You appear to not know the legal definition of unconscionable.
No, you don't seem to know the legal definition of unconscionable. Contracts can are are allowed to be unfavorable. There is nothing wrong with that. (c.f. non-disclosure agreements in all standard settlements with major corporations.) The point on "unconscionable" comes when the terms are so unfavorable that it's wrong to expect that anyone should be held to their terms.
As I noted to someone else, a EULA could be drafted that says "By using this product, you are entitled to a $100,000 usage bonus by the company." This EULA would certainly not be draconian, or unconscionable... thus EULAs are not by definition unconscionable. Even if they are as drafted now typically unfavorable, and in some cases have been found to have unconscionable clauses. Note: due to servability clauses, typically an unconscionable clause will only be stricken from the contract, while the rest of the contract remains valid. Unless that clause is central to the contract, then it will not void the entire contract.
Example: a EULA says that you cannot use this software on anything but a genuine Apple branded product, and that you are not allowed to make backups of the software, with a severability clause. It's taken to court, the "no backups" is found to be unconscionable as it violates fair-use rights, but the "cannot use this software on anything but genuine Apple branded products" is upheld, and enforced.
Next example: a EULA says you cannot make backup copies, because if you ever have a problem with your installation media, you can contact the company for a replacement. It's taken to court, while the clause does violate fair-use rights, it addresses an alternative that meets all the concerns for why fair-use allows for backups in the first place. It is thus upheld. (You are allowed to forfeit rights, as long as you receive just consideration for doing so. Receiving a right to free replacement of installation media in exchange for a forfeit of backup rights is perfectly just.)
So, I've rambled a lot, but this is my point: EULAs are not by definition unconscionable. Some have been found to have unconscionable clauses, and those clauses have been excised on a per-judgement basis only, because nothing about EULAs in inherently unconscionable. (c.f. above, where I note the lottery winner EULA.)
Yes, because I could hand a ream of Pascal code to my non-computer-programming mother, and ask her to describe what the program does.
Give it a try sometime, the outcome might surprise you.
I find this assertion unlikely.
By the way, the EULAs and other types of standard form contracts are explicitly written to screw you in as many ways as possible. That is well known and accepted by German courts, so such contracts or parts of it can very easily be declared invalid because they are either unlawful, constrain one side too hard or are otherwise unconscientious (don't know if it is the right word, English is not my native tongue).
Not a lawyer, but I used to fuck one and I still miss her.
You Sir, seem to understand "unconscionable" way better than the vast majority of people responding to me... even though you don't remember the word.
Yes, EULAs as currently done are pretty much written with the intent to screw you. This however does not mean that EULAs are by definition unconscionable, just that most (all?) of them drafted so far are unconscionable.
The lawyers only battle through the wording because they can battle through it. I know, I have a whole family full of them.
Granted.
Every last one of them will agree, rewriting in plain speech is not a problem and can easily be done with a little thought thrown at it.
But doing so introduces ambiguity, and more opportunities for lawyers to battle about wording. And when the judge comes down on what the contract really said, they open themselves up to "the other party's interpretation is correct". So, better to be excruciatingly clear about the intent in the contract, and ensure that the judge is much more likely to agree with you.
Especially, on a boilerplate contract, where the rules of construction require the judge to rule every ambiguity against the drafting party.
Not quite what I meant. They're typically so ridiculously long and difficult for the average person to understand that no one reads them. I don't mean just using words with different means. I mean using rather obscure legal terms when others would suffice.
They use obscure legal terms, because the obscure legal terms have defined and set meanings. When I talk about my "issue" in a will, it is clear that I mean all of my children, rather than "heir" which means any who stand to inherit (your spouse is an "heir" but not an "issue"). Thus, I may want to leave $100,000 to all of my issue, but not to all of my heirs. (Because I want to give a radio flyer to my brother, because we used to play on it as children, and thus he is an heir, but I don't want him to receive a $100,000 inheritance along with that radio flyer. I only want that to go my children.) "So, why don't they just use the term children"? Because if one of my children had a grandchild, then that grandchild is also an "issue", and would receive its due $100,000. And if that grandchild had a child, then that great-grandchild would also receive its due $100,000. So, the only other option to "all of my issue are to receive a $100,000 inheritance" is "my children and all descendants of my children are each to receive a $100,000 inheritance".
