Tonight, I will be in attendance at the Small Claims Court of the Queens Couny Courthouse. Why? To witness a hearing on a case brought by Adam Kosmin against Toshiba. The issue in the case? Toshiba's failure to uphold the following provision of the Windows 2000 EULA:
YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.
In this case, Toshiba failed to provide a refund despite Mr. Kosmin's attempts to obtain it. I feel this is a very important issue, as if Toshiba is found to not have to provide a refund, the Windows EULA will be an entirely one-sided contract, and you are effectively forced to pay for Windows whether or not you use it.
I've decided to close the current poll, with the result an even tie at 14 votes. No doubt there was some ballot-stuffing taking place, but not on such a large scale as to change the outcome: neither side enjoys a generous lead in opinion.
In other site news, the port of the entire backend to C++ is making progress, if all goes well it should be unveiled within 2 weeks.
There's also a new file in the Files section, an email from myself to Zoe Lofgren, the California Congresswoman who is behind H.R. 1066, the Digital Choice and Freedom Act.
A few days ago, mkomitee cited this page as 'an excellent rebuttal to the standard "war is bad mmkay" we've been seeing in the words and actions of predominantly european groups, and also in the american anti-war movement.' The page itself is little more than an author's elitist and ad hominem attacks on a (presumably) Dutch writer. If that is an "excellent" rebuttal to an anti-war view, then I would hate to see what a poor one looked like. People like that serve only to lower the standing of their cause, no matter what it may be, when they cannot or do not address the issue, instead stirring up emotion and anger, and claim they're right because they are somehow better than the person they're addressing.
Delta Airlines will begin a 'trial run' of CAPPS (Computer-Aided Passenger Pre-Screening), a program which checks on passenger's backgrounds to determine who is a 'risk'. One of the checks is on a person's credit history. For most of the others, no one outside the program knows. The program provides 3 threat levels, Green, Yellow, and Red, and this rating is encoded on your boarding pass when you check in. This is nothing more than discrimination against people who are suspected (without cause) of being a potential threat. Additionally, the lack of information available about the program leaves a number of other questions, like the length of time that the information will be stored, what factors are checked, and what recourse there is for those who suffer some harm at the hands of this.
Business 2.0 has an article about 'advertainment', which I railed against in this rant. The view there is primarily the business view, so it's a more favorable look, but in any event, it's worth reading for the info it provides, and also a glimpse into the mentality of those who are behind this like that.
Russia, France, and Germany decided today that they will not allow a UN resolution allowing force against Iraq to pass. Colin Powell said that the latest compliance by Iraq is only 'a diversion', a point which the Daily Show mocked, by showing the Bush administration diverting attention away from the economy and Bin Laden with the Iraq showdown. Rumsfeld is quoted as saying Saddam can avoid war, but "[t]o do so, he will have to disarm or leave." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he disarming right now?
It should make for amusing rhetoric and lies from the Bush administration, but the humor is dampened by the gravity of the situation. It makes a person wonder, when did we the 'right thing' to do become whatever was on the mind of the President of the US?