When someone says something false, and stands up and says "I say this," I'd think they're misguided. When someone says something false, and then scrubs their name from it... I'd think they're lying.
I think we can all agree there must be some limits on free speech, but come on now. The Nazis destroyed 5/8th of a race, nearly wiping out an entire culture. They killed tens of millions of people.
I had no idea that only those of german descent could commit atrocities. I guess we should all be releaved to know that Americans, Brits can do no wrong.
Alright, most C code should work under C++. I still think of it as a superset, the exceptions are rare and have never affected my programs.
Re:An EULA is no real contract in Germany
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 1
But the EULA for windows was a 4 page document in a 3-line box with annoying music playing. I don't know what it said, because it was never presented to me in a comprehensible format. Why should I be bound by it?
If I am bound, as the article claims, only by reasonable terms in it, then that means the EULA is completely irrelevant: only the "reasonableness" of a suit brought against me will actually matter. So if I pirate windows, MS can claim I should've known that was against the law even though I never had the opportunity to read the EULA. And I can likewise claim that my backup copy is protected by fair use, no matter what the EULA may have stated.
In such cases, the EULA is an irrelevant attempt to cloud the issue of what I should have already known about actual binding law. If a EULA is binding, it is redundant. If it's not redundant, it should not be binding.
Online contracts are entirely different because they are presented and binding at time of purchase, so any unexpected/unreasonable terms become known and reasonable before the purchase.
A small point... Credit cards increase market friction, since waiting for confirmation before signing a reciept always takes longer than giving cash and recieving change.
I also changed banks 2 years ago because their system was unreliable, causing embarassing "card rejected" experiences when I large amounts of money on it. Market friction indeed.
But such friction is not harmful to the market as a whole. It just means I'll bank elseewhere, not that I'll stop banking.
EULAS cost no-one any money, until we all get sued for ignoring them. Corporations can only see the short-term benefits from screwing the customer.
"...teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning..."
Sounds like open-source medicine to me, although it is a limited license, including only those who have also taken the oath.
Charge for your services, charge for your supplies. But share medical learning with other doctors for free. And Bill Gates donated that money, so he for one agrees with me.
Again, why not continue to offer patches, instead of trying to make money off of your own flaws?
It's the conflict of interest that's blatantly disgusting about it, not merely the fact that windows is the most insecure operating system out there (since lispire is catching up on holes).
I'm afraid that if you don't enjoy being stripped to your underware and assumed to be a terrorist until you can prove you are not, then you, sir, are an anti-american friend to terrorists and we want none of your filthy money here!
The line you gave, is in C. I'm trying not to be an utter jerk, because I know no-one learns C anymore...
Just because it works in C++, does not mean it is C++. All C code should work under C++.
To call it C++, it needs to not work under C, something like:
I sign my car insurance forms by using my mouse to draw my signature on a png of the agreement, and send it via email to my agent.
THat's legally binding, AFAIK.
EULAS, shouldn't be.
Re:An EULA is no real contract in Germany
on
The Basics of EULAs
·
· Score: 1
I live in California, my bank didn't have a EULA for online banking.
Why would they? The law on bank accounts is obvious, why would they need to define special terms that I'm not already aware of? Why would a bank want to sneak in a clause stating "you may already be a criminal." If they did, I'd just take my money elsewhere.
EULAS are only useful for taking from your customers in a manner not permissable by real laws. Banks are permitted to dip into my money anyway (transaction fees etc.), so they have no need for EULAS.
DNA molecules just contain information.
It requires RNA and protein to convert that information into tissue, just as it
takes an optical drive and a CPU to do something with a CD. The CD is hardware, since it physically exists, but it's the information that it carries that is being patented.
Now, sure, you could argue that DNA's hardware, since it's directly interacting rather than being reinterpreted as instructions. But that just makes it firmware. It can still be re-written "on-the-fly" and you could go on living with slightly modified DNA. So the law should (and does) match the laws pertaining to software. It just happens that both sets of laws suck, though.
So, when a cure for AIDS is found, should Bill Gates get 1.5% of each dose sold? Or should it be made available to heal the sick, as doctors are sworn to do?
The people that will pay are the people that would pay anyways.
I can't talk about movies, since I gave away my DVD player and TV a year ago. I watch them in theatres, or not at all. It's the same issue as music though.
I buy music, sometimes in stores, sometimes online. I only ever "pirate" music that is not available through normal means. Obscure music that probably never made a profit to begin with and will never be re-released. If they sold it, I wouldn't pirate it.
If I were a suspected criminal it would be perfectly reasonable for the police to get a warrant and track me. Since they had no warrant, there's no indication that they had cause to suspect he was a criminal. Given the known facts, it's just as likely they did it because of his race.
So why not continue to offer security patches, rather than offering a whole new product that does what those patches were suposed to do? Why not release good software, instead of adding another layer to protect bad software?
He didn't take what wasn't his, they gave it to him. He just followed the Sesame Street rules and shared with his friends. Not realising that you can face charges for passing out for free software that Apple was also passing out for free.
Hopefully, charges will be dropped now that he said he's sorry and won't do it again.
I called bullshit on the claim that the RIAA forced Apple to make it inconvenient for itunes customers to not use an iPod. That was Aple's choice. Note: customers, not just users.
