Huh? Directive 1999/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February 1999 relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts
Is this the law? Does not seem to apply....
Only applies to car loans, not cars. That is, where you don't own anything; the lender does. Of course you can't go nuts with a car owned by someone else. If you walk into a dealership with $35K, bought a car in cash, you would get little more than a receipt and maybe a statement showing what would violate the warranty (which also makes total sense), and some other legally required paperwork about airbags danger, emission laws etc.
Nope. Read your mortgage loan agreement. The 'reasons' they can call the debt are so broad so as to really be any reason at all. For example, most say something like (in addition to missing payments as you mentioned), 'significant reduction in credit score' (who decides 'significant'? The lender), or 'significant devaluation of collateral' (which means if you house value drops like a rock, they can call the entire debt).
But they never do this because that would basically be the end of the lenders mortgage business. no one would want to do business with a company they actually exercises these rights. It's just a CYA move on their part.
EULAs are usually worded differently in different parts of world for that very reason. No contract trumps the law, unless you enter an 'agreement' to allow it beforehand. Which you did by accepting the EULA. Like prenuptial agreements (which override legal obligations for divorcees) or rental agreements (which can override a renters right to privacy (i.e. your landlord gets a key to your place if the agreement says so)).Can you cite a source for that statement the the EU disallows EULAs to be enforceable?
Every EULA I've ever read says something like 'if you do not agree with these terms return this to the retailer for a refund'. Remember the A stands for 'agreement'. If you don't agree, then get your money back.
That would be a valid argument...if cars came with EULAs. But of interest, your car insurance kind of does. My policy states that I may lose my insurance (and with it, the privilege of legally driving), if I 'engage in unlawful or overtly reckless behavior' while driving.
It's a dick move for sure. Maybe even a little sneaky, but no, it's not fraud. When you purchased the machine, it came with a EULA that specifically said Sony could update the EULA at anytime for any reason. But most folks don't actually read those. And then they get hacked off and cry foul when Sony exercise its option to use the terms the user agreed to. Kinda like a mortgage agreement that you sign but don't actually read...
Now if Sony had a EULA that said some like 'this EULA is binding in perpetuity and supersedes any future updates', and then made bindign changes, that might be fraud.
EULAs say all kinds of crazy stuff that never actually get done. I seen ones that border on 'signing' away Constitutional rights. But I've ever heard of a single case of a legitimate, license-holding, console-owning user being forced to do something awful because of EULA verbage. Like buying a house. All real estate loans since forever ago allow the bank to 'call' the entire loan amount at any time for any reason. But they never actually do. They just was you to know they can.
If Sony releases a firmware update that pisses off more than a tiny percentage of users, they will undoubtedly reverse it. And if that tiny percentage of modders/cheaters/hobbyists or whatever else are really hacked off by the update, then they should sell their PS3's on Ebay for 80% of what you paid for it and move on with their lives for God's sake.
True dat. Noscript in FF has eliminated most (all?) the danger of visiting unknown sites. I go, get nothing but pure HTML. I see nothing unless I 'allow' a dozen scripts? Forget it. No well coded site needs multiple 3rd party scripts to function. The only sites I allow are my bank and a few government agencies. And for online shopping I use the 'temporarily allow' feature. Love that feature.
If I recall it was a WASP that killed 100's in Oklahoma City 15 years ago. I guess all white Americans of Irish descent are barbarous monsters? Does the mass-generalization of entire cultures, based on the horrific acts of a handful, not apply to the Western world? And remember all that absolutely factual sciences of yesteryear that now are considered laughably false? It was the Western world that taught the Earth was the center of the universe. It was the ancient Arab world that invented algebra. Tell me, which one is the fairy tale?
Not that I completely disagree with you. I do believe that the world religions will eventually bring about their own destruction by inciting wars and generally pissing off the entire planet.
The number associated with the current years means nothing. Advanced societies have moved away from ethereal concepts and toward more cool 'fairy tales' (i.e. string theory). But in cultures where advancement is centuries behind, those ethereal concepts are the only thing holding the communities together. One cultures sacred belief is another cultures nutball religion.
I think it's called the Patriot Act: Oliver Queenan: All cell phone signals are under surveillance, due to the courtesy of our Federal friends over there. Ellerby: Patriot Act, Patriot Act! I love it, I love it, I love it!
They say it's legal, and cite no sources (i.e.'we asked our lawyer"). They seem to indicate that since EU telco 'offer it for free', then it must be legal. I would love to see someone defend this in court; especially if they are using the system to track someone covertly.
Remember Islam is about 6 centuries younger than Christianity. Read some of the history of Christianity from the 1400's and you will find similar violent reactions of Jesus depicted in any non-sacred way. Jesus was not even portrayed in cinema until 1961's "King of King's".
So this has come full circle. As I've already said, I was not 'blaming' or 'critisizing' anyone. In fact, nearly my entire original statement was in the 1st person. Maybe I was blaming myself?
