I has been a long time since I took business law in college but one thing I remember is that you cannot contract away your right to sue. But having such a clause in the contract may discourage someone from trying to sue.
I noticed the clause allows a small claims suit (The price of the game?) It also allows suits over intellectual property and piracy. It seems that they are trying to prevent lawsuits that would hurt them while keeping the right to sue when it benefits them.
My guess is that if someone attempted to sue them the court would throw out those clauses.
Early e-toilets forced users to keep a lot of windows open, so e-dumpers lacked the kind of privacy you want while doing your business," said designer Peter Cheng, a self-described "whiz kid" who has put hundreds of gigaflops through the new e-toilet without once encountering the dreaded, bomb-emblazoned "Shit Failed" message.
"With the new Advent e-toilet, cutting-edge cyberdump technology has finally arrived and is within reach for all Americans," said Scoscia, smiling. "The question is: Do you want to go today?"
When I was a young geek (they didn't call us geeks back then) most of the clocks had a small AC motor in them that relied on the power line for 60 cycle (it wasn't called Hz. then) power which kept the time. I haven't seen one of 'these in a long time.
But back in the day, they were ubiquitous like the 5 tube radio.
It isn't the nuclear subs or troop positions that need to be revealed. It is all the other stuff that our government and the corporations hides from us to keep us from seeing how we, the people, are being ripped off by them.
The kids were just doing what they see adults doing. If you don't like the president, call him a nazi or a communist. It damages his reputation and makes it difficult for him to keep his job. It turns people against him. The kids used the same strategy against their teacher. They called him the worst name they could think of.
Perhaps what we need to do is to set a better example for the kids.
He behaves like a journalist. He gets stories and publishes them without asking the government for permission. He has the courage to take on the governments and the powerful.
How I wish journalists in the main stream media were willing to do this!
This was taken out of context. He was discussing why some in the military kill when there is no need to. You make it sound as if Assange enjoys killing people.
I have heard a lot of people say that Assange has a big ego, is a narcissist etc. But when I actually listen to him speak he strikes me as a level headed guy.
I'm part liberal and part libertarian. I want the government to provide me with all the services that I want and need. I want them to leave me the hell alone. And I want them to tax the hell out of corporations and regulate the hell out of them.
Free will is a strange concept. If someone does research and predicts that there will be 30,000 suicides in the US next year, and then it turns out that he is correct, what does that say about free will? The 30000 people had intense personal reasons for their decision. But did they have free will?
How do you solve the problem of people intentionally trying to harm the system? Pranksters, hackers, terrorists, people who are pissed about automated cars, etc. would have a lot to gain if they had the ability to disrupt the transportation system. A few of them would have the necessary skills.
There are too many ways to hack the system. Law enforcement needs to have a way to signal the car to pull over and stop. This signal can he hacked.
Or a prankster manages to send a signal to all the cars on the freeway telling the computer that the freeway is closed ahead when it isn't. All of the cars exit the freeway and clog the surface streets.
The software will need to be updated from time to time. How will this be done. Typically by the dealer but I imagine that hackers will want to introduce their own creative modifications. Evil people might want to program the car to crash.
Suppose 100,000 automated cars are manufactured in 2015 (optimistic aren't I). Five years later it is discovered that this car could has a safety issue which requires a couple of additional sensors and a change to the computer. How is this handled? The manufacturer isn't really interested. The car is out of warranty. Do we make it illegal to drive it? Force the manufacturer to upgrade it? Raise the insurance bill?
The problem is not the computer crashing. You can solve that with redundant computers and sensors. The software can be designed for reliability. Windows is designed to work with a very large array of hardware, drivers, software and configuration options. This is a recipe for frequent crashes. But software to control cars would be single purpose.
One issue is what to do in the case of trouble. What if the car doesn't respond to commands? What if several of the redundant computers indicate a problem or a critical sensor stops giving intelligent input? What do you do? Stop the car wherever it is? Pull over to the side? Try to get off the freeway? Wake up the human?
I would like to see automated cars happen. But there are tremendous challenges to accomplishing it.
I used to read the posts on Yahoo but they are so full of garbage lately that I had to give it up. One in twenty comments actually has anything serious to say about the subject. Most are trolling, spam or someone ranting about a subject that has nothing to do with the topic.
