If IISi prevails in court this would either force the CIA to ground Predator drones or to break the law in their use of the pirated software.
Why are those the only two options? Seems to me the most logical option is for the CIA to license IISi's software and drop the real toolkit in place of the badly pirated one. Yes, I know Netezza is seeking an injunction but I bet if the CIA came along with several million dollars it would be accepted. The drones keep flying, Netezza makes the profit they wanted to, etc. Or is that too sensible a course of action?
I know for a fact Verizon, as soon as you log in on their website, that is the first thing you see. A nice green bar if you are under, yellow if you are close, red if you are over, they also provide a link to upgrade your account if you think you need too. Very easy to use.
Unless you are on vacation and actively trying to stay away from computers because you use them 10 hours a day at work. And vacations/travel are when these "bill shock" incidents most often occur.
So You the customer signed a contract with the cell phone company. You agree to a certain amount of minutes at a certain rate plus additional fees should you go over those minutes. You use your phone. You go over the minutes. But when the cell phone company sends you a bill it's stealing?
If enough citizens can demand redress for this grievance through their government, it is their right to. Can the phone company complain about this? Well, sure, but as you pointed out, they voluntarily decided to do business in the country.
Even though someone on this discussion called it "stealing" the more accurate term would be "usury". That is, charging an excessive amount for a service; an amount that is in no way related to the quantity of service provided. Lending at 100% interest is a common example of usury, as it's considered by all educated and civilized citizens to be far and above the inconvenience and risk undertaken by the lender. That directly applies here; when cell phone users receive $45,000 bills, nobody anywhere can possibly claim that $45,000 worth of service was provided by the telecom. As such it is indefensible and thus usury. Such billing is anti-social and therefore will end up being legislated against.
Yes, I know the above paragraph will be akin to fingernails on a chalkboard to both libertarians and die-hard capitalists. But that's too bad, as both of those political leanings are also anti-social. When you desire to do away with all consumer protection and allow the almighty profit motive to rule, you are also advocating doing away with civilized society.
I know - it's fucking horrible. Like AT&T for example, their interface to do this is a disaster. I have to go to "www.att.com/myWireless", off a button on the front page of AT&T's site, no less, then, get this, they ask for my cell number and a password. Once I enter that in, it's this onerous, convoluted situation where I am forced to let my eyes wander roughly four inches from the top of the page to this tiny graphic that occupies, hmmm, no more than a third of the page width
Again, if you read about this subject you'll see examples of people who HAD NO INTERNET ACCESS because they were volunteering to rebuild Haiti. So they couldn't check your precious website. And they were told their cell service would be comped because they were volunteering. But Verizon didn't comp texts and data so the cell user received a $45,000 bill.
So go ahead, get snarky again about that example of "bill shock".
Except that NASA is paid for by taxpayers, and answers to the taxpayers via their elected representatives.
They sure haven't been answering to this taxpayer who has been saying for years that it's moronic to end the shuttle program before its replacement is even off the drawing board. I say all power to Bolden for doing what he has to to keep his agency going when the Bush and Obama administrations shoved him in a corner.
A "commercial interest" is not just whatever someone thinks it is....While
Stayart’s goals may be passionate and well-intentioned,
they are not commercial.
So if she started selling t-shirts, she'd have commercial interest? Maybe she should have had some whipped up before the trial....
So what if she did have a "commercial interest" to protect?
I don't understand how she could NOT have a commercial interest to protect. Each of us is an employable worker, which is a business contract for both employer and employee. If her ability to become employed is damaged by Yahoo search results on her name (and we should all assume prospective employers are Googling/Yahooing the names of applicants), then that budding business contract could be materially damaged.
Wired had a big write up how Steve doesn't put plates on his car and feels free to park in the Handicap spots at will at his companies. So why would this surprise anyone.
I've flown on private jets many times. Perhaps at larger airports, but when I went I was never searched, or had any of my luggage inspected. I walked up to the terminal, waved to the pilot, and walked onto the plane.
