I would never sign a non-disclosure agreement on a lawsuit. If it goes to a jury, it's public record, and they can never make it otherwise. That's worth more than any amount of money.
PayPal is vastly more expensive. Last time I checked, they skim something like 5% off your credit card transactions. A good e-commerce merchant account from a real bank should only charge you on the order of 2.5%.
Depends a lot on who the merchant account is with. Most banks have set monthly fees, often $100/month or more, to "process paperwork." And most have a batch charge, some a set per-transaction charge, in addition to the 2.9% or so that you normally pay. If you are a small business, all these add-on fees can easily double or triple the cost of the account.
The rule of thumb is shop around, and put real numbers into a spreadsheet based on your expected sales. Sometimes, PayPal is cheaper.
If your boss hasn't disputed the charges with his credit card company, he's an idiot who deserves to be ripped off. Fuck PayPal if they don't answer. Let 'em pay the chargeback fees like very other shady operator.
If your chargeback rate is over 1%, then either your are a crook, or you are in a business that deals mostly with crooks. If you are honest with the bank when you get the account, the latter isn't much of a problem - they'll tell you it's a high risk business (and probably refuse to give you the account). So, if you're honest with your own bank, and with your customers, it's not tough to keep the chargeback rate under 1%.
6) Trust your credit card. If you're using Credit Cards to handle purchases, many states like Maryland have VERY tough credit card laws which protect consumers. If you're using a 'new' service like PayPal, hide behind more conservative, regulated things like traditional credit cards and bank accounts.
Those laws are federal, and are very much on the consumer's side. Since PayPal never has physical possession of the card, and does not have your signature on paper, they pretty much automatically lose all disputes (as do all online retailers).
Your propaganda would be a lot more convincing if it included a 1-800 number by which to resolve disputes, since you do not, apparently, have a good record of responding to email.
This is why I declined to allow you people to have access to my bank account last year, despite your assurances that no money would ever be removed without my explicit instructions for any reason, ever.
And they've removed the notice that they were receiving money from a competitor of PayPal. They've also removed the ads, but this site does not impress me as being anything other than a whiner with no clue.
There are so many advantages for the purveyors of pop culture, ranging from "never gets arrested for drunk driving" to "never demands salary increases"...
... and "never signs autographs, or shakes a fan's hand."
Yeah, there will be digital celebrities, but they'll never really replace the real thing because the fans are the ones who actually spend money.
As has been pointed out, the section you quote actually says the exact opposite of what you though it says.
Now, the real question is, will the Senate ratify the treaty. Far as I know, there's still time to influence that. Don't bother with email. Call your Congresscritter's local office, and ask to make an appointment to talk to him face to face. And keep asking, until you get one. And explain, calmly, and with as much detail as you can fit in the 5 minutes you'll have, why this treaty is a surrender of US sovereignty. Offer examples of how it could be abused that will affect the Congresscritter personally, like their being extraditied to face criminal charges for doing something explicitly protected under our Constitution.
. . . that under the provisions of the United States Constitution, "Interior ministers and law enforcement officials" can sign whatever the hell they want, but only the US Senate can actually approve a treaty with another nation. And until they do, it's not law.
Also note that treaties cannot alter the Constitution itself, nor can they implement anything that violates it.
Does anyone have any specific case examples of MAPS abuse?
I've been spammed (by the definition on MAPS' web page - it wasn't commercial, but 'content doesn't matter' - it was not "mutually consentual," and the asshole refused to stop when he was told to point blank) by a MAPS employee, using the MAPS mail server, during work hours. Still got the archives to prove it. Had to threaten legal action to get them to stop him, in fact. At which point he starting using his home machine to do the same, until his DSL provider's abuse desk talked to him. And so on.
This from an outfit whose mottos seems to be "all email should be mutuall consensual." Yeah, I trust their motives.
If you're an end user, the EFF paper completely and totally supports your right to use whatever you want, including MAPS, to filter your own email.
If you're providing mail service to others, you are making that decision for them, probably without their knowledge or consent. That is what they take issue with.
Your suggestion that the Constitution of the USA is relevant to RBLs also seems weak to me. Private entities are not generally bound by restrictions on the behavior of governments.
Federal case law on the anti-fax spam statute says otherwise. When it was challenged constitutionally in Destination Ventures vs. FCC under the 1st Amendment, it was ruled constitutional because it limited only unsolicited commercial faxes. Based on Supreme Court case law, the court felt it would be unconstitutional to limit any other form of fax-based speech, unsolicited or not.
So, while the anti-spam types say "content doesn't matter," the law says otherwise.
