Fraud's a little more complicated than that. If you do intend to set up a company for the sole reason of avoiding to pay back a debt if a gamble fails, you may well be committing fraud.
Might be worth checking with a legal professional first.
Isn't there a problem with short selling though - that bitcoin (or anything else) will reach an undefined amount before it does eventually pop. The lender might want their money back before that happens.
Actually can you borrow bitcoins. There appear to be a handful of bitcoin lending networks, but I have no idea whether they have any lenders, or whether they'd be viable for this sort of thing.
That would explain that first inconsistency, but then we have another problem - there could conceivably be humans descended from the Other People who are not from Cain's family. As such, we don't all have original sin.
This is always a problem with fixing flaws in a complex narrative. the explanation always uncover new issues.
Given that the site's host folded like a house of cards, apparently you can use the DMCA for trademark infringement... It's just that doing so isn't supported by the DMCA or anything else.
This could be an excuse from the editor. Let's face it, DigitalRev is loving this. They get to publicly humiliate someone for using a DMCA takedown notice, and getting heaps of publicity for it. The longer this is drawn out the better.
It's worse than that. The claim is not that you do represent them, but you believe you do. Plus perjury is a criminal act so has a high standard of proof.
The penalty only applies if someone else can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you knew you don't represent them.
I agree, and I can't understand why the media industries haven't pushed for this sort of thing.
If Jammie Thomas had been fined $100 then she would have had no sympathy. It would deter a lot of people. A lot of people would take the risk, but the same happens with illegal parking. We only need to keep the problem manageable. There would be issues in that we'd need some sort of appeals mechanism and wouldn't want to cause too much hassle for the false positives, or make it too easy for a media company to churn out notices like they do with the DMCA.
I agree. He seems to have got rid of a lot of those devices simply because he didn't use them. And not having two smartphones and two DVD players just means he's become less of a hoarder.
From mu POV, I've lost a separate monitor, keyboard, and webcam. Replaced the DVD player with a blu-ray player. Gained a Wii and its controller. Acquired a laptop, a netbook and a network media player. Potentially I could lose my mp3 player if I chose to but I rather like it.
One category of chip that I've gained a huge number of is in storage. I own about a dozen SDCards, usb sticks and the like. I also own two USB 3G modems and have a spare mobile phone for the handful of times I visit the US.
Those evil European judges, taking away my right to be cheap and not pay someone for their work!
Strictly speaking, they're taking away your right to facilitate other people who want to be cheap and not pay someone for their work.
But yes, I think every jurisdiction in the world which recognises a right to free speech will also recognise that copyright infringement isn't included in freedom of speech. I guess you could make a case that this means the entirety of copyright is wrong based on this, but it seems odd to say it only applies in this situation.
If the NYT journalist had charged properly and as instructed, then it would have been 3 charges
The problem is that he did exactly as instructed. Perhaps a little too religiously, but he was given a lot of bad advice here.
The NYT journalist claimed he turn the heat down to extend range, the logs show he increased the temperature from 72F to 74F. The actual temperatures don't matter, it's the lie that matters.
He said he turned it to low. Which presumably means he set it to "Eco" as per Tesla's range extending guidelines.
The journalist claimed he had cruise control on at 55, logs show him travelling at 62-81MPH. Again, it's the lie that matters no the actual speeds.
This all seems pretty odd. One of them is lying or mistaken. Was Tesla's logging actually accurate? The comments about going to 81mph is misleading though since his speed leaped up that high a couple of times.
Most cars, no matter the power source, get 10-20% less than the claimed economy figures. Is this right, no, but to single out one company seems to smack of double standards.
Most cars, if you fill them up and don't quite manage the range will mildly inconvenience you. A Tesla S running out means that you've a good chance of running out of juice before you get a chance to refuel.
It's not just that he was arrested for something that wasn't a crime. It's disturbing that anyone even thought it could be. It suggests an attitude from the police that they can arbitrarily make the law and use it to harass people.
There's clear public interest in people being allowed and encouraged to film the police (as your link showed). And if someone is arrested,even if all charges are dismissed, that's a discouragement.
The odd thing is, that DST didn't come about until after street lighting was quite common. By the time it was proposed (1890's) there were already several streets with electric lighting, and many cities had had gas lighting for several decades.
Swatch internet time. Divide the day into 1000.beats. No timezones. @100 in Moscow is @100 in London, New York and Beijing. They just start and finish working at different times.
Slight downside here - the whole concept is disturbingly 1990's "information superhighway" with '.'s and '@'s all over the place.
Copyright is not and ever has been about an inherent moral right to have exactly the same rights as with physical objects. It's a purely practical measure to encourage people to create. The majority are actually happy with this concept, and find the physical property metaphor easy to understand and apply.
