First off, why was I labeled "troll"? Second, you are correct that I'm not losing money but I AM losing time trying to fill out New York tax forms (plus accounting for +/- 1/2% variances across different counties). Why should I be subject to this hassle? I am not a citizen of New York. I am not subject to comply with their laws - I'm in Virginia ~300 miles away.
Let New York collect the money from their own citizen (the buyer) not from a foreigner.
You have no right to SELL things to anyone inside the borders of New York either. They decided that anyone who wants to sell inside their borders has to perform this paper work. IF you don't want to do the work, then don't make the sale. You can always charge an administration fee to New Yorkers if you want to.
Morally you have no complaint against this tax. It is purely a tax on new yorkers, not on you.
If trusts could last forever, more and more of the world's resources would be tied up in trusts with narrow aims and the eventually all the world would be divided between trustees and beneficiaries.
Coroporations can last forever, and they definitively tie up resources, and also have very narrow aims.
Corporations continue to serve the interests of their shareholders (who are living) and are run by living officers. Even if the name of a given corporation that has been around for 200 years is the same, its a whole different set of players. The living are still ruling the living.
You are aware that, under postmodernism, there is no such thing as a self-evident truth? The entire Declaration of Independence is irrelevant to modern life, and should no longer be taught in schools other than as a historical document irrelevant to our era.
In post-modernism history is irrelevant to our era, and we have McTruth, and the Declaration of McDependence.
typically courts assume that the people investigating crimes aren't out to plant evidence. I'm not sure that this is a wise decision on the part of the courts but it is what it is.
generally courts presume everyone is honest and play by the rules unless there is some specific reason to think otherwise. It probably can be no other way. if the court assumed everyone was a liar, then it would be impossible to get anywhere, as the only evidence would be evidence submitted by other people also presumably lying.
the sad fact is that if someone really wants to fuck you over, they probably can. but planting evidence is one of the more complicated ways of doing it.
nonsense. I went to the store last night and I said "Do you sell snow leopard?" the sales person said "yes. Here you go." . I paid money and walked off.
I own an authorized copy of snow leopard without having relinquished any rights.
Copyright law explicitly gives me the right to copy the software into a computer system's harddrive and ram as required to execution, as well as the right to make any modifications as long as they are strictly to make the software work on 1 computer, as well as the right to make a backup copy.
if I sell the DVD I must destroy my copies.
at no place does copyright law state I must get permission from the copyright holder to do these things.
By your legal theory, if I melt the DVD I would be committing theft, and likewise Apple (who still owns the DVD) could demand that I return it at will.
The fact that some EULAs have held up in certain fact situations does not mean all EULA's hold up in every situation, even in the usual situation.
The DVD which the copyright holder made is an authorized copy. The right to use the software on a computer rises by law from ownership and possession of the authorized copy. If you own the physical DVD then you have rights under copyright law. Including the right to modify the contents in order to get it to work on your computer. Copy it to RAM and the harddrive in order to install it.
You don't need any license to do those things. And nothing any EULA says can stop that.
Unless you told the copyright holder you would comply with the EULA prior to purchase then you reserve all your usual rights under copyright law. You don't implicitly surrender any rights on purchase.
as long as you did nothing to tell the copyright holder that you are agreeing to any license, then the copyright holder can not possibly claim you have a contract with them.
however, if you lead the copyright holder to believe that you are agreeing to the EULA (perhaps by downloading an update), then the court might find that you were purporting to agree, in which case you are bound by it.
without a communication, the EULA is as binding as a contract which you signed but didn't deliver to the other party. If the other party never saw it, then there is no meeting of the minds. contracts require a meeting of the minds.
Since the copyright holder does not know if you clicked 'I agree' (you might be using the DVD as a coaster), then you can not have harmed him unless you violate copyright law, and he has no legal recourse.
They care about selling an image, a lifestyle, a brand. Nobody really buys a Mac because it's more useful than the alternatives. There's very little that Win\Linux\Mac can do that Win\Linux\Mac cannot, certainly not enough to justify the premium pricing.
I've used everything from Amiga, Beos, Linux, OS2, Windows (from 3.0 and after), MS-DOS and OSX.
The only computer that simply worked was my Macbook Pro running OSX.
This has nothing to do with image. I have a black case surrounding my Mac so that it doesn't even look like a mac.
In the same amount of time I've owned my macbook, I can remember needing to reinstall Windows XP on my previous laptop about 5 times. I've never needed to reinstall OSX after using the same machine for almost 2 years.
