Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts

Lineage II Addiction Lawsuit Makes It Past the EULA 267

Posted by Soulskill
from the four-little-letters dept.
We recently discussed a man who sued NCsoft for making Lineage II "too addictive" after he spent 20,000 hours over five years playing it. Now, several readers have pointed out that the lawsuit has progressed past its first major hurdle: the EULA. Quoting: "NC Interactive has responded the way most software companies and online services have for more than a decade: it argued that the claims are barred by its end-user license agreement, which in this case capped the company's liability to the amount Smallwood paid in fees over six months prior to his filing his complaint (or thereabouts). One portion of the EULA specifically stated that lawsuits could only be brought in Texas state court in Travis County, where NC Interactive is located. ... But the judge in this case, US District Judge Alan C. Kay, noted that both Texas and Hawaii law bar contract provisions that waive in advance the ability to make gross-negligence claims. He also declined to dismiss Smallwood's claims for negligence, defamation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress."

Comment: Re:Confirmation hell? (Score 1) 296

by LordKazan (#32057160) Attached to: What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?

I Stopped reading your post when you said "aggressively leaving the opposition out of even the most trivial policy discussions." that's egregiously dishonest - as it is well known to be false. Obama fucked the healthcare bill by allowing more and more compromise with republicans in an attempt to get them on board WHEN NO MATTER WHAT THE WERE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT.

Did the Administration and the Democratic leadership remove any one of those compromises they made, that failed to get any republican support? NOPE!

There were more republican amendments than democratic amendments, but obviously they're "aggressively leaving the opposition out of even the most trivial policy discussions.".

Your dishonest is astounding. Who modded parent insightful? you should be ashamed of yourself.

I guess it is too much to ask for something to have to be accurate to be insightful.

Comment: Re:Confirmation hell? (Score 1) 296

by LordKazan (#32057114) Attached to: What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?

plausible, but sounds like an attempt at character assassination. It also ignores the simple fact that: we cannot drill our way out of a situation not created (in the short term) by limited supply, but by market manipulation thanks to Bush II energy market deregulation.

in the long run "Drill, baby, Drill" just delays the inevitable, and the longer the inevitable solution to other power generation sources is delayed the more money is wasted (over time, and at the eventual forced conversion).

Comment: Re:Tariffs are a comin'.... (Score 3, Insightful) 790

by LordKazan (#31750938) Attached to: Net Neutrality Suffers Major Setback

>You really think that such improvements would happen in a hyper-regulated marketplace?

As evidence by Europe: yes.

Note: basic consumer protection is not "hyper-regulated", only an ignorant anarchocapitalist thinks that kinda crap - and considering implementing even a few of the anarchocapitalist deregulatory wet dreams led to the current recession: why the @#%$ should we listen to you?

Comment: Re:Who advocated rounding up the arab population? (Score 1) 902

by LordKazan (#31613666) Attached to: Will Your Answers To the Census Stay Private?

"There's a pretty strong current of entertainment in her work"

yeah just like "Rush Limbaugh is entertainment"

bullshit. they're hate mongers who make money off kicking people with fearful personality types (this is scientific fact if you've been paying attention) into a fear frenzy so that their $-masters can do what they want.

Comment: Re:first post? (Score 1) 902

by LordKazan (#31613478) Attached to: Will Your Answers To the Census Stay Private?

Someone who knew what the bill was :D good. I was hoping an informed person would actually crawl out of the framework.

As a progressive and a defender of the collective right to gun ownership (voting is also a collective right) - i have no issue with a well formulated assault weapons ban. One more formulated than "scary looking guns" - ie weapons that can be easily altered to fully automatic, etc.

The simple fact is that the claim that "more guns make for a safer society" is proven unequivocally wrong by global statistics. So I'm not gun up on guns.

I believe that you should have the right to own guns, but I also believe that right comes with the responsibility to prove that you can be trusted with them. I also believe that right, like many other rights, is subject to reasonable restriction.

Yes he has failed to fulfill a campaign promise thus far (renew the AWB), but he never vowed not to let them into national parks. The idea that you couldn't take a rifle into national parks is also retarded, some of those parks are vast and if you're back country camping you might need that rifle to defend yourself against a large predator. (not likely if you're careful, but it can happen)

Comment: Re:Useful to whom? The racists who care about skin (Score 1) 902

by LordKazan (#31613356) Attached to: Will Your Answers To the Census Stay Private?

sorry, but you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Legislation requires a simple majority. Only constitutional amendments require a supermajority per the constitution. Cloture and Filibusters are merely a senate rule, and can be changed if the senate so wishes it - in fact they need to be changed as the "filibuster without consequences" we have today is being abused.

The Health Insurance Reform act is entirely constitutional as set out by standing caselaw, as is the "individual mandate" (the item most claimed to be supposedly unconstitutional) as it is merely enforced by tax code - tax code is something the federal government has broad and explicit authority on.

The entire idea that "the only goal of government is to make itself bigger" shows a warped view of the world.

The only goal of government is to serve it's protect - to protect them from threats both foreign and domestic, to help them secure the fruits of liberty and prosperity.

Sometimes the best way for the government to do some of those things is to do nothing, some times it is to enforce regulation, sometime it is to raise an army and defend against an aggressor, and sometimes it requires removing the greet motive from interfering with security the fruits of prosperity for the most people.

The idea that "the smaller the government the better" means that the best form of government is no government. Guess what happens then? warlords.

Stop thinking about politics in macros and soundbytes and start actually thinking.

"Indecision is the basis of flexibility" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Working...