A bank teller argues that he didn't steal the money, because people willingly gave him the money without force or coercion, thus there was no theft. He's technically correct, and beats the theft charge.
Sounds like something other than outright theft happened.
This is the specific story of how "embezzlement" came to exist. It serves as a really nice example of how loopholes in the language of law can accidentally let someone get away with a crime. The only solution is to "patch" the law, and put in a new form of theft, where the money is taken when given in trust, and now people can't get away with crimes anymore, but now we have yet another legal term on the books.
That's a crock of shit. There are bills out there that are nothing but legal rhetoric when they could have just as easily said "No corporation can force an employee to sign a contract that would in any way hinder their ability to gain employment after they leave the corporation" "A corporation is defined as any business that is legally registered as a business in any state".
I added emphasis to your text in order to demonstrate the keyword in my legal loophole. We didn't force anyone to sign a contract with a non-compete clause. They were well within their rights to decline to sign the contract, and not be employed by our company. As there was no contract that we offer or guarantee him employment, we're well within our rights to decline employment to any person under any conditions we desire. Declining to sign the non-compete contract is one of those. No force involved, just conditioned employment.
As the individual chose to enter into the non-compete clause of their own freewill without any force, the contract is valid, and shall stand up in court.
Holy shit, I just re-wrote non-compete laws in less than 90 pages....AND people can understand it.
Hint, if you think you solved in one sentence what lawyers who fucking do this for a living haven't been able to solve in decades of intense adversarial battles... you're wrong.
I doubt most people know how to program to begin with. And if the code can be simplified, then I believe that it should. No point in making it unnecessarily complicated.
a bug in a computer program means a computer crash, but a bug in a legal document means a loophole.
That doesn't explain why they make the legal documents so difficult to understand for the average person. I'm sure there are many ways to do it that would make them readable for the average person.
Because the terms "sell" "convey" and "transfer" all have different meanings, and so the contract has to cover each of those possibilities. Otherwise, let's say that the law simply says that you can't sell or transfer your property to an heir immediately prior to your death without it incurring inheritance tax. Oh, except because I gifted the property in a conveyance, rather than sell or transfer it, I am now outside of the condition of the law, and I'm A1 double plus good ok with the law!
Or better yet, a real world example from history: A bank teller argues that he didn't steal the money, because people willingly gave him the money without force or coercion, thus there was no theft. He's technically correct, and beats the theft charge.
This right here. I'm surprise at how many computer geeks think that making laws into plain English will accomplish anything. It's like, hey, fine, let's require you to do all of your programming in simple and plain English, rather than these arcane scribbles and symbols and grammars!
These "arcane scribbles" is the legacy of C and people who were too lazy to type a few characters more than absolutely necessary. This is not the only way to write software. Programming languages like Pascal are, for most cases, simple and plain English without ambiguity and undefined behavior and where a symbol like * has got exactly one meaning instead of four possible interpretations that depend on the context.
Yes, because I could hand a ream of Pascal code to my non-computer-programming mother, and ask her to describe what the program does.
It doesn't matter how "simple" the programming language, it's going to be arcane, and require training and/or experience to understanding. The idea that people think that any layperson should be able to sit down with the USC and understand it, with all of its nuances and variations is pretty amazing... almost amazing as thinking that just because Pascal syntax is clearer and less-ambiguous that any layperson would be able to understand it perfectly.
You can only see the contract after you have paid for it, and there is no clear procedure to get you money back.
If that is not draconian, what is it? It doesn't matter what the contract says.
I said that they are typically draconian. However, a EULA could very well be written that states that by using their software you are granted the reward of $1 million USD. Such a EULA would not be draconian, and it would certainly not be unconscionable.
Thus, there is nothing inherent to EULAs that make them unconscionable or draconian. It's just the way that they've so often been done that makes them draconian, (but not unconscionable).
