It's Pierre Litre in Canada who cannot possibly
get the service any other way.
The DSS broadcasters are not allowed to do business in Canada. The signal reaches them
just fine. So there is a *huge* motivation
to unscramble the signal. I believe if it hits
your house, you own it, whether it's an orange from the neighbor's tree, or a tv signal from
another country.
One thing that I recently became aware of was
the fact that it is largely a Canadian effort
to decrypt DSS signals.
The directtv people are not allowed to sell service to Canada. (I thought NAFTA was supposed
to mean something, dammit).
The signal, however, DOES reach Canada. Now,
the broadcast is reaching them, but there is no
way they can possibly use the service because of
an arbit$rary rule forced upon Directv by uncle
Charlie.
So of course the H-Card phenomenon happened.
it's bigger than just a business risk factor.
Insurance stands to create such a separation
between the haves and the have-nots that it
could be a measure of the relative values of
people's lives. So if someone is insurable,
is their life more valuable than someone who
is not insurable? Suddenly the notion of equal
rights for all seems even further from the actual
case.
Does a genetic predisposition to sickle cell anemia cause one to be denied health insurance?
Why would society even begin to entertain the
argument that it is not?
Does it eventually bring our society to a level
where only the rich have the privilege of having
the resources to save their lives when the time
comes? I thought progress meant we should move
away from class separation, not straight towards
it.
I realize that luxuries like insurance are privileges not rights, but if there is an elite
class that can take healthcare for granted and
the rest that can go die in the stairwell, what
does that say about us as a civilization?
When the healthcare industry sees that it can
schedule its market based only upon the means of
those who have access to it, the poor suffer.
We've seen this with HMOs. There are enough people with the means to get healthcare that
the providers feel justified in considering "the rest" to be statistically insignificant.
That those millions of poor statistically insigificant sods don't rise together and
take control is a daily surprise for me...
One outrage after the next. There will be a
reckoning sooner or later. The huddled masses
might not have noticed any of the travesties
that raise our collective blood pressure here
on slashdot, but if they keep on, and keep on,
and keep on doing it, sooner or later it will
upset the illusion of peace that the poor and
working poor spend their pathetic miserable lives
in. Sooner or later, it will take away pay per
view wrestling. Then you'll see joe sixpack in
the trailerpark become a revolutionary hero.
As much as I can't stand Spears' style, I must
respect her vocal range and quality. I' afraid
I do respect her as a musician. She would have
made a fine mezzo, had she only studied real
music instead of this horrid tripe they call pop.
The point here is cargo.
You can't get 10,000 tons of cargo on the
concorde, however fast it may fly over the
Atlantic. How many trips would you have to
take to match the workload of 10,000 tons?
(metric tons or otherwise).
How many planes of the Concorde ckass be needed to do it in 72 hours?
"That people should be expected to pay for what they're unable or
unwilling to make for themselves?"
That people are expected to pay, even if they do make it for themselves.
Certain taxes on recordable media come to mind.
Worse, certain copy protection that prevents a musician from distributing his own music hits close to home for me. I have to jump through hoops, using fairly expensive equipment to make digital recordings that can be copied. I can't
just use a consumer DAT or a minidisc recorder.
I don't think it's right that I can't copy my own music. I shouldn't have to pay more (much, much more) to do it. It's this kind of barrier to entry that bothers people. It's not quite to the
level where it's reasonable to claim "slavery", but it certainly keeps people from advancing without the consent of certain industries.
The privilege of asking a ridiculous price for action figures is supposed to be reserved strictly for those who keep the toys in the
original sealed package! What's next, Beanies
with the ear tags ripped off?
Nathan B. Stubblefield, the Philo T. Farnsworth of Radio, of Murray Kansas, demonstrated his
wireless *voice* communications in 1885. That's a full three years before Hertz proof that radio waves existed, and nine years before Marconi's wireless telegraph. There are good records of
Stubblefield's work from 1892, when he showed it
to Dr. Rainey T. Wells; who also happened to be an attorney.
