They will happily SELL YOU the compiler and SDK so you can develop on it. A Visual Studio + all things needed license is over $1200/yr. Apple on the other hand does give you everything and only charges $99 for the membership to sell in their store. You can still develop for their platforms for free though.
No you don't. Go read up on the Uniform Commercial Code and Copyright laws. They are selling you a license. This has been held up in court multiple times. ProCD vs Zeidenberg is a good one. Even in SoftMan vs Adobe they determined he was allowed to resell because he had not installed himself (and thus agreed to the license terms). Which is still perfectly inline with what I am saying. The EULA junk typically only gets tossed out for trying to impose stupid and/or excessive terms such as the AutoCAD case or even here in the Adobe case. Ultimately what the Adobe case said was that "He didn't agree to the terms, you can't hold him to the license" which is the perfectly sane and normal conclusion of dealing with this. Some companies insist that you agree by purchasing, but that is bullshit, you agree by installing, if you don't install you do whatever you want with it. Further, if you DO install, there is a good chance that you can still have your rights upheld in terms of first sale so that you can terminate your use of the license and sell it to someone else. So long as I can resell my license later, or return the software if I don't agree with the license it is perfectly legal for them to be selling a license. The solution to your "what do I own" is pretty simple, if companies have to keep dealing with that kind of nonsense "because it was in the box" they will take it out of the box. The disc is there for your convenience so you can make use of the license you are purchasing, not to indicate that you are buying the software. (This isn't 100% the case as you will note that not all software vendors use licensing stuff instead of general copyright terms, however, selling licenses is 100% perfectly legal under UCC and Copyright law).
The answer is that you own a software license. You own the license whether or not you agree to it. The use of the software hinges on you agreeing to the license, but you still own the license whether you use the software or not. I still have licenses for Win95 and Win98 laying around, I don't use them, I still own them. The real problem here is that the license thing is VERY well supported in law and has repeatedly been upheld in court. However, instead of consumers saying "fuck those guys, they are assholes" they keep buying their shit licenses and then crying to lawyers. Economically it is a massive drag on the system. I spent $50 to Assholes Inc, then I cry foul and get a lawyer to try and convince the court that I don't have to follow their shitty license. Odds are, unless the license is really doing something stupid, I will lose. Now I have paid for software that I have violated the license on and potentially lost the right to use, I have ultimately paid for the lawyers that Assholes Inc will be using (because I gave them $50 and then cried instead of just returning the shit saying I don't agree), and then I had to pay for my lawyer! So, all the people that sit here and armchair lawyer over things that have been pretty well established only serve to feed the assholes that are screwing them. If you quit buying thier shit then thier only option is to find a better approach to selling their software, but as long as selling licenses gets them buckets of cash, well...quit bitching or quit supporting. I never said what they were doing was ethical, sane, or nice, just that it is legal. They keep doing it because it works. It works because people keep buying their shit and then convincing themselves in stupid ways that the rules don't apply to them. Given that most of these people will never wind up in court they are allowed to uphold this fantasy that they use to justify continued purchases from Assholes Inc.
AAAHAHAHA...oh you are funny. Their EULA is trash because it alters the terms of the sale, but YOU are allowed to alter the terms of the sale just because you want? What a load of shit. You are most certainly not purchasing the software. There is nothing wrong with the way the sell it, and they can sell you licenses to use it all day long. YOU bought it. You don't get to say it is software and not a license just becaues YOU don't want it to be a license. That isn't how this works.
Go read the report. That sure doesn't look like a loss of liberty, that looks like a lying little spoiled brat. I think the part where she refuses to give correct phone numbers for her dad was great, giving the cop false information is definitely a great way to get on their good side. Then in a stunning move of intelligence when the cop gets her mom on the phone she tells her mom she didn't have a phone. Then...uhoh...they found it!
I don't believe school administrators should be allowed to search the contents of electronic devices as that is a violation of privacy, however they are well within their rights to use things like immediate suspension. The real problem is they can't do any of that crap anymore without the police because of all the stupid ass lawsuits where dumbshit parents run out and get lawyers to defend their little spoiled brat kids. My parents repeatedly went to bat for me when I was getting screwed, but they never once came to my rescue when I was in the wrong. This is more of that bullshit entitlement mentality. This is why there are "School Resource Officers" in schools, to protect from stupid ass lawsuits. If it wasn't for little twits like this we wouldn't have such a screwed up education system where the administration has to worry more about tiptoeing around and getting the police to handle every stupid incident.
Uhm...just to be fair here you cannot trust ANYONE not to break things.