I don't think that they are unconscionable by default. Sure the vast majority (every single one?) that I've bothered to consult has been pretty draconian, but there is nothing inherent in the idea of a EULA that makes it unconscionable.
I am not a lawyer, but I do know this... The term "unconscionable" when referring to contracts has a very specific legal meaning. And by that definition, EULAs are inherently unconscionable. They can't help it. They don't allow negotiation of terms. They are 'agreed' to after money changes hands. The signature of the party who is under the most restrictions isn't even verified. They are, by the strict legal definition of the term, inherently unconscionable.
Yes, the terms could be very nice. But whether or not the terms are good for the buyer doesn't actually strongly figure into whether or not a contract is considered 'unconscionable' from a legal standpoint.
Yes, "unconscionable" has a specific meaning. It typically means "a contract is held to be unenforceable because the consideration offered is lacking or is so obviously inadequate that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract."
Note, this does not cover negotiability of terms. (Non-negotiable contracts or "boiler-plate contracts" can still be entirely conscionable.) Nothing about money changing hands prior to agreement makes the contract unconscionable. Use of the product in exchange for conditions of use is entirely acceptable consideration. The signature of a party is not required for anything but those covered by the Statute of frauds (which lays out the requirements for written and verified contracts): considerations for marriage, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, transfer of land, an executor of a will paying with his own money, sale of goods in excess of $500, and surety. Certainly, nothing about a contract not verifying signatures or parties means that one doesn't get a fair shake in the deal. In fact, the vast majority of contracts that you enter into aren't even written, let alone verified signatures.
I am not a lawyer
Indeed you are not, and you should probably attempt to not be one on the internet, or at least try A LOT harder... for example, consult Wikipedia about the legal topic you're attempting to argue for/against/about before you actually post a comment... because nothing about a EULA implies automatically that it is unconscionable.
They're non-negotiable contracts between unequal parties where the signature isn't even verified and the contract isn't presented until -after- money has changed hands. Nothing about them is conscionable
None of that makes a contract unconscionable. It makes a shitty contract, that you're probably better off declining to agree to, but it does not make it unconscionable.
Give me a proper contract to consider and maybe sign or don't bother me.
I feel the same way about everything I purchase. That $0.99 candy bar? I want to sign a real pen-and-paper contract; I mean if you're so lazy that you fall back on implied verbal contracts, then why bother me? I'm happy to leave you and go get my candy bar from someone who cares enough to sell out even the most mundane of contracts in ink, with signatures, and lawyers.
Not saying slimy lobbyists and politicians (or their staffers) don't intentionally obsfucate bills for their own gain, but there is a reason for the dense & hard to decipher language (namely, you're not trained to be able to read it). From TFA, I rather like the "Human Friendly Summary" sitting next to the legalese.
This right here. I'm surprise at how many computer geeks think that making laws into plain English will accomplish anything. It's like, hey, fine, let's require you to do all of your programming in simple and plain English, rather than these arcane scribbles and symbols and grammars!
Legal documents are dense legalese for a reason: a bug in a computer program means a computer crash, but a bug in a legal document means a loophole. Everyone wants to close loopholes, but no one thinks about how that causes the dense legalese that we need trained professionals to interpret.
They are an attempt to form a unconscionable (in the legal sense) contract with thousands of people.
I don't think that they are unconscionable by default. Sure the vast majority (every single one?) that I've bothered to consult has been pretty draconian, but there is nothing inherent in the idea of a EULA that makes it unconscionable.
I suppose this article is trying to point to the possibility that "hey, they don't have to be unconscionable, so why don't we start trying to fix it so that they're not!"
First, if a system is that good, then managers won't be able to game it to play favorites.
This is the most likely reason I see why no performance metric that works would actually be picked up. The ideal rating system for a corrupt manager is one where everyone is rated poorly, and then you selectively absolve bad performance metrics for anyone you don't want fired.
