But, legally you have just donated the code, a thing of worth, to the FSF, a nonprofit organization.
Not necessarily, accounting is strange. If you do R&D and develop something patentable you can not list that patent as an asset that has value. However if you buy a patent then you can list that patent as an asset that has value. The rational is that in the former case the developer can just make up a number and say that is the value of the patent, however in the later case we have a historical market transaction that defined the cost of the patent. "Historical Cost" is something very important to an accountant, and your donation doesn't have one, your R&D expense doesn't count, R&D is merely considered a current expense.
Sorry, but no. I remember the 70's, I was too young to be stoned.;-) Pet rocks were a marketing gimmick, lots of PR, lots of TV time, etc. It was a fake manufactured fad that only existed on TV. I saw some on a stores helf once. I never saw one anywhere else except TV, and the pile on the store shelf never seemed to grow smaller. You are confusing those goofy nostalgia shows on VH1 with reality.
#2 TA didn't have the marketing or brand name behind it. Everyone I know who has played TA and SC all say TA was better by a LONG shot.
Yet it made it to the store shelves, was critically acclaimed, many tried it, and it faded away. It was a fine game, made better use of the day's higher end hardware, but lost out in the long run to a game that was far more playable. Marketing and branding get you to the shelf, they do not get you eight years and still being played every days by tens of thousands.
Face, you picked a piss poor analogy, the analogy actually worked better for the other product TA, get over it and try to come up with a better analogy rather than fight a losing battle. You can't resurrect dead jokes.
The fact these stones are laid inside a building means that they have a real non-permanency about them: they could easily be picked up and removed at any time.
The stars outside in Hollywood aren't exactly permanent either. Every once in a while one is stolen and gets replaced.
Now, in the here and now, the original EverQuest isn't as relevant as it was back in 1998 or 2002. But, it was a giant, and there are many games, World of Warcraft included, that are today standing on its shoulders.
Well, sort of, EQ collapsed under the weight of WoW and WoW is now standing on a greasy stain on the floor.;-) Sorry, this was not an attack on EQ, it was really an attack on a very tired analogy. EQ was a great game for it's day, it deserved to be also known as EverCrack.
... but they landed at 24 miles/sec. 'This must be rather frustrating if you're a bacterium that survived launch from Earth...
And the decelleration and temperature resulting from the crash landing is substantially different from the acceleration and temperature resulting from an explosion that caused the rock to exceed escape velocity in the first place?
Because Apple is the market leader with respect to digital audio content delivery, playback, and DRM. I realize it's new and confusing to not be the underdog, but this is the price for being the top dog.
... but what this court decision is now saying is that he should have returned the laptop and leave information on it that would in all sense of being a violation of his rights under the 5th Ammendment and incriminate himself?
1. The fifth ammendment does not allow you to tamper with or destroy evidence.
2. The fifth ammendment prevents the *government* from forcing you to testify against yourself. It does not prevent a company from compelling you to return company property, incriminating or not.
If a smart lawyer would take the case.. it could be overturned on appeal.. How can you be charged when there is no evidence to hold you to that charge?
I believe that when evidence has been tampered with or destroyed it is legal for courts to assume that the evidence was prejudicial. While there may be no smoking gun, the deletion is circumstantial evidence against you. Get enough circumstantial evidence and you still end up in jail.
Then he could have been able to argue "You can't have it - returning it to you would be self-incrimination."
The Bill or Rights prevents the *government* from doing so. Your employer can demand you return their property whether or not it would incriminate you.
It's sad that humanity is still at this point. We are ruled not by ourselves, not by self-enacted systems of individual responsibility and sovereignty, but by ephemeral "governments" (obviously made up of individuals, wielding their power over everyone else from behind the one-way mirror).
Now I have some libertarian tendencies, but what a load of crap you are serving up. Government is the US is completely under control of the voter. The simple truth is that all the crap politicians get away with is what we allow them. We are indifferent. When they cross "the line" and piss us off they get their butts thrown out on election day. Don't confuse you individual inability to enact change with the voters ability to enact change. There are thieves and liars in DC because voters knowingly send thieves and liars there.
If we used a decentralized, anonymous digital cash system, these kinds of problems would be much less common... I suppose it's wishful thinking... governments prefer being able to track all transactions.
Exactly. You are more likely to see secure computers and honest people than anonymous digital transactions. Governments won't allow it. And no you do not have a US Constitutional right, quite the contrary, the US government has the Constitutional power to create currency, collect taxes, define felonies (say money laundering) and pass enacting legislation, etc.
