"While the large domestic turkey is generally unable to fly, the smaller wild turkey can fly to several meters high. This is usually enough to perch in the branches of trees, however, it is an ineffective method of transportation."
Firefox 3 is a much better web browser than firefox 2
If by "better" you mean "buggier," then yes, you are correct.
The number of UI bugs in FFX3 is astounding, at least on OS X.
Go ahead and cmd+click a bookmark. Does it open in a new tab? Nope.
Go ahead and cmd+w on Slashdot. Does it close the tab? Not until after waiting for five seconds while Slashdot tries to figure out if the keypress was for it.
Go ahead and install the Brief extension, and then try cmd+m to minimize. Does it minimize? Nope. Why? Because like websites, extensions can steal core UI keystrokes with impunity.
Firefox 3 has been buggered from the start. It's the worst web browsing software I've used since IE for Mac. Maybe since before. It's an inexcusable mess.
Your post is nonsense, not to mention self-contradictory.
You can't honestly expect us to overlook the fact that you assert both that all exceptions to consideration are based in equity ("all consideration based arguments... hinge on matters of equity") and that some exceptions to consideration are NOT based in equity ("in law, consideration is always required. no, it's not.")
I've never heard "benefit" used as a term of art. As a vernacular term, it suffices as a pretty accurate definition of "consideration." You do need to receive something of value in return to satisfy consideration, and any distinction between "something of value" and "benefit" is pedantic at best.
In terms of consideration not being universally required... that's not exactly true. In law, consideration is always required. It's just that in equity, that requirement can be waived in certain circumstances (e.g., when enforcing a consideration-less promise is the "only" way to prevent "injustice," a doctrine known as "promissory estoppel"). Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, not a legal one per se.
Even if the names themselves weren't codified, some statutes refer to legislation by name. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(4), available athttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html ("Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986...").
Even if neither of those were true, however, the name of the legislation is often used by the judiciary to determine what Congress's intent was. See, e.g., Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) available at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf (resolving an ambiguity in the Communications Decency Act based on the name of the legislation).
So I don't think it's true that "only historians care" about the names of legislation, because judges care, and to the extent that judges are in charge of interpreting legislation and therefore determine what the law is, anyone interested in knowing what the law is cares.
Dude, you are obviously trolling. This is nonsense. OS X does "just work," for many many many reasonable definitions of "just work."
Example 1: I don't have to fight with my computer just to find out what the date is. In most computer users' experience, this is ridiculously hard, because WinXP inexplicably stops showing the date on hover-over-the-systray-clock sometimes. Now, if you're on your home computer, you can double-click and bring up the calendar view where you can set the date. But if you're at work, you can't, because you don't just need Administrator privileges to change that view, you need Admin privileges to SEE that view. Utterly stupid. In OS X I click the time. Date is at the top of the drop-down menu. Done. It just works, every time.
Example 2: I don't have to guess at required codecs. Ever try playing a random video file on bare WMP? This may have changed recently, but I definitely had experiences of audio but no video, with no explanation. None. Just blankness. QuickTime will tell you "Whoops, you need this codec, lemme download that for you, or here's how to get it." It just works.
Example 3: Windows Update vs. Software Update. 'Nuff said.
Example 4: IE7. W. T. F. IE7 is the alpha version of a radical UI experiment focus-group. Tabs interspersed with commands, address bar has things which have nothing to do with addresses, app menu in the middle of the widget area... W. T. F.
Example 5: Programming environment. Use the graphical installer and then, automagically, you can use "cc" from the command line like God intended. Simple. Easy. Done. It just works.
Example 5.5: Programming interfaces. This point was made a little bit up. Apple makes programming for new UI paradigms almost as easy as programming for console-based ones. Check this out: #import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h> #import <AppKit/NSSpeechSynthesizer.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
NSSpeechSynthesizer* mySynth = [[NSSpeechSynthesizer alloc] init];
[mySynth startSpeakingString:@"Hello, World!"];
return NSApplicationMain(argc, (const char **) argv); } That's not a scripting language. That's Obj-C. Simple. Easy. You get the picture.
The fact is, OS X is a great OS and works far more consistently than Windows could ever hope to. Apple inspires fanboyism because their stuff is good. Everything about the PC world you have to fight and fiddle with. I have better things to do with my time.
That's not to say you won't have some adjustment time, especially if you've learned everything the wrong way. Windows is like BASIC -- use it for too long and the barrier-to-entry to clear thinking and good engineering becomes higher and higher. But it's so worth it.