Of course, one also has to be careful in this situation and not have employees discuss their performance ratings, and especially don't have anyone else in management discuss performance rating absolutions. Think of the horrible legal shit storm you would get into if you rated one employee really poorly in one area, and then later that employee hears in a random meeting from your boss's boss that no one actually met that rating, and so if we held people to that rating, then no one would qualify as a good employee! Be sure once that event has actually happened though to stop recommending that every employee go to these diverse group weekly meetings...
So the survey included twice as many boys as girls in the treatment group, and three times as many girls as boys in the control group?
Actually, from what I was able to gather, it appears that the groups were self-selected. As such, the brain differences are correlated with people who play video games, rather than having any impact upon those brains.
Study shows that people who use bras have larger breasts than people who don't... obviously, this means that using bras causes large breasts!... at least, that would be the media's explanation. I'm certain that the scientists in this study are fully aware that they're simply demonstrating an interesting correlation, and not suggesting any sort of cause-effect relationship...
Simple, it is called posse comitatus, though it doesn't seem that it was violated if the Fed's were just advisors. Heck I don't know if it applies to DHS or the FBI, it was as a result of a compromise after reconstruction. It basically banned the use of the Army to enforce local laws, the southerners didn't like it cause it let them selectively enforce their laws depending on a persons race which messed up their world view.
No, posse comitatus does not apply to the DHS or the FBI. If it did, the FBI couldn't even exist. The Posse Comitatus Act of the USA holds that the US Army, and by extension any off-shoot thereof (the US Air Force) cannot be used as a a law enforcement agency. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the Federal government having its own law enforcement agencies, only that the US Army cannot serve as one.
I mean, think about it. Carmack developed this algorithm. Now he's trying to open source it and share it with the world for free. AND A PATENT IS PREVENTING THIS. Show me how patents "help protect innovation and creativity." This is so backwards it hurts.
Under the conditions of obtaining a patent, Creative has already released all the details necessary to reproduce the process/algorithm/whatever. So the whole notion of "this is preventing the information from getting out to the public" is wrong. It's already on public record.
Patents "help protect innovation and creativity", because one has to release the details about how to do whatever it is that they're patenting. Once the patent ends, anyone can pull up the patent information and reproduce it. The process won't go to anyone's grave, nor will it forever remain a secret. It's already public record before they even get the papers granting the patent.
None of your argument touches the idea that our culture teaches us that speeding is "perfectly acceptable".
As with all crimes, there are justifying exceptions, that in fact, some courts will even recognize. For instance in Washington state, if someone is "holding a gun to your head", you are excused from any crime except murder. As well, causing property damage is better than killing someone, so while driving your car such that you take out a light post is usually illegal, if you're doing it to prevent someone's death, it becomes justified via "necessity".
The idea that "something is wrong EXCEPT IF IT IS JUSTIFYABLE [sic]" is some crazy thought that only some people believe is fundamentally wrong, because EVERYONE thinks that way. That being said, we now can discard the notion that only other cultures are teaching kids that cheating is ok, if it is justifiable, because Americans teach that as well. (For instance, some students have committed outright plagiary in order to catch biased grading by a teacher.)
And having discarded that notion that only other cultures teach their kids that, there remains no rational reason to state that "those damn furriners are taught cheatin' is ok!"
Apparently, there are a number of drugs that are in this same situation.
Alcohol would be the obvious comparison. It causes more fatalities for the user, and more fatalities to innocent bystanders not to mention the social implications, depression, and abuse than any other illegal drug in existance.
It's another case of a mind altering drug that would be heavily regulated if it were discovered in todays society.
Marijuana was also around well before the FDA, yet it is banned. And alcohol was banned itself for awhile, as well as being restricted or banned in a whole bunch of religions.
What I was attempting to point to were medical drugs that are not FDA-approved, but since they are known to be efficacious and were around before the FDA, the FDA labeled them with "around before us", and thus they were acceptable to use as MEDICAL drugs.
The whole history of recreational drugs is a long and different affair.
Slashdot Mirror
You can take out the ambiguity and still use simple speech.
Keep telling yourself that.
... by some bizarre attachment people had to creating multi-megabyte postage-stamp-sized 256-color videos with no sound using an image file format.
but zOMG kittehs!
