I do see the distinction you, and the law make on this. But on the other hand, I also maintain that a person would have to be either very gullible, or very stupid to have any more likelihood of mistaking the two explorers and windows/lindows.
Gullible or stupid? That's exactly the type of person Lindows is marketing to.
That's a charming rationalization, from which I conclude that you have a bit of a guilty conscience about cheating on your own taxes.
I wasn't rationalizing anything.
Realistically, the IRS isn't going to go after someone who fudges by fifty bucks on their return.
That's exactly the problem. It's a pretty stupid law if you can't enforce it, now isn't it?
This sort of thing would be used to support criminal charges of tax evasion, where someone is concealing tens of thousands of dollars worth of income.
Actually, it's unlikely it would be used to support even that.
Would it be wrong for a police officer to sit at the side of the bridge and write down all the license plate numbers that go past?
Absolutely.
Aside from the toll road for which the costs may or may not be recovered through the user fees (tolls) the cheater in question is travelling on taxpayer-funded roads.
Most roads are not federal, nor are they funded by income taxes.
Somebody has to pay for that infrastructure--and if he's not paying his taxes, then the roads are being paid for out of mine. Sympathy my ass. Nail the bastard to the wall.
Hopefully they'll catch you and nail you to the wall for failing to pay your use tax. Admit it, the only reason you pay taxes is because you're afraid you're going to get caught.
No it doesn't. RTFL. Here, I'll hold your hand and help you cross the street. " (1) IN GENERAL- This Act supersedes any statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages, except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto.
(2) STATE LAW NOT SPECIFIC TO ELECTRONIC MAIL- This Act shall not be construed to preempt the applicability of--
(A) State laws that are not specific to electronic mail, including State trespass, contract, or tort law; or
(B) other State laws to the extent that those laws relate to acts of fraud or computer crime."
However, the grandparent poster (i.e. the poster whom I was replying to originally) was saying that a single instance would expose you to a "minimum" of 50 prosecutions, which is absurd.
If you only send a single email, the it's not exactly spam, now is it?
And yes, it is absurd. States should not be permitted to legislate interstate commerce, period.
With EZPass, you don't have the option to pay cash and remain anonymous
You don't have the option to remain anonymous, but you do have the option to pay cash. Of course, that license plate on the back of your car is going to make it impossible for you to stay anonymous anyway.
you MUST be linked to thing even though there's no good reason for this to be the ONLY option.
Actually, there's a really good reason from their perspective. If your EZ-Pass malfunctions, or you forget to put it on your windshield, they can just snap your license plate and know where to send the bill.
I can understand that some people don't give a shit about privacy and want to billed, but I'm guessing that there's a LOT of people out there just like me (in the cashonly lane) who would rather prepay in cash and be left alone.
I used cash for the first year and a half I had EZ-Pass. But I've grown less paranoid since then, and switched to credit card.
I'm wondering if it would be illegal to setup a EZPass proxy organization?
In order to use EZPass you have to register each car that goes through the lanes. So an EZ-Pass proxy organization wouldn't work.
First off, in your scenario you are suggesting that the IRS will audit you and find out you are cheating on your taxes. That's illegal, and whatever happens to you or whoever else doing something illegal that gets caught by this will get no sympathy from anybody.
Actually, they'll get sympathy from a whole lot of people, since a whole lot of people cheat on their taxes. In fact, if you count the small stuff (like use tax), just about everyone cheats on their taxes.
After reading the title I thought it was going to be about the police using the records to catch criminals, and the lawyers using them to help the innocent exonerate themselves. But I guess such balanced storytelling wouldn't sell as many ads, or something.
Anyway, if a criminal is dumb enough to use EZ-Pass, she deserves to get caught. As for the suggestion that it be used for automated speeding tickets, I think that'd probably be a great thing. When 50,000 people a day show up in court, they'll have to raise the speed limits, right? It won't happen because the government doesn't actually want people to slow down, though. They just want an excuse to pull over minorities and a nice steady revenue stream.
EU wide-law. US/UK cooperation in Iraq. Isn't it great to see Oceana and Eastasia forming right before your very eyes?
Re:Unfortunately much spam originates from the US.
on
UK Spam Law Goes Live
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'd actually like to see a few people found guilty of this and fined a negligable amount on the grounds they were "less than technically competent" or whatever legal euphemism for "dumb" the court comes up with.
That euphemism would be "negligent," at least here in the US.
