I'm not disputing that it's fraud.
I'm not disputing that these scams might be run by "hardened criminals".
I am disputing the illogical conclusion that 419 scams, or any criminal activity is necessarily correlated to any other criminal activity. Yes, those individuals who choose to break the law often choose to break many laws, but just because I choose to break law X does not mean I will break law Y, and no, this does not mean that "I" broke law X and am a scammer.
Additionally, I assume that "they all deserve to die a horrible, painful death" is just silly rhetoric. This is really just a simple breach of contract. When you enter into a contract, you should be reasonably certain that the other party will be able to fulfill it's obligations under the contract.
Not to deny the serious problems that affect and afflict many homeless individuals but what in the fuck do I have to do for you people to leave me alone?
I don't want your house, your car, your job, your dog, your kids, your social services, your advice, your pity, your sympathy or your technology. I don't want to accumulate large virtual piles of your money or hoards of your goods. Yeah, I do want to accumulate some of your pocket change, or even a fiver if you're willing. And remember, in public areas, I even have a right to ask you for it, free speech is granted to everyone.
Let me live my life the way that I want and quit trying to make me live like you want.
What happened to the vaunted Microsoft legal team?
on
Microsoft's Patent Problem
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
After reading about some major courtroom losses suffered by MS over the last few years, I wondered if they'd had any major leadership changes in their legal team.
A quick search found the following article documenting Bill Neukom's departure at the end of 2001. Is it possible that he was really *that* good of an attorney? He beat the Apple case (or settled for a couple of bucks), he beat anti-trust, he beat Sun, he beat a class action racial discrimination, etc. After his departure, MS lost big to AOL, lost a class action brought by permatemps and lost in this hearing... Maybe Neukom's replacement sucks?
I believe the court responded in the first case that the car rental company could not fine the driver because it was not clear in the contract that the car rental company could do so using GPS technology.
The contract stated that the driver could be penalized for not obeying local traffic laws, but it was not clear in the contract that the car rental company could institute the fine without corrobration from the local police.
I'm sure that the car rental company has changed the relevant language in the contract.
Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny is an amazing book that discusses why societies and groups trend towards gloabliziation and increasing areas of influence arguing from the logic of game theory. It is a dry read for the first few hundred pages as it starts from early human hunter societies and navigates towards modern times but it has some very interesting and well supported conclusions.
IANAP(aleontologist), but I've read/heard that some of Walcott's conclusions in regards to the Burgess Shale site are highly suspect, and Grould's extensions of this work are even more suspect (read "poorly supported").
IIRC, the source for this info was a PBS documentary disucssing common formations of body styles (segments, legs, heads, etc.).
Clearly this doesn't discount all of the work, but just something to keep in mind.
So what if Fiorina earns/gets ~800 bucks for every employee. What would be different if there were 200k employees or 69.4M? If I have a business with two employees that earns 100k per year and I take 60k of it that means I make 30k per employee! Oh my god, I'm such a jerk. It would actually seem to me that there is a *lower* benefit per employee to the CEO of a large company than the CEO of a small firm! I suppose I could plot the income of the CEO vs the number of employees, but so what?
You argue that those who "make the wealth" are getting screwed, but pause for a minute, take a breath and realize that making the product does NOT equate to making the wealth (no matter what your socialism books say).
ffoiii
When I worked at Argonne National Labs, there was always a chance that the security officer would ask you to pull over and would check your vehicle/bags either on the way in, or on the way out. This didn't bother me at all given that I was working in an area where I had access to dangerous and hazardous materiels, despite that fact that I had already been cleared to work in the area. Note: this was several years ago and the probability of a search was significantly lower than it is now.
I don't know the specifics of your circumstances, what materials or information you may have access to or work with, but it seems reasonable to me to increase security in public places in a time of heightened risk. Now, increasing searches does not necessarily correlate to an increase in security, but in some circustances, if done correctly, it can help.