One thing they could do is to make it easier to flag messages. On NPR, you can flag a message with a couple of clicks. Yahoo wants to know your life history.
I don't put my real name on these thing. 99 + % of the people who read it are harmless. But I don't like the idea of posting my real name in this world of identity theft. I'm not paranoid, it just seems a sensible precaution, like locking your house when you go out.
We have included Iran as one of the three members of the "axis of evil". It seems to me that paranoia is a reasonable response to the United States.
I don't know if the hikers were spies or innocent students. I don't know if stuxnet was designed to target Iran's nuclear facilities. But I don't blame them for being suspicious.
If the United States were less dictatorial and militaristic in it's policies, I think we would have a lot less trouble with foreign governments.
Here is a video of Douglas Adams (of hitchhikers fame) talking about the kakapo and why they are endangered. The Kakapo part starts at 3:00 into the video.
We in the army were taking LSD a lot during the long, boring guard duty. So when we saw thing hovering in the sky, we just figured it was part of the trip.
There is and there should be on greater restrictions on business speech then there are on Individual speech. This is to protect the consumer from unscrupulous business practices.
You can't tell the customer that you have put 10 gallons of gasonline in his tank when, in fact, he received 8 gallons.
You can't tell a customer that a drug cures something when the FDA does not agree.
There are thousands of such laws that regulate business to protect consumers and this is a good thing.
I think we need more and better consumer protection laws especially to prevent misleading advertising.
Free speech is not unlimited. A person will find himself in trouble for threatening another with violence, even if that person has no intention or ability to carry out the violent act.
Slashdot Mirror
I has been a long time since I took business law in college but one thing I remember is that you cannot contract away your right to sue. But having such a clause in the contract may discourage someone from trying to sue.
I noticed the clause allows a small claims suit (The price of the game?) It also allows suits over intellectual property and piracy. It seems that they are trying to prevent lawsuits that would hurt them while keeping the right to sue when it benefits them.
My guess is that if someone attempted to sue them the court would throw out those clauses.
It's been done!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-etoilet-to-revolutionize-online-shitting,633/
E-Toilet To Revolutionize Online Shitting
Early e-toilets forced users to keep a lot of windows open, so e-dumpers lacked the kind of privacy you want while doing your business," said designer Peter Cheng, a self-described "whiz kid" who has put hundreds of gigaflops through the new e-toilet without once encountering the dreaded, bomb-emblazoned "Shit Failed" message.
"With the new Advent e-toilet, cutting-edge cyberdump technology has finally arrived and is within reach for all Americans," said Scoscia, smiling. "The question is: Do you want to go today?"
I'm old enough to remember outhouse technology! I actually used it for several months. It worked, required no water, and was simple to construct.
The major drawback was that you had to get up and go outside in the middle of the night. This was even more unpleasant when it was cold.
When I was a young geek (they didn't call us geeks back then) most of the clocks had a small AC motor in them that relied on the power line for 60 cycle (it wasn't called Hz. then) power which kept the time. I haven't seen one of 'these in a long time.
But back in the day, they were ubiquitous like the 5 tube radio.
It isn't the nuclear subs or troop positions that need to be revealed. It is all the other stuff that our government and the corporations hides from us to keep us from seeing how we, the people, are being ripped off by them.
Is anyone here old enough to remember Jimmy Carter trying to get the metric system in the US.
Get off my lawn.
The kids were just doing what they see adults doing. If you don't like the president, call him a nazi or a communist. It damages his reputation and makes it difficult for him to keep his job. It turns people against him. The kids used the same strategy against their teacher. They called him the worst name they could think of.
Perhaps what we need to do is to set a better example for the kids.
He behaves like a journalist. He gets stories and publishes them without asking the government for permission. He has the courage to take on the governments and the powerful.
How I wish journalists in the main stream media were willing to do this!
"Killing people is fun." -Julian Assange
This was taken out of context. He was discussing why some in the military kill when there is no need to. You make it sound as if Assange enjoys killing people.
I have heard a lot of people say that Assange has a big ego, is a narcissist etc. But when I actually listen to him speak he strikes me as a level headed guy.
Why do so many people think he has a big ego?
I'm an army vet and I think he is a hero!
Please stop assigning thoughts to this guy before qualified people actually find out.
I don't trust the "qualified people" ie the government to tell me the truth.
