First, federal law requires me to keep tax records for a minimum period of time, and to produce them on demand. If I keep my tax records in Inuit's software, I cannot be reasonably certain that I will be able to produce them on demand. It seems to me that it might actually be a federal crime for me to use Intuit's software to keep any financial records of any kind. (IANAL)
Second, in my experience, people tend to see in others what they see in themselves. Intuit sees dishonesty in others. I think it would be very, very foolish to give sensitive financial data to a company that sees dishonesty in itself. I could be wrong, of course, but the risk is simply too great. Never make a bet you can't afford to lose.
I am sure what will come of this is every copy of software will have licensing that will print out and the user must sign it and give it to the cashier before they are alowed to take it home.
Sounds good to me. I'll stand right there, at the cash register, refusing to move (and thus, preventing them from taking money from any other customers) until I'm done. And since it's written in legalese, I'm sure it will take me a long time to really comprehend it, with many, many questions of the store manager along the way. And they don't dare try to rush me, because trying to coerce someone in to signing a contract they don't understand is a felony in this state!
Yeah, that'll happen. Any software manufacturer that even tries it will find they can't get a retailer to touch their product with a 10 foot pole. I know I wouldn't, and I've been in retail management for nearly 20 years.
Granted that the EULA's are a bit restrictive, but they made the software and are allowed to make whatever demands that they wish in the EULA.
No. They can't. Such things are not governed by contract law, they are governed by copyright law, which gives specific rights to both sides. Contracts cannot alter those rights to either side.
If software companies want to operate under contract law instead of copyright law, then let them give up their copyright rights. The mere presence of an EULA in the install process should put the software itself in the public domain, with its use governed solely by the EULA (which means no DMCA prosecution, no matter what).
Was that by Doug, or Duhg? The trilogy was the worst piece of shit ever put on paper. Gentry Lee should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity for it.
Amen! Not only that, tell them they must sign a binding contract agreeing to indemnify you for any and all damage that takes places from their possession of this information. If another employees steals this information, they can engage in some very damaging identity theft. The company should agree to accept responsibility for this in advance.
Hopefully they will release some images on the web soon so I taking take a closer look at them without having to buy their £15 cd."
If these people were interested in science, they'd have release the photos on their web page first, then issued the press releases. When they do it the other way around, it's not about science. It's about the £15.
I've worked in hardware stores most of my life. This isn't exactly new or revolutionary. Or especially meaningful. It the time it takes to file a single key by hand - which may or may not work - most people can learn top pick locks, which you only have to do once. With a little practice, most consumer locks can be picked in a matter of seconds. A skilled lock picker can open consumer grade locks as quickly with a pick as with a key.
The Register, yet again, demonstrates they are utterly clueless about what they report. Of course the Secret Service was involved. It was a criminal case - over $1000 in infringement was involved, and it was for commercial gain (either being enough) - and the Secret Service has the primary jurisdiction in the US for crimes committed with computers.
Why I bother to read anything from rags like The Register is beyond me.
I suspect that MAP (minimum advertised price) is involved in this somewhere. If so, it's gonna get ugly.
Most big retailers advertise. A log. Direct mailers - junk mail - and TV ads are very effective. They bring in business. But ads are expensive, so retailers go to manufacturers and say, "Hey, how about you pay for part of this ad, and we promise to include your products." Manufacturers, not being stupid, say "Sure!"
But manufacturers have to take care of all of their customers, not just some, so they set rules. One of which is MAP. They only contribute to the cost of an ad campaign if the retailer promises to not advertise below a certain price (which would undercut other retailers). If they do advertise below that price, they lose the ad dollars.
Since retailers - also not stupid - know they can approach multiple manufacturers, they can often get their advertising nearly for free, by getting a little bit of the cost from many manufacturers. So there's a lot of money involved, and much of it is subjected to MAP rules.
I've always wondered why MAP doesn't violate the anti-trust laws, but I am no lawyer.
Sure. Sounds like a great idea. Tell you what: I'll provide the service for you. I'll set you up an inbox that send out a notice to everyone who sends you mail that they have to pay you.0001 cents per message. I'll only charge you 30 cents per message for the service. Payable in advance. I take Visa, Mastercard and Discover.
Internet sales are mail order. It's that simple. Mail order and how it interacts with salex tax law, has been well established for over a century. No changes are needed.
This is simply a new way to get government hands in our pockets.
Since sales taxes are generally levied on the merchant...
No, they're not. They are levied on the buyer. The merchant is required by law to act as a tax collector for the state. This is why the Supreme Court will not allow a state to tax mail order transactions going out of state - if I live in California, Nevada cannot compel me to act as a tax collector for Nevada.
This plan would, in theory, let California require me to act as a tax collector for Nevada, with a reciprocal agreement doing the same in Nevada.
However, the plan, as written, will conflict with existing Supreme Court case law, which simply does not allow sales tax to be charged on out of state transactions. If this passes, it will be challenged, and will go to the Supreme Court, and will have an uphill battle the entire way.