The major distinction that I think needs to be made is that you are not going to "your" lab, but that you are going to a (semi) public facility that by its' very nature (National Institute of Health) is a high profile target.
No one is asking to search your belongings before you enter your house...yet.
ffoiii
1. Even if one company did own 75% of the media, watch/read/listen to the other 25%.
2. Why are laws against monopolies good? Do you have any support/reasoning/justification, or is this an example of you regurgitating what the "mainstream media" says without any independent thought? Most companies obtain monopoly status by being the best at what they do. This obviously does not apply to telecom/cable/etc. as they were setup by the government to run as monopolies in order to make it cost effective at the time. Personally, I'd have rather waited a little longer for someone to figure out a way to reduce the sunk costs of building such a system, apply it in the market and make a profit.
3. Have you considered subscribing to "alternative" publications so that you might obtain a different point of view? Maybe you should even read something that you violently disagree with? This can help give you perspective and understanding that there are often people with views different than your own with their well considered set of reasons and justifications.
4. Fight fire with fire. Buy AOL-TimeWarner. Or more reasonably, buy a share of AOL-Time Warner, stand up at the annual shareholder's meeting, state your opinion and wage a proxy war against the company.
There were two points in my mind that stood out from the zdnet story.
First, the issue of damage or losses. I'm not an expert on insurance or the sorts of regulations that car rental companies are subjected to, but it would seem that creating a disincentive to speed would result in somewhat safer driving of vehicles and less wear and tear on rented vehicles which would result in lower costs to the company in terms of vehicle insurance and vehicle longevity. As such, it would seem to me that there are easily identifiable monetary damages associated with speeding even without any sort of 'accident'.
Secondly, the ZDNET story clearly indicated that the problem was a disassociation between the fact that all vehicles were equipped with GPS and that driving above the posted speed limit would incurr a charge of $150 per occurrance. This is obviously easily remedied by more specific language in the contract, but in my mind is actually irrelevant. If the contract states that speeding incurrs a charge, how is it relevant what mechanism was used to determine that the driver was speeding?
When that usage is detrimental to people? Or do you believe that corporations are better than people? Oh wait, you probably do if you're spouting Randite crap at me. So it's alright for corporations to pollute then, because it's "how they use their own property"?
Of course not when usage is detrimental to other people as in the case of external pollution. Because by polluting, you are infringing on the rights of others. Additionally, it is o.k. for a corporation to use their resources in nearly any way they see fit. If they buy a piece of land and then fill it with garbage, it will be difficult to resell, thus providing an economic incentive to not pollute.
Since media corporations have such a huge influence on society, it is only right that government ensures their fairness. Just look at the most respected news source on the planet - the BBC. A publicly-run organisation!
It is not "only right" that government ensure fairness. When I hear the "it's unfair" argument, I always remember a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon in which Calvin's dad said "Who ever said that life was fair?" and Calvin responds with "Yeah, but why isn't it ever unfair in my favor." Life isn't "fair" and the exetent of the involvement of government agencies is generally inversely correlated to the amount of "fairness" experienced.
In regards to the BBC, I agree that they are a quality news organization, but I would you trust them to provide completely honest and accurate information during a time of war? I think my preference would be news from the AP or Reuters.
And equally so, it is their duty to protect the rights of the majority against the tyranny of the capitalist elite. Because since the US is so profit-driven, majority is defined in terms of monetary value, and the "majority" is actually those who control 5% of the population and over half of its wealth.
There is no "tyranny of the capitalist elite". Tyranny indicates an "absolute power" which cannot exist. Do the capitalist elite force you to buy their products or services? Do they require you to participate? Nobody even requires you to stay in the country!
Translation: if you don't own anything, you have no rights. Those that own more, have more rights to do as they please.
If you don't own anything, you still have the same individual rights such as protection from others that everyone else has. However, if I own a duck and you don't, then you're exactly right that I have a right to eat my duck and you don't. But to say that I have "more rights to do as I please", is intentionally misleading.
In your ideal society, please explain to me how wage slavery would be prevented.
