First off you have a trivial cable set up. You're orders of magnitude from "extreme."

With the setup you mention there's almost an infinite amount of solutions. Tape, twist ties, tubes, velcro, hooks, labels, etc.

Almost anything will work. Basically you have a laziness problem. When you ran the cable you didn't label it, or loop and tie, or use a cable hook, or do anything.

I use hooks for mouse and keyboard. Long net cables are wound and tied. Power cables are velcroed together near the PDU.

Honestly all you have to do is anything but what you're doing is adding cables with no organization.

When you're up to thousands of cables come back and we can talk about extreme solutions.

That's a nice story. Too bad men pat men and women pat women so it couldn't possibly be true.

Why would my bank ever send me an .exe?

You're talking about an unprotectable group. It doesn't matter how strong the door and locks are if the person inside opens it without checking who's there.

Number 2 is a major factor. One of the largest I think.

Every baby pirate goes through a phase where they download everything they can because well they can.

Even after that phase wears off so many things are downloaded that never get unpacked. Since the opportunity cost is almost zero why not down load something that you think you might maybe like. There's no downside to downloading it and never touching it.

Planes are more efficient than other means of long distance travel I have access to.

You're correct the "bandwidth" arguments is a lie.

They don't allow voice apps because they don't want people coordinating attacks with them.

It's impossible to coordinate something with irc, or email, or im, or twitter, or facebook.

No I don't. You keep claiming I claim that.

The 7th circuit is in the US. Thus they've been court tested in the US.

Ok. I'll use your jargon.

EU Betty only trusts OP Sue. RP Nancy doesn't trust OP Sue. Thus OpenID is not universal. It breaks very simply without trust.

The claim was that they were unenforceable. I showed they were.

By your logic every case has to make it to SCOTUS or it doesn't matter.

And that's it. Try again when you understand the legal system.

You could take them to court. But realistically yeah you're fucked either way.

If many people say the same inaccurate thing should you only correct one?

The comment I responded to said EULA weren't valid. My response accurately refutes that. You give a specific example not applicable to the point at hand since there is no download button mentioned.

The illegality of what they are doing was not mentioned nor responded to so your final sentence is off topic.

The 7th Circuit disagrees with you. EULA are legally tested and enforceable in the US.

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)

"The court held that Zeidenberg did accept the offer by clicking through. The court noted, "He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance." The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software. The court, in addition, noted the ability and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the UCC."

EULA are court tested in the US. They're very much binding.

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)

"The court held that Zeidenberg did accept the offer by clicking through. The court noted, "He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance." The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software. The court, in addition, noted the ability and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the UCC."

The feds say they can be enforced.

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)

Might is the wrong word. EULA are court tested in the US. EULA are legally binding.

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)

"The court held that Zeidenberg did accept the offer by clicking through. The court noted, "He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance." The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software. The court, in addition, noted the ability and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the UCC."