My father once asked a telemarketer for her office address, so he could firebomb the office and kill everyone. Stupid cunt called the FBI, and showed up at the door with an agent. Agent asked him if he'd threatened to firebomb the office, and he told the guy "Yes, I did, and I'll do it. And if he doesn't want me to, all she has to do is put me on the no-call list like the law requires." Agent gave stupid cunt a dirty look, and left. Never heard about it again. Never got another telemarketing call at that number again, either.
I wouldn't recomment this method to the average person, though. My father has a long history of winning trials like that.
US Dept of Energy. And it's by volume, i.e., gallon, not by weight. Weight is far less and issue than storage volume in ground vehicles, which is what the research was oriented towards. I suspect it'll be nearly as important for aircraft, too, since airliners already stuff fuel into every nook and cranny they possibly can to extend the range. It's tough to carry as many kilograms of hydrogen as of gasoline ( or kerosene, as the case may be).
Hydrogen has 1/6 the amount of energy stored in it as gasoline does (vs. about 2/3 for ethanol and 1/2 for methanol). I expect it's even worse for jet fuel. That means that the same fuel capacity has 1/6 the range, which will give most long range jetliners a range too short to be of any use whatsoever.
And despite this clueless clown's assertions to the contrary, hydrogen tanks will cheerfully explose, not matter what, under the right conditions. Especially since it has to be kept under intense enough pressure to be liquid to be of any use at all as a fuel.
... since there is no suppression of stem cell research, only restrictions on federl funding. Nothing has even been proposed that would in any way restrict how his money would be used.
And the only recent change has been to allow some types of research with federal funding that was previously banned.
So, the situation gets better, not worse, and he pulls funding that is not affected in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
I would never sign a non-disclosure agreement on a lawsuit. If it goes to a jury, it's public record, and they can never make it otherwise. That's worth more than any amount of money.
Certainly worth a try. More likely, though, would be that the provision would simply be ruled unenforceable.
Still, if you live in California, the Labor Board loves that sort of thing, and it doesn't cost the employee anything if they take it.
There is considerable case law regarding copyright on letters. The short story is, if you send someone a letter, they can do what they please with it.
IANAL
Would those be the same Democrats who prefer their money soft, like their women?
The lie:
..."the malicious content is automatically executed."
The truth, from the article that the clown how posted this didn't even bother to read:
"Any way to skip all dialogs, ie. to run an application without ANY dialog with this vulnerability has NOT been found."
C'mon, you morons. At least pretend to read this stuff before you start masturbating at how evil and stupid Microsoft is. Again.
PayPal is vastly more expensive. Last time I checked, they skim something like 5% off your credit card transactions. A good e-commerce merchant account from a real bank should only charge you on the order of 2.5%.
Depends a lot on who the merchant account is with. Most banks have set monthly fees, often $100/month or more, to "process paperwork." And most have a batch charge, some a set per-transaction charge, in addition to the 2.9% or so that you normally pay. If you are a small business, all these add-on fees can easily double or triple the cost of the account.
The rule of thumb is shop around, and put real numbers into a spreadsheet based on your expected sales. Sometimes, PayPal is cheaper.
If your boss hasn't disputed the charges with his credit card company, he's an idiot who deserves to be ripped off. Fuck PayPal if they don't answer. Let 'em pay the chargeback fees like very other shady operator.
If your chargeback rate is over 1%, then either your are a crook, or you are in a business that deals mostly with crooks. If you are honest with the bank when you get the account, the latter isn't much of a problem - they'll tell you it's a high risk business (and probably refuse to give you the account). So, if you're honest with your own bank, and with your customers, it's not tough to keep the chargeback rate under 1%.
6) Trust your credit card. If you're using Credit Cards to handle purchases, many states like Maryland have VERY tough credit card laws which protect consumers. If you're using a 'new' service like PayPal, hide behind more conservative, regulated things like traditional credit cards and bank accounts.
Those laws are federal, and are very much on the consumer's side. Since PayPal never has physical possession of the card, and does not have your signature on paper, they pretty much automatically lose all disputes (as do all online retailers).
Your propaganda would be a lot more convincing if it included a 1-800 number by which to resolve disputes, since you do not, apparently, have a good record of responding to email.
This is why I declined to allow you people to have access to my bank account last year, despite your assurances that no money would ever be removed without my explicit instructions for any reason, ever.
And they've removed the notice that they were receiving money from a competitor of PayPal. They've also removed the ads, but this site does not impress me as being anything other than a whiner with no clue.
... and still not ratified by the Senate, so the US is not, in any way, a party to it at this point.
I can't help but wonder why it is that these "THE SKY IS FALLING" hysterical rants never mention that.
