...most of our OS's license agreements absolve the producer of any wrong doing and no consumer rights.
I agree completely... Software vendors should be treated no differently than food venders in that respect... If a gallon of milk has gone sour, I take it back to the store and get my money back (removing the lid should not prevent me from getting my money back... I earned that money, and someone who seals and delivers sour milk should not deny that. They didn't earn the money, so they must give it back.

On a further note, how am I going to know if that milk is sour or not without first opening and taking a good "whiff?" What if a company bottles milk with a statement, "You cannot drink this milk unless you have read the aggreement under the lid." and when you do not agree with the "agreement," you cannot take it back because the lid has been removed? What your stuck with is a bottle of milk that you can't drink and that you can't take back... That is ludicrous. M$ is run by lawyers (the bad kind), not programmers. This is one (only one, mind you) of the reasons I will not buy a product put out by Microsoft anymore. This is also why I will do my best to encourage others to learn better operating systems.

Microsoft doesn't even deserve the money I gave them in the first place (and yes, I tried to take Win 95 back) let alone the second and third... Why should I continue to cast my pearls before swine? They won't change so I must... But that's okay with me, because I'm a better person for it (as well as more knowledgable). They will never amount to the power and stability of *NIX (they can't) so why settle for second best (or third or fourth...)? ("The truth shall set you free. ")
Because I own a computer and am on the web did I click away my right to prevent you from using my system.
Absolutely not. The day that this kind of assenine thinking is added to an agreement of an ISP service is the day that I either change ISPs or tell them to get their cable out of my walls... The Internet (however grande) is no substitute for privacy or security. Privacy and security are fundamental rights... The internet is nothing more than a tool (like a telephone... If someone bugs your phone or manipulates your service to accept longs distance bills, your rights are violated... The day that becomes acceptible is the day I burn my phones. I don't mind being a hermit... I mind my rights being violated. )
Page views and posts are way out of line. Are you people thinking, do not understand, or say oops never thought of that?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I won't assume...

If you mean that sites like AO should not exist, than you are absolutely wrong... AO isn't about violating another individual's rights. It's about learning how to protect your rights.

If you mean the existance of personal web services available to the outside world, I have to disagree again... Anyone can have an "open house" or a "garage sale." That is their right. If they don't want a specific person in their "house," then they have the right to make them leave. If they want to have an open house for an hour or 10 years, that is their right as well. There is no violation of rights here... BUT... IF those rights are violated, then the person who has the site has every right to exercise his right to have a person (or group of persons ousted charged in legal persuit). It is against the law to violate anyone's rights (however which way you do it).

Cool lines of thought, BTW...

Rev