Quite frankly, I think the TSA itself should be on the hook.
The TSA is supposed to be protecting us, and I consider it at the least grossly negligent for them to allow one of their own to pull off something like this for SIX FUCKING MONTHS without getting caught.
They're supposed to be running background checks on these people, and besides that I wouldn't doubt that his victims have filed plenty of police reports or complaints of some sort, so the powers that be are either completely blind, or are in on it somehow.
6 months of looting the baggage of travelers? Not a fucking accident.
Saying that it's one's patriotic duty to bend over conveniently neglects the negative side effects of being the subject of police attention even if completely innocent.
* Waste of taxpayer money for the time spent in barking up the wrong tree * Inconvenience to the detained * Damage to reputation among bystanders that are observing * Other things I could easily mention
The only time I'd welcome being investigated is if I was already under suspicion and getting checked is going to do more good than harm. Otherwise, it's a waste of everyone's time.
Especially for the government, which has enough pork in the budget as it is without police wasting precious man-hours stepping on our rights.
Actually, I *do* have something to fear from the authorities even if I've done nothing wrong.
Besides the rampant possibilities of being joe jobbed or falling victim to plain incompetence, I'm not keen on having my precious tax dollars wasted on innocent me when there are REAL CROOKS out there to go after.
You'd be making a better (but less effective) analogy if you compared it to renting a game.
A movie ticket is a consumable commodity that entitles you to a service, that of watching the movie. It's quite different from purchasing a hard copy of the DVD.
Hard copies enjoy the First Sale doctrine, and as long as the original buyer relinquishes all rights to the property, the next buyer should be entitled to the benefit of his bargain.
I suspect though that your own analogy is inherently weak because the position you are advocating is nothing but bullshit and you can't really defend it.
What can be done to stop cancer, and what is practical, are two separate things. And it's not all biology and chemistry, either.
Consider also that a real cure for cancer would ruin the market for chemotherapy, among other things, and I have to ask.
Besides lucrative one time sales, what incentive do pharmaceutical companies have to actually cure cancer? Once someone is cured, they are no longer a patient.
Botnets, like most criminal enterprises, have a distinct advantage in that the perpetrators consider themselves above the law.
Their biggest strength is their willingness to exploit weaknesses and perform actions not available to law abiding citizens. The are not, for example, averse to hijacking PCs, hooking up with shady providers, or even flaunting international borders and strongholding in countries like Iran that are outright hostile to US interests and could actually be anywhere from indifferent to outright supportive of their actions.
They are also able to move faster than law enforcement in many cases since they are not fettered by the courts or other bureaucratic machinations. If they want to relocate their CC servers, pass their holdings to someone else, or even shut down completely, they just do it, and they don't have to wait around for a court order or a subpoena to do it either.
Maybe not quite as severe as losing your patent completely, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to sue them for exorbitant damages if you're conniving enough to watch them get away with it until they're ripe to be sued.
However, patent forfeiture could be used as a punitive measure if you DO sue someone past the deadline.
Maybe not quite as severe as losing your patent completely, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to sue them for exorbitant damages if you're conniving enough to watch them get away with it until they're ripe to be sued.
However, patent forfeiture could be used as a punitive measure.
You can have a perfectly good case that a lawyer won't touch with a ten mile pole, if said case is "beneath them"
A lawyer in the million dollar bracket for cases won't stoop to help you win a 10k lawsuit.
You may also have a lawyer the system has by the balls and he can't really dare to side with you. If the company you wish to take action against has somehow corrupted the system, such as by having shills on the local bar association, even a slam dunk case may be risky to even touch.
It doesn't really help that the rich often can stay rich and keep the poor poor because "The one who has the gold makes the rules", and often lobby and campaign and sometimes even outright bribe the political process to keep things that way.
For example, subverting the trickle down process by hiring a shitload of H1-B's who are so poor they're willing to sell their souls for less than we'd demand for even an arm or a leg of a job.
When things like planned obsolescence and costly proprietary replacement parts (razor blades, ink cartridges) make it more profitable to be shoddy, it's hard move away from a disposable society.
Maybe they accept 100K or so for giving their stuff away to the corporation because the legal department would squash them like a bug if they dared invent for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone understands that asbestos is not fungus derived.
Everyone might NOT understand, however, that bullshit in one part of a post is contagious and infects the rest of the post.
Indeed, I fail to see how a *mineral* substance can be fungally derived.
What's next, mushrooms pooping out rocks?
You seem to be forgetting that the government is the one doing it.
Shooting everyone in the foot, while making sure one's own foot gets the last bullet, still doesn't let you keep walking when everyone collapses.
I mean sure, the one lucky bastard would make a small fortune, but it wouldn't last forever.
Quite frankly, I think the TSA itself should be on the hook.
The TSA is supposed to be protecting us, and I consider it at the least grossly negligent for them to allow one of their own to pull off something like this for SIX FUCKING MONTHS without getting caught.