Since in many cases it isn't obvious that someone is commiting a crim, followign your reasoning, they can investigate everything and everyone at any gfiven time.
Not at all. They cannot invade your privacy without a warrant. The critical point here is that your financial transactions with a corporate entity are not "private" in the Bill of Rights sense. Hell, they are not even private in a commercial sense since getting a line of credit in the first place requires your granting permission to the corporation to share your transactions and behaviors with other individuals and corporations.
Or to get back to the main point, the privacy of a corporate transaction is not an essential liberty so Franklin does not apply here.
"Financial transactions covering balance, interest, or both are indestinguishable from each other."
Hmm, yes.. they can be if you want them to be. Regardless, those covering balance are not income for anyone, and are not taxable, neither do they involve trade, so they are outside the scope of the law you refered to.
You can't dismiss the "indestinguishable" problem, the IRS as a third party does not know. More importantly whether or not there is taxable income is something the IRS can determine on it's own, the constitution does not require the IRS to take the recipients word. The constitution specifically grants the government the power to pass laws to enact it's other powers. So with the power to tax comes the power to investigate anything that could *potentially* be taxable.
I am looking at the purpose of the transfer as well as the purpose of the law.
Interest payed is income for the creditcard company and as such is indeed fair game.
Payment of debt however is not income for them.
Financial transactions covering balance, interest, or both are indestinguishable from each other. Also to be technical a balance payment could affect income if the institution had written it off or otherwise considered the customer's account "impaired" - this may or may not involve cooking the books to inflate earnings or shift earning from one period to another. I guess we need to introduce a different three letter agency that has the power to snoop, the SEC.
Also, since you've snipped and failed to comment on it twice, I assume you accept that the transaction is fair game given the enumerated powers to define felonies, say laundering money.
In order to collect taxes, the government has to know about your income. They have no need to know about you moving money from your account into your debt account or anything of that sort, that is effec tively transfering money they already know about.
Implementing laws for the purpose of collecting taxes etc is nice, but is no excuse to monitor EVERY financial transaction, it is only an excuse to monitor those transactions that are actually relevant for this.
Your flaw is that you are looking at things only from one perspective. Money moving from your account to someone else's account is *their* income and therefore still fair game.
"Where? A business transaction with a corporation is not "on your person", in your "house", part of your "effects" - property, or limited to your "papers" - you've allowed the corporation to have your transaction on their papers."
Letter vs spirit of the law, which one do you believe actually captures the intention of said law better?
Also, I hope that you are not arguing that paying off a debt is reasonable cause.
I am arguing that the government has the power to monitor commercial and other financial transactions, based in it's constitutionally enumerated power to collect taxes, duties, etc. Furthermore it has the constitutionally enumerated powers to define felonies and to pass laws to enact all these powers. You cannot at a whim deny these powers any more than the government can deny your true right to privacy, such as entering your home and going through your papers without a warrant. The corporation's papers and records do not enjoy the same privacy, furthermore you probably signed away many privacies when you agreed to accept the line of credit with the corporation. They share that information with 3rd parties, such as the credit rating services. Anyone who can look at your credit report can see whether or not your debt is paid off.
Government poking into your private afairs conflicts with liberty, and is actually quite explicitly mentioned in things like the US constitution.
Where? A business transaction with a corporation is not "on your person", in your "house", part of your "effects" - property, or limited to your "papers" - you've allowed the corporation to have your transaction on their papers.
In other words the following does *not* seem to apply, also note the word "unreasonable":
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
However the following does seem to apply. Congress has the right to enact legislation to monitor financial transactions:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."
""To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."
How do we tell which liberties are essential and which aren't?
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" perhaps? Having a delay in my payment being posted to my account just doesn't seem to qualify.
Shall that be determined by which ones the current administration wants to take away from us?
Uh, did you read the personal examples of how finances and travel have been under a microscope for decades? That this is not something new this administration have started?
Exactly which of the Powers of Congress enumerated in the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that credit card companies divulge "suspicious" transactions to the government?
Seems like they have the right to look at all transactions:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Seems like they have the right to define certain financial transactions as felonies:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Yes, if "knowing about it" means that the government has the financial transactions of hundreds of millions of citizens under a microscope at all times, in order to (not) catch a few terrorists here and there, I definitely don't want it. It's a huge expense to taxpayers, and a huge intrusion into citizen's privacy, for no real benefit.