In this "ideal" society, you simply don't enter into any contract which you feel is not a value to you. People value things differently, if you don't want to work for $5.00 per hour, don't. No one is forcing you to. If you want to work for $50.00 per hour, then you better have skills that are worth that to someone else. Very simple.
By your reckoning the homeless, refugees and hunter-gatherer tribes do not have any rights, such as the right to life.
I don't think they have a "right to life", they simply have a right not to have their life ended by me, or someone else. For you to claim that they have a right to life, is to claim that they have a right to have me support their life, which is untrue. Their lives are their own responsibility, not mine, and to argue otherwise, well, why don't you just start sending your paychecks to me, 'cause I want 'em, and everyone should get what they want right?
The simple existence of a monopoly, does NOT indicate a failure of a free market in any way.
I don't think that there should ever be any government intervention to prevent or breakup a monopoly. I believe that the market will resolve the issue if consumers desire something else. In the case of the microsoft "monopoly", there are clearly other alternative available (linux, apple, os2), just as there were for IBM and AT&T (think cellular).
Just because a product has a low marginal cost, even if that marginal cost is zero, does not make it acceptable to steal the product. There are definite fixed costs, which become sunk costs at the completion of the product which the creator needs to be able to recover.
Your justification that it doesn't cost me anything to create another copy is irrelevant. You do not have a right to the results of my efforts regardless of the cost to me. It is my work and my choice what to do with it.
Under your reasoning, FedEx should charge the first person who overnights a letter the full cost of the plane, fuel, pilot's salary etc, and then everyone else should just pay the marginal cost of putting one more letter on the plane. The business model doesn't work that way because nobobdy is willing to send the first letter. Just as in software, I should be able to try to recoup a portion of the fixed costs from as many people as I like instead of having one person pay the entire cost and then giving the product away to everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not disputing that it's fraud. I'm not disputing that these scams might be run by "hardened criminals". I am disputing the illogical conclusion that 419 scams, or any criminal activity is necessarily correlated to any other criminal activity. Yes, those individuals who choose to break the law often choose to break many laws, but just because I choose to break law X does not mean I will break law Y, and no, this does not mean that "I" broke law X and am a scammer. Additionally, I assume that "they all deserve to die a horrible, painful death" is just silly rhetoric. This is really just a simple breach of contract. When you enter into a contract, you should be reasonably certain that the other party will be able to fulfill it's obligations under the contract.
"This would all be funny if it wasn't for the millions of dollars being stolen and probably put into drugs or other criminal activities."
Everything was fine in the article until this stupid line. It's just a scam, it's just someone trying to make some cash.
THERE IS NO CORRELATION TO DRUGS OR SATAN OR PURPLE MUPPETS, WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU THINK THAT THERE IS?
In other news, some people are dumb. This is news?
Not to deny the serious problems that affect and afflict many homeless individuals but what in the fuck do I have to do for you people to leave me alone?
I don't want your house, your car, your job, your dog, your kids, your social services, your advice, your pity, your sympathy or your technology. I don't want to accumulate large virtual piles of your money or hoards of your goods. Yeah, I do want to accumulate some of your pocket change, or even a fiver if you're willing. And remember, in public areas, I even have a right to ask you for it, free speech is granted to everyone. Let me live my life the way that I want and quit trying to make me live like you want.
After reading about some major courtroom losses suffered by MS over the last few years, I wondered if they'd had any major leadership changes in their legal team.
o v0 1/11-21NeukomPR.asp
A quick search found the following article documenting Bill Neukom's departure at the end of 2001. Is it possible that he was really *that* good of an attorney? He beat the Apple case (or settled for a couple of bucks), he beat anti-trust, he beat Sun, he beat a class action racial discrimination, etc. After his departure, MS lost big to AOL, lost a class action brought by permatemps and lost in this hearing... Maybe Neukom's replacement sucks?
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/n
I believe the court responded in the first case that the car rental company could not fine the driver because it was not clear in the contract that the car rental company could do so using GPS technology.