You know, some of us Midwesterners DO occasionally get into Ivy schools... UIUC is not in flyover territory by being in the Midwest (now, by being in U-C, that's a different story).
Some of my coworkers at a major company you've all heard of went to UIUC.
It's not "one case." It's a major case from an influential Circuit Court. That means it IS THE LAW, whether you like it or not, for at least a large number of people. It's also the cases that follow it, many from other circuits. Starting to get the picture? It's not just binding authority in its jurisdiction, but persuasive authority everywhere else. This view is the majority view. It is the law.
There's no such thing as the Supreme Court "tossing" an idea, especially something as vague as "contract after the fact."
The fact is, you have no legal training or education, and you're talking out your ass. You wouldn't know the common law test for whether a contract was formed if it hit you in the head (this is plainly evident by your post) and you don't know the law from a hole in the ground.
And FYI, installing and running software is NOT "allowed in copyright law." Installing software IS copying it, and it is illegal without the permission of the author. The author only grants that permission if you accept the license. If you accept the license he offers, and you receive something in return (you do - the right to install the software), then you are bound by the agreement offered.
Stop spreading ZUD (zealotry, uncertainty and doubt). You're in over your head on this.
Slashdot Mirror
British English, dude. At some registers, collectives are viewed as plural, not singular.
Search BBC stories for "Microsoft are" and such. (Whether that somewhat informal register should be used in BBC pieces is another topic entirely...)
Aren't Ubuntu releases usually named after animals that actually exist?
18 USC 1001 for the win!
I read the IRS code for a living and I only have 19 years of education,* you insensitive clod!
* K-11th = 12, undergrad = 4, law school = 3
How on earth is this flamebait...?
"While the large domestic turkey is generally unable to fly, the smaller wild turkey can fly to several meters high. This is usually enough to perch in the branches of trees, however, it is an ineffective method of transportation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkeys#Flight
Turkeys as a species CAN fly (albeit poorly), but domestic turkeys are too fat.
depending on what the gain is set at... the cam will pick up all kinda of background light (and radiation)
I'm boycotting this discussion (except, obviosuly, for this post) for incorrect use of "ironically"
Firefox 3 is a much better web browser than firefox 2
If by "better" you mean "buggier," then yes, you are correct.
The number of UI bugs in FFX3 is astounding, at least on OS X.
Go ahead and cmd+click a bookmark. Does it open in a new tab? Nope.
Go ahead and cmd+w on Slashdot. Does it close the tab? Not until after waiting for five seconds while Slashdot tries to figure out if the keypress was for it.
Go ahead and install the Brief extension, and then try cmd+m to minimize. Does it minimize? Nope. Why? Because like websites, extensions can steal core UI keystrokes with impunity.
Firefox 3 has been buggered from the start. It's the worst web browsing software I've used since IE for Mac. Maybe since before. It's an inexcusable mess.
Your post is nonsense, not to mention self-contradictory.
You can't honestly expect us to overlook the fact that you assert both that all exceptions to consideration are based in equity ("all consideration based arguments... hinge on matters of equity") and that some exceptions to consideration are NOT based in equity ("in law, consideration is always required. no, it's not.")
You can't have it both ways dude.
"It requires you to accept the condition that redistribution requires your act of contributing source code."
Wrong.
I've never heard "benefit" used as a term of art. As a vernacular term, it suffices as a pretty accurate definition of "consideration." You do need to receive something of value in return to satisfy consideration, and any distinction between "something of value" and "benefit" is pedantic at best.
In terms of consideration not being universally required... that's not exactly true. In law, consideration is always required. It's just that in equity, that requirement can be waived in certain circumstances (e.g., when enforcing a consideration-less promise is the "only" way to prevent "injustice," a doctrine known as "promissory estoppel"). Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, not a legal one per se.
But did he say "toe pick"?
This would get slammed in a court...
Really? Yeah... don't think so buddy.
That's not exactly true. The names aren't usually codified, but occasionally they are. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. ch. 4, available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sup_01_47_10_4.html.
Even if the names themselves weren't codified, some statutes refer to legislation by name. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(4), available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html ("Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986...").
Even if neither of those were true, however, the name of the legislation is often used by the judiciary to determine what Congress's intent was. See, e.g., Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) available at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf (resolving an ambiguity in the Communications Decency Act based on the name of the legislation).
So I don't think it's true that "only historians care" about the names of legislation, because judges care, and to the extent that judges are in charge of interpreting legislation and therefore determine what the law is, anyone interested in knowing what the law is cares.
Dude, you are obviously trolling. This is nonsense. OS X does "just work," for many many many reasonable definitions of "just work."