With all the linux machines I've used invariably I have some kind of issue getting one piece of hardware or another to work.
Yes. I pay the premium of owning a Mac, and I'm fine with it. My time is more valuable than what I could save by using another OS.
I just upgraded to snow leopard and the entire process took place literally while I was sleeping. I put in the DVD, clicked install, clicked continue, it told me it would take 58 minutes so I went to sleep, I woke up later and lo and behold my computer was upgraded.
I've never had a more painless upgrade experience of any OS in my life.
I just want my computer to work. OSX on the Mac is the closest I've ever come to that ideal.
I'm willing to bet $10 million that no one is going to get laid off over this.
When a company starts to have unexpected costs here and there, 10 million at a time, it adds up to real money after a while and can end up having some real life consequences.
Then before you know it, some exec will run a PowerPoint presentation going "Well, last year we had to pay out 65 millions to various litigious annoying people, but if we close this plant here and relocate it to this Chinese work camp, our profit will still be up by 13.8% which is above predictions for the sector. So I suggest we all give ourselves a raise".
Remember, you read it here first.
The later part of your statement is still true regardless of whether or not they had to pay out 65 million in damages. A company is ALWAYS looking for ways to boost profit margins.
Because it wouldn't be a corporation, it would be a partnership. And partners are financially liable for a failed business venture in a way that stockholders are not.
Got take a Business 101 class before you start spouting off about things you obviously know nothing of.
Once again you are wrong. Unfortunately Business 101 is the not the best place to learn economic theory, or the definitions of words for that matter.
A 'corporation' is any group of people authorized to act as a single legal entity.
The word in and of itself does not indicate that members are shielded from liability. It may be the case in certain jurisdictions and in others it is not the case.
A corporation would still be a corporation whether or not the law granted limited liability to its shareholders. For example in the UK prior to 1855 shareholders of a corporation were fully liable for the corporation's debts.
It is the ability to act as a single entity which makes an association of people into a corporation.
I'm done with you. in lieu of argument based on facts you throw insults around. Moreover you are ignorant.
The entire economic system is already collapsing. Or haven't you noticed?
And why would shareholders lose everything they own if the corporation fails? That's an incredibly false dichotomy. Not every failing corporation fails so spectacularly that every investor will necessarily lose everything they own simply for holding a single share. But then again, people would be more willing to trust corporations if the investors were investing their LIVES into the endevour. Investors who absolutely wanted to insure that the corporation worked legally, economically and didn't harm anyone in a way to create a liability, because if would be their own heads the sword falls on if they do wrong. Just like people.
These laws shielding investors simply spread the hurt to everyone else in the economy. Its not like the hurt vanishes. Why should innocent bistanders have to pay for the mistakes of investors?
Investors would still be willing to invest in corporations managed by people who they truly trusted as moral and legal representatives of the power that their money gives them. Business leaders would then actually deserve the title for the first time in hundreds of years. Corporations would begin to behave like true members of the community who care about others. i would still invest in some way, just not as detached from the process or the consequences.
Money is power. And with power must come responsibility or the inevitable result is power that answers to nobody and cares about nobody. You can call that prosperity if want. But it sounds more like tyranny. And that is what every corporation wants to be: a tyrant.
As the court said you had to install it "because of his actions".
On the other hand if you didn't bother having a door on your garage, and caught him without installing one, you can't argue that you needed to buy one "because of his actions".
The US government is attempting to be made more than whole. They want their system to actually be SUPERIOR to how it was before the hacking attempt and they want him to pay for it.
You convinced the judge that you had no choice but to attempt to catch this recurrent thief with a security system because locks could not keep him out. And you proved it, because that is what happened.
That example is not exactly analogous because the burglar has no pre-existing evidence sharing relationship with the state.
This is more like the cops entering into an agreement with a burglar in advance, that if he was to find any evidence while committing his burglary that he would turn it over in exchange for immunity and then the burglar does so.
In subpoena-ing facebook, have they gotten probable cause without relying on the illegal search to obtain that knowledge in the first place?
I wrote, " the cops subpoena Facebook without using the found weed, just your having been arrested in public to get the warrant". So yes, they have to have probable cause without the search or the judge won't let them subpeona FaceBook.
can you explain the probable cause to me? I don't see logic:
1. Person A was found in possession of weed in public.
2. Person A uses facebook.
conclusion: Person A posted photographs of himself with weed on facebook. (The very same weed he is accused of possessing in public.)