You appear to not know the legal definition of unconscionable.
No, you don't seem to know the legal definition of unconscionable. Contracts can are are allowed to be unfavorable. There is nothing wrong with that. (c.f. non-disclosure agreements in all standard settlements with major corporations.) The point on "unconscionable" comes when the terms are so unfavorable that it's wrong to expect that anyone should be held to their terms.
As I noted to someone else, a EULA could be drafted that says "By using this product, you are entitled to a $100,000 usage bonus by the company." This EULA would certainly not be draconian, or unconscionable... thus EULAs are not by definition unconscionable. Even if they are as drafted now typically unfavorable, and in some cases have been found to have unconscionable clauses. Note: due to servability clauses, typically an unconscionable clause will only be stricken from the contract, while the rest of the contract remains valid. Unless that clause is central to the contract, then it will not void the entire contract.
Example: a EULA says that you cannot use this software on anything but a genuine Apple branded product, and that you are not allowed to make backups of the software, with a severability clause. It's taken to court, the "no backups" is found to be unconscionable as it violates fair-use rights, but the "cannot use this software on anything but genuine Apple branded products" is upheld, and enforced.
Next example: a EULA says you cannot make backup copies, because if you ever have a problem with your installation media, you can contact the company for a replacement. It's taken to court, while the clause does violate fair-use rights, it addresses an alternative that meets all the concerns for why fair-use allows for backups in the first place. It is thus upheld. (You are allowed to forfeit rights, as long as you receive just consideration for doing so. Receiving a right to free replacement of installation media in exchange for a forfeit of backup rights is perfectly just.)
So, I've rambled a lot, but this is my point: EULAs are not by definition unconscionable. Some have been found to have unconscionable clauses, and those clauses have been excised on a per-judgement basis only, because nothing about EULAs in inherently unconscionable. (c.f. above, where I note the lottery winner EULA.)
Give it a try sometime, the outcome might surprise you.
I find this assertion unlikely.
By the way, the EULAs and other types of standard form contracts are explicitly written to screw you in as many ways as possible. That is well known and accepted by German courts, so such contracts or parts of it can very easily be declared invalid because they are either unlawful, constrain one side too hard or are otherwise unconscientious (don't know if it is the right word, English is not my native tongue).
Not a lawyer, but I used to fuck one and I still miss her.
You Sir, seem to understand "unconscionable" way better than the vast majority of people responding to me... even though you don't remember the word.
Yes, EULAs as currently done are pretty much written with the intent to screw you. This however does not mean that EULAs are by definition unconscionable, just that most (all?) of them drafted so far are unconscionable.
The lawyers only battle through the wording because they can battle through it. I know, I have a whole family full of them.
Granted.
Every last one of them will agree, rewriting in plain speech is not a problem and can easily be done with a little thought thrown at it.
But doing so introduces ambiguity, and more opportunities for lawyers to battle about wording. And when the judge comes down on what the contract really said, they open themselves up to "the other party's interpretation is correct". So, better to be excruciatingly clear about the intent in the contract, and ensure that the judge is much more likely to agree with you.
Especially, on a boilerplate contract, where the rules of construction require the judge to rule every ambiguity against the drafting party.
Not quite what I meant. They're typically so ridiculously long and difficult for the average person to understand that no one reads them. I don't mean just using words with different means. I mean using rather obscure legal terms when others would suffice.
They use obscure legal terms, because the obscure legal terms have defined and set meanings. When I talk about my "issue" in a will, it is clear that I mean all of my children, rather than "heir" which means any who stand to inherit (your spouse is an "heir" but not an "issue"). Thus, I may want to leave $100,000 to all of my issue, but not to all of my heirs. (Because I want to give a radio flyer to my brother, because we used to play on it as children, and thus he is an heir, but I don't want him to receive a $100,000 inheritance along with that radio flyer. I only want that to go my children.) "So, why don't they just use the term children"? Because if one of my children had a grandchild, then that grandchild is also an "issue", and would receive its due $100,000. And if that grandchild had a child, then that great-grandchild would also receive its due $100,000. So, the only other option to "all of my issue are to receive a $100,000 inheritance" is "my children and all descendants of my children are each to receive a $100,000 inheritance".
