Yeah, but the PS2 Linux kit is carefully controlled by Sony. It doesn't exactly give you direct access to the system. I want absolute control of a PS2, including writing directly to the hardware registers.
This would be a two edged sword. Ebay do benefit from fraud, but they benefit from legitimate sales as much. If the amount of fraud is too hih, people stop trusting ebay at all.
Re:eBay has become unusable because of the scammer
on
Profile of an eBay Scammer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Also, the number of e-mails I get asking if I can ship to some obscure country where credit card fraud is thriving is very high.
I heard about someone who counter scammed. He accepted their cheque. Delayed for a while, asked for an extra fee for some made up reason via Western Union, and after the cheque failed to clear, refused shipment until the scammer sent the money.
I wanted a very plain simple desk. I couldn't afford one. For some reason, a sturdy table with 4 legs costs more than the home computer desk with a drawer, a couple of shelves and a pull out keyboard tray (Although this is actually useful since I have two computers, and two keyboards, so I put one on the desk and one on the tray).
Why are businesses willing to pay so much more? Hell, next time I need a desk, I think I'll buy a sheet of MDF and stick a leg on each corner.
People tend not to think that deeply. Are you really not going to campaign for a product that will reduce your workload, and will make you look good if they do decide to downsize the IT department?
What about if the IT manager can also do other jobs? Wouldn't it be more productive if he spent less time doing tech support, and instead could do jobs that make money?
What about if the boss is the technical support? Surely he'd be delighted to reduce his own workload.
The software availability is fine for most companies. While Macs may be an unsuitable tool for engineering, the available software is as good or better than PCs for DTP, graphics, 3d work and video. And you can get a full office suite for them which is just as good as the one available for Windows. Sure there are many areas they're unsuitable, but they're not used in a lot of areas where they would be as good as PCs.
I think you missed out a reason though. Its experience. Most IT guys stick to what they know. They probably learned on a PC. They stick to PCs because they know the ins and outs. All else being equal, why bother to switch?
but the better games access a lot of the hardware directly.
Really? That would be insane. Writing using directX gives you a free PC port of the graphics engine. The speed gain in bypassing the drivers would be minimal.
Is it even possible? It's not like either Microsoft or Nvidia to give internal details if they don't need to, and I thought Windows CE enforced IO protection.
The question isn't why aren't they expempt. The question is why is it a department of the FDA who deals with it? They are meant to be testing food and drugs, which presumably involves animal testing.
The original post was asking why doesn't a department of conumer safety, or perhaps a branch of the agency that regulated motor vehichles deal with this isntead.
Probably the FDA subcontract the testing to an agency that specialises in vehicle testing. As for insurance, it's a lot easier for them to say that they cover anything approved by the FDA, rather than any drugs approved by the FDA, mobility devices approved by the agency for those, prosthetics approved by the prosthetics people, pacemakers approved by another agency, and so on...
It's just a case a feature creep for the FDA. Someone needs to approve these things. They assign it to the agency that's already known to those who want approval.
Administrative convenience, probably. It means that hospitals only need to deal with one organisation to determine whether the things they use are safe.
Another possibility is that many users are unable to distinguish between the OS and applications. If Word or IE crashes, people still complain about Windows 95/98/XP.
While it seems fairly obvious who's at fault here, the opposition will employ a professional confidence trickster (I think they're called lawyers) to convince the court that you wasted their time by parforming actions that forced them to prosecute. Legal experts are very convincing at claiming black is white.
I spent 60 hours verifying no intellectual property violations where there, and expect to be compensated.
It would make more sense to claim something that seemed reasonable. Time taken calling people sorting things out, inconvenience to customers who were unable to to download products, Call it aboput an hour's work charged at $50 per hour, and another $150 for loss of standing with your customers, or something like that. It's not a huge amount, but it could embarass them, and compensate you for the time taken. Don't try to use the legal system for grandstanding. Judges don;t like it.
Or simply autorespond to all emails from the IP or email address with a message to the effect that emails have been rejected due to complaints of abuse.
You'd probably be quite safe. Any lawyer that attacked you would look pretty stupid arguing that harm was done by you not sharing an illegal file. They might still prosecute of course. This is, after all, public disobedience, and prosecution is always a possiblity.
However, a honeypot would be specifically designed to demonstrate that the legal system is being abused. Generally speaking, I understand that the courts look dimly on that sort of thing. Then again, they might think you did this simply to waste the court's time. They don't like that a lot either. Essentially, the point is that if you have a honeypot, make sure that you have a response to their nastygram worked out, that you know what your aim is (e.g. force them to actually check the files are what they think, charge them with harrasment or whatever) and that you have decent legal representation lined up, and already willing to defend you.
hadn't thought of it like that. Perhaps spam blockers should add any IP addresses that send automated DMCA emails to their block lists. They certainly fit many of the criteria for spam - automated incinvenient, and targetted fairly arbitrarily.
Of course, Lawyers would have a lot of fun determining whether this is legitimate behaviour.
Delaing with this is trivial if there is only one or two, but it's still remarkably bad form for them not to go to the trivial effort required to check that it was actually a pirated file.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but the PS2 Linux kit is carefully controlled by Sony. It doesn't exactly give you direct access to the system. I want absolute control of a PS2, including writing directly to the hardware registers.
This would be a two edged sword. Ebay do benefit from fraud, but they benefit from legitimate sales as much. If the amount of fraud is too hih, people stop trusting ebay at all.
