Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

ABA Withdraws Consideration of UCITA

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the happy-happy-joy-joy dept.

The Courts 92

Cognito writes "AFFECT, Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions, is reporting that the American Bar Association has withdrawn its consideration for endorsing a resolution to approve UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act. This is a good thing. It's interesting to note that a recently filed law suit would have been prohibited if UCITA were endorsed and adopted as a common law."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288808)

Is for lamers and d00ds with no testicles.

IN OTHER NEWS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289586)

MONS to withdraw consideration of CLIT at forthcoming LABIA-Con. Matt Drudge is there!

frist spot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288809)

frost spit


IN SOVIET RUSSIA (621411) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288810)

ABA Withdraws Consideration Of You!

ah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288814)

First, bruhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I had to do it, and I appologies repeatedly. XD

FP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288815)


Tsarkon REports Future of SLASHDOT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288819)

The Future of SLASHDOT.

2002. Slashdot publishes 1,000,000th rumor passed off as actual story. The story generates 480 comments, 263 of which agree with the article, and 107 of which point out it's a rumor and are modded down as redundant. The remaining comments are all "first posts." or posts that contain any rational insight are modded "troll."

2002. CmdrTaco married to a human female, reports are that she does not have 46 chromosomes, however. Fent does display tendency to retardation.

2002. Slashdot parent corporation VA Research^W Linux^W Software stock worth 35 cents. Rumors that AOL, Microsoft, or even Jimmy the hobo who lives under the Longfellow Bridge may buy it.

2003. VA Software bought by Microsoft for a cup of coffee and a donut. All Microsoft-critical articles mysteriously disappear from Slashdot. Bill Gates as Borg logo replaced with Bill Gates as God. (Taco suggested that in order to be "God," or his vision of God, Gates would have to be seen in a NAMBLA T-shirt. Luckily good taste prevails in favor of the old man image in glowing aura)

2004. CmdrTaco loses virginity, well, not sex with men virginity, that's long since gone, and not sex with anime blow up dolls, this time, real sex.

2004. The WIPO Troll returns again, showering Slashdot in 45,000 copies of the same post: "Lick my crotch hairs." Slashdot, despite
running on 18 redundant IIS/8.0Beta6 servers, buckles under the load. The term "Slashdotted" is replaced with "WIPO-Trolled."

2004. Slashdot officially shut down. Millions of screaming, unwashed geeks invade Redmond campus and lynch Bill Gates.

2005. Linus Torvalds and Anal Cox found dead along with six penguins, a tub of crisco and several used condoms. FreeBSD users are glad the insanity is dying.

2005. CmdrTaco rumored to have had sex again, even with constant Viagra therapy, it took this long. He complains, I can be ready to go again in five minutes if I was looking at a nude man, to the dyslexic Fent.

2006. CowboiKneel found dead in hotel room with 56 pizza boxes covering his bloated corpse. Three suffocated gay prostitutes are extracted from beneath his body as police remove it with a backhoe.

2007. CmdrTaco actually has sex again, this time plugging Fent in the ass for a more manlike feel.

2007. BSD is still officially "dying." No word on when its demise will take place. FreeBSD 9 is delivered in perfect working order in a coherent superior, commercially viable and useable fashion with real documentation, the same practice followed since inception. Linux lunatics, after the death of Cox, are still trying to perfect the Trident driver while ignoring the existence of the GeForce 9. Netcraft dies along with all the surveys they held on Microsoft and Linux servers are lost as well.

2007. CmdrTaco starts new weblog to replace Slashdot, creatively named Dotslash. Remainder of Linux users flock to the site and immediate WIPO-Troll it out of existence.

2007. Box running FreeBSD for 6 years sets world record for Unix uptime on consumer hardware.

2008. CmdrTaco has sex with his wife for the first time without thinking of men. He has dawned on the extra sexual pick me up for his twisted mind, small children.

2010 Marcelo Tosatti finally releases a version of the 2.4 Linux Kernel that is useable 2.4.29-RC2099.alpha.stage.99 (not -STABLE!). Fuck you Marcelo, YOU SUCK as a MAINTAINER.

Is genital-too, I mean Gentoo fixed yet? Last time it made me perform all these stupid, fucking easily scriptable mindless tasks to get it installed, with everything installed perfectly the stupid thing didn't work. Death to OS X, death to lame Linux distributions, I want a COHERENT Linux distribution and FREEBSD or DIE, baby.

A long long fucking time from now. Malda, fat, poverty-stricken, unrespected and unremembered and living in an appliance box in Michigan with a pickle jar for a toilet comes to a series of epiphanies. The 8.3 file system that made him truncate his nick to an 8 letter series of characters has long been forgotten, and he finally realizes he looks like a fag using it. He also realizes that men's asses look like tacos, especially with the beef pouring out and that his name sounds more like Commander of Ass, since one can command asses because the belong potentially to sentient or living things, it is difficult to command inanimate objects such as food , so one can only conclude he was commanding ass.

He also realized his site was a lame, fad, he sold out, he needed to refactor his shit code and never did it. He also realized that communites such as Fark don't have this complete asshole running it with gay lameness and compression filters and lame IP blocking bullshit and cheating, pissing and whining and barely anyone trolls it.

We hate you, Fucking Robbie;

he remembers as reams of pages of trolls cry for his expulsion. He also realizes he cant have a computer anymore because he hates the RIAA and MPAA but ran out and gave George Lucas and other shit media companies tons of money to ruin the laws in favor of the omnicorps. He also realizes his socialist and fascist fucking moderation system squelched all the real comments out of view. He also realizes that a full time crew "working" at Slashdot did a shittier job than anyone thought possible.

