I wouldn't ignore the first letter. I'd make life a living hell for the sender.
It's hard to make life a living hell for an entity that sold its soul a long time ago. I ignore all letters unless served to me by the sheriff as a matter of course. In this society, the threat of legal action usually shuts people up. I'm something of an exception to the rule though -- until legal action actually commences, I really don't give a fuck. Remember, there's plenty of time to settle or negotiate, it's not like the legal process is fast.
But then, I'm not pirating several terabytes of pirated material and then bragging about it on an internet website while also giving free (if dubious) legal advice and essentially saying "the system is broken so loot everything".
While I am bragging about it on an internet website, fair enough, nothing I say here is under oath. I can lie all I want; as long as the words themselves aren't inciting people to violence or in some way providing a clear and present danger to public safety. "Download ALL the stuffs!" doesn't exactly make my list of Things People Say That Reasonable People Get Scared About. Actually, it makes the Things People Say Everyday That Only a Very Very Very Super Very Tiny Number Of People Have a Problem With list... and that's about it.
Guess that gives me something of a moral high ground if I do get a letter.
You had the moral high ground from day one. Fair use used to be legal. I could share music and videos with you freely -- even copies, even copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies. The operative word is of course 'free'. I can't charge you for it, and you can't make a profit off it. But as long as you stayed within those boundaries, it was all good. And the reason for this was that a lot of our music, media, movies, art, etc., is part of our collective culture. My sister made a reference to the Jetsons the other day -- despite never having actually seen an episode of it. That's part of our culture -- it's symbolism for something about us. The future, flying cars, whatever, it's part of who we are. There are tens of thousands of things just like that, songs "everybody" knows. I have yet to meet a girl who can't recite the lyrics to Sweet Dreams (are made of these), etc. Fair use isn't a cheat -- it's an essential part of retaining and spreading our culture. Locking it up and saying only the wealthy can afford it is wrong. It may be legal, but it's wrong. It will always be wrong. There is no way in which a moral and ethical person can conclude it's anything but wrong.
Legal does not mean right, and illegal does not mean wrong. I do what's right, what I think is fair, and act within the standards of my community, not some arbitrary standard set out by some rich fucker in a suit who thinks he has a say. Listen, rich fucker, you don't. You never did. All the money in the world can buy you corrupt laws and public officials and a lot of influence, but it can't buy you me.
I am free. So take your laws, your lawsuits, your bullshit ideology -- and literally fuck yourself with them. And I do mean literally... print them out on a sheet of paper, and shove it up your goddamned ass. Are we clear here? This isn't about me being part of a "mob", this is about me being a proud member of my community. I am proud of my values, and I know these are values that the majority of people in my community, in the country, in the world, support and agree with. That is what I mean when I say "we are legion."
You cannot threaten or cajoule me into doing something I feel is wrong. That's what standing up for what you believe in means, and I'll do it every time. They got my number, they know where I live... anytime they feel like coming over and trying to force their ideas onto me, I'm up for it. I'm here, ready, waiting. I'm not hiding. I'll fight... but I won't go looking for one. And I encourage you to do the same. Any fool can make a law, and any fool will mind it. You do what's right, that's all any moral, ethical, member of your community can ask... the law... doesn't matter.
C'mon - Verizon and Comcast likely wrote that provision themselves. After all, why treat it as a procedure when you can treat it as a profit center?
I've received about a dozen of these alerts. You know what I do with them? right-click... delete. Go ahead, tell me I'm pirating. Go ahead, threaten me. They once sent me a very intimidating "final notice" saying they were going to cut off my internet. It was the only one I replied to -- via a certified letter. All it had in it was a print out of the e-mail and the following word: "Nuts."
It's been four months and several terabytes of pirated material. I haven't heard a peep from them. Here's the truth guys: Ignore, ignore, ignore. They're trying to use fear to motivate people because they know the "problem" is so widespread that it would take tens of millions of lawyers working around the clock and an equal number of judges, experts, juries, etc., at a cost of many billions of dollars to go after everyone legally. Ignore your ISPs until they actually turn off your internet. Then... complain to your public utilities commissioner and legislators and explain how they're engaging in vigilante justice, it's unamerican, etc. Be creative, but above all, be loud, and send your complaints on something with a stamp on it, not an e-mail. Or use a fax machine. That shit gets read, unlike e-mails. We are legion. Don't forget that: Hundreds of millions of us. A few dozen of them. Even if they have machine guns and tanks, they're still fucked.
Good for facebook - teach these little hitlers that society works both ways. Being a part of the executive doesn't provide you with special privilege.
You're complimenting Facebook... on protecting people's privacy? It's fitting that they're supporting others' loss of privacy... since they're the worst thing ever to happen to it.
Are they now saying that information can be misused by wrong-doers, and that privacy actually has a value?
Almost. They're saying their privacy has value and your privacy doesn't. Although this is hardly the first time authority has claimed exemption from its own laws. While I'm sure there are earlier examples, it was Syrus who first said "Ad calamitatem quilibet rumor valet", which translated means "Every rumor is believed when directed against the unfortunate." That's how authority keeps people supporting it no matter how bad the justification is. I could be a police officer and right now get up, walk outside, and shoot the first person I see in the head. No reason whatsoever. But here's the thing: The human mind can't handle reasonless action. All actions require justification, and so we fill in what we don't know with what we expect. What we want.