You do realize that this has been going on for many decades? All that has changed are the three letter acronyms, DHS rather than IRS, and possibly the dollar amount that raises the flag.
You also realize that travel habits have been profiled for decades? Again, all that has changed at the patterns that trigger the flags, not the fact that is has been going on at all.
"They that can give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither."
Note the word "essential", I think it is useful to keep in mind the difference between the trampling of essential liberties and annoyances or inconveniences. In the 1970s my grandfather got a letter from the IRS after paying $7,000 cash for a car. He had to send a letter back. That was an annoyance. In the 1990s a coworker doing tech support at customer sites made many flights around the country with stays sometimes measured in hours. Once while returning home some folks from the DEA asked him about his travel patterns, he explained his job. He asked why they stopped him, they said a computer spit out his name since his travel patterns match those of drug couriers. A 15 minute interview, an inconvenience and an annoyance. The folks in the article had a delay on their account being credited. Again, only an annoyance or inconvenience.
This has been going on for many decades. The systems was started in order to catch organized crime and drug dealers. In the 1970's my grandfather paid cash for a car, approx. $7,000. He received a letter from the IRS asking where the cash came from. I believe his letter back to the IRS said something like "From my savings account you nosy SOB."
... People are already buying iPod HiFi systems - Bose, Altec Lansing, etc. Apple wants in on that. They know they can charge a premium for their system, and they're gonna do it...
I was just at an Apple Store with a buddy who did buy one of those. $100, with an integrated radio. $350 for the Apple model is not a premium, it's more like gouging the early adopters, err... excuse me, the standard marketing practice of walking consumers down the price curve. In other words get them to pay the max amount they are willing too. When those willing to pay $350 are taken care of we'll see a $300 model, then a $250,...
The US Navy replaced Sun with Yellow Dog Linux, originally on Apple hardware and now on some other PowerPC based hardware, for sonar processing on subs.
Slashdot Mirror
But, legally you have just donated the code, a thing of worth, to the FSF, a nonprofit organization.
Not necessarily, accounting is strange. If you do R&D and develop something patentable you can not list that patent as an asset that has value. However if you buy a patent then you can list that patent as an asset that has value. The rational is that in the former case the developer can just make up a number and say that is the value of the patent, however in the later case we have a historical market transaction that defined the cost of the patent. "Historical Cost" is something very important to an accountant, and your donation doesn't have one, your R&D expense doesn't count, R&D is merely considered a current expense.
#1 Pet rocks were a rediculously popular craze
;-) Pet rocks were a marketing gimmick, lots of PR, lots of TV time, etc. It was a fake manufactured fad that only existed on TV. I saw some on a stores helf once. I never saw one anywhere else except TV, and the pile on the store shelf never seemed to grow smaller. You are confusing those goofy nostalgia shows on VH1 with reality.
Sorry, but no. I remember the 70's, I was too young to be stoned.
#2 TA didn't have the marketing or brand name behind it. Everyone I know who has played TA and SC all say TA was better by a LONG shot.
Yet it made it to the store shelves, was critically acclaimed, many tried it, and it faded away. It was a fine game, made better use of the day's higher end hardware, but lost out in the long run to a game that was far more playable. Marketing and branding get you to the shelf, they do not get you eight years and still being played every days by tens of thousands.
Face, you picked a piss poor analogy, the analogy actually worked better for the other product TA, get over it and try to come up with a better analogy rather than fight a losing battle. You can't resurrect dead jokes.
The fact these stones are laid inside a building means that they have a real non-permanency about them: they could easily be picked up and removed at any time.
The stars outside in Hollywood aren't exactly permanent either. Every once in a while one is stolen and gets replaced.
How many *millions* bought pet rocks?
About the same number that bought Total Annihilation, a noticable amount but far far fewer than bought Starcraft.
Now, in the here and now, the original EverQuest isn't as relevant as it was back in 1998 or 2002. But, it was a giant, and there are many games, World of Warcraft included, that are today standing on its shoulders.
;-) Sorry, this was not an attack on EQ, it was really an attack on a very tired analogy. EQ was a great game for it's day, it deserved to be also known as EverCrack.
Well, sort of, EQ collapsed under the weight of WoW and WoW is now standing on a greasy stain on the floor.
Why would they put two very subpar games for their genres on this? Total Annihilation outright owns starcraft in all respects.
That's not what gamers says. These stars are not awarded by some comittee, gamers vote, the top whatever get stars.