A bank teller argues that he didn't steal the money, because people willingly gave him the money without force or coercion, thus there was no theft. He's technically correct, and beats the theft charge.
Sounds like something other than outright theft happened.
This is the specific story of how "embezzlement" came to exist. It serves as a really nice example of how loopholes in the language of law can accidentally let someone get away with a crime. The only solution is to "patch" the law, and put in a new form of theft, where the money is taken when given in trust, and now people can't get away with crimes anymore, but now we have yet another legal term on the books.
Oh, like how I can always spot the women who are full of drama, because they keep saying, "I won't put up with drama!"?
Seriously, the friends that I've had who have been most vehemently against "drama" have always been the swirling torrent of drama in their own lives.
That's a crock of shit. There are bills out there that are nothing but legal rhetoric when they could have just as easily said "No corporation can force an employee to sign a contract that would in any way hinder their ability to gain employment after they leave the corporation" "A corporation is defined as any business that is legally registered as a business in any state".
I added emphasis to your text in order to demonstrate the keyword in my legal loophole. We didn't force anyone to sign a contract with a non-compete clause. They were well within their rights to decline to sign the contract, and not be employed by our company. As there was no contract that we offer or guarantee him employment, we're well within our rights to decline employment to any person under any conditions we desire. Declining to sign the non-compete contract is one of those. No force involved, just conditioned employment.
As the individual chose to enter into the non-compete clause of their own freewill without any force, the contract is valid, and shall stand up in court.
Holy shit, I just re-wrote non-compete laws in less than 90 pages....AND people can understand it.
Hint, if you think you solved in one sentence what lawyers who fucking do this for a living haven't been able to solve in decades of intense adversarial battles... you're wrong.
I doubt most people know how to program to begin with. And if the code can be simplified, then I believe that it should. No point in making it unnecessarily complicated.
a bug in a computer program means a computer crash, but a bug in a legal document means a loophole.
That doesn't explain why they make the legal documents so difficult to understand for the average person. I'm sure there are many ways to do it that would make them readable for the average person.
Because the terms "sell" "convey" and "transfer" all have different meanings, and so the contract has to cover each of those possibilities. Otherwise, let's say that the law simply says that you can't sell or transfer your property to an heir immediately prior to your death without it incurring inheritance tax. Oh, except because I gifted the property in a conveyance, rather than sell or transfer it, I am now outside of the condition of the law, and I'm A1 double plus good ok with the law!
Or better yet, a real world example from history: A bank teller argues that he didn't steal the money, because people willingly gave him the money without force or coercion, thus there was no theft. He's technically correct, and beats the theft charge.
These "arcane scribbles" is the legacy of C and people who were too lazy to type a few characters more than absolutely necessary. This is not the only way to write software. Programming languages like Pascal are, for most cases, simple and plain English without ambiguity and undefined behavior and where a symbol like * has got exactly one meaning instead of four possible interpretations that depend on the context.
Yes, because I could hand a ream of Pascal code to my non-computer-programming mother, and ask her to describe what the program does.
It doesn't matter how "simple" the programming language, it's going to be arcane, and require training and/or experience to understanding. The idea that people think that any layperson should be able to sit down with the USC and understand it, with all of its nuances and variations is pretty amazing... almost amazing as thinking that just because Pascal syntax is clearer and less-ambiguous that any layperson would be able to understand it perfectly.
You can only see the contract after you have paid for it, and there is no clear procedure to get you money back.
If that is not draconian, what is it? It doesn't matter what the contract says.
I said that they are typically draconian. However, a EULA could very well be written that states that by using their software you are granted the reward of $1 million USD. Such a EULA would not be draconian, and it would certainly not be unconscionable.
Thus, there is nothing inherent to EULAs that make them unconscionable or draconian. It's just the way that they've so often been done that makes them draconian, (but not unconscionable).