In the end, the guy I just shot in the head, well... he deserved it. He must have done something. Why else would me, the nice police officer, have shot him?
And that's how they get you -- every time. Authority is always right because authority is always right because...
I don't want to live in the sorta place were suicide bombs are a part of everyday life, and they gun strapped to your leg won't keep your parts together when one goes off next to you and yours...
Allow vigilante justice, and you'll become someone else's political statement. You cannot combat evil with evil. Detroit is lost, I'll give you that. But if you want it back, the solution is to put it front and center. Embarass the government. Contact diplomats and embassies everywhere and show them pictures. Tell the story. Demand humanitarian aid because your government is too proud, too pathetic, too enamored with its own past to face its present problems. MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD LOOK, AND SAY "YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED."
In a corrupt system it's silly to pick sides - when there are no rules. there are no rules.
"Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve."
... We all know how that one turned out, Mr. "There are no rules".
just pointing out that these people aren't going to roll over and die just because their livelihood is taken away, and that we don't really have an alternative for them.
Arrest. Trial. Conviction. Jail time.
Maybe you can afford those things and you're not concerned, but I'm a little worried....
I can't, and I'm not concerned. They'd better be well-armed.
No, they are complying with the laws of the countries the merchants accept buisness from. If a product is illiegal to sell in country A, they will not allow there payment systems to be used to break the law. If you don't like it change the law.
If that's true, then show me the part in the article where it says "... and then they turn over the evidence to the authorities for prosecution."
Well - guess what? Most fraudsters shut down their operations and start a new one every 6 months on average. So - if it takes you 6-9 months to find and shut down their merchant account, you haven't accomplished anything really. They already made all the money they were planning to, and have already set up their next site and account.
Which is why these investigations should be handled by law enforcement, not corporations. Law enforcement has the resources to track down the people responsible, seize the money, and take away their ability to repeatedly cause harm. While everyone says "Yay! The corporation is doing something," they're failing to realize that it doesn't accomplish anything in the long-term.
That's why you let law enforcement handle fraud cases -- nothing says "You're done," like the inside of a jail cell.
There's no effective difference between the government and business due to political corruption. Nothing is going to go for the greater good so long as the government is a corporate lapdog.
That may be true, but it's still irrelevant. We can't combat corruption by advocating more corruption. There's only one way to combat corruption: Education and demands for accountability. It's the government's job to correct injustice, and if injustice exists within the government then that is where the change must start. No matter how corrupt the government, vigilantism is worse. Even corrupted, the problem is still in one place. Hand authority over to the mob, and the problem is now everywhere, spreading like a cancer.
No, Wrong. Re read article. The payment networks are following Laws, rather than acting upon their own accord. If there were 5,000 payment networks, each one would have to comply in a simular fashion. If you don't like the laws, blame the lawmakers and citizens that voted for them.
I read the article. It details an internal process used by Visa and Mastercard to file and resolve complaints. Nowhere in the article does it detail the involvement of law enforcement. It's a policy, not a law. Direct quote: "The credit card associations have a standard process for accepting complaints about such transactions, in which they warn the online merchantâ(TM)s bank (including a notice of potential fines for noncompliance). After a complaint about such activity, the merchantâ(TM)s bank conducts its investigation, and may choose to contest the issue if they believe it is in error. But if the bank decides not to challenge the complaint, then they will need to take action to prevent future such transactions, or else face an escalating series of fines from the card associations." In fact, even the company spokesperson admitted it's an extra-judicial process: "âoeIt doesnâ(TM)t require a judge, a law-enforcement officer or even much in the way of sophisticated security capabilities. If you can purchase a product, then thereâ(TM)s a record of it and that record points back to the merchant account getting the money,' Savage said."
So I stand by what I said: This is a private corporation attempting to perform the duties and responsibilities that should be handled by law enforcement. It's vigilantism. Yes, it's wrapped in corporate policy, altruism, and wears a suit and tie. But Visa and Mastercard are still engaging in vigilante justice.
Everything you said I could make an argument against, but I won't. Even if it's all true, it's not really relevant. There was a 'scam' a few years ago where a bunch of people got together and opened a business selling sex toys online. But after ordering them, you'd receive a check for the amount of the order and a note saying it wasn't actually legal to sell sex toys in the jurisdiction they were based out of. The catch was the check was from a very obscene-sounding place, like "Anal lover's paradise empornium" or somesuch. As a result, many people didn't cash those checks, and they kept the money. It turned out to make them a lot of money, and it was completely legal (at the time anyway). While this is certainly unethical behavior, it wasn't fraud. It's the same thing on eBay where people sell laptops but if you read the description they're not selling a powerbook, but a powerbook binder. You'd plop down $200 for a used laptop and get a 3 ring binder with the word "Powerbook" in the sleeve.
It's unethical, I agree, but not illegal, it's not fraudulent. In cases like these, the law needs to be changed. Because ultimately, it's the government's responsibility to protect people from fraud and unethical and harmful behavior, not individuals or businesses. To say otherwise is to advocate vigilantism and a departure from the rule of law. The proper party to correct these problems is the government, and only the government. Whether the instrument of criminal conduct is an algorithm or a gun, doesn't matter as far as a conviction is concerned. I don't want to get too far into criminal law here, but the term for an action that indirectly results in harm is called the proximate cause. For example, I'm having an argument with you and I throw a wine bottle at your head, you slip trying to get out of the way, fall on something sharp, and die. While it's true my actions (throwing of the wine bottle) didn't cause your death, there was intent to cause injury, and the wine bottle could have caused a fatal injury, so I'd still be guilty of murder, even though I wasn't the direct cause of your death.
