True, it's not hidden but unfair works in place of that. I'd argue that a contract that doesn't give you any rights beyond those you already have and only (or almost exclusively) includes clauses that benefit the other party would be unfair.
Let's not forget that HDTV penetration is much lower in Europe than the US (mainly because it arrived here later) so HD media may not be such a big seller.
Or click no and complain that it won't work. Selling something and only afterwards telling the buyer that he needs to enter another contract to actually use it is fraud, AFAIK.
I'm not sure if it's legal to permanently alter the file because of copyright but I doubt an EULA is a technological measure so direct memory manipulation (or simple API calls that can rename buttons) would be valid means to alter the EULA display and "renegotiate" the contract.
This situation is different from the typical dispute about software EULAs because, so the legal theory goes, software is not sold but licensed.
But even that is a circular argument. EULAs are exempt from the First Sale doctrine because it's a license, not a sale and a software sale is really a license because the EULA says so... I mwean, the user goes into a store, grabs the box, hands the money over and thereby forms a sales contract. He goes home, opens the box, puts the disc into his PC and suddently the sale is turned into a licensing agreement without even asking the other party to the contract (the store)? This still sounds more like bribery and using technical means to circumvent a legal measure (we really need a Digital Millenium Loophole Act that outlaws using technology to circumvent laws...) put in place to prevent exactly this kind of abuse.
I'm not sure about the situation in the US but here blanket terms of sale are much more restricted in what they can force than contracts. Otherwise could you even sue anyone anymore, wouldn't EVERYONE force you into a contract that says you can't sue them?
Also considering some rulings regarding warning labels in the US make me wonder how they expect people to understand long legalese textx hidden in a dark corner of the store while saying you can't expect the customer to read the warning that's written in bold red letters right on the machine.
Stores aren't really cutting prices from what I can see, they bundle some crap with it and raise the price (though I think the bundles are cheaper than the parts individually), I'd assume the margins are too small to do any pricedrops.
I doubt the part about buying the more expensive one since those 200€ don't come out of thin air and these days you get the 360 with all kinds of extra stuff thrown in (bundles I've seen were Kameo, PGR3 and a racing wheel or Guitar Hero 2 and guitar controller, both packs for 400€ each). I'd expect the PS3 to sell better right now because it's new and there's still more demand, not because it looks like the better option.
Either way, the sales of both the PS3 and 360 have been described as insufficient in Europe. Seems like the big game companies are really unhappy with those consoles.
MS probably doesn't make an offer partially because the things they've been offering other companies are of less interest to square enix, and partly because they wouldn't want to spend enough money to bribe for a game so far from what their ideas of the right games for the xbox are.
The right games for the XBox? MS doesn't want a homogenous library, they want lots of games to attract lots of users. They've already paid enough companies to get japanese RPGs on the system (to the point where the 360 actually has the most jRPGs of any nextgen system) so claiming MS isn't interested in FF is just silly, especially considering the emphasis they put on getting FF11 back then.
Descent was similar, in Descent2 and 3 the codes from the previous games would result in losing all weapons and being reduced to one point of shield energy IIRC
A powerarmor would be able to weight much more than a conventional armor suit without encumbering the user which means it can use much thicker armor and possibly be used to clear debries and other heavy objects that are in the way. It doesn't necessarily mean heavier weapons though it could of course carry those if it has enough power (less load might reduce the energy use and make the unit able to operate longer without refueling, though). Currently if you'd add enough armor to a soldier to make him impervious to small arms fire you'd bury him in steel and he wouldn't be able to get up so armor is applied only to a few areas (helmet and vest usually). Of course powerarmor wouldn't be carried on the person at all times, that'd be a waste of fuel and create unnecessary maintenance, the mules could carry that stuff outside of combat but in combat you're better off with soldiers that can move naturally, use cover easily and interact with civilians. Problems with remote operated drones include signal jamming, less adaptability and generally the lower performance of robotic parts compared to humans as currently robots lack the brainpower a human has to adapt to each situation and inputting that through a remote control would waste time.
My stance is that abortions are more humane than the alternative: Improvised ways to get rid of the child, whether it's the coathanger, an illegal clinic or one of several cruel ways to kill the baby after it's born (beating to death, starvation or drowning being popular methods). There's no way to stop a determined mother from getting rid of her child and the best you can do is make sure the child is dead before it develops sentience and can feel the pain. Ask yourself: Would you rather die peacefully in your "sleep" or fully aware of the person that's bashing your skull in with a blunt object?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it was called "Gleichschaltung" under Hitler.
Why? That would make shooting them self-defense.
I really think "using His name in vain" applies to things like declaring a war "in God's name" or an Emperor "chosen by God" and crap like that.
So you can only be a hardcore gamer if you hate Mario?
That should be the definition of a "gore kiddy".
I'm not sure it would be fraudulent, there would just be no contract because there is no text both parties have agreed to.
True, it's not hidden but unfair works in place of that. I'd argue that a contract that doesn't give you any rights beyond those you already have and only (or almost exclusively) includes clauses that benefit the other party would be unfair.