And I call bullshit on your rio working with songs downloaded using iTMS, which is the point of the lawsuit. Unless you burn them to cd and manually rip them to mp3, which I am not about to do for several hundred songs.
If you use apple software you'll find it's all designed to encourage you to use apple hardware. Because hardware (like the iPod) is the only place Apple makes money.
But nowhere do I say it's a monopoly, since I don't use any Apple software anyway. There are better options.
Slashdot Mirror
When someone says something false, and then scrubs their name from it... I'd think they're lying.
Descernment is not discrimination.
The terrorists... killed 2 thousand.
And they weren't even Iranian.
I had no idea that only those of german descent could commit atrocities. I guess we should all be releaved to know that Americans, Brits can do no wrong.
Alright, most C code should work under C++.
I still think of it as a superset, the exceptions are rare and have never affected my programs.
If I am bound, as the article claims, only by reasonable terms in it, then that means the EULA is completely irrelevant: only the "reasonableness" of a suit brought against me will actually matter. So if I pirate windows, MS can claim I should've known that was against the law even though I never had the opportunity to read the EULA. And I can likewise claim that my backup copy is protected by fair use, no matter what the EULA may have stated.
In such cases, the EULA is an irrelevant attempt to cloud the issue of what I should have already known about actual binding law. If a EULA is binding, it is redundant. If it's not redundant, it should not be binding.
Online contracts are entirely different because they are presented and binding at time of purchase, so any unexpected/unreasonable terms become known and reasonable before the purchase.
I also changed banks 2 years ago because their system was unreliable, causing embarassing "card rejected" experiences when I large amounts of money on it. Market friction indeed.
But such friction is not harmful to the market as a whole. It just means I'll bank elseewhere, not that I'll stop banking.
EULAS cost no-one any money, until we all get sued for ignoring them. Corporations can only see the short-term benefits from screwing the customer.
Sounds like open-source medicine to me, although it is a limited license, including only those who have also taken the oath.
Charge for your services, charge for your supplies. But share medical learning with other doctors for free. And Bill Gates donated that money, so he for one agrees with me.
It's the conflict of interest that's blatantly disgusting about it, not merely the fact that windows is the most insecure operating system out there (since lispire is catching up on holes).
I'm afraid that if you don't enjoy being stripped to your underware and assumed to be a terrorist until you can prove you are not, then you, sir, are an anti-american friend to terrorists and we want none of your filthy money here!
Yeah, but if you're an asshole, they can wait for a lawyers letter.
To call it C++, it needs to not work under C, something like:
If you paid him for this article, thinking it would be legal advice, then yes. Sue his ass.
THat's legally binding, AFAIK. EULAS, shouldn't be.
Why would they? The law on bank accounts is obvious, why would they need to define special terms that I'm not already aware of? Why would a bank want to sneak in a clause stating "you may already be a criminal." If they did, I'd just take my money elsewhere.
EULAS are only useful for taking from your customers in a manner not permissable by real laws. Banks are permitted to dip into my money anyway (transaction fees etc.), so they have no need for EULAS.
Dang, when I posted, I checked that no-one else had mentioned forecastfox. What happened here?
Now, sure, you could argue that DNA's hardware, since it's directly interacting rather than being reinterpreted as instructions. But that just makes it firmware. It can still be re-written "on-the-fly" and you could go on living with slightly modified DNA. So the law should (and does) match the laws pertaining to software. It just happens that both sets of laws suck, though.
So, when a cure for AIDS is found, should Bill Gates get 1.5% of each dose sold? Or should it be made available to heal the sick, as doctors are sworn to do?
I can't talk about movies, since I gave away my DVD player and TV a year ago. I watch them in theatres, or not at all. It's the same issue as music though.
I buy music, sometimes in stores, sometimes online. I only ever "pirate" music that is not available through normal means. Obscure music that probably never made a profit to begin with and will never be re-released. If they sold it, I wouldn't pirate it.
I don't even listen to Brittany Spears.
If I were a suspected criminal it would be perfectly reasonable for the police to get a warrant and track me. Since they had no warrant, there's no indication that they had cause to suspect he was a criminal. Given the known facts, it's just as likely they did it because of his race.
If you use firefox, get forcastfox. It's mostly cloudy in the corner of my browser right now.
So why not continue to offer security patches, rather than offering a whole new product that does what those patches were suposed to do? Why not release good software, instead of adding another layer to protect bad software?
Just wondering.
Hopefully, charges will be dropped now that he said he's sorry and won't do it again.
A) RIAA forced DRM. Ok, sure, but no-one is suing over DRM. They're suing because Apple won't allow iTMS to work with anything but an iPod. RTFA.
B) You use iTunes with a Rio... but without iTMS.
And I use a car with wood for fuel... I use it as a fireplace to keep warm.
better options... um... not using iTunes?
I buy mp3s online, and CDs in shops. I don't need wma or aac crap.
I called bullshit on the claim that the RIAA forced Apple to make it inconvenient for itunes customers to not use an iPod. That was Aple's choice. Note: customers, not just users.
And I call bullshit on your rio working with songs downloaded using iTMS, which is the point of the lawsuit. Unless you burn them to cd and manually rip them to mp3, which I am not about to do for several hundred songs.
If you use apple software you'll find it's all designed to encourage you to use apple hardware. Because hardware (like the iPod) is the only place Apple makes money.
But nowhere do I say it's a monopoly, since I don't use any Apple software anyway. There are better options.