Does this have something to do with Japan or their export restrictions?
No, it has something to do with the story being completely false.
I can't believe how little changed. What has seems for the worse.
What a colossal disappointment this administration is.
I love how you undid your argument by immediately going too far. Disagree with Obama all you like, but blaming him for this action that he obviously did not even know about but was done by the Secret Service just makes you sound silly and lame.
There had better be more to this story, because simply calling the president a prick is just - well, boring.
There is more to the story. Perhaps if you had taken 30 seconds to read the original story, you'd know that he actually threatened the president. Oh, wait, sorry, I forgot this is/. where reading the real story instead of the incorrect summary is verboten.
I'm trying to figure out how "prick" is obscenity, so much so to get you banned from the United States?
Per the original article, it was much much more than just that one word. If you threaten the president, prepare to be banned. And that's a way different concept.
Okay, so yeah. That seems like a LOT of money to be traveling through the accounts of an alpha indie game. Maybe Paypal had real reasons to suspect something fishy was going on.
It's none of their darned business to unilaterally claim something fishy is going on unless there is a complainant. It doesn't sound as if there is one in this case so they should keep their paws off until there is a cause to freeze the account.
Let's see, you open accounts with them using personal information including social security #, address, checking account, and credit card #. Legal U.S. funds are deposited and withdrawn from your account. Hmmm....sounds like a bank to me.
We've all heard stories over the years of Paypal suspending accounts for no explained reason but this time the amount is significant. They may finally be going too far and if they keep this amount they may well be committing several laws. It will not be hard for the account holder to get a lawyer on contingency for that amount and to go after Paypal HARD. They need to tread carefully.
I have no religious problem with embryonic stem cell research, just don't use my money (taxes) to do it.
I have no problem with us going to war in Afghanistan, just don't use my money (taxes) to do it.
....except they do anyway and I just have to learn to live with that. We all see some of our tax money going towards things we don't agree with. Why do you get to cherry pick this one issue that uses up perhaps 1/10th of one of your pennies to stop? And why do you choose an issue to stop that is dedicated to SAVING LIVES?!?
That's just evil. Seriously. Something so cheap and so potentially beneficial takes a special type of evil personality to oppose.
If only those darn astronomers didn't care so much about keeping the sun at Greenwich precisely at the meridian at high noon, we wouldn't have this problem.
"If only those darn HUMANS didn't care so much about keeping the sun overhead at noon" you mean.
There's a solution to all this, it's called TAI. There is no reason not to use it but ignorance and incompetence. Every other "solution" that has been advanced here was completely, utterly stupid.
No, there is a good reason to not use TAI. That reason is that humans are not computers and our brains do not tell time like an atomic clock. TAI will eventually tell us that 12:00 is at sunset and that's not something humans will (or should) accept. We are smart enough to devise clocks (and computers) that can adjust to keep 12:00 to be when the sun is overhead. Creating and using a system like TAI that gives absolute time control over our diurnal cycles and denies our biological reliance on the sun for proper sleep cycles is what would be completely and utterly stupid.
It's not that every vehicle has been stuck in there for nine days: it's that the traffic has been crawling for nine days. Usually a traffic jam clears out at a later hour, but volume is too high even at night.
Sorry, that does not appear to be true.
(Scroll down to the guys sitting in a circle in the middle of the road playing cards. That is not "crawling" that is "shut off your engine and sit for days".)
I get evaluated at my job, should i be outraged? Maybe this will motivate them to actually try harder to be better teachers instead of just griping about a paycheck. There are worse jobs out there with even worse pay, i say start firing teachers that rank the worst.
If you get evaluated at your job using shitty metrics, yes you should be outraged. Test scores have serious potential to lie about a teacher's acumen. A teacher who gives out all A's is probably a creampuff who doesn't teach the students much at all, yet according to the metric used by the LATimes that would be the highest-ranked teacher. My mother was known for making her students actually learn and giving tests that students would fail if they didn't study. Her average test scores were probably C's because she wouldn't just pass crappy students. According to the LATimes she'd be a low-ranked teacher. And that's complete bullshit.
