As I pointed out in other replies, I don't consider those uses as dishonest, because they're not hiding who they come from -- WidgetCo isn't telling me they're someone else.
This sort of thing is excepted in the bill. He's also not lying about who he is when he calls, if it returns the number of the hospital/practice where he works and where an on-call doctor can be reached. He's calling as an agent of the hospital.
I don't expect the home phone number of my banker showing up, either. Perhaps I should have explained better, and I'll use your example to illustrate what I meant:
When your father calls people, the number is a legitimate number that will get them directly in contact with someone relevant to the reason he called in the first place. I would bet it says "So and So Hospital" or "So and So Doctors" on the caller ID. It doesn't say "Big Bubba's Truck Emporium" and "876-5309" for the number. He's not trying to hide that he's a doctor calling. My problem is with people trying to hide who they are, or what company they work for, when they call me.
What you're talking about sounds like attempts to remain anonymous.
In the case of the NYT, you just don't want them to have your e-mail. Possibly in an attempt to avoid junk e-mail (not all junk is spam). You aren't contacting a person at the NYT in this case and lying about who you are.
A good comparison to spoofing caller ID is forging e-mail headers. Like with spoofing caller ID, there may be legitimate reasons you may want to do this, but in many cases, people who forge e-mail headers are an annoyance.
For all you know, my name may or may not be Khaed (it isn't, not even close), however, I am not presenting myself as though it is, nor am I presenting myself as if my AIM screen name is my real name. On slashdot and many other forums, there's a reasonable assumption people aren't really called by their username -- unless your parents really, really love comic books, I doubt your name is supervillainsf. My primary e-mail is my real name, however, because I use it for personal correspondence and don't want to have to explain who the hell I am or why my handle is "khaed" to my former teachers or coworkers that I stay in contact with.
However, my e-mail is fairly private, only given to people I know, and my slashdot ID is not -- a slashdot link is in the top ten google searches for it. My e-mail address returns no results (whew). This is how I want it -- a measure of privacy.
However, anyone I call, or e-mail, gets my name, and in the former case, my telephone number. Well, if they have caller ID. If I send them regular mail, they also get my name (and PO Box, unless I send them something via UPS/Fed-Ex). This is a public forum, with massive traffic, hundreds of thousands of users, and it gets cached by Google. My telephone line is just between me and another person (rarely, personS). It's also either in my home, or my pocket, and isn't freely given out to just anyone. I want to know who is on the other end.
As for the drunk, there's a safety issue there. If there were a reasonable safety issue that required spoofing caller ID or forging e-mail headers... then no sensible person is objecting. But these cases are few and far between. I'd probably give the drunk a fake name and tell him a joke. But that's just me. and I'd say Bob, not John, Bob sounds more friendly, like the guy from those commercials who smiles a lot.
Well you obviously DON'T have "every right" to know who's calling you before you pick up the phone but you WOULD LIKE to have it.
Sorry, no, I don't think someone has the right to basically lie about who they are on my caller ID. It's my phone and my time, and if their legitimate name and number aren't something I'll pick up for, sorry, I don't want them wasting it.
Let alone the fact that there are plenty of legitimate situations where people would prefer to call anonymously (whistle blowers, people seeking counseling, etc)
No one is going to be calling my home phone to blow the whistle on anything, or seeking counseling. I don't think oversight agencies or counseling places should keep records of who calls them in the first place -- this is unrelated to caller ID.
there are even more situations where people who aren't anonymous would prefer you don't see the number they're calling from. These include all your business contacts who would prefer you to call them on the company number but sometimes work from home and would like to call you, your boos who might not want you to know he's calling from his mistress (who might be somebody you know) and so on.
Another poster already pointed out that the first is exempted, in part because Congress does things. As for the latter -- why the hell would someone call me from their mistress's? What kind of idiot do you work for?
And blocking is considered different from spoofing, to answer your last part. But I don't answer those calls, either. I cited examples of what irritates me about not having honest on the caller ID. If you want to call from home and have your work number? Fine, whatever. That's exempted in the bill. What ticks me off are companies using a call center that spoof not the number, but the name. I mentioned this (I used the stupid names in my post -- "Tollfree number"), and another poster replied mentioning that these same places often give you a run around about who they are.