He also realized he didn't do SHIT for subscribers and punished them as he would anyone else with page limits, IP blocks, compression and lameness filters. He also realizes Signal 11 is a better man than him and that he is a fucking loser for throwing out S11. He realizes despite being an Open Source advocated, his horrible, unusable unreadable pile of shit called Slashcode was one of the worst projects ever. He realized that retarded journalists are better at reporting the news than Slashdot, that Slashdot news was often inaccurate and unverified.

He also realizes that Aprils fools jokes were really stupid and everyone hated them. He realizes bitchslapping, banner ads, ^H and ^W to show deletion and moderation $rtbl are fucking gay and lame. He realizes this all in a flash as the totalitarian regime he was a small part of constructing (through teaching mobocracy, populism as a rule, hordes of untrained and meritless swarms of people allowed to crucify those who would oppose the thinking of the state) determines his body is a waste of government resources and that he needs to be expelled to a concentration area of the worthless. I figures he would have been the first resident in the camp of the beings deemed worthless to society, along with Jon Katz, but the government, even as a fascist totalitarian regime takes a while to getting around to things.

I am writing to express my concerns about Lord Rob ANUS FELCHER Taco, Esq. and, more specifically, his cock-and-bull stories regarding the worst kinds of complacent, slimy psychopaths there are. If you disagree with my claim that time has only reinforced that conviction, then read no further. Better, far better, that Man were without the gift of speech than that he use it as Rob does. Better that Man could neither read nor write than have his head and heart perverted by the heinous and sordid tommyrot that oozes from Rob's pen. And better that the cut of Man's coat and the number of his buttons were fixed by statute and enforced by penalties than that Rob should lower scholastic standards. Yet there's much more to it than that.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and that's one reason why I'm writing this letter. He is perfectly willing to show his embarrassingly poor reasoning and warped ethics in print. Let's remember that. While some information provided by Rob's subalterns may be factual, other material is unsubstantiated rumor or lewd manuscripts. If we defy Rob, then the sea of absolutism, on which Rob so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. There can be no doubt that he has a different view of reality from the rest of us. Now, that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me corroborate it by saying that Rob is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul.

Sure, he talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? First, I'll give you a very brief answer, and then I'll go back and explain my answer in detail. As for the brief answer, he is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of the worst types of jackbooted scofflaws there are. Responsible citizens certainly do not restructure the social, political, and economic relationships throughout the entire society. Stripping from the term "interdifferentiation" the negative connotations it evokes, I will try to make some changes here. Let me mention again that I see how important Rob's laughable, intellectually stultified criticisms are to his goons and I laugh. I laugh because it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Rob-hater out of you. First off, he does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. It's easy to tell if Rob is lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying.

Perhaps he has some sound arguments on his side, but if so, he's keeping them well hidden; all the arguments I've heard from him are utterly politically incorrect. Before I move on, I just want to state once more that if one could get a Ph.D. in Autism, he would be the first in line to have one. Needless to say, I oppose Rob's slogans because they are mingy. I oppose them because they are mumpish. And I oppose them because they will destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths by the next full moon.

There's no mystery about it, no more room for fairy tales, just the knowledge that to believe that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash is to deceive ourselves. What is the milieu in which unruly, unbalanced boors provide cover for a tyrannical agenda? It is the underworld of conspiracy theory, a subculture in which the most sententious hatemongers you'll ever see share fantasies of fighting heroically against a huge conspiracy that will assail all that is holy before the year is over. Imperious, impudent quislingism is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. Let me close by reminding you that Lord Rob ANUS FELCHER Taco, Esq.'s accusations are very much in line with feckless pharisaism in that they cause the destruction of human ambition and joy.

Re:Tsarkon REports crap - YOU FAIL IT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288853)

You need to update your troll to 2003; YOU FAIL IT

Just curious (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289071)

Who wrote this troll in the first place? Some parts of it are kind of funny (although not for CmdrTaco). Like that you can not command inanimate objects. But the end of the comment sounds like it was written by a shizophrenic. So who wrote it - a humorous guy under the influence or a shizophrenic with some drug-enduced lucidity?

Re:Just curious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289101)

Yes, the first part was funny, but the second part was dull.

Re:Just curious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289338)

The last thing I wanted to do this Saturday night was spend several hours writing, editing, and typing this letter. However, I needed to do it, because it's decidedly the best way to make Mr. Just "Anonymous Coward" Curious answer for his wrongdoings. The nitty-gritty of what I'm about to write is this: There is a problem here. A very large, contumelious, militant problem. He dreams of a time when he'll be free to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. That's the way he's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest.

This is particularly interesting when you consider that when Just is challenged, he either denies everything or claims that his words were taken out of context and that his enemies are plotting against him. But you knew that already. So let me add that his dissertations are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us before the year is over. I welcome his comments. However, he needs to realize that even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that he should be even slightly inconvenienced. If Just opened his eyes, he'd realize that forbearance and kindly deportment are lost upon him.

I may not be perfect, but at least I'm not afraid to say that if, five years ago, I had described a person like Just to you and told you that in five years, he'd pander to our worst fears, you'd have thought me loud. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how if he has spurred us to make a genuine contribution to human society, then Just may have accomplished a useful thing. It is similarly noteworthy that he says that disloyal cowards are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. Is there anyone else out there who's noticed that the union of theory and practice, in Just's hands, becomes a union of pomposity and favoritism? I ask because he says that we should avoid personal responsibility. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely haughty and crotchety lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Just's collaborators. Just should just quit whining about everything. So please permit me to appropriate and paraphrase something I once heard: "Just's tricks reek like rotten eggs."

My current plan is to reinforce what is best in people. Yes, Just will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but he is a paragon of evil at its most wicked. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it sincerely expresses how his eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity. And Just's vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative?) Look at what's happened since Just first ordered his habitués to incite racial hatred: Views once considered brain-damaged are now considered ordinary. Views once considered brutal are now considered perfectly normal. And the most superstitious of Just's views are now seen as gospel by legions of irresponsible administrators.

