There is a difference between breaking a law with the hopes of directly profiting from it, and committing civil disobedience in the hopes of having a law perceived as unjust changed.
True, which is why Rosa Parks is respected and counterfeiters are not...
Because to follow your principle, means to abnegate your own role in the decision making process. You see, if you do not consider and examine the laws, then you are refusing all responsibility to manage them.
Where you run off the rails is your response to laws you don't like...
I never said to never consider them, I said there was a process for changing them.
Instead of bothering to change them, many people choose to ignore them. That reduces respect for all laws and creates the Wild West...
Don't like the laws? That is fine, get them changed... but breaking them isn't the solution, unless you have revolution in mind...
As far as I know, there's no commonly accepted legal definition of "new".
It is never that simple, and the reality of it goes way beyond a Slashdot conversation...
What I will say is that if you're advertising something as "new", and you just bought it from Target, you won't likely get in trouble selling one of them... but you would selling a thousand of them...
That's why various companies like eBay and Amazon explicitly describe what is meant by "new"
What Amazon and EBay choose to call it doesn't matter all that much, the terms have legal meanings and their web sites can't rewrite that.
They get away with it most of the time because few companies challenge it, but if you sell on Amazon you'll find a number of items that can't be listed as new, usually because the company that makes the item made a fuss to Amazon about it.
Allow me to give you a specific example:
Go to Best Buy, buy a Logitech Mouse, list it as new on Amazon, get a violation notice from Amazon because Logitech has informed them that you are not an authorized reseller.
Except that mega corporations aren't playing by the rules either. For example, they use offshore tax havens to hide profit that should go to paying US taxes.
Except that you don't understand the rules... What they are doing is not illegal...
Don't like it? Change the rules, a way to do that exists, but again, people can't be bothered...
Or don't have the millions of dollars to buy governments like corporations in the US. We don't live in a democracy, we live in an oligarchy, stop being naive.
All that money doesn't do any good if the people would get up and vote and use their brains...
Bernie Sanders came close to it, but too many people are sucked into the Clinton machine...
Trump won for much the same reasons, beating out very well funded efforts to stop him.
The people are the ultimate source of power, if they would only use it, all those rich people would be powerless...
The problem is that we have accepted, in a large number of cases, ignoring laws we don't like, and people think that is how it is supposed to work for all laws.
^ This, right here, is correct...
If you get to pick and choose the laws you follow, then they aren't laws at all, but mere suggestions...
Civilization doesn't work very well when that happens...
Sure, but you should learn what that is before you toss the term out...:)
It allows you to resell an item that you purchased, but note that the item is no longer NEW... it is now USED...
Yes, even to a toaster oven, there is a legal definition of "NEW" and if you buy it at Walmart and resell it on Amazon, it is actually no longer "NEW".
Now does anyone care in that case? Probably not, unless the toaster over maker wanted to put a stop to it.
At the very least, this is something I can show to aggravating Microsoft fans/shills who are still in complete denial about the Orwellian nature of Windows 10.
I'm not in denial, I just don't care... there is a difference...
Windows 10 works very well, I'm happy with it over Windows 7, I don't really care that MS is collecting all this data, they can knock themselves out for all I care...
Highly unlikely the Sheriff in the small town farming communities is actually going to help without a court order declaring the farmer does not own the tractor the Sheriff is probably going to default to Right of Possession, and Right of First Sales.
The specific department varies from state to state, but in Texas, you would call the Sheriff to help with a difficult repo... It is their job, they don't get to say no...
If one did say no, you'd go to the county or state police for help, but ultimately you're not going to win that fight. If you don't pay for your tractor, thinking you get to keep it because you physically have it is stupid.
Yea, you're missing the point... Repo guys get threatened all the time, it isn't new or fancy just because it is a tractor, or airplane, or whatever...
A repo person is generally working within the bounds of the law, in such cases where the item to be taken is being blocked by someone with a shotgun, that is when the authorities come out.
A friend of mine used to do airplane repos, corporate jets... and yes, he had a gun pulled on him more than once. And yes, the Sheriff's department DOES come out and does enforce the repo...
It is kinda like being evicted, if you don't pay, you're going to move/lose your stuff/etc.
---
Regardless, my point remained accurate, only an idiot thinks that in 2016 a shotgun is going to keep you from losing your tractor that you didn't pay for. It will cost you both your tractor and perhaps your freedom, if not your life...
Other countries are doing just fine with their transitions, particularly Germany and Denmark. Energy there isn't insanely expensive, in fact it's actually a lot cheaper than other dirtier EU countries. Sure, they throw some tax on top to speed the process along, but in the longer term things are really looking good for them.