This isn't triangulating on cell phones. This is using cell phone cells as radar - it can track people who don't have cell phones on them, or (nearly) any other moving object. It is a pretty basic advance. Scary.
All you really say is that a digital camera produces a better digital image than a scanned photographic print. Well duh. That's been true for a long, long time.
6 megapixel cameras approach (but not do quite equal the resolution of high speed 35mm film. The new 11 MP cameras will equal the resolution of even slow speed, high-res 35mm. But not even get close to even the smallest of the medium format, which is 2.7 times larger than 35mm.
Where digital still loses out is color saturation, and contrast range. Film still manages saturation better, and records across a wider ranger of contrast - the difference between the lightest and darkest parts of the image. Print film will handle up to 4 f-stops of contrast, slide filme up to maybe 3. I've yet to see a digital camera handle more than 2.
The bottom line is, if you want an image for digital use, use a digital camera. That's been true since 1 megapixel cameras came out. If you want snapshots on your vacation, there are some serious advantages to digital, starting with cost (unless you print out all your pictures, in which case digital is much more expensive).
But if you need high resolution, bold, vibrant colors, and the ability to accurately record high amounts of contrast, go with film, preferably medium format or larger.
The most commonly understood thing you are getting is the encryption thats automatically accepted by just about any modern browser. However, the reason it's automatically accepted is because VeriSign is suppose to verify the identity of the business. This is why they require a Duns and Bradstreet # (It's a business credit identifier).
I have a certificate from Verisign. They do require a D&B number. They use it to verify that the company you claim to be exists, at the address you claim. They have not, in three years, ever once verified that I am who I claim to be in any way.
They are a "certificate authority." So far as I can tell, from my own personal experience, the only thing they certify is that your check cleared, and the only thing they are an authority on is cashing checks.
Technically inferior, restrictive operations, and more expensive than a generic equivalent. There's only one word that comes to mind: DIVX. Yeah, the one that cost Circuit City millions, not the video codec.
Serves 'em right to lose their ass, and they will.
Slashdot Mirror
Crotch itch is funnier than William Shatner.
First, federal law requires me to keep tax records for a minimum period of time, and to produce them on demand. If I keep my tax records in Inuit's software, I cannot be reasonably certain that I will be able to produce them on demand. It seems to me that it might actually be a federal crime for me to use Intuit's software to keep any financial records of any kind. (IANAL)
Second, in my experience, people tend to see in others what they see in themselves. Intuit sees dishonesty in others. I think it would be very, very foolish to give sensitive financial data to a company that sees dishonesty in itself. I could be wrong, of course, but the risk is simply too great. Never make a bet you can't afford to lose.
Apparently we are just as likely to die by asteroid impact as in a plane crash."
It's idiocy like this that make me dimiss these morons as morons.
I am sure what will come of this is every copy of software will have licensing that will print out and the user must sign it and give it to the cashier before they are alowed to take it home.
Sounds good to me. I'll stand right there, at the cash register, refusing to move (and thus, preventing them from taking money from any other customers) until I'm done. And since it's written in legalese, I'm sure it will take me a long time to really comprehend it, with many, many questions of the store manager along the way. And they don't dare try to rush me, because trying to coerce someone in to signing a contract they don't understand is a felony in this state!
Yeah, that'll happen. Any software manufacturer that even tries it will find they can't get a retailer to touch their product with a 10 foot pole. I know I wouldn't, and I've been in retail management for nearly 20 years.
Granted that the EULA's are a bit restrictive, but they made the software and are allowed to make whatever demands that they wish in the EULA.
No. They can't. Such things are not governed by contract law, they are governed by copyright law, which gives specific rights to both sides. Contracts cannot alter those rights to either side.
If software companies want to operate under contract law instead of copyright law, then let them give up their copyright rights. The mere presence of an EULA in the install process should put the software itself in the public domain, with its use governed solely by the EULA (which means no DMCA prosecution, no matter what).
The trilogy was awesome",
Was that by Doug, or Duhg? The trilogy was the worst piece of shit ever put on paper. Gentry Lee should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity for it.
Amen! Not only that, tell them they must sign a binding contract agreeing to indemnify you for any and all damage that takes places from their possession of this information. If another employees steals this information, they can engage in some very damaging identity theft. The company should agree to accept responsibility for this in advance.
Hopefully they will release some images on the web soon so I taking take a closer look at them without having to buy their £15 cd."
If these people were interested in science, they'd have release the photos on their web page first, then issued the press releases. When they do it the other way around, it's not about science. It's about the £15.
I've worked in hardware stores most of my life. This isn't exactly new or revolutionary. Or especially meaningful. It the time it takes to file a single key by hand - which may or may not work - most people can learn top pick locks, which you only have to do once. With a little practice, most consumer locks can be picked in a matter of seconds. A skilled lock picker can open consumer grade locks as quickly with a pick as with a key.
How long until MS's new watches have porn being broadcast straight to your wrist?
Anybody else remember self-winding watches?