They're supposed to be running background checks on these people, and besides that I wouldn't doubt that his victims have filed plenty of police reports or complaints of some sort, so the powers that be are either completely blind, or are in on it somehow.
6 months of looting the baggage of travelers? Not a fucking accident.
The reason you usually pay more for a DVD than you do a ticket at the theatre is the fact that you can reuse the DVD as a durable medium.
Much the same reason if you buy a recliner instead of rent it you pay more as a capital investment, but don't have to pay over time.
Quite right.
Saying that it's one's patriotic duty to bend over conveniently neglects the negative side effects of being the subject of police attention even if completely innocent.
* Waste of taxpayer money for the time spent in barking up the wrong tree
* Inconvenience to the detained
* Damage to reputation among bystanders that are observing
* Other things I could easily mention
The only time I'd welcome being investigated is if I was already under suspicion and getting checked is going to do more good than harm. Otherwise, it's a waste of everyone's time.
Especially for the government, which has enough pork in the budget as it is without police wasting precious man-hours stepping on our rights.
Actually, I *do* have something to fear from the authorities even if I've done nothing wrong.
Besides the rampant possibilities of being joe jobbed or falling victim to plain incompetence, I'm not keen on having my precious tax dollars wasted on innocent me when there are REAL CROOKS out there to go after.
You'd be making a better (but less effective) analogy if you compared it to renting a game.
A movie ticket is a consumable commodity that entitles you to a service, that of watching the movie. It's quite different from purchasing a hard copy of the DVD.
Hard copies enjoy the First Sale doctrine, and as long as the original buyer relinquishes all rights to the property, the next buyer should be entitled to the benefit of his bargain.
I suspect though that your own analogy is inherently weak because the position you are advocating is nothing but bullshit and you can't really defend it.
It's more like the good guys are handicapped in that they have to follow the law, whereas the bad guys have no such restraints.
Botnets would be much easier to take down if white hats were allowed to hijack them and make them self destruct.
What can be done to stop cancer, and what is practical, are two separate things. And it's not all biology and chemistry, either.
Consider also that a real cure for cancer would ruin the market for chemotherapy, among other things, and I have to ask.
Besides lucrative one time sales, what incentive do pharmaceutical companies have to actually cure cancer? Once someone is cured, they are no longer a patient.
Botnets, like most criminal enterprises, have a distinct advantage in that the perpetrators consider themselves above the law.
Their biggest strength is their willingness to exploit weaknesses and perform actions not available to law abiding citizens. The are not, for example, averse to hijacking PCs, hooking up with shady providers, or even flaunting international borders and strongholding in countries like Iran that are outright hostile to US interests and could actually be anywhere from indifferent to outright supportive of their actions.
They are also able to move faster than law enforcement in many cases since they are not fettered by the courts or other bureaucratic machinations. If they want to relocate their CC servers, pass their holdings to someone else, or even shut down completely, they just do it, and they don't have to wait around for a court order or a subpoena to do it either.
The USPTO needs its payroll beefed up quite a bit.
When you can use an army of lawyers to drown out the government, there's a problem.
Make them burn in hell for one year for every BS patent they acquire?
Besides, if it's a BS patent it should never have been issued in the first place.
Unfortunately, until such time as judges become mind readers, the company can always deny all knowledge that inconveniences them.
Maybe not quite as severe as losing your patent completely, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to sue them for exorbitant damages if you're conniving enough to watch them get away with it until they're ripe to be sued.
However, patent forfeiture could be used as a punitive measure if you DO sue someone past the deadline.
Maybe not quite as severe as losing your patent completely, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to sue them for exorbitant damages if you're conniving enough to watch them get away with it until they're ripe to be sued.
However, patent forfeiture could be used as a punitive measure.
All this "treble damages" stuff for people who willfully infringe is so onesided.
There should be penalties for patent holders who willfully allow infringement in the name of increased damages.
Wouldn't this count as a bribe?
You can have a perfectly good case that a lawyer won't touch with a ten mile pole, if said case is "beneath them"
A lawyer in the million dollar bracket for cases won't stoop to help you win a 10k lawsuit.
You may also have a lawyer the system has by the balls and he can't really dare to side with you. If the company you wish to take action against has somehow corrupted the system, such as by having shills on the local bar association, even a slam dunk case may be risky to even touch.
It doesn't really help that the rich often can stay rich and keep the poor poor because "The one who has the gold makes the rules", and often lobby and campaign and sometimes even outright bribe the political process to keep things that way.
For example, subverting the trickle down process by hiring a shitload of H1-B's who are so poor they're willing to sell their souls for less than we'd demand for even an arm or a leg of a job.
I thought SCO was about copyrights, not patents.
When things like planned obsolescence and costly proprietary replacement parts (razor blades, ink cartridges) make it more profitable to be shoddy, it's hard move away from a disposable society.
Maybe they accept 100K or so for giving their stuff away to the corporation because the legal department would squash them like a bug if they dared invent for themselves.
In all fairness, Fox News did claim (accidentally) that the president was dead in Afghanistan.