Let's not forget that HDTV penetration is much lower in Europe than the US (mainly because it arrived here later) so HD media may not be such a big seller.
I believe several decades of console videogames are proof enough.
AFAIK the GPL states that you can ignore it if you don't want distribution rights so that bit isn't binding in any way.
Or click no and complain that it won't work. Selling something and only afterwards telling the buyer that he needs to enter another contract to actually use it is fraud, AFAIK.
I'm not sure if it's legal to permanently alter the file because of copyright but I doubt an EULA is a technological measure so direct memory manipulation (or simple API calls that can rename buttons) would be valid means to alter the EULA display and "renegotiate" the contract.
This situation is different from the typical dispute about software EULAs because, so the legal theory goes, software is not sold but licensed.
But even that is a circular argument. EULAs are exempt from the First Sale doctrine because it's a license, not a sale and a software sale is really a license because the EULA says so... I mwean, the user goes into a store, grabs the box, hands the money over and thereby forms a sales contract. He goes home, opens the box, puts the disc into his PC and suddently the sale is turned into a licensing agreement without even asking the other party to the contract (the store)? This still sounds more like bribery and using technical means to circumvent a legal measure (we really need a Digital Millenium Loophole Act that outlaws using technology to circumvent laws...) put in place to prevent exactly this kind of abuse.
I'm not sure about the situation in the US but here blanket terms of sale are much more restricted in what they can force than contracts. Otherwise could you even sue anyone anymore, wouldn't EVERYONE force you into a contract that says you can't sue them?
Also considering some rulings regarding warning labels in the US make me wonder how they expect people to understand long legalese textx hidden in a dark corner of the store while saying you can't expect the customer to read the warning that's written in bold red letters right on the machine.
Cease those claims immediately!
Usually businesses mean Europe, Africa, Australia and pretty much everything else that isn't Canada, the US or Japan when they say Europe.
Stores aren't really cutting prices from what I can see, they bundle some crap with it and raise the price (though I think the bundles are cheaper than the parts individually), I'd assume the margins are too small to do any pricedrops.
I doubt the part about buying the more expensive one since those 200€ don't come out of thin air and these days you get the 360 with all kinds of extra stuff thrown in (bundles I've seen were Kameo, PGR3 and a racing wheel or Guitar Hero 2 and guitar controller, both packs for 400€ each). I'd expect the PS3 to sell better right now because it's new and there's still more demand, not because it looks like the better option.
Either way, the sales of both the PS3 and 360 have been described as insufficient in Europe. Seems like the big game companies are really unhappy with those consoles.
Why hasn't someone taken this man's movie making license away!!!???
Because of a pesky law known as the first amendment. If there ever was a reason to abolish it it's this guy.
MS probably doesn't make an offer partially because the things they've been offering other companies are of less interest to square enix, and partly because they wouldn't want to spend enough money to bribe for a game so far from what their ideas of the right games for the xbox are.
The right games for the XBox? MS doesn't want a homogenous library, they want lots of games to attract lots of users. They've already paid enough companies to get japanese RPGs on the system (to the point where the 360 actually has the most jRPGs of any nextgen system) so claiming MS isn't interested in FF is just silly, especially considering the emphasis they put on getting FF11 back then.
ROMs?
Ants were in Red Alert: Counterstrike, it was dinosaurs in C&C1.
Descent was similar, in Descent2 and 3 the codes from the previous games would result in losing all weapons and being reduced to one point of shield energy IIRC
Yes but those mothers don't seem to be willing to give the child up for adoption. Of course they shouldn't do it that way but it happens.
A powerarmor would be able to weight much more than a conventional armor suit without encumbering the user which means it can use much thicker armor and possibly be used to clear debries and other heavy objects that are in the way. It doesn't necessarily mean heavier weapons though it could of course carry those if it has enough power (less load might reduce the energy use and make the unit able to operate longer without refueling, though). Currently if you'd add enough armor to a soldier to make him impervious to small arms fire you'd bury him in steel and he wouldn't be able to get up so armor is applied only to a few areas (helmet and vest usually). Of course powerarmor wouldn't be carried on the person at all times, that'd be a waste of fuel and create unnecessary maintenance, the mules could carry that stuff outside of combat but in combat you're better off with soldiers that can move naturally, use cover easily and interact with civilians. Problems with remote operated drones include signal jamming, less adaptability and generally the lower performance of robotic parts compared to humans as currently robots lack the brainpower a human has to adapt to each situation and inputting that through a remote control would waste time.
My stance is that abortions are more humane than the alternative: Improvised ways to get rid of the child, whether it's the coathanger, an illegal clinic or one of several cruel ways to kill the baby after it's born (beating to death, starvation or drowning being popular methods). There's no way to stop a determined mother from getting rid of her child and the best you can do is make sure the child is dead before it develops sentience and can feel the pain. Ask yourself: Would you rather die peacefully in your "sleep" or fully aware of the person that's bashing your skull in with a blunt object?