The real problem is that all the major banks are sharing parts of the same balance sheet. Okay, that's not the *real* problem, they could still properly divide up their assets; the problem is that the parts of the sheet they're all sharing tend to overlap, so that $100 Chase just gave you is also on Capital One's balance sheet. And Capital One still has it.
The you'd damn well better make use of it. Cash-only suckers are paying the same price as my fraud-protected credit-card-using ass and not reaping the benefits.
I'd love to throw a </satire> on that, but it's more or less true at this point. I didn't think it was a year ago when I had shit for credit, but now that I have credit limits that, combined, could buy a small country, and I'm starting to interact more with that system, I see just how much benefit I receive from these accounts when things go wrong and I know that's not free. It's also not on my bill, so it must be on the store shelf.
As for the 12 years starting out with shit credit (I could have fixed that sooner but I didn't care; I didn't know I should, really), I'm not worried about it; I'm more than making up for that now. Oh, and don't carry a balance; cash-only might be for suckers, but carrying a balance (even at 0%*) is for even bigger suckers (or emergencies).
* You can't see the future. What if something happens and you can't pay it? Fees. Oh, and when the 0% term runs out, you can forget a reasonable rate, you're getting the 29.9% default rate because you missed those 2 payments. And and interest accrued during the 0% promo? You get to pay that, too. I mean, sure, if you're gonna charge $100 or something, let ti ride until a month or two before the promo ends, but don't max that fucker out, people.
If you can find out, I would be fascinated to read about it. If it's not XP mode I'll be absolutely stunned and in awe of whoever managed to pull it off.
No need, modern distros run just fine on ancient hardware.
Your beef with MS (at least as stated in this thread) is their short support period, so the existence of other OSes with longer support is paramount to your argument; that's why I asked for a reference.
No way that ancient clunker would run W8 (which I wouldn't use unless I was well paid to but W7 is OK).
And both are still supported and have nearly identical system requirements (1GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 16GB HDD [20GB for 64bit], and a DX9-capable video card). The only difference is that Win8 requires a CPU with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2; which Win7-capable CPU do you have that doesn't support those?
The kind soul who pointed you to the HOWTO for Audacity was me, BTW; and the software you're running that hasn't received updates in years is EAC (last update was over 2 years ago). I don't want to harp on that point too much, though, since it seems as though you may not have been aware.
I'm really interested to know how you've got IE7 running on Win7 when it ships with IE8 and Win7 doesn't support IE7, according to the 2nd post (from an MS employee) on that page. XP mode? IE7 mode in IE8 (more likely 9 or 10, since the upgrade to IE9 was a critical update)? I'm not saying it's not possible, but Microsoft is; if you've done it (or, rather, someone where you work has) I'd really genuinely be interested to learn how it was done.
Amarok shouldn't complain; it's been a while but I seem to recall feeding it 192k/32/2 with no issues. Please let me know if I'm wrong about that, I'm considering going back to Amarok soon.
The track marking is what Audacity lacks (AFAIK, maybe it can but I haven't found it).
Just a heads-up, in case you've found EAC's 44.1kHz limitation less than ideal: You can totally split a recording into tracks with Audacity. You might enjoy the ability to record at the highest rate your audio hardware supports, process out pops, clicks, and hiss, and fade in/out any remaining noise from the silence between tracks before downsampling to 44.1/16/2 and burning to CD.
FoxPro broke for the same reason the 3rd party apps broke; it made use of "undocumented features" that were patched in XP. MS doesn't care about their rivals, but they do care that people can continue using the software that keeps them locked into their platform. Take that away and they know they'll start bleeding marketshare. Read what I wrote and tell me this: Where did I say they care about their rivals? I didn't. I said, and I quote (much like you did) "they'd be pissing a lot more people off by making their computers not work". Note that "their" implies ownership; I run Java, but Oracle, Microsoft's rival, does not own my computer.
Plus, I don't have those "Which patch broke my software? Oops, my backup's hosed; how long will it take me to reinstall, reconfigure, and repatch?" problems with the Linux box.
You don't use 3rd party (e.g. not in your distro's repo) software or upgrade to new releases often, do you? It's something that happens in the real world and I'd figure someone with a UID nearly 1/10 of mine would have experienced it at some point. You've sure honed your misdirection and quasi-debate techniques in your time here.