Bwahaha... you're smoking crack, but that's ok, you have been doing that for awhile...
Your posts indicate that you have NO IDEA what a reasonable cost of power really is...
Germany has some of the highest power prices around, but go on, keep smoking the stuff...
You are completely delusional if you think those solutions are useful outside of a few rich nations...
Seriously, I know she has no government experience, but she is a strong woman in her own right and if you watch her speak, she is no push over... I could see her as President in 20 years...
She is also one of the few people Trump can really totally and completely trust...
Again, the 14-year Hostess bakery veteran: âoeRemember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in five years if I took their offer. It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.â
The mistake is thinking that the $48K job still exists and the unwillingness to either accept the new job, or leave and let someone else do the new job.
Since the Union wasn't going away, the company did.
In other words, the union workers were stupid, stubborn, and have no sympathy from me because they were unwilling to accept that the old jobs were history.
There was no situation where they would continue, so simply accept the new jobs, or simply leave. Those were the only two rational options.
Oh, and FWIW, both Trump and Clinton oppose the TPP despite the "establishment" of both of their parties supporting it. So there's another reason not to suggest that the Powers That Be will always get their way...
Clinton is full of shit, she totally supports the TPP, don't let her lies tell you otherwise...
25 years of her history say it loud and clear, if you bother to listen. 3 months of being against it because of the election doesn't mean crap.
Trump is the Iron Fist. Clinton is the Iron Fist in the velvet glove. I'm voting Trump, at least he honest about who he is.
Allow me to quote the average Russian Red Army Soldier in Leningrad in 1941...
"On one side we face an evil, ruthless dictator who will stop at nothing to crush us and get what he wants... On the other side, we face Hitler, who will stop at nothing and crush us to get what he wants... I'll pick the one who speaks Russian..."
Stalin was smart--he let the generals win the war first, *then* had them shot.
Would that be why he had the massive purges in the 1930s which gutted the Red Army, then he demanded no retreat in 1941 leading to some of the largest military defeats in history? In the fall of 1941, about 600,000 Red Army soldiers were lost around Kiev alone, which Hitler called "the greatest battle in history".
For a short period of time after that, the Red Army no longer numbered the Germans, and there were no more reserves.
Stalin came close to losing it all, but then he started to listen to his generals and they turned it around for him.
Hitler actually restrained himself somewhat in the early years and let his generals do their thing, but the more the Germans won, the more he assumed it was because of him, and not them. Like I said, he was an idiot...
Why would anyone expect a CEOâ"even of a tech companyâ"to have any idea about computer security? That's like expecting a POTUS to have a deep knowledge of battlefield strategy, simply because they're Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.
I fully expect both to have a high level knowledge of both...
That goes double and triple for a POTUS... But perhaps that is why I'm not POTUS, because if I was, I'd want to learn it... at least well enough to know that my Generals know what the hell they are talking about (usually).
History is filled with idiots (Hitler) who thought their "gut instinct" was a suitable replacement for generalship... it isn't...
Stalin was the same way, but he bought a clue and finally backed off and let Generals like Georgy Zhukov start to run things. Once he did that, he started winning.
Likewise, when Roosevelt allowed Eisenhower to do his General thing, it generally worked out pretty well.
If George W. Bush had listened to Colin Powell instead of Donald Rumsfeld then perhaps Iraq would have gone very differently...
Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, Rumsfeld was a businessman who thought he knew what he was doing.
Slashdot Mirror
playing by the rules means you lose and some 'unethical' entity wins.
I'm sorry, but you're confused... You think ethics and rules have anything to do with each other...
You think a company is only "playing by the rules" when it behaves in a way that YOU consider to be "ethical".
That is your error. Ethics are just opinions, nothing more or less. The rules are the laws, and don't have an opinion on them, they are what they are.
You probably think Apple is shady for moving income around to avoid taxes. Maybe they are, but they aren't breaking any rules.
Don't like what Apple is doing? You can fix that by changing the rules. Calling them unethical is a waste of time.
There is a difference between breaking a law with the hopes of directly profiting from it, and committing civil disobedience in the hopes of having a law perceived as unjust changed.
True, which is why Rosa Parks is respected and counterfeiters are not...
Because to follow your principle, means to abnegate your own role in the decision making process. You see, if you do not consider and examine the laws, then you are refusing all responsibility to manage them.
Where you run off the rails is your response to laws you don't like...
I never said to never consider them, I said there was a process for changing them.