He demonstrated the device for hundreds of people, even a wireless ship-to-shore
demonstration from a riverboat on the Potomac in 1902.
He even got a patent, #887357, May 12, 1908, for the "radiotelephone device."
Tell me again why Marconi is widely credited with
"inventing radio" whereas Stubblefield died broke?
I just checked ebay to make sure my correct
preferences were selected, and realized something about radio buttons.
It is not per any HTML DTD spec to have a
group of Radio Buttons in which no button
is checked by default. I understand how
inconvenient that spec may seem to some
designers, but, if the implementation were
to spec, this ambiguous situation of "No default button" would not have been possible.
>I got paid by cheque, late, and when I went to
>cash it, it bounced!
>He didn't even know that he had spent all the
>money.
In most states, this is a crime that you could have gotten the responsible individual locked up for. If I ever get a check, even a paycheck that bounces for insufficient funds, the person who should have known not to write it will do 30 days in county. I don't care how expensive of lawyers they can afford, they won't help if I have the bad check in my hand and all my p's and q's are
correct in my case to the D.A.
In Phoenix AZ, "County" is a tent city in the middle of the desert, by the way.
"I have no idea why these gun nuts think that a few hours of practice a week will enable them and a few of their friends to stand up to a US army battalion."
I think the idea is that things can become so intolerable that entire military divisions can become sympathetic to an antigovernment cause,
as happened against the British, and as happened when the "south" divided from the "north".
If this isn't a possibility, then things aren't
intolerable enough yet, and the revolution must wait. I think it will not occur until "they" take away cable tv. As long as they have that,
they think they are free.
>Unfortunetly, this is one of the many negatives
>of capitalism. And even more unfortunetly,
>capitalism is the best we have.
Well, the fall of currency can, has, and does happen. This could change a whole lot of things
if it happened in the USA. Can't happen? Maybe it can't, here in the jewel of the world.
Perhaps there are readers of slashdot who have lived through the experience of having their money be "money" one day and used it for toilet paper the next day.
Can't happen to the dollar, the pound, the yen, or the euro? Why can't it? The law of good taste? Inertia?
Tell it to someone who left Cambodia in 1969, or a Albanian refugee in Italy.
> The problem is the patent office granting all
>these silly patents.
Perhaps part of the problem is the court system,
for not really being available as a venue to those who need it. If it is truly such a disaster to "be sued" even if one is in the right, that defending oneself against being sued
may put one out of business, then the court system has long ago ceased to serve it's primary purpose -- to protect the people it serves, equally, consistently, fairly, and without prejudice.
The fact that people and businesses must walk on eggs and comply with extralegal demands, because they fear being sued by someone with more resources than they have, is really an intolerable situation. If we tolerate it, we get the government we deserve -- ruled by the
corporate entity with the most money, and which suffers the people to consider themselves "free" so long as its own interests are served.
Guess we need to let this situation go ahead and get worse. When it becomes intolerable enough that people become sufficiently outraged to make the sacrifices needed to bring change, they will,
just like they have done throughout history.
In our lifetimes? One wonders. As a society, our lives are just too cozy and pleasant for us
to really have the stomach for revolution. That might mean people like you and be getting killed at the hands of other people like you and me, or even (gasp!) giving up cable tv or the welfarre check!
Obviously, things aren't bad enough to drive real change. Yet.
>But authors depend on a certain portion of new
>book buyers to pay them and let them earn a
>living. Amazon is trying to turn those new book
>buyers into used book buyers instead, which
>cuts down on the money they earn. That's what
>they object to.
And I object to the mere suggestion that it is wrong for them to do so. I would go so far as to say it constitutes harrassment. Even if they were polite in their letter.
>The Guild isn't suing; they're writing a "we'd
>really appreciate it if you didn't do this"
>letter.