I don't think that they are unconscionable by default. Sure the vast majority (every single one?) that I've bothered to consult has been pretty draconian, but there is nothing inherent in the idea of a EULA that makes it unconscionable.
I am not a lawyer, but I do know this... The term "unconscionable" when referring to contracts has a very specific legal meaning. And by that definition, EULAs are inherently unconscionable. They can't help it. They don't allow negotiation of terms. They are 'agreed' to after money changes hands. The signature of the party who is under the most restrictions isn't even verified. They are, by the strict legal definition of the term, inherently unconscionable.
Yes, the terms could be very nice. But whether or not the terms are good for the buyer doesn't actually strongly figure into whether or not a contract is considered 'unconscionable' from a legal standpoint.
Yes, "unconscionable" has a specific meaning. It typically means "a contract is held to be unenforceable because the consideration offered is lacking or is so obviously inadequate that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract."
Note, this does not cover negotiability of terms. (Non-negotiable contracts or "boiler-plate contracts" can still be entirely conscionable.) Nothing about money changing hands prior to agreement makes the contract unconscionable. Use of the product in exchange for conditions of use is entirely acceptable consideration. The signature of a party is not required for anything but those covered by the Statute of frauds (which lays out the requirements for written and verified contracts): considerations for marriage, contracts that cannot be performed within one year, transfer of land, an executor of a will paying with his own money, sale of goods in excess of $500, and surety. Certainly, nothing about a contract not verifying signatures or parties means that one doesn't get a fair shake in the deal. In fact, the vast majority of contracts that you enter into aren't even written, let alone verified signatures.
I am not a lawyer
Indeed you are not, and you should probably attempt to not be one on the internet, or at least try A LOT harder... for example, consult Wikipedia about the legal topic you're attempting to argue for/against/about before you actually post a comment... because nothing about a EULA implies automatically that it is unconscionable.
They're non-negotiable contracts between unequal parties where the signature isn't even verified and the contract isn't presented until -after- money has changed hands. Nothing about them is conscionable
None of that makes a contract unconscionable. It makes a shitty contract, that you're probably better off declining to agree to, but it does not make it unconscionable.
You, Sir, win at the internets.
Give me a proper contract to consider and maybe sign or don't bother me.
I feel the same way about everything I purchase. That $0.99 candy bar? I want to sign a real pen-and-paper contract; I mean if you're so lazy that you fall back on implied verbal contracts, then why bother me? I'm happy to leave you and go get my candy bar from someone who cares enough to sell out even the most mundane of contracts in ink, with signatures, and lawyers.
Not saying slimy lobbyists and politicians (or their staffers) don't intentionally obsfucate bills for their own gain, but there is a reason for the dense & hard to decipher language (namely, you're not trained to be able to read it). From TFA, I rather like the "Human Friendly Summary" sitting next to the legalese.
This right here. I'm surprise at how many computer geeks think that making laws into plain English will accomplish anything. It's like, hey, fine, let's require you to do all of your programming in simple and plain English, rather than these arcane scribbles and symbols and grammars!
Legal documents are dense legalese for a reason: a bug in a computer program means a computer crash, but a bug in a legal document means a loophole. Everyone wants to close loopholes, but no one thinks about how that causes the dense legalese that we need trained professionals to interpret.
They are an attempt to form a unconscionable (in the legal sense) contract with thousands of people.
I don't think that they are unconscionable by default. Sure the vast majority (every single one?) that I've bothered to consult has been pretty draconian, but there is nothing inherent in the idea of a EULA that makes it unconscionable.
I suppose this article is trying to point to the possibility that "hey, they don't have to be unconscionable, so why don't we start trying to fix it so that they're not!"
First, if a system is that good, then managers won't be able to game it to play favorites.
This is the most likely reason I see why no performance metric that works would actually be picked up. The ideal rating system for a corrupt manager is one where everyone is rated poorly, and then you selectively absolve bad performance metrics for anyone you don't want fired.