Instead of bothering to change them, many people choose to ignore them. That reduces respect for all laws and creates the Wild West...
Don't like the laws? That is fine, get them changed... but breaking them isn't the solution, unless you have revolution in mind...
As far as I know, there's no commonly accepted legal definition of "new".
It is never that simple, and the reality of it goes way beyond a Slashdot conversation...
What I will say is that if you're advertising something as "new", and you just bought it from Target, you won't likely get in trouble selling one of them... but you would selling a thousand of them...
That's why various companies like eBay and Amazon explicitly describe what is meant by "new"
What Amazon and EBay choose to call it doesn't matter all that much, the terms have legal meanings and their web sites can't rewrite that.
They get away with it most of the time because few companies challenge it, but if you sell on Amazon you'll find a number of items that can't be listed as new, usually because the company that makes the item made a fuss to Amazon about it.
Allow me to give you a specific example:
Go to Best Buy, buy a Logitech Mouse, list it as new on Amazon, get a violation notice from Amazon because Logitech has informed them that you are not an authorized reseller.
List it as used, and you're fine.
Except that mega corporations aren't playing by the rules either. For example, they use offshore tax havens to hide profit that should go to paying US taxes.
Except that you don't understand the rules... What they are doing is not illegal...
Don't like it? Change the rules, a way to do that exists, but again, people can't be bothered...
Or don't have the millions of dollars to buy governments like corporations in the US. We don't live in a democracy, we live in an oligarchy, stop being naive.
All that money doesn't do any good if the people would get up and vote and use their brains...
Bernie Sanders came close to it, but too many people are sucked into the Clinton machine...
Trump won for much the same reasons, beating out very well funded efforts to stop him.
The people are the ultimate source of power, if they would only use it, all those rich people would be powerless...
The problem is that we have accepted, in a large number of cases, ignoring laws we don't like, and people think that is how it is supposed to work for all laws.
^ This, right here, is correct...
If you get to pick and choose the laws you follow, then they aren't laws at all, but mere suggestions...
Civilization doesn't work very well when that happens...
First sale doctrine anybody ?
Sure, but you should learn what that is before you toss the term out... :)
It allows you to resell an item that you purchased, but note that the item is no longer NEW... it is now USED...
Yes, even to a toaster oven, there is a legal definition of "NEW" and if you buy it at Walmart and resell it on Amazon, it is actually no longer "NEW".
Now does anyone care in that case? Probably not, unless the toaster over maker wanted to put a stop to it.
They can be resold as used, but not resold as new...
They probably don't care as much if the items are resold as used on eBay and Amazon, but they can enforce not reselling them as new...
The "first sale" rules do allow you to resell stuff that you purchased, but it is no longer new.
Sure, but it is often illegal, and that is the problem...
Society has rules, you don't have to agree with them, just follow them. There is a process to change them if you don't like them...
That people don't take the actions to change them is not the fault of the rules, or companies, it is the fault of lazy people who can't be bothered...
At the very least, this is something I can show to aggravating Microsoft fans/shills who are still in complete denial about the Orwellian nature of Windows 10.
I'm not in denial, I just don't care... there is a difference...
Windows 10 works very well, I'm happy with it over Windows 7, I don't really care that MS is collecting all this data, they can knock themselves out for all I care...
Hey look, someone who hasn't spent very much time in rural America but has an opinion about it anyway...
It isn't an opinion, it is a fact... If you don't pay for the tractor on the agreed on terms, you don't get to keep it...
And country boy attitudes won't get you very far, one way or another, someone is going to take that tractor away from you...
A shotgun isn't going to change that...
Highly unlikely the Sheriff in the small town farming communities is actually going to help without a court order declaring the farmer does not own the tractor the Sheriff is probably going to default to Right of Possession, and Right of First Sales.
The specific department varies from state to state, but in Texas, you would call the Sheriff to help with a difficult repo... It is their job, they don't get to say no...
If one did say no, you'd go to the county or state police for help, but ultimately you're not going to win that fight. If you don't pay for your tractor, thinking you get to keep it because you physically have it is stupid.
Living in a small town... I can say your wrong.
Yea, you're missing the point... Repo guys get threatened all the time, it isn't new or fancy just because it is a tractor, or airplane, or whatever...
A repo person is generally working within the bounds of the law, in such cases where the item to be taken is being blocked by someone with a shotgun, that is when the authorities come out.
A friend of mine used to do airplane repos, corporate jets... and yes, he had a gun pulled on him more than once. And yes, the Sheriff's department DOES come out and does enforce the repo...