There are so many advantages for the purveyors of pop culture, ranging from "never gets arrested for drunk driving" to "never demands salary increases"...
... and "never signs autographs, or shakes a fan's hand."
Yeah, there will be digital celebrities, but they'll never really replace the real thing because the fans are the ones who actually spend money.
As has been pointed out, the section you quote actually says the exact opposite of what you though it says.
Now, the real question is, will the Senate ratify the treaty. Far as I know, there's still time to influence that. Don't bother with email. Call your Congresscritter's local office, and ask to make an appointment to talk to him face to face. And keep asking, until you get one. And explain, calmly, and with as much detail as you can fit in the 5 minutes you'll have, why this treaty is a surrender of US sovereignty. Offer examples of how it could be abused that will affect the Congresscritter personally, like their being extraditied to face criminal charges for doing something explicitly protected under our Constitution.
. . . that under the provisions of the United States Constitution, "Interior ministers and law enforcement officials" can sign whatever the hell they want, but only the US Senate can actually approve a treaty with another nation. And until they do, it's not law.
Also note that treaties cannot alter the Constitution itself, nor can they implement anything that violates it.
...then whom exactly does the RIAA represent?
Who ever claimed they represented the artists? Only an idiot would think that. Their name says exactly who they represent.
Does anyone have any specific case examples of MAPS abuse?
I've been spammed (by the definition on MAPS' web page - it wasn't commercial, but 'content doesn't matter' - it was not "mutually consentual," and the asshole refused to stop when he was told to point blank) by a MAPS employee, using the MAPS mail server, during work hours. Still got the archives to prove it. Had to threaten legal action to get them to stop him, in fact. At which point he starting using his home machine to do the same, until his DSL provider's abuse desk talked to him. And so on.
This from an outfit whose mottos seems to be "all email should be mutuall consensual." Yeah, I trust their motives.
If you're an end user, the EFF paper completely and totally supports your right to use whatever you want, including MAPS, to filter your own email.
If you're providing mail service to others, you are making that decision for them, probably without their knowledge or consent. That is what they take issue with.
Your suggestion that the Constitution of the USA is relevant to RBLs also seems weak to me. Private entities are not generally bound by restrictions on the behavior of governments.
Federal case law on the anti-fax spam statute says otherwise. When it was challenged constitutionally in Destination Ventures vs. FCC under the 1st Amendment, it was ruled constitutional because it limited only unsolicited commercial faxes. Based on Supreme Court case law, the court felt it would be unconstitutional to limit any other form of fax-based speech, unsolicited or not.
So, while the anti-spam types say "content doesn't matter," the law says otherwise.
My father once asked a telemarketer for her office address, so he could firebomb the office and kill everyone. Stupid cunt called the FBI, and showed up at the door with an agent. Agent asked him if he'd threatened to firebomb the office, and he told the guy "Yes, I did, and I'll do it. And if he doesn't want me to, all she has to do is put me on the no-call list like the law requires." Agent gave stupid cunt a dirty look, and left. Never heard about it again. Never got another telemarketing call at that number again, either.
I wouldn't recomment this method to the average person, though. My father has a long history of winning trials like that.
Where'd you get your numbers, my friend?
US Dept of Energy. And it's by volume, i.e., gallon, not by weight. Weight is far less and issue than storage volume in ground vehicles, which is what the research was oriented towards. I suspect it'll be nearly as important for aircraft, too, since airliners already stuff fuel into every nook and cranny they possibly can to extend the range. It's tough to carry as many kilograms of hydrogen as of gasoline ( or kerosene, as the case may be).
Hydrogen has 1/6 the amount of energy stored in it as gasoline does (vs. about 2/3 for ethanol and 1/2 for methanol). I expect it's even worse for jet fuel. That means that the same fuel capacity has 1/6 the range, which will give most long range jetliners a range too short to be of any use whatsoever.
And despite this clueless clown's assertions to the contrary, hydrogen tanks will cheerfully explose, not matter what, under the right conditions. Especially since it has to be kept under intense enough pressure to be liquid to be of any use at all as a fuel.
I wonder if we could sue MS for violating the DMCA
No, but you probably could for violating ADA.
... that Mr. Stallman should STFU. He's part of the problem. If his worst fears are realized, it will be because of his own rantings.
... since there is no suppression of stem cell research, only restrictions on federl funding. Nothing has even been proposed that would in any way restrict how his money would be used.
And the only recent change has been to allow some types of research with federal funding that was previously banned.
So, the situation gets better, not worse, and he pulls funding that is not affected in any way.
Yeah, I believe that's about political concerns.