I'm not so much worried about criminals, but I don't think this bill addresses what I want it to:
I'm sick of companies calling and their damn name not showing up, for whatever reason. "Tollfree number" (well no shit, other than collect, when do I get charged for receiving calls?) or "Unknown Caller"
Some of them are bill collectors. Who want someone that isn't here, and don't seem to want to believe that no, that person isn't here, and isn't going to be, so stop calling me. But either way, if they can't identify themselves, they shouldn't be calling my damn number. Which is why I disagree with #4 on your list.
If you're calling my house, I have every right to know who you are. Can you seriously come up with a legitimate situation where you should be able to call me and me not be able to see who you are before I answer the phone?
I barely answer unless I recognize the number anyway, because of a massive amount of wrong numbers. And some of the numbers these idiots are trying to dial aren't even close.
I agree with #3, however, in regards to #2, the cost of it will just be passed on to you one way or another. #5 I can see, but I've never had a business call me and use a sales associate's name.
#1 is a silly argument. Making rape illegal hasn't stopped it, either. You can make the case that no law is ever going to stop any crime. However, it makes it so that if you do it and get caught, you can be punished.
I don't want to just rubber stamp everyone who wants to come here. Is that "slow"? I think the system needs to be fixed, in a big way. But I don't think we need a flood of people -- from any nation, race, whatever -- if there's no job infrastructure for them, or if they're not melting into our culture. Look at the problems in France, where large sections of people refused to assimilate at all, learn French, etc.
How many cars were set on fire in Paris over the last two years, not counting the presidential riots? They were mostly immigrants pissed because they didn't have jobs.
It's silly to accuse people of xenophobia because they want reasonable restrictions. Xenophobia is unreasonable fear of things foreign. I don't fear things just because they're foreign. But if someone wants to live in the culture of their home nation -- stay there. If they want to add to our culture the way immigrants did in the 1900s, that's fine. Many great things come from immigrants. But those immigrants came here and became, y'know, Americans. And they were proud of it.
They also went through all sorts of hell from the locals for a generation or so. Nothing has really changed, and the optimist in me figures the same pattern is going to repeat. It's just how humans, as a species, act.
The folk who want to build walls to keep immigrants out don't want to do that if the cost is an anmesty.
Except I opposed this bill, and I don't want to keep immigrants out. I just want them to come here legally. It's not keeping just "immigrants" out. It's "illegal" immigrants.
Wow. I think you're serious. Okay: The Republican nominee is going to be Giuliani, Romney, or Fred Thompson.
And I don't think Hillary will even get the nomination. She's like a shrill bitchy school teacher. Politics aside, she's just grating. I don't know why Democrats like annoying women -- are Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Fienstien, Harry Reid? What the fuck is this? These bitches are annoying. (If I could think of a Republican woman other than Laura Bush, I'd make a comment there, but the Republicans know their women are irritating and don't put them on a national platform.)
74% may want the war over, but a great deal of those want a victory.
Of course, if it were up to me, none of them would get the presidency, because none of them have come out against the DMCA and eternal copyrights, none of them have made any comments reflecting any understanding of technology, and they're all old and smell like mothballs and cabbage farts.
Thank you for making me laugh out loud and cough up tea on my keyboard.:)
I was unaware you were replying to twitter, however. Making fun of twitter is about the only way TO reply to him, so hats off again.
(and to your sig: there's a 100% chance *IM* wasting my time here.)
PS. Before twitter replies with her panties in a twist (like he did to everyone else), I'm running Ubuntu Linux, and before that, I ran Slackware. I'm no "M$ f4nb01!!!!" or anything.
If Ron Paul wins I won't have to buy gas anymore because I'll simply catch a ride with a flying pig to work.
Seriously, Ron Paul is the right version of Kucinich. He stands about the same chance of winning the Republican nomination as Hillary does of winning a beauty pageant.
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Ubuntu. Click "Synaptic." Search for what you want. Get everything checked to install, click "apply" at the top. Unless you're recommending that newbies use a harder, less graphical interface. In which case, you're an idiot.