His personal interest in seeing his smear tactics shoved down people's throats is complacent, but that's to be expected of Just. Don't kid yourself: If he had done his homework, he'd know that even when he isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about his machinations. Although the themes in Just's memoirs are limited, if Just wants to send sleazy boneheads on safari holidays instead of publicly birching them, let him wear the opprobrium of that decision. How can we trust him if he doesn't trust us? We can't. And besides, he says that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. But then he turns around and says that his exegeses are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. You know, you can't have it both ways, Just.

In his accusations, jingoism is witting and unremitting, power-drunk and illiterate. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that Just argues that I am beer-guzzling for wanting to denounce his principles. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. For future reference, prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially his dastardly form of it -- is.

Given Just's propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that it strikes me as amusing that Just complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. He has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less uncompromising than Just. He is obviously trying to take rights away from individuals whom only Just perceives as cruel, and unless we act now, he'll indubitably succeed. For the sake of concreteness: He is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. Nothing would make him happier than to see me crawl under a rock and die. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Is he so quixotic as to think that this can go on forever? A clue might be that his histrionics are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're thoroughly insensitive, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, if I seem a bit uncontrollable, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with him on his own level.

If Just would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be much easier for me to draw an accurate portrait of Just's ideological alignment. Let me move now from the abstract to the concrete. That is, let me give you a (mercifully) few examples of his outrageous ineptitude. For starters, Just says he's going to change this country's moral infrastructure any day now. Is he out of his mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that his cock-and-bull stories are continually evolving into more and more pathetic incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how Just's lieutenants are easily manipulated. That said, let me continue.

My purpose is to change the world for the better. Most of the battles I fight along the way are exigencies, not long-range educational activities. Nevertheless, Just confuses demagoguery with leadership and undocumented conspiracism with serious research. In view of that, it is not surprising that if Just succeeds in his attempt to take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most irritating pinheads will never be in a position to condescend to, it'll have to be over my dead body. I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people don't realize that I've tried explaining to his expositors that I'm not actually demanding revenge, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. Just maintains that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that he constantly insists that he holds a universal license that allows him to make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers. But he contradicts himself when he says that his doctrines won't be used for political retribution. My point may be made clearer by use of an allegorical tale. Suppose a hypothetical group of three people is standing in a room. One of those people realizes that Just's schemes are devoid of logic and filled to the brim with hate and misinformation. Another goes on and on about Just's uppity musings. But the third can't understand why Just prefers to see problems talked to death instead of solved. In this hypothetical situation, it should be obvious that Just should focus more on the quality of his writing than on the amount of drivel he can squeeze in. I mean, think about it.

Even without the shameless ideology of despotism in the picture, we can still say that I'm sure he wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his secret conversations. So why does Just want to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that his victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Just's associates, who loudly proclaim that Just can walk on water. Regardless of those audacious proclamations, the truth is that while we do nothing, those who let sexist lugs serve as our overlords are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against his bons mots. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world without primitive cretins? If Just were paying attention -- which it would seem he is not, as I've already gone over this -- he'd see that if we are powerless to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future, it is because we have allowed Just to censor any incomplicitous opinions. His solutions express themselves in thousandfold manifestations, with one of Just's helots in despair and hopelessness, with another in ill will, anger, and indignation, with these irreligionism-oriented dingbats in indifference, and with those in furious excesses. Just claims that the laws of nature don't apply to him. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Mr. Just "Anonymous Coward" Curious and get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem.

There are people I sincerely despise. They lack morals, character, and honesty. They put a pea-brained spin on important issues. In case you can't tell, I'm talking about Mr. Just Curious here. So let's begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it.

He wants to curry favor with sinister calumniators using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value," their "importance," their "educational mission," and other beer-guzzling nonsense. It gets better: He believes that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. I guess no one's ever told him that it will not be easy to build a sane and healthy society free of his destructive influences. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that Just is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of unconscionable speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations -- and that's just the short list! Any rational argument must acknowledge this. Just's devious catch-phrases, naturally, do not.

As everyone who has access to reliable information knows, Just likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that narcissism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that Just believes that laws are meant to be broken. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Just and his impertinent, hostile underlings. Sophomoric ingrates generally maintain that Just has no intention to make antipluralism socially acceptable, but Just's often-quoted attitudes belie this notion.

While we may all pray for a perfect utopian world in which everyone is holding hands and singing "We Are the World" in perfect harmony, the reality is that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by him and his intimates. Of course, if he is going to talk about higher standards, then he needs to live by those higher standards. For those of you who don't know, in my effort to uncover Just's hidden prejudices, I will need to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, Just insists that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. Sorry, Just, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." Either he has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context.

It seems to me that, as others have stated long before me, "Just lacks the courage to confront me face-to-face." We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. When Just says that the cure for evil is more evil, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. And if you think that we should all bear the brunt of his actions, then you aren't thinking very clearly. One wonders how he can complain about pouty braggarts, given that his own allegations also aim to descend to character assassination and name calling. Admittedly, Just's excuses are not just about Fabianism but also about Comstockism. But that's because Just is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens tell him where he can stick it. Responsible citizens undeniably do not identify political and religious groups that are Just's political enemies and re-label them as "vindictive adolescents" in order to justify operations against them.

He is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. Whereas Just claims that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming, I claim that if he bites me, I will bite back. While there's no use crying over spilled milk, his claim that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

Just doesn't want us to know about his plans to make us less united, less moral, less sensitive, less engaged, and more perversely contentious. Otherwise, we might do something about that. If you read between the lines of his expostulations, you'll certainly find that his spokesmen believe that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. Just's manuscripts cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

While it is essential -- and among my highest priorities -- to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us, Just's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is supercilious, because it leaves no room for compromise. Let us now join hands, hearts, and minds to knock some sense into Just. Where are the solid statistics that prove that his jeremiads can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality? I've never seen any. Yet, no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how my only goal in writing this letter and others concerning Just Curious is to establish democracy and equality. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus.