The contract stated that the driver could be penalized for not obeying local traffic laws, but it was not clear in the contract that the car rental company could institute the fine without corrobration from the local police.
I'm sure that the car rental company has changed the relevant language in the contract.
Why isn't that "someone" you?
Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny is an amazing book that discusses why societies and groups trend towards gloabliziation and increasing areas of influence arguing from the logic of game theory. It is a dry read for the first few hundred pages as it starts from early human hunter societies and navigates towards modern times but it has some very interesting and well supported conclusions.
I thought that the EFF was the slashdot pac.
IANAP(aleontologist), but I've read/heard that some of Walcott's conclusions in regards to the Burgess Shale site are highly suspect, and Grould's extensions of this work are even more suspect (read "poorly supported").
IIRC, the source for this info was a PBS documentary disucssing common formations of body styles (segments, legs, heads, etc.).
Clearly this doesn't discount all of the work, but just something to keep in mind.
You divided a salary by the number of employees?
So what if Fiorina earns/gets ~800 bucks for every employee. What would be different if there were 200k employees or 69.4M? If I have a business with two employees that earns 100k per year and I take 60k of it that means I make 30k per employee! Oh my god, I'm such a jerk. It would actually seem to me that there is a *lower* benefit per employee to the CEO of a large company than the CEO of a small firm! I suppose I could plot the income of the CEO vs the number of employees, but so what?
You argue that those who "make the wealth" are getting screwed, but pause for a minute, take a breath and realize that making the product does NOT equate to making the wealth (no matter what your socialism books say). ffoiii
When I worked at Argonne National Labs, there was always a chance that the security officer would ask you to pull over and would check your vehicle/bags either on the way in, or on the way out. This didn't bother me at all given that I was working in an area where I had access to dangerous and hazardous materiels, despite that fact that I had already been cleared to work in the area. Note: this was several years ago and the probability of a search was significantly lower than it is now.
I don't know the specifics of your circumstances, what materials or information you may have access to or work with, but it seems reasonable to me to increase security in public places in a time of heightened risk. Now, increasing searches does not necessarily correlate to an increase in security, but in some circustances, if done correctly, it can help.
The major distinction that I think needs to be made is that you are not going to "your" lab, but that you are going to a (semi) public facility that by its' very nature (National Institute of Health) is a high profile target.
No one is asking to search your belongings before you enter your house...yet. ffoiii
1. Even if one company did own 75% of the media, watch/read/listen to the other 25%.
2. Why are laws against monopolies good? Do you have any support/reasoning/justification, or is this an example of you regurgitating what the "mainstream media" says without any independent thought? Most companies obtain monopoly status by being the best at what they do. This obviously does not apply to telecom/cable/etc. as they were setup by the government to run as monopolies in order to make it cost effective at the time. Personally, I'd have rather waited a little longer for someone to figure out a way to reduce the sunk costs of building such a system, apply it in the market and make a profit.
3. Have you considered subscribing to "alternative" publications so that you might obtain a different point of view? Maybe you should even read something that you violently disagree with? This can help give you perspective and understanding that there are often people with views different than your own with their well considered set of reasons and justifications.
4. Fight fire with fire. Buy AOL-TimeWarner. Or more reasonably, buy a share of AOL-Time Warner, stand up at the annual shareholder's meeting, state your opinion and wage a proxy war against the company.
ffoiii
There were two points in my mind that stood out from the zdnet story.
First, the issue of damage or losses. I'm not an expert on insurance or the sorts of regulations that car rental companies are subjected to, but it would seem that creating a disincentive to speed would result in somewhat safer driving of vehicles and less wear and tear on rented vehicles which would result in lower costs to the company in terms of vehicle insurance and vehicle longevity. As such, it would seem to me that there are easily identifiable monetary damages associated with speeding even without any sort of 'accident'.