Also, on the topic of installs: I've installed 3 OSes in the last two years. Slackware, XP, and Ubuntu. Ubuntu was the easiest and most pleasant -- I got to sit there with Firefox and GAIM open while it installed. XP was slightly more annoying than Slackware.
As for your Linux zealots thing: I have never encountered people like that. Maybe you need to go to forums populated by people older than fifteen?
I admit there are assholes, however, and people who run around with only "if you don't like it, fix it!" "RTFM!" type answers. But these are a minority, and I bet most of them can't answer your question anyway. Most people will respond helpfully to questions, unless you come off like an asshole yourself. And try seeking help on Windows forums. There are assholes everywhere.
There is no "preference towards Windows." Most people don't even know what Linux is. A lot of people don't even know what an Operating System is. They don't understand that it is a program that can be replaced. Just that it's part of the computer, like the OSD on a TV that adjusts the brightness and contrast. It's not that they're stupid, it's just that they don't know any better, and were never told, or taught.
I said we don't like them, and their lawsuits are one of the reasons.
Legally, they should be suing for damages. They're not. They're offering a stupid payout (show me a song/songs worth $3000-$5000), or getting sued.
I think we hear about most of them on slashdot. If they sued someone who had the money for an attorney we'd hear about that, too, because then we'd cheer it.
Also, I and other slashdot posters have zero responsibility to actually like the RIAA or support them or their motives. So, like I said: We hates them.
the RIAA have been acting like a bunch of assholes for a decade now, both the organization itself and the member labels. They have pissed away any good will they could have had. The Napster thing, their assault on fair use, bullying tactics, subjecting us to that bitch Hilary Rosen, support of the DMCA, eternal copyrights, annoying DRM, et cetera.
We don't like them. Even those of us who support some form of copyright pretty well hate the RIAA/MPAA. It's like the SCO case: They come across as a bunch of dickless lawyer assholes and piss geeks off.
They're not looking for just any violator -- they're looking for people in a situation where they're not in any financial situation to fight back. So far, all the cases we're hearing about are college students, single mothers, etc. They tell them "pay us $X or we'll drag you through court and you'll have to pay us more than $X plus legal fees." Even if you're innocent: RIAA has money to burn on legal fees and the scare tactic is what they're after, not the pay off. Most people, even innocent, can't afford to lawyer up and fight the RIAA.
The answer should always be: "Piss off." They've never won a case, have they? So why should anyone believe any of their efforts are in good faith? Don't forget Sony-BMG is one of the RIAA member labels, and their "good faith" put a root kit on the PCs of people who actually paid them for music.
So yes, on this site, the majority of us hate the RIAA. Because they're assholes of the highest order. They trounced the nearest competition in a poll of most hated company on some website a few months back. At least in the case of Linux/MS/Apple there are two sides to it -- fanboys and haters -- but here it's like 99% haters and 1% supporters of the RIAA. There's just no contest.
We hates the RIAA. We hates it. Stupid fat Rosenses.
Just because nothing was found on the computer doesnt mean she is innocent,
As a matter of fact, it does.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
The RIAA lost the case. Understand that. Know that. They. Lost. The. Case. Just because you eject before your fighter jet explodes doesn't mean the jet didn't explode.
Fact: There was no evidence. They lost. Evidence has arisen that they were being malicious about it and knew they didn't have a case. It's called "scare tactics." They wanted to scare her into not taking it to trial. Sending someone a threatening letter is almost free. When she chose the court route, they had to at least try and prove they were right otherwise they would definitely be found guilty of extortion.
Are you even reading the replies to your posts? At least a half dozen people have written well reasoned replies based on the facts, and all you keep saying is "the lawyers cost more than $4000 so therefore the RIAA must have had evidence."
From what I understand here the RIAA didnt really want to bankrupt this woman.
No, they just picked someone who didn't have the money, and gave them a choice between losing some money, or losing more. Without really providing any evidence -- notice the part where they dropped the case right before having a summary judgment issued against them. They knew the case had no merit.
The cost of running this whole operation dramatically exceeds whatever they could make in settlements and verdicts.