My point is the law itself can be simple and doesn't have to account for all possibilities, in order to apply and be effective. In the case of frauds and scams, there's no need for private individuals and corporations to take action as long as the government can (and does). If, for whatever reason, it does not, then the appeal to action must be directed to the authorities, and no other person or organization. But say a scammer has found a way to legally cause financial harm... in that case, the government needs to pass a law to address that issue, and from that point forward, prosecute anyone caught doing it. But there can be no ex pos facto laws -- that is, we can't declare something that was legal yesterday illegal today, then prosecute someone for an action under the new law.
You can't argue for vigilantism in a society under the rule of law -- and any society not under the rule of law is likely very primitive and with limited economic and social development. They have bigger problems than a petty crook. Civilized society doesn't tolerate people taking the law into their own hands, regardless of how good their intentions may be. Invariably, the vigilante makes a mistake; Accepts evidence that shouldn't be, passes a judgement too harsh, or is biased. To advocate justice means advocating all the principles of it, not just the ones that are convenient.
I'm sure everyone will yell "hip hip, horray!" to this, but it's bad for reasons that aren't obvious. When you have a financial network which has more or less a monopoly on electronic transactions making decisions about who can and cannot make transactions based on arbitrary criterion, the door is opened wide for abuse. Look at Wikileaks: They weren't "scammers", but Visa and Mastercard shut them down. PayPal has a long string of broken businesses and bankrupt individuals under its belt for indefinately seizing/freezing accounts based on suspicions. I'm not going to make a slippery-slope argument here, because it can only slope so far before it cuts into profit margins and such so much a competitor steps in to fill the void -- but we are tolerating a certain level of misuse of power whenever this is allowed.
It's like the internet: Most everyone on slashdot believes in network neutrality, that is, service providers shouldn't prioritize or limit traffic based on content. The same arguments apply towards financial providers, but look around on this thread: Everyone is cheering.
Actually, I lied. I will use a slippery slope argument... amply supported by history. People would cheer censorship of images of pedophilia. Or rape, etc. And as the human history has long shown -- once a service provider also steps into a gate keeper role, they will find more reasons. Soon, it has policies about racism, sexism, communism... and the list grows ever longer. Just like, say, strict liability in criminal cases... once upon a time, it was only used to prosecute in cases where intent simply couldn't be proved easily (if at all), but gradually, over time... it expanded and corrupted itself, so now people face stiffer sentences and fines for downloading music than manslaughter.
Anytime a service provider takes on the gate keeper role, even with the most noble of intentions, eventually it perverts and corrupts... it wears away until the decisions become arbitrary, and the rules cease to matter. Today, it's scammers... tomorrow, someone else will be added to the list. And then another. And another.
But something has to be done! the audience cries. Yes, I agree. Fraud is a crime in most jurisdictions worldwide. The rule of law means the government, not the service provider, says who is punished and how. This is a step backwards -- a step into vigilantism and away from civilization. It is of the most noble intentions, but it is still uncivilized. The proper authority is the government(s). Trials, judges, lawyers, a presentation of evidence, impartiality -- these things matter. Yes, even on the internet. Yes, even when it's scammers. Especially when it's scammers.
To advocate for the rule of law and justice, for civil rights, often requires we defend the worst of humanity. I step in here to defend the scammers, whom are of exceedingly low opinion on this forum, to protect everyone else. Stop it here, now. Do not support this action -- while in this one instance it may be the instrument of good, it is the traditional method by which free society is destroyed. Demand accountability, but demand it of the proper authorities, not the private individuals and corporations.
"The problem is, corruption has reared its ugly head." : When does that not happen to some extent?
It doesn't happen here. We passed a law saying that nobody can use the word "corrupt" when referring to a public official.
"The network itself has had its share of problems, with people dying as a result." : This happens everywhere.
True, but when people die on our railways, we investigate what happened to them. We don't just go "Well, they must have gotten lost... or... something. Oh well."
Maybe China is planning for the future, maybe?! You know, like when their middle class is comparable in size to that in other developed nations?
From what I've seen in my country of late, it's less about China trying to develop a middle class as big as ours, but us eliminating the middle class like them. But it's not much of a point... They are building out a high speed rail network that, while capable of ferrying passengers, is not its primary purpose. China has a massive industrial infrastructure and a lot of land to cover between its mountainous and resource-rich areas and the coast, where ships pick up and transport the goods.
"The sad fact is that so much money is being spent, no one can even keep count." : Then what is the "$100 Billion" figure?! Sheesh! Make up your mind!
Quick! How much have we spent occupying Iraq? Please provide citations supporting your answer. Note: I'll only accept citations that give an exact figure, not an estimate.... Wait... you mean, they're all estimates? unpossible!
Are the jackbooted Obamunist gestapo making a last-ditch move to irradiate freedom loving Real Americans in order to ensure their demographic victory even in the event of electoral defeat? Or are the jackbooted Rethuglicans of the police state amping up the fear machine in order to increase the effectiveness of traditional 'democrats are weak on terror, especially ones that are secretly kenyan muslims' messages?