I use Windows, Linux (mostly Debian, Ubuntu, and Gentoo), and OS X. I would have to guess that I have had the least problems with debian updates, but they move slow as molasses anyways so that isn't a real surprise. The others I have a hard time ordering in terms of updates screwing things up. Windows and Gentoo probably do it the most while at the same time making it nearly impossible to undo but I have no shortage of Ubuntu upgrade nightmares. I suspect OS X hasn't given me as many problems simply because I have only been using it since 10.5.4, but 10.5.5 did break some iCal stuff for me so it certainly isn't innocent. I will say that I called Apple to gripe about this to see what changed and how to fix it (not really expecting anything) and they actually had one of their engineer types call me back a few days later to help him investigate the problem. I have NEVER received that kind of treatment from a commercial software vendor, especially one that large. They definitely earned some brownie points with that one.
There are no formal steps to forming a contract. If you went to the doctor you have a contractual obligation to pay him for services recieved. The EULA presenting their terms AFTER the sale is a bit sketchy, but it is relatively easy to defeat saying it is nonsense. They could print it on the box in really fine print and you would be hosed. The notion that you are purchasing software is false anyways. You are purchasing a license to use the software and they are kind enough to provide you the media to install it. The problem here is that people continue to buy software licenses so the practice continues. It certainly isn't illegal even if it is a crappy practice to engage in. This is the same way people were able to get their money back from the preinstalled Windows stuff. They didn't want Windows, they didn't agree to the terms, so they forced Microsoft to give a refund. I suspect the biggest thing that will come from these things is vendors being forced into refunds for people who do not agree to the license terms and probably some token BS way that the consumer can see the license before purchase. "View the license at www.yourcompany.com/product/license" printed in fine print on the box.
Hey, how about this. We fine her for the tax dollars wasted. I mean they frequently charge people rescued from their own stupidity with the costs of the rescue. I figure we can bill her for the teachers wages and all the police wages at a minimum.
Correction. They wont buy a 17" MacBook now. However, most of those road warriors that I know that have to rotate batteries don't buy 17" laptops anyways because they tend to be more of a pain in the ass to lug around and drain batteries much faster. Really, this whole debacle is just a way for the antiApple folks to get their panties in a twist. Watching people bitch about how difficult it is to remove a laptop battery is laughable. The most I have screwed with laptop batteries in the past many years of very heavy laptop use was to removing them from the box and putting them in the laptop since they ship disconnected.
What I haven't seen discussed by any of these people is whether or not the extended capacity would even remove the need to swap batteries in the first place...but hey, that would take away a reason to bitch about Apple. There are plenty of valid things to complain about with Apple, but this is certainly not one of them.
I don't know why you think anything I said had anything to do with the case being discussed. My point is that there are a huge number of ways that have been repeatedly employed through history to justify a government killing it's citizens. This is the type of case used to raise the rally cry to get otherwise really bad ideas through, then they are applied to different cases. This is the same exact mentality that has convinced people to cheer the government on as they take away civil liberties because we need to be protected from terrorists. Shall we talk about how fine of a job we have been doing upholding the US Constitution as of late without warping and twisting it to meet rather disturbing agendas?
I know! I was going into the comments to see what other amusing jokes may have been made and was stunned to see all of these people frothing about the post. I don't know if I should applaud the GP or be deeply depressed by so many people not getting the PAINFULLY obvious sarcasm.
Ok...let me give you a fun scenario. First we start with a President and his supporters with a quote of "No I don't think atheists should be considered as citizens..." -- George H.W. Bush.
Now...let us throw in a few religiously charged cases like prayer in school, intelligent design, and so on.
Now...keep in mind there is a large section of the populace that supports this type of fundamentalist religion and continues to elect public officials to that end. So some public servant decides to rule against them. Now, what would happen if they finally get enough power to declare that as oppression against their religion and undermining society and yada yada yada...
It isn't like there hasn't been loads of historical examples of people getting put to death for disagreeing with the ruling religion.
That is only even touching one tiny aspect. What about a judge that rules against warrantless wiretapping or some of the other terrorist hunt things? He is guilty of endagering the public and aiding the enemy!
Then we have countless examples of people that have already been put to death because of an overzealous/corrupt prosecutor and/or police force. What about all of the people that were pardoned when later evidence showed that they were innocent?
I'm not against life imprisonment because it at least offers the chance that new evidence could undo false convictions or that the political winds could change and political prisoners could be released.
China has even gone so far as to build mobile execution chambers. You can talk about public trials until the cows come home, it only convinces me you haven't been paying attention to what kind of record the public actually has at accomplishing anything in a sane fashion.
