There are two sovereigns in play here, the regional California state government and the United States federal government.
California, the regional government, has indicated that it doesn't violate California law, in some circumstances, to grow marijuana. California based law enforcement is under compulsion by state law to go after people growing marijuana in these circumstances.
At the same time, however, there is a federal law that says that growing marijuana is illegal under all (I think, maybe excepting research?) circumstances. Federal law on this point preempts (trumps, overrules) state law on this point, thanks to the federal constitution.
So, because federal law preempts state law on this point, the activity IS illegal in California. Federal law enforcement (mostly the FBI) have the authority to, and will, enforce the law in California. California law enforcement doesn't care as much, and hence is laid back about enforcement. I'm under the impression that state authorities still do have the power to enforce federal law, but don't hold me to that point.
Now, there's also municipal (town, city, county) level legislation and enforcement, which adds yet another wrinkle to this mess.
But yeah, in general, if the federal government makes something illegal, it's illegal nationwide regardless of what a state might say. The only impact of state legalization is that state enforcement will be non-existent for state laws and at least lax on federal law.
However, even more important than that, the fact that many female avatars are played by men right now is actually protective, in a way. Sexual anonymity curtails a great deal of potential sexual harassment. When the genders are outed, an abusive person's targets are clear. I expect that this change will make the game completely unplayable for their real female players.
If they're smart they get "consent" by putting up a sign at the door that says "On the way out, we're going to search your bag and look at your receipt. If you don't like it, don't shop here."
Ha, I had to go to their site and look it up. Thankfully I use a fairly resilient (unpopular) username and it was fairly easy to track down. I signed on the first time in years... unsurprisingly nobody was online.
But a license is not "pure facts," the facts were arranged in a particular way and with particular choices. Feist only covers facts when they are arranged without any creativity, a fake license could very well have been arranged in a creative or unique way. Now, if the fraudster's fake was the standard license design, it would probably be unprotected, but we'd really need to SEE the thing to know for sure.
I don't know, I sort of agree with the parent post. I'm not a really big fan of cybersquatting (and I admit it's annoying when I want to buy a domain name and the bulk of them that I would want are taken by squatters) but is it really a major issue? And if so, for who?
As a web browser, I almost never encounter these pages and as soon as I do I leave that page again immediately. If someone is willing to pay for my eyeballs for that one second it takes me to process that the site is a fraud, so be it.
As a web publisher I acknowledge that it's annoying to have so many names taken, but does it really matter if they're taken legitimately or fraudulently? What's the real objection here?
Is it just that we don't like these people on a moral level?
If so, I don't really care. They impact me so little that I have no problem with them peddling their back-room ways in the dark corners of the stale-link internet. I don't see them, I don't care what they're doing. If they make a little bit of money, how does that negatively impact me?
Sort of like Whuffie from Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom although that was based on general goodwill and esteem, not specific favors per se. Wiki's definition is probably better:
Whuffie is the ephemeral, reputation-based currency of Cory Doctorow's sci-fi novel, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. This future history book describes a post-scarcity economy: All the necessities (and most of the luxuries) of life are free for the taking. A person's current Whuffie is instantly viewable to anyone, as everybody has a brain-implant giving them an interface with the Net.
Absolutely not. If you call the company and they have multiple people quote you the exact same price, that's the price you should be charged. Hell, even after he's pointed out the mistake they're STILL quoting the same price. This has moved beyond a mistake and at this point is pushing the boundaries of fraud. They're quoting one price and charging another. If they insist on under-educating their entire staff to the point that NOBODY knows the difference between dollars and cents, they should be forced to accept the consequences of consist misquotes.
Notice they didn't misquote in a way that gave the customer extra money. I'm pretty sure they would be trained properly if that were occurring. They're consistently making a mistake that's screwing the customer and they don't care enough to fix it... EVEN WHEN IT'S POINTED OUT DIRECTLY.
They need to be dragged over the coals for this sort of thing.
There are known emails and unknown emails, and those divide into the known unknown emails and the unknown unknown emails. THOSE are the ones you've got to watch out for.
Wow, that's a big hassle. I'll take the risk that someone at Slashdot figure out how to hack into my gmail account based on my non hex based passwords.
What's the point of having an email address that's only around for a few minutes when you could just use a single throwaway email address for all of your registration needs. It doesn't expire, but since you only use it for registrations, it doesn't matter how much spam/cruft it accumulates.
Slashdot Mirror
Zombo.com
There are two sovereigns in play here, the regional California state government and the United States federal government.