You are forgetting that, embeded in the constitution, itself, is a phrase that allows a treaty to override all laws and the constitutaion as well.
Not exactly. You're apparently referring to Article VI. At best a treaty is on equal footing with the Constitution. If the a treaty directly contradicted the Constitution, all hell would break loose. It's not clear who would win.
The claim in question, that the GPL is unconstitutional because, he claims, it does not have a profit motive. However, since the GPL does receive ''financial gain'' in the form of the expectation of something in return, then McBride's arguement fails to hold water.
Nope. The definition of "financial gain" for the purposes of Title 17 of the US Code has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of "profit motive" as used by McBride in his argument.
THEREFORE expectation of receiving copyrighted works IS financial gain
That's still not "the expectation that you will receive the copyright of other work." You're receiving works, not copyright.
And your critisim of Linus is humorous since you could be sure that if SCO ever got to court with the arguments against GPL - Linus argument (among many) will be argued by Lawyers making $400 dollars in the time it took me to type this.
No, lawyers would use a good argument, not the one that Linus used.
And if you dont think so then you Counselor have never been in a courtroom!
I've been in a courtroom a number of times. In fact, last time I was in a courtroom, I pled not guilty, and the judge dismissed the case.
can't we just beat the stupid people that actually respond to spam, thereby making the spammers more money to keep berating me to get my cock enlarged?
Maybe not, but in today's day and age, we could probably charge them with funding terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
Lindows as a name gives the wrong impression about where linux wants to be anyway.
So does Lindows as a product, so the name suits it perfectly.
I do see the distinction you, and the law make on this. But on the other hand, I also maintain that a person would have to be either very gullible, or very stupid to have any more likelihood of mistaking the two explorers and windows/lindows.
Gullible or stupid? That's exactly the type of person Lindows is marketing to.
That's a charming rationalization, from which I conclude that you have a bit of a guilty conscience about cheating on your own taxes.
I wasn't rationalizing anything.
Realistically, the IRS isn't going to go after someone who fudges by fifty bucks on their return.
That's exactly the problem. It's a pretty stupid law if you can't enforce it, now isn't it?
This sort of thing would be used to support criminal charges of tax evasion, where someone is concealing tens of thousands of dollars worth of income.
Actually, it's unlikely it would be used to support even that.
Would it be wrong for a police officer to sit at the side of the bridge and write down all the license plate numbers that go past?
Absolutely.
Aside from the toll road for which the costs may or may not be recovered through the user fees (tolls) the cheater in question is travelling on taxpayer-funded roads.
Most roads are not federal, nor are they funded by income taxes.
Somebody has to pay for that infrastructure--and if he's not paying his taxes, then the roads are being paid for out of mine. Sympathy my ass. Nail the bastard to the wall.
Hopefully they'll catch you and nail you to the wall for failing to pay your use tax. Admit it, the only reason you pay taxes is because you're afraid you're going to get caught.
If anything, speed cameras (for example) catch speeders objectively regardless of their appearance.
That was my point.
Unfortunately it does.
No it doesn't. RTFL. Here, I'll hold your hand and help you cross the street. " (1) IN GENERAL- This Act supersedes any statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages, except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto. (2) STATE LAW NOT SPECIFIC TO ELECTRONIC MAIL- This Act shall not be construed to preempt the applicability of-- (A) State laws that are not specific to electronic mail, including State trespass, contract, or tort law; or (B) other State laws to the extent that those laws relate to acts of fraud or computer crime."
Wrong. The federal law doesn't supercede state laws regarding fraudulent or deceptive spam.
However, the grandparent poster (i.e. the poster whom I was replying to originally) was saying that a single instance would expose you to a "minimum" of 50 prosecutions, which is absurd.
If you only send a single email, the it's not exactly spam, now is it?
And yes, it is absurd. States should not be permitted to legislate interstate commerce, period.
It would be circumstantial evidence, but nonetheless it would give the police cause to put your life under a microscope.
They'd have to already have cause to put your life under a microscope before they could subpoena the EZ-Pass records.
With EZPass, you don't have the option to pay cash and remain anonymous
You don't have the option to remain anonymous, but you do have the option to pay cash. Of course, that license plate on the back of your car is going to make it impossible for you to stay anonymous anyway.
you MUST be linked to thing even though there's no good reason for this to be the ONLY option.
Actually, there's a really good reason from their perspective. If your EZ-Pass malfunctions, or you forget to put it on your windshield, they can just snap your license plate and know where to send the bill.