And as your own cited sources point out, if a person uses no force to enter, and no unlawful activity is intended, it's *not* B&E.
And it certainly *is* okay to enter a persons private residence without permission (as long as zero force is used and your permission has not been revoked by the owner). For example, a landscaper my be working on my yard and need to use the restroom. If he knocks and I don't answer, and opens the unlocked door, he is not committing a crime. I have given implied consent by hiring him to work on my property. I would have had to lock the door to remove any implied consent. Or, if your neighbor leaves his front door swinging open and you suspect something untoward you can legally enter, without permission, to see if everything is okay (but I would recommend you call the cops instead - in case there is a crime in progress).
But is getting way OT now....I just had a question about computer crime and if it is analogous.
If you consider the term 'relax junior' condescending and belligerent, then I am guessing you are living a very sheltered life. One day, when you're ready, you can buy yourself a legal dictionary and know how B&E are defined. Trust me, it's a bit more complex that what a Google search can give you.
Relax junior. I'm not blaming anyone. Just wondering how 'breaking in' is defined with regards to computer crime. For a home, the crime of 'breaking and entering' has a very specific definition. If the door was unlocked for example, and someone came in, it's not 'breaking in'.
Are they really 'breaking in'? If I leave a post-it on my front door that says 'key under mat', and someone uses that to get into my home, I don't believe that's 'breaking in'. So if I have a Gmail password of 'password123', and my account is compromised, can we call that 'breaking in'. Not really sure if computer crime is analogous in this way. Trespassing maybe...
Sharks gotta swim, and bats gotta fly,
I gotta love one woman till I die.
To Ed or Dick or Bob
She may be just a slob,
But to me, well,
She's my girl.
In winter the bedroom is one large ice cube,
And she squeezes the toothpaste from the middle of the tube.
Her hairs in the sink
Have driven me to drink,
But she's my girl, she's my girl, she's my girl,
And I love her.
The girl that I lament for,
The girl my money's spent for,
The girl my back is bent for,
The girl I owe the rent for,
The girl I gave up Lent for
Is the girl that heaven meant for me.
So though for breakfast she makes coffee that tastes like shampoo,
I come home for dinner and get peanut butter stew,
Or if I'm in luck,
It's broiled hockey puck,
But, oh well, what the hell,
She's my girl,
And I love her.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a piece of paper in the box. If you bought used, all bets are off.
Huh?
Directive 1999/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February 1999 relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts
Is this the law? Does not seem to apply....
Only applies to car loans, not cars. That is, where you don't own anything; the lender does. Of course you can't go nuts with a car owned by someone else. If you walk into a dealership with $35K, bought a car in cash, you would get little more than a receipt and maybe a statement showing what would violate the warranty (which also makes total sense), and some other legally required paperwork about airbags danger, emission laws etc.
Nope. Read your mortgage loan agreement. The 'reasons' they can call the debt are so broad so as to really be any reason at all. For example, most say something like (in addition to missing payments as you mentioned), 'significant reduction in credit score' (who decides 'significant'? The lender), or 'significant devaluation of collateral' (which means if you house value drops like a rock, they can call the entire debt).
But they never do this because that would basically be the end of the lenders mortgage business. no one would want to do business with a company they actually exercises these rights. It's just a CYA move on their part.
EULAs are usually worded differently in different parts of world for that very reason. No contract trumps the law, unless you enter an 'agreement' to allow it beforehand. Which you did by accepting the EULA. Like prenuptial agreements (which override legal obligations for divorcees) or rental agreements (which can override a renters right to privacy (i.e. your landlord gets a key to your place if the agreement says so)).Can you cite a source for that statement the the EU disallows EULAs to be enforceable?
Every EULA I've ever read says something like 'if you do not agree with these terms return this to the retailer for a refund'. Remember the A stands for 'agreement'. If you don't agree, then get your money back.
Books have EULAs? Did not know that.
That would be a valid argument...if cars came with EULAs. But of interest, your car insurance kind of does. My policy states that I may lose my insurance (and with it, the privilege of legally driving), if I 'engage in unlawful or overtly reckless behavior' while driving.
It's a dick move for sure. Maybe even a little sneaky, but no, it's not fraud. When you purchased the machine, it came with a EULA that specifically said Sony could update the EULA at anytime for any reason. But most folks don't actually read those. And then they get hacked off and cry foul when Sony exercise its option to use the terms the user agreed to. Kinda like a mortgage agreement that you sign but don't actually read...
Now if Sony had a EULA that said some like 'this EULA is binding in perpetuity and supersedes any future updates', and then made bindign changes, that might be fraud.
EULAs say all kinds of crazy stuff that never actually get done. I seen ones that border on 'signing' away Constitutional rights. But I've ever heard of a single case of a legitimate, license-holding, console-owning user being forced to do something awful because of EULA verbage. Like buying a house. All real estate loans since forever ago allow the bank to 'call' the entire loan amount at any time for any reason. But they never actually do. They just was you to know they can.