It's fine to realize that he is never without a tasteless thing to say, but it's more important to know that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of his slaphappy reinterpretations of historic events. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) I discussed this topic in a previous letter, so I will not go into great detail now, but whenever anyone states the obvious -- that the only way for Just to redeem himself is to stop being so lecherous -- discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "How can someone who claims to be so educated and so open-minded dare to sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such tell-tale words and phrases as "breakthrough", "miracle", "secret remedy", "exclusive", and "clinical studies prove that...")?" To turn that question around, what exactly is Just trying to hide? If I'm not mistaken, there's a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that Just should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. Although this truth will be as pertinent six years as 60 years hence, griping about Just will not make him stop trying to mortgage away our future. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on materialistic nepotism.

He has spent untold hours trying to force onto us the degradation and ignominy that he is known to revel in. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that he subordinates rationality in decision making? I mean, he labels anyone he doesn't like as "heinous". That might well be a better description of Just. If we don't demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Just right now, then Just's memoranda will soon start to metastasize until they practice human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of frightful death cult. One final point: Whenever I ponder over the meanings and implications of Mr. Just Curious's bleeding-heart beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), I feel little peace.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5292246)

I think my question about sanity has been answered. Unless... are you using an automatic troll generator ala Elisa? In this case, it's time to come out of the closet and share the source code.

Keep this thread around - it's a troll, but a funny one. Although, if the comment above was actually written by a human being, s\he might want to visit this [chovil.com] web site.

One of your predictions is wrong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289196)

2007. CmdrTaco actually has sex again, this time plugging Fent in the ass for a more manlike feel.

Actually, Fent will take a strap-on to Malda, for a more familiar feel to Malda.

On second thought, that is the present, not the future.

AFFwhat? (-1, Offtopic)

u38cg (607297) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288826)

Didn't understand a single bloody word of that. What does this AUICITPQXRWS thingy do then?

Text of the letter (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288834)

February 11, 2003
Contact: Carol Ashworth
202-628-8410/ 1-800-941-8478
Seattle, Feb. 11 -- AFFECT, Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions,
expressed gratification with the withdrawal of a resolution seeking approval of the
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) from the ABA House of
"Implicit in the decision not to push for a vote was the recognition that the ABA was not
going to approve UCITA as appropriate for enactment by the states," said AFFECT
President Miriam Nisbet. In recent weeks, major sections of the ABA, including
Business Law, Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, and Tort Trial and Insurance
Practice, voted to defer indefinitely or to reject the UCITA resolution placed before the
ABA at its Midyear Meeting. Also, the ABA's Standing Committee on Law and
National Security last week informed the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), the sponsor of UCITA, that the committee could not
support UCITA because the act's provisions could "present a significant security
concern, potentially affecting key aspects of our nation's critical infrastructure." In
addition, the president of the American Law Institute recently advised the House of
Delegates that he could not support the effort to have the ABA approve UCITA. ALI
normally co-sponsors uniform laws with NCCUSL but had withdrawn from
recommending UCITA in 1999 because of concerns that the act did not meet ALI
standards in several key areas.
Nisbet said that she was pleased to hear NCCUSL assure the House of Delegates that it
has no intention of bringing the act back to the ABA. AFFECT believes the inability of
NCCUSL to win approval for UCITA from the ABA this year will lead to its rejection in
Oklahoma and other states where it is currently under consideration. Nisbet said, "The
failure to pass the ABA hurdle after almost four years of 'fixes' underscores the fact that
it is time for UCITA to go back to the drawing board."
AFFECT is a broad-based national coalition of consumers, retail and manufacturing
businesses, financial institutions, technology professionals and librarians opposed to
UCITA. AFFECT members have been following UCITA for the past decade and the
coalition has been involved in every state where UCITA has been legislatively active.
Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions (AFFECT)
1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 403
Washington, D. C. 20004
www.affect. ucita.com.

This misses the point entirely (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288839)

We're talking central London. very Central London. This is all office blocks, shops, and clubhouses. Property here is really expensive, and real estate is at a premium. Widening the roads would either require rebuilding practically the whole of the area or removing pedestrian walkways. Neither is practical.

The point of the congestion charge is however to move traffic onto the public transport systems instead. Of which both the bus and tube networks are overcrowded anyway, especially the Tube. The Govn't claims the Tube isn't overcrowded, but the Underground regularly closes stations due to overcrowding and is jam-packed* for a very broad definition of 'Rush Hour'.

At the moment, of course, a couple of the arterial underground lines are closed due to a derailment that happened a couple of weeks ago. This has made it oh so much worse...

*Disclaimer: not as full as systems like the Tokyo tube, obviously, but London isn't nearly as dense and could be vastly improved.

Thank you.. (-1, Offtopic)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288840)

..for telling me whether this is a good or a bad thing! If slashdot wouldn't tell me which things are good and which are bad I'd have to go through life completely disoriented!

Woe is us... (4, Funny)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288848)

... these are dark times indeed when the American Bar Association have become good guys.

Re:Woe is us... (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289646)

The American Bar Association shouldn't be expected to oppose the right of anyone to sue anyone for anything or nothing. After all, lawyers are always evenly split between being the good guys and being the bad guys and are always against things being simple and people either following the rules or not getting caught.

Re:Woe is us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5290565)

could you expand or do you just hate lawyers?

Very intersting coinicidence (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288856)

Because I just withdrew my fork from your mother's uterus.

software failures (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288877)

I'm not sure UCITA is the correct way to go about it, but I think we do need some way of assigning responsibility for software failures, and opening up authors and distributors of software for lawsuits when it does fail.

Perhaps a professional association would help. Engineers designing bridges, chemical reactors, buildings and aircraft all have to sign the designs to say they have examined them and believe they will not fail. If they are proven incorrect they can have severe consequences, including monetary damages, loss of license to practise, and jail terms. Why do software "engineers" get off so easily?