It's the work of subversive poor people who have realized the wealthy tend to travel a lot, so they made a device that'll slowly give frequent fliers cancer but not pose any risk to occasional users such as people going to see the family for christmas, etc. They used their fear of the poor uprising to institute draconian security policies that are now slowly irradiating them to an early grave. Unfortunately, after some of the screeners started karking, they realized the plot, and are now moving to put the scanners on streets in vans and semitrucks and such "searching for drugs", while being able to apply for "premium/trusted/secure/low risk/etc" traveller status so they can avoid the machines.
Hey, if you're going to make a conspiracy theory, rule #1 is to make it believable and roughly matching up with the facts...
Every device whose primary interface is graphical will be "essentially useless" to a blind person. Fucking duh! It's not just the iPhone, it's every touchscreen device made. The story of accessibility tech for people in IT is simple: Separate the interface from the control logic.
No, really, that's it. That's all you really have to do to make accessibility possible. You gotta keep 'em separated. Do that, and as long as your documentation isn't horrible, it won't be hard for someone to come in and develop an interface for the disabled. HTML separates content from formatting -- good idea. But then corporations came along and screwed that all to hell, with javascript, proprietary plugins, etc., and now large sections of the web are uninhabitable by people with disabilities because they didn't follow Rule #1: Keep them separate.
As far as making a touch interface useful to the blind... hepatic feedback and auditory tones to indicate where there hands are or what function is being called before committing the action. -_- But if you don't get it right in version 1, don't feel bad -- the government has screwed up far worse than you ever will. Despite color blindness affecting 5% or more of the population, our traffic signals are still red/yellow/green... whereas other countries have realized that red/yellow/blue works just as well and color-blind people aren't having to guess what color the lights are. Positioning isn't always reliable, and people get distracted -- multiple cues are better.
So in summary, separate layout from content, and don't be like the government.:)
Aren't you curious what God was up to before genesis?
The same thing every man does first thing in the morning -- masturbating.
I mean, if God has existed forever, and the universe is just 6000 years old, then what the hell was he doing all the rest of that time? Off making other universes? Were they successful or not?
No. Once he saw what a mess he'd made of things, he put it all in the closet, got drunk, played X-Box, and forgot about the whole thing.
How much baggage does God have?
Let's just say him and the family attend regular therapy sessions...
Are the angels the result of those previous geneses? If not, when were the angels created? And the cherubs, oh why won't anyone think of the cherubs?!
No, the angels were "Version 1.0". After he realized he'd left off a few important bits, like genitals, he created man. It was a big improvement, but still far too buggy, so then he put out service pack 1, codename: Woman. Woman fixed all the major bugs of Man, but unfortunately the network stack had to be upgraded and that's why Man and Woman don't interface well. As to the cherubs... well... They're sortof the BeOS of His world: It was a great idea for the time, but it's since become rather dated, and few people remember them...
France shot itself in the head awhile ago, it's just taking awhile for it to die. They allowed such a massive influx of immigrants in such a short time that they're now struggling to maintain any sense of cultural identity... and when you couple that with exceptionally high rates of unemployment and a lackluster economy, it's just a matter of time before "french" culture slips under the waves.
They're trying with the language police, trying to legislate their way back to having a cultural identity... doing whatever they can to show they still have some influence. Even now, they threaten Google hoping that agreeing will show they still have some -- but it's a gamble. If Google decides France isn't worth it, if they call their bluff, then a formerly mighty nation will have been turned away by a company that wasn't really even on the map 10 years ago.
I wish them luck, I mean I really do... but... they're playing from a position of weakness. I have my doubts they even have enough influence left in them to convince an internet search provider to help them. This isn't a case of France surrendering... this is a case of France being dead broke, financially, economically, and culturally.
What's the problem? That's 7,984 years before the beginning of time.
*Steps out of the TARDIS* Hey, sorry to just pop in like this. Hello internet! Hello slashdot! So, anyway... where was I? Oh yes! Time! So, that idea's been out of style for, what, 500 years... so we were thinking, you must not be from around here, and so we've come to take you back to the 1400s. Don't give me that look! It's for your own good you know. Now, come along... we can't have people all out of time and space, it makes a real mess of the timestream. And these people, these beautiful beautiful people, they're about to do so much, yes, so very very much. And they don't need someone like you setting them back 600 years. Not now. So come on then, in you go!
I don't know what gay marriage, the FDA, mail-order girlfriends, and violations of space-time causality, and sandcastles by the beach have to do with the importance of sleep... but I can say with a fair degree of certainty that having read your post, you are a case study in what happens when someone doesn't get any. Please man, go to bed. The internet, such as it is, will not want for a missed opportunity for you to post to slashdot.
That doesn't explain why Dolphins didn't just turn sleep off, since they are warm and active throughout all time. Was it just so fundamental to the brain architecture that the segmenting was needed, or is sleep providing something else that dolphins still need?
Bingo. The one question that everybody missed, because they were too busy making jokes or talking about Dolphins to realize that this evolutionary development can shed a lot of light on our own. Don't mod this up, no siree, we like our science dumbed down and sprinkled in apple sauce here! deeeerp.:(
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't ignore the first letter. I'd make life a living hell for the sender.
It's hard to make life a living hell for an entity that sold its soul a long time ago. I ignore all letters unless served to me by the sheriff as a matter of course. In this society, the threat of legal action usually shuts people up. I'm something of an exception to the rule though -- until legal action actually commences, I really don't give a fuck. Remember, there's plenty of time to settle or negotiate, it's not like the legal process is fast.