So, you say that $125 is plenty for a 1 year support period, citing that Linux distros do it for free. Please, direct me to one that does. Which distro can I go to and grab a release from 2000 that still has a year of support left? I'll assume you can name one, or several, or you wouldn't have said that. Now, of those, which do *not* offer support contracts to provide a source of income to pay the people writing the patches? And from any that still remain, which maintain the kernel, packages that ship with the kernel to form a whole OS, and a reasonable suite of applications, entirely in-house?
None of them.
But, ignoring that, are you saying that you'd be cool with MS supporting XP for 2 more years? Because, in your last post, you just said there are XP computers out there that are less than 7 years old, which means that by the end of 15 years (from the release), those machines will be 9 years old. Are you saying that 9 years is reasonable? Or 15? Or 18 (based on your "at least 5 more years" comment in your previous post)? You've given so many EOL requirements that it's no wonder MS can't meet your demands.
You responded to:
Also, I'd love to know how you use EAC to sample LPs and cassettes; last I checked (a while after the last patch was released, over 2 years ago), it just reads CDs and doesn't touch audio devices at all. Can you point me to a writeup?
Can you please respond to the rest of that paragraph?
Also, while you're bitching about Microsoft dropping support for XP after 7 (actually 9, no 11, nope now it's 13) years, perhaps you shouldn't use software that's been unpatched and in beta for 2.25 years and, it appears, was EOL'd after 13 years (original release was in 1998, 0.1 beta) as an example of the right way to do things.
I realize it wasn't a direct question, but I was really hoping you'd comment on why you're okay with running software that has not received updates in years, while the whole time complaining that Microsoft is dropping the ball with XP.
The difference between you and me: I've never been a fan of MS; I just don't think they're handling XP inappropriately. Maybe I'm just biased against it because I know when it dies I don't have to support IE8 anymore.
It was irresponsible of Joe to not research his purchase. Why do you and I know when XP's support is ending? I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm not involved in buying PCs or my employer (we're a Mac and Linux shop, anyway) so that's not how I learned of this; rather, I was buying a PC over a decade ago and wanted to give Windows another shot, so I did some research and determined that 9 years was plenty of support for my use case. If Joe didn't do that, you are correct in saying he is ignorant, but you need to recognize that he is ignorant only because he wasn't responsible enough to research his purchase. It would have taken him 5 minutes.
I'm glad your brought the OEMs into this. XP was still being sold in 2009; fuck, it was still shipping on netbooks in 2010. Very irresponsible of the OEMs, indeed.
Please try to keep in mind that when Microsoft set the original 2009 EOL XP was not running on 1/3 of the world's computers; in fact, most Windows users hadn't made their way to 98 by that point, 3.1 was no longer supported by other vendors, and 95 required a major overhaul to fix many of its security issues (that's what 98 was) so releasing patches for that simply was not an option.
Which brings me to my next point... Throughout the history of Windows, software vendors have found and used "undocumented features" (you and I might call them exploits) in their software. Most of what wan on 3.1 also ran on 95; a lot that ran on 95 did *not* run on 98 because Microsoft had fixed the brokenness that the now non-working applications were exploiting. Simply patching 95 would have made it more secure, yes, but it would also have left users of those applications with nowhere to turn; an insecure but airgapped system is better than a secure but useless one, and that's why 95 couldn't just be patched. Going from 98 to ME brought with it large platform changes; parts of ME were built on NT, so MS couldn't just patch them in without potentially breaking software already in place on 98 machines (there was a *LOT* that refused to run on ME). This was an even bigger issue with ME to XP since XP was fully built on NT.
Plenty of software written for XP exploits a number of security vulnerabilities in the name of user convenience and Microsoft knows they'd be pissing a lot more people off by making their computers not work anymore by patching those than they'll piss off by dropping support. Pretty much anything that runs on XP but refuses to run on Vista, 7, or 8, is exploiting something that Microsoft has fixed in the later OSes and could fix in XP with a couple of patches, but it would be irresponsible of them to do so and leave the handful of users who truly *must* keep using XP for whatever reason with no working solution ("just don't install that patch" is NOT a solution because: Which patch broke my software? Oops, my backup's hosed; how long will it take me to reinstall, reconfigure, and repatch? Which future patches will also break my software? Guess I just won't install any more patches!); and since those users will simply stop installing patches anyway, why should Microsoft continue releasing them?
