Interesting... I just checked my plan documentation very, very thoroughly, and that exclusion is listed absolutely nowhere, including the list of exclusions at the end.
It's easy to assume that exclusion does not apply to my specific plan (I am not so naive...) but it is possible. I was really just offering a suggestion. I'm sure there's some plan out there (possibly mine) that covers this sort of garbage.
I am both paranoid and very, very patient. Hence, I use Tor.;)
I keep hearing that this is turning into a business model, but has anybody really figured out the economics of it? I would submit that if you throw a grenade into the lake, some fish will will be killed and float to the top, and some others will survive. It probably costs them the price of a sheet of paper and a stamp to "ask" for $3000 worth of money they didn't earn. If they don't get it, they actually have to do something, but now they're charging you a premium for the value-added service of taking your money away from you.
Funny... When other people/companies that mail out demands for money to completely random people, it's a crime and sometimes classified as 'phishing'. Nevertheless, 'asking' for money and getting it seems like a great business model to me. I'm in the wrong line of work...
All those lawyers, plus the risks they're taking every time they go to court, plus having to pay out a chunk of the winnings to the artists, the labels, etc.... I think the fact that the artists don't see another dime out of a won settlement/case has been a big part of the argument around this behavior. Not too long ago a group of artists actually had to sue the record company to get their share of the court awards.
It does, but only in certain situations. For example, the insurance covers suing for custody of children/other dependents, consumer protection matters (say, your homebuilder refuses to honor a warranty), property transfer matters, etc etc etc. I use there world 'only' loosely because there really are a TON of things listed on my plan that are covered.
With regard to the earlier post about IP coverage, I checked that as well. It's true that it's not specifically listed as covered, but I have a reasonable level of cautious confidence that such things would be covered at the very least by the contingency fee discount of 30%, and very likely by the 'major trial' coverege, up to $100,000....if the case goes that far.
Insurance really is a racket...but I bought a brand new house recently and I am already having problems. I suspect I will need the insurance to get the problems corrected, and phone support you get with the plan has already netted me over $300 in refunds from companies fraudulently charging my credit card for unrequested services. It's nice to be able to send those 'Where should my attorney send the lawsuit?' letters and not be bluffing when you're getting screwed.
It costs about $17 a month, and I get hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal cost coverage for most situations. Basically, as long as the case does not involve a vehicle moving violation or is a conflict of interest with my employer (a major grocery chain), I am smilin' all the way to the court house.
I've had the insurance for almost a year now, and I've actually been kind of hoping for an opportunity to sue/counter sue someone... God bless America.
I needed to run a USB jack in the wall behind my TV (for the Microsoft IR media center receiver) 45 feet to my server room in the basement. I bought 3 15-foot USB cables with built-in passive amplifiers. They cost about $17 each and it was money well spent. I simply plug an aesthetically pleasing USB hub into the wall and place it on my entertainment center, and plug in my IR receiver, a wireless keyboard receiver, an external hard drive with movies, etc.
Well since you're so keen on the natural way of things, can I have all your material belongings when you go bare-assed into the wilderness to live off berries and shrubs? Hahaha... What a stupid thing to say.... You made my day.;)
Well, to be fair the $600 rebate didn't exactly go to the welfare bums (God bless them). To qualify for $600 one had to have earned enough money to file taxes in 2007, which means the persons collecting the rebate had SOME KIND of a job. Well, yes and no. My grandmother who is on social security got one, and so did my dad who is on 100% disability... They did file a tax return, but only on social income. Neither of them have jobs. They have both done more than their part to contribute to society, however. Neither of them has 'lived off the system' prior to their ailments.
Where did you get the impression that any of the Democrats health care plans would be "free"? Hillary talked about garnishing paychecks. No one is purposing "free" health care. It's interesting that you're referring to tax withholding as 'garnishing'... I honestly never thought about it that way, but I suppose it does mentally soften the blow.
FWIW I'm not the biggest fan of any of their plans. But you can't do nothing as John McCain purposes. There is simply no reason that a gainfully employed American should have to file bankruptcy if they get sick. Yet that's exactly what happens to a lot of people. Do you really see the current situation as sustainable? I am a 'gainfully employed' American, and take home a very middle-class wage. I pay about $200 a month TOTAL into an HSA, about $116 of which I actually get to keep in addition to the 100% match by my employer. If I have less than $2000 worth of medical expenses for a year, I simply pay for them out of the HSA. If I don't, that money stays there and gains interest. If I spend between $2000 and $6000, I pay only 20% of the bill from there. If I spend more than $6000, I pay ZERO. I have very cheap, very good healthcare that any McDonald's employee can afford. I find this to be absolutely sustainable.
