Interesting ULA.

[P. J. Alling]

No but then again Congress passed a special dispensation for them a few 
years ago.  I always thought a person's wrongdoing was their 
responsibility.  But not according to the Mayors of Chicago, New York, 
Los Angeles and a number of other cities in the US.  Based on their 
logic if a murder was committed with a claw hammer the Stanly Works 
would be responsible for damages. 

mike wilson wrote:
>> From: Scott Loveless <pdml at twosixteen.com>
>> Date: 2007/12/31 Mon PM 04:01:49 GMT
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml at pdml.net>
>> Subject: Re: Interesting ULA.
>>
>> William Robb wrote:
>>     
>>> I doubt very much if it is enforcable.
>>>
>>> http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4326/camera-test-fujifilm-finepix-is-1-a-narrowly-defined-user-licensing-agreement-page2.html
>>>
>>>       
>> This is probably more of a CYA thing on Fuji's part.  As far as I'm 
>> concerned, if I buy one it's mine.  What I do with it is none of Fuji's 
>> business.  If I break the law or cause someone harm with it, then either 
>> the State or the victim or both can attempt to exact some sort of 
>> retribution.  Fuji has this nonsense in their EULA so that if I use the 
>> IR capabilities of their "police" camera to cause harm to someone else, 
>> it becomes difficult for me to point a blaming finger at Fuji.
>>     
>
> Do Colt and S&W have EULAs?
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
>
>
>   


-- 
I am personally a member of the Cream of the Illuminati. 
A union with the Bavarian Illuminati is contemplated. 
When it is complete the Bavarian Cream Illuminati will rule the world
	-- Anonymous