Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:"Not intentional". Right. (Score 1) 370

It is already a set precedent that in cases where this is true you can return a product if you do not agree with the TOS.

But that is not good enough I am sure. What needs to happen of course is that laws need to be passed to force companies to make the products you think they should make with a TOS you think they should have at a price you set.

Comment Re: "Not intentional". Right. (Score 1) 370

One of two things is true in this situation. Either your agreement allows them to make whatever changes they want or it does not.

If it allows this then the problem is you entered into a shitty contract upon purchase. Current law allows you to return a thing if the only way to see the agreement is after buying and you do not agree.

If the agreement you entered into does not allow this then they are already in violation of this agreement. Not only can you sue them for breech, but ... There are already laws that cover this type of behavior.

So. Either the customer made a bad agreement or the company is in breech of contract and perhaps already in violation of law. Where do we need a new law passed? Should we make illegal behavior illegal or should we make it against the law to put a thing in a contract that at a later date the customer no longer wants in place?

Comment Re:"Not intentional". Right. (Score 1) 370

My ultimate conclusion is that passing a law saying they can not do it is wrongheaded. It is solving a symptom, not a problem and hinders innovation.

Maybe some people will benefit from this. Possibly injected, targeted ads by the TV will lower the cost. Some people may want to trade for this. Who the fuck are you to tell them no? What makes you the person who knows what is right and what is not? Have you not learned from almost every fucking law passed in the last 20 years that it does not work?

Things do not get better this way. This is the real world. Where central planing and massive bureaucracies are worse than nothing at all. Learn from the past.

Comment Re:"Not intentional". Right. (Score 1) 370

Corporations have no obligation to be nice. They have no obligation to protect you. I have no obligation to be a good person. I am not obligated to protect you.

Corporations have an obligation to follow the laws and make a profit.

Expecting differently is a good way to be stupid. I am nice and protective of people in my life because I choose it. I am ok with people helping me out and protecting me, but I do not think others have an obligation to do it.

I am obligated to to protect me from my bad decisions.

Why are you so invested in a reality in which you have no control over the direction of your life? Have you make really bad decisions and want to blame something other than yourself for it?

Comment Re:"Not intentional". Right. (Score 1, Insightful) 370

Let me make this real clear.

It is not the responsibility of the government to protect people from their choices.

If only a few people care then those few will not buy from the manufacturer again. (Problem solved) If a bunch do it then companies lose business and change or exit the market. (Problem Solved) If they tell you in the TOS "You are shit and we will change your shit anytime we want." and you buy the device anyway "hoping" to not get screwed, ... I really don't care if later on you are not happy with your choice.

The need for the population to do everything possible to convince me that they are powerless, stupid and irresponsible amazes me. So many people are so lazy that they spend enormous amounts of energy to become as powerless over their lives as possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943

Working...