Right, but they hope they're going to scare people into submission, make some money on people who roll over, and cause piracy to go down by making "examples."
Despite what groklaw may say they arent going after people that they dont have fairly good cases against.
Then why haven't they won? They keep losing. They were going to lose here, and abandoned ship beforehand.
It's not that "pro-RIAA = troll" it's that you're missing the actual legal proceedings that have went on, like many pro-SCO posters did. They don't have a case. They keep losing precisely because they have crap for evidence. Have they had any major victories in court? No. Have they had major losses? Yes.
And somewhere around 60% say they believe in ghosts, and some other surprisingly high number believe aliens have visited the earth.
What the people believe and what politicians do don't always jive. See the current immigration fiasco. People don't want it, but politicians are bullheadedly going on, calling their constituents racist and bigoted.
I didn't just mean to get by now -- to be able to save and invest. Because depending on social security for retirement is just a bad, bad, bad idea. I could live on a lot less than $40k, but I wouldn't have squat for savings. Which I guess I should have explained better.
The United States has a similar tax set up, with varying brackets. Everyone pays social security tax, though, and if you're just making it anyway, that's a big kick in the wallet -- especially if you have state taxes.
The bitch of it all is figuring out taxable income, exemptions, etc. The rules are written like a Microsoft EULA.
Regardless, despite paying a lower %, the poorer tax brackets are still biting more: 15% of 35,000 leaves you with a lot less actual money, regardless of the percent you get to keep. I don't think we need to normalize so everyone has the same take-home pay, but people making under 40-50K need every dime.
Slashdot Mirror
As I pointed out in other replies, I don't consider those uses as dishonest, because they're not hiding who they come from -- WidgetCo isn't telling me they're someone else.
Hey, dumb ass.
:)
See my post further on where I explain the difference between a public forum like slashdot and my private home phone number or cell number.
Also, fuck you, douche bag.
This sort of thing is excepted in the bill. He's also not lying about who he is when he calls, if it returns the number of the hospital/practice where he works and where an on-call doctor can be reached. He's calling as an agent of the hospital.
I don't expect the home phone number of my banker showing up, either. Perhaps I should have explained better, and I'll use your example to illustrate what I meant:
When your father calls people, the number is a legitimate number that will get them directly in contact with someone relevant to the reason he called in the first place. I would bet it says "So and So Hospital" or "So and So Doctors" on the caller ID. It doesn't say "Big Bubba's Truck Emporium" and "876-5309" for the number. He's not trying to hide that he's a doctor calling. My problem is with people trying to hide who they are, or what company they work for, when they call me.
I'm not the OP, but I have a response to offer.
What you're talking about sounds like attempts to remain anonymous.
In the case of the NYT, you just don't want them to have your e-mail. Possibly in an attempt to avoid junk e-mail (not all junk is spam). You aren't contacting a person at the NYT in this case and lying about who you are.
A good comparison to spoofing caller ID is forging e-mail headers. Like with spoofing caller ID, there may be legitimate reasons you may want to do this, but in many cases, people who forge e-mail headers are an annoyance.
For all you know, my name may or may not be Khaed (it isn't, not even close), however, I am not presenting myself as though it is, nor am I presenting myself as if my AIM screen name is my real name. On slashdot and many other forums, there's a reasonable assumption people aren't really called by their username -- unless your parents really, really love comic books, I doubt your name is supervillainsf. My primary e-mail is my real name, however, because I use it for personal correspondence and don't want to have to explain who the hell I am or why my handle is "khaed" to my former teachers or coworkers that I stay in contact with.
However, my e-mail is fairly private, only given to people I know, and my slashdot ID is not -- a slashdot link is in the top ten google searches for it. My e-mail address returns no results (whew). This is how I want it -- a measure of privacy.
However, anyone I call, or e-mail, gets my name, and in the former case, my telephone number. Well, if they have caller ID. If I send them regular mail, they also get my name (and PO Box, unless I send them something via UPS/Fed-Ex). This is a public forum, with massive traffic, hundreds of thousands of users, and it gets cached by Google. My telephone line is just between me and another person (rarely, personS). It's also either in my home, or my pocket, and isn't freely given out to just anyone. I want to know who is on the other end.
