* Posts by The Other Steve

1184 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Oct 2007

The Pirate Party is the shape of things to come

The Other Steve
FAIL

and is willing to listen.

And yet I see absolutely no evidence of that. Strange.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Now we get to the heart ofthe matter

"It's the difference between leaving your kids a tree and a money tree!"

Ahh I see, so it IS pure jealousy then ? I thought so. If you had a money tree, you;d destroy it rather than give it to your hypothetical progeny ? Out of principle ? Thought not.

"You don't give a toss about his children either, but you are USING them to make your point? That's dishonest and hypocritical"

Actually, I was at school with his daughter (quite a while ago, hence the asterisk), which is why I used the term 'concrete example', so you'll have to think of a better straw man argument than that.

The Other Steve
FAIL

How may I compare thee to a ton of Fail, let me count the ways.

"It's a choice between rights holders and the general public."

Fail 1 : Says who ?

Fail 2 : I, personally, am both a rights holder AND a member of the general public. I fail to see quite how you are able to make the distinction.

"The record industry is squeezing money out of consumers and avoids any change that could mean fewer profits. "

Fail 3 : Ah I see, you only mean record companies do you ? It's not even about IP rights as a whole ? Just those ones ?

Fail 4: Translation "I want cheaper stuff". Just say so, and stop dressing it up in bullshit.

"The general public is starting to resist them through mass disobedience"

Fail 5 : No, no they aren't. A couple of dozen surly teenagers with black tape over the faces is not "mass disobedience" it isn't even "disobedience".

There we go, this fail was sponsored by the number 5.

The Other Steve
Thumb Up

That is feed line number 465 ...

"This has to stop. Big brother is steadfastly moving forward in our lifetimes. Like any period where a large, abusive political force is in power it is time to strike the drum and revolt!"

The Pirate Party are pretty revolting, all right.

Walked straight into that one.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Failure to communicate

I still haven't seen you explain anywhere just what all this screwing is that's taking place, or why I should care.

All I'm getting is basically "I think that some things cost to much, it's just not fair".

This is your fault, you need to communicate better.

And as for this tosh :

""It's impossible for there to be any change where "without anyone getting screwed", to believe otherwise is... cute. It's always a trade-off."

This rather indicates that you are immune to the possibility of a win win situation. You will destroy the enemy, there will be no compromise. There must be a loser, and you've chosen who it is. Or rather, you've chosen to fantasise who it is, since none of this will ever come pass.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Drug patents don't kill people. Mustaches kill people.

Not having drug patents would kill more people. But then, you already know that, because it's not possible that you could regularly express this retarded opinion without having had someone beat you with a cluebat.

Nonetheless : Drug development costs money, big, big, big money. Without the ability to recover that investment and make profit, there would be no drug development. Therefore no drugs. Whoops - everybody's dead Dave.

Diseases kill people, poverty kills people. Drug patents save people. People who would otherwise have died because there was no cure for the disease they contracted.

Poor people die because they aren't rich enough to buy drugs.

Please don't have the temerity to suggest that drug development is getting cheaper and therefore drug patents are bad, because even assuming that to be true, the economics will be tilting toward providing drugs for poorer people, because they'd be cheaper.

Now if you were to say to me "Some people will die who needn't have done because some pharmaceutical companies are greedier than they could be" we could have a sensible conversation about it. If you were to say "people in third world countries have no access to expensive drugs because the kleptocrat dictators that we prop up use the entire GDP to buy their fat ugly wives shoes and that is really unjust", ditto.

Drug patents do not kill people. Diseases kill people. Fail ahoy, me hearty.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Oh yeah, and I checked the 'research'

The chap who did it "Pollock has been an advocate for restricted copyright terms and stronger public domain for years"

E.g. for years before he wrote the paper you're referring to (which is neither extensive, or even a study, or even research, but speculation couched in equations), which gives him a credibility rating of approximately zero, at least it does if we apply, say, the same level of rigour to his analysis as you would to that of a record company releasing a study saying P2P and related piracy is costing them money. Viz : he is very firmly in camp X and therefore everything he says is polluted by that fact.

The whole thing is an exercise in sophistry designed to prove to himself and other believers that he is right. Epic fail.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Oh I see

"there's no justifiable reason why the law should guarantee the great, great grandchildren of an author an unearned source of income."

