2) Shipping. Hey, it costs more - that's the way it is.
3) Taxes, customs, etc.
I suspect that it's far more the latter than the former. Going the other direction, I've purchased from Chapters, and the shipping cost was about what I'd expect to pay with a US site. I also didn't see any customs, tarrifs, etc, on the order, either, so it's more about what the Canadian government is taking out of Canadian's pockets, than anything else.
What is "equal work"? When have I, sitting at a computer talking to customers, done work equal to that of a construction worker building a house? "Equal pay for equal work" is a nich catchphrase, but the reality is that not all work is equally valuable.
with a phone call that you did not wish to have your lines changed unless someone spoke with you and you gave verbal permission to change a service.
The problem with this is that it was his local phone company which did the slamming. MediaOne is now AT&T Broadband, and his long distance was changed to AT&T.
Still, I wonder if there's more to this bill that Wired isn't telling us yet...
Neither Congressman Berman nor Congressman Boucher have had press releases about this bill posted on their web sites yet, nor has it appeared on Thomas (as of Oct 4 03:28:42 UTC, the latest bill listed was introduced Sep 29), but I'd expect at least one of them to have information by the end of the week.
Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft used their advertising dollars to try and influence editorial content?
I infer that you have never seen PC Magazine. 1995 award for Technical Excellence: Windows 95.
Yeah, Ziff-Davis used to be Microsoft's best lapdog, which is why I'm finding it so ironic to see ZDNet editorial staffers chiming in (in Talkback to the ZDNet article) about the separation between advertising and editorial content. It's nice that they've gotten religion, but it's sitll amusing.
Randal, was it your job to secure the systems whose password files you ran Crack against? Was it your job to audit the security of those systems? Were all of the systems whose password files you ran Crack against a threat to the security of the systems you were responsible for? What Intel and the State of Oregon did to you is outrageous, but you weren't just "doing your job". (If anyone is interested, here's another view of the story.)
First of all, you are not allowed to use deadly force to protect your property.
You don't know that. You may not be, but I am, and Threed may be allowed to as well. As Threed said, in some.us states, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect property. In Texas, chapter 9, subchapter D, section 9.42 of the Penal Code defines the conditions in which "[a] person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property".
I mean lets say you steal a candy bar at a store. They're not gonna throw you in jail for 10 years and charge you 10,000$ in fines, because of a 60|cent candy bar.
They can and, in some localities, will if it's your "third strike". Or, rather, they won't fine you, but there are people in.us prisons serving life sentences whose proximate crime was on the level of stealing a handful of cookies.
So lets say you only do like 100$ worth of damage in some cracking incident.
And lets acknowledge that not all damage can (or should) be given a financial value.
Then because of that you gotta start putting that on your job aplications and such. OUCH! Punishment should fit the crime.
And what punishment would, in your opinion, fit the crime?
It's like trying to put a gun on trial for killing somebody. You don't put the gun on trial, you put the user on trial.
But the Clinton administration likes putting the gun (manufacturers) on trial too, but letting hundreds of thousands of criminals walk out of gun dealers unpunished, so going after the service (provider) rather than the users is consistient. Stupid, but consistient.
Remember, too, that Junior agrees with this approach to the law, while Dubya would likely side with whichever set of corporate cronies had his ear. Vote Browne!
(b) instituting an Earned Income Credit based upon the hours worked and the wages paid.
Which would be a minimum wage, but paid for by the government rather than by corporations. And how is that libertarian?
It isn't. I don't like the minimum wage laws. But if we, as a society working through our government, decide that someone who is willing and able to work should be able to survive, then society/the government as a whole should foot the bill, rather than shifting the burden to faceless corporations.
At 5.25 an hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you make $10,920.
Even if you decide to pay taxes on that, you get it back in the IRS refund.
Even when I made less than (as part of the sub-minimum-wage military) I didn't get all of my taxes back. You see, you still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.
Whilst I can appreciate your desire to rip to shreds some of the specious arguments presented in this letter, I would humbly suggest in future that you refrain from doing so.
I wouldn't want the Commander ot refrain entirely, but he should refrain from doing it in the body of the story, but instead do it as a reply to the story. Of course...
The first law of public posting is that someone else always has a smarter angle on the whole thing than you do, so if you act in a restrained manner and don't rip into the offender, someone else will.