Most litigation does begin with a polite, gently worded suggestion that a party change their behavior. Many divorces start out with such a proposal. They often (always?) end in bloody struggles though. I'm saying that it's inappropriate for this "guild" to ask Amazon, nicely even, what they are asking for. I do not believe the claim that it is "collusion in restraint of trade" is going too far, considering who the parties involved are.
>Folks seem to have the attitude that "we're
>entitled to do whatever the heck we want to, and
>screw anyone who dares object because they might
>be hurt by it.
You do realize that same argument can be used
against publishers and authors who want to find
ways to break laws that are intended to protect
consumers of their products, don't you?
If the author or publisher does not appreciate the
law of the land, too bad for him. Normally I would suggest that he write his congressman. In this case, the law in question is a fundamental right, and it is far beyond reason that it will be changed.
What's next? Would you ban second-hand clothing?
How about requiring that used cars be scrapped rather than sold? It might actually be easier to pass those laws, since they do not necessarily tread on rights that have been expressly granted to all. The sale or trade of a used book, on the other hand, is a right that has been guaranteed.
I can think of one segment of the population that would definitely be adversely affected by the abolishment of the doctrine of "first sale".
College students, many of whose college careers would end were they suddendly deprived of the right to purchase their textbooks used. Attempting to deprive the bookstore of the right to sell them the used book is indeed depriving the consumer the right to purchase it used.
>And frankly, if they're not one of the really
>big names, like Stephen King, odds are they're
>just barely scraping by.
Being an artist never comes with guarantees of an
income. Perhaps in some socialist economies this
is possible (but then you probably have the issue
of the state deciding who is an artist and who is
a factory worker.)
USA has a capitalist economy governed by a republic. If you choose a career as an artist in the current era when money is everything to so many people, you may be disappointed to find out your society will allow you to starve. This may be a problem, but it's not one that lawyers are going to solve.
>>Not only that, but the customers, because of a
>>change in the terms of the contract, would have
>>to resign the contract if they were to agree to
>>the new terms.
>Has anybody managed to sue eBay for similar
>terms in their contract?
In order to "sue eBay" one would have to have incurred damages. If you haven't been harmed by the terms of the agreement, you cannot sue the other party to the agreement. You cannot file a suit against someone just because you don't like the wording of their contract.
Also, if it is not legal in whatever jurisdiction a dispute with eBay would be tried, to have such a clause in a contract, that clause (but not the rest of the contract) would be invalid. That would probably have the effect of making any amended-but-not-explicitly-agreed-to contracts inadmissible.
The problem is, the way they establish their terms, the clause is probably legal. It is in the original agreement that the parties understand that the 30-day-notice of amendment is
reasonable.
"We may amend this Agreement at any time by posting the amended terms on our site. Except as stated below, all amended terms shall automatically be effective 30 days after they are initially posted on our site."
It stands to reason that eBay needs to have a clause like this in the agreement. If something happens, like a law is passed in California affecting online auctions and eBay *must* change their policies, they need a means to do so that is reasonable to all parties, and has been agreed to by all. I believe they have succeeded.
Comparing eBay's well-written and fair user agreement to the pagecreator.com tripe isn't fair at all!
Atty: "Your honor, on behalf of my client the defendant, I move for summary judgement in the defendant's favor."
Judge: "On what grounds do you base this motion, counsel?"
Atty: "Your, honor, the plaintiff's spelling and grammar are simply atrocious and incomprehensible."
Judge: "Motion granted. Judgement is for the defendant."
>What disapoints me most is that people are so
>scared of the legal system that this guy can do
>this at all
The only legal system our friend in Minnesota needs to be scared of is the one that sends you
to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for credit card fraud (a federal offense). This isn't going to be a few civil suits from a few people who were overcharged. It should be criminal prosecution for several felonies. I believe our friend is 18. For his parents' sake, I hope
they are not a party to the merchant agreement
where they deposit the credit card reciepts.
If it can be shown that they "knew or should have known" that fraudulent activities were taking place, they might get to go to the little
room with the metal toilet in the middle of the floor too.