Simple. They shouldn't.
You keep saying Microsoft should charge more for their OS. So, how much, exactly, would you charge for a fully functioning OS and a steady stream of updates from the year 2000 until all hardware it runs on dies? I'd *still* like to see the math on this.
Also, I'd love to know how you use EAC to sample LPs and cassettes; last I checked (a while after the last patch was released, over 2 years ago), it just reads CDs and doesn't touch audio devices at all. Can you point me to a writeup? Also, while you're bitching about Microsoft dropping support for XP after 7 (actually 9, no 11, nope now it's 13) years, perhaps you shouldn't use software that's been unpatched and in beta for 2.25 years and, it appears, was OEL'd after 13 years (original release was in 1998, 0.1 beta) as an example of the right way to do things.
You're missing my point: It's not like nobody knew when support was scheduled to end; and it has been extended twice. Buying something that you *know* won't be supported for as long as you want it to be supported and not making alternate support arrangements *is* irresponsible, regardless of anyone else's actions. Period.
I'd love to know what XP-capable computers exist that work "just fine" by today's standards of usability and can't run Win7. I ran Win7 Ultimate on a fucking netbook with a single core Atom (32bit) CPU and 1GB of RAM for 3 years, from launch day (I attended the launch event), before passing that machine and OS along to my sister. I can't imagine anything slower than that being remotely usable for anything more than specialized/embedded systems (read: support contract).
So, how long until most of that hardware fails, then? And how much, exactly, would you charge for a fully functioning OS and a steady stream of updates from the year 2000 until then? I'd like to see the math on this.
You keep repeating your "responsibility" tirade and I'll keep asking you to support your position with something a tad stronger than opinion.
And the companies relying on closed-source software that they know will stop receiving patches before they've replaced it with something else are acting responsibly? No, MS stated clearly when they planned to stop supporting the software and offered extended support contracts to corporate users who, for whatever reason, are unable to abandon the platform, then extended their free support by 4 years. The irresponsible users (both corporate and consumer) who bought into a platform that was only supposed to be supported for 9 years, refused to even begin the process of migrating to another platform by the end of the original support period, and still cling to the platform after MS extended support for the platform for 4 more years *to allow them time to migrate off of it* are the reason this is even an issue. Once again, I'm talking about people who knew there was an "expiration date", and knew what that date was, when they forked over the cash; and for those who can't abandon the platform for whatever reason, support contracts are still available. Anyone still on the platform at the end of the initial EOL in 2009 without a support contract was acting irresponsibly; anyone still on it in 2014 without a support contract in place is just an idiot.
So, how long until most of that hardware fails, then? And how much, exactly, would you charge for a fully functioning OS and a steady stream of updates from the year 2000 until then? I'd like to see the math on this.
EOLing XP 4 years after the EOL that was announced when it launched is not only acceptable, it's reasonable *and* commendable. If the announced 9 year product lifespan wasn't acceptable, anyone who gave a damn had the opportunity to adopt another platform; if this *was* acceptable, as evident by the widespread adoption of the platform, then surely the 13 years to which it was later extended was also acceptable. Businesses that require longer term support for the platform have had ample opportunity to negotiate those contracts, and many such contracts are in place, so nobody's being left out in the cold here except by their own ignorance and inaction.
It is only when the laws disagree (e.g. one requires something that the other forbids) that Federal laws (and international treaties, for that matter) automatically win.
The paragraph immediately preceding your selective quote:
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
Since the relevant Federal law does not fully address what an "unwanted shipment" is, it is not in disagreement with state laws based on UCC Article 2 and, therefore, does not trump them. IANAL, but the attorney 2 offices over, who agrees with me on this point, is.
The Federal law (39 USC 3009) has precedence over state law, particularly with regards to interstate transactions; therefore, if the UCC is in disagreement, then the federal law wins.
UCC isn't state law, in fact, as you state after this quote, UCC isn't law at all, so of course USC trumps it; however, Federal law never trumps state law. When a transaction takes place fully within the confines of a state, state laws, where they exist, apply; when a transaction involves parties in multiple states, the more restrictive law wins in all cases. What that means is that Federal law does certainly apply, but where state laws are more restrictive, those parts of state laws also apply. Since most states have adopted UCC, thereby writing their own laws based on it, UCC is, by way of those laws, law on most stated, and the parts of it that are more restrictive than Federal laws do trump Federal laws. It is only when the laws disagree (e.g. one requires something that the other forbids) that Federal laws (and international treaties, for that matter) automatically win. If the buyer and seller both reside in the same state and the item was shipped directly (e.g. from within that same state), Federal law can pretty much go fuck itself.