I can understand that some people don't give a shit about privacy and want to billed, but I'm guessing that there's a LOT of people out there just like me (in the cashonly lane) who would rather prepay in cash and be left alone.
I used cash for the first year and a half I had EZ-Pass. But I've grown less paranoid since then, and switched to credit card.
I'm wondering if it would be illegal to setup a EZPass proxy organization?
In order to use EZPass you have to register each car that goes through the lanes. So an EZ-Pass proxy organization wouldn't work.
First off, in your scenario you are suggesting that the IRS will audit you and find out you are cheating on your taxes. That's illegal, and whatever happens to you or whoever else doing something illegal that gets caught by this will get no sympathy from anybody.
Actually, they'll get sympathy from a whole lot of people, since a whole lot of people cheat on their taxes. In fact, if you count the small stuff (like use tax), just about everyone cheats on their taxes.
This is even worse than having to have a LICENSE PLATE!
No, having to have a license plate is much worse.
How? Did they repeal the speed trap laws?
Imagine how many countless lives could be saved by using this technology to get wreckless assholes who can't drive safely off the road.
Lots. But what does this have to do with speeding?
And what if they decide to go back 6-12 months and levy a fine for *each* violation? Think it won't happen?
I'm sure it won't happen here in NJ. The statute of limitations for speeding is 30 days.
Of course, even 30 days is way too long for an automated ticket like this.
After reading the title I thought it was going to be about the police using the records to catch criminals, and the lawyers using them to help the innocent exonerate themselves. But I guess such balanced storytelling wouldn't sell as many ads, or something.
Anyway, if a criminal is dumb enough to use EZ-Pass, she deserves to get caught. As for the suggestion that it be used for automated speeding tickets, I think that'd probably be a great thing. When 50,000 people a day show up in court, they'll have to raise the speed limits, right? It won't happen because the government doesn't actually want people to slow down, though. They just want an excuse to pull over minorities and a nice steady revenue stream.
He's basically saying that since there was one widely-reported Mac security hole, Macs are as insecure as Windows?
Makes sense. You're only as secure as your least secure point.
Maybe that'll teach them to protect their system against worms.
Grr, of course I meant Oceana and Eurasia.
EU wide-law. US/UK cooperation in Iraq. Isn't it great to see Oceana and Eastasia forming right before your very eyes?
I'd actually like to see a few people found guilty of this and fined a negligable amount on the grounds they were "less than technically competent" or whatever legal euphemism for "dumb" the court comes up with.
That euphemism would be "negligent," at least here in the US.
You are forgetting that, embeded in the constitution, itself, is a phrase that allows a treaty to override all laws and the constitutaion as well.
Not exactly. You're apparently referring to Article VI. At best a treaty is on equal footing with the Constitution. If the a treaty directly contradicted the Constitution, all hell would break loose. It's not clear who would win.
The claim in question, that the GPL is unconstitutional because, he claims, it does not have a profit motive. However, since the GPL does receive ''financial gain'' in the form of the expectation of something in return, then McBride's arguement fails to hold water.
Nope. The definition of "financial gain" for the purposes of Title 17 of the US Code has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of "profit motive" as used by McBride in his argument.
The term ''financial gain'' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
As used in title 17 of the US Code.
Now if receiving a copyrighted work has value, then how can receiving the right to copy a copyrighted work not have value?
Well, now we're completely off topic, but I guess that's possible if you never have the copyrighted work in the first place.
Since receiving, or expecting to receive anything of value is considered financial gain,
for the purpose of title 17 of the US code
and receiving the right to copy a work does have value, then the GPL does qualify as a method to receive financial gain.
A method to receive financial gain? OK. Whatever. I'll agree. But what the hell does that have to do with SCO's claim?
THEREFORE expectation of receiving copyrighted works IS financial gain
That's still not "the expectation that you will receive the copyright of other work." You're receiving works, not copyright.
And your critisim of Linus is humorous since you could be sure that if SCO ever got to court with the arguments against GPL - Linus argument (among many) will be argued by Lawyers making $400 dollars in the time it took me to type this.
No, lawyers would use a good argument, not the one that Linus used.
And if you dont think so then you Counselor have never been in a courtroom!
I've been in a courtroom a number of times. In fact, last time I was in a courtroom, I pled not guilty, and the judge dismissed the case.
can't we just beat the stupid people that actually respond to spam, thereby making the spammers more money to keep berating me to get my cock enlarged?
Maybe not, but in today's day and age, we could probably charge them with funding terrorism.