It is kinda like being evicted, if you don't pay, you're going to move/lose your stuff/etc.
---
Regardless, my point remained accurate, only an idiot thinks that in 2016 a shotgun is going to keep you from losing your tractor that you didn't pay for. It will cost you both your tractor and perhaps your freedom, if not your life...
Perhaps you can't read...
Republicrat
R and D are the same party... You've been lied to...
Hey look, an Internet tough guy...
The repo man shows up with the Sheriffs dept, are you still planning on using that 12 gauge shotgun then?
Other countries are doing just fine with their transitions, particularly Germany and Denmark. Energy there isn't insanely expensive, in fact it's actually a lot cheaper than other dirtier EU countries. Sure, they throw some tax on top to speed the process along, but in the longer term things are really looking good for them.
Bwahaha... you're smoking crack, but that's ok, you have been doing that for awhile...
Your posts indicate that you have NO IDEA what a reasonable cost of power really is...
Germany has some of the highest power prices around, but go on, keep smoking the stuff...
You are completely delusional if you think those solutions are useful outside of a few rich nations...
Ivanka wasn't a natural born citizen, so yeah, there's that.
Umm... yes she is, she was born in New York...
Seriously, I know she has no government experience, but she is a strong woman in her own right and if you watch her speak, she is no push over... I could see her as President in 20 years...
She is also one of the few people Trump can really totally and completely trust...
You're arguing that pilots have less training than drivers... okay, have fun with that.
No, I didn't... that is all in your head... try reading next time...
No wonder this world is going to complete shit, morons like you can't read, can't think, and have no ability to understand basic concepts...
Sigh...
Again, the 14-year Hostess bakery veteran: âoeRemember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in five years if I took their offer. It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.â
The mistake is thinking that the $48K job still exists and the unwillingness to either accept the new job, or leave and let someone else do the new job.
Since the Union wasn't going away, the company did.
In other words, the union workers were stupid, stubborn, and have no sympathy from me because they were unwilling to accept that the old jobs were history.
There was no situation where they would continue, so simply accept the new jobs, or simply leave. Those were the only two rational options.
Oh, and FWIW, both Trump and Clinton oppose the TPP despite the "establishment" of both of their parties supporting it. So there's another reason not to suggest that the Powers That Be will always get their way...
Clinton is full of shit, she totally supports the TPP, don't let her lies tell you otherwise...
25 years of her history say it loud and clear, if you bother to listen. 3 months of being against it because of the election doesn't mean crap.
Trump is the Iron Fist. Clinton is the Iron Fist in the velvet glove. I'm voting Trump, at least he honest about who he is.
Allow me to quote the average Russian Red Army Soldier in Leningrad in 1941...
"On one side we face an evil, ruthless dictator who will stop at nothing to crush us and get what he wants...
On the other side, we face Hitler, who will stop at nothing and crush us to get what he wants...
I'll pick the one who speaks Russian..."
Stalin was smart--he let the generals win the war first, *then* had them shot.
Would that be why he had the massive purges in the 1930s which gutted the Red Army, then he demanded no retreat in 1941 leading to some of the largest military defeats in history? In the fall of 1941, about 600,000 Red Army soldiers were lost around Kiev alone, which Hitler called "the greatest battle in history".
For a short period of time after that, the Red Army no longer numbered the Germans, and there were no more reserves.
Stalin came close to losing it all, but then he started to listen to his generals and they turned it around for him.
Hitler actually restrained himself somewhat in the early years and let his generals do their thing, but the more the Germans won, the more he assumed it was because of him, and not them. Like I said, he was an idiot...
Why would anyone expect a CEOâ"even of a tech companyâ"to have any idea about computer security? That's like expecting a POTUS to have a deep knowledge of battlefield strategy, simply because they're Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.
I fully expect both to have a high level knowledge of both...
That goes double and triple for a POTUS... But perhaps that is why I'm not POTUS, because if I was, I'd want to learn it... at least well enough to know that my Generals know what the hell they are talking about (usually).
History is filled with idiots (Hitler) who thought their "gut instinct" was a suitable replacement for generalship... it isn't...
Stalin was the same way, but he bought a clue and finally backed off and let Generals like Georgy Zhukov start to run things. Once he did that, he started winning.
Likewise, when Roosevelt allowed Eisenhower to do his General thing, it generally worked out pretty well.
If George W. Bush had listened to Colin Powell instead of Donald Rumsfeld then perhaps Iraq would have gone very differently...
Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, Rumsfeld was a businessman who thought he knew what he was doing.