Credit card companies do not like being systematically taken advantage of. I don't understand what you think this "says about the legal system."
The system works. It puts people in jail for stealing money from other people.
>I wonder what the legality of a term like
>copywritten is. It's obvious that he meant
>copyrighted, but how would a court of law
>interpret a contract with such terms?
Depends on the state. In Texas, a judge would,
or would direct a jury to, strike that clause from the agreement and not consider it germane
to the case.
One invalid clause in a contract does not invalidate the contract, only that one clause.
That means for instance, if a landlord has put something illegal or unenforceable in the lease,
it doesn't mean you don't have to pay rent or change the smoke alarm battery, etc.
On the other hand, if it were "obvious" in intent, and the parties both agreed that the
word "copywritten" was construed to mean "copyrighted", then the clause could stand.
Verbatim? That won't stand up to any courtroom
scrutiny! "Copywritten" means "written by a professional writer for advertising or publicity copy".
"copyright" or "copyrighted"means the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)
Business/Finance would be better
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
A programmer can have all the math in the world,
but if he doesn't have a solid background in business, he isn't going to write good business
software. Without understanding finance and accounting principles, how can one create systems that implement these principles? Sure, you can follow requirements, but then you're not among the people who create the requirements and business rules.
On the other hand, I don't suppose a Finance or Marketing major is going to acquire the skills to turn out a 3-D game engine or an embedded process control system, so it works both ways.
One of the big benefits of no tax on mailorder
sales is that you have a built-in discount that
is usually negated by the "shipping" and "handling" charges. With sales tax added, mail
order will cost more than local retail stores,
and local stores will be able to provide instant
gratification. If I had to pay sales tax on the
boox I order from fatbrain, I'd start buying them
at a local bookstore instead, since the tax represents the discount.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not Joe 6-Pack who is behind all this.
It's Pierre Litre in Canada who cannot possibly
get the service any other way.
The DSS broadcasters are not allowed to do business in Canada. The signal reaches them
just fine. So there is a *huge* motivation
to unscramble the signal. I believe if it hits
your house, you own it, whether it's an orange from the neighbor's tree, or a tv signal from
another country.
One thing that I recently became aware of was the fact that it is largely a Canadian effort to decrypt DSS signals. The directtv people are not allowed to sell service to Canada. (I thought NAFTA was supposed to mean something, dammit). The signal, however, DOES reach Canada. Now, the broadcast is reaching them, but there is no way they can possibly use the service because of an arbit$rary rule forced upon Directv by uncle Charlie. So of course the H-Card phenomenon happened.
it's bigger than just a business risk factor.
Insurance stands to create such a separation
between the haves and the have-nots that it
could be a measure of the relative values of
people's lives. So if someone is insurable,
is their life more valuable than someone who
is not insurable? Suddenly the notion of equal
rights for all seems even further from the actual
case.
Does a genetic predisposition to sickle cell anemia cause one to be denied health insurance?
Why would society even begin to entertain the
argument that it is not?
Does it eventually bring our society to a level
where only the rich have the privilege of having
the resources to save their lives when the time
comes? I thought progress meant we should move
away from class separation, not straight towards
it.
I realize that luxuries like insurance are privileges not rights, but if there is an elite
class that can take healthcare for granted and
the rest that can go die in the stairwell, what
does that say about us as a civilization?
When the healthcare industry sees that it can
schedule its market based only upon the means of
those who have access to it, the poor suffer.
We've seen this with HMOs. There are enough people with the means to get healthcare that
the providers feel justified in considering "the rest" to be statistically insignificant.
That those millions of poor statistically insigificant sods don't rise together and
take control is a daily surprise for me...
One outrage after the next. There will be a
reckoning sooner or later. The huddled masses
might not have noticed any of the travesties
that raise our collective blood pressure here
on slashdot, but if they keep on, and keep on,
and keep on doing it, sooner or later it will
upset the illusion of peace that the poor and
working poor spend their pathetic miserable lives
in. Sooner or later, it will take away pay per
view wrestling. Then you'll see joe sixpack in
the trailerpark become a revolutionary hero.