But then, I'm not pirating several terabytes of pirated material and then bragging about it on an internet website while also giving free (if dubious) legal advice and essentially saying "the system is broken so loot everything".
While I am bragging about it on an internet website, fair enough, nothing I say here is under oath. I can lie all I want; as long as the words themselves aren't inciting people to violence or in some way providing a clear and present danger to public safety. "Download ALL the stuffs!" doesn't exactly make my list of Things People Say That Reasonable People Get Scared About. Actually, it makes the Things People Say Everyday That Only a Very Very Very Super Very Tiny Number Of People Have a Problem With list... and that's about it.
Guess that gives me something of a moral high ground if I do get a letter.
You had the moral high ground from day one. Fair use used to be legal. I could share music and videos with you freely -- even copies, even copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies. The operative word is of course 'free'. I can't charge you for it, and you can't make a profit off it. But as long as you stayed within those boundaries, it was all good. And the reason for this was that a lot of our music, media, movies, art, etc., is part of our collective culture. My sister made a reference to the Jetsons the other day -- despite never having actually seen an episode of it. That's part of our culture -- it's symbolism for something about us. The future, flying cars, whatever, it's part of who we are. There are tens of thousands of things just like that, songs "everybody" knows. I have yet to meet a girl who can't recite the lyrics to Sweet Dreams (are made of these), etc. Fair use isn't a cheat -- it's an essential part of retaining and spreading our culture. Locking it up and saying only the wealthy can afford it is wrong. It may be legal, but it's wrong. It will always be wrong. There is no way in which a moral and ethical person can conclude it's anything but wrong.
Legal does not mean right, and illegal does not mean wrong. I do what's right, what I think is fair, and act within the standards of my community, not some arbitrary standard set out by some rich fucker in a suit who thinks he has a say. Listen, rich fucker, you don't. You never did. All the money in the world can buy you corrupt laws and public officials and a lot of influence, but it can't buy you me.
I am free. So take your laws, your lawsuits, your bullshit ideology -- and literally fuck yourself with them. And I do mean literally... print them out on a sheet of paper, and shove it up your goddamned ass. Are we clear here? This isn't about me being part of a "mob", this is about me being a proud member of my community. I am proud of my values, and I know these are values that the majority of people in my community, in the country, in the world, support and agree with. That is what I mean when I say "we are legion."
You cannot threaten or cajoule me into doing something I feel is wrong. That's what standing up for what you believe in means, and I'll do it every time. They got my number, they know where I live... anytime they feel like coming over and trying to force their ideas onto me, I'm up for it. I'm here, ready, waiting. I'm not hiding. I'll fight... but I won't go looking for one. And I encourage you to do the same. Any fool can make a law, and any fool will mind it. You do what's right, that's all any moral, ethical, member of your community can ask... the law... doesn't matter.
C'mon - Verizon and Comcast likely wrote that provision themselves. After all, why treat it as a procedure when you can treat it as a profit center?
I've received about a dozen of these alerts. You know what I do with them? right-click... delete. Go ahead, tell me I'm pirating. Go ahead, threaten me. They once sent me a very intimidating "final notice" saying they were going to cut off my internet. It was the only one I replied to -- via a certified letter. All it had in it was a print out of the e-mail and the following word: "Nuts."
It's been four months and several terabytes of pirated material. I haven't heard a peep from them. Here's the truth guys: Ignore, ignore, ignore. They're trying to use fear to motivate people because they know the "problem" is so widespread that it would take tens of millions of lawyers working around the clock and an equal number of judges, experts, juries, etc., at a cost of many billions of dollars to go after everyone legally. Ignore your ISPs until they actually turn off your internet. Then... complain to your public utilities commissioner and legislators and explain how they're engaging in vigilante justice, it's unamerican, etc. Be creative, but above all, be loud, and send your complaints on something with a stamp on it, not an e-mail. Or use a fax machine. That shit gets read, unlike e-mails. We are legion. Don't forget that: Hundreds of millions of us. A few dozen of them. Even if they have machine guns and tanks, they're still fucked.
Good for facebook - teach these little hitlers that society works both ways. Being a part of the executive doesn't provide you with special privilege.
You're complimenting Facebook... on protecting people's privacy? It's fitting that they're supporting others' loss of privacy... since they're the worst thing ever to happen to it.
Are they now saying that information can be misused by wrong-doers, and that privacy actually has a value?
Almost. They're saying their privacy has value and your privacy doesn't. Although this is hardly the first time authority has claimed exemption from its own laws. While I'm sure there are earlier examples, it was Syrus who first said "Ad calamitatem quilibet rumor valet", which translated means "Every rumor is believed when directed against the unfortunate." That's how authority keeps people supporting it no matter how bad the justification is. I could be a police officer and right now get up, walk outside, and shoot the first person I see in the head. No reason whatsoever. But here's the thing: The human mind can't handle reasonless action. All actions require justification, and so we fill in what we don't know with what we expect. What we want.
In the end, the guy I just shot in the head, well... he deserved it. He must have done something. Why else would me, the nice police officer, have shot him?
And that's how they get you -- every time. Authority is always right because authority is always right because...
I don't want to live in the sorta place were suicide bombs are a part of everyday life, and they gun strapped to your leg won't keep your parts together when one goes off next to you and yours...