Example 1: I don't have to fight with my computer just to find out what the date is. In most computer users' experience, this is ridiculously hard, because WinXP inexplicably stops showing the date on hover-over-the-systray-clock sometimes. Now, if you're on your home computer, you can double-click and bring up the calendar view where you can set the date. But if you're at work, you can't, because you don't just need Administrator privileges to change that view, you need Admin privileges to SEE that view. Utterly stupid. In OS X I click the time. Date is at the top of the drop-down menu. Done. It just works, every time.
Example 2: I don't have to guess at required codecs. Ever try playing a random video file on bare WMP? This may have changed recently, but I definitely had experiences of audio but no video, with no explanation. None. Just blankness. QuickTime will tell you "Whoops, you need this codec, lemme download that for you, or here's how to get it." It just works.
Example 3: Windows Update vs. Software Update. 'Nuff said.
Example 4: IE7. W. T. F. IE7 is the alpha version of a radical UI experiment focus-group. Tabs interspersed with commands, address bar has things which have nothing to do with addresses, app menu in the middle of the widget area... W. T. F.
Example 5: Programming environment. Use the graphical installer and then, automagically, you can use "cc" from the command line like God intended. Simple. Easy. Done. It just works.
Example 5.5: Programming interfaces. This point was made a little bit up. Apple makes programming for new UI paradigms almost as easy as programming for console-based ones. Check this out:
#import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h>
#import <AppKit/NSSpeechSynthesizer.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
NSSpeechSynthesizer* mySynth = [[NSSpeechSynthesizer alloc] init];
[mySynth startSpeakingString:@"Hello, World!"];
return NSApplicationMain(argc, (const char **) argv);
}
That's not a scripting language. That's Obj-C. Simple. Easy. You get the picture.
The fact is, OS X is a great OS and works far more consistently than Windows could ever hope to. Apple inspires fanboyism because their stuff is good. Everything about the PC world you have to fight and fiddle with. I have better things to do with my time.
That's not to say you won't have some adjustment time, especially if you've learned everything the wrong way. Windows is like BASIC -- use it for too long and the barrier-to-entry to clear thinking and good engineering becomes higher and higher. But it's so worth it.
Anonymous Coward fiat declarations from people who, you know, work in the relevant field.
You wouldn't ask a mechanic about pointer arithmetic. Stop asking code monkeys about the law.
Signed,
AnonymousCoward@law.harvard.edu
Nope. Sorry.
The fact that you pay for X doesn't mean that X isn't consideration. It doesn't work that way.
Add in the fact that the major Ivies (HYP) have the resources to give major need-based grants...
For pretty much anyone whose family makes under $60k, it's significantly cheaper to go to Harvard than local State U.
Definitely agree with you. Tuition paid out-of-pocket at state schools is a hell of a lot higher.
As painful as it is to admit it, Yale has a pretty good CS program.
Joel Spolsky went there.
You know, some of us Midwesterners DO occasionally get into Ivy schools... UIUC is not in flyover territory by being in the Midwest (now, by being in U-C, that's a different story).
Some of my coworkers at a major company you've all heard of went to UIUC.
It's not "one case." It's a major case from an influential Circuit Court. That means it IS THE LAW, whether you like it or not, for at least a large number of people. It's also the cases that follow it, many from other circuits. Starting to get the picture? It's not just binding authority in its jurisdiction, but persuasive authority everywhere else. This view is the majority view. It is the law.
There's no such thing as the Supreme Court "tossing" an idea, especially something as vague as "contract after the fact."
The fact is, you have no legal training or education, and you're talking out your ass. You wouldn't know the common law test for whether a contract was formed if it hit you in the head (this is plainly evident by your post) and you don't know the law from a hole in the ground.
And FYI, installing and running software is NOT "allowed in copyright law." Installing software IS copying it, and it is illegal without the permission of the author. The author only grants that permission if you accept the license. If you accept the license he offers, and you receive something in return (you do - the right to install the software), then you are bound by the agreement offered.
Stop spreading ZUD (zealotry, uncertainty and doubt). You're in over your head on this.
It is very, very certain that EULAs are indeed contracts. See ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
ProCD and its progeny are pretty clear on this issue. For further analysis, check out http://www.jonesday.com/pubs/pubs_detail.aspx?pubID=S1495 (in particular, under the heading "Software License Jurisprudence").
Jones Day, for what it's worth, is a fairly major law firm.
"I'll take advice when/if I see the source actually ... making sense."
Translation:
"I'll take advice when/if I see the source actually ... confirming my biases."