Anyways... the citation you linked to doesn't say anything about the Buyer having any liabilities it just lists some Buyer's rights; with respect to sales.
You are 100% absolutely correct on this point; you simply fail to understand the implications. The buyer has the right to accept (as in "I'm okay with this instead of that, let's settle up on any balance") or reject (as in "I don't want this. send me a shipping label and I'll return it") all, or part, of any incorrect shipment. Since that part is more restrictive than Federal law, it most certainly does apply if any party to the transaction resides in a state that has adopted that UCC recommendation as law. I believe there is a Federal law stating that the state laws of any state involved in the transaction, further detailing that the act of transporting goods through a state counts as involving that state, apply, as well; since most states have adopted UCC, in one form or another, it's a safe bet that it applies to the vast majority of interstate transactions.
Why need I stop? Nothing you've posted here is contrary to my comment. I think you may need to read it again.
P.S. -- You seem to be off, by a factor of 60, in your estimate of how long it would take you to research this. It should only take 5 minutes to find the appropriate laws, maybe another 7 to read them. Here. And the first result.
You just reworded what I said in my reply to you, which is not what your original post stated. Your original post seems to be supporting the "I'd keep it." comment you were replying to, with an explanation of why that would be okay; I was pointing out why that is not the case, and it seems you've just agreed with me.
Placing an order is soliciting a shipment, an incorrect shipment is not unsolicited, therefore, you would not be allowed to keep the errantly-shipped PS Vita in the US. Google for the laws, because I'm too lazy to do your research for you, but they're pretty clear on what constitutes an unsolicited shipment.
Slashdot Mirror
or he listed it twice and I was being sarcastic. how about fuck you?
That includes full latex, open office, about 5 desktop environments, open office a bunch of browsers and almost everything i need out of the box
You forgot OpenOffice.
casuar lacism?
The real problem is that all the major banks are sharing parts of the same balance sheet. Okay, that's not the *real* problem, they could still properly divide up their assets; the problem is that the parts of the sheet they're all sharing tend to overlap, so that $100 Chase just gave you is also on Capital One's balance sheet. And Capital One still has it.
Anyone not using credit cards has paid for it, too. And gotten nothing in return.
The you'd damn well better make use of it. Cash-only suckers are paying the same price as my fraud-protected credit-card-using ass and not reaping the benefits.
I'd love to throw a </satire> on that, but it's more or less true at this point. I didn't think it was a year ago when I had shit for credit, but now that I have credit limits that, combined, could buy a small country, and I'm starting to interact more with that system, I see just how much benefit I receive from these accounts when things go wrong and I know that's not free. It's also not on my bill, so it must be on the store shelf.
As for the 12 years starting out with shit credit (I could have fixed that sooner but I didn't care; I didn't know I should, really), I'm not worried about it; I'm more than making up for that now. Oh, and don't carry a balance; cash-only might be for suckers, but carrying a balance (even at 0%*) is for even bigger suckers (or emergencies).
* You can't see the future. What if something happens and you can't pay it? Fees. Oh, and when the 0% term runs out, you can forget a reasonable rate, you're getting the 29.9% default rate because you missed those 2 payments. And and interest accrued during the 0% promo? You get to pay that, too. I mean, sure, if you're gonna charge $100 or something, let ti ride until a month or two before the promo ends, but don't max that fucker out, people.
You're right. Mhm. I concur. Yes.
If you can find out, I would be fascinated to read about it. If it's not XP mode I'll be absolutely stunned and in awe of whoever managed to pull it off.
No need, modern distros run just fine on ancient hardware.
Your beef with MS (at least as stated in this thread) is their short support period, so the existence of other OSes with longer support is paramount to your argument; that's why I asked for a reference.
No way that ancient clunker would run W8 (which I wouldn't use unless I was well paid to but W7 is OK).
And both are still supported and have nearly identical system requirements (1GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 16GB HDD [20GB for 64bit], and a DX9-capable video card). The only difference is that Win8 requires a CPU with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2; which Win7-capable CPU do you have that doesn't support those?