Which means that the Commander wouldn't be able to guarantee that his inspired thoughts would be foremost in our minds if he opened them up to the hazards of moderation. I hope that he (and his compatriots) will do this in the future, and even consider modifying this story to remove his commentary.
If that's true, why do we have a minimum wage law to begin with? If someone is willing to work for $2, why should the government tell them that they can't?
The point of the minimum wage law is to prevent people being not able to earn enough money to live.
But does the minimum wage law guarantee employment? No. Does it guarantee a minimum number of hours of employment? No.
Bill can't do shit about this. If all the employers lower their wages, he has to either take the job, or go unemployed. Add in the fact that there is almost always somebody who will take the job, even at a low price, and suddenly Bill is unemployable.
And, being a libertarian bastard, I've never understood the inherent problem with this. Like anything else, labor is worth what the laborer is willing to sell it for, and what the employer is willing to pay for it. If we, as a society, believe that there should be a minimum level of compensation for labor, then we shouldn't be imposing those costs on individual employers, but instead bear the costs as a society, by (a) eliminating taxes on wages under that level, and (b) instituting an Earned Income Credit based upon the hours worked and the wages paid.
His position was that if it is mostly used for bad, then it should be outlawed.
He's being more generous than many these days. The current standard seems to be that if any one uses something wrongly, then it should be banned. After all, it's for the children.
conjuring up warm fuzzy images for countless investors, as well as limitless mock fodder for folks like me
It still conjures up those images, and still provides mock fodder. Most people are going to make the tarantella - tarantula association, even without knowing about the reality of it.
While its true that a home network is not a VPN, it is a LAN. In the agreement linked to the article, I don't see anything prohibiting connecting a home LAN to the service.
According to section 6 of the Comcast Online Subscriber Agreement,
CUSTOMER AGREES NOT TO USE THE SERVICE... AS AN END-POINT ON A NON-COMCAST LOCAL AREA NETWORK OR WIDE AREA NETWORK...
I would be inclined to consider your home LAN would be a non-Comcast LAN.
The Comcast subscriber agreement already banned connecting a home LAN to the cable modem. A VPN allows your home system to appear to be part of private WAN across the public Internet. In reality, this change doesn't take anything away, as connecting to a non-Comcast WAN was already prohibited, but this makes it an explicit statement for people like Roblimbo who don't know what makes a LAN, a WAN, and a VPN different.
Can anyone think of ANY good reason to have something like this? Presuming that you think that there is a good reason to have a ReplayTV/TiVo in the first place? You're recording programs while on a business trip, and find out about a special you would like to see, but will be on before you return. With a service like this, you could have it recorded.
Slashdot Mirror
And lets acknowledge that not all damage can (or should) be given a financial value.
And what punishment would, in your opinion, fit the crime?
Remember, too, that Junior agrees with this approach to the law, while Dubya would likely side with whichever set of corporate cronies had his ear. Vote Browne!
Which means that the Commander wouldn't be able to guarantee that his inspired thoughts would be foremost in our minds if he opened them up to the hazards of moderation. I hope that he (and his compatriots) will do this in the future, and even consider modifying this story to remove his commentary.
#include <disclaimer.h>
And, being a libertarian bastard, I've never understood the inherent problem with this. Like anything else, labor is worth what the laborer is willing to sell it for, and what the employer is willing to pay for it. If we, as a society, believe that there should be a minimum level of compensation for labor, then we shouldn't be imposing those costs on individual employers, but instead bear the costs as a society, by (a) eliminating taxes on wages under that level, and (b) instituting an Earned Income Credit based upon the hours worked and the wages paid.
At least they've ousted Cowpland.
According to section 6 of the Comcast Online Subscriber Agreement,
I would be inclined to consider your home LAN would be a non-Comcast LAN.
The Comcast subscriber agreement already banned connecting a home LAN to the cable modem. A VPN allows your home system to appear to be part of private WAN across the public Internet. In reality, this change doesn't take anything away, as connecting to a non-Comcast WAN was already prohibited, but this makes it an explicit statement for people like Roblimbo who don't know what makes a LAN, a WAN, and a VPN different.
Can anyone think of ANY good reason to have something like this?
Presuming that you think that there is a good reason to have a ReplayTV/TiVo in the first place? You're recording programs while on a business trip, and find out about a special you would like to see, but will be on before you return. With a service like this, you could have it recorded.