Not before then, though.
As much as I can't stand Spears' style, I must
respect her vocal range and quality. I' afraid
I do respect her as a musician. She would have
made a fine mezzo, had she only studied real
music instead of this horrid tripe they call pop.
The point here is cargo.
You can't get 10,000 tons of cargo on the
concorde, however fast it may fly over the
Atlantic. How many trips would you have to
take to match the workload of 10,000 tons?
(metric tons or otherwise).
How many planes of the Concorde ckass be needed to do it in 72 hours?
"That people should be expected to pay for what they're unable or
unwilling to make for themselves?"
That people are expected to pay, even if they do make it for themselves.
Certain taxes on recordable media come to mind.
Worse, certain copy protection that prevents a musician from distributing his own music hits close to home for me. I have to jump through hoops, using fairly expensive equipment to make digital recordings that can be copied. I can't
just use a consumer DAT or a minidisc recorder.
I don't think it's right that I can't copy my own music. I shouldn't have to pay more (much, much more) to do it. It's this kind of barrier to entry that bothers people. It's not quite to the
level where it's reasonable to claim "slavery", but it certainly keeps people from advancing without the consent of certain industries.
The privilege of asking a ridiculous price for action figures is supposed to be reserved strictly for those who keep the toys in the
original sealed package! What's next, Beanies
with the ear tags ripped off?
Nathan B. Stubblefield, the Philo T. Farnsworth of Radio, of Murray Kansas, demonstrated his
wireless *voice* communications in 1885. That's a full three years before Hertz proof that radio waves existed, and nine years before Marconi's wireless telegraph. There are good records of
Stubblefield's work from 1892, when he showed it
to Dr. Rainey T. Wells; who also happened to be an attorney.
He demonstrated the device for hundreds of people, even a wireless ship-to-shore
demonstration from a riverboat on the Potomac in 1902.
He even got a patent, #887357, May 12, 1908, for the "radiotelephone device."
Tell me again why Marconi is widely credited with
"inventing radio" whereas Stubblefield died broke?
I just checked ebay to make sure my correct
preferences were selected, and realized something about radio buttons.
It is not per any HTML DTD spec to have a
group of Radio Buttons in which no button
is checked by default. I understand how
inconvenient that spec may seem to some
designers, but, if the implementation were
to spec, this ambiguous situation of "No default button" would not have been possible.
>I got paid by cheque, late, and when I went to
>cash it, it bounced!
>He didn't even know that he had spent all the
>money.
In most states, this is a crime that you could have gotten the responsible individual locked up for. If I ever get a check, even a paycheck that bounces for insufficient funds, the person who should have known not to write it will do 30 days in county. I don't care how expensive of lawyers they can afford, they won't help if I have the bad check in my hand and all my p's and q's are
correct in my case to the D.A.
In Phoenix AZ, "County" is a tent city in the middle of the desert, by the way.
"I have no idea why these gun nuts think that a few hours of practice a week will enable them and a few of their friends to stand up to a US army battalion."
I think the idea is that things can become so intolerable that entire military divisions can become sympathetic to an antigovernment cause,
as happened against the British, and as happened when the "south" divided from the "north".
If this isn't a possibility, then things aren't
intolerable enough yet, and the revolution must wait. I think it will not occur until "they" take away cable tv. As long as they have that,
they think they are free.
>Unfortunetly, this is one of the many negatives
>of capitalism. And even more unfortunetly,
>capitalism is the best we have.
Well, the fall of currency can, has, and does happen. This could change a whole lot of things
if it happened in the USA. Can't happen? Maybe it can't, here in the jewel of the world.
Perhaps there are readers of slashdot who have lived through the experience of having their money be "money" one day and used it for toilet paper the next day.
Can't happen to the dollar, the pound, the yen, or the euro? Why can't it? The law of good taste? Inertia?
Tell it to someone who left Cambodia in 1969, or a Albanian refugee in Italy.
