The burden of proof is on the SOFTWARE VENDOR (not you, and not the BSA!!!) to PROVE that your software is in violation. You do not have to "prove" anything. You're the Defendant (Respondent).
Unfortunately if the BSA has an affadavit from a former employee that you're pirating software, you now have to prove that they're wrong.
It'd be fantastic if a company was cleared of liability that the former employee could be charged with making false statements, but good luck of that ever happening!
I'd rather read intelligent posts. And economists must not be doing their job. Look at the economy great shape huh?
Economists don't control the economy. They interpret, theorize, and advise, but others (like politicians) are usually the ones to make the final decisions.
(adding a little to my own post to clarify)
Which isn't to say there is no overlap, since economists can be politicians, bankers, etc as well.
I'd rather read intelligent posts. And economists must not be doing their job. Look at the economy great shape huh?
Economists don't control the economy. They interpret, theorize, and advise, but others (like politicians) are usually the ones to make the final decisions.
He has not been able to get a budget to vote, even though the democrats had a supermajority, and could force laws through, like Obamacare, without a single republican vote. Yet he blaims this on the republicans.
What I find amazing is that both Obama and Boehner are not in control of their own parties. Obama, supposedly the leader of the Democratic party, has little rein over Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Similarly, Boehner has little control and ability to force the Republicans into a compromise, Eric Cantor as the unofficial Tea Party spokesman is in control. I'm not sure we've had a point in recent history where the two major negotiators for the political parties were little more than ambassadors for other power-holders. Unfortunately, it doesn't say good things for either Obama or Boehner.
Farm subsidies have been opposed by fiscal conservatives since their inception. They have been supported and expanded by leftists, often against the wishes of the farmers they purported to help.
Actually farm subsidies are supported by any politician who think it's extremely important to carry Iowa in the primaries and the general election.
There were also a lot less troops in Afghanistan when Bush was Pres,
Actually, that was a problem, not a desirable state. Afghanistan is all sorts of fucked up precisely because Bush decided to launch into Iraq.
Not that Obama is really better, what with the whole three wars thing. Calling what's currently happening in Iraq today a 'war' is a bit of a stretch. It's more like "two wars and an annoying occupation."
I'm only pointing out that there's a big difference between government programs that take money from a group of people for a specific purpose, and then give it back to those same people later
Is that really the case though? I'd love to see some numbers on how many people, say, end up getting more in Social Security than they had originally put in, and the same with Medicare. There are, of course, those on the other side, who pay in more than they end up withdrawing. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a number of the conservative arguments look at it from that angle, that they'd rather have it handled in a more 401k style where each individual's personal allowance is tied to exactly how much they deposited.
My problem is that I look around and see people who have made a choice that collecting unemployment for a year or two is a better financial choice than getting a shitty job.
Really? And these shitty jobs are just.. you know, out there for anyone to have?
Do you have an education? And a good job? If so, you don't know how how difficult it can be to get one of these shit jobs that you think are abundant.
Unless it's a limited time or contract job, employers don't want to hire people who will bail immediately because they get a better job offer, nor do they want someone who feels like they're above the work that they'd be doing.
So if you're well-educated and have experience working a non-shitty job, you'll find yourself shut out from the crappy jobs because you're 'overqualified.' Doesn't matter how good you'd be at the job, how much you need the work, or pretty much any other factor unless you get lucky. Having trained for 'good' jobs means they'll be the only offers you'll get. You and the many other hundreds applying for the same few dozen jobs you are.
Perhaps "religious psychopath" isn't the correct phrase for what I'm trying to convey. Maybe "radical Christian nutjob" is more along the right track. "Religious psychopath" implies that all religious people are psychopaths.
Or specifically, that your aunt is a psychopath, which by definition is someone that would be pretty difficult to love. I'm sure your aunt loves you and loves a number of people, so "psychopath" wouldn't be the best of terms. Radical Christian or Christian Fundamentalist might be more appropriate. A psychopath feels little empathy towards everyone, including you (that's... greatly simplifying it, and there's still debate over what a psychopath actually is), so the term itself is a bit loaded, like saying someone is a Nazi. It's a fair bit of hyperbole.
They would lose their money up to at most the value of their shareholding; that's what a limited liability corporation is, folks. Invest your money in a company that gets busted for illegal behavior and you lose it without compensation. That's the basic rules, do your homework before investing
It's also one of the many many reasons to diversify. You do not ever want to rely on a single corporation and put all of your eggs in one basket, so to speak.