Rules should be placed on software use so that in "critical" systems only software that is signed off as safe can be used, and so that if software that is signed off by a professional software engineer is used, and it fails, then the signing party is personally responsible for the failure.

Re:software failures (1)

eggz128 (447435) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289009)

I'm not sure UCITA is the correct way to go about it, but I think we do need some way of assigning responsibility for software failures, and opening up authors and distributors of software for lawsuits when it does fail.
And so ends free (as in beer) software. :(

Re:software failures (2, Interesting)

markwusinich (126760) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289097)

It would not end free software, but for critical installations it would insure that someone who is qualified has insured that it will work with in the current guidelines.

I would feel much safer know that my heart monitor is run using open source software than proprietary software. At least with open source I can have ANY independent person look over the program. With proprietary software everyone that looks over the code has to sign his or her soul over.

Re:software failures (1)

eggz128 (447435) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289609)

I'm just not convinced that it wouldn't instantly lead to a great big game of pass the buck - ultimately ending up at whoever wrote whatever snippit of code.

But I'm cynical like that. :P

Re:software failures (1)

njchick (611256) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289100)

Why? Nobody would force you to sign your software as long as you don't work on it for hire. If RedHat wants to distribute my program, they, and not me, would have to provide warranty and accept responsibility.

Re:software failures (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5363050)

you are a dumb cunt and, because you're female and can't program. thus, there is no such thing as "my program" as you stated. broads can't program. simple fact you dumb slut. fuck you with a red hot poker, straight up the ass you snotty little bitch.

Re:software failures (malpractice) (4, Insightful)

$$$$$exyGal (638164) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289033)

This sounds great, but in the end, some type of "malpractice" insurance would have to be introduced. The cost of that insurance would spiral higher and higher until some president had to address it in the State of the Union Address to the nation.

I don't want to have to get "malpractice" insurance. In the end, that cost will be passed onto the customer, and if the customer doesn't want to pay the extra cost, we'll have to cut some more QA work (ironically)

--sex [slashdot.org]

Re:software failures (malpractice) (1)

markwusinich (126760) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289149)

Lots of professions have malpractice insurance, without costs spiraling out of control. (The problem with medical malpractice has more to do with otherwise intelligent people getting out of jury duty leaving only the gullible ones to award millions without challenge)

If the user does not want to pay for the insured software with signed off, then it could still be used. Just don't let my heart failure go unnoticed because of a general protection fault.

Re:software failures (malpractice) (4, Insightful)

endoboy (560088) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289949)

It's called errors & ommissions coverage. For a small medical device company, the premium runs $3 to 5 thousand per year.

As for your statement that the insurance cost will cause you to cut down on QA--I call BS. The only reason that software companies get away with producing the crap that passes for the average code package is that they have miraculously managed to disclaim almost all liability.

A required warrantee of merchantability (as just about every other product on the planet has) is about the best thing that could possible happen to the software industry--it's about time the coders of the world took on the responsibility that comes with claiming to be an engineering discipline.

Re:software failures (malpractice) (2, Informative)

Battle_Ratt (524562) | more than 11 years ago | (#5290431)

There is a "malpractice" insurance for software, it's call "errors and omissions". Our company had to get it just to rent space.

Re:software failures (malpractice) (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 11 years ago | (#5291762)

It's rather sad, but did you know Lawyers need malpractice insurance too. Apparently it's very common for poeple to sue their lawyers.

Talk about a hell of your own making...

Software isn't a bridge. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289260)

Nor should anyone be responsible for software failures, unless they specifically leave out the part in the licensing about not being responsible.

Making people liable would open the door that would kill not only open source software, but commercial software as well. It'd kill the incoming stream of developers, and it would slow the progress of the industry to a crawl - who wants to theorize and experiment, when you're busy trying to prevent your ass from getting sued because you forgot to use strlcat instead of strcat?

I agree that there should be rules for critical systems that only safe software is used. Safe doesn't mean a fancy title in the world of software, though. It means in-depth code audit by a third party. If you can't see the code, how can you know where any possible bugs are?

As for software 'engineers', I laugh my ass off at them, and make it a point to insult them at any and all turns. I've met a few real engineers in my time.

Software 'engineers', when it comes to the world of engineering, are the guys sitting on his couch in his underwear, eating cheetos and screaming at the TV. Armchair Engineers, at best.

Re:software failures (1)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289348)

Software engineers don't get off easy, they just work under different constraints.

An engineer designing a bridge, chemical reactor, or building, knows exactly where it will would go. I have never seen a bridge that can be placed over any river.

Virginia and Maryland (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288880)

Now somebody needs to go to a computer store, buy software, begin installation and regect the EULA in either Virginia or Maryland and file a similar suit as the one in Califorinia. Now that the ABA has withdrawn support, it is conceiveable that this type of suit may result in the overturning of the law.

Imagine ... (5, Insightful)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288881)

A body of lawyers not endorsing a law that would prohibit some lawsuits? Very strange indeed.

Seriously, would the passing UCITA result in more or less lawsuits? I'm assuming less since the room to challenge license clauses would be greatly reduced.

Re:Imagine ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288991)

yes, it is certainly a startling development that the ABA doesn't want less lawsuits.

Who are the true backers of this evil scheme? (1)

Cyberia (70947) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288884)

It would appear that a standard for licensing is something that Redmond or other similar entities would want. This also sounds like another attempt to make GPL/GNU software a less then desirable product through restrictions on purchase (i.e. Sorry, we cannot purchase open source software, we must purchase software that has a license approved by my State or Federal government).

Responsibility (5, Insightful)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288886)

The UCITA is an attempt of software companies to get out of responsibility. It is one thing to not be responsible for every minor unknown bug, but it is completely different disclaim everything and enforce many of these all to common draconian terms in shrink wrap license agreements.