Allow vigilante justice, and you'll become someone else's political statement. You cannot combat evil with evil. Detroit is lost, I'll give you that. But if you want it back, the solution is to put it front and center. Embarass the government. Contact diplomats and embassies everywhere and show them pictures. Tell the story. Demand humanitarian aid because your government is too proud, too pathetic, too enamored with its own past to face its present problems. MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD LOOK, AND SAY "YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED."
In a corrupt system it's silly to pick sides - when there are no rules. there are no rules.
"Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve."
... We all know how that one turned out, Mr. "There are no rules".
just pointing out that these people aren't going to roll over and die just because their livelihood is taken away, and that we don't really have an alternative for them.
Arrest. Trial. Conviction. Jail time.
Maybe you can afford those things and you're not concerned, but I'm a little worried....
I can't, and I'm not concerned. They'd better be well-armed.
No, they are complying with the laws of the countries the merchants accept buisness from. If a product is illiegal to sell in country A, they will not allow there payment systems to be used to break the law. If you don't like it change the law.
If that's true, then show me the part in the article where it says "... and then they turn over the evidence to the authorities for prosecution."
You misunderstood me so bad on what my point was that I'm not even going to dignify your response with a comment beyond this one.
Translation: "I'm out of one-liners spoon-fed to me by demotivational posters and google image search."
Well - guess what? Most fraudsters shut down their operations and start a new one every 6 months on average. So - if it takes you 6-9 months to find and shut down their merchant account, you haven't accomplished anything really. They already made all the money they were planning to, and have already set up their next site and account.
Which is why these investigations should be handled by law enforcement, not corporations. Law enforcement has the resources to track down the people responsible, seize the money, and take away their ability to repeatedly cause harm. While everyone says "Yay! The corporation is doing something," they're failing to realize that it doesn't accomplish anything in the long-term.
That's why you let law enforcement handle fraud cases -- nothing says "You're done," like the inside of a jail cell.
There's no effective difference between the government and business due to political corruption. Nothing is going to go for the greater good so long as the government is a corporate lapdog.
That may be true, but it's still irrelevant. We can't combat corruption by advocating more corruption. There's only one way to combat corruption: Education and demands for accountability. It's the government's job to correct injustice, and if injustice exists within the government then that is where the change must start. No matter how corrupt the government, vigilantism is worse. Even corrupted, the problem is still in one place. Hand authority over to the mob, and the problem is now everywhere, spreading like a cancer.
No, Wrong. Re read article. The payment networks are following Laws, rather than acting upon their own accord. If there were 5,000 payment networks, each one would have to comply in a simular fashion. If you don't like the laws, blame the lawmakers and citizens that voted for them.
I read the article. It details an internal process used by Visa and Mastercard to file and resolve complaints. Nowhere in the article does it detail the involvement of law enforcement. It's a policy, not a law. Direct quote: "The credit card associations have a standard process for accepting complaints about such transactions, in which they warn the online merchantâ(TM)s bank (including a notice of potential fines for noncompliance). After a complaint about such activity, the merchantâ(TM)s bank conducts its investigation, and may choose to contest the issue if they believe it is in error. But if the bank decides not to challenge the complaint, then they will need to take action to prevent future such transactions, or else face an escalating series of fines from the card associations." In fact, even the company spokesperson admitted it's an extra-judicial process: "âoeIt doesnâ(TM)t require a judge, a law-enforcement officer or even much in the way of sophisticated security capabilities. If you can purchase a product, then thereâ(TM)s a record of it and that record points back to the merchant account getting the money,' Savage said."
So I stand by what I said: This is a private corporation attempting to perform the duties and responsibilities that should be handled by law enforcement. It's vigilantism. Yes, it's wrapped in corporate policy, altruism, and wears a suit and tie. But Visa and Mastercard are still engaging in vigilante justice.
Everything you said I could make an argument against, but I won't. Even if it's all true, it's not really relevant. There was a 'scam' a few years ago where a bunch of people got together and opened a business selling sex toys online. But after ordering them, you'd receive a check for the amount of the order and a note saying it wasn't actually legal to sell sex toys in the jurisdiction they were based out of. The catch was the check was from a very obscene-sounding place, like "Anal lover's paradise empornium" or somesuch. As a result, many people didn't cash those checks, and they kept the money. It turned out to make them a lot of money, and it was completely legal (at the time anyway). While this is certainly unethical behavior, it wasn't fraud. It's the same thing on eBay where people sell laptops but if you read the description they're not selling a powerbook, but a powerbook binder. You'd plop down $200 for a used laptop and get a 3 ring binder with the word "Powerbook" in the sleeve.
It's unethical, I agree, but not illegal, it's not fraudulent. In cases like these, the law needs to be changed. Because ultimately, it's the government's responsibility to protect people from fraud and unethical and harmful behavior, not individuals or businesses. To say otherwise is to advocate vigilantism and a departure from the rule of law. The proper party to correct these problems is the government, and only the government. Whether the instrument of criminal conduct is an algorithm or a gun, doesn't matter as far as a conviction is concerned. I don't want to get too far into criminal law here, but the term for an action that indirectly results in harm is called the proximate cause. For example, I'm having an argument with you and I throw a wine bottle at your head, you slip trying to get out of the way, fall on something sharp, and die. While it's true my actions (throwing of the wine bottle) didn't cause your death, there was intent to cause injury, and the wine bottle could have caused a fatal injury, so I'd still be guilty of murder, even though I wasn't the direct cause of your death.