> The problem is the patent office granting all
>these silly patents.
Perhaps part of the problem is the court system,
for not really being available as a venue to those who need it. If it is truly such a disaster to "be sued" even if one is in the right, that defending oneself against being sued
may put one out of business, then the court system has long ago ceased to serve it's primary purpose -- to protect the people it serves, equally, consistently, fairly, and without prejudice.
The fact that people and businesses must walk on eggs and comply with extralegal demands, because they fear being sued by someone with more resources than they have, is really an intolerable situation. If we tolerate it, we get the government we deserve -- ruled by the
corporate entity with the most money, and which suffers the people to consider themselves "free" so long as its own interests are served.
Guess we need to let this situation go ahead and get worse. When it becomes intolerable enough that people become sufficiently outraged to make the sacrifices needed to bring change, they will,
just like they have done throughout history.
In our lifetimes? One wonders. As a society, our lives are just too cozy and pleasant for us
to really have the stomach for revolution. That might mean people like you and be getting killed at the hands of other people like you and me, or even (gasp!) giving up cable tv or the welfarre check!
Obviously, things aren't bad enough to drive real change. Yet.
>But authors depend on a certain portion of new
>book buyers to pay them and let them earn a
>living. Amazon is trying to turn those new book
>buyers into used book buyers instead, which
>cuts down on the money they earn. That's what
>they object to.
And I object to the mere suggestion that it is wrong for them to do so. I would go so far as to say it constitutes harrassment. Even if they were polite in their letter.
>The Guild isn't suing; they're writing a "we'd
>really appreciate it if you didn't do this"
>letter.
Most litigation does begin with a polite, gently worded suggestion that a party change their behavior. Many divorces start out with such a proposal. They often (always?) end in bloody struggles though. I'm saying that it's inappropriate for this "guild" to ask Amazon, nicely even, what they are asking for. I do not believe the claim that it is "collusion in restraint of trade" is going too far, considering who the parties involved are.
>Folks seem to have the attitude that "we're
>entitled to do whatever the heck we want to, and
>screw anyone who dares object because they might
>be hurt by it.
You do realize that same argument can be used
against publishers and authors who want to find
ways to break laws that are intended to protect
consumers of their products, don't you?
If the author or publisher does not appreciate the
law of the land, too bad for him. Normally I would suggest that he write his congressman. In this case, the law in question is a fundamental right, and it is far beyond reason that it will be changed.
What's next? Would you ban second-hand clothing?
How about requiring that used cars be scrapped rather than sold? It might actually be easier to pass those laws, since they do not necessarily tread on rights that have been expressly granted to all. The sale or trade of a used book, on the other hand, is a right that has been guaranteed.
I can think of one segment of the population that would definitely be adversely affected by the abolishment of the doctrine of "first sale".
College students, many of whose college careers would end were they suddendly deprived of the right to purchase their textbooks used. Attempting to deprive the bookstore of the right to sell them the used book is indeed depriving the consumer the right to purchase it used.
>And frankly, if they're not one of the really
>big names, like Stephen King, odds are they're
>just barely scraping by.
Being an artist never comes with guarantees of an
income. Perhaps in some socialist economies this
is possible (but then you probably have the issue
of the state deciding who is an artist and who is
a factory worker.)
USA has a capitalist economy governed by a republic. If you choose a career as an artist in the current era when money is everything to so many people, you may be disappointed to find out your society will allow you to starve. This may be a problem, but it's not one that lawyers are going to solve.
>>Not only that, but the customers, because of a
>>change in the terms of the contract, would have
>>to resign the contract if they were to agree to
>>the new terms.
>Has anybody managed to sue eBay for similar
>terms in their contract?
In order to "sue eBay" one would have to have incurred damages. If you haven't been harmed by the terms of the agreement, you cannot sue the other party to the agreement. You cannot file a suit against someone just because you don't like the wording of their contract.