Re:Responsibility (1, Insightful)

asparagus (29121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288952)

This resolution is less an attempt by the ABA to stop a bad law as it is them making sure they have a loophole to sue.

What do you call a hundred lawyers in an airplane on the bottom of the ocean?

A good start.

Re:Responsibility (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289393)

Murder to effect social change? Not sure that's a good idea.

Re:Responsibility (2, Insightful)

asparagus (29121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289822)

Ask Brutus.

Re:Responsibility (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#5291773)

Brutus' assassination of Caesar resulted in his death a very short time later, so he'd probably agree with me...

Re:Responsibility (1)

asparagus (29121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5292979)


Re:Responsibility (1)

SquadBoy (167263) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289971)

And why pray tell is it a bad idea? Keep in mind that all of society is based on violence and at the end of the day all social change has come either from killing people or from telling people they are going to be killed and having them believe it.

Re:Responsibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5290078)

Okay, you be first up against the wall then, please.

Current Electronic Commerce is Shit (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288897)

Since companies are using ".com" and not their country codes, you may have no recourse if the website you're buying from is in fact a front-end for an automated credit-card stealing system located in some remote country where the law is just a guideline. And no, even if the website sports known companies logos and gives an address in the U.S., it could all be fake.

You CAN'T shop online until companies start using country codes and DNS is secured.

Thank goodness . . . (5, Funny)

Kaimelar (121741) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288898)

Quoth the submitter:
Cognito writes "AFFECT, Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions, is reporting that the American Bar Association has withdrawn its consideration for endorsing a resolution to approve UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act. This is a good thing.

Thank goodness the submitter told us that. For a second there I thought I was going to have to read the article and form my own opinion! :-)

Re:Thank goodness . . . (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289481)

Thank goodness the submitter told us that. For a second there I thought I was going to have to read the article and form my own opinion! :-)

Yeah, I was a little confused from the summary too, until I read that. Phew! Had me worried for a bit.

The ABA withdrawing support for UCITA, the ALA fighting CIPA, and IEEE asking for clarification on the DMCA. We live in interesting times.

Well, that site makes an interesting read (5, Informative)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288908)

Some quotations about the law: [4cite.org]

The software purchased would no longer belong to the buyer.

UCITA allows consumers to become licensees who are bound to the terms of the contract provided in "shrink-wrap" products or "click-on" agreements.

UCITA allows restrictions on use to be revealed after purchase.

UCITA allows restrictions that prohibit users from criticizing or publicly commenting on software they purchased.

UCITA puts consumers at the mercy of software publishers to "blackmail" users for more fees by their unhindered ability to disable or remove their product for unspecified "license violations."

How the fuck that law was even thought up in the first place is beyond me, let alone taken seriously and implemented in two states (Maryland and Virginia). This is a severe intrusion into consumer rights and privacy and as far as I can see trys to restrict what, when and where you can do with software as much as possible.

Contract Law and Natural Law (1)

argoff (142580) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289061)

The way I understand contract law and natrual law, is that contracts are a two way binding agreement that cannot be imposed on 3rd party's who are not part to the contract, they can also not impose on the moral nature of free will (eg contracts to follow a religion, or to be a slave, or to give up your free speech rights etc...).

Click/shrink wraps don't meet any of those criteria - especially if you consider that the right to copy is a natural law right, like the free speech, the right to create, and freedom of expression. They were a fradulent form of contract, I'm glad we got rid of them.

Re:Contract Law and Natural Law (1)

praedor (218403) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289172)

cannot be imposed on 3rd party's who are not part to the contract, they can also not impose on the moral nature of free will (eg contracts to follow a religion, or to be a slave, or to give up your free speech rights etc...).

So, how is it that nondisclosure "agreements" are able to impose on the moral nature of free will (aka, squelch free speech rights)?

Re:Contract Law and Natural Law (1)

f.money (134147) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289215)

IANAL, but I would assume because they have an end date/condition. It doesn't permanently restrict your right to speech (the gov can get around this for national security interests).

Basically, an NDA is a trade off: you get info you wouldn't otherwise have known for the promise not to talk about it until a certain condition is met.


Link to lawsuit (4, Informative)

creative_name (459764) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288910)

Here is a link to the story about the lawsuit that could have been prevented.

Lawsuit Link [com.com]

Lawsuits (1, Funny)

faxafloi (228519) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288921)

...the American Bar Association has withdrawn its consideration for endorsing a resolution to approve UCITA...a recently filed law suit would have been prohibited if UCITA were endorsed and adopted...

So the ABA is just protecting its litigation industry?

The lawsuit... (1)

wafath (91271) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288947)

The lawsuit would have been unnecessary under the UCITA. It requires retailers to allow for returns if users don't like the terms.

Not that any MD retailers pay any attention to the law...


Execelent! (2, Funny)

Jonny Ringo (444580) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288953)

Words ... This is a good thing. ... more words.

That's all I needed to know. Thanks for dumbing it down for me. I totally stopped reading once I saw that. I'm am content that a good thing has happened today. NIce.

Death by a thousand clits (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5288961)

lameless filter encountered :
reason, post your sick old ike story somewhere else.

Grammer Nazism (-1, Offtopic)

I_am_God_Here (413090) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288971)

Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions, is reporting that the American Bar Association has withdrawn its consideration for endorsing a resolution to approve UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act. This is a good thing.

Does this refer to the UCITA being good, or the ABA withdrawl good? Your antecedent is unclear.

Real Grammer Nazism (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289076)

Dear Troll,

The antecedent is perfectly clear.

The qualifying statement followed a period, thus the entire sentence before it is qualified. If the poster had used a comma then perhaps your comment could be valid.

I'd also like to point out that neither of your options are the actual gramatical truth of the statement. The statement, as posted, says that AFECT's reporting of the event, not the event or the resolution itself, is good.