As I said, if she thinks she can make MORE money because she is so talented, why doesn't she move to a private school?
Why doesn't she open her own school?
We do not pay people who are talented.
We pay people who make money in some way.
Not always true. Your 100% blind devotion to "making money is the only reason to do anything" is myopic. Educating children is not a for-profit exercise; it is a "maintain a quality society" exercise.
As for your attempt to divorce talent from making money, that's disingenuous. Talented people almost always lead to profit, and thus you DO pay them because they are talented. Likewise, you should employ teachers who are talented.
I, for example, am very good at what I do. Why am I employed in enterprise instead of education? Because I'd have to take at least a 50% cut in pay to switch to teaching. So the people teaching our kids the skills that I could be teaching them are likely less qualified in my field than I am or they'd be doing my job for my salary. That's stupid and detrimental to our society. If you want better-educated kids, pay educators a commensurate salary with what their skillset would bring in the corporate world. It's pretty much that simple and it's sad you won't acknowledge that.
I have a hunch this has happened millions of times since the "first time".
That was my reaction as well. "Why only twice?" If the conditions existed for amino acids to develop and combine, the odds of cellular and multi-cellular life occurring only once would have to be very small indeed. It's a huge planet at the microbial level. Heck, life probably came to be over and over and over again, regardless of whether another pond a kilometer away was having the same thing occur in it.
Slashdot Mirror
If IISi prevails in court this would either force the CIA to ground Predator drones or to break the law in their use of the pirated software.
Why are those the only two options? Seems to me the most logical option is for the CIA to license IISi's software and drop the real toolkit in place of the badly pirated one. Yes, I know Netezza is seeking an injunction but I bet if the CIA came along with several million dollars it would be accepted. The drones keep flying, Netezza makes the profit they wanted to, etc. Or is that too sensible a course of action?
I know for a fact Verizon, as soon as you log in on their website, that is the first thing you see. A nice green bar if you are under, yellow if you are close, red if you are over, they also provide a link to upgrade your account if you think you need too. Very easy to use.
Unless you are on vacation and actively trying to stay away from computers because you use them 10 hours a day at work. And vacations/travel are when these "bill shock" incidents most often occur.
So You the customer signed a contract with the cell phone company. You agree to a certain amount of minutes at a certain rate plus additional fees should you go over those minutes. You use your phone. You go over the minutes. But when the cell phone company sends you a bill it's stealing?
If enough citizens can demand redress for this grievance through their government, it is their right to. Can the phone company complain about this? Well, sure, but as you pointed out, they voluntarily decided to do business in the country.
Even though someone on this discussion called it "stealing" the more accurate term would be "usury". That is, charging an excessive amount for a service; an amount that is in no way related to the quantity of service provided. Lending at 100% interest is a common example of usury, as it's considered by all educated and civilized citizens to be far and above the inconvenience and risk undertaken by the lender. That directly applies here; when cell phone users receive $45,000 bills, nobody anywhere can possibly claim that $45,000 worth of service was provided by the telecom. As such it is indefensible and thus usury. Such billing is anti-social and therefore will end up being legislated against.
Yes, I know the above paragraph will be akin to fingernails on a chalkboard to both libertarians and die-hard capitalists. But that's too bad, as both of those political leanings are also anti-social. When you desire to do away with all consumer protection and allow the almighty profit motive to rule, you are also advocating doing away with civilized society.
