But once you give someone your PIN on the phone, then your PIN is "in the wild" and subject to the security and honor of the seller. A more robust way to handle all of this is for card holders to have a way of assigning a unique one-time PIN (OTPIN) for each transaction, whether a check, credit card, or debit card. (For checks, you just write the OTPIN on the check.) The seller would not be able to debit the account without a valid OTPIN given to them by the buyer. Buyers would be able to go to a web site (among other methods) and create OTPINs on demand, which they could give sellers when needed. If someone tried to debit the account again with an OTPIN that's been used before, it would not be honored, and would send or post a notification to the buyer. Mistakes could be ironed out easily, and fraud would be detected easily.
On the contrary. "Computer Software Engineer" is described on the U.S. Dept of Labor website and makes a distinction between software engineering and programming, which is a subset:
"Software engineers first analyze users' needs. Then they design, construct, test, and maintain the needed software or systems. In programming, or coding, they tell a computer, line by line, how to function. They also solve any problems that arise. They must possess strong coding skills, but are more likely to develop algorithms and solve problems than write code."
Hmm, let's see about that. According to dictionary.com
"theft" = "The act or an instance of stealing; larceny."
"stealing" = "To take (the property of another) without right or permission."
According to Dowling vs U.S. (the same ruling that the "infrigement does not equal theft" crowd likes to cite) explicitly refers to copyrighted works as "property": "While one may colloquially like infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion or fraud."
In Dowling VS U.S., it was NOT specified that copyright infringment is not theft. Dowling was being prosecuted for theft in conjunction with interstate transport statutes, in particular, with moving albums containing bootleg Elvis music across state line. The point of Justice Blackmun's statements was not that copyright infringement was not theft in any sense, but rather it was not theft with regards to interstate transport.
"Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner..." [...] The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially like infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than
does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion or fraud."
While music piracy may not "easily equate with theft" and "plainly implicates a complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft", in no where does Blackmun categorically state that it is NOT theft.
Technically "theft" or not, there are federal statutes that specify what felony copyright infringment is, based on certain dollar amounts of product involved, and apparently these guys conspired to commit this felony.
For the DOJ website: "The reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more constitutes a felony, with a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. The reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $1,000 constitutes a misdemeanor, with a one-year maximum sentence and a fine of up to $100,000."
To clarify, HAMs can transmit one way traffic in the following conditions: A) emergency information, B) information of interest to Hams in general like ARRL reports or morse code practice, C) short transmitter tests, D) calling other HAMs, specifically or generally (CQ).
These low power FM transmitters have nothing at all to do with ham radio. And if you use one and happen to be a ham, you are governed by Part 15 same as anyone else. Your ham license is irrelevant.
No!!! What Bull Sh*t is ALL is. NORTON and RALPH!!
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 1
No, I say, fuque, fuque, fuque, all of this. It isn't necessary. It is people trying to gain a reputation. It isn't necessary. TCP works fine. It'a all total bullshit and we all know it.
So Basically, Fuque Them!
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't work. Somebody is full of sh*t here. And we all know who it is.
Packets WILL need to be resent if they get lost. What bullshit. Packets generally don't get lost in this day and age, but it is POSSIBLE. So I say, Bull Shit.
Walmart is not a monopoly. There are other choices. And you don't have to buy music from RIAA members either. There are other choices. And it is a good thing that Walmart is pushing the RIAA crowd around.
What is required is a system where it costs money to email. Not much, but something. I think most people could afford 5 cents an email. But this would cripple the spammers. The method of payment could be worked out easily enough. And certified ISPs could distribute a limited number of free email credits to their customers. Enforcing the source of a given email is simply a matter of digital signatures (verified by a third party) the same way secure web sites work now. True, email client software would have to change. (At least there would have to be some proxy between current clients and their hosts, etc.) But this is all very doable. But I predict it will not get done, until Congress sets up an email authority. It's going to take a centralized management that most people can agree on. And it won't be Microsoft.
It is neither capitalism nor corporations that are the problem. Rather it is *monopoly* capitalism that is the problem. The freer the markets to all comers, the better overall for society. Too much concentration of wealth or power is always a Bad Thing. How much is too much? I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
Every device in your home will never have its own IP address. That's just silliness and FUD. NAT obviates the need for "real" IP addresses, and simple measures will prevent any unauthorized access.
WINE is only a marginal success. Isn't it about time all the capable mo-fo arcane hacking super guru programmers out there get their asses in gear and volunteer some of their time to the WINE project for gawd's sakes? We REALLY CAN create a Windows-free Windows-compatible OS and GUI system if we really want to. And don't we really want to?!!! You know you want to!