My point is the law itself can be simple and doesn't have to account for all possibilities, in order to apply and be effective. In the case of frauds and scams, there's no need for private individuals and corporations to take action as long as the government can (and does). If, for whatever reason, it does not, then the appeal to action must be directed to the authorities, and no other person or organization. But say a scammer has found a way to legally cause financial harm... in that case, the government needs to pass a law to address that issue, and from that point forward, prosecute anyone caught doing it. But there can be no ex pos facto laws -- that is, we can't declare something that was legal yesterday illegal today, then prosecute someone for an action under the new law.
You can't argue for vigilantism in a society under the rule of law -- and any society not under the rule of law is likely very primitive and with limited economic and social development. They have bigger problems than a petty crook. Civilized society doesn't tolerate people taking the law into their own hands, regardless of how good their intentions may be. Invariably, the vigilante makes a mistake; Accepts evidence that shouldn't be, passes a judgement too harsh, or is biased. To advocate justice means advocating all the principles of it, not just the ones that are convenient.
I'm sure everyone will yell "hip hip, horray!" to this, but it's bad for reasons that aren't obvious. When you have a financial network which has more or less a monopoly on electronic transactions making decisions about who can and cannot make transactions based on arbitrary criterion, the door is opened wide for abuse. Look at Wikileaks: They weren't "scammers", but Visa and Mastercard shut them down. PayPal has a long string of broken businesses and bankrupt individuals under its belt for indefinately seizing/freezing accounts based on suspicions. I'm not going to make a slippery-slope argument here, because it can only slope so far before it cuts into profit margins and such so much a competitor steps in to fill the void -- but we are tolerating a certain level of misuse of power whenever this is allowed.
It's like the internet: Most everyone on slashdot believes in network neutrality, that is, service providers shouldn't prioritize or limit traffic based on content. The same arguments apply towards financial providers, but look around on this thread: Everyone is cheering.
Actually, I lied. I will use a slippery slope argument... amply supported by history. People would cheer censorship of images of pedophilia. Or rape, etc. And as the human history has long shown -- once a service provider also steps into a gate keeper role, they will find more reasons. Soon, it has policies about racism, sexism, communism... and the list grows ever longer. Just like, say, strict liability in criminal cases... once upon a time, it was only used to prosecute in cases where intent simply couldn't be proved easily (if at all), but gradually, over time... it expanded and corrupted itself, so now people face stiffer sentences and fines for downloading music than manslaughter.
Anytime a service provider takes on the gate keeper role, even with the most noble of intentions, eventually it perverts and corrupts... it wears away until the decisions become arbitrary, and the rules cease to matter. Today, it's scammers... tomorrow, someone else will be added to the list. And then another. And another.
But something has to be done! the audience cries. Yes, I agree. Fraud is a crime in most jurisdictions worldwide. The rule of law means the government, not the service provider, says who is punished and how. This is a step backwards -- a step into vigilantism and away from civilization. It is of the most noble intentions, but it is still uncivilized. The proper authority is the government(s). Trials, judges, lawyers, a presentation of evidence, impartiality -- these things matter. Yes, even on the internet. Yes, even when it's scammers. Especially when it's scammers.
To advocate for the rule of law and justice, for civil rights, often requires we defend the worst of humanity. I step in here to defend the scammers, whom are of exceedingly low opinion on this forum, to protect everyone else. Stop it here, now. Do not support this action -- while in this one instance it may be the instrument of good, it is the traditional method by which free society is destroyed. Demand accountability, but demand it of the proper authorities, not the private individuals and corporations.
Don't you know almost every G.I.R.L. on a geek board is a guy in real life? ;-)
I can be a guy when I want to be. I keep my manhood in the top drawer and call it black lightning.
"The problem is, corruption has reared its ugly head." : When does that not happen to some extent?
It doesn't happen here. We passed a law saying that nobody can use the word "corrupt" when referring to a public official.
"The network itself has had its share of problems, with people dying as a result." : This happens everywhere.
True, but when people die on our railways, we investigate what happened to them. We don't just go "Well, they must have gotten lost... or... something. Oh well."
Maybe China is planning for the future, maybe?! You know, like when their middle class is comparable in size to that in other developed nations?
From what I've seen in my country of late, it's less about China trying to develop a middle class as big as ours, but us eliminating the middle class like them. But it's not much of a point... They are building out a high speed rail network that, while capable of ferrying passengers, is not its primary purpose. China has a massive industrial infrastructure and a lot of land to cover between its mountainous and resource-rich areas and the coast, where ships pick up and transport the goods.
"The sad fact is that so much money is being spent, no one can even keep count." : Then what is the "$100 Billion" figure?! Sheesh! Make up your mind!
Quick! How much have we spent occupying Iraq? Please provide citations supporting your answer. Note: I'll only accept citations that give an exact figure, not an estimate. ... Wait... you mean, they're all estimates? unpossible!
Actually a google images search won't show me a single example of a red-yellow-blue traffic light either.
Funny, I just typed "japanese traffic lights" into GIS. The very first image showed a red-yellow-blue. You should have your eyes examined.
You have noticed that the lights are always in the same order, right? Guess why.
I take it you've never driven in Boston...