OK then, when you die you agree to forfeit all your assets. Property, bank accounts, car, all that, all of them will be given away. You will not be able to leave any of it to your children* Because there's no justifiable reason why your children, children's (etc) should get any benefit from them.

Yes ? That's OK with you ? Good.

*was that a troy or labour policy, I can't tell them apart any more.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Yes ...

"Don't care about his children"

.. that's what I thought.

"If I die, I could leave my kids money and a house. Why should his children get money, a house and something that magically keeps making more money even though he's dead?"

When you die, your assets will continue to appreciate in value. And Slade's back catalogue doesn't make money by 'magic', so I think I can see where you're getting confused.

What happens is radio stations want to play it, because it's popular, so they pay for it, and he gets some money. See ? No wonder the freetards are angry if they think all that happened by magic.

Anyway, I think the take away message here is that you want Noddy Holder's children to starve so that you can get free stuff.

You aren't nice.

The Other Steve

Eh ?

See title

The Other Steve
FAIL

"WHOOSH" is right

That was the sound of you rushing full speed toward those conclusions without actually reading the article. The buzzer you are about to hear is the Fail siren.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Yes I am

And there is nothing screwed up about it all. One belief, one vision, one truth, all imposed on others, against their will if necessary.

Where's the difference ? Of course, you're going to say "well the Taliban kill people", and I will say "that is why I said 'like' the Taliban (and showed my workings out) and not 'identical to' the Taliban'"

Carry on.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Oh goody ...

"I seem to remember there was a large investigation done into copyright terms, and approximately 10-15 years duration was calculated to be the optimum time of protection required to enable a content owner to make the money from their work,"

Then you can post a link to it so that we can all see it.

"Lapse of copyright means that you can publish anything in the public domain that you wish to. So, that'd be cheaper paperbacks from your favourite author"

Without my 'favourite' author getting a penny. Why would I want to do that to my favourite author ?

"or cheaper access to music 15 years after"

Let me give you a concrete example here, Slade's "Merry Christmas" is still feeding Noddy Holder's children*, do you want Noddy's children to starve ? Well ? DO YOU ? Should Noddy go out and get a shelf stacking job to put food in his children's mouths just so you can get 'cheaper' music ? Because this is precisely what you are proposing should happen.

*yes, I know, ta.

The Other Steve

Well ...

... it has been my experience that whenever you have to stop and ask yourself "Are people that stupid ?", the answer is invariably 'yes, yes they are, shit'.

"I suspect most people are not this stupid, and the Pirate Party will get the sort of voter turnout last seen by the Monster Raving Loony Party."

I suspect that their very stupidity will place their votes elsewhere, albeit with the same result.

The Other Steve
Big Brother

Excellently put

Having said that : "But in reality, it's surprisingly authoritarian: the Pirates' solution to every grievance is a new law or regulation"

Maybe not so surprising, single issue parties tend towards authoritarianism (look at the greens for example) because they also tend towards zealotry and fundamentalism (greens again!).

This seems to be because they have received the One True Vision of How Things Must Be, naturally there will be a lot of stupid or evil people who disagree with the OTVoHTMB, and these must be dealt with summarily.

The OTVoHTMB does not embrace nor even encourage democracy, for why should it ? It is a priori correct and no competing view point is required.

The freetard fundies are unpleasantly like the Taliban in that respect.

Sarah's Law review skewed by handpicked sample

The Other Steve

Sigh

"Who are "they". How do you determine who "they" are?"

'They' would be the people that parents are supposed to check out with the HO Peado Hotline. My point being that if you feel the doubt, go with your instinct, not the HOPH.

And as for the ones you don't suspect, that was precisely my point. That is why the system is pointless.

"How do you suggest that should be accomplished, Steve?"

I would suggest using the method that you yourself appear to have deployed, as indeed my own dear parents with me so many years ago, viz using common sense, taking the responsibility for yourself and teaching your children to take it also.

We are arguing in agreement here. Well, you are at any rate.

The Other Steve

Eh ?

"I am a 'parentard' and my 18 year old daughter was never molested when she was growing up."

Good, I'm glad.

"I managed this by taking "SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY" all the time, most of the time as a de-facto single dad."

Excellent job, well done. I mean that seriously, BTW.

