Le 16-02-21 19:15, Mike Horvath a écrit :
> On 2/21/2016 1:28 PM, Alain wrote:
>> Le 16-02-21 02:16, clipka a écrit :
>>> Am 20.02.2016 um 22:51 schrieb Mike Horvath:
>>>> On 2/20/2016 3:54 AM, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>>>>>     Mike, I don't want to sound rude, but I wonder why you think it
>>>>> would
>>>>> be easier or faster to ask these questions here instead searching on
>>>>> google... seriously, I'm totally perplexed at the logic behind it. I
>>>>> just did these searches and obtained the answers in a matter of
>>>>> seconds:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. https://help.sketchup.com/en/article/3000049
>>>>> 2. no, in regards to redistribution (from the above article)
>>>>> 3. http://www.povray.org/news/index.php#292
>>>>
>>>> I read #1 twice now, and still don't understand. Hence, why I asked.
>>>> Could you explain that Terms of Use for me? Thanks.
>>>
>>> What makes you think anyone here is better at understanding legalese
>>> than yourself?
>>>
>>> You should really ask lawyers about that one, not 3D hobbyists ;)
>>>
>>
>> "legalese" is the bane of common sence. It use obtuse phase constructs
>> and unusual words used in unusual context to willfully obfuscate the
>> real meaning of the author. It also uselessly inflate the text.
>> It's great to hide a lack of knowlege, fogged mindset, and contempt of
>> the readers.
>> It's a "language" made by lawers for lawers to help justify having to
>> many lawers.
>
> What? You can never have too many lawyers!
>
> Mike

We already have to many of them. They are just like roatches, they 
infest countless lives and reproduce uncontrolably.

Any law that can't be understood by any average Joe is a bad law.

Post a reply to this message