Are you sure you really want the death penalty? You are advocating for a system where the government can execute its own citizens. How many trials are conducted almost soley in the court of public opinion these days through the use of the media? Do you understand how painfully easy it would be to start executing citizens in kangaroo courts while the populace cheers the delivery of justice due to biased media coverage? Not that I disagree with you on the core of the problem such as liquor store robber vs Maddoff type problems, but I think your solution is a little frightening.
You get a cookie! I would guess that 70%+ of all of our economic woes actually come from uneducated "I get what I want" consumers and uneducated "Get rich quick" investors. If anyone with a damned clue was holding the investing dollars we would not have had so many people repackaging bad loans as investment opportunities and actually getting away with it. If consumers had half a brain we wouldn't have our balls in a vice with IP laws and other such heavy handed tactics. I haven't purchased a Sony ANYTHING since their stupid rootkit debacle, I have purchased any label CDs since the RIAA sue everyone thing started. You have to be willing to put aside your luxury items and vote with your dollar if you want anything to fix. Relying on lawyers to fix everything for you is a horrible economic plan since the money cycling through the law firms for settling stupid arguments should have been used to create new stuff. It is almost the broken window thing.
That said I must point out one incorrect thing you said and it is more of an exception than a correction.
an investor should be even more reluctant to buy stock in a firm in litigation than just about any other possible firm.
Yeah! This is only possible because Starbucks has been lowering its coffee prices. The 40-60% they spend on marketing has dropped significantly since the truckloads of crap they buy docs has gotten cheaper in the failing economy. I will be a little sympathetic when their research costs more than the bribery they engage in. I will be a little sympathetic when they quit "modifying" drugs to get an extra 2% effectiveness on some minimal behavior of a drug to get a new patent for it so they can charge exhorbant prices over the previous version that can now be made in generic form for pennies. I will be a little sympathetic when they quit buying political figures to push for mandatory vaccinations of school girls at $360 a pop when even one of they key researches of the vaccine says it is not meant for girls that young and could actually be harmful.
I mean seriously...let's all feel sorry for the serial killer that has to dig yet another hole...digging holes is hard work after all. Right now these companies are facing big problems in these countries because those governments are invalidating their patents right now. These companies want so much money that the peopel cannot afford that the people's governments have said "Fuck off, we will make our own generics". I suspect this "generous" price drop has more to do with putting political/economic pressure on these countries to enforce patents than it does some generous streak.
I'm glad you said this as I was about to. There have been some pretty amusing stories of people reporting sonic booms as other things. From what I gather there were more than a few frantic calls about Russian attacks during the earlier days of super sonic aircraft since people thought there were bombs going off somewhere.
Suing your customers isn't exactly the best way to protect your interests. The problem is that the LAWYERS are protecting their interests. Megacorp launches lawsuit, lawyers get paid regardless of the survival and future business of megacorp. Hell, the lawyers can even win the case so they can add it to their resume for their next gig even as the company burns as a result of that win. Paying $x/month for the right to log in to their servers and play is fine. Kicking users off for violating the terms of service by manipulating how the computer handles data, fine by me. Using the DMCA to sue makers of the programs that allow you to twiddle the bits in your computers memory and being sent out on your computers network card, absolutely bullshit. Copyright is about redistrobution, I am supposed to be able to make all the copies and modifications I want to a copyrighted work that I purchased so long as I do not try to distribute it. Should we start suing highlighter companies for selling devices that allow the modification of a copyrighted work when students highlight their college textbooks to alter the formatting?
Their handling of these issues have been so horrible over the last few years that I will not be purchasing another Blizzard product until they can show the decision makers responsible for these DMCA abuses are bound and gagged and then sodomized by a jackhammer every time they try to speak. Further, they should put the video evidence under the creative commons license to atone for their past copyright abuses.
Would that be before or after the use the DMCA lawsuits claiming copyright circumvention of their silly Warden? Blizzard turn into a bunch of asshats post Vivendi. bnetd is another casualty of those clowns.
Yeah! If man was meant to fly he would have been born with wings.
I sure am glad guys with bizarre and different ideas don't listen to guys like you or the people that modded this nonsense as insightful. I am quite happy to fly cross country rather than catching a horse. I bet there are more than a few people happy to be alive due to other bizarre and improbable inventions like helicopters. I mean, we couldn't have pulled of tons of rescues without that horrible sounding idea.