Your bullshit is the problem with most westerners. You have no fucking idea how bad it is elsewhere, or the scale of the problem. With 400 million fucking people destitute in Inida, it puts all your other complaints about the world to shame. Global warming? Terrorism? Privacy? Put in perspective, and assuming we actually give a shit about making the world a better place with the countless billions of dollars that we are throwing around, the ONLY thing we should be doing is fixing India... until its fixed.
If you care about the people in India, especially those who live close to sea level, global warming should be a pretty fucking important topic to you.
But you know, this isn't where it ends. The abusive cops are still going to do what they want to do. Worse, they think they are right to do so.
The problem is the very police department is set against the citizens. You get the attitude of "us vs. them," and worst of all, the corrupt notion of "we have to protect our own." The system is set up to foster corruption.
And here in Australia they seem to want $60+ for a 3d bluray version of cloudy with a chance of meatballs, or Monsters vs Aliens. Seriously. Bad selection, bad prices. These things will kill it stone dead even if all the naysayers don't.
The only reason the studios are pushing 3D in the first place is because they can charge a premium for it.
I'm one of those who dislikes 3D movies, but think 3D games have potential to solve some 'big problems' in gaming that current technology doesn't address. How many times have you used a 3D engine (that is, regular 3D everyone has used for a decade, not 3D vision) and tried to jump at a platform or grab an object.. only to find that what looks like it's in range on the screen is actually out of range, simply because you couldn't actually gauge distance. Sure, a good game will be designed with the limitations of the medium in mind, but I look forward to being able to have real depth perception inside games.
But we don't don't have "True 3D" (in any movie theater or screen), only a "sortof there" there 3D, and that's the big problem. That's why current 3D is a step back in quality, due to the convergence issue which cannot be solved in the current 3D technology.
Over the past several decades, the government could pay out more benefits as the baby boomers entered the workforce and increased contributions. The problem is that now that they are entering retirement, there will not be enough workers making contributions to support the relatively larger burden. This is the problem with Ponzi schemes - everything seems to work fine as long as you can bring in more than you pay out.
It's not anything close to a Ponzi Scheme for several reasons:
1) The collectors of the payments die off, keeping the total number of people withdrawing from the system relatively stable. 2) Each year more Americans enter the work force, ensuring new people enter the system at a similar rate. 3) A Ponzi scheme lures people in by promising great rates of return, while the motivation for SSI is completely different. There's no promise nor expectation that you'll be able to withdraw more than you had put in.
The Social Security system is in no danger of collapsing. All it will ever need is rebalancing. If it's paying out more than it's bringing in, then you have all sorts of options to rebalance. You can raise the retirement age, you can lower the payments, or you can up the SSI tax rate, or any of the three.
Yeah, he clearly a victim of a massive conspiracy! A site that I've never heard of that has content indistinguishable from r/politics is suddenly under attack from the DOJ?
A single DoJ lawsuit does not a massive conspiracy make!
Surely there must be some middle ground, where the HOA will allow you to paint your house any color you like but prevents you from creating a 20 foot pile of trash in the front yard?
I think the HOA is the most blatant example of the "slippery slope" theory.
OK... do something, pull out gun, and remove yourself from the population.
Please note the slight difference between not making a child at all, and killing one. We are discussing the "not making so many children", and you try to kill the discussion by implying murder or suicide is the only option.
Technically, he didn't say it was the only option, just an easy one for the poster he was responding to.
On the other hand, a lot of problems can be solved by throwing money at them. If I "knew a guy" who ran a botnet, you can bet that I'd sell his ass to Microsoft for five years' salary.
Your salary sucks.
Maybe, but hardly unusual for those who work outside the tech sector.
The perception now is that he's a paid anti-Android/pro-Microsoft(?) shill
Really? I just thought he was an idiot. I've not noticed a bias towards or against any particular company or product from him, just a large deviation from reality. Florian saying something is a pretty good indicator that it's wrong. Microsoft can afford to hire people a lot more competent than him.
Not to mention that Mueller campaigned for the abolition of software patents in Europe, a position not likely popular in Redmond. It's what got him known, and just recently he's been shedding his credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
The burden of proof is on the SOFTWARE VENDOR (not you, and not the BSA!!!) to PROVE that your software is in violation. You do not have to "prove" anything. You're the Defendant (Respondent).
Unfortunately if the BSA has an affadavit from a former employee that you're pirating software, you now have to prove that they're wrong.