Of course, one also has to be careful in this situation and not have employees discuss their performance ratings, and especially don't have anyone else in management discuss performance rating absolutions. Think of the horrible legal shit storm you would get into if you rated one employee really poorly in one area, and then later that employee hears in a random meeting from your boss's boss that no one actually met that rating, and so if we held people to that rating, then no one would qualify as a good employee! Be sure once that event has actually happened though to stop recommending that every employee go to these diverse group weekly meetings...
So the survey included twice as many boys as girls in the treatment group, and three times as many girls as boys in the control group?
Actually, from what I was able to gather, it appears that the groups were self-selected. As such, the brain differences are correlated with people who play video games, rather than having any impact upon those brains.
Study shows that people who use bras have larger breasts than people who don't... obviously, this means that using bras causes large breasts! ... at least, that would be the media's explanation. I'm certain that the scientists in this study are fully aware that they're simply demonstrating an interesting correlation, and not suggesting any sort of cause-effect relationship...
Simple, it is called posse comitatus, though it doesn't seem that it was violated if the Fed's were just advisors. Heck I don't know if it applies to DHS or the FBI, it was as a result of a compromise after reconstruction. It basically banned the use of the Army to enforce local laws, the southerners didn't like it cause it let them selectively enforce their laws depending on a persons race which messed up their world view.
No, posse comitatus does not apply to the DHS or the FBI. If it did, the FBI couldn't even exist. The Posse Comitatus Act of the USA holds that the US Army, and by extension any off-shoot thereof (the US Air Force) cannot be used as a a law enforcement agency. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the Federal government having its own law enforcement agencies, only that the US Army cannot serve as one.
I mean, think about it. Carmack developed this algorithm. Now he's trying to open source it and share it with the world for free. AND A PATENT IS PREVENTING THIS. Show me how patents "help protect innovation and creativity." This is so backwards it hurts.
Under the conditions of obtaining a patent, Creative has already released all the details necessary to reproduce the process/algorithm/whatever. So the whole notion of "this is preventing the information from getting out to the public" is wrong. It's already on public record.
Patents "help protect innovation and creativity", because one has to release the details about how to do whatever it is that they're patenting. Once the patent ends, anyone can pull up the patent information and reproduce it. The process won't go to anyone's grave, nor will it forever remain a secret. It's already public record before they even get the papers granting the patent.
That is just what the insurance companies want you to think.
Actually, since the insurance company is pretty sure that the end of the world won't happen, they would rather you buy the insurance....
*continues stabbing the joke more to make sure it's entirely dead.*
None of your argument touches the idea that our culture teaches us that speeding is "perfectly acceptable".
As with all crimes, there are justifying exceptions, that in fact, some courts will even recognize. For instance in Washington state, if someone is "holding a gun to your head", you are excused from any crime except murder. As well, causing property damage is better than killing someone, so while driving your car such that you take out a light post is usually illegal, if you're doing it to prevent someone's death, it becomes justified via "necessity".
The idea that "something is wrong EXCEPT IF IT IS JUSTIFYABLE [sic]" is some crazy thought that only some people believe is fundamentally wrong, because EVERYONE thinks that way. That being said, we now can discard the notion that only other cultures are teaching kids that cheating is ok, if it is justifiable, because Americans teach that as well. (For instance, some students have committed outright plagiary in order to catch biased grading by a teacher.)
And having discarded that notion that only other cultures teach their kids that, there remains no rational reason to state that "those damn furriners are taught cheatin' is ok!"
Apparently, there are a number of drugs that are in this same situation.
Alcohol would be the obvious comparison. It causes more fatalities for the user, and more fatalities to innocent bystanders not to mention the social implications, depression, and abuse than any other illegal drug in existance.
It's another case of a mind altering drug that would be heavily regulated if it were discovered in todays society.
Marijuana was also around well before the FDA, yet it is banned. And alcohol was banned itself for awhile, as well as being restricted or banned in a whole bunch of religions.
What I was attempting to point to were medical drugs that are not FDA-approved, but since they are known to be efficacious and were around before the FDA, the FDA labeled them with "around before us", and thus they were acceptable to use as MEDICAL drugs.
The whole history of recreational drugs is a long and different affair.
You can't insure against the universe-ending explosion! You would never be able to collect!