Except that the software is granted no more authority than a piece of paper with a contract written on it has. Using that example you should be able to negotiate a settlement with the cop who serves you with court papers rather than the originating party. Further, this would also allow you to modify paper contracts and then sign them quickly before they can yank it out of your hand. If you were to try to scribble in new terms on a loan and then quickly sign the agreement before the loan officer took the paper back your best chance in court would be that the judge handling the case actually died laughing after hearing it. I have actually seen a car dealership try to pull this shit before. They left the APR blank and tried to get the guy to sign it, this would have allowed them to fill it in after signing. In the end contract law is fairly straight forward in the fact that you aren't entering into a contract with the software since the software has no legal ability to enter into contracts, it is merely presenting what the other party (software vendor) is proposing.
I have also heard stories of this kind of thing working in reverse though. I have no idea how true it is, but I have heard of someone dealing with unsolicited credit offers this way. Basically he sent them a proofread copy of the crap they sent him and a letter explaining any further corespondence on the matter indicates that they are agreeing to use his proofreading service for $X00 per mailing. Supposedly this stopped their mailings. Arguably you could get them to "agree" to your terms in a similar fashion. It would probably be a bit of a legal mess to untangle and I suspect the winner will be determined by who has the most money to throw at lawyers.
Are you f'ing serious? You are basing this opinion of the notion based on what a toddler did with them? Crayons will never catch on either because kids that age just want to eat them... Holy shit man, if our use of things were based on how toddlers interact with things we would be getting Playdoh burgers at fast food places.
Actually if you modify the terms then it isn't legal because the originating party didn't mutually agree. Modifying the buttons would be meaningless as well since it is effectively saying "No, I don't Agree" and then still recieving the services which is an agreement to accept the terms that the services were offered under.
I do agree that the EULA being available after purchase is bull, but I think the response of "I do what I want" is not correct. There are too many varieties of this practice to deal with them all at once. Many software vendors explicitly state that it is a license and not a purchase up front. There are some that show the EULA before purchase (typically in the buy online/download the software types). In the cases where it is only available after purchase then the user should be entitlted to a full refund if they don't agree. Some companies already allow this, others refuse. What it really boils down to is some companies are dirty little shits about the process and others are fairly upfront and honest about it. In the OS X cases Apple is pretty up front about you are puchasing a license to use OS X on Apple branded hardware. In this iPhone case I think they are only going to screw themselves with bad publicity with a pretty thin ice kind of argument. I bet MS wishes that the DMCA was around when they were getting hammered for their behavior, they could have been suing everyone else for violating their rights by installing unapproved software.
Bullshit. Sorry, but it is. Did you know that if you form a business partnership without an agreement it defaults to a canned thing under the Uniform Partnership Act. So you can make your own agreement or default to the one the law already has. There are tons of contracts that you have to deal with on a daily basis that don't involve lawyers and negotiations and such. The only real requirement is that both parties agree, and read it or not, clicking agree means that you agree. If you recieve a service somewhere, such as a doctor, mechanic, etc, and then refuse to pay you can be sued for breach of contract because it was an implied contract.
Business classes or Law classes would help you understand that sales neither walk nor quack and will go a long way to clarifying how businesses interact. Like it or not, they are selling licenses and it is perfectly legal. The only times it really has gotten beaten up is when they try to add illegal crap to the license (such as removing First Sale) and trying to prevent me from selling my license to someone else when I don't need it. (See AutoCad)
Argumentative is fun even when it gets a little confrontational so long as it doesn't completely turn into poo flinging flame nonsense. Ultimately that is part of my gripe with the many of the comments here is that the vast majority of people here are just pointing and laughing at these people and then pointing at someone else's research as evidence. I almost hope they find a link just so these folks get to say "Wow...I was real asshole about that and I was wrong". Hell, I don't have a problem with people even saying "but evidence here, here and here shows X". It is the "these parents are stupid and dangers to society" angle that bothers me because the people really screaming about it are just armchair quarterbacking the issue and don't actually have expertise themselves on the subject.
In terms of the vaccination/autism thing the evidence I have seen is circumstantial. Holding anyone responsible at this point is very premature, but it certainly warrants continued investigation along multiple paths rather than totally discounting the general claim. There could be some weight to the circumstantial evidence even if a solid link has not been identified. Of course, I also think that throwing on the blinders and focusing only on vaccines is a horrible idea as well. Until the case is solved everyone is a suspect.
