I suppose that's what happens when a certain large theatre operator drops ticket prices to $2 just long enough to run all the competition out of business, and then jacks the prices back up.
The other thing that happens is that large theatre operator gets sued for anti-trust violations.
And in BC, David Trott admitted that he murdered a nine year-old girl. I suppose we all should all look charitably upon him and excuse his behaviour, just as you do for Eminem.
It's morally wrong to murder. It's not morally wrong to write shit music.
Eminem is a wanking little shit who's being managed by people who are smart enough to know how to manipulate self-pitying angry young white boys who think they need to rebel against the humdrum safety and comfort of their middle-class lives.
Agreed.
The entire Eminem scheme is disgusting, from the singer to the creeps that manage him, to the brain-dead wannabes who think they're so cynical and rebelious, yet have deep-throated the codswallop.
Interesting quote. It could be that his attitude changed, or it could be that he was pissed over the fact that the bootleg mp3s were released before the album was even released.
Eninem is low-quality noise for low-quality listeners.
Yeah, it's not upscale and meaningful like the shit we read on slashdot.
At least Eminem has the honesty to admit that his music is shit.
I'm so sick and tired of bein admired
that I wish that I would just die or get fired
and dropped from my label and stop with the fables
I'm not gonna be able to top on "My Name is.."
And pigeon-holed into some pop-py sensation
to cop me rotation at rock'n'roll stations
Thank god they shut down napster and stopped piracy.
The CD-Rs were most likely burned from mp3s downloaded from P2P networks. Besides, 10s of thousands of CDs distributed mostly in urban U.S. cities is hardly comparable to the millions that were downloaded across the globe on napster.
Besides, Taco, you almost sound like you condone music piracy. Aren't you the one who said "I wish people wouldn't steal"?
Whoever put my shit on the Internet, I want to meet that motherfucker and beat the shit out of him... - Eminem (
quote)
Who's missing the point? Certainly not the submitter, who stated that it was a "Scary precedent." Probably Timothy, since he tends to miss every point, but we don't know that for sure since he also rarely adds his own words of wisdom.
You realize that not everyone can - or are willing - to get a credit card?
Anyone 18 or over living in the U.S. can get a credit card. Those under 18 can still get one, they just need a coapplicant. As for those not living in the U.S., a solution to relatively secure electronic transactions is there, it's up to those countries to implement them.
In some countries, it is entirely possible to live without having a credit card! We have this low-level concept of "cash"; you know, pieces of hard-to-forge paper and circular metal thingies that can be exchanged for goods and services.
If you want to live without the convenience and security of credit cards, be my guest. But don't come complaining to me when your disk drive gets jammed when you try putting your currency into it. Or when you pay using anonymous e-cash and get scammed.
Many many many interesting sites out there offer excellent services, but I can't pay them because I don't have a credit card - and international money transfers (particularly those to outside EU) are *painful*. So, I'm mostly limited to domestic stores with cash-on-delivery.
That's not my problem. It's yours - and that of your government. Assuming you live in a free country, and can come up with a low cost secure way to transfer money to U.S. merchants, get some investors and implement it, and make millions (or billions or trillions depending on your exchange rate).
If you buy something online without using a credit card, you deserve to get scammed.
If you buy something with a credit card, not only will you get your money back (actually never lose it in the first place), but the scammers will likely go to jail.
Besides, why are you clicking on links in your spam anyway?
What process do you have in place to ensure that you are properly informed of the technological issues surrounding congressional bills? What initiatives are you taking to better streamline the feedback process in this increasingly digital age?
I notice your presence on the web is rather lacking. Is this due to lack of funds, lack of interest, or some other problem, and is anything being done to address this issue?
I gotta admit, I had the same initial reaction that you did; it took a second reading - and looking at the post's title - for me to understand what zpengo meant.
I take it that s/he meant that courts getting internet cases right is something new. S/he was probably referring to some particular case in the past in which a judge made a decision with which s/he disagreed, perhaps not even a case where the judge misunderstood anything. Most judges understand most cases, both internet and non-internet. Just because slashdot happens to cover mainly those minority cases which are the exception doesn't mean anything.
Besides, this case has very little to do with the internet in the first place. The renewal applications were sent USPS. The only real internet connection is that the product happens to be a subscription internet service. That's not that hard to understand, and really doesn't even need to be understood to make the proper decisions.