As for the drunk, there's a safety issue there. If there were a reasonable safety issue that required spoofing caller ID or forging e-mail headers... then no sensible person is objecting. But these cases are few and far between. I'd probably give the drunk a fake name and tell him a joke. But that's just me. and I'd say Bob, not John, Bob sounds more friendly, like the guy from those commercials who smiles a lot.
Well you obviously DON'T have "every right" to know who's calling you before you pick up the phone but you WOULD LIKE to have it.
Sorry, no, I don't think someone has the right to basically lie about who they are on my caller ID. It's my phone and my time, and if their legitimate name and number aren't something I'll pick up for, sorry, I don't want them wasting it.
Let alone the fact that there are plenty of legitimate situations where people would prefer to call anonymously (whistle blowers, people seeking counseling, etc)
No one is going to be calling my home phone to blow the whistle on anything, or seeking counseling. I don't think oversight agencies or counseling places should keep records of who calls them in the first place -- this is unrelated to caller ID.
there are even more situations where people who aren't anonymous would prefer you don't see the number they're calling from. These include all your business contacts who would prefer you to call them on the company number but sometimes work from home and would like to call you, your boos who might not want you to know he's calling from his mistress (who might be somebody you know) and so on.
Another poster already pointed out that the first is exempted, in part because Congress does things. As for the latter -- why the hell would someone call me from their mistress's? What kind of idiot do you work for?
And blocking is considered different from spoofing, to answer your last part. But I don't answer those calls, either. I cited examples of what irritates me about not having honest on the caller ID. If you want to call from home and have your work number? Fine, whatever. That's exempted in the bill. What ticks me off are companies using a call center that spoof not the number, but the name. I mentioned this (I used the stupid names in my post -- "Tollfree number"), and another poster replied mentioning that these same places often give you a run around about who they are.
PS3 and Xbox...
That might mean something if the PS3 was actually, y'know, competing... what's that old saying about a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest?
do you people not understand what you're doing? No, I'm not concerned about Microsoft. I don't care about Microsoft.
But... think of twitter. This can't be good for his health.
oh, wait. Right. Keep posting these "M$" articles, then.
I'm not so much worried about criminals, but I don't think this bill addresses what I want it to:
I'm sick of companies calling and their damn name not showing up, for whatever reason. "Tollfree number" (well no shit, other than collect, when do I get charged for receiving calls?) or "Unknown Caller"
Some of them are bill collectors. Who want someone that isn't here, and don't seem to want to believe that no, that person isn't here, and isn't going to be, so stop calling me. But either way, if they can't identify themselves, they shouldn't be calling my damn number. Which is why I disagree with #4 on your list.
If you're calling my house, I have every right to know who you are. Can you seriously come up with a legitimate situation where you should be able to call me and me not be able to see who you are before I answer the phone?
I barely answer unless I recognize the number anyway, because of a massive amount of wrong numbers. And some of the numbers these idiots are trying to dial aren't even close.
I agree with #3, however, in regards to #2, the cost of it will just be passed on to you one way or another. #5 I can see, but I've never had a business call me and use a sales associate's name.
#1 is a silly argument. Making rape illegal hasn't stopped it, either. You can make the case that no law is ever going to stop any crime. However, it makes it so that if you do it and get caught, you can be punished.
I don't want to just rubber stamp everyone who wants to come here. Is that "slow"? I think the system needs to be fixed, in a big way. But I don't think we need a flood of people -- from any nation, race, whatever -- if there's no job infrastructure for them, or if they're not melting into our culture. Look at the problems in France, where large sections of people refused to assimilate at all, learn French, etc.
How many cars were set on fire in Paris over the last two years, not counting the presidential riots? They were mostly immigrants pissed because they didn't have jobs.
It's silly to accuse people of xenophobia because they want reasonable restrictions. Xenophobia is unreasonable fear of things foreign. I don't fear things just because they're foreign. But if someone wants to live in the culture of their home nation -- stay there. If they want to add to our culture the way immigrants did in the 1900s, that's fine. Many great things come from immigrants. But those immigrants came here and became, y'know, Americans. And they were proud of it.