WINE is only a marginal success. Isn't it about time all the capable mo-fo arcane hacking super guru programmers out there get their asses in gear and volunteer some of their time to the WINE project for gawd's sakes? We REALLY CAN create a Windows-free Windows-compatible OS and GUI system if we really want to. And don't we really want to?!!! You know you want to.
Somebody needs to write an OS where the windowing operations are all done in the memory allocator. Wouldn't that be the more efficient way to go about it?
I wouldn't get too excited. The FCC has authority derived from the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Technically they have no authority to govern intrastate radio emissions. This has had little challenge in the federal courts up to now, because nobody gave a crap. There was no significant money to be made or lost one way or the other. However, this situation is different. There is significant money at stake. Look for challenges to FCC jurisdiction to spring up. Who knows, maybe a case will make it to the Supreme Court and put the FCC in their place with regards to this issue and similar issues.
It's more than simply infringement. It is unlawful infringement. Moreover, this unlawful infringement usually involves denying legally due royalties to the copyrighter holder, songwriter, producer, and artists, and their families. No, it's much more than simply "infringement."
That depends on which side of the argument you are on, and what your motivations are. Whether one consider intellectual property infringement to be "stealing" or not depends largely on the emotional motives and allegiances of the individual. Most songwriters have understandable cause to consider unlawful use of their material to be "stealing", when they are denied legally due royalies. Most unlawful downloaders have understandable cause to consider that they are "not really stealing anything", since the music is "already there" and "bits don't cost anything", and use this to justify their desire to unlawful download. Illegal downloader have decided that their interest trumps the legal interest of the songwriter/copyright holder. They are not misnomers, neither are they "right" or "wrong." (Unless, perhaps there is some Higher Power, that we are accountable to.) Rather, words like "stealing" and "theft" are subjective terms, denoting the mindset of the one using it. They are not a misnomer simply because you *say* they are.
Moreover, the merits of copyright infringement (nor anything thing else) cannot be made without regard to the emotions of the interested parties. Humans are motivated by emotion. Both sides of this issue have some emotion back there, motivating them.
Slashdot Mirror
But once you give someone your PIN on the phone, then your PIN is "in the wild" and subject to the security and honor of the seller. A more robust way to handle all of this is for card holders to have a way of assigning a unique one-time PIN (OTPIN) for each transaction, whether a check, credit card, or debit card. (For checks, you just write the OTPIN on the check.) The seller would not be able to debit the account without a valid OTPIN given to them by the buyer. Buyers would be able to go to a web site (among other methods) and create OTPINs on demand, which they could give sellers when needed. If someone tried to debit the account again with an OTPIN that's been used before, it would not be honored, and would send or post a notification to the buyer. Mistakes could be ironed out easily, and fraud would be detected easily.
On the contrary. "Computer Software Engineer" is described on the U.S. Dept of Labor website and makes a distinction between software engineering and programming, which is a subset:
"Software engineers first analyze users' needs. Then they design, construct, test, and maintain the needed software or systems. In programming, or coding, they tell a computer, line by line, how to function. They also solve any problems that arise. They must possess strong coding skills, but are more likely to develop algorithms and solve problems than write code."
See http://www.bls.gov/k12/computers04.htm
So there.
Hmm, let's see about that. According to dictionary.com
"theft" = "The act or an instance of stealing; larceny."
"stealing" = "To take (the property of another) without right or permission."
According to Dowling vs U.S. (the same ruling that the "infrigement does not equal theft" crowd likes to cite) explicitly refers to copyrighted works as "property": "While one may colloquially like infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion or fraud."
In Dowling VS U.S., it was NOT specified that copyright infringment is not theft. Dowling was being prosecuted for theft in conjunction with interstate transport statutes, in particular, with moving albums containing bootleg Elvis music across state line. The point of Justice Blackmun's statements was not that copyright infringement was not theft in any sense, but rather it was not theft with regards to interstate transport.
"Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner..." [...] The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially like infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion or fraud."
While music piracy may not "easily equate with theft" and "plainly implicates a complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft", in no where does Blackmun categorically state that it is NOT theft.
Technically "theft" or not, there are federal statutes that specify what felony copyright infringment is, based on certain dollar amounts of product involved, and apparently these guys conspired to commit this felony.
t m
For the DOJ website: "The reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more constitutes a felony, with a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. The reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $1,000 constitutes a misdemeanor, with a one-year maximum sentence and a fine of up to $100,000."