As opposed to the massive bureaucracy created by the Republicans that thinks keeping us safe means outlawing bottled water and breast milk on airplanes? I couldn't agree with you more. This is why I complained about not having a viable 3rd party candidate earlier. Bush isn't even a Republican... He's more of a worry-wart grandmother.
I'll ask you again: What "free" stuff is Barack Obama offering? Well, 'free' in the way that welfare is 'free'. Obviously someone is paying for it, namely taxpayers. His proposal works more or less like social security. Everyone pays into it like a tax (which is 'garnished' from your paycheck), and those that use it pay nothing more than that. The result is Donald Trump receiving the same healthcare as a bum on the street who never motivated himself a day in his life, which is absolutely not fair. The more you contribute, regardless of the hand God dealt you, the better off you should be. It's just the natural way of things.
They want to make sure that US and European companies have access to the oil, instead of it all going to Russia and China. Is that happening? That doesn't even make sense...
That wouldn't make any difference at all. Let's imagine Russia, China, and the US all depend on 15% foreign oil, and all three have the exact same level oil consumption (yeah, I know, keep dreaming). So if Russia, China, and the US all get 5% of their oil from Iraq and say, 10% each from Saudi Arabia... The US pulls some strings and gets Iraq to sell exclusively to them. Now, the US gets its entire 15% demand from Iraq and no longer needs Saudi Arabia. That demand is still there from Russia and China, and will simply shift to another oil-producing nation, like Saudi Arabia. Now, the US gets 15% from Iraq, Russia and china each get 15% from Saudi Arabia.
Now, if someone suddenly increases their need for foreign oil to 16%... THAT is when we start having some price increases unless production increases proportionately.
But your entire post doesn't actually back up your claim.
Where has Obama demonstrated that he's for abundant and plentiful welfare in place of real work? Or the Democratic party for that matter? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure free public healthcare (welfare) is a cornerstone of his campaign... He's demonstrated this on many occasions, and a quick google should clear this up for anyone who feels like looking... As far as proving the democratic party has demonstrated an affinity for giving free stuff to people and creating massive bureaucracies to manage those peoples' lives for them... I might as well be writing a proof that the Earth is round.
Could you stop repeating that damn myth unless you intend to back it up with some real evidence? What specific program that he has purposed do you think is going to "give money to people who don't like to work"? He's a Democrat. It's what they do. They recognize the fact that there are people who aren't as motivated as others, and they want to pander to their laziness by forming large government institutions that help them manage their lives, give them money, free services, etc.
Sure, there's a LARGE number of these agencies and whatnot that do a great amount of good for people that really do deserve and need the help. What sealed the deal for me was when I saw Busta Rhymes pull up to a welfare office in a limo to collect his check. That, my friend, is bull$hit. Welfare, social security, public healthcare... ALL ideas that need to go away. They would work perfectly in a country other than America, but here, we've got way too many self-motivating folks to choke down the communism/socialism/fascism pill. Yeah, it sucks my brother was born with autism, Yeah, it sucks my dad is on 100% disability for the rest of his life. Yeah, it sucks my grandmother lives social security check to social security check... All three of these people are my responsibility to take care of because they are family. If I kick off for some reason, then the natural way of things for them to be screwed. My problems should NOT become someone else's by proxy of the government.
And speaking of giving money to people who don't like to work: What about the $600 "stimulus" package promoted by GWB and jumped on by both parties? Wouldn't it have made more sense to have invested that money into the highway fund, green projects or any number of infrastructure upgrades that would employ people right here in the United States instead of giving people money to go spend on Chinese crap at Wally World? Amen, brother. Couldn't possibly agree with you more.
Democrats are responsible for dropping, not one, but two atomic bombs on the innocent citizens of Japan. Democrats deserve no slack, and should be given none. I am boy NO MEANS defending democrats, but... Who was responsible for Pearl Harbor if the Japanese were innocent? I'm a little confused... But if you decide to respond, be sure not to make the mistake of differentiating one Japanese person from another when describing "the enemy". Today's civilians are simply tomorrow's soldiers should today's soldiers be vanquished. It's flatly silly to think otherwise.
I know. If the price of gas gets any more expensive, rappers are going to start drinking it! Man... I hope it goes up to $20 a gallon then... It would be worth every extra penny.
Can you imagine what would happen if the country's Colt 45 supply were contaminated? Oh, to dream...
Neither of the parties' candidates have the nomination yet. The actual nomination will occur at the party national conventions later this year. It is entirely possible the super delegates will align with HRC and the nomination could go to her. It would piss an awful lot of people off, but it certainly is possible.