They also went through all sorts of hell from the locals for a generation or so. Nothing has really changed, and the optimist in me figures the same pattern is going to repeat. It's just how humans, as a species, act.
The folk who want to build walls to keep immigrants out don't want to do that if the cost is an anmesty.
Except I opposed this bill, and I don't want to keep immigrants out. I just want them to come here legally. It's not keeping just "immigrants" out. It's "illegal" immigrants.
Wow. I think you're serious. Okay: The Republican nominee is going to be Giuliani, Romney, or Fred Thompson.
And I don't think Hillary will even get the nomination. She's like a shrill bitchy school teacher. Politics aside, she's just grating. I don't know why Democrats like annoying women -- are Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Fienstien, Harry Reid? What the fuck is this? These bitches are annoying. (If I could think of a Republican woman other than Laura Bush, I'd make a comment there, but the Republicans know their women are irritating and don't put them on a national platform.)
74% may want the war over, but a great deal of those want a victory.
Of course, if it were up to me, none of them would get the presidency, because none of them have come out against the DMCA and eternal copyrights, none of them have made any comments reflecting any understanding of technology, and they're all old and smell like mothballs and cabbage farts.
Have you seen these people?
There's a big difference. I'll sum it up in four words:
President Bush. Swimsuit Competition.
There are few things I want to see less than that guy's bikini line.
Thank you for making me laugh out loud and cough up tea on my keyboard. :)
I was unaware you were replying to twitter, however. Making fun of twitter is about the only way TO reply to him, so hats off again.
(and to your sig: there's a 100% chance *IM* wasting my time here.)
PS. Before twitter replies with her panties in a twist (like he did to everyone else), I'm running Ubuntu Linux, and before that, I ran Slackware. I'm no "M$ f4nb01!!!!" or anything.
If Ron Paul wins I won't have to buy gas anymore because I'll simply catch a ride with a flying pig to work.
Seriously, Ron Paul is the right version of Kucinich. He stands about the same chance of winning the Republican nomination as Hillary does of winning a beauty pageant.
I know you're not supposed to feed the troll but:
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Ubuntu. Click "Synaptic." Search for what you want. Get everything checked to install, click "apply" at the top. Unless you're recommending that newbies use a harder, less graphical interface. In which case, you're an idiot.
Also, on the topic of installs: I've installed 3 OSes in the last two years. Slackware, XP, and Ubuntu. Ubuntu was the easiest and most pleasant -- I got to sit there with Firefox and GAIM open while it installed. XP was slightly more annoying than Slackware.
As for your Linux zealots thing: I have never encountered people like that. Maybe you need to go to forums populated by people older than fifteen?
I admit there are assholes, however, and people who run around with only "if you don't like it, fix it!" "RTFM!" type answers. But these are a minority, and I bet most of them can't answer your question anyway. Most people will respond helpfully to questions, unless you come off like an asshole yourself. And try seeking help on Windows forums. There are assholes everywhere.
There is no "preference towards Windows." Most people don't even know what Linux is. A lot of people don't even know what an Operating System is. They don't understand that it is a program that can be replaced. Just that it's part of the computer, like the OSD on a TV that adjusts the brightness and contrast. It's not that they're stupid, it's just that they don't know any better, and were never told, or taught.
I never said they don't have the right to sue.
I said we don't like them, and their lawsuits are one of the reasons.
Legally, they should be suing for damages. They're not. They're offering a stupid payout (show me a song/songs worth $3000-$5000), or getting sued.
I think we hear about most of them on slashdot. If they sued someone who had the money for an attorney we'd hear about that, too, because then we'd cheer it.
Also, I and other slashdot posters have zero responsibility to actually like the RIAA or support them or their motives. So, like I said: We hates them.
Okay, here goes:
the RIAA have been acting like a bunch of assholes for a decade now, both the organization itself and the member labels. They have pissed away any good will they could have had. The Napster thing, their assault on fair use, bullying tactics, subjecting us to that bitch Hilary Rosen, support of the DMCA, eternal copyrights, annoying DRM, et cetera.
