The thing is that ransomware doesn't just flash a warning: it prevents you from using your device. This isn't just people falling for a fake FBI image; it's people desperate to get back their expensive hardware (and possibly files).
The scam would work just as well if the ransomware flashed a legitimate-sounding, but fake, name for a government organization.
The supposed rationale Apple's walled garden is ensuring that apps meet their quality standards. If apps that crash a lot are making it into the app store then it's on Apple as much as it is on the developer.
What if this carnivorous species has figured out the magical technology to revive frozen corpses and considers resurrected sentient beings to be the ultimate delicacy?
The law doesn't require EA to have lost money on the transaction for it to be considered fraud, only that the perpetrators profited through deception. But if you're only going to be satisfied if a monetary loss was involved, remember that the people they sold the ill-gotten coins to are out the money (since EA would have deleted the coins and anything they were used to purchase), and that EA would have had to sink man-hours into the forensics to track what happened who ended up with the coins. This was not a victimless crime.
wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire
If the thing transferred is something of which there is a fixed and limited amount, it might arguably qualify.
Even if your definition of wire fraud only involving money and property were true, this statement wouldn't follow since money doesn't have a fixed and limited amount.
Conclusion: You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
What really makes this sad is that here's a guy who can't afford to pay his medical bills while being privileged and connected enough to be able to organize a benefit concert.
You might want to re-read. It's the FTC, not the FCC, that the court said has no say in this matter. Not that I agree with the decision. What the court is essentially saying is that if a company acts as a common carrier in any way then the FTC has no say over their non-common carrier activities. So that would mean that the FTC can't regulate Yahoo because Yahoo is owned by Verizon.
And you just know that any attempt by the FCC to regulate the areas of these companies that the FTC should be overseeing would result in the court saying that the FCC has no regulatory power over that business area.
Slashdot Mirror
But iocaine powder has no taste.
The thing is that ransomware doesn't just flash a warning: it prevents you from using your device. This isn't just people falling for a fake FBI image; it's people desperate to get back their expensive hardware (and possibly files).
The scam would work just as well if the ransomware flashed a legitimate-sounding, but fake, name for a government organization.
Office Depot now no different from Mark Johnson at Windows Technical Department.
There's a difference between "in existence" and "to watch".
Facebook makes money off the media, therefore the media has value to Facebook and they would have to compensate the creators.
Curmudgeon.
The supposed rationale Apple's walled garden is ensuring that apps meet their quality standards. If apps that crash a lot are making it into the app store then it's on Apple as much as it is on the developer.
Its almost like you think this delusional bullshit is a good thing.
maybe she was fully counselled about what life might be like after coming back.
But did anyone counsel her on the fact that she won't be coming back?
TIL, freezing dead people is "modern technology".
Oh yeah. Totally forgot that that had been demonstrated to even be a thing.
What if this carnivorous species has figured out the magical technology to revive frozen corpses and considers resurrected sentient beings to be the ultimate delicacy?
I'm going to take a wild stab here and guess that "The Light of Other Days" was fiction.
Yeah, the scumbags peddling cryo-preservation have no evidence to backup their claims, therefore it's bullshit.
And she was dying anyway, so what's the worst that would happen
An incredible waste of resources. Emotional distress to the father.
The mother who supported and the judge you allowed it are assholes. The father was the only sensible person here.
you vehemently argue against ubiquitous solar power installation
He never mentioned solar power?
your horrifically twisted, greedy and morally bankrupt world view
Not much is more greedy and morally twisted/bankrupt than expecting others to keep expending resources preserving your body after you've died.
The law doesn't require EA to have lost money on the transaction for it to be considered fraud, only that the perpetrators profited through deception. But if you're only going to be satisfied if a monetary loss was involved, remember that the people they sold the ill-gotten coins to are out the money (since EA would have deleted the coins and anything they were used to purchase), and that EA would have had to sink man-hours into the forensics to track what happened who ended up with the coins. This was not a victimless crime.
https://www.justice.gov/usam/c...
wire fraud is identical to mail fraud statute except that it speaks of communications transmitted by wire
If the thing transferred is something of which there is a fixed and limited amount, it might arguably qualify.
Even if your definition of wire fraud only involving money and property were true, this statement wouldn't follow since money doesn't have a fixed and limited amount.
Conclusion: You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
Dude, that's a scam. The real IRS asks you to pay them through MoneyGram or Western Union.
The headline makes it sound like instituting a universal basic income would be somehow admitting defeat rather than making progress.
What really makes this sad is that here's a guy who can't afford to pay his medical bills while being privileged and connected enough to be able to organize a benefit concert.
It's basically the mold for how not to design a social network.
You might want to re-read. It's the FTC, not the FCC, that the court said has no say in this matter. Not that I agree with the decision. What the court is essentially saying is that if a company acts as a common carrier in any way then the FTC has no say over their non-common carrier activities. So that would mean that the FTC can't regulate Yahoo because Yahoo is owned by Verizon.
That's bullshit.
And you just know that any attempt by the FCC to regulate the areas of these companies that the FTC should be overseeing would result in the court saying that the FCC has no regulatory power over that business area.