The kind soul who pointed you to the HOWTO for Audacity was me, BTW; and the software you're running that hasn't received updates in years is EAC (last update was over 2 years ago). I don't want to harp on that point too much, though, since it seems as though you may not have been aware.
I'm really interested to know how you've got IE7 running on Win7 when it ships with IE8 and Win7 doesn't support IE7, according to the 2nd post (from an MS employee) on that page. XP mode? IE7 mode in IE8 (more likely 9 or 10, since the upgrade to IE9 was a critical update)? I'm not saying it's not possible, but Microsoft is; if you've done it (or, rather, someone where you work has) I'd really genuinely be interested to learn how it was done.
Amarok shouldn't complain; it's been a while but I seem to recall feeding it 192k/32/2 with no issues. Please let me know if I'm wrong about that, I'm considering going back to Amarok soon.
The track marking is what Audacity lacks (AFAIK, maybe it can but I haven't found it).
Just a heads-up, in case you've found EAC's 44.1kHz limitation less than ideal: You can totally split a recording into tracks with Audacity. You might enjoy the ability to record at the highest rate your audio hardware supports, process out pops, clicks, and hiss, and fade in/out any remaining noise from the silence between tracks before downsampling to 44.1/16/2 and burning to CD.
Plus, I don't have those "Which patch broke my software? Oops, my backup's hosed; how long will it take me to reinstall, reconfigure, and repatch?" problems with the Linux box.
You don't use 3rd party (e.g. not in your distro's repo) software or upgrade to new releases often, do you? It's something that happens in the real world and I'd figure someone with a UID nearly 1/10 of mine would have experienced it at some point. You've sure honed your misdirection and quasi-debate techniques in your time here.
So, you say that $125 is plenty for a 1 year support period, citing that Linux distros do it for free. Please, direct me to one that does. Which distro can I go to and grab a release from 2000 that still has a year of support left? I'll assume you can name one, or several, or you wouldn't have said that. Now, of those, which do *not* offer support contracts to provide a source of income to pay the people writing the patches? And from any that still remain, which maintain the kernel, packages that ship with the kernel to form a whole OS, and a reasonable suite of applications, entirely in-house?
None of them.
But, ignoring that, are you saying that you'd be cool with MS supporting XP for 2 more years? Because, in your last post, you just said there are XP computers out there that are less than 7 years old, which means that by the end of 15 years (from the release), those machines will be 9 years old. Are you saying that 9 years is reasonable? Or 15? Or 18 (based on your "at least 5 more years" comment in your previous post)? You've given so many EOL requirements that it's no wonder MS can't meet your demands.
You responded to:
Also, I'd love to know how you use EAC to sample LPs and cassettes; last I checked (a while after the last patch was released, over 2 years ago), it just reads CDs and doesn't touch audio devices at all. Can you point me to a writeup?
Can you please respond to the rest of that paragraph?
Also, while you're bitching about Microsoft dropping support for XP after 7 (actually 9, no 11, nope now it's 13) years, perhaps you shouldn't use software that's been unpatched and in beta for 2.25 years and, it appears, was EOL'd after 13 years (original release was in 1998, 0.1 beta) as an example of the right way to do things.
I realize it wasn't a direct question, but I was really hoping you'd comment on why you're okay with running software that has not received updates in years, while the whole time complaining that Microsoft is dropping the ball with XP.
The difference between you and me: I've never been a fan of MS; I just don't think they're handling XP inappropriately. Maybe I'm just biased against it because I know when it dies I don't have to support IE8 anymore.
It was irresponsible of Joe to not research his purchase. Why do you and I know when XP's support is ending? I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm not involved in buying PCs or my employer (we're a Mac and Linux shop, anyway) so that's not how I learned of this; rather, I was buying a PC over a decade ago and wanted to give Windows another shot, so I did some research and determined that 9 years was plenty of support for my use case. If Joe didn't do that, you are correct in saying he is ignorant, but you need to recognize that he is ignorant only because he wasn't responsible enough to research his purchase. It would have taken him 5 minutes.
I'm glad your brought the OEMs into this. XP was still being sold in 2009; fuck, it was still shipping on netbooks in 2010. Very irresponsible of the OEMs, indeed.