But we don't need exactly the same rights. The owner of a non-physical object just needs to feel that they're not losing out. A mechanism for resale is one way to achieve this, but part of the problem is that with DRM you implicitly need the permission of the creator. A bigger problem is that the property metaphor (and it is just a metaphor) breaks down. If I can give you a copy, how does it harm the copyright owner if I also keep a copy for myself? The response to that is a complex philosophical treatise on the nature of morality and social responsibility with many points of contention that is a little too deep considering the motivation for sharing is typically a simple to understand impulse along the lines of "I wanted you to hear this cool song".
I think we need a better metaphor for copyright when everyone can make a copy.
To be honest, that was a bit of a petty response on my part.
What I think I was getting at is that the browser market is somewhat different today than back then.
Netscape had a business model that involved giving away a browser to create a market for its server software. Later it made money through people not knowing that they don't have to default to Netscape.com.
This is similar to Google's Chrome business model, except that Google itself has dominance in a related market. This makes Microsoft's dominance a lot less relevant. Mozilla is also different. While it does benefit greatly from Google's cash injection, and other sponsors to a lesser extent, it would continue to exist through private support and enthusiasts who like the product enough to not need to be paid. This requirement on Microsoft to offer alternatives isn't protecting anyone that really needs protection.
The other important difference is how fundamental a browser is to an OS these days. The argument Microsoft made back in the day may well have been untrue, but now it really makes no sense to unbundle the browser. Including it affects the browser market in the same way that including notepad and wordpad affect the third party text editor market, and calc.exe affects the third party calculator app market. It does but that's the nature of business.
It sort of made sense back in 1998 or so. Can't help thinking it made less sense when the judgement was finally made. By that time, a browser really was an expected part of an OS. Now it's practically impossible to buy a computer without a browser. Even games consoles and ebook readers have them.
Meanwhile, nobody is in the third party browser business (if they ever were). A more relevant demand for today would be to force MS to allow a selection of start pages.
It amazes me that companies are willing to pay money for a list of names that are clearly hostile towards unwanted mail. Unless it's for a "do not mail" list, but I don't get the impression it is.
My memory of the test was Clarkson being amazed at the acceleration, the claim that it broke down (which could be bad luck) and the issue with long recharge times (which is a known issue). Based on that I doubt I'd have been less inclined to buy one if I had the money to spare.
Now the focus is on the poor range and the fault, and I have to wonder if that would put me off buying one. Hard to be objective over someone else's hypothetical opinion but I could imagine this being more likely to put someone off than it would to make someone who hadn't heard of the car to be aware of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Fraud's a little more complicated than that. If you do intend to set up a company for the sole reason of avoiding to pay back a debt if a gamble fails, you may well be committing fraud.
Might be worth checking with a legal professional first.
Isn't there a problem with short selling though - that bitcoin (or anything else) will reach an undefined amount before it does eventually pop. The lender might want their money back before that happens.
Actually can you borrow bitcoins. There appear to be a handful of bitcoin lending networks, but I have no idea whether they have any lenders, or whether they'd be viable for this sort of thing.
I realised that was unclear after I posted it.
Eve did commit original sin, but descendants of Cain are also descendants of Eve.
Also I was wrong in my objection. Noah was descended from Seth, and anyone not killed in the flood was descended from Noah.
That would explain that first inconsistency, but then we have another problem - there could conceivably be humans descended from the Other People who are not from Cain's family. As such, we don't all have original sin.
This is always a problem with fixing flaws in a complex narrative. the explanation always uncover new issues.
This could be an excuse from the editor. Let's face it, DigitalRev is loving this. They get to publicly humiliate someone for using a DMCA takedown notice, and getting heaps of publicity for it. The longer this is drawn out the better.
It's worse than that. The claim is not that you do represent them, but you believe you do. Plus perjury is a criminal act so has a high standard of proof.
The penalty only applies if someone else can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you knew you don't represent them.
I agree, and I can't understand why the media industries haven't pushed for this sort of thing.
If Jammie Thomas had been fined $100 then she would have had no sympathy. It would deter a lot of people. A lot of people would take the risk, but the same happens with illegal parking. We only need to keep the problem manageable. There would be issues in that we'd need some sort of appeals mechanism and wouldn't want to cause too much hassle for the false positives, or make it too easy for a media company to churn out notices like they do with the DMCA.
They'll just stop publishing in countries where the cost of parallel imports is more than the profit they make from those countries.
I agree. He seems to have got rid of a lot of those devices simply because he didn't use them. And not having two smartphones and two DVD players just means he's become less of a hoarder.
From mu POV, I've lost a separate monitor, keyboard, and webcam. Replaced the DVD player with a blu-ray player. Gained a Wii and its controller. Acquired a laptop, a netbook and a network media player. Potentially I could lose my mp3 player if I chose to but I rather like it.
One category of chip that I've gained a huge number of is in storage. I own about a dozen SDCards, usb sticks and the like. I also own two USB 3G modems and have a spare mobile phone for the handful of times I visit the US.
But they don't even stop you from blocking spam. They're just refusing to actively participate in it.You can install these app from other providers.