The Register, yet again, demonstrates they are utterly clueless about what they report. Of course the Secret Service was involved. It was a criminal case - over $1000 in infringement was involved, and it was for commercial gain (either being enough) - and the Secret Service has the primary jurisdiction in the US for crimes committed with computers.
Why I bother to read anything from rags like The Register is beyond me.
"That's Mr. Cash Purchse. No telephone. No permanent address.
"Here's my cash."
They can deal with it. Really.
I suspect that MAP (minimum advertised price) is involved in this somewhere. If so, it's gonna get ugly.
Most big retailers advertise. A log. Direct mailers - junk mail - and TV ads are very effective. They bring in business. But ads are expensive, so retailers go to manufacturers and say, "Hey, how about you pay for part of this ad, and we promise to include your products." Manufacturers, not being stupid, say "Sure!"
But manufacturers have to take care of all of their customers, not just some, so they set rules. One of which is MAP. They only contribute to the cost of an ad campaign if the retailer promises to not advertise below a certain price (which would undercut other retailers). If they do advertise below that price, they lose the ad dollars.
Since retailers - also not stupid - know they can approach multiple manufacturers, they can often get their advertising nearly for free, by getting a little bit of the cost from many manufacturers. So there's a lot of money involved, and much of it is subjected to MAP rules.
I've always wondered why MAP doesn't violate the anti-trust laws, but I am no lawyer.
Just keep telling yourself that.
Anyone who lives in the EU: check your emails - are any sent from EU nations? NO
Actually, about 25% of the spam I get is from the EU.
Sure. Sounds like a great idea. Tell you what: I'll provide the service for you. I'll set you up an inbox that send out a notice to everyone who sends you mail that they have to pay you .0001 cents per message. I'll only charge you 30 cents per message for the service. Payable in advance. I take Visa, Mastercard and Discover.
Internet sales are mail order. It's that simple. Mail order and how it interacts with salex tax law, has been well established for over a century. No changes are needed.
This is simply a new way to get government hands in our pockets.
Won't help. Whatever state you live in, you have a business presence there. So you abide by its laws, too. Nice idea, though.
Since sales taxes are generally levied on the merchant...
No, they're not. They are levied on the buyer. The merchant is required by law to act as a tax collector for the state. This is why the Supreme Court will not allow a state to tax mail order transactions going out of state - if I live in California, Nevada cannot compel me to act as a tax collector for Nevada.
This plan would, in theory, let California require me to act as a tax collector for Nevada, with a reciprocal agreement doing the same in Nevada.
However, the plan, as written, will conflict with existing Supreme Court case law, which simply does not allow sales tax to be charged on out of state transactions. If this passes, it will be challenged, and will go to the Supreme Court, and will have an uphill battle the entire way.
...which include requiring states and its local jurisdictions to have the same tax rate...
Yeah, that's gonna happen. About the time Microsoft GPLs Windows.
This isn't triangulating on cell phones. This is using cell phone cells as radar - it can track people who don't have cell phones on them, or (nearly) any other moving object. It is a pretty basic advance. Scary.
All you really say is that a digital camera produces a better digital image than a scanned photographic print. Well duh. That's been true for a long, long time.
6 megapixel cameras approach (but not do quite equal the resolution of high speed 35mm film. The new 11 MP cameras will equal the resolution of even slow speed, high-res 35mm. But not even get close to even the smallest of the medium format, which is 2.7 times larger than 35mm.
Where digital still loses out is color saturation, and contrast range. Film still manages saturation better, and records across a wider ranger of contrast - the difference between the lightest and darkest parts of the image. Print film will handle up to 4 f-stops of contrast, slide filme up to maybe 3. I've yet to see a digital camera handle more than 2.
The bottom line is, if you want an image for digital use, use a digital camera. That's been true since 1 megapixel cameras came out. If you want snapshots on your vacation, there are some serious advantages to digital, starting with cost (unless you print out all your pictures, in which case digital is much more expensive).
But if you need high resolution, bold, vibrant colors, and the ability to accurately record high amounts of contrast, go with film, preferably medium format or larger.
The most commonly understood thing you are getting is the encryption thats automatically accepted by just about any modern browser. However, the reason it's automatically accepted is because VeriSign is suppose to verify the identity of the business. This is why they require a Duns and Bradstreet # (It's a business credit identifier).
I have a certificate from Verisign. They do require a D&B number. They use it to verify that the company you claim to be exists, at the address you claim. They have not, in three years, ever once verified that I am who I claim to be in any way.
They are a "certificate authority." So far as I can tell, from my own personal experience, the only thing they certify is that your check cleared, and the only thing they are an authority on is cashing checks.
Remember the unique ID number that was embedded in P-IIIs? And not in P-IVs?
Yeah, this will last. If it ever happens.
Technically inferior, restrictive operations, and more expensive than a generic equivalent. There's only one word that comes to mind: DIVX. Yeah, the one that cost Circuit City millions, not the video codec.
Serves 'em right to lose their ass, and they will.