I think the Scientific community is at least partially at fault for the current state of affairs. There is very little effort made to communicate information outside of their circles or to make it understood that science is an everchanging patchwork of best guesses and not rigid unchanging belief. Atomic theory has gone through monumental changes over time, it all roughly represents the same ideas, but the specifics of it have shifted dramatically. The only time science really ever makes the news is in cases like this where it is being beaten, abused, and warped by all sides in political/economic debate. Science is being used more and more as a means to prove that preconcieved idea X is right/wrong rather than as building blocks to form ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
They will happily SELL YOU the compiler and SDK so you can develop on it. A Visual Studio + all things needed license is over $1200/yr. Apple on the other hand does give you everything and only charges $99 for the membership to sell in their store. You can still develop for their platforms for free though.
No you don't. Go read up on the Uniform Commercial Code and Copyright laws. They are selling you a license. This has been held up in court multiple times. ProCD vs Zeidenberg is a good one. Even in SoftMan vs Adobe they determined he was allowed to resell because he had not installed himself (and thus agreed to the license terms). Which is still perfectly inline with what I am saying. The EULA junk typically only gets tossed out for trying to impose stupid and/or excessive terms such as the AutoCAD case or even here in the Adobe case. Ultimately what the Adobe case said was that "He didn't agree to the terms, you can't hold him to the license" which is the perfectly sane and normal conclusion of dealing with this. Some companies insist that you agree by purchasing, but that is bullshit, you agree by installing, if you don't install you do whatever you want with it. Further, if you DO install, there is a good chance that you can still have your rights upheld in terms of first sale so that you can terminate your use of the license and sell it to someone else. So long as I can resell my license later, or return the software if I don't agree with the license it is perfectly legal for them to be selling a license. The solution to your "what do I own" is pretty simple, if companies have to keep dealing with that kind of nonsense "because it was in the box" they will take it out of the box. The disc is there for your convenience so you can make use of the license you are purchasing, not to indicate that you are buying the software. (This isn't 100% the case as you will note that not all software vendors use licensing stuff instead of general copyright terms, however, selling licenses is 100% perfectly legal under UCC and Copyright law).
The answer is that you own a software license. You own the license whether or not you agree to it. The use of the software hinges on you agreeing to the license, but you still own the license whether you use the software or not. I still have licenses for Win95 and Win98 laying around, I don't use them, I still own them. The real problem here is that the license thing is VERY well supported in law and has repeatedly been upheld in court. However, instead of consumers saying "fuck those guys, they are assholes" they keep buying their shit licenses and then crying to lawyers. Economically it is a massive drag on the system. I spent $50 to Assholes Inc, then I cry foul and get a lawyer to try and convince the court that I don't have to follow their shitty license. Odds are, unless the license is really doing something stupid, I will lose. Now I have paid for software that I have violated the license on and potentially lost the right to use, I have ultimately paid for the lawyers that Assholes Inc will be using (because I gave them $50 and then cried instead of just returning the shit saying I don't agree), and then I had to pay for my lawyer! So, all the people that sit here and armchair lawyer over things that have been pretty well established only serve to feed the assholes that are screwing them. If you quit buying thier shit then thier only option is to find a better approach to selling their software, but as long as selling licenses gets them buckets of cash, well...quit bitching or quit supporting. I never said what they were doing was ethical, sane, or nice, just that it is legal. They keep doing it because it works. It works because people keep buying their shit and then convincing themselves in stupid ways that the rules don't apply to them. Given that most of these people will never wind up in court they are allowed to uphold this fantasy that they use to justify continued purchases from Assholes Inc.
AAAHAHAHA...oh you are funny. Their EULA is trash because it alters the terms of the sale, but YOU are allowed to alter the terms of the sale just because you want? What a load of shit. You are most certainly not purchasing the software. There is nothing wrong with the way the sell it, and they can sell you licenses to use it all day long. YOU bought it. You don't get to say it is software and not a license just becaues YOU don't want it to be a license. That isn't how this works.
Go read the report. That sure doesn't look like a loss of liberty, that looks like a lying little spoiled brat. I think the part where she refuses to give correct phone numbers for her dad was great, giving the cop false information is definitely a great way to get on their good side. Then in a stunning move of intelligence when the cop gets her mom on the phone she tells her mom she didn't have a phone. Then...uhoh...they found it!
I don't believe school administrators should be allowed to search the contents of electronic devices as that is a violation of privacy, however they are well within their rights to use things like immediate suspension. The real problem is they can't do any of that crap anymore without the police because of all the stupid ass lawsuits where dumbshit parents run out and get lawyers to defend their little spoiled brat kids. My parents repeatedly went to bat for me when I was getting screwed, but they never once came to my rescue when I was in the wrong. This is more of that bullshit entitlement mentality. This is why there are "School Resource Officers" in schools, to protect from stupid ass lawsuits. If it wasn't for little twits like this we wouldn't have such a screwed up education system where the administration has to worry more about tiptoeing around and getting the police to handle every stupid incident.
