And yet this got modded up twice as insightful.
The science denier is strong on slashdot.
The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record.
that's a funny claim to make when the fact is the hottest year in our very short records was 1998.
A comment on some blog is not a contract.
And good luck making that stick, Microsoft's income is probably larger then your countries GNP.
Apart from the ridiculous tone of your comment, you seem to be under the false impression that Microsoft made those promises and/or that you made your purchase from Microsoft. Neither of those is the case.
Nope, I'm not under that impression. I'm under the impression that if Microsoft acquires Mojang, they acquire their assets and obligations.
Also, you can lie to us about your "purchase decision" all you like, but purchase decisions don't even come in to fair trading laws.
If I was mislead before entering into a purchase agreement, that comes under multiple fair trading laws. One is the Australian Trade Practices Act (1974). Another is the New South Wales Fair Trading Act (1987).
Even if you made this stick (which is possible because you're clearly an expert consumer lawyer) there would be no "high punitive fines" because the loss of value from this relatively minor aspect of the game's potential future is about as close to zero as it's possible to get without underflowing a double.
The Fair Trading Commission has been very heavy handed in the past. The fines are not about loss of value to the consumer, but about making deceptive conduct uneconomic.
Besides, Microsoft could just open-source the version they bought, while denying you all the improvements they made later on. In a community that depends on user-generated content, the support for a 5 year old version will be virtually nil.
I'd be happy with that.
And I'm not sure they'd end up with the most popular fork. The Minecraft community is pretty big
If its not written into the license you received when you purchased the product, its all too easy to dismiss in court.
Australian law is pretty generous with finding "misleading conduct". The standard is if it would lead an ordinary member of the public to be influenced
by it into error. The courts look at the likely audience and judge by the standards of
persons who are not stupid, but are perhaps of less than average intelligence and
background knowledge in that audience.
Also, it is sufficient that the conduct in question has the potential to mislead or to deceive. No intent to mislead or deceive is required.
This is a Reply to "Once More: Why “Climate Change” Alarmism Is Not Science"
It's also been said that women are 5x more likely to report a rape than men, particularly if their attacker was female.
That's interesting. Do you have the study?
Show me some statistics on un-reported rape.
This can be studied by survey.
It's a fact, men are brought up in this society to own the image of strength and reporting that they were raped goes against that, while women are raised to protect themselves at any cost; because of this, most women will report a rape whether it happened or not, most men won't, even if it did.
I'd be interested to read your statistics on this claim.
1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.