I know - it's fucking horrible. Like AT&T for example, their interface to do this is a disaster. I have to go to "www.att.com/myWireless", off a button on the front page of AT&T's site, no less, then, get this, they ask for my cell number and a password. Once I enter that in, it's this onerous, convoluted situation where I am forced to let my eyes wander roughly four inches from the top of the page to this tiny graphic that occupies, hmmm, no more than a third of the page width
Again, if you read about this subject you'll see examples of people who HAD NO INTERNET ACCESS because they were volunteering to rebuild Haiti. So they couldn't check your precious website. And they were told their cell service would be comped because they were volunteering. But Verizon didn't comp texts and data so the cell user received a $45,000 bill.
So go ahead, get snarky again about that example of "bill shock".
Except that NASA is paid for by taxpayers, and answers to the taxpayers via their elected representatives.
They sure haven't been answering to this taxpayer who has been saying for years that it's moronic to end the shuttle program before its replacement is even off the drawing board. I say all power to Bolden for doing what he has to to keep his agency going when the Bush and Obama administrations shoved him in a corner.
A "commercial interest" is not just whatever someone thinks it is....While Stayart’s goals may be passionate and well-intentioned, they are not commercial.
So if she started selling t-shirts, she'd have commercial interest? Maybe she should have had some whipped up before the trial....
So what if she did have a "commercial interest" to protect?
I don't understand how she could NOT have a commercial interest to protect. Each of us is an employable worker, which is a business contract for both employer and employee. If her ability to become employed is damaged by Yahoo search results on her name (and we should all assume prospective employers are Googling/Yahooing the names of applicants), then that budding business contract could be materially damaged.
Or maybe TSA didn't get the memo? At what point did he think bringing a pointed/sharp object on a plane was a good idea anyway?
Apparently at no point--the story is false. Please read the other comments before commenting.
I wouldn't want some un-medicated postal worker to carry them on my flight.
But it wouldn't have been your flight; it was HIS PRIVATE FLIGHT. Please also read the article before posting.
So, he gets a taste of his own medicine, whats wrong with that?
That it didn't happen, that's what.
Wired had a big write up how Steve doesn't put plates on his car and feels free to park in the Handicap spots at will at his companies. So why would this surprise anyone.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/the-mystery-of-steve-jobs-plateless-benz/
It would surprise people because it is completely false.
I've flown on private jets many times. Perhaps at larger airports, but when I went I was never searched, or had any of my luggage inspected. I walked up to the terminal, waved to the pilot, and walked onto the plane.
Does this have something to do with Japan or their export restrictions?
No, it has something to do with the story being completely false.
I can't believe how little changed. What has seems for the worse.
What a colossal disappointment this administration is.
I love how you undid your argument by immediately going too far. Disagree with Obama all you like, but blaming him for this action that he obviously did not even know about but was done by the Secret Service just makes you sound silly and lame.
So when does calling the president an unsavory name get you exiled (sic)?
When the person does more than that. Read the article.
There had better be more to this story, because simply calling the president a prick is just - well, boring.
There is more to the story. Perhaps if you had taken 30 seconds to read the original story, you'd know that he actually threatened the president. Oh, wait, sorry, I forgot this is /. where reading the real story instead of the incorrect summary is verboten.
I'm trying to figure out how "prick" is obscenity, so much so to get you banned from the United States?
Per the original article, it was much much more than just that one word. If you threaten the president, prepare to be banned. And that's a way different concept.
Fox News is often full of abusive language towards the President. Can we ban them? :)
Mod parent up please.
Okay, so yeah. That seems like a LOT of money to be traveling through the accounts of an alpha indie game. Maybe Paypal had real reasons to suspect something fishy was going on.
It's none of their darned business to unilaterally claim something fishy is going on unless there is a complainant. It doesn't sound as if there is one in this case so they should keep their paws off until there is a cause to freeze the account.
PayPal is not a bank.
Let's see, you open accounts with them using personal information including social security #, address, checking account, and credit card #. Legal U.S. funds are deposited and withdrawn from your account. Hmmm....sounds like a bank to me.
We've all heard stories over the years of Paypal suspending accounts for no explained reason but this time the amount is significant. They may finally be going too far and if they keep this amount they may well be committing several laws. It will not be hard for the account holder to get a lawyer on contingency for that amount and to go after Paypal HARD. They need to tread carefully.
