This reminds me of the time the federal government decided to Ban sliced bread, because they fancied maybe there could be some savings or economic benefit.
The government has no business regulating ticket sales differently than any other kind of product sales.
Obviously the tickets are underpriced in the first place, if people are willing to do this, they're correcting a market distortion.
The bots could be stopped in their tracks a few different ways without needing to pass laws about them.
The cinema is expensive for the same reason concerts are expensive, because you're paying to essentially rent a seat in someone else's space/venue, as a result, you're paying for extra amenities such as lounge, bathrooms and water fountains, popcorn, their employees to maintain that space, for their lease, the electricity, cleanup, costs of furniture, ongoing maintenance.
No such costs would be justifiable for you to pay, watching it at home (You pay all those costs yourself for your home space!); The movie itself should be much less expensive, since you're providing your own delivery resources...
If you needed to pay $25 for a rental, it had better include a Valet to come to your house and personally start it playing for you, Or a Television and Sound system rental or something with that.....
But I sure as hell am not paying $25 just to rent it early, and 2 weeks after in Theatres is not that early anyways, that sounds about right for a perpetual purchase price.
By the way, I don't go to theatres anyways, haven't gone in years. Usually by the time the movie's out on DVD, I've already forgotten about it and lost interest.
On the other hand, if they released it earlier, and the price was reasonable instead of extortionate, they might have a chance at some of my business.
How can lousy performance possibly be a trade secret?
If kept sufficiently secret, it can reduce the damage which competitors' engineering and marketing departments might be able to use secrets derived from benchmarking data to inflict by designing scenarios for demonstration purposes and related pamphlets which show how faster product X is than Oracle.
Because competitors' engineering departments won't know where X DB is weakest and also what performance aspects X DB's vendor prioritizes for customers.
Let me remind you, that in spite of rumors to the contrary: You are physically human beings as well (So far).
When people begin to be replaced, you probably will not be the first to go, but your jobs as CEOs and Managers will be among the easiest ones to mechanize.
The time is coming where any news expressing something the government doesn't want us to hear will just have a FAKE label slapped on it, followed by a "Fake News Removal Order" (Evolution of the DMCA) sent to the hosting website.
If it were really about eliminating the fake news threat; a major goal would instead be to improve education of the people to more readily spot suspicious content, evaluate it logically and rationally, and not be fooled by snake oil.
It's not clear whether it applies retroactively to contracts already agreed to.
It is not possible for Congress to make a law affecting contracts already agreed to. Many years ago congress tried to pass a law that would have the affect of voiding some existing contracts, and the attempt was found to be unconstitutional.
That's because it would be considered an ex post facto law
And one of the lines in the US Constitution reads:
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed"
Bill of Attainder --- A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment ex post facto law -- A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed
The Oracle EULA (2012) includes the clause: "Publication Prohibition. You shall not publish any results of benchmark tests run on the SOFTWARE."
Under the act, Oracle might argue that results of standard benchmark tests against their product reveal trade secrets.
They might also argue the act does not apply, because the contract is negotiated between a Business and Oracle, not a form contract between an indivudal and Oracle. (This may mean that Oracle chooses to stop offering their products to individuals, and simply requires employees to sign NDAs instead of using form EULAs.)
A "form contract" is a contract with standardized terms: (1) used by a person in the course of selling or leasing the person's goods or services, and (2) imposed on an individual without a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the standardized terms. The definition excludes an employer-employee or independent contractor contract.
The standards under which provisions of a form contract are considered void under this bill shall not be construed to affect:
legal duties of confidentiality; civil actions for defamation, libel, or slander; or a party's right to establish terms and conditions for the creation of photographs or video of such party's property when those photographs or video are created by an employee or independent contractor of a commercial entity and are solely intended to be used for commercial purposes by that entity. Such standards also shall not be construed to affect any party's right to remove or refuse to display publicly on an Internet website or webpage owned, operated, or controlled by such party content that: (1) contains the personal information or likeness of another person or is libelous, harassing, abusive, obscene, vulgar, sexually explicit, inappropriate with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or other intrinsic characteristic; (2) is unrelated to the goods or services offered by or available at such party's website; or (3) is clearly false or misleading.