We don't like them. Even those of us who support some form of copyright pretty well hate the RIAA/MPAA. It's like the SCO case: They come across as a bunch of dickless lawyer assholes and piss geeks off.
They're not looking for just any violator -- they're looking for people in a situation where they're not in any financial situation to fight back. So far, all the cases we're hearing about are college students, single mothers, etc. They tell them "pay us $X or we'll drag you through court and you'll have to pay us more than $X plus legal fees." Even if you're innocent: RIAA has money to burn on legal fees and the scare tactic is what they're after, not the pay off. Most people, even innocent, can't afford to lawyer up and fight the RIAA.
The answer should always be: "Piss off." They've never won a case, have they? So why should anyone believe any of their efforts are in good faith? Don't forget Sony-BMG is one of the RIAA member labels, and their "good faith" put a root kit on the PCs of people who actually paid them for music.
So yes, on this site, the majority of us hate the RIAA. Because they're assholes of the highest order. They trounced the nearest competition in a poll of most hated company on some website a few months back. At least in the case of Linux/MS/Apple there are two sides to it -- fanboys and haters -- but here it's like 99% haters and 1% supporters of the RIAA. There's just no contest.
We hates the RIAA. We hates it. Stupid fat Rosenses.
Just because nothing was found on the computer doesnt mean she is innocent,
As a matter of fact, it does.
"Innocent until proven guilty."
The RIAA lost the case. Understand that. Know that. They. Lost. The. Case. Just because you eject before your fighter jet explodes doesn't mean the jet didn't explode.
Fact: There was no evidence. They lost. Evidence has arisen that they were being malicious about it and knew they didn't have a case. It's called "scare tactics." They wanted to scare her into not taking it to trial. Sending someone a threatening letter is almost free. When she chose the court route, they had to at least try and prove they were right otherwise they would definitely be found guilty of extortion.
Are you even reading the replies to your posts? At least a half dozen people have written well reasoned replies based on the facts, and all you keep saying is "the lawyers cost more than $4000 so therefore the RIAA must have had evidence."
Wow. Okay.
From what I understand here the RIAA didnt really want to bankrupt this woman.
No, they just picked someone who didn't have the money, and gave them a choice between losing some money, or losing more. Without really providing any evidence -- notice the part where they dropped the case right before having a summary judgment issued against them. They knew the case had no merit.
The cost of running this whole operation dramatically exceeds whatever they could make in settlements and verdicts.
Right, but they hope they're going to scare people into submission, make some money on people who roll over, and cause piracy to go down by making "examples."
Despite what groklaw may say they arent going after people that they dont have fairly good cases against.
Then why haven't they won? They keep losing. They were going to lose here, and abandoned ship beforehand.
It's not that "pro-RIAA = troll" it's that you're missing the actual legal proceedings that have went on, like many pro-SCO posters did. They don't have a case. They keep losing precisely because they have crap for evidence. Have they had any major victories in court? No. Have they had major losses? Yes.
And somewhere around 60% say they believe in ghosts, and some other surprisingly high number believe aliens have visited the earth.
What the people believe and what politicians do don't always jive. See the current immigration fiasco. People don't want it, but politicians are bullheadedly going on, calling their constituents racist and bigoted.
I didn't just mean to get by now -- to be able to save and invest. Because depending on social security for retirement is just a bad, bad, bad idea. I could live on a lot less than $40k, but I wouldn't have squat for savings. Which I guess I should have explained better.
"Make cyberlove, not cyberwar!"
The United States has a similar tax set up, with varying brackets. Everyone pays social security tax, though, and if you're just making it anyway, that's a big kick in the wallet -- especially if you have state taxes.
The bitch of it all is figuring out taxable income, exemptions, etc. The rules are written like a Microsoft EULA.
Regardless, despite paying a lower %, the poorer tax brackets are still biting more: 15% of 35,000 leaves you with a lot less actual money, regardless of the percent you get to keep. I don't think we need to normalize so everyone has the same take-home pay, but people making under 40-50K need every dime.
Throw in a few suicide bombers and it will be a smash hit.
I dunno, it might bomb.
Probably. Sounds like you got it before Lexmark started selling new printers for roughly the same as ink cartridges.