on verses in the text to reveal how foolish the religion is is folly, in my opinion. People have been trying to take down the religion for 2000 years. That doesn't make the religion valid, but it does make it nigh bulletproof in (d)eBates.
Well, seeing as how there's no "n" is "sarcasm" or "mark," I suspect "snark" doesn't come from "sarcasm+mark."
I'd like to make a further comment about this. The day we develop replacement eyes for blind people, if we haven't developed a fix for asthma yet, I'd be behind legislation that favors banning seeing-eye dogs from public places provided that the blind person chose to stay blind rather than was simply unable to pay for the eye-replacement surgery.
Of course, that includes the pretty big "if" that someone blind would want to stay blind. Maybe there are some out there, but not being blind myself, I cannot imagine wanting to remain like that. Maybe someone would not want to lose their command over a heightened sense of smell, though...
I'm arguing two prongs (and I realize I didn't make this clear, but I've been replied to in this topic by about 3-4 different people so I was muddled):
The first is that a business is, by virtue of permitting smoking, is hanging a sign saying, "Hey, people who don't want lung cancer, we don't serve your type here." The anti-discrimination angle follows.
Second, and what I consider more important, is the employee issue. Employees who wait tables or even cook often don't have a safer job they can turn to. If all their jobs involve taking in massive amounts of carcinogens, then the government ought to step in, a la OSHA, and regulate to provide a safe working environment. Someone suggested that we could alternatively require facemasks and other breathing apparatus to protect employees in smoking establishments, and I have no problem with this.
However, it still doesn't take care of the anti-discrimination prong up top. Also, I think this would place an even greater burden on businesses (bearing the cost of safety equipment, loss of business because patrons can't understand the words coming out of the masked servers' mouths, etc.) than the alternative: all businesses (except a few liquor establishments) saying: smokers, you can come but you can't smoke.
So smokers choose to never eat out, or they choose to take smoking breaks, or they choose to (and here's my favorite one) cease their physiologically addicting, burden-on-society, deadly habit because of the burden they now bear.
Personally, I think it's damn good public policy.
You may argue that car emissions are worse, and that may be true, but it doesn't negate my argument. If we could, I'd have everyone not drive cars, too, but that's impossible in the US right now, so we have to provide carrots to encourage people to move away from gas guzzlers.
OK, well how about a statistically significant number of them?
I ask only because I honestly couldn't even name one in my entire 24 years. I've only lived in TX and Japan, though, so it could be regional.
For example, 30g of fat = 270Kcal ~
30g of protein = 150Kcal ~
Now, if you meant "volume of food" for "how much" as opposed to "caloric content" for "how much," then we agree. However, since we're discussing what makes people fat, there is a direct and strong correlation between "how much [i.e., how many calories] a person eats" and "how fat a person is."
What's sad is that you pronounced judgment on my beliefs before we actually got into a debate. In a place like Slashdot, I can give an argument. You can respond. Then I can respond to your attacks on my perceived weak points and I can attack your perceived weak points. However, you decided that I must have presented all my arguments in one post on Slashdot, because as all debates here are carried out fully, that would be a tremendous use of my efforts without waiting to see if you even had the energy to continue a debate with me.
That being said, after reading your last statement, I can see we don't have much of an argument (i.e., we're on the same side of the argument), as I agree that
Well, non-whites can go into the "whites only" establishment. Their health will subsequently suffer.
Similarly, non-smokers can go into "smoking allowed" establishments. Their health will subsequently suffer.
I would have no problem with this being an option. I suggest you start lobbying the public, because it can only go as far as voters are willing to let it.
It's related because the assertion was that if you're a private business owner, then you can absolutely control how your business is run. I provided evidence that that is not true.
Now, you can either refine your argument to show why "smoking is a choice, being non-white is not" has any bearing on "private business owners should have complete control over how their business is run" or you can concede the point.
Your move, I look forward to the discussion.
They don't require damaging and dangerous modifications to the body like replacing your legs with prosthetics or pumping yourself full of steroids.
But I'd be completely fine with watching nude olympics. Although the idiots watching only female competitions and complaining about the "gayness" of mens wrestling would bother me.
But fat people also stop producing when they die as well. In fact, they spend a larger portion of their life being basically 100% consumers (ages 0-18) than fit people (perhaps age 65-80). That also ignores that many people continue to produce in some fashion until they die (investments, etc.).
Thanks, maxume. You've raised a nice point and I'm going to spend time investigating it more. As a law student, it's always exciting to be challenged like this!
Nice. It's actually 4:40 am here. ;)
That population is incredibly small. If you need proof, unless we had some sort of radical mutation occur across the US in the past 30 years, why was there virtually no obesity in the 70s and earlier?
I'll second this: I lost 20 pounds in about ONE MONTH (I don't understand how it happened, I just know that when I got to Japan the scale said 80 and one month later it said 70).
I was on the Japanese-food diet: lots of miso soup for dinner, salad for breakfast with some eggs, and curried rice and ramen and soba and katsudon and the like for lunch.
Thank God for host mothers.
This is absolutely the funniest comment I've read on Slashdot in at least half a year. Congratuations, sir.
STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS AHEAD
;)
OK, fine. But in that case, grammar/punctuation point: The use of quotes around "obese" in this case would be "required" even if you weren't quoting others--when using a word as a term, you should put quotation marks around it (or italicize it, in some sources).
I put quotes around "required" because I know Slashdotters like to argue against formal rules of spelling.
This is actually a prime example of why knowledge of punctuation rules is essential: Because Belial6 did not know the rules of punctuation, Belial6 failed to correctly convey the intended message.
And yes, I do find I disagree less. I'm raging less at your comments now
In any case, get the heck off Slashdot and go running! I should be doing the same.
I just made a 6-week move to another town with only books, a laptop for work, exercise clothes, and work clothes; this minimizes distractions. I really shouldn't be on Slashdot right now. I should be running!
*sigh* Everyone arguing the pro-smoker side keeps setting up straw men.
The law shouldn't (and in this case, doesn't) arbitrarily decree. The law is constantly engaged in a cost-benefit analysis.
The costs of forbidding high-rise buildings are much higher to society: no trees left on earth to produce oxygen for us to breathe, no roads left to drive on, etc.
On the other hand, the costs of banning smoking in public vastly outweigh any benefit. In my opinion, the right for a shopkeeper to 90% control his premises instead of 91% (note that he was already told he couldn't discriminate on many bases, couldn't violate building codes, etc.) is vastly inferior to the right of employees to not die of cancer because they were not from the right background in which they could have risen out of the poverty waiting tables is geared towards.