"Something that as a non-parent', by your lights, I assume you are incapable of. Therefore the correct term for you 'opinion' is actually mindless inflammatory twatdrivel."

So, let me get this right, you did what I have just suggested, took responsibility instead of handing it off to a third party, and yet when I say that, it's twatdrivel ?

The Other Steve

Yes

A CRB check is valid only for the organisation that requested it (the result goes to them, you only get a copy) and for the stated post listed on the application form.

Your copy is not valid anywhere else, or at any other time. It is effectively merely a receipt.

That's what it says on the back of my last one, anyway.

If the requesting body was the actual school, rather than the LEA, then this is possibly 'stupid but true', since other schools would not have a registered copy of the CRB form.

The Other Steve
Thumb Up

Except that ...

"1. Most child abuse is *not* "stranger danger". Its carried out by friends and family."

Upwards of 90% in fact.

.. in your own frothing way you have actually agreed with what I said. Your defence against paedogeddon has been, in fact, to take some fucking responsibility.

Good show.

The Other Steve
Joke

On the plus side

"This is the UK............. sadly you, me and a few others are in the miniority."

Can't we get some rights with that ?

The Other Steve
Alert

I say ...

... we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

The Other Steve

OK then

"But I do think that the ability to check is important"

To whom, and under what circumstances ? Seriously, enquiring minds want to know.

The Other Steve
Big Brother

Broken by design, and utterly pointless

Pop quiz parentards :

You suspect that someone to whom you may grant access to your cheeldren may pose a risk to them.

Do you :

A ) Phone the Home Office Paedo hotline and have them run a background check, the likely results of which will only come back positive if said potential predator has been caught in the act.

B) TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHANGE AND NOT LET THEM HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR CHEELDREN.

You can see where I have used all capital letters to help you make the right choice.

Given that anyone who has to have access to your brats, everyone from the teacher to the sodding milkman must now be rigorously vetted by the state in any case, this is aimed squarely at individuals, e.g. the bloke who lives down the road and is a bit odd, your friends, etc, etc.

When this was first being mooted, I even heard that one of the main concerns was that women (not men) should be able to check out their new partners. I mean FFS, if there's enough cause for concern for you to reach for the phone in that case you already have your answer.

Disclosure : I am not a parent, so I imagine that those who are will chip in to remind me that my opinion is therefore 'irrelevant', rather than using the correct term, which is 'entirely objective'.

Apple director 'disgusted' by Jobsian health secrets

The Other Steve

I never said ...

"So, Steve Jobs is a micro-managing sociopathic control freak? Who cares? Nobody's asking you to go out on a date with the guy."

... that it was necessarily a bad thing. Probably what makes him such a successful CEO, in fact. The most successful CEOs and directors I've ever met have been very similar, although usually less the mythical charisma and plus some bad suits.

The Other Steve
Gates Horns

You would hope so

"Bill Gates has always been a big Apple fan"

I would hope so, considering that Apple basically paid for MS to become the beastly behemoth we all love to hate,

Apple paid MS millions to have MS products written for the Mac, Gates told them it would all have to be done from scratch, but it took Simonyi about ten minutes* because he had written (or caused to be written) the apps in MS' bastardised portable P-Code system. Gates took the cash anyway and laughed all the way to the bank. Used to finance the expansion of MS.

*I can't recall the exact figure, but it was probably more than that really, you know what I mean.

The Other Steve
Jobs Horns

Eh ?

"it's becoming increasingly clear that at Apple the CEO calls the shots,"

Becoming ? When was it ever not clear that that was the case ? Or rather, when was it ever not clear that Apple is Steve Jobs' personal vehicle for delivering his one true vision of the way we should compute ?

Jobs is a micro-managing sociopathic control freak, and inside Apple he has ALWAYS called the shots, even when he wasn't the CEO and the actual CEOs have tried to keep him out of the way. Christ, even when he stropped off to found NeXT you can bet he had an eye on coming back and staging the coup to make Apple his again and make them do things HIS way.

Anyone who is only just becoming aware of this fact has not been paying attention at all for the last thirty or so years.

"And that's exactly the opposite of the way corporate governance is intended to function. A company's CEO is supposed to serve at the pleasure of the board and to answer to the company's investors - not the other way around."