Uhm...just to be fair here you cannot trust ANYONE not to break things.
I use Windows, Linux (mostly Debian, Ubuntu, and Gentoo), and OS X. I would have to guess that I have had the least problems with debian updates, but they move slow as molasses anyways so that isn't a real surprise. The others I have a hard time ordering in terms of updates screwing things up. Windows and Gentoo probably do it the most while at the same time making it nearly impossible to undo but I have no shortage of Ubuntu upgrade nightmares. I suspect OS X hasn't given me as many problems simply because I have only been using it since 10.5.4, but 10.5.5 did break some iCal stuff for me so it certainly isn't innocent. I will say that I called Apple to gripe about this to see what changed and how to fix it (not really expecting anything) and they actually had one of their engineer types call me back a few days later to help him investigate the problem. I have NEVER received that kind of treatment from a commercial software vendor, especially one that large. They definitely earned some brownie points with that one.
There are no formal steps to forming a contract. If you went to the doctor you have a contractual obligation to pay him for services recieved. The EULA presenting their terms AFTER the sale is a bit sketchy, but it is relatively easy to defeat saying it is nonsense. They could print it on the box in really fine print and you would be hosed. The notion that you are purchasing software is false anyways. You are purchasing a license to use the software and they are kind enough to provide you the media to install it. The problem here is that people continue to buy software licenses so the practice continues. It certainly isn't illegal even if it is a crappy practice to engage in. This is the same way people were able to get their money back from the preinstalled Windows stuff. They didn't want Windows, they didn't agree to the terms, so they forced Microsoft to give a refund. I suspect the biggest thing that will come from these things is vendors being forced into refunds for people who do not agree to the license terms and probably some token BS way that the consumer can see the license before purchase. "View the license at www.yourcompany.com/product/license" printed in fine print on the box.
Hey, how about this. We fine her for the tax dollars wasted. I mean they frequently charge people rescued from their own stupidity with the costs of the rescue. I figure we can bill her for the teachers wages and all the police wages at a minimum.
Correction. They wont buy a 17" MacBook now. However, most of those road warriors that I know that have to rotate batteries don't buy 17" laptops anyways because they tend to be more of a pain in the ass to lug around and drain batteries much faster. Really, this whole debacle is just a way for the antiApple folks to get their panties in a twist. Watching people bitch about how difficult it is to remove a laptop battery is laughable. The most I have screwed with laptop batteries in the past many years of very heavy laptop use was to removing them from the box and putting them in the laptop since they ship disconnected.
What I haven't seen discussed by any of these people is whether or not the extended capacity would even remove the need to swap batteries in the first place...but hey, that would take away a reason to bitch about Apple. There are plenty of valid things to complain about with Apple, but this is certainly not one of them.
I don't know why you think anything I said had anything to do with the case being discussed. My point is that there are a huge number of ways that have been repeatedly employed through history to justify a government killing it's citizens. This is the type of case used to raise the rally cry to get otherwise really bad ideas through, then they are applied to different cases. This is the same exact mentality that has convinced people to cheer the government on as they take away civil liberties because we need to be protected from terrorists. Shall we talk about how fine of a job we have been doing upholding the US Constitution as of late without warping and twisting it to meet rather disturbing agendas?
I know! I was going into the comments to see what other amusing jokes may have been made and was stunned to see all of these people frothing about the post. I don't know if I should applaud the GP or be deeply depressed by so many people not getting the PAINFULLY obvious sarcasm.
Ok...let me give you a fun scenario. First we start with a President and his supporters with a quote of "No I don't think atheists should be considered as citizens..." -- George H.W. Bush.
Now...let us throw in a few religiously charged cases like prayer in school, intelligent design, and so on.
Now...keep in mind there is a large section of the populace that supports this type of fundamentalist religion and continues to elect public officials to that end. So some public servant decides to rule against them. Now, what would happen if they finally get enough power to declare that as oppression against their religion and undermining society and yada yada yada...
It isn't like there hasn't been loads of historical examples of people getting put to death for disagreeing with the ruling religion.
That is only even touching one tiny aspect. What about a judge that rules against warrantless wiretapping or some of the other terrorist hunt things? He is guilty of endagering the public and aiding the enemy!
Then we have countless examples of people that have already been put to death because of an overzealous/corrupt prosecutor and/or police force. What about all of the people that were pardoned when later evidence showed that they were innocent?