I would be very happy if all the SPAM I got every day said: "Hi. We're a crappy company. We engage in deceptive business practices. We apologize if we tricked you into buying our stuff, and we'd like to remind you that you don't ever have to buy stuff from us, regardless of the apparent importance of the bill or invoice that you send you."
I wouldn't. I don't read the spam anyway, so I really don't care what it says.
but as with so many other things, it gets overlooked or misunderstood because it has to do with the Internet.
What are you talking about? What part of "U.S. District Court Judge Frederic N. Smalkin agreed with BulkRegister, saying that VeriSign likely engaged in deceptive behavior" didn't you understand?
Verisign broke the law. People complained. Someone sued. Verisign lost. Sounds just like any other industry to me.
How can you care about the risk of someone faking your finger print when most financial transactions are verified with a signature?
It's a lot easier to fake my fingerprint than it is to fake my signature. I've been practicing my signature for many years now. I doubt you're going to be able to learn how to reproduce it in the amount of time it takes to create a wax fingerprint.
I just don't see how one can excuse the use of public money for projects that only select private parties can benifit from.
Any private party can benefit from it, all they have to do is pay $25,000/year. Or were you talking about the SCC as the select private party? Because I would assume they're going to spend all the money they receive from the government and members on the research.
I'm not sure if the SCC is a non-profit, but it certainly should be. If not them maybe you have a point.
Seems like it takes quite a while to create a fake finger tip and theres a lot more chance for error.
Yeah, but unlike credit card numbers, when your fingerprint gets stolen you can't just get a new one.
While I pry wouldnt soley rely on fingerprint scanners for something high security, for buying groceries, if this were offered in my area, Id sign up in a second.
As long as I'm not liable for unauthorized purchases, just like I'm not liable with a credit card, I'd sign up for just about any system.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose that's what happens when a certain large theatre operator drops ticket prices to $2 just long enough to run all the competition out of business, and then jacks the prices back up.
The other thing that happens is that large theatre operator gets sued for anti-trust violations.
And in BC, David Trott admitted that he murdered a nine year-old girl. I suppose we all should all look charitably upon him and excuse his behaviour, just as you do for Eminem.
It's morally wrong to murder. It's not morally wrong to write shit music.
Eminem is a wanking little shit who's being managed by people who are smart enough to know how to manipulate self-pitying angry young white boys who think they need to rebel against the humdrum safety and comfort of their middle-class lives.
Agreed.
The entire Eminem scheme is disgusting, from the singer to the creeps that manage him, to the brain-dead wannabes who think they're so cynical and rebelious, yet have deep-throated the codswallop.
Agreed.
Interesting quote. It could be that his attitude changed, or it could be that he was pissed over the fact that the bootleg mp3s were released before the album was even released.
If he doesn't agree, ask him to explain his reasoning.
I don't agree, and I wonder if you'd care to explain yours.
Eninem is low-quality noise for low-quality listeners.
Yeah, it's not upscale and meaningful like the shit we read on slashdot.
At least Eminem has the honesty to admit that his music is shit.
I'm so sick and tired of bein admired that I wish that I would just die or get fired and dropped from my label and stop with the fables I'm not gonna be able to top on "My Name is.." And pigeon-holed into some pop-py sensation to cop me rotation at rock'n'roll stationsThank god they shut down napster and stopped piracy.
The CD-Rs were most likely burned from mp3s downloaded from P2P networks. Besides, 10s of thousands of CDs distributed mostly in urban U.S. cities is hardly comparable to the millions that were downloaded across the globe on napster.
Besides, Taco, you almost sound like you condone music piracy. Aren't you the one who said "I wish people wouldn't steal"?
I could see in the future where posts are simply removed because they might infringe on the DMCA or other laws.
Actually, the DMCA is exactly the reason why this ruling would never hold up in the U.S.
Who's missing the point? Certainly not the submitter, who stated that it was a "Scary precedent." Probably Timothy, since he tends to miss every point, but we don't know that for sure since he also rarely adds his own words of wisdom.
You realize that not everyone can - or are willing - to get a credit card?
Anyone 18 or over living in the U.S. can get a credit card. Those under 18 can still get one, they just need a coapplicant. As for those not living in the U.S., a solution to relatively secure electronic transactions is there, it's up to those countries to implement them.
In some countries, it is entirely possible to live without having a credit card! We have this low-level concept of "cash"; you know, pieces of hard-to-forge paper and circular metal thingies that can be exchanged for goods and services.
If you want to live without the convenience and security of credit cards, be my guest. But don't come complaining to me when your disk drive gets jammed when you try putting your currency into it. Or when you pay using anonymous e-cash and get scammed.