California, the regional government, has indicated that it doesn't violate California law, in some circumstances, to grow marijuana. California based law enforcement is under compulsion by state law to go after people growing marijuana in these circumstances.
At the same time, however, there is a federal law that says that growing marijuana is illegal under all (I think, maybe excepting research?) circumstances. Federal law on this point preempts (trumps, overrules) state law on this point, thanks to the federal constitution.
So, because federal law preempts state law on this point, the activity IS illegal in California. Federal law enforcement (mostly the FBI) have the authority to, and will, enforce the law in California. California law enforcement doesn't care as much, and hence is laid back about enforcement. I'm under the impression that state authorities still do have the power to enforce federal law, but don't hold me to that point.
Now, there's also municipal (town, city, county) level legislation and enforcement, which adds yet another wrinkle to this mess.
But yeah, in general, if the federal government makes something illegal, it's illegal nationwide regardless of what a state might say. The only impact of state legalization is that state enforcement will be non-existent for state laws and at least lax on federal law.
Did that help at all?
My 180,000 worth of legal school debt support you on this point.
That's a fantastic point.
If they're smart they get "consent" by putting up a sign at the door that says "On the way out, we're going to search your bag and look at your receipt. If you don't like it, don't shop here."
Instant consent.
Ha, I had to go to their site and look it up. Thankfully I use a fairly resilient (unpopular) username and it was fairly easy to track down. I signed on the first time in years... unsurprisingly nobody was online.
But a license is not "pure facts," the facts were arranged in a particular way and with particular choices. Feist only covers facts when they are arranged without any creativity, a fake license could very well have been arranged in a creative or unique way. Now, if the fraudster's fake was the standard license design, it would probably be unprotected, but we'd really need to SEE the thing to know for sure.
I don't know, I sort of agree with the parent post. I'm not a really big fan of cybersquatting (and I admit it's annoying when I want to buy a domain name and the bulk of them that I would want are taken by squatters) but is it really a major issue? And if so, for who?
As a web browser, I almost never encounter these pages and as soon as I do I leave that page again immediately. If someone is willing to pay for my eyeballs for that one second it takes me to process that the site is a fraud, so be it.
As a web publisher I acknowledge that it's annoying to have so many names taken, but does it really matter if they're taken legitimately or fraudulently? What's the real objection here?
Is it just that we don't like these people on a moral level?
If so, I don't really care. They impact me so little that I have no problem with them peddling their back-room ways in the dark corners of the stale-link internet. I don't see them, I don't care what they're doing. If they make a little bit of money, how does that negatively impact me?
Except when it comes to Cingular.
Does the nationality of the fatass really matter much?
Depends on what city you're in. If you're in New York or Washington DC, maybe. If you're in Boston, probably not.
Yes it does, 16 minutes before you.
Ha, I wrote 'you're' instead of 'your' - how embarrassingly. I'll turn in my low UID now.
You're UID is over a million. Your opinion doesn't count.
I suppose he could make some sort of an argument for fraud if he was motivated.
I feel REALLY stupid for having laughed at that.
You don't have a laptop, do you?
Absolutely not. If you call the company and they have multiple people quote you the exact same price, that's the price you should be charged. Hell, even after he's pointed out the mistake they're STILL quoting the same price. This has moved beyond a mistake and at this point is pushing the boundaries of fraud. They're quoting one price and charging another. If they insist on under-educating their entire staff to the point that NOBODY knows the difference between dollars and cents, they should be forced to accept the consequences of consist misquotes.
Notice they didn't misquote in a way that gave the customer extra money. I'm pretty sure they would be trained properly if that were occurring. They're consistently making a mistake that's screwing the customer and they don't care enough to fix it... EVEN WHEN IT'S POINTED OUT DIRECTLY.
They need to be dragged over the coals for this sort of thing.
There are known emails and unknown emails, and those divide into the known unknown emails and the unknown unknown emails. THOSE are the ones you've got to watch out for.
Man, if only your site really had Warez I'd spend all my time there. Those Yahoo guys are marketing genuises.
Please just put them in movie theaters. That's what EVERYBODY wants. Change the law already.
(I have some sympathy for those of you who must carry pagers to stay in contact with work. You're going to have to sacrifice movies... I'm sorry.)
Wow, that's a big hassle. I'll take the risk that someone at Slashdot figure out how to hack into my gmail account based on my non hex based passwords.
What's the point of having an email address that's only around for a few minutes when you could just use a single throwaway email address for all of your registration needs. It doesn't expire, but since you only use it for registrations, it doesn't matter how much spam/cruft it accumulates.
He was probably digging a hole so he could bury his ipod.