Please try to keep in mind that when Microsoft set the original 2009 EOL XP was not running on 1/3 of the world's computers; in fact, most Windows users hadn't made their way to 98 by that point, 3.1 was no longer supported by other vendors, and 95 required a major overhaul to fix many of its security issues (that's what 98 was) so releasing patches for that simply was not an option.
Which brings me to my next point... Throughout the history of Windows, software vendors have found and used "undocumented features" (you and I might call them exploits) in their software. Most of what wan on 3.1 also ran on 95; a lot that ran on 95 did *not* run on 98 because Microsoft had fixed the brokenness that the now non-working applications were exploiting. Simply patching 95 would have made it more secure, yes, but it would also have left users of those applications with nowhere to turn; an insecure but airgapped system is better than a secure but useless one, and that's why 95 couldn't just be patched. Going from 98 to ME brought with it large platform changes; parts of ME were built on NT, so MS couldn't just patch them in without potentially breaking software already in place on 98 machines (there was a *LOT* that refused to run on ME). This was an even bigger issue with ME to XP since XP was fully built on NT.
Plenty of software written for XP exploits a number of security vulnerabilities in the name of user convenience and Microsoft knows they'd be pissing a lot more people off by making their computers not work anymore by patching those than they'll piss off by dropping support. Pretty much anything that runs on XP but refuses to run on Vista, 7, or 8, is exploiting something that Microsoft has fixed in the later OSes and could fix in XP with a couple of patches, but it would be irresponsible of them to do so and leave the handful of users who truly *must* keep using XP for whatever reason with no working solution ("just don't install that patch" is NOT a solution because: Which patch broke my software? Oops, my backup's hosed; how long will it take me to reinstall, reconfigure, and repatch? Which future patches will also break my software? Guess I just won't install any more patches!); and since those users will simply stop installing patches anyway, why should Microsoft continue releasing them?
Simple. They shouldn't.
You keep saying Microsoft should charge more for their OS. So, how much, exactly, would you charge for a fully functioning OS and a steady stream of updates from the year 2000 until all hardware it runs on dies? I'd *still* like to see the math on this.
Also, I'd love to know how you use EAC to sample LPs and cassettes; last I checked (a while after the last patch was released, over 2 years ago), it just reads CDs and doesn't touch audio devices at all. Can you point me to a writeup? Also, while you're bitching about Microsoft dropping support for XP after 7 (actually 9, no 11, nope now it's 13) years, perhaps you shouldn't use software that's been unpatched and in beta for 2.25 years and, it appears, was OEL'd after 13 years (original release was in 1998, 0.1 beta) as an example of the right way to do things.
You're missing my point: It's not like nobody knew when support was scheduled to end; and it has been extended twice. Buying something that you *know* won't be supported for as long as you want it to be supported and not making alternate support arrangements *is* irresponsible, regardless of anyone else's actions. Period.
I'd love to know what XP-capable computers exist that work "just fine" by today's standards of usability and can't run Win7. I ran Win7 Ultimate on a fucking netbook with a single core Atom (32bit) CPU and 1GB of RAM for 3 years, from launch day (I attended the launch event), before passing that machine and OS along to my sister. I can't imagine anything slower than that being remotely usable for anything more than specialized/embedded systems (read: support contract).
So, how long until most of that hardware fails, then? And how much, exactly, would you charge for a fully functioning OS and a steady stream of updates from the year 2000 until then? I'd like to see the math on this.
You keep repeating your "responsibility" tirade and I'll keep asking you to support your position with something a tad stronger than opinion.
And the companies relying on closed-source software that they know will stop receiving patches before they've replaced it with something else are acting responsibly? No, MS stated clearly when they planned to stop supporting the software and offered extended support contracts to corporate users who, for whatever reason, are unable to abandon the platform, then extended their free support by 4 years. The irresponsible users (both corporate and consumer) who bought into a platform that was only supposed to be supported for 9 years, refused to even begin the process of migrating to another platform by the end of the original support period, and still cling to the platform after MS extended support for the platform for 4 more years *to allow them time to migrate off of it* are the reason this is even an issue. Once again, I'm talking about people who knew there was an "expiration date", and knew what that date was, when they forked over the cash; and for those who can't abandon the platform for whatever reason, support contracts are still available. Anyone still on the platform at the end of the initial EOL in 2009 without a support contract was acting irresponsibly; anyone still on it in 2014 without a support contract in place is just an idiot.