That is what we call a logical leap. It's utterly non-sequitur.
Its like the chewbacca theory of obtaining a search warrant.
Not denying anything bad happened....just that there aren't any of the perpetrators around to apologize for it. I didn't do it...not apologizing for it if I didn't do it.
When the perpetrator of the crimes in question is the government or another organization that still exists, then the perpetrator still exists. Nothing wrong with demanding that it make amends.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, why was I labeled "troll"? Second, you are correct that I'm not losing money but I AM losing time trying to fill out New York tax forms (plus accounting for +/- 1/2% variances across different counties). Why should I be subject to this hassle? I am not a citizen of New York. I am not subject to comply with their laws - I'm in Virginia ~300 miles away.
Let New York collect the money from their own citizen (the buyer) not from a foreigner.
You have no right to SELL things to anyone inside the borders of New York either. They decided that anyone who wants to sell inside their borders has to perform this paper work. IF you don't want to do the work, then don't make the sale. You can always charge an administration fee to New Yorkers if you want to.
Morally you have no complaint against this tax. It is purely a tax on new yorkers, not on you.
However, the argument applies:
Coroporations can last forever, and they definitively tie up resources, and also have very narrow aims.
Corporations continue to serve the interests of their shareholders (who are living) and are run by living officers. Even if the name of a given corporation that has been around for 200 years is the same, its a whole different set of players. The living are still ruling the living.
Outlaw trust funds and the rich will move their money to a country which allows them.
So, outlaw that too.
You are aware that, under postmodernism, there is no such thing as a self-evident truth? The entire Declaration of Independence is irrelevant to modern life, and should no longer be taught in schools other than as a historical document irrelevant to our era.
In post-modernism history is irrelevant to our era, and we have McTruth, and the Declaration of McDependence.
typically courts assume that the people investigating crimes aren't out to plant evidence. I'm not sure that this is a wise decision on the part of the courts but it is what it is.
generally courts presume everyone is honest and play by the rules unless there is some specific reason to think otherwise. It probably can be no other way. if the court assumed everyone was a liar, then it would be impossible to get anywhere, as the only evidence would be evidence submitted by other people also presumably lying.
the sad fact is that if someone really wants to fuck you over, they probably can. but planting evidence is one of the more complicated ways of doing it.
nonsense. I went to the store last night and I said "Do you sell snow leopard?" the sales person said "yes. Here you go." . I paid money and walked off.
I own an authorized copy of snow leopard without having relinquished any rights.
Copyright law explicitly gives me the right to copy the software into a computer system's harddrive and ram as required to execution, as well as the right to make any modifications as long as they are strictly to make the software work on 1 computer, as well as the right to make a backup copy.
if I sell the DVD I must destroy my copies.
at no place does copyright law state I must get permission from the copyright holder to do these things.
By your legal theory, if I melt the DVD I would be committing theft, and likewise Apple (who still owns the DVD) could demand that I return it at will.
The fact that some EULAs have held up in certain fact situations does not mean all EULA's hold up in every situation, even in the usual situation.
The DVD which the copyright holder made is an authorized copy. The right to use the software on a computer rises by law from ownership and possession of the authorized copy. If you own the physical DVD then you have rights under copyright law. Including the right to modify the contents in order to get it to work on your computer. Copy it to RAM and the harddrive in order to install it.
You don't need any license to do those things. And nothing any EULA says can stop that.
Unless you told the copyright holder you would comply with the EULA prior to purchase then you reserve all your usual rights under copyright law. You don't implicitly surrender any rights on purchase.
as long as you did nothing to tell the copyright holder that you are agreeing to any license, then the copyright holder can not possibly claim you have a contract with them.
however, if you lead the copyright holder to believe that you are agreeing to the EULA (perhaps by downloading an update), then the court might find that you were purporting to agree, in which case you are bound by it.
without a communication, the EULA is as binding as a contract which you signed but didn't deliver to the other party. If the other party never saw it, then there is no meeting of the minds. contracts require a meeting of the minds.
Since the copyright holder does not know if you clicked 'I agree' (you might be using the DVD as a coaster), then you can not have harmed him unless you violate copyright law, and he has no legal recourse.
They care about selling an image, a lifestyle, a brand. Nobody really buys a Mac because it's more useful than the alternatives. There's very little that Win\Linux\Mac can do that Win\Linux\Mac cannot, certainly not enough to justify the premium pricing.
I've used everything from Amiga, Beos