Terry Pratchett forsaw this with his hex computer that ran on ants.
The logo was Anthill Inside!
They used bees for long term storage and it was secure. If anyone tried to get into the hive, they would be stung to death!
I'm part liberal and part libertarian. I want the government to provide me with all the services that I want and need. I want them to leave me the hell alone. And I want them to tax the hell out of corporations and regulate the hell out of them.
We already have them. We call them museum, planetariums, or colleges.
It could be low because it doesn't get very cold here in California.
Free will is a strange concept. If someone does research and predicts that there will be 30,000 suicides in the US next year, and then it turns out that he is correct, what does that say about free will? The 30000 people had intense personal reasons for their decision. But did they have free will?
How do you solve the problem of people intentionally trying to harm the system? Pranksters, hackers, terrorists, people who are pissed about automated cars, etc. would have a lot to gain if they had the ability to disrupt the transportation system. A few of them would have the necessary skills.
There are too many ways to hack the system. Law enforcement needs to have a way to signal the car to pull over and stop. This signal can he hacked.
Or a prankster manages to send a signal to all the cars on the freeway telling the computer that the freeway is closed ahead when it isn't. All of the cars exit the freeway and clog the surface streets.
The software will need to be updated from time to time. How will this be done. Typically by the dealer but I imagine that hackers will want to introduce their own creative modifications. Evil people might want to program the car to crash.
Suppose 100,000 automated cars are manufactured in 2015 (optimistic aren't I). Five years later it is discovered that this car could has a safety issue which requires a couple of additional sensors and a change to the computer. How is this handled? The manufacturer isn't really interested. The car is out of warranty. Do we make it illegal to drive it? Force the manufacturer to upgrade it? Raise the insurance bill?
The problem is not the computer crashing. You can solve that with redundant computers and sensors. The software can be designed for reliability. Windows is designed to work with a very large array of hardware, drivers, software and configuration options. This is a recipe for frequent crashes. But software to control cars would be single purpose.
One issue is what to do in the case of trouble. What if the car doesn't respond to commands? What if several of the redundant computers indicate a problem or a critical sensor stops giving intelligent input? What do you do? Stop the car wherever it is? Pull over to the side? Try to get off the freeway? Wake up the human?
I would like to see automated cars happen. But there are tremendous challenges to accomplishing it.
I used to read the posts on Yahoo but they are so full of garbage lately that I had to give it up. One in twenty comments actually has anything serious to say about the subject. Most are trolling, spam or someone ranting about a subject that has nothing to do with the topic.
One thing they could do is to make it easier to flag messages. On NPR, you can flag a message with a couple of clicks. Yahoo wants to know your life history.
I don't put my real name on these thing. 99 + % of the people who read it are harmless. But I don't like the idea of posting my real name in this world of identity theft. I'm not paranoid, it just seems a sensible precaution, like locking your house when you go out.
We have included Iran as one of the three members of the "axis of evil". It seems to me that paranoia is a reasonable response to the United States.
I don't know if the hikers were spies or innocent students. I don't know if stuxnet was designed to target Iran's nuclear facilities. But I don't blame them for being suspicious.
If the United States were less dictatorial and militaristic in it's policies, I think we would have a lot less trouble with foreign governments.
What else would they run? I doubt there is a Linux or mac version of the software to program Siemens PLC's.
Here is a video of Douglas Adams (of hitchhikers fame) talking about the kakapo and why they are endangered. The Kakapo part starts at 3:00 into the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3HR6mtkPP4&feature=related
We in the army were taking LSD a lot during the long, boring guard duty. So when we saw thing hovering in the sky, we just figured it was part of the trip.
Yes, I do know this from personal experience!
I have never been asked by an employer what my religion was. Presumably, It was not a factor in the decision to hire me or not.
There is and there should be on greater restrictions on business speech then there are on Individual speech. This is to protect the consumer from unscrupulous business practices.
You can't tell the customer that you have put 10 gallons of gasonline in his tank when, in fact, he received 8 gallons.
You can't tell a customer that a drug cures something when the FDA does not agree.
There are thousands of such laws that regulate business to protect consumers and this is a good thing.
I think we need more and better consumer protection laws especially to prevent misleading advertising.
Free speech is not unlimited. A person will find himself in trouble for threatening another with violence, even if that person has no intention or ability to carry out the violent act.