A provision shall not be considered void under this bill to the extent that it prohibits disclosure or submission of, or reserves the right of a person or business that hosts online consumer reviews or comments to remove, certain: (1) trade secrets or commercial or financial information; (2) personnel and medical files; (3) law enforcement records; (4) content that is unlawful or that a party has a right to remove or refuse to display; or (5) computer viruses or other potentially damaging computer code, processes, applications, or files.
A person is prohibited from offering form contracts containing a provision that is considered void under this bill.
Enforcement authority is provided to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and states.
The FTC must provide businesses with nonbinding best practices for compliance.
Nothing in this bill shall be construed to limit, impair, or supersede the Federal Trade Commission Act or any other federal law.
Except it's property, and there is no property laundering offense. Also, it's not illegal to conceal property
That's because the use of property to launder money is still called money laundering.
It becomes laundering, as soon as you engage in transactions with intermediary parties for the sole purpose of hiding the origin of the funds, which can be in any form (Property, cash, etc).
If they had won their case, then they would probably have gotten various protective sealing orders and other tactics to keep details of the case from seeing the light of day.
With the anti-net neutrality people the new administration is putting in place in the FCC advisory committee
Can't be too sure. The advisory committee is just that a council of advisors representing the Telecommunications and Media industries.
The advisors are not the commissioners, they don't diect the FCC.
There are two commissioners whose term expired and need new appointments, but Senate confirmation is required for those.
The FCC is not supposed to be a politicized entity, as such, congress structured the FCC regulator as an independent agency, so the president is not able to simply dictate Fcc policies.
Orwell is explicit: not only is there no Law in 1984, there is nothing even resembling it, not even a simulacrum of Law
Maybe, just maybe..... the distinguishment between having thoughtcrime and other laws on the book supporting tyranny and kangaroo courts VS no actual law and no courts is not so important a distinction.
Perhaps the no law binding government thing is just a later evolution of where this path takes us.
That's not the same as reporting purchases to the IRS.
Potentially I could go to my broker, tell him I want to withdraw 100 shares of T or X.
This gets me stock certificates issued, which does not generate any 1099 forms. I could then take my stock certificates, Sign the back, endorse some of them over to you, and donate some others to a charity, then you go and deposit the shares into your account.
The company then has no idea: 1. (For tax purposes) which of my shares have sold to you. Many of the shares I would own would likely have a different tax basis. I might own shares of the same company 2 or 3 brokerage accounts, instead of just 1, and I may elect the FIFO or LIFO method of tax basis accounting, which means telling one of my brokers to sell shares in one account is actually selling shares with the cost basis that I purchased at a different broker (Since all your different accounts with the same company's stock are the Same Issue, for tax purposes).
2. None of the brokers, nor their issuer has idea about the consideration you paid me in exchange for these shares. With this transaction, it would be up to you to report the sales proceeds you paid me. You would have no idea, the cost basis either.
3. The issuer of the stock won't know the actual date we agreed to the sale, again, it will be up to the buyer to report that on presentation of the stock certificates to the company's issuer to update the share ownership of the number of units transferred.
unlike a standard stock broker, a 1099-B would not be issued by coinbase automatically.
If you move more than 200 transactions or $20k in Cash or Bitcoin through your account in a Calendar year, then Coinbase issues you a 1099-K. Even if you're just moving your funds from one account to another.
So there definitely will be reports to the IRS if you move significant capital around.
You can shuffle bitcoin back and forth between several addresses and nobody can figure out who the underlying owner(s) are.
This is action likely going to be considered money laundering or creating structured transactions designed to conceal the origin of funds, which is itself a crime in the US.
Since buying and selling Bitcoin can result in income, not declaring that income would probably violate the tax code.
The IRS is obviously interested in who is BUYING Bitcoin to investigate, because if you sell more than a few hundred $$$ in Bitcoin through Coinbase, then Coinbase has to issue a 1099-K to you for the sales proceeds, so the IRS has information about sales anyways.