The purpose of invading Iraq was to get control of the oil supply, so that the price of oil would rise. Saddam Hussein was not cooperating; he was selling as much oil as he wanted. [Citation needed]
...what's funny is that the market is *extremely* well-supplied with oil. Oil prices should be in the $60-$70 range right now, but these fools on wall st. are willing to pay $130+ a barrel for something in excellent supply out of simple fear. With Iraq producing record Oil output and the U.S. not seeing a dime of that money, I'm not sure what's up with all the sheep buying in to the "WE DID IT FOR THE OIL!" conspiracy theory. If we did it for the oil, we wouldn't be paying $4 a gallon. We'd be paying $2.50 and the oil companies' profits would double because they are essentially getting the oil for free from Iraq. This isn't happening, the US is not benefiting from Iraq's oil, and here we sit.
Constitution party all the way... John McCain's got it all wrong on both the torture and illegal immigration fronts, and Obama wants to take what little money I have and give it to people who don't like to work. McCain is for sure the lesser of the two evils, but I sure wish we could have a viable 3rd party candidate for once...
If there is a recorded time stamp of a *transaction* (which consists of *two* parts, the "upload" and the "download"), occurring at a specific IP Address alleged to finger a specific Person at a specific location, and the defendant can produce evidence that she was elsewhere, such as at work or on vacation, when the alleged illegal transaction occurred, who is responsible for the transaction?
Both parties. i.e., one for being the drug dealer, and the other for buying the drugs.
However, a contrary example might be you bury some illegal substance in a public park and the other party retrieves that illegal substance at a later time.
Again, both parties. Whether the person is there or not is irrelevant. Just think of the things we could get away with if simply setting up a little robot on a timer to commit the crime for us is all we had to do to get off the hook... By the principle of not being responsible for a crime simply because you "weren't there at the time," I could get my Roomba to roll over to the drug dealer, have him sit a pound of smack on the lid and and wait for it to come back to me.
But in the case of "making available" on the internet, no "upload" occurs until a simultaneous "download" occurs. The data bits are always in separate unique discrete locations until the transaction wholly occurs (in so far as it constitutes copyright infringement). Let's use the drug example again. Drug dealers are still criminals, whether or not someone actually purchases the drugs. Realistically, you can't even argue the drugs are illegal to begin with... Valium? Oxycontin? All legal, prescription drugs. They are not illegal until you offer them for sale (or use) without a prescription.
Much like software... It's not illegal to own copies of your own software, but it is illegal to offer them for sale.
My point is... If you loaded pirated copies of software into a candy bar machine, just because you're not there when they are sold does not make it any less illegal. Nor would it be legal to "make available" these pirated copies in a candy bar machine.
P2P software or a candy bar machine... What's the difference other than the lack of a coin slot?
Note that while the linked story as well as Jay Maynard's summary use the term "upload," Thomas wasn't uploading the files themselves, only making them available.
This is a stupid thing to say. Every transfer of data involves both an upload and a download. The sending party is "uploading". Whether or not they are sitting at the computer at the time the machine which they control is performing the upload, is irrelevant. This is the kind of confusion that causes bad decisions to be made in our legal system.
I'm a *huge* hater of RIAA and the MPAA, but let's call a spade a spade.
So you're saying it's a moderate right wing view rather than an extremist one. Not much difference. Well, that would be comparing Fox with a moderate right wing view... That is to say, considering they are Hillary-loving slugs, that Hillary is a right-wing extremist...
That could not possibly be further from the truth. Hillary and her BFF's at Fox make me gag.
And to mods... This isn't off topic if you read the damn thread.
Slashdot Mirror
...does it run Crysis?
Interesting... I just checked my plan documentation very, very thoroughly, and that exclusion is listed absolutely nowhere, including the list of exclusions at the end.
;)
It's easy to assume that exclusion does not apply to my specific plan (I am not so naive...) but it is possible. I was really just offering a suggestion. I'm sure there's some plan out there (possibly mine) that covers this sort of garbage.
I am both paranoid and very, very patient. Hence, I use Tor.
....Can Vista run Crysis?
I'm all about principle, but the bottom line is: If someone else wants to pay the $3k for me and avoid the hassle, I'm good with that.
If it was just me financing the whole thing, I can pretty much guarantee a fight.
Funny... When other people/companies that mail out demands for money to completely random people, it's a crime and sometimes classified as 'phishing'. Nevertheless, 'asking' for money and getting it seems like a great business model to me. I'm in the wrong line of work... All those lawyers, plus the risks they're taking every time they go to court, plus having to pay out a chunk of the winnings to the artists, the labels, etc.... I think the fact that the artists don't see another dime out of a won settlement/case has been a big part of the argument around this behavior. Not too long ago a group of artists actually had to sue the record company to get their share of the court awards.
It does, but only in certain situations. For example, the insurance covers suing for custody of children/other dependents, consumer protection matters (say, your homebuilder refuses to honor a warranty), property transfer matters, etc etc etc. I use there world 'only' loosely because there really are a TON of things listed on my plan that are covered.