Secondly, the ZDNET story clearly indicated that the problem was a disassociation between the fact that all vehicles were equipped with GPS and that driving above the posted speed limit would incurr a charge of $150 per occurrance. This is obviously easily remedied by more specific language in the contract, but in my mind is actually irrelevant. If the contract states that speeding incurrs a charge, how is it relevant what mechanism was used to determine that the driver was speeding?
ffoiii
Of course not when usage is detrimental to other people as in the case of external pollution. Because by polluting, you are infringing on the rights of others. Additionally, it is o.k. for a corporation to use their resources in nearly any way they see fit. If they buy a piece of land and then fill it with garbage, it will be difficult to resell, thus providing an economic incentive to not pollute.
Since media corporations have such a huge influence on society, it is only right that government ensures their fairness. Just look at the most respected news source on the planet - the BBC. A publicly-run organisation!
It is not "only right" that government ensure fairness. When I hear the "it's unfair" argument, I always remember a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon in which Calvin's dad said "Who ever said that life was fair?" and Calvin responds with "Yeah, but why isn't it ever unfair in my favor." Life isn't "fair" and the exetent of the involvement of government agencies is generally inversely correlated to the amount of "fairness" experienced.
In regards to the BBC, I agree that they are a quality news organization, but I would you trust them to provide completely honest and accurate information during a time of war? I think my preference would be news from the AP or Reuters.
And equally so, it is their duty to protect the rights of the majority against the tyranny of the capitalist elite. Because since the US is so profit-driven, majority is defined in terms of monetary value, and the "majority" is actually those who control 5% of the population and over half of its wealth.
There is no "tyranny of the capitalist elite". Tyranny indicates an "absolute power" which cannot exist. Do the capitalist elite force you to buy their products or services? Do they require you to participate? Nobody even requires you to stay in the country! Translation: if you don't own anything, you have no rights. Those that own more, have more rights to do as they please.
If you don't own anything, you still have the same individual rights such as protection from others that everyone else has. However, if I own a duck and you don't, then you're exactly right that I have a right to eat my duck and you don't. But to say that I have "more rights to do as I please", is intentionally misleading.
In your ideal society, please explain to me how wage slavery would be prevented.
In this "ideal" society, you simply don't enter into any contract which you feel is not a value to you. People value things differently, if you don't want to work for $5.00 per hour, don't. No one is forcing you to. If you want to work for $50.00 per hour, then you better have skills that are worth that to someone else. Very simple.
By your reckoning the homeless, refugees and hunter-gatherer tribes do not have any rights, such as the right to life.
I don't think they have a "right to life", they simply have a right not to have their life ended by me, or someone else. For you to claim that they have a right to life, is to claim that they have a right to have me support their life, which is untrue. Their lives are their own responsibility, not mine, and to argue otherwise, well, why don't you just start sending your paychecks to me, 'cause I want 'em, and everyone should get what they want right?
The simple existence of a monopoly, does NOT indicate a failure of a free market in any way. I don't think that there should ever be any government intervention to prevent or breakup a monopoly. I believe that the market will resolve the issue if consumers desire something else. In the case of the microsoft "monopoly", there are clearly other alternative available (linux, apple, os2), just as there were for IBM and AT&T (think cellular).
Just because a product has a low marginal cost, even if that marginal cost is zero, does not make it acceptable to steal the product. There are definite fixed costs, which become sunk costs at the completion of the product which the creator needs to be able to recover. Your justification that it doesn't cost me anything to create another copy is irrelevant. You do not have a right to the results of my efforts regardless of the cost to me. It is my work and my choice what to do with it. Under your reasoning, FedEx should charge the first person who overnights a letter the full cost of the plane, fuel, pilot's salary etc, and then everyone else should just pay the marginal cost of putting one more letter on the plane. The business model doesn't work that way because nobobdy is willing to send the first letter. Just as in software, I should be able to try to recoup a portion of the fixed costs from as many people as I like instead of having one person pay the entire cost and then giving the product away to everyone else.
Nobody is required to go to NYU.