I have no religious problem with embryonic stem cell research, just don't use my money (taxes) to do it.
I have no problem with us going to war in Afghanistan, just don't use my money (taxes) to do it.
....except they do anyway and I just have to learn to live with that. We all see some of our tax money going towards things we don't agree with. Why do you get to cherry pick this one issue that uses up perhaps 1/10th of one of your pennies to stop? And why do you choose an issue to stop that is dedicated to SAVING LIVES?!?
That's just evil. Seriously. Something so cheap and so potentially beneficial takes a special type of evil personality to oppose.
If only those darn astronomers didn't care so much about keeping the sun at Greenwich precisely at the meridian at high noon, we wouldn't have this problem.
"If only those darn HUMANS didn't care so much about keeping the sun overhead at noon" you mean.
There's a solution to all this, it's called TAI. There is no reason not to use it but ignorance and incompetence. Every other "solution" that has been advanced here was completely, utterly stupid.
No, there is a good reason to not use TAI. That reason is that humans are not computers and our brains do not tell time like an atomic clock. TAI will eventually tell us that 12:00 is at sunset and that's not something humans will (or should) accept. We are smart enough to devise clocks (and computers) that can adjust to keep 12:00 to be when the sun is overhead. Creating and using a system like TAI that gives absolute time control over our diurnal cycles and denies our biological reliance on the sun for proper sleep cycles is what would be completely and utterly stupid.
It's not that every vehicle has been stuck in there for nine days: it's that the traffic has been crawling for nine days. Usually a traffic jam clears out at a later hour, but volume is too high even at night.
Sorry, that does not appear to be true.
(Scroll down to the guys sitting in a circle in the middle of the road playing cards. That is not "crawling" that is "shut off your engine and sit for days".)
I get evaluated at my job, should i be outraged? Maybe this will motivate them to actually try harder to be better teachers instead of just griping about a paycheck. There are worse jobs out there with even worse pay, i say start firing teachers that rank the worst.
If you get evaluated at your job using shitty metrics, yes you should be outraged. Test scores have serious potential to lie about a teacher's acumen. A teacher who gives out all A's is probably a creampuff who doesn't teach the students much at all, yet according to the metric used by the LATimes that would be the highest-ranked teacher. My mother was known for making her students actually learn and giving tests that students would fail if they didn't study. Her average test scores were probably C's because she wouldn't just pass crappy students. According to the LATimes she'd be a low-ranked teacher. And that's complete bullshit.
As I said, if she thinks she can make MORE money because she is so talented, why doesn't she move to a private school?
Why doesn't she open her own school?
We do not pay people who are talented.
We pay people who make money in some way.
Not always true. Your 100% blind devotion to "making money is the only reason to do anything" is myopic. Educating children is not a for-profit exercise; it is a "maintain a quality society" exercise.
As for your attempt to divorce talent from making money, that's disingenuous. Talented people almost always lead to profit, and thus you DO pay them because they are talented. Likewise, you should employ teachers who are talented.
I, for example, am very good at what I do. Why am I employed in enterprise instead of education? Because I'd have to take at least a 50% cut in pay to switch to teaching. So the people teaching our kids the skills that I could be teaching them are likely less qualified in my field than I am or they'd be doing my job for my salary. That's stupid and detrimental to our society. If you want better-educated kids, pay educators a commensurate salary with what their skillset would bring in the corporate world. It's pretty much that simple and it's sad you won't acknowledge that.
I have a hunch this has happened millions of times since the "first time".
That was my reaction as well. "Why only twice?" If the conditions existed for amino acids to develop and combine, the odds of cellular and multi-cellular life occurring only once would have to be very small indeed. It's a huge planet at the microbial level. Heck, life probably came to be over and over and over again, regardless of whether another pond a kilometer away was having the same thing occur in it.