A possible motive behind this kind of minimum sentence cap is the fact that agreements allowing persons sentenced to prison by foreign courts to serve their sentence in their country of origin also allow said country of origin to reduce the sentence to the maximum its justice system allows for the crime in cases where the original sentence passed by the foreign court was longer. An example of what could happen without this: a hacker from e.g. Bulgaria is caught, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment in e.g. Germany, returned to Bulgaria to serve his sentence under the terms of a repatriation treaty, only for the Bulgarian justice system to say "oh, the maximum sentence for hacking here is 2 weeks" and release him immediately because he's already served that waiting to be repatriated.
I used to donate to the WWF, until I watched one of their TV shows where they were fighting over the money in some kind of big metal cage instead of using it to save pandas.
If the URLs being scanned are HTTPS including login credentials, how is this not unauthorized access by Microsoft to the servers in question? The TOS for servers accessed via HTTPS with login credentials tend to be strict about unauthorized access, and I very much doubt that they have a clause to the effect of "by unintentionally allowing someone to steal your login credentials, you authorize them to access to your account and you do so with our permission".
I don't see how this can be considered cheating. Receiving more money than you put in is within normal operation for a gambling machine, the software running on the machine is an expression of the rules of the game, and he played strictly according to the letter of the rules as expressed in that software. It's not his fault that the rules weren't exactly what the casino thought they were.
Given that intellectual property has become such an untouchable sacred cow, it is somewhat surprising that you don't hear about it being used to launder the proceeds of crime.
In order to do anything to combat this, a court of law would have to create a precedent that IP rights can be forfeit as a penalty for a criminal offence - perhaps even without proof considering the state of forfeiture laws in the US. This is not likely to happen while the US government is owned by corporations with a vested interest in preserving the sanctity of their IP rights.
Slashdot Mirror
A possible motive behind this kind of minimum sentence cap is the fact that agreements allowing persons sentenced to prison by foreign courts to serve their sentence in their country of origin also allow said country of origin to reduce the sentence to the maximum its justice system allows for the crime in cases where the original sentence passed by the foreign court was longer. An example of what could happen without this: a hacker from e.g. Bulgaria is caught, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment in e.g. Germany, returned to Bulgaria to serve his sentence under the terms of a repatriation treaty, only for the Bulgarian justice system to say "oh, the maximum sentence for hacking here is 2 weeks" and release him immediately because he's already served that waiting to be repatriated.
I used to donate to the WWF, until I watched one of their TV shows where they were fighting over the money in some kind of big metal cage instead of using it to save pandas.
If this doesn't hurt sales of the affected^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinfected media, you may want to reconsider that apostrophe.
If the URLs being scanned are HTTPS including login credentials, how is this not unauthorized access by Microsoft to the servers in question? The TOS for servers accessed via HTTPS with login credentials tend to be strict about unauthorized access, and I very much doubt that they have a clause to the effect of "by unintentionally allowing someone to steal your login credentials, you authorize them to access to your account and you do so with our permission".
And what law entitles the makers of the app to ownership of bitcoins yielded by mining in excess of what the user agreed to?
But they graciously handed over the winnings and redesigned the machine.
For small values of graciously. CBS initially refused to pay and accused Michael Larson of cheating.
I don't see how this can be considered cheating. Receiving more money than you put in is within normal operation for a gambling machine, the software running on the machine is an expression of the rules of the game, and he played strictly according to the letter of the rules as expressed in that software. It's not his fault that the rules weren't exactly what the casino thought they were.
I think that was "A Maze of Death".
That's pedantry of a kind up with which I refuse to put.
Feel free to choose which country's side you're on in the next war, because there is no wrong in betraying a country that practices extradition.
Given that intellectual property has become such an untouchable sacred cow, it is somewhat surprising that you don't hear about it being used to launder the proceeds of crime.
In order to do anything to combat this, a court of law would have to create a precedent that IP rights can be forfeit as a penalty for a criminal offence - perhaps even without proof considering the state of forfeiture laws in the US. This is not likely to happen while the US government is owned by corporations with a vested interest in preserving the sanctity of their IP rights.