Why the ABA did it -- self interest (-1, Redundant)

Anonym0us Cow Herd (231084) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288973)

By not supporting UCITA, the ABA's member lawyers get more business by filing lawsuits, like the recently filed one mentioned in the article, even if those suits are to protect our rights.

Moderators Suck (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289189)

Again, this is a great post! Don't MOD it
down. You can't say what's he's saying by
sugar coating it or saying it in a long winded
way. It's short and to the point and says
what needs to be said. Hell, it's a +5.

You still suck! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289317)

-1 to you too.

Well, I'm about to get banned for 24hrs. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289656)

But ... moderators still suck.

hmmm (-1, Redundant)

geekoid (135745) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288984)

..This is a good thing.
I love articles that tell me how to think....

Re:hmmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289165)

You shouldn't love it so much.

understanding the system (2, Insightful)

argoff (142580) | more than 11 years ago | (#5288992)

There are those who genuinely believe that copyrights are some inherent property right and intend to use the internet to leverage controll of information to every corner of the planet. In this scope they have proposed UTICA, the DMCA, infinite extensions, and hardware controlls whenever possible. They just don't get that the entire value of the information age encompases the unadulterated free flow of information to everywhere and everyone.

Unfortunatley, nowdays they are causing a massive economic problem as technology and paradigms pass them by. The software revenue giants Like Microsoft, are completely locked out of the greatest new paradigm in software - Linux and free software. The revenue giants like the movie and music industry are completely locked out by the greatest new paradigm in media - unhibited p2p. Maginify this across zillions of businesses and industries and long behold you have a massive economic problem that will not go away with the war on Iraq, but rather with the disapearance of copyrights. Getting rid of UTICA is a good first step, now all we need to do is get the weed at the root.

Re:understanding the system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289299)

The acronym is UCITA, not UTICA. That being said, I am against everything having to do with both UCITA and UTICA (NY).

Cute Workarounds (5, Interesting)

jyuter (48936) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289030)

I remember reading in ZDNet a long time ago (forgot who wrote the article) about two great workarounds for the click-wrap agreements.

1. Videotape yourself getting hammered before clicking - thus not in the state of mind to agree to anything
2. Videotape a minor clicking on the "ok" - also not bindidng

Anyway, I thought it was cute back then

Re:Cute Workarounds (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289152)

"I remember reading in ZDNet a long time ago (forgot who wrote the article) about two great workarounds for the click-wrap agreements.

1. Videotape yourself getting hammered before clicking - thus not in the state of mind to agree to anything
2. Videotape a minor clicking on the "ok" - also not bindidng"

3.) Videotape yourself using a touch screen to hit the OK button. Afterall, it does say 'click', which technically means 'mouse'.

#1 wouldn't fly, #2 is troublesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289306)

> 1. Videotape yourself getting hammered before
> clicking - thus not in the state of mind to agree
> to anything
Sorry but this one wouldn't fly. There's such a thing as "unlawful intoxication". If you commit a crime (e.g. drunk driving) while intoxicated, you may claim that you we're responsible for the crime, however you won't escape the charge of "unlawful intoxication". This basically says that choosing to drunk to the point that you're no longer responsible makes you responsible for whatever you do.

Now if you could capture a video of Bill Gates spiking your punch, you might be on to something.

> 2. Videotape a minor clicking on the "ok" - also
> not bindidng

This would also be troublesome if you told your kid to do it since you'd be "Inducing a minor to commit a crime". Judges don't look too lightly on this and you'd face heavy penalties.

Re:#1 wouldn't fly, #2 is troublesome (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289527)

This would also be troublesome if you told your kid to do it since you'd be "Inducing a minor to commit a crime". Judges don't look too lightly on this and you'd face heavy penalties.

What crime?

Re:#1 wouldn't fly, #2 is troublesome (1)

swb (14022) | more than 11 years ago | (#5290923)

The other problem with #1 is that it would trivial to argue premeditation; ie, you knew about the shrinkwrap but you deliberately set up a situation ahead of time in attempt to get around it.

I wonder how it would be if the video tape was just some guy videotaping a party. Someone unexpectedly shows up with a box of software and the drinker installs it while drunk. It would at least appear there was no premeditation, but it wouldn't excape unlawful intoxication.

Re:#1 wouldn't fly, #2 is troublesome (1)

NortWind (575520) | more than 11 years ago | (#5291993)

What if you ran a program that pressed the button? (Send wm_mousedown to the control?)

Re:#1 wouldn't fly, #2 is troublesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5298970)

If you commit a crime (e.g. drunk driving) while intoxicated, you may claim that you we're responsible for the crime, however you won't escape the charge of "unlawful intoxication".

It's not a crime to click a license agreement, so I fail to see what the problem is. Furthermore, it is LAWFUL to be intoxicated in your own house.

Our lawyers love us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289051)

That's why the ABA also recently asked state courts to stop people who aren't lawyers from helping others navigate the legal process. Obviously, charities advising people of their rights and social workers helping abuse victims file for restraining orders do nothing but mislead them.

Maybe I was wrong (0, Flamebait)

milo_Gwalthny (203233) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289063)

I thought I was against UCITA, but if the ABA (aka the trial lawyers' union) is not supporting it, perhaps I should be for it.

Since (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION) the ABA seems to support things that generate more business for their constituency, as opposed to good laws, maybe UCITA isn't so bad after all. In any case, you have to wonder what the real reason they aren't pushing for it is.

Re:Maybe I was wrong (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289229)

freedom, by its very nature, will create areas of ambigutity about 'what is aloud'. That creates more business for lawyers, in general, that is OK. BTW, if anybody comes after you(in a legal sense) it will be a lawyer that saves your butt.

Re:Maybe I was wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5290777)

There is no question about "what is aloud." If it generates sound, it's aloud. Otherwise not.