Yes, that's the theory. In theory, theory is the same as practice, but in practice it isn't. Stopping board members from interfering is an art unto itself, and a widely practised one at that. Jobs has an easier time of it than most people who have to deal at board level, because a) he got pick the team. and b) he is a notoriously charismatic sociopath. Or so they say, it doesn't come across in his public appearances.

"might become an autocracy"

Might ????? Nope, to late, it's been to late since at least 1997. It's probably been to late since 1976.

'Switch to Century Gothic to save the planet'

The Other Steve
Thumb Up

Exactly so!

"...you could not print the email?"

Bloody right.

I mean seriously "says she has switched the college's email system from Arial to Gothic" was the last sentence I was expecting to see in that story. I mean FFS, if printing your email is using to much ink, don;t change the font, slap the idiots who feel the need to print every email. Make it policy that your default is "don't print email", with a side helping of "if we catch you printing email that is in any way profligate or unnecessary (i.e. most of them) it's a disciplinary for you."

Ahh! The red mist is descending ...

[corporate flashback]

I hate people who print emails. Hate them. They are evil. I understand that some things need to become matters of record and must be filed, but this does not give you an excuse to turn up out of the fucking blue and monopolise the floor's only bastard printer for SIX FUCKING HOURS. YOU UTTER UTTER BASTARDS!

[fin]

Ah, better.

Apple display patent enslaves sun

The Other Steve
Jobs Horns

Obvious really :-)

"How is this different from a standard 'transflective' LCD backlit display?"

Because that display will let you use any old light, whereas Apple's version will only let you light that Steve Jobs has personally approved, and it includes facilities to make it dark again if he subsequently changes the Holy Mind.

It will work in conjunction with Apple's new BlueTooth buggering ID chip and only allow you to use 'Made For iPhone' desk lamps which will cost £600 each, which is a lot for a lamp but it will pretty. Sadly the Apple lamp won't work in conjunction with any of your other lamps, and it will very likely have a funny plug on it.

The Other Steve
Thumb Up

Ah yes, but ...

... as I understand it :

a) The patent search carried out by the USPTO (and UKPO, for that matter, although they are reputedly a bit more more thorough) consists largely of a trawl through the patents database and a few other 'specialist' databases, contents not revealed (to me anyway), and

b) that counts as a different application area, sort of thing.

Process wise, anyway.

It is stupid though, it's clearly failed the 'man in the street' test, which isn't part of the patent search process, but ought to be. Maybe USPTO should simply start throwing this stuff on the web as soon as it comes in and crowdsource their process a bit.

The Other Steve
WTF?

+1 for WTF?

Did Apple just patent a mirror ?

I mean, I like patents, really I do, but seriously,

Times websites want £1 a day from June

The Other Steve
Thumb Up

>plonk< HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAA

That is the sound of the Times falling out of my bookmarks while I laugh hysterically. I doubt the Times has a strong enough USP to survive in a marketplace filled with non paid competition.

@Ralph 5 : "Advertising is sometimes a reasonable tradeoff, but I'd rather have quality content I paid for than have advertising in my face all day."

Ah yes, but that's the point isn't it ? Murdoch's entire business model revolves around the fact that he wants you to pay for 'quality' content AND have advertising in your face all day. You pay him so that he can charge advertisers for your eyeballs. Well fuck right off with that.

For some reason, enough people have fallen for this to make him exceedingly rich, but I will remain a refusenik until he picks one or the other, which will be never.

FBI cyber cop says 'very existence' of US under threat

The Other Steve

Only not

"However, your ranting has started to move into the fanboi sphere"

Fanboi, of what ? Fanboi of clue, sure. Fanboi of a pragmatic and completely platform agnostic approach to solving IT problems ? Yup. Fanboi of professionalism ? Guilty. Fanboi of calling out clueless freetards for saying things are clearly and verifiably nonsense? definitely.

"(claiming "I use linux" doesnt change anything either)."

Except that it does, I've been a linux user for more than a decade and yet somehow it hasn't turned me into a dribbling retard who thinks it is the one true answer to everything.

I also pointed out that I have no problem with moving to linux desktops and OOo - indeed I've seen it done properly and had clients save money, what I do have a problem with is the idea that OSes and productivity suits are fungible and that you can just swap them out without giving it any more thought than that.

As you yourself have just so ably pointed out, this is very much not the case.