Ah. So aiding and abetting counterfeiting is a human right.
Strictly speaking, they're taking away your right to facilitate other people who want to be cheap and not pay someone for their work.
But yes, I think every jurisdiction in the world which recognises a right to free speech will also recognise that copyright infringement isn't included in freedom of speech. I guess you could make a case that this means the entirety of copyright is wrong based on this, but it seems odd to say it only applies in this situation.
The problem is that he did exactly as instructed. Perhaps a little too religiously, but he was given a lot of bad advice here.
He said he turned it to low. Which presumably means he set it to "Eco" as per Tesla's range extending guidelines.
This all seems pretty odd. One of them is lying or mistaken. Was Tesla's logging actually accurate? The comments about going to 81mph is misleading though since his speed leaped up that high a couple of times.
Most cars, if you fill them up and don't quite manage the range will mildly inconvenience you. A Tesla S running out means that you've a good chance of running out of juice before you get a chance to refuel.
Wasn't this solved in 1951 as shown in that documentary "The Day The Earth Stood Still"?
LAst line for those who don't get the joke
I agree.
It's not just that he was arrested for something that wasn't a crime. It's disturbing that anyone even thought it could be. It suggests an attitude from the police that they can arbitrarily make the law and use it to harass people.
There's clear public interest in people being allowed and encouraged to film the police (as your link showed). And if someone is arrested,even if all charges are dismissed, that's a discouragement.
The odd thing is, that DST didn't come about until after street lighting was quite common. By the time it was proposed (1890's) there were already several streets with electric lighting, and many cities had had gas lighting for several decades.
Swatch internet time. Divide the day into 1000 .beats. No timezones. @100 in Moscow is @100 in London, New York and Beijing. They just start and finish working at different times.
Slight downside here - the whole concept is disturbingly 1990's "information superhighway" with '.'s and '@'s all over the place.
The problem is, it doesn't really make sense.
Copyright is not and ever has been about an inherent moral right to have exactly the same rights as with physical objects. It's a purely practical measure to encourage people to create. The majority are actually happy with this concept, and find the physical property metaphor easy to understand and apply.
But we don't need exactly the same rights. The owner of a non-physical object just needs to feel that they're not losing out. A mechanism for resale is one way to achieve this, but part of the problem is that with DRM you implicitly need the permission of the creator. A bigger problem is that the property metaphor (and it is just a metaphor) breaks down. If I can give you a copy, how does it harm the copyright owner if I also keep a copy for myself? The response to that is a complex philosophical treatise on the nature of morality and social responsibility with many points of contention that is a little too deep considering the motivation for sharing is typically a simple to understand impulse along the lines of "I wanted you to hear this cool song".
I think we need a better metaphor for copyright when everyone can make a copy.
This has been pondered before. Issue is always the same. The cost of collection would be greater than any perceived benefit.
To be honest, that was a bit of a petty response on my part.
What I think I was getting at is that the browser market is somewhat different today than back then.
Netscape had a business model that involved giving away a browser to create a market for its server software. Later it made money through people not knowing that they don't have to default to Netscape.com.
This is similar to Google's Chrome business model, except that Google itself has dominance in a related market. This makes Microsoft's dominance a lot less relevant. Mozilla is also different. While it does benefit greatly from Google's cash injection, and other sponsors to a lesser extent, it would continue to exist through private support and enthusiasts who like the product enough to not need to be paid. This requirement on Microsoft to offer alternatives isn't protecting anyone that really needs protection.
The other important difference is how fundamental a browser is to an OS these days. The argument Microsoft made back in the day may well have been untrue, but now it really makes no sense to unbundle the browser. Including it affects the browser market in the same way that including notepad and wordpad affect the third party text editor market, and calc.exe affects the third party calculator app market. It does but that's the nature of business.
Essentially, yes. I believe that's basically what will be considered for antitrust purposes.
Google is in the search business, where Chrome exists to promote that. Mozilla is not a business. Opera is a nobody.
It sort of made sense back in 1998 or so. Can't help thinking it made less sense when the judgement was finally made. By that time, a browser really was an expected part of an OS. Now it's practically impossible to buy a computer without a browser. Even games consoles and ebook readers have them.
Meanwhile, nobody is in the third party browser business (if they ever were). A more relevant demand for today would be to force MS to allow a selection of start pages.
It amazes me that companies are willing to pay money for a list of names that are clearly hostile towards unwanted mail. Unless it's for a "do not mail" list, but I don't get the impression it is.
I have to wonder if it was good publicity though.
My memory of the test was Clarkson being amazed at the acceleration, the claim that it broke down (which could be bad luck) and the issue with long recharge times (which is a known issue). Based on that I doubt I'd have been less inclined to buy one if I had the money to spare.
Now the focus is on the poor range and the fault, and I have to wonder if that would put me off buying one. Hard to be objective over someone else's hypothetical opinion but I could imagine this being more likely to put someone off than it would to make someone who hadn't heard of the car to be aware of it.