So, how long until most of that hardware fails, then? And how much, exactly, would you charge for a fully functioning OS and a steady stream of updates from the year 2000 until then? I'd like to see the math on this.
EOLing XP 4 years after the EOL that was announced when it launched is not only acceptable, it's reasonable *and* commendable. If the announced 9 year product lifespan wasn't acceptable, anyone who gave a damn had the opportunity to adopt another platform; if this *was* acceptable, as evident by the widespread adoption of the platform, then surely the 13 years to which it was later extended was also acceptable. Businesses that require longer term support for the platform have had ample opportunity to negotiate those contracts, and many such contracts are in place, so nobody's being left out in the cold here except by their own ignorance and inaction.
How much, exactly, would you charge for a fully functioning OS and a steady stream of updates until the end of time? I'd like to see the math on this.
It is only when the laws disagree (e.g. one requires something that the other forbids) that Federal laws (and international treaties, for that matter) automatically win.
The paragraph immediately preceding your selective quote:
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state .
Since the relevant Federal law does not fully address what an "unwanted shipment" is, it is not in disagreement with state laws based on UCC Article 2 and, therefore, does not trump them. IANAL, but the attorney 2 offices over, who agrees with me on this point, is.
Uniform Commercial Code, while not law itself, which has been incorporated into the laws of most US states, disagrees with you. That link is for Ohio, just one of many states which have incorporated UCC into its laws; see also: Maine, South Carolina, Nebraska, and Google, if you care for a more complete list (HINT: Louisiana is the only state that has not adopted UCC article 2, which applies here).
The Federal law (39 USC 3009) has precedence over state law, particularly with regards to interstate transactions; therefore, if the UCC is in disagreement, then the federal law wins.
UCC isn't state law, in fact, as you state after this quote, UCC isn't law at all, so of course USC trumps it; however, Federal law never trumps state law. When a transaction takes place fully within the confines of a state, state laws, where they exist, apply; when a transaction involves parties in multiple states, the more restrictive law wins in all cases. What that means is that Federal law does certainly apply, but where state laws are more restrictive, those parts of state laws also apply. Since most states have adopted UCC, thereby writing their own laws based on it, UCC is, by way of those laws, law on most stated, and the parts of it that are more restrictive than Federal laws do trump Federal laws. It is only when the laws disagree (e.g. one requires something that the other forbids) that Federal laws (and international treaties, for that matter) automatically win. If the buyer and seller both reside in the same state and the item was shipped directly (e.g. from within that same state), Federal law can pretty much go fuck itself.
Anyways... the citation you linked to doesn't say anything about the Buyer having any liabilities it just lists some Buyer's rights; with respect to sales.
You are 100% absolutely correct on this point; you simply fail to understand the implications. The buyer has the right to accept (as in "I'm okay with this instead of that, let's settle up on any balance") or reject (as in "I don't want this. send me a shipping label and I'll return it") all, or part, of any incorrect shipment. Since that part is more restrictive than Federal law, it most certainly does apply if any party to the transaction resides in a state that has adopted that UCC recommendation as law. I believe there is a Federal law stating that the state laws of any state involved in the transaction, further detailing that the act of transporting goods through a state counts as involving that state, apply, as well; since most states have adopted UCC, in one form or another, it's a safe bet that it applies to the vast majority of interstate transactions.
The law disagrees with you. Too bad it was posted by an AC, someone could earn a bit of karma.
Why need I stop? Nothing you've posted here is contrary to my comment. I think you may need to read it again.
P.S. -- You seem to be off, by a factor of 60, in your estimate of how long it would take you to research this. It should only take 5 minutes to find the appropriate laws, maybe another 7 to read them. Here. And the first result.
You just reworded what I said in my reply to you, which is not what your original post stated. Your original post seems to be supporting the "I'd keep it." comment you were replying to, with an explanation of why that would be okay; I was pointing out why that is not the case, and it seems you've just agreed with me.
You must be lost, dear friend. We don't read articles here.
Placing an order is soliciting a shipment, an incorrect shipment is not unsolicited, therefore, you would not be allowed to keep the errantly-shipped PS Vita in the US. Google for the laws, because I'm too lazy to do your research for you, but they're pretty clear on what constitutes an unsolicited shipment.