With regard to the earlier post about IP coverage, I checked that as well. It's true that it's not specifically listed as covered, but I have a reasonable level of cautious confidence that such things would be covered at the very least by the contingency fee discount of 30%, and very likely by the 'major trial' coverege, up to $100,000....if the case goes that far.
Insurance really is a racket...but I bought a brand new house recently and I am already having problems. I suspect I will need the insurance to get the problems corrected, and phone support you get with the plan has already netted me over $300 in refunds from companies fraudulently charging my credit card for unrequested services. It's nice to be able to send those 'Where should my attorney send the lawsuit?' letters and not be bluffing when you're getting screwed.
Two words: Legal Insurance.
It costs about $17 a month, and I get hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal cost coverage for most situations. Basically, as long as the case does not involve a vehicle moving violation or is a conflict of interest with my employer (a major grocery chain), I am smilin' all the way to the court house.
I've had the insurance for almost a year now, and I've actually been kind of hoping for an opportunity to sue/counter sue someone... God bless America.
I needed to run a USB jack in the wall behind my TV (for the Microsoft IR media center receiver) 45 feet to my server room in the basement. I bought 3 15-foot USB cables with built-in passive amplifiers. They cost about $17 each and it was money well spent. I simply plug an aesthetically pleasing USB hub into the wall and place it on my entertainment center, and plug in my IR receiver, a wireless keyboard receiver, an external hard drive with movies, etc.
If I ever see one of these in use, I will make it a point to snap the plastic tabs off.
That wouldn't make any difference at all. Let's imagine Russia, China, and the US all depend on 15% foreign oil, and all three have the exact same level oil consumption (yeah, I know, keep dreaming). So if Russia, China, and the US all get 5% of their oil from Iraq and say, 10% each from Saudi Arabia... The US pulls some strings and gets Iraq to sell exclusively to them. Now, the US gets its entire 15% demand from Iraq and no longer needs Saudi Arabia. That demand is still there from Russia and China, and will simply shift to another oil-producing nation, like Saudi Arabia. Now, the US gets 15% from Iraq, Russia and china each get 15% from Saudi Arabia.
Now, if someone suddenly increases their need for foreign oil to 16%... THAT is when we start having some price increases unless production increases proportionately.
Can you imagine what would happen if the country's Colt 45 supply were contaminated? Oh, to dream...
Neither of the parties' candidates have the nomination yet. The actual nomination will occur at the party national conventions later this year. It is entirely possible the super delegates will align with HRC and the nomination could go to her. It would piss an awful lot of people off, but it certainly is possible.
Constitution party all the way... John McCain's got it all wrong on both the torture and illegal immigration fronts, and Obama wants to take what little money I have and give it to people who don't like to work. McCain is for sure the lesser of the two evils, but I sure wish we could have a viable 3rd party candidate for once...
Both parties. i.e., one for being the drug dealer, and the other for buying the drugs.
However, a contrary example might be you bury some illegal substance in a public park and the other party retrieves that illegal substance at a later time.
Again, both parties. Whether the person is there or not is irrelevant. Just think of the things we could get away with if simply setting up a little robot on a timer to commit the crime for us is all we had to do to get off the hook... By the principle of not being responsible for a crime simply because you "weren't there at the time," I could get my Roomba to roll over to the drug dealer, have him sit a pound of smack on the lid and and wait for it to come back to me.
But in the case of "making available" on the internet, no "upload" occurs until a simultaneous "download" occurs. The data bits are always in separate unique discrete locations until the transaction wholly occurs (in so far as it constitutes copyright infringement). Let's use the drug example again. Drug dealers are still criminals, whether or not someone actually purchases the drugs. Realistically, you can't even argue the drugs are illegal to begin with... Valium? Oxycontin? All legal, prescription drugs. They are not illegal until you offer them for sale (or use) without a prescription.
Much like software... It's not illegal to own copies of your own software, but it is illegal to offer them for sale.
My point is... If you loaded pirated copies of software into a candy bar machine, just because you're not there when they are sold does not make it any less illegal. Nor would it be legal to "make available" these pirated copies in a candy bar machine.
P2P software or a candy bar machine... What's the difference other than the lack of a coin slot?
Note that while the linked story as well as Jay Maynard's summary use the term "upload," Thomas wasn't uploading the files themselves, only making them available.
This is a stupid thing to say. Every transfer of data involves both an upload and a download. The sending party is "uploading". Whether or not they are sitting at the computer at the time the machine which they control is performing the upload, is irrelevant. This is the kind of confusion that causes bad decisions to be made in our legal system.
I'm a *huge* hater of RIAA and the MPAA, but let's call a spade a spade.
Fox? Nah, this is much worse. In fact, I would put it almost as far out in left field as a CNN or MSNBC rant...