If Sony releases a firmware update that pisses off more than a tiny percentage of users, they will undoubtedly reverse it. And if that tiny percentage of modders/cheaters/hobbyists or whatever else are really hacked off by the update, then they should sell their PS3's on Ebay for 80% of what you paid for it and move on with their lives for God's sake.
True dat. Noscript in FF has eliminated most (all?) the danger of visiting unknown sites. I go, get nothing but pure HTML. I see nothing unless I 'allow' a dozen scripts? Forget it. No well coded site needs multiple 3rd party scripts to function. The only sites I allow are my bank and a few government agencies. And for online shopping I use the 'temporarily allow' feature. Love that feature.
If I recall it was a WASP that killed 100's in Oklahoma City 15 years ago. I guess all white Americans of Irish descent are barbarous monsters? Does the mass-generalization of entire cultures, based on the horrific acts of a handful, not apply to the Western world? And remember all that absolutely factual sciences of yesteryear that now are considered laughably false? It was the Western world that taught the Earth was the center of the universe. It was the ancient Arab world that invented algebra. Tell me, which one is the fairy tale?
Not that I completely disagree with you. I do believe that the world religions will eventually bring about their own destruction by inciting wars and generally pissing off the entire planet.
The number associated with the current years means nothing. Advanced societies have moved away from ethereal concepts and toward more cool 'fairy tales' (i.e. string theory). But in cultures where advancement is centuries behind, those ethereal concepts are the only thing holding the communities together. One cultures sacred belief is another cultures nutball religion.
I think it's called the Patriot Act:
Oliver Queenan: All cell phone signals are under surveillance, due to the courtesy of our Federal friends over there.
Ellerby: Patriot Act, Patriot Act! I love it, I love it, I love it!
They say it's legal, and cite no sources (i.e.'we asked our lawyer"). They seem to indicate that since EU telco 'offer it for free', then it must be legal. I would love to see someone defend this in court; especially if they are using the system to track someone covertly.
Remember Islam is about 6 centuries younger than Christianity. Read some of the history of Christianity from the 1400's and you will find similar violent reactions of Jesus depicted in any non-sacred way. Jesus was not even portrayed in cinema until 1961's "King of King's".
So this has come full circle. As I've already said, I was not 'blaming' or 'critisizing' anyone. In fact, nearly my entire original statement was in the 1st person. Maybe I was blaming myself?
And as your own cited sources point out, if a person uses no force to enter, and no unlawful activity is intended, it's *not* B&E.
And it certainly *is* okay to enter a persons private residence without permission (as long as zero force is used and your permission has not been revoked by the owner). For example, a landscaper my be working on my yard and need to use the restroom. If he knocks and I don't answer, and opens the unlocked door, he is not committing a crime. I have given implied consent by hiring him to work on my property. I would have had to lock the door to remove any implied consent. Or, if your neighbor leaves his front door swinging open and you suspect something untoward you can legally enter, without permission, to see if everything is okay (but I would recommend you call the cops instead - in case there is a crime in progress).
But is getting way OT now....I just had a question about computer crime and if it is analogous.
If you consider the term 'relax junior' condescending and belligerent, then I am guessing you are living a very sheltered life. One day, when you're ready, you can buy yourself a legal dictionary and know how B&E are defined. Trust me, it's a bit more complex that what a Google search can give you.
Relax junior. I'm not blaming anyone. Just wondering how 'breaking in' is defined with regards to computer crime. For a home, the crime of 'breaking and entering' has a very specific definition. If the door was unlocked for example, and someone came in, it's not 'breaking in'.
Are they really 'breaking in'? If I leave a post-it on my front door that says 'key under mat', and someone uses that to get into my home, I don't believe that's 'breaking in'. So if I have a Gmail password of 'password123', and my account is compromised, can we call that 'breaking in'. Not really sure if computer crime is analogous in this way. Trespassing maybe...
I wish I could make sense bots. That would be awesome.
Jeez relax junior. No need to go all apostraphpocalypse on me.
Nice to see /. getting its' Tom Lehrer on...
Sharks gotta swim, and bats gotta fly, I gotta love one woman till I die. To Ed or Dick or Bob She may be just a slob, But to me, well, She's my girl. In winter the bedroom is one large ice cube, And she squeezes the toothpaste from the middle of the tube. Her hairs in the sink Have driven me to drink, But she's my girl, she's my girl, she's my girl, And I love her. The girl that I lament for, The girl my money's spent for, The girl my back is bent for, The girl I owe the rent for, The girl I gave up Lent for Is the girl that heaven meant for me. So though for breakfast she makes coffee that tastes like shampoo, I come home for dinner and get peanut butter stew, Or if I'm in luck, It's broiled hockey puck, But, oh well, what the hell, She's my girl, And I love her.
Meant to type 'digital printing industry'. :/
"...handle it internally with young [name redakted]... "