See http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/netsum.h
To clarify, HAMs can transmit one way traffic in the following conditions: A) emergency information, B) information of interest to Hams in general like ARRL reports or morse code practice, C) short transmitter tests, D) calling other HAMs, specifically or generally (CQ). These low power FM transmitters have nothing at all to do with ham radio. And if you use one and happen to be a ham, you are governed by Part 15 same as anyone else. Your ham license is irrelevant.
No, I say, fuque, fuque, fuque, all of this. It isn't necessary. It is people trying to gain a reputation. It isn't necessary. TCP works fine. It'a all total bullshit and we all know it.
It doesn't work. Somebody is full of sh*t here. And we all know who it is.
Packets WILL need to be resent if they get lost. What bullshit. Packets generally don't get lost in this day and age, but it is POSSIBLE. So I say, Bull Shit.
He was pushed!!! By some guy that looked suspiciously like Bill Gates.
Walmart is not a monopoly. There are other choices. And you don't have to buy music from RIAA members either. There are other choices. And it is a good thing that Walmart is pushing the RIAA crowd around.
As Benjamin Franklin said, "Beer is proof that there is a God and that He loves us."
I couldn't agree more.
Massachusetts --- And that's suppose to be a credit to him?
What is required is a system where it costs money to email. Not much, but something. I think most people could afford 5 cents an email. But this would cripple the spammers. The method of payment could be worked out easily enough. And certified ISPs could distribute a limited number of free email credits to their customers. Enforcing the source of a given email is simply a matter of digital signatures (verified by a third party) the same way secure web sites work now. True, email client software would have to change. (At least there would have to be some proxy between current clients and their hosts, etc.) But this is all very doable. But I predict it will not get done, until Congress sets up an email authority. It's going to take a centralized management that most people can agree on. And it won't be Microsoft.
It is neither capitalism nor corporations that are the problem. Rather it is *monopoly* capitalism that is the problem. The freer the markets to all comers, the better overall for society. Too much concentration of wealth or power is always a Bad Thing. How much is too much? I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
If these guys don't want to get sued, they should just stop unlawfully copying music. It's simple really.
Every device in your home will never have its own IP address. That's just silliness and FUD. NAT obviates the need for "real" IP addresses, and simple measures will prevent any unauthorized access.
WINE is only a marginal success. Isn't it about time all the capable mo-fo arcane hacking super guru programmers out there get their asses in gear and volunteer some of their time to the WINE project for gawd's sakes? We REALLY CAN create a Windows-free Windows-compatible OS and GUI system if we really want to. And don't we really want to?!!! You know you want to!
WINE is only a marginal success. Isn't it about time all the capable mo-fo arcane hacking super guru programmers out there get their asses in gear and volunteer some of their time to the WINE project for gawd's sakes? We REALLY CAN create a Windows-free Windows-compatible OS and GUI system if we really want to. And don't we really want to?!!! You know you want to.
Really. I'm serious. Hopefully in time for the July 4th festivities.
I wish Linux tasted like free beer. Now that would be something. Why doesn't somebody come up with an open source GPL'd free beer system?
Somebody needs to write an OS where the windowing operations are all done in the memory allocator. Wouldn't that be the more efficient way to go about it?
I wouldn't get too excited. The FCC has authority derived from the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Technically they have no authority to govern intrastate radio emissions. This has had little challenge in the federal courts up to now, because nobody gave a crap. There was no significant money to be made or lost one way or the other. However, this situation is different. There is significant money at stake. Look for challenges to FCC jurisdiction to spring up. Who knows, maybe a case will make it to the Supreme Court and put the FCC in their place with regards to this issue and similar issues.
It's more than simply infringement. It is unlawful infringement. Moreover, this unlawful infringement usually involves denying legally due royalties to the copyrighter holder, songwriter, producer, and artists, and their families. No, it's much more than simply "infringement."
That depends on which side of the argument you are on, and what your motivations are. Whether one consider intellectual property infringement to be "stealing" or not depends largely on the emotional motives and allegiances of the individual. Most songwriters have understandable cause to consider unlawful use of their material to be "stealing", when they are denied legally due royalies. Most unlawful downloaders have understandable cause to consider that they are "not really stealing anything", since the music is "already there" and "bits don't cost anything", and use this to justify their desire to unlawful download. Illegal downloader have decided that their interest trumps the legal interest of the songwriter/copyright holder. They are not misnomers, neither are they "right" or "wrong." (Unless, perhaps there is some Higher Power, that we are accountable to.) Rather, words like "stealing" and "theft" are subjective terms, denoting the mindset of the one using it. They are not a misnomer simply because you *say* they are.
Moreover, the merits of copyright infringement (nor anything thing else) cannot be made without regard to the emotions of the interested parties. Humans are motivated by emotion. Both sides of this issue have some emotion back there, motivating them.