The Other Steve
FAIL

And once again, 'truth' vs reality

"It would take about three days to install Linux and OpenOffice in my office and most wouldn't even notice the difference."

Go on and do it then, money where your mouth is. Not long ago a client did exactly this in a misguided attempt to save on licensing costs and people sure as buggery noticed. They really noticed, and they were really, really unhappy. Not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with either linux or OOo, mind you, but because it wasn't what they had spent years getting used to and learning. It was different, and they were immediately deskilled. That upsets people.

Their support workload went through roof, and stayed their for a really long time, the results of which were felt throughout the organisation even by people not directly effected by the switchover.

Depending on how you structure your support costings, these things don't necessarily show up on the bottom line, but they are still costs.

If you had real world experience of what you're talking about, you wouldn't be any where near so fucking glib about it. Sure, move to linux desktops and OOo, but get a fucking clue about how to do it properly first, and don't imagine for a moment that 'no one would notice'.

And by the way, if it would only take three days, your user base is tiny, so again, you really don't understand the realities of what is involved with doing this with a large user base.

m'kay ?

The Other Steve
FAIL

Utterly clueless

"They have direct control over every line of code and arenot at the mercy of large corporations to fix gaping security bugs."

I take this to indicate that you have spent absolutely zero time in serious government circles, or even bothered to think about it very much, because if you had you had you would understand that where security is seriously at issue, governments have source licences to the OSes that they use.

Control over source code is not an issue. Shit, _you_ could go out tomorrow and buy a source licence for Windows, key word there is 'buy', and it's unlikely that a freetard could afford it, or would abide by the licensing terms and the NDA, but still.

Lots of zero knowledge posts from freetards and fanbois today, as usual.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Think, don't shudder. Better - measure and know.

"I shudder to think what would have happened with Windows, as she has no concept of the various software layers "

Then let me provide you with a clue : nothing.

My pensioner mother does all these things with no ill effects on an XP box. I like linux, use it all the time, but this foamy hyperbolic bullshit is really boiling my piss, y'know ?

Police reject Tory plans for elected chiefs

The Other Steve
FAIL

Fact fail detected, clue insertion required.

"Can you please be sure to refer to ACPO by its full name"

Which is "THE ASSOCIATION OF CHIEF POLICE OFFICERS OF ENGLAND, WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND" according to their companies house entry.

It is not a "Plc", which is a company whose shares can be traded, it is a "Private company limited by guarantee", which is different.

Technically this makes them a "Ltd" or more properly "Limited", but such an organisation is only required to use the "Limited" suffix if it distributes profits, which ACPO doesn't. This exemption is noted in the CH entry.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/0073489469ce2bf2db90ab156b923553/compdetails

Maybe your primary adjunct could do with assimilating some facts, eh ?

The Other Steve
Thumb Up

"US-style votes not popular with plod"

Tough shit, it isn't up to them. Regardless of which side of the 'should we / shouldn't we' fence, ACPO's opinion is utterly irrelevant.

You don't ask turkeys if they think Christmas is a good idea or not.

Pirate Party UK launches manifesto

The Other Steve
FAIL

Fuck you, it's mine.

"10 years of non-renewable copyright should be plenty enough for anyone "

Fuck off. If I create it, it is mine, not 'mine until some whiny jealous freetard decides that I'm rich enough and it's now OK for him to steal it', just 'mine'. It belongs to me until _I_ decide to put into the public domain, not when some other fucker feels it is convenient.

Team Reg have coverage of "The IP thing" about right, perhaps that's because they create IP with value.

Which is entirely unlike approximately 100% of whiny freetards, curiously enough.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Fail train keeps on rolling

"With the OS, a lot of other software gets changed. It's a natural progression that can't be avoided, even by the most stubborn users."

IE6

"No. I don't know a single person who still uses software that old on a daily basis. Maybe some companies still do, but they are beside the point."

Huh ? You don't know about them so they don't matter ? Riiiiight.

"The FAIL is all yours. Who in their right mind would argue that updates are unnecessary??"

Maybe someone with an actual clue who has seen enterprises happily rubbing along on IT systems that are older than you ?

I see you found the correct icon to attach to your outpourings though.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Cough

"But hey, one could probably copy the GUI without risking a Ballmer Sueball. Instant win!"

Except that you already can, see practically every Linux desktop since people stopped copying NeXTStep. KDE get sued ? No. Gnome ? No. Well then.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Sure about that ?

