Unless the law will include criminal penalties it's of no value.
It's interesting how laws made to limit non-government workers *always* have the criminal penalties, and laws that are made to limit government workers always conveniently forget that part. When we start jailing people who break laws like this we'll start making headway.
So, if the a copy of SecuRom installed on my machine does any of the things that the FAQ specifically claims it does not, can I bring charges against the company under the unlawful computer access act (or however it is called)?
Created under GWB, and the left hated it, extended under BHO, and the left goes silent. I'm trying to figure out at what point does principle gets put aside for politics?
You don't have any Left to speak of, there's Right and Even-More-Right.
Justice cannot exist the law is so convoluted that a if a third party professional is required to help you understand it. Then it just becomes a competition to find out which professional is most cunning, rather than who is legally in the right.
If the judge is prejudiced against you for choosing not to use a lawyer, it's just a protection racket where everyone involved in law is scratching each others' backs.
isn't that exactly what happens here? the blogger had no lawyer and lost.
And that's why people hate lawyers. They perpetuate a system that requires you to purchase justice. The more you pay, the more you get. The actual facts and circumstances do not matter.
he says "but in reality it just hasn't happened. so we end up with segregated competitions"
My point is why is it a foregone conclusion that we end up with segregated competitions. Why can't we have integrated competitions and the woman just lose because they can't compete.
For the same reason we have weight categories in weightlifting and combat sports, the paralympics, etc.
When you were in grade school, did the 1st-graders compete against the 6th-graders?
The Canadian government has a loophole, the notwithstanding clause, to allow them to violate your constitutional rights.
Yes, they do.
However, seven of the ten provinces and two of the three territories have never used the power of override; nor has the federal parliament. And while there have been a small number of abortive attempts to use it, all of them have either failed to materialize, were revoked, or proven to be unnecessary (as the respective laws were in line with the charter).
On the other hand, the USofA government lacks such a loophole yet continually violates the constitutional rights of the populace, with full complicity of the judiciary.
But if the email goes to someone who isn't a selfish, hostile asshat like you are, they will do as asked (emphasis mine) and delete the email. Don't assume that everyone is like you.
Let me answer for the OP.
When I get an email that was obviously not meant to be sent to me, and did not include any disclaimers, I will usually send a reply point out the mistake. If I'm in a good mood and have some free time, I could even try to deduce what the intended address should have been and include it in my reply.
If that email included a disclaimer, POLITELY PHRASED as a REQUEST (featuring words like "please" and "thank you"), I will usually do my best to comply because, hey, I'm a generally nice guy.
If, on the other hand, the disclaimer used DEMANDING or THREATENING language, or trying to assert non-existing legal rights, fuck them. Being a "hostile asshat" to bullies is a virtue.
Oh, lookie, an anonymous coward got her panties in a bunch.
Firstly, Mozilla's business model is not my problem. It was their decision to give out Firefox for free.
Secondly, if Mozilla apparently wants people to use their browser, they should be thanking me for pointing out how to make it more popular. If they don't, they're on the right track. Not my problem, though.
Thirdly, there are alternatives. So far I still have a slight preference for FF, but my usage of Chrome is rising and even IE11 is proving to be usable.
Fourthly, while I regularly donate to projects that I find useful, I always do it after the fact, knowing that my money will go toward making the product more useful. So far Mozilla hasn't given me any indication that that would be the case. Until that changes, Mozilla will not see a red cent from me. Aris, on the other hand...
Slashdot Mirror
So why is lying to Congress not a punishable offense?
Depends on who does the lying and how well connected they are.
Jail isn't going to do any good unless you put the whole agency in jail.
Fine by me.
Unless the law will include criminal penalties it's of no value.
It's interesting how laws made to limit non-government workers *always* have the criminal penalties, and laws that are made to limit government workers always conveniently forget that part. When we start jailing people who break laws like this we'll start making headway.
This. A 1000 times this!
The settlement terms of my lawsuit against EA included that they're supposed to inform UPFRONT of the SecuROM DRM.
If they're no longer doing that, I've got standing to sue the fuck out of them again.
Please do so.
No, SecuROM does not damage a computer in any way.
SecuROM Frequently Asked Questions
So, if the a copy of SecuRom installed on my machine does any of the things that the FAQ specifically claims it does not, can I bring charges against the company under the unlawful computer access act (or however it is called)?