Are the jackbooted Obamunist gestapo making a last-ditch move to irradiate freedom loving Real Americans in order to ensure their demographic victory even in the event of electoral defeat? Or are the jackbooted Rethuglicans of the police state amping up the fear machine in order to increase the effectiveness of traditional 'democrats are weak on terror, especially ones that are secretly kenyan muslims' messages?
It's the work of subversive poor people who have realized the wealthy tend to travel a lot, so they made a device that'll slowly give frequent fliers cancer but not pose any risk to occasional users such as people going to see the family for christmas, etc. They used their fear of the poor uprising to institute draconian security policies that are now slowly irradiating them to an early grave. Unfortunately, after some of the screeners started karking, they realized the plot, and are now moving to put the scanners on streets in vans and semitrucks and such "searching for drugs", while being able to apply for "premium/trusted/secure/low risk/etc" traveller status so they can avoid the machines.
Hey, if you're going to make a conspiracy theory, rule #1 is to make it believable and roughly matching up with the facts...
Every device whose primary interface is graphical will be "essentially useless" to a blind person. Fucking duh! It's not just the iPhone, it's every touchscreen device made. The story of accessibility tech for people in IT is simple: Separate the interface from the control logic.
No, really, that's it. That's all you really have to do to make accessibility possible. You gotta keep 'em separated. Do that, and as long as your documentation isn't horrible, it won't be hard for someone to come in and develop an interface for the disabled. HTML separates content from formatting -- good idea. But then corporations came along and screwed that all to hell, with javascript, proprietary plugins, etc., and now large sections of the web are uninhabitable by people with disabilities because they didn't follow Rule #1: Keep them separate.
As far as making a touch interface useful to the blind... hepatic feedback and auditory tones to indicate where there hands are or what function is being called before committing the action. -_- But if you don't get it right in version 1, don't feel bad -- the government has screwed up far worse than you ever will. Despite color blindness affecting 5% or more of the population, our traffic signals are still red/yellow/green... whereas other countries have realized that red/yellow/blue works just as well and color-blind people aren't having to guess what color the lights are. Positioning isn't always reliable, and people get distracted -- multiple cues are better.
So in summary, separate layout from content, and don't be like the government. :)
Aren't you curious what God was up to before genesis?
The same thing every man does first thing in the morning -- masturbating.
I mean, if God has existed forever, and the universe is just 6000 years old, then what the hell was he doing all the rest of that time? Off making other universes? Were they successful or not?
No. Once he saw what a mess he'd made of things, he put it all in the closet, got drunk, played X-Box, and forgot about the whole thing.
How much baggage does God have?
Let's just say him and the family attend regular therapy sessions...
Are the angels the result of those previous geneses? If not, when were the angels created? And the cherubs, oh why won't anyone think of the cherubs?!
No, the angels were "Version 1.0". After he realized he'd left off a few important bits, like genitals, he created man. It was a big improvement, but still far too buggy, so then he put out service pack 1, codename: Woman. Woman fixed all the major bugs of Man, but unfortunately the network stack had to be upgraded and that's why Man and Woman don't interface well. As to the cherubs... well... They're sortof the BeOS of His world: It was a great idea for the time, but it's since become rather dated, and few people remember them...
France shot itself in the head awhile ago, it's just taking awhile for it to die. They allowed such a massive influx of immigrants in such a short time that they're now struggling to maintain any sense of cultural identity... and when you couple that with exceptionally high rates of unemployment and a lackluster economy, it's just a matter of time before "french" culture slips under the waves.
They're trying with the language police, trying to legislate their way back to having a cultural identity... doing whatever they can to show they still have some influence. Even now, they threaten Google hoping that agreeing will show they still have some -- but it's a gamble. If Google decides France isn't worth it, if they call their bluff, then a formerly mighty nation will have been turned away by a company that wasn't really even on the map 10 years ago.
I wish them luck, I mean I really do... but... they're playing from a position of weakness. I have my doubts they even have enough influence left in them to convince an internet search provider to help them. This isn't a case of France surrendering... this is a case of France being dead broke, financially, economically, and culturally.
What's the problem? That's 7,984 years before the beginning of time.
*Steps out of the TARDIS* Hey, sorry to just pop in like this. Hello internet! Hello slashdot! So, anyway... where was I? Oh yes! Time! So, that idea's been out of style for, what, 500 years... so we were thinking, you must not be from around here, and so we've come to take you back to the 1400s. Don't give me that look! It's for your own good you know. Now, come along... we can't have people all out of time and space, it makes a real mess of the timestream. And these people, these beautiful beautiful people, they're about to do so much, yes, so very very much. And they don't need someone like you setting them back 600 years. Not now. So come on then, in you go!
I don't know what gay marriage, the FDA, mail-order girlfriends, and violations of space-time causality, and sandcastles by the beach have to do with the importance of sleep... but I can say with a fair degree of certainty that having read your post, you are a case study in what happens when someone doesn't get any. Please man, go to bed. The internet, such as it is, will not want for a missed opportunity for you to post to slashdot.
That doesn't explain why Dolphins didn't just turn sleep off, since they are warm and active throughout all time. Was it just so fundamental to the brain architecture that the segmenting was needed, or is sleep providing something else that dolphins still need?
Bingo. The one question that everybody missed, because they were too busy making jokes or talking about Dolphins to realize that this evolutionary development can shed a lot of light on our own. Don't mod this up, no siree, we like our science dumbed down and sprinkled in apple sauce here! deeeerp. :(