Also, if it is not legal in whatever jurisdiction a dispute with eBay would be tried, to have such a clause in a contract, that clause (but not the rest of the contract) would be invalid. That would probably have the effect of making any amended-but-not-explicitly-agreed-to contracts inadmissible.
The problem is, the way they establish their terms, the clause is probably legal. It is in the original agreement that the parties understand that the 30-day-notice of amendment is
reasonable.
"We may amend this Agreement at any time by posting the amended terms on our site. Except as stated below, all amended terms shall automatically be effective 30 days after they are initially posted on our site."
It stands to reason that eBay needs to have a clause like this in the agreement. If something happens, like a law is passed in California affecting online auctions and eBay *must* change their policies, they need a means to do so that is reasonable to all parties, and has been agreed to by all. I believe they have succeeded.
Comparing eBay's well-written and fair user agreement to the pagecreator.com tripe isn't fair at all!
Atty: "Your honor, on behalf of my client the defendant, I move for summary judgement in the defendant's favor."
Judge: "On what grounds do you base this motion, counsel?"
Atty: "Your, honor, the plaintiff's spelling and grammar are simply atrocious and incomprehensible."
Judge: "Motion granted. Judgement is for the defendant."
>At worst, it's a clear sign that he's gonna
>grow up to be another rip-off artist
He'll have to, if he expects to survive in prison.
"I'm just about to enter my softmore year..."
Christ almighty. How do these people survive high school, let alone pass the SAT and get through freshman English?
It should be very easy to find who the parties to the merchant agreement are. Bet you a dollar
it's one of the parents.
>What disapoints me most is that people are so
>scared of the legal system that this guy can do
>this at all
The only legal system our friend in Minnesota needs to be scared of is the one that sends you
to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for credit card fraud (a federal offense). This isn't going to be a few civil suits from a few people who were overcharged. It should be criminal prosecution for several felonies. I believe our friend is 18. For his parents' sake, I hope
they are not a party to the merchant agreement
where they deposit the credit card reciepts.
If it can be shown that they "knew or should have known" that fraudulent activities were taking place, they might get to go to the little
room with the metal toilet in the middle of the floor too.
Credit card companies do not like being systematically taken advantage of. I don't understand what you think this "says about the legal system."
The system works. It puts people in jail for stealing money from other people.
>I wonder what the legality of a term like
>copywritten is. It's obvious that he meant
>copyrighted, but how would a court of law
>interpret a contract with such terms?
Depends on the state. In Texas, a judge would,
or would direct a jury to, strike that clause from the agreement and not consider it germane
to the case.
One invalid clause in a contract does not invalidate the contract, only that one clause.
That means for instance, if a landlord has put something illegal or unenforceable in the lease,
it doesn't mean you don't have to pay rent or change the smoke alarm battery, etc.
On the other hand, if it were "obvious" in intent, and the parties both agreed that the
word "copywritten" was construed to mean "copyrighted", then the clause could stand.
>Anyone who signed this deserves to lose their >second car.....
Did anyone ever, in fact, "sign" this contract?
Does it really say "copywritten?"
Verbatim? That won't stand up to any courtroom
scrutiny! "Copywritten" means "written by a professional writer for advertising or publicity copy".
"copyright" or "copyrighted"means the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)
A programmer can have all the math in the world,
but if he doesn't have a solid background in business, he isn't going to write good business
software. Without understanding finance and accounting principles, how can one create systems that implement these principles? Sure, you can follow requirements, but then you're not among the people who create the requirements and business rules.
On the other hand, I don't suppose a Finance or Marketing major is going to acquire the skills to turn out a 3-D game engine or an embedded process control system, so it works both ways.
One of the big benefits of no tax on mailorder
sales is that you have a built-in discount that
is usually negated by the "shipping" and "handling" charges. With sales tax added, mail
order will cost more than local retail stores,
and local stores will be able to provide instant
gratification. If I had to pay sales tax on the
boox I order from fatbrain, I'd start buying them
at a local bookstore instead, since the tax represents the discount.