... but they landed at 24 miles/sec. 'This must be rather frustrating if you're a bacterium that survived launch from Earth ...
And the decelleration and temperature resulting from the crash landing is substantially different from the acceleration and temperature resulting from an explosion that caused the rock to exceed escape velocity in the first place?
Why is this in the apple section?
Because Apple is the market leader with respect to digital audio content delivery, playback, and DRM. I realize it's new and confusing to not be the underdog, but this is the price for being the top dog.
... but what this court decision is now saying is that he should have returned the laptop and leave information on it that would in all sense of being a violation of his rights under the 5th Ammendment and incriminate himself?
1. The fifth ammendment does not allow you to tamper with or destroy evidence.
2. The fifth ammendment prevents the *government* from forcing you to testify against yourself. It does not prevent a company from compelling you to return company property, incriminating or not.
The company received their property
The files were *also* company property.
If a smart lawyer would take the case.. it could be overturned on appeal.. How can you be charged when there is no evidence to hold you to that charge?
I believe that when evidence has been tampered with or destroyed it is legal for courts to assume that the evidence was prejudicial. While there may be no smoking gun, the deletion is circumstantial evidence against you. Get enough circumstantial evidence and you still end up in jail.
Then he could have been able to argue "You can't have it - returning it to you would be self-incrimination."
The Bill or Rights prevents the *government* from doing so. Your employer can demand you return their property whether or not it would incriminate you.
"Governments won't allow it."
It's sad that humanity is still at this point. We are ruled not by ourselves, not by self-enacted systems of individual responsibility and sovereignty, but by ephemeral "governments" (obviously made up of individuals, wielding their power over everyone else from behind the one-way mirror).
Now I have some libertarian tendencies, but what a load of crap you are serving up. Government is the US is completely under control of the voter. The simple truth is that all the crap politicians get away with is what we allow them. We are indifferent. When they cross "the line" and piss us off they get their butts thrown out on election day. Don't confuse you individual inability to enact change with the voters ability to enact change. There are thieves and liars in DC because voters knowingly send thieves and liars there.
If we used a decentralized, anonymous digital cash system, these kinds of problems would be much less common ... I suppose it's wishful thinking ... governments prefer being able to track all transactions.
Exactly. You are more likely to see secure computers and honest people than anonymous digital transactions. Governments won't allow it. And no you do not have a US Constitutional right, quite the contrary, the US government has the Constitutional power to create currency, collect taxes, define felonies (say money laundering) and pass enacting legislation, etc.
So even those who give a f*ck, who bend over backwards for their customers, who do all that is humanly possible, don't get security right. ;-)
Since in many cases it isn't obvious that someone is commiting a crim, followign your reasoning, they can investigate everything and everyone at any gfiven time.
Not at all. They cannot invade your privacy without a warrant. The critical point here is that your financial transactions with a corporate entity are not "private" in the Bill of Rights sense. Hell, they are not even private in a commercial sense since getting a line of credit in the first place requires your granting permission to the corporation to share your transactions and behaviors with other individuals and corporations.
Or to get back to the main point, the privacy of a corporate transaction is not an essential liberty so Franklin does not apply here.
"Financial transactions covering balance, interest, or both are indestinguishable from each other."
Hmm, yes.. they can be if you want them to be. Regardless, those covering balance are not income for anyone, and are not taxable, neither do they involve trade, so they are outside the scope of the law you refered to.
You can't dismiss the "indestinguishable" problem, the IRS as a third party does not know. More importantly whether or not there is taxable income is something the IRS can determine on it's own, the constitution does not require the IRS to take the recipients word. The constitution specifically grants the government the power to pass laws to enact it's other powers. So with the power to tax comes the power to investigate anything that could *potentially* be taxable.
I am looking at the purpose of the transfer as well as the purpose of the law. Interest payed is income for the creditcard company and as such is indeed fair game. Payment of debt however is not income for them.
Financial transactions covering balance, interest, or both are indestinguishable from each other. Also to be technical a balance payment could affect income if the institution had written it off or otherwise considered the customer's account "impaired" - this may or may not involve cooking the books to inflate earnings or shift earning from one period to another. I guess we need to introduce a different three letter agency that has the power to snoop, the SEC.
Also, since you've snipped and failed to comment on it twice, I assume you accept that the transaction is fair game given the enumerated powers to define felonies, say laundering money.