I'm not against life imprisonment because it at least offers the chance that new evidence could undo false convictions or that the political winds could change and political prisoners could be released.
China has even gone so far as to build mobile execution chambers. You can talk about public trials until the cows come home, it only convinces me you haven't been paying attention to what kind of record the public actually has at accomplishing anything in a sane fashion.
Are you sure you really want the death penalty? You are advocating for a system where the government can execute its own citizens. How many trials are conducted almost soley in the court of public opinion these days through the use of the media? Do you understand how painfully easy it would be to start executing citizens in kangaroo courts while the populace cheers the delivery of justice due to biased media coverage? Not that I disagree with you on the core of the problem such as liquor store robber vs Maddoff type problems, but I think your solution is a little frightening.
That said I must point out one incorrect thing you said and it is more of an exception than a correction.
an investor should be even more reluctant to buy stock in a firm in litigation than just about any other possible firm.
Unless that firm IS a legal firm.
Yeah! This is only possible because Starbucks has been lowering its coffee prices. The 40-60% they spend on marketing has dropped significantly since the truckloads of crap they buy docs has gotten cheaper in the failing economy. I will be a little sympathetic when their research costs more than the bribery they engage in. I will be a little sympathetic when they quit "modifying" drugs to get an extra 2% effectiveness on some minimal behavior of a drug to get a new patent for it so they can charge exhorbant prices over the previous version that can now be made in generic form for pennies. I will be a little sympathetic when they quit buying political figures to push for mandatory vaccinations of school girls at $360 a pop when even one of they key researches of the vaccine says it is not meant for girls that young and could actually be harmful.
I mean seriously...let's all feel sorry for the serial killer that has to dig yet another hole...digging holes is hard work after all. Right now these companies are facing big problems in these countries because those governments are invalidating their patents right now. These companies want so much money that the peopel cannot afford that the people's governments have said "Fuck off, we will make our own generics". I suspect this "generous" price drop has more to do with putting political/economic pressure on these countries to enforce patents than it does some generous streak.
I'm glad you said this as I was about to. There have been some pretty amusing stories of people reporting sonic booms as other things. From what I gather there were more than a few frantic calls about Russian attacks during the earlier days of super sonic aircraft since people thought there were bombs going off somewhere.
Suing your customers isn't exactly the best way to protect your interests. The problem is that the LAWYERS are protecting their interests. Megacorp launches lawsuit, lawyers get paid regardless of the survival and future business of megacorp. Hell, the lawyers can even win the case so they can add it to their resume for their next gig even as the company burns as a result of that win. Paying $x/month for the right to log in to their servers and play is fine. Kicking users off for violating the terms of service by manipulating how the computer handles data, fine by me. Using the DMCA to sue makers of the programs that allow you to twiddle the bits in your computers memory and being sent out on your computers network card, absolutely bullshit. Copyright is about redistrobution, I am supposed to be able to make all the copies and modifications I want to a copyrighted work that I purchased so long as I do not try to distribute it. Should we start suing highlighter companies for selling devices that allow the modification of a copyrighted work when students highlight their college textbooks to alter the formatting?
Their handling of these issues have been so horrible over the last few years that I will not be purchasing another Blizzard product until they can show the decision makers responsible for these DMCA abuses are bound and gagged and then sodomized by a jackhammer every time they try to speak. Further, they should put the video evidence under the creative commons license to atone for their past copyright abuses.
Would that be before or after the use the DMCA lawsuits claiming copyright circumvention of their silly Warden? Blizzard turn into a bunch of asshats post Vivendi. bnetd is another casualty of those clowns.
Yeah! If man was meant to fly he would have been born with wings.
I sure am glad guys with bizarre and different ideas don't listen to guys like you or the people that modded this nonsense as insightful. I am quite happy to fly cross country rather than catching a horse. I bet there are more than a few people happy to be alive due to other bizarre and improbable inventions like helicopters. I mean, we couldn't have pulled of tons of rescues without that horrible sounding idea.
It would still fail. :)
Except that the software is granted no more authority than a piece of paper with a contract written on it has. Using that example you should be able to negotiate a settlement with the cop who serves you with court papers rather than the originating party. Further, this would also allow you to modify paper contracts and then sign them quickly before they can yank it out of your hand. If you were to try to scribble in new terms on a loan and then quickly sign the agreement before the loan officer took the paper back your best chance in court would be that the judge handling the case actually died laughing after hearing it. I have actually seen a car dealership try to pull this shit before. They left the APR blank and tried to get the guy to sign it, this would have allowed them to fill it in after signing. In the end contract law is fairly straight forward in the fact that you aren't entering into a contract with the software since the software has no legal ability to enter into contracts, it is merely presenting what the other party (software vendor) is proposing.