Apparently there must be some tax liability the IRS believes you incur simply by holding Bitcoin. Perhaps they are expecting Bitcoin reserve holders to Mark their assets to market periodically and report any increase in market value as income when it occurs.
My brokerage reports all sales to the IRS every year without even a polite request.
ONLY because there's a law saying what your brokerage has to report. This is legislative action by congress that has decided that the sales proceeds have to be reported, which is done for income tax purposes. I believe the same already likely applies to Coinbase, if you sell over some threshold and receive US dollars, then Coinbase likely has to 1099B you.
Note your broker doesn't share ALL your records with the IRS. For example, they don't share records of stock purchases with the IRS, only sales.
They'll find out your Wallet addresses for Bitcoin. Then they'll start identifying Coinbase customers and initiating Audits where the customers will be required to prove their innocence or be presumed guilty.
They make it sound like it's solely out of charity or special respect/privilege for Aldrin that they wouldn't routinely do such an evacuation. Wouldn't they do this for anyone who needed evacuation for medical treatment?
Aren't flights out of Antarctica relatively routine for the summer months, anyways?
so you are saying that having sex is a conscious choice? Now I do not know why you have posted
Yes, I am saying having sexual intercourse is a conscious choice. If it's not, then "Rape" must be deleted as a crime from the books, as only voluntary actions can be crimes.
There's a default, AND it's a highly personal thing. I don't go around telling other people, especially not businesses if I am straight or gay, and there's no need or reason to. We should probably issue a fine or penalty to people who say they are Straight or say that they are Gay..... this means that person is discriminating against potential sexual partners based on perceived or physical gender.
But you also choose to decide whether to tell other people that you are straight or to tell other people that you are Gay. Whether you have preferences that would lead you towards one to the other are ultimately determined by decisions which may include both unconscious and conscious choices and influences in your life which shaped your mental development.
If you make sexual advancements towards other people, then you made a decision (conscious or not) to make those advancements. If you have sex with someone, then you make a decision to allow this, and your knowledge of the other person's gender and your own gender might (or might not be) among the potential inputs you took into account in your decision making process.
Anyways, if you buy a cake, you have the choice to not put any message on the cake promoting Gay behaviors, even if you are in fact gay.
All the Amber alerts I have ever seen [Which were pretty frequent] were "abduction" by non-custodial parent, and turned out the child was not in any real danger. So I turned them off.
Blocking Amber Alerts on iOS is simple. Go to Settings -> Notifications, scroll down to the bottom of that page, unselect "AMBER Alerts" (and/or "Emergency Alerts"). I assume it's equally easy on Android.
The government is probably going to ban the option to turn those off.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of the time the federal government decided to Ban sliced bread,
because they fancied maybe there could be some savings or economic benefit.
The government has no business regulating ticket sales differently than any other kind of product sales.
Obviously the tickets are underpriced in the first place, if people are willing to do this, they're correcting a market distortion.
The bots could be stopped in their tracks a few different ways without needing to pass laws about them.
$25 is less than you pay for two at the cinema
The cinema is expensive for the same reason concerts are expensive,
because you're paying to essentially rent a seat in someone else's space/venue,
as a result, you're paying for extra amenities such as lounge, bathrooms and water fountains,
popcorn, their employees to maintain that space, for their lease, the electricity, cleanup, costs of furniture, ongoing maintenance.
No such costs would be justifiable for you to pay, watching it at home (You pay all those costs yourself for your home space!); The movie itself should be much less expensive, since you're providing your own delivery resources...
If you needed to pay $25 for a rental, it had better include a Valet to come to your house and personally start it playing for you, Or a Television and Sound system rental or something with that.....
But I sure as hell am not paying $25 just to rent it early, and 2 weeks after in Theatres is not that early anyways, that sounds about right for a perpetual purchase price.
By the way, I don't go to theatres anyways, haven't gone in years. Usually by the time the movie's out on DVD, I've already forgotten about it and lost interest.
On the other hand, if they released it earlier, and the price was reasonable instead of extortionate, they might have a chance at some of my business.