"There's no requirement on my side to keep them up to date. There is a requirement on their side to keep them up to date."

Just to pick one from the list above, if you don't update the DVLA they will repo your car. There are consequences to failing to report a change in circumstances for most state databases, and very *especially* HMRC.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Yes, yes you do.

"Operating systems"

Only change if I want then to,

"drivers"

Only need to change if I change my hardware.

"and hardware change[s]"

Only if I want it to.

"so software has to change to stay functional"

And that's a circular argument, you're saying software has to change because software has to change. Brain hurt much ?

"Do we really have much use for software from the days of Win98?"

Yes.

"Would it be safe to browse the web using a version of XP from 2001?"

Yes.

The one you're looking for is the big red one with "Fail" written it, here, let me show you.

The Other Steve
FAIL

XP without security patches ...

or being behind a firewall or NAT router. Curb your hysteria.

Council deforests beauty spot to combat dogging

The Other Steve
Pint

Presumably ...

... the reason for cutting back the trees is so that the consenting adults shagging in the woods will now be visible, and lacking privacy will ... well, they'll find somewhere else, won't they.

But if that's the case, then the trees were preventing anyone from seeing them ?

And how many more tress will have to be cut down at the new spot that will doubtless be appropriated ? Are we going to cut all the trees in the UK down just in case some unsavoury type is using as cover for a tawdry but otherwise harmless activity which might upset the kind of retards who read the Daily Mail - who let's face it spend their entire miserable existence righteously seething about one thing or another.

Or, really, is it the case - as the article suggests - that the trees were going to be cut in any case and the DM has blown the whole issue up out of all proportion because it is exactly the kind of thing that keeps sald readers' tiny righteous heads spinning in a DM consuming frenzy ? The only way this story could be any more appealing to the average MailTard is if it involved immigrants of some stripe.

Mandy quango says Apple, Amazon are too obscure

The Other Steve

Not only, but also ...

"And well over 80% among 15-34, who buy music"

And isn't the current headline number for 'illegal' downloading 30% or so, largely in the same demo, in which case a good portion of the 'illegals' do in fact know where they can get legal tracks, and choose not to, rendering the whole thing utterly pointless not just in an 'obvious to anyone' kind of way, but based entirely on an objective analysis of the BERRs own numbers ?

"You're just not thinking like a gov-sponsored quango, though..."

Thank heavens for small mercies.

Teen's mobe loaded with X-rated smut

The Other Steve
Thumb Up

Free pr0n AND a ten spot ?

Some people are never happy.

Register.com argues it can't be sued for negligence

The Other Steve
FAIL

I just beg

"Surely the definition of whether or not negligence is gross revolves around the impact of said"

No. And don't call me surely.

You know you'd be much better informed if you actually took the time to look this kind of shit up instead of just going "OMG, this opinion I just formed in two seconds based on absolutely zero knowledge of the relevant domain must definitely be correct, it's so frickin obvious!"

So I see your "Surely" and raise you "Culpa Lata", the Roman Law principle from which the modern definition of gross negligence (in both UK and US law) depends.

See how this works ?

The Other Steve
FAIL

I doubt it

"am I the only person who won't do businesses with companies that use their terms and conditions to allow themselves to slack off? "

I doubt you are, because I doubt you have read through every clause of every contract you've ever entered into with an eye to rejecting the ones that contain such clauses.

For a start, if you had, you would have no ISP and no bank account.

Standard Form Contracts ALWAYS contain Ts&Cs which benefit the party who drafted the contract, that's what they are for. Back in the mists of many moons since, when I spent serious time boning up on this kind of thing my old law tutor honestly believed that SFCs were an evil tool of corporate oppression.

The Other Steve
FAIL

Yes but really

".there are some things that you can not waive in a contract, so even if both parties agree and it's in writing, the law still takes precedence and the clause is automatically nullified should an issue surrounding it come to court"

True, but with a caveat, in UK law forbearance to sue is valid consideration, so in a UK court this clause would be entirely proper and enforceable, you'd be surprised how many of the contracts that you have signed without reading them contain such a clause.

AIUI this is also the case in US law.

There's been a constant stream of contract story related commentards recently shouting "They can't do that!" They can, they've got lawyers, they checked. GIYF.

Caveat Emptor.