It'd be fantastic if a company was cleared of liability that the former employee could be charged with making false statements, but good luck of that ever happening!
However, I hope the correct use of the apostrophe in "you're" as a contraction of "you are" doesn't disappear. It is there for a reason. ;-)
Don't worry, it will be shortened to 'ur' to avoid confusion.
I'd rather read intelligent posts. And economists must not be doing their job. Look at the economy great shape huh?
Economists don't control the economy. They interpret, theorize, and advise, but others (like politicians) are usually the ones to make the final decisions.
(adding a little to my own post to clarify)
Which isn't to say there is no overlap, since economists can be politicians, bankers, etc as well.
I'd rather read intelligent posts. And economists must not be doing their job. Look at the economy great shape huh?
Economists don't control the economy. They interpret, theorize, and advise, but others (like politicians) are usually the ones to make the final decisions.
He has not been able to get a budget to vote, even though the democrats had a supermajority, and could force laws through, like Obamacare, without a single republican vote. Yet he blaims this on the republicans.
What I find amazing is that both Obama and Boehner are not in control of their own parties. Obama, supposedly the leader of the Democratic party, has little rein over Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Similarly, Boehner has little control and ability to force the Republicans into a compromise, Eric Cantor as the unofficial Tea Party spokesman is in control. I'm not sure we've had a point in recent history where the two major negotiators for the political parties were little more than ambassadors for other power-holders. Unfortunately, it doesn't say good things for either Obama or Boehner.
Farm subsidies have been opposed by fiscal conservatives since their inception. They have been supported and expanded by leftists, often against the wishes of the farmers they purported to help.
Actually farm subsidies are supported by any politician who think it's extremely important to carry Iowa in the primaries and the general election.
There were also a lot less troops in Afghanistan when Bush was Pres,
Actually, that was a problem, not a desirable state. Afghanistan is all sorts of fucked up precisely because Bush decided to launch into Iraq.
Not that Obama is really better, what with the whole three wars thing. Calling what's currently happening in Iraq today a 'war' is a bit of a stretch. It's more like "two wars and an annoying occupation."
Ah. So government == tyrant == dictator.
I'm only pointing out that there's a big difference between government programs that take money from a group of people for a specific purpose, and then give it back to those same people later
Is that really the case though? I'd love to see some numbers on how many people, say, end up getting more in Social Security than they had originally put in, and the same with Medicare. There are, of course, those on the other side, who pay in more than they end up withdrawing. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a number of the conservative arguments look at it from that angle, that they'd rather have it handled in a more 401k style where each individual's personal allowance is tied to exactly how much they deposited.
My problem is that I look around and see people who have made a choice that collecting unemployment for a year or two is a better financial choice than getting a shitty job.
Really? And these shitty jobs are just.. you know, out there for anyone to have?
Do you have an education? And a good job? If so, you don't know how how difficult it can be to get one of these shit jobs that you think are abundant.
Unless it's a limited time or contract job, employers don't want to hire people who will bail immediately because they get a better job offer, nor do they want someone who feels like they're above the work that they'd be doing.
So if you're well-educated and have experience working a non-shitty job, you'll find yourself shut out from the crappy jobs because you're 'overqualified.' Doesn't matter how good you'd be at the job, how much you need the work, or pretty much any other factor unless you get lucky. Having trained for 'good' jobs means they'll be the only offers you'll get. You and the many other hundreds applying for the same few dozen jobs you are.
I googled for that quote, leaving off the last four words and got one hit - your post. Got a cite?
I believe, in the words of Senator Jon Kyl, that it was "not intended to be a factual statement."
Perhaps "religious psychopath" isn't the correct phrase for what I'm trying to convey. Maybe "radical Christian nutjob" is more along the right track. "Religious psychopath" implies that all religious people are psychopaths.
Or specifically, that your aunt is a psychopath, which by definition is someone that would be pretty difficult to love. I'm sure your aunt loves you and loves a number of people, so "psychopath" wouldn't be the best of terms. Radical Christian or Christian Fundamentalist might be more appropriate. A psychopath feels little empathy towards everyone, including you (that's... greatly simplifying it, and there's still debate over what a psychopath actually is), so the term itself is a bit loaded, like saying someone is a Nazi. It's a fair bit of hyperbole.
They would lose their money up to at most the value of their shareholding; that's what a limited liability corporation is, folks. Invest your money in a company that gets busted for illegal behavior and you lose it without compensation. That's the basic rules, do your homework before investing
It's also one of the many many reasons to diversify. You do not ever want to rely on a single corporation and put all of your eggs in one basket, so to speak.