How can lousy performance possibly be a trade secret?
If kept sufficiently secret, it can reduce the damage which competitors' engineering and marketing departments might be able to use
secrets derived from benchmarking data to inflict by designing scenarios for demonstration purposes and related pamphlets
which show how faster product X is than Oracle.
Because competitors' engineering departments won't know where X DB is weakest and also what performance aspects X DB's vendor prioritizes for customers.
I am half convinced that the three Es aren't intentional, but rather the result of really bad management decisions.
Maybe the first two Es are intentional, and the 3rd one is accidental......
Let me remind you, that in spite of rumors to the contrary: You are physically human beings as well (So far).
When people begin to be replaced, you probably will not be the first to go, but your jobs as CEOs and Managers will be among the easiest ones to mechanize.
The time is coming where any news expressing something the government doesn't want us to hear will
just have a FAKE label slapped on it, followed by a "Fake News Removal Order" (Evolution of the DMCA) sent to the hosting website.
If it were really about eliminating the fake news threat; a major goal would instead be to improve education of the people to more readily spot suspicious content, evaluate it logically and rationally, and not be fooled by snake oil.
It's not clear whether it applies retroactively to contracts already agreed to.
It is not possible for Congress to make a law affecting contracts already agreed to.
Many years ago congress tried to pass a law that would have the affect of voiding some existing contracts, and
the attempt was found to be unconstitutional.
That's because it would be considered an ex post facto law
And one of the lines in the US Constitution reads:
The Oracle EULA (2012) includes the clause: "Publication Prohibition. You shall not publish any results of benchmark tests run on the SOFTWARE."
Under the act, Oracle might argue that results of standard benchmark tests against their product reveal trade secrets.
They might also argue the act does not apply, because the contract is negotiated between a Business and Oracle, not a form contract between an indivudal and Oracle. (This may mean that Oracle chooses to stop offering their products to individuals, and simply requires employees to sign NDAs instead of using form EULAs.)
Except it's property, and there is no property laundering offense. Also, it's not illegal to conceal property
That's because the use of property to launder money is still called money laundering.
It becomes laundering, as soon as you engage in transactions with intermediary parties for the sole purpose of hiding the origin of the funds, which can be in any form (Property, cash, etc).
If they had won their case, then they would probably have gotten various protective sealing orders and other tactics to keep details of the case from seeing the light of day.
With the anti-net neutrality people the new administration is putting in place in the FCC advisory committee
Can't be too sure. The advisory committee is just that a council of advisors representing the Telecommunications and Media industries.
The advisors are not the commissioners, they don't diect the FCC.
There are two commissioners whose term expired and need new appointments, but Senate confirmation is required for those.
The FCC is not supposed to be a politicized entity, as such, congress structured the FCC regulator as an independent agency,
so the president is not able to simply dictate Fcc policies.
Orwell is explicit: not only is there no Law in 1984, there is nothing even resembling it, not even a simulacrum of Law
Maybe, just maybe..... the distinguishment between having thoughtcrime and other laws on the book supporting tyranny and kangaroo courts VS no actual law and no courts is not so important a distinction.
Perhaps the no law binding government thing is just a later evolution of where this path takes us.
That's not the same as reporting purchases to the IRS.
Potentially I could go to my broker, tell him I want to withdraw 100 shares of T or X.
This gets me stock certificates issued, which does not generate any 1099 forms.
I could then take my stock certificates, Sign the back, endorse some of them over to you,
and donate some others to a charity, then you go and deposit the shares into your account.
The company then has no idea:
1. (For tax purposes) which of my shares have sold to you. Many of the shares I would own would
likely have a different tax basis. I might own shares of the same company 2 or 3 brokerage accounts, instead of just 1, and I may elect the FIFO or LIFO method of tax basis accounting, which means telling one of my brokers to sell shares in one account is actually selling shares with the cost basis that I purchased at a different broker (Since all your different accounts with the same company's stock are the Same Issue, for tax purposes).