Israel have detente with two of their neighbors...
Is this how you define signed peace agreements?
Created under GWB, and the left hated it, extended under BHO, and the left goes silent. I'm trying to figure out at what point does principle gets put aside for politics?
You don't have any Left to speak of, there's Right and Even-More-Right.
You also have to be competent enough to evaluate the security vulnerabilities of said source code.
Case in point.
This is a bunch of numbers.
how exactly are you "working to eliminate [living in scarcity] in America"?
So communism and socialism is a religion?
The theoretical socioeconomic systems, not really.
The actual attempts at implementation (Stalinism, Maoism, etc.), very much so.
And that's something I'm working to eliminate in America.
Please elaborate.
You should have offered to help.
For $200/hour + expenses.
Would you remove your appendix yourself ? Don't go in court without a lawyer, specially when the other part has one. That's a stupid move.
In most civilized countries, the government covers the cost of removing your appendix.
Justice cannot exist the law is so convoluted that a if a third party professional is required to help you understand it. Then it just becomes a competition to find out which professional is most cunning, rather than who is legally in the right.
If the judge is prejudiced against you for choosing not to use a lawyer, it's just a protection racket where everyone involved in law is scratching each others' backs.
Please mod parent up.
isn't that exactly what happens here? the blogger had no lawyer and lost.
And that's why people hate lawyers.
They perpetuate a system that requires you to purchase justice. The more you pay, the more you get.
The actual facts and circumstances do not matter.
''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73
Grace Hopper?
he says "but in reality it just hasn't happened. so we end up with segregated competitions"
My point is why is it a foregone conclusion that we end up with segregated competitions. Why can't we have integrated competitions and the woman just lose because they can't compete.
For the same reason we have weight categories in weightlifting and combat sports, the paralympics, etc.
When you were in grade school, did the 1st-graders compete against the 6th-graders?
The Canadian government has a loophole, the notwithstanding clause, to allow them to violate your constitutional rights.
Yes, they do.
However, seven of the ten provinces and two of the three territories have never used the power of override; nor has the federal parliament.
And while there have been a small number of abortive attempts to use it, all of them have either failed to materialize, were revoked, or proven to be unnecessary (as the respective laws were in line with the charter).
On the other hand, the USofA government lacks such a loophole yet continually violates the constitutional rights of the populace, with full complicity of the judiciary.
Which one do you prefer?
But if the email goes to someone who isn't a selfish, hostile asshat like you are, they will do as asked (emphasis mine) and delete the email. Don't assume that everyone is like you.
Let me answer for the OP.
When I get an email that was obviously not meant to be sent to me, and did not include any disclaimers, I will usually send a reply point out the mistake. If I'm in a good mood and have some free time, I could even try to deduce what the intended address should have been and include it in my reply.
If that email included a disclaimer, POLITELY PHRASED as a REQUEST (featuring words like "please" and "thank you"), I will usually do my best to comply because, hey, I'm a generally nice guy.
If, on the other hand, the disclaimer used DEMANDING or THREATENING language, or trying to assert non-existing legal rights, fuck them. Being a "hostile asshat" to bullies is a virtue.
At one point the Catholic church didn't exist, then suddenly it did.
It's a miracle!
In the United States, the original intent of the law as passed trumps somebody's later interpretation.
At least two recent presidents strongly disagree.
Oh, lookie, an anonymous coward got her panties in a bunch.
Firstly, Mozilla's business model is not my problem. It was their decision to give out Firefox for free.
Secondly, if Mozilla apparently wants people to use their browser, they should be thanking me for pointing out how to make it more popular. If they don't, they're on the right track. Not my problem, though.
Thirdly, there are alternatives. So far I still have a slight preference for FF, but my usage of Chrome is rising and even IE11 is proving to be usable.
Fourthly, while I regularly donate to projects that I find useful, I always do it after the fact, knowing that my money will go toward making the product more useful. So far Mozilla hasn't given me any indication that that would be the case. Until that changes, Mozilla will not see a red cent from me. Aris, on the other hand...
Lastly, grow up.
How many FF users want this WebIDE? It's built-in.
How many FF users want a status bar or tabs not on top? Must use an add-on...
This is the best argument for vigilante justice that I have ever heard.
And the name of that company is...?