Your bullshit is the problem with most westerners. You have no fucking idea how bad it is elsewhere, or the scale of the problem. With 400 million fucking people destitute in Inida, it puts all your other complaints about the world to shame. Global warming? Terrorism? Privacy? Put in perspective, and assuming we actually give a shit about making the world a better place with the countless billions of dollars that we are throwing around, the ONLY thing we should be doing is fixing India... until its fixed.
If you care about the people in India, especially those who live close to sea level, global warming should be a pretty fucking important topic to you.
But you know, this isn't where it ends. The abusive cops are still going to do what they want to do. Worse, they think they are right to do so.
The problem is the very police department is set against the citizens. You get the attitude of "us vs. them," and worst of all, the corrupt notion of "we have to protect our own." The system is set up to foster corruption.
And here in Australia they seem to want $60+ for a 3d bluray version of cloudy with a chance of meatballs, or Monsters vs Aliens. Seriously. Bad selection, bad prices. These things will kill it stone dead even if all the naysayers don't.
The only reason the studios are pushing 3D in the first place is because they can charge a premium for it.
I'm one of those who dislikes 3D movies, but think 3D games have potential to solve some 'big problems' in gaming that current technology doesn't address. How many times have you used a 3D engine (that is, regular 3D everyone has used for a decade, not 3D vision) and tried to jump at a platform or grab an object.. only to find that what looks like it's in range on the screen is actually out of range, simply because you couldn't actually gauge distance. Sure, a good game will be designed with the limitations of the medium in mind, but I look forward to being able to have real depth perception inside games.
But we don't don't have "True 3D" (in any movie theater or screen), only a "sortof there" there 3D, and that's the big problem. That's why current 3D is a step back in quality, due to the convergence issue which cannot be solved in the current 3D technology.
Over the past several decades, the government could pay out more benefits as the baby boomers entered the workforce and increased contributions. The problem is that now that they are entering retirement, there will not be enough workers making contributions to support the relatively larger burden. This is the problem with Ponzi schemes - everything seems to work fine as long as you can bring in more than you pay out.
It's not anything close to a Ponzi Scheme for several reasons:
1) The collectors of the payments die off, keeping the total number of people withdrawing from the system relatively stable.
2) Each year more Americans enter the work force, ensuring new people enter the system at a similar rate.
3) A Ponzi scheme lures people in by promising great rates of return, while the motivation for SSI is completely different. There's no promise nor expectation that you'll be able to withdraw more than you had put in.
The Social Security system is in no danger of collapsing. All it will ever need is rebalancing. If it's paying out more than it's bringing in, then you have all sorts of options to rebalance. You can raise the retirement age, you can lower the payments, or you can up the SSI tax rate, or any of the three.
Yeah, he clearly a victim of a massive conspiracy! A site that I've never heard of that has content indistinguishable from r/politics is suddenly under attack from the DOJ?
A single DoJ lawsuit does not a massive conspiracy make!
Surely there must be some middle ground, where the HOA will allow you to paint your house any color you like but prevents you from creating a 20 foot pile of trash in the front yard?
I think the HOA is the most blatant example of the "slippery slope" theory.
Uh, won't that achieve the same end result of reducing the population by one?
Yes, but the "wrong person" would die. See, the ones who live need to be the enlightened ones so they can continue the crusade.
OK ... do something, pull out gun, and remove yourself from the population.
Please note the slight difference between not making a child at all, and killing one.
We are discussing the "not making so many children", and you try to kill the discussion by implying murder or suicide is the only option.
Technically, he didn't say it was the only option, just an easy one for the poster he was responding to.
On the other hand, a lot of problems can be solved by throwing money at them. If I "knew a guy" who ran a botnet, you can bet that I'd sell his ass to Microsoft for five years' salary.
Your salary sucks.
Maybe, but hardly unusual for those who work outside the tech sector.
The perception now is that he's a paid anti-Android/pro-Microsoft(?) shill
Really? I just thought he was an idiot. I've not noticed a bias towards or against any particular company or product from him, just a large deviation from reality. Florian saying something is a pretty good indicator that it's wrong. Microsoft can afford to hire people a lot more competent than him.
Not to mention that Mueller campaigned for the abolition of software patents in Europe, a position not likely popular in Redmond. It's what got him known, and just recently he's been shedding his credibility.