2. None of the brokers, nor their issuer has idea about the consideration you paid me in exchange for these shares.
With this transaction, it would be up to you to report the sales proceeds you paid me. You would have no idea, the cost basis either.
3. The issuer of the stock won't know the actual date we agreed to the sale, again, it will be up to the buyer to report that on presentation of the stock certificates to the company's issuer to update the share ownership of the number of units transferred.
unlike a standard stock broker, a 1099-B would not be issued by coinbase automatically.
If you move more than 200 transactions or $20k in Cash or Bitcoin through your account in
a Calendar year, then Coinbase issues you a 1099-K. Even if you're just moving your funds
from one account to another.
So there definitely will be reports to the IRS if you move significant capital around.
You can shuffle bitcoin back and forth between several addresses and nobody can figure out who the underlying owner(s) are.
This is action likely going to be considered money laundering or creating structured transactions designed to conceal
the origin of funds, which is itself a crime in the US.
Since buying and selling Bitcoin can result in income, not declaring that income would probably violate the tax code.
The IRS is obviously interested in who is BUYING Bitcoin to investigate, because if you sell more than a few hundred $$$ in Bitcoin through
Coinbase, then Coinbase has to issue a 1099-K to you for the sales proceeds, so the IRS has information about sales anyways.
Apparently there must be some tax liability the IRS believes you incur simply by holding Bitcoin.
Perhaps they are expecting Bitcoin reserve holders to Mark their assets to market periodically and report any increase in market value as income when it occurs.
My brokerage reports all sales to the IRS every year without even a polite request.
ONLY because there's a law saying what your brokerage has to report.
This is legislative action by congress that has decided that the sales proceeds have to be reported, which is done for income tax purposes.
I believe the same already likely applies to Coinbase, if you sell over some threshold and receive US dollars, then Coinbase likely has to 1099B you.
Note your broker doesn't share ALL your records with the IRS. For example, they don't share records of stock purchases with the IRS, only sales.
They'll find out your Wallet addresses for Bitcoin. Then they'll start identifying Coinbase customers and initiating Audits where the customers will be required to prove their innocence or be presumed guilty.
They make it sound like it's solely out of charity or special respect/privilege for Aldrin that they wouldn't routinely do such an evacuation.
Wouldn't they do this for anyone who needed evacuation for medical treatment?
Aren't flights out of Antarctica relatively routine for the summer months, anyways?
so you are saying that having sex is a conscious choice? Now I do not know why you have posted
Yes, I am saying having sexual intercourse is a conscious choice. If it's not, then "Rape" must be deleted as a crime from the books, as only voluntary actions can be crimes.
There's a default, AND it's a highly personal thing. I don't go around telling other people, especially not businesses if I am straight or gay, and there's no need or reason to. We should probably issue a fine or penalty to people who say they are Straight or say that they are Gay..... this means that person is discriminating against potential sexual partners based on perceived or physical gender.
But you also choose to decide whether to tell other people that you are straight or to tell other people that you are Gay. Whether you have preferences that would lead you towards one to the other are ultimately determined by decisions which may include both unconscious and conscious choices and influences in your life which shaped your mental development.
If you make sexual advancements towards other people, then you made a decision (conscious or not) to make those advancements. If you have sex with someone, then you make a decision to allow this, and your knowledge of the other person's gender and your own gender might (or might not be) among the potential inputs you took into account in your decision making process.
Anyways, if you buy a cake, you have the choice to not put any message on the cake promoting Gay behaviors, even if you are in fact gay.
Being gay is a physical condition. Saying hateful things is a conscious choice.
Being gay is actually a mental condition. And participating in any sexual behavior (gay or otherwise), is also a conscious choice.
All the Amber alerts I have ever seen [Which were pretty frequent] were "abduction" by non-custodial parent, and turned out the child was not in any real danger. So I turned them off.
Blocking Amber Alerts on iOS is simple. Go to Settings -> Notifications, scroll down to the bottom of that page, unselect "AMBER Alerts" (and/or "Emergency Alerts"). I assume it's equally easy on Android.
The government is probably going to ban the option to turn those off.