Also, the number of e-mails I get asking if I can ship to some obscure country where credit card fraud is thriving is very high.
I heard about someone who counter scammed. He accepted their cheque. Delayed for a while, asked for an extra fee for some made up reason via Western Union, and after the cheque failed to clear, refused shipment until the scammer sent the money.
I wanted a very plain simple desk. I couldn't afford one. For some reason, a sturdy table with 4 legs costs more than the home computer desk with a drawer, a couple of shelves and a pull out keyboard tray (Although this is actually useful since I have two computers, and two keyboards, so I put one on the desk and one on the tray).
Why are businesses willing to pay so much more? Hell, next time I need a desk, I think I'll buy a sheet of MDF and stick a leg on each corner.
Yep. Cost is probably the main factor, but I think resistance to change might have something to do with it.
People tend not to think that deeply. Are you really not going to campaign for a product that will reduce your workload, and will make you look good if they do decide to downsize the IT department?
What about if the IT manager can also do other jobs? Wouldn't it be more productive if he spent less time doing tech support, and instead could do jobs that make money?
What about if the boss is the technical support? Surely he'd be delighted to reduce his own workload.
The software availability is fine for most companies. While Macs may be an unsuitable tool for engineering, the available software is as good or better than PCs for DTP, graphics, 3d work and video. And you can get a full office suite for them which is just as good as the one available for Windows. Sure there are many areas they're unsuitable, but they're not used in a lot of areas where they would be as good as PCs.
I think you missed out a reason though. Its experience. Most IT guys stick to what they know. They probably learned on a PC. They stick to PCs because they know the ins and outs. All else being equal, why bother to switch?
Fair enough.
It's nice when I'm wrong. I learn so much more than when I'm right:)
but the better games access a lot of the hardware directly.
Really? That would be insane. Writing using directX gives you a free PC port of the graphics engine. The speed gain in bypassing the drivers would be minimal.
Is it even possible? It's not like either Microsoft or Nvidia to give internal details if they don't need to, and I thought Windows CE enforced IO protection.
Why indeed. This is another very similar question. What is the answer?
The question isn't why aren't they expempt. The question is why is it a department of the FDA who deals with it? They are meant to be testing food and drugs, which presumably involves animal testing.
The original post was asking why doesn't a department of conumer safety, or perhaps a branch of the agency that regulated motor vehichles deal with this isntead.
Probably the FDA subcontract the testing to an agency that specialises in vehicle testing. As for insurance, it's a lot easier for them to say that they cover anything approved by the FDA, rather than any drugs approved by the FDA, mobility devices approved by the agency for those, prosthetics approved by the prosthetics people, pacemakers approved by another agency, and so on...
It's just a case a feature creep for the FDA. Someone needs to approve these things. They assign it to the agency that's already known to those who want approval.
Administrative convenience, probably. It means that hospitals only need to deal with one organisation to determine whether the things they use are safe.
Sounds reasonable.
Another possibility is that many users are unable to distinguish between the OS and applications. If Word or IE crashes, people still complain about Windows 95/98/XP.
I checked the terms of the revokation. You forgot to exclude yourself from the ability to revoke, and revoked in alphabetical order.
Users Znugget through to ZZTop still have the power to revoke.
I've just revoked SCO's licence to use their own code. And I hereby revoke the right of anyone to tell me I can't do that.
The one with the poorest legal argument.
While it seems fairly obvious who's at fault here, the opposition will employ a professional confidence trickster (I think they're called lawyers) to convince the court that you wasted their time by parforming actions that forced them to prosecute. Legal experts are very convincing at claiming black is white.
I spent 60 hours verifying no intellectual property violations where there, and expect to be compensated.
It would make more sense to claim something that seemed reasonable. Time taken calling people sorting things out, inconvenience to customers who were unable to to download products, Call it aboput an hour's work charged at $50 per hour, and another $150 for loss of standing with your customers, or something like that. It's not a huge amount, but it could embarass them, and compensate you for the time taken. Don't try to use the legal system for grandstanding. Judges don;t like it.
Or simply autorespond to all emails from the IP or email address with a message to the effect that emails have been rejected due to complaints of abuse.
You'd probably be quite safe. Any lawyer that attacked you would look pretty stupid arguing that harm was done by you not sharing an illegal file. They might still prosecute of course. This is, after all, public disobedience, and prosecution is always a possiblity.
However, a honeypot would be specifically designed to demonstrate that the legal system is being abused. Generally speaking, I understand that the courts look dimly on that sort of thing. Then again, they might think you did this simply to waste the court's time. They don't like that a lot either. Essentially, the point is that if you have a honeypot, make sure that you have a response to their nastygram worked out, that you know what your aim is (e.g. force them to actually check the files are what they think, charge them with harrasment or whatever) and that you have decent legal representation lined up, and already willing to defend you.
hadn't thought of it like that. Perhaps spam blockers should add any IP addresses that send automated DMCA emails to their block lists. They certainly fit many of the criteria for spam - automated incinvenient, and targetted fairly arbitrarily.
Of course, Lawyers would have a lot of fun determining whether this is legitimate behaviour.
Delaing with this is trivial if there is only one or two, but it's still remarkably bad form for them not to go to the trivial effort required to check that it was actually a pirated file.
Alwyas been a little wary of playing "ghosts" myself. Nevertheless, it is a valid move, and forces me to respond with Notting Hill Gate.
Liecester Square. (For all you pedants - this is quite valid under the ashcroft rule)
I'll start this time with Green Park.