Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (Score 1) 211

by immaterial (#46789267) Attached to: Click Like? You May Have Given Up the Right To Sue

As I did say in my previous post, but you omitted when quoting it, this might stand up if all parties agreed to the arbitration.

I didn't directly quote it but I did acknowledge your "might" speculation right there in my third sentence. My point is there's no "might" about it - as long as the arbitration clause applies to both parties and the arbiter is a neutral one, it's a perfectly legal and enforceable clause... In the US, obviously. TFA was in a US paper discussing corporations operating in the US and referenced a number of relevant US court decisions, so I did not assume we were discussing elsewhere.

Comment: Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (Score 1) 211

by immaterial (#46786953) Attached to: Click Like? You May Have Given Up the Right To Sue

Indeed. Good luck arguing in court that someone gave up their right to sue. The legal profession tends to be awfully sceptical of such measures, and none more so than judges.

Umm, no. IANAL but even basic research pulls up the Federal Arbitration Act, which was passed in 1925 and allows for contractually-obligated compulsory and binding arbitration, and this has been held up in court time and again. The only way out of this is to prove the company is using a biased arbiter (they basically all use approved, neutral 3rd party arbitration services now so good luck) or (as you yourself speculated) if the clause isn't applied equally (ie. if the company still reserves the right to sue YOU - but unless they're stupid, they don't make this mistake either). TFA even points out that mandatory arbitration clauses have surged in popularity since the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that it was okay to use them to suppress class action suits.

The thing that might (I sure hope) make the "contracts" discussed in TFA unenforceable isn't the fact that they make people give up their rights to sue, but the fact that some "legal terms" page on the company website that the consumer probably isn't even aware of (much less has read) does not a binding contract make.

Comment: Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (Score 1) 266

by immaterial (#46748353) Attached to: Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry
No reason for a power user to leave it on, IMO. Going through the trouble of overriding just three or four apps is enough to outweigh the trouble of changing the Gatekeeper setting once. It doesn't do anything useful for me - even with it off I still get the "you've never launched this app before, are you sure you want to?" warning, which is enough for me.

Comment: Re:Um, no? (Score 1) 307

Seriously - haven't we seen what happens when an egghead tries to use a real man's weapon in a zombie apocalypse? Disaster. But not quite as disastrous as walking straight into the earth's last NPR radio station without questioning why there's no guards, only five hipsters, and a whole lotta barbecue...

Comment: Re:Why would I work for free to make Apple rich? (Score 2) 266

by immaterial (#46743733) Attached to: Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry
"Rumors"? You realize you can look at photos on the internet, right? The "new" (3 year old) Mail interface is only barely different from its previous incarnation (moving the message list from a top pane to a side pane) and IMO it's a far better use of space on a widescreen display. But if you don't like it, there is (and always has been) an option to use the top-pane style instead.

10.9 did introduce a bunch of Gmail-related bugs into Mail, though, and even now (after a quick emergency Mail update, more fixes in 10.9.1, and even more in 10.9.2) it still doesn't always update when new mail comes into my Gmail account (10.9.3 is rumored to have more fixes). How they fucked up a previously perfectly functional app like that is beyond me.

Pretty much all the other "iOS-ification" I've seen people complain about is also a non-issue, but you weren't specific so I can't help there (Launchpad? Just don't use it. Notifications? Actually quite useful. Gatekeeper? Turn it off if you're a power user. Can't even think of any other things right now).

Comment: Re:$1b corps (Score 4, Insightful) 266

by immaterial (#46740763) Attached to: Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry
Really, did you miss the whole goto fail thing, where everyone was looking at the source? Of course, the number of ACs back then crowing "stupid Apple should have stuck with OpenSSL, which is thoroughly vetted by thousands of eyes!" gives me the feeling that ACs will have a very selective memory about the whole thing now.

Comment: Re:LOL (Score 1) 161

by immaterial (#46669609) Attached to: Illustrating the Socioeconomic Divide With iOS and Android
Why Apple and Amazon have trouble selling their ad services...

The lack of data both [Apple and Amazon] deliver is frustrating for marketers because these notoriously opaque giants sit atop incredible troves of information about what consumers actually buy and like, as well as who they are and where they live. One person familiar with the situation said Apple's refusal to share data makes it the best-looking girl at the party, forced to wear a bag over her head.

Comment: Re:nope! (Score 1) 496

by immaterial (#46650127) Attached to: Will Cameras Replace Sideview Mirrors On Cars In 2018?
I disagree - I'd put the two screens just above the dash, where some cars are already putting HUDs (come to think of it that U doesn't apply here). That way there is minimal time wasted moving your attention from front display (windshield) to the side displays (people should be checking them far more often than they do). A properly-designed camera system shouldn't require any head turning at all, since the only reason we do that at all is to cover all the blind spots a traditional mirror has (and it's risky since it entirely removes your attention to what is happening in your direction of travel).

Comment: Re:Criminal Charges (Score 1) 357

by immaterial (#46618787) Attached to: An Engineer's Eureka Moment With a GM Flaw
If there is no functional change - meaning the parts are perfectly interchangeable, backwards and forwards compatible - then there's no reason to change the part number, because someone looking for part X is going to get a correctly working part (whether it's the older style or the newer, cheaper design is irrelevant). That doesn't mean they weren't hiding a safety issue in this case, of course.

Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.

Working...