In order to collect taxes, the government has to know about your income. They have no need to know about you moving money from your account into your debt account or anything of that sort, that is effec tively transfering money they already know about.
Implementing laws for the purpose of collecting taxes etc is nice, but is no excuse to monitor EVERY financial transaction, it is only an excuse to monitor those transactions that are actually relevant for this.
Your flaw is that you are looking at things only from one perspective. Money moving from your account to someone else's account is *their* income and therefore still fair game.
"Where? A business transaction with a corporation is not "on your person", in your "house", part of your "effects" - property, or limited to your "papers" - you've allowed the corporation to have your transaction on their papers."
Letter vs spirit of the law, which one do you believe actually captures the intention of said law better?
Also, I hope that you are not arguing that paying off a debt is reasonable cause.
I am arguing that the government has the power to monitor commercial and other financial transactions, based in it's constitutionally enumerated power to collect taxes, duties, etc. Furthermore it has the constitutionally enumerated powers to define felonies and to pass laws to enact all these powers. You cannot at a whim deny these powers any more than the government can deny your true right to privacy, such as entering your home and going through your papers without a warrant. The corporation's papers and records do not enjoy the same privacy, furthermore you probably signed away many privacies when you agreed to accept the line of credit with the corporation. They share that information with 3rd parties, such as the credit rating services. Anyone who can look at your credit report can see whether or not your debt is paid off.
Government poking into your private afairs conflicts with liberty, and is actually quite explicitly mentioned in things like the US constitution.
Where? A business transaction with a corporation is not "on your person", in your "house", part of your "effects" - property, or limited to your "papers" - you've allowed the corporation to have your transaction on their papers.
In other words the following does *not* seem to apply, also note the word "unreasonable":
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
However the following does seem to apply. Congress has the right to enact legislation to monitor financial transactions:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."
""To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."
How do we tell which liberties are essential and which aren't?
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" perhaps? Having a delay in my payment being posted to my account just doesn't seem to qualify.
Shall that be determined by which ones the current administration wants to take away from us?
Uh, did you read the personal examples of how finances and travel have been under a microscope for decades? That this is not something new this administration have started?
Exactly which of the Powers of Congress enumerated in the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that credit card companies divulge "suspicious" transactions to the government?
Seems like they have the right to look at all transactions:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Seems like they have the right to define certain financial transactions as felonies:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Yes, if "knowing about it" means that the government has the financial transactions of hundreds of millions of citizens under a microscope at all times, in order to (not) catch a few terrorists here and there, I definitely don't want it. It's a huge expense to taxpayers, and a huge intrusion into citizen's privacy, for no real benefit.
You do realize that this has been going on for many decades? All that has changed are the three letter acronyms, DHS rather than IRS, and possibly the dollar amount that raises the flag.
You also realize that travel habits have been profiled for decades? Again, all that has changed at the patterns that trigger the flags, not the fact that is has been going on at all.
"They that can give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither."
Note the word "essential", I think it is useful to keep in mind the difference between the trampling of essential liberties and annoyances or inconveniences. In the 1970s my grandfather got a letter from the IRS after paying $7,000 cash for a car. He had to send a letter back. That was an annoyance. In the 1990s a coworker doing tech support at customer sites made many flights around the country with stays sometimes measured in hours. Once while returning home some folks from the DEA asked him about his travel patterns, he explained his job. He asked why they stopped him, they said a computer spit out his name since his travel patterns match those of drug couriers. A 15 minute interview, an inconvenience and an annoyance. The folks in the article had a delay on their account being credited. Again, only an annoyance or inconvenience.
This has been going on for many decades. The systems was started in order to catch organized crime and drug dealers. In the 1970's my grandfather paid cash for a car, approx. $7,000. He received a letter from the IRS asking where the cash came from. I believe his letter back to the IRS said something like "From my savings account you nosy SOB."
... People are already buying iPod HiFi systems - Bose, Altec Lansing, etc. Apple wants in on that. They know they can charge a premium for their system, and they're gonna do it ...
... excuse me, the standard marketing practice of walking consumers down the price curve. In other words get them to pay the max amount they are willing too. When those willing to pay $350 are taken care of we'll see a $300 model, then a $250, ...
I was just at an Apple Store with a buddy who did buy one of those. $100, with an integrated radio. $350 for the Apple model is not a premium, it's more like gouging the early adopters, err
The US Navy replaced Sun with Yellow Dog Linux, originally on Apple hardware and now on some other PowerPC based hardware, for sonar processing on subs.