Why haven't your exercised your freedom to learn the difference between the very distinct words "aloud" and "allowed"?

Who else thought... (3, Funny)

BigGar' (411008) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289102)

that a swedish musical group had come out against UTICA?

Re:Who else thought... (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 11 years ago | (#5292025)

(this was about a swedish musical group)

Well, I didn't at first, but then I realized that this was slashdot, so chances were near-certain that the "editors" had mispelled something, so the thought crossed my mind that Abba might be what they meant. But then I read closer, and saw that they really did mean the Bar Association.

Of course, I haven't read the article yet, and given that the slashdot "editors" are about as good with content as they are with spelling, I refuse to dismiss the possibility that it really is the swedish musical group that's being discussed.... :)

Well, what about old news (1)

Hugonz (20064) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289123)

Old news and from Sweden! What do I care whether ABBA...? oh, wait

Re:Well, what about old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289714)

Maybe one of the B's quit and now its AB A, A BA, or ABA?

Cowboy Neal will always be my Dancing Queen!

Not the proposed law (5, Interesting)

werdna (39029) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289130)

It's interesting to note that a recently filed law suit would have been prohibited if UCITA were endorsed and adopted as a common law.

In what world?

That lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff was forced to stomach a license she could not have been reviewed, with respect to which she was not permitted to return the goods after deciding she didn't like the license.

Had California been a UCITA state, she could sue under UCITA for failure to accept the return, since UCITA expressly provides that a shrink-wrap for a mass-market product is not enforceable unless the person has an opportunity to review, or:

(3) If a record or term is available for review only after a person becomes obligated to pay or begins its performance, the person has an opportunity to review only if it has a right to a return if it rejects the record.

At least at first view, UCITA would have provided her an express cause of action, unlike the present and uncertain state of common law and UCC in which her lawsuit presently festers. She will not know the answer until the judge and jury had decided, and at least one or two levels of appeal had passed (assuming she doesn't give up first) -- Under UCITA, she would have a right to return or rescind given to her by statute.

FIRST VICTIM! [better than first post. Or worse] (4, Informative)

MickLinux (579158) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289135)

Okay, we have a Va-based LLC.

We had problems with MS Word not working. [I don't mean not working as advertised; I mean not working. Standard corruption problems was taking out about 2/3 of our time.] So we decided we had to get away from MS Toys, and go to something real.

We also had an old copy of Quark 3.3, legally licensed and all -- so I preferred that, but were considering Adobe Pagemaker as well.

Anyhow, I called them, and asked them "Is Quark Xpress legal to be used in Lithuania", specifically because I didn't want to spend the money for Quark Passport, and their license was unclear. Understand that Virginia law enforces the verbal contract as well -- but that turns out to be neither here nor there.

After calling their legal people, and talking to them, they said "by the license, it is unsupported but legal outside of the US and Canada", and essentially took me through the license to show that.

Okay, fine and well. We adopted Quark, and went with three copies: one Passport, one Xpress, and one other passport... which turned out to be a fraudulent sale. About this time we had to go to Lithuania, so from Lithuania we called for a "valuation" to get Paypal's insurance to pay [they never did], and Quark came back and said "Wait a minute, we see that your company has one copy of Quark Xpress. That's now illegal; so to make it legal, you have to pay us another $550." I asked about contract creep, and they said that didn't matter, and they don't know who would have said anything anyhow.

Well, part of this bill -- which PASSED in Virginia, makes it easy for software companies to modify the contract *after* you have the software, and charge an additional fee to keep using it. AND, if you don't pay up, they have the right to REMOTELY DISABLE YOUR SOFTWARE, REGARDLESS OF DAMAGES IT CAUSES, AND WITHOUT LIABILITY!!!

Since we do have a Virginia LLC, I am going to start writing Air Traffic Controller Software.

Anyhow, I claim "First Victim."

P.S. In case you consider Quark to be evil after hearing this, don't forget what Adobe did to that Russian programmer who made ebooks for the blind... which is a lot worse. And your alternative to those two seems to be M$, which is not only evil--it just plain doesn't work. The other alternative is TEX, which is WYSIWYM instead of WYSIWYG, and is therefore not suitable for some usages as page layout software, at least. [It also seems to be limited to the number of fonts it can handle; at least, Scientific Word is. We really considered it, but discarded it because we could not fit our book into their predefined layouts.]

Re:FIRST VICTIM! [better than first post. Or worse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289232)

Okay, so:

You lack the ability to make Word work (an awful lot of people can manage this)
You lack the ability to select an actual real vendor for quark.
You use an unlicensed quark and are amazed when Quark ask you to pay for it.
You consider all vendors of relevant software to be 'evil'.

You're a twit! Accept it, work with it, maybe one day overcome it!

Background -- Ed Foster in InfoWorld (5, Informative)

mstockman (188945) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289156)

For some good background, read Ed Foster's columns in InfoWorld. This guy has (thanfully) been waging a war in print against UCITA since it was first proposed. Here's his latest column on this very topic (ABA consideration of UCITA):

Gripe Line Column from Jan 31 2003 [infoworld.com]

This is a great step in the right direction... (1)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289168)

... now if we can only get the Bee Gees on our side...

duuuh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5289205)

Of course they would. It stifles lawsuits, which lawyers make lots of money off of. it would be like Dunkin' Donuts promoting a healthy-eating program for cops.

Why? (1)

grub (11606) | more than 11 years ago | (#5289688)

I'm suprised ABBA would be interested in this to start with. They were a Swedish disco group, not a bunch of lawyers.

Whew! I thought it was going to be hard! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5290153)

This is a good thing.

Sub BadJoke
Print = _
"Whew! I thought that was going to be a hard one!
Thanks for making it easier for me.
Now I don't have to think for myself."


Did any one notice... (1)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | more than 11 years ago | (#5302244)

We're finally winning something!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?