Many many many interesting sites out there offer excellent services, but I can't pay them because I don't have a credit card - and international money transfers (particularly those to outside EU) are *painful*. So, I'm mostly limited to domestic stores with cash-on-delivery.
That's not my problem. It's yours - and that of your government. Assuming you live in a free country, and can come up with a low cost secure way to transfer money to U.S. merchants, get some investors and implement it, and make millions (or billions or trillions depending on your exchange rate).
If you buy something online without using a credit card, you deserve to get scammed.
If you buy something with a credit card, not only will you get your money back (actually never lose it in the first place), but the scammers will likely go to jail.
Besides, why are you clicking on links in your spam anyway?
What process do you have in place to ensure that you are properly informed of the technological issues surrounding congressional bills? What initiatives are you taking to better streamline the feedback process in this increasingly digital age?
I notice your presence on the web is rather lacking. Is this due to lack of funds, lack of interest, or some other problem, and is anything being done to address this issue?
lying to get hired is fraud
Unless you're a politician, in which case it's necessary.
How do you convince a hiring manager that you aren't simply using them as a temporary stepping stone (even if this is true)?
Certainly not by admitting it on slashdot, Justin.
I like using social security numbers. Everyone in the world has them
Ugly american syndrome strikes again. Gee. :S
I wasn't aware that tongue-in-cheek humour was strictly an American thing.
I gotta admit, I had the same initial reaction that you did; it took a second reading - and looking at the post's title - for me to understand what zpengo meant.
I take it that s/he meant that courts getting internet cases right is something new. S/he was probably referring to some particular case in the past in which a judge made a decision with which s/he disagreed, perhaps not even a case where the judge misunderstood anything. Most judges understand most cases, both internet and non-internet. Just because slashdot happens to cover mainly those minority cases which are the exception doesn't mean anything.
Besides, this case has very little to do with the internet in the first place. The renewal applications were sent USPS. The only real internet connection is that the product happens to be a subscription internet service. That's not that hard to understand, and really doesn't even need to be understood to make the proper decisions.
I would be very happy if all the SPAM I got every day said: "Hi. We're a crappy company. We engage in deceptive business practices. We apologize if we tricked you into buying our stuff, and we'd like to remind you that you don't ever have to buy stuff from us, regardless of the apparent importance of the bill or invoice that you send you."
I wouldn't. I don't read the spam anyway, so I really don't care what it says.
Yeah, more crap in my mailbox. That's what I want. Judge ordered spam is no better than any other kind of spam.
but as with so many other things, it gets overlooked or misunderstood because it has to do with the Internet.
What are you talking about? What part of "U.S. District Court Judge Frederic N. Smalkin agreed with BulkRegister, saying that VeriSign likely engaged in deceptive behavior" didn't you understand?
Verisign broke the law. People complained. Someone sued. Verisign lost. Sounds just like any other industry to me.
How can you care about the risk of someone faking your finger print when most financial transactions are verified with a signature?
It's a lot easier to fake my fingerprint than it is to fake my signature. I've been practicing my signature for many years now. I doubt you're going to be able to learn how to reproduce it in the amount of time it takes to create a wax fingerprint.
I just don't see how one can excuse the use of public money for projects that only select private parties can benifit from.
Any private party can benefit from it, all they have to do is pay $25,000/year. Or were you talking about the SCC as the select private party? Because I would assume they're going to spend all the money they receive from the government and members on the research.
I'm not sure if the SCC is a non-profit, but it certainly should be. If not them maybe you have a point.
That's enough to pay for 4.6 million slashdot subscriptions. In other words, the entire online population of Africa.
Seems like it takes quite a while to create a fake finger tip and theres a lot more chance for error.
Yeah, but unlike credit card numbers, when your fingerprint gets stolen you can't just get a new one.
While I pry wouldnt soley rely on fingerprint scanners for something high security, for buying groceries, if this were offered in my area, Id sign up in a second.
As long as I'm not liable for unauthorized purchases, just like I'm not liable with a credit card, I'd sign up for just about any system.
That was pretty funny. It's too bad we can't separate the good trolls from the bad trolls...
That's why I'd have a web front end set up to deal with messages that haven't been confirmed by the sender.
You aren't by any chance willing to release the source code for that front-end, are you?
When you can't come up with a logical argument to support your view, you resort to personal attacks and regurgitate my post with search and replace.
That was a logical argument. If spam is like rape, then so are your posts.