I have also heard stories of this kind of thing working in reverse though. I have no idea how true it is, but I have heard of someone dealing with unsolicited credit offers this way. Basically he sent them a proofread copy of the crap they sent him and a letter explaining any further corespondence on the matter indicates that they are agreeing to use his proofreading service for $X00 per mailing. Supposedly this stopped their mailings. Arguably you could get them to "agree" to your terms in a similar fashion. It would probably be a bit of a legal mess to untangle and I suspect the winner will be determined by who has the most money to throw at lawyers.
Are you f'ing serious? You are basing this opinion of the notion based on what a toddler did with them? Crayons will never catch on either because kids that age just want to eat them... Holy shit man, if our use of things were based on how toddlers interact with things we would be getting Playdoh burgers at fast food places.
People keep trying to use...
If (cake.have) then eat(cake);
This of course fails because everyone knows...
#define cake=LIE;
Windows is just a pane...
Actually if you modify the terms then it isn't legal because the originating party didn't mutually agree. Modifying the buttons would be meaningless as well since it is effectively saying "No, I don't Agree" and then still recieving the services which is an agreement to accept the terms that the services were offered under.
I do agree that the EULA being available after purchase is bull, but I think the response of "I do what I want" is not correct. There are too many varieties of this practice to deal with them all at once. Many software vendors explicitly state that it is a license and not a purchase up front. There are some that show the EULA before purchase (typically in the buy online/download the software types). In the cases where it is only available after purchase then the user should be entitlted to a full refund if they don't agree. Some companies already allow this, others refuse. What it really boils down to is some companies are dirty little shits about the process and others are fairly upfront and honest about it. In the OS X cases Apple is pretty up front about you are puchasing a license to use OS X on Apple branded hardware. In this iPhone case I think they are only going to screw themselves with bad publicity with a pretty thin ice kind of argument. I bet MS wishes that the DMCA was around when they were getting hammered for their behavior, they could have been suing everyone else for violating their rights by installing unapproved software.
Bullshit. Sorry, but it is. Did you know that if you form a business partnership without an agreement it defaults to a canned thing under the Uniform Partnership Act. So you can make your own agreement or default to the one the law already has. There are tons of contracts that you have to deal with on a daily basis that don't involve lawyers and negotiations and such. The only real requirement is that both parties agree, and read it or not, clicking agree means that you agree. If you recieve a service somewhere, such as a doctor, mechanic, etc, and then refuse to pay you can be sued for breach of contract because it was an implied contract.
Business classes or Law classes would help you understand that sales neither walk nor quack and will go a long way to clarifying how businesses interact. Like it or not, they are selling licenses and it is perfectly legal. The only times it really has gotten beaten up is when they try to add illegal crap to the license (such as removing First Sale) and trying to prevent me from selling my license to someone else when I don't need it. (See AutoCad)
Argumentative is fun even when it gets a little confrontational so long as it doesn't completely turn into poo flinging flame nonsense. Ultimately that is part of my gripe with the many of the comments here is that the vast majority of people here are just pointing and laughing at these people and then pointing at someone else's research as evidence. I almost hope they find a link just so these folks get to say "Wow...I was real asshole about that and I was wrong". Hell, I don't have a problem with people even saying "but evidence here, here and here shows X". It is the "these parents are stupid and dangers to society" angle that bothers me because the people really screaming about it are just armchair quarterbacking the issue and don't actually have expertise themselves on the subject.
In terms of the vaccination/autism thing the evidence I have seen is circumstantial. Holding anyone responsible at this point is very premature, but it certainly warrants continued investigation along multiple paths rather than totally discounting the general claim. There could be some weight to the circumstantial evidence even if a solid link has not been identified. Of course, I also think that throwing on the blinders and focusing only on vaccines is a horrible idea as well. Until the case is solved everyone is a suspect.
I think the Scientific community is at least partially at fault for the current state of affairs. There is very little effort made to communicate information outside of their circles or to make it understood that science is an everchanging patchwork of best guesses and not rigid unchanging belief. Atomic theory has gone through monumental changes over time, it all roughly represents the same ideas, but the specifics of it have shifted dramatically. The only time science really ever makes the news is in cases like this where it is being beaten, abused, and warped by all sides in political/economic debate. Science is being used more and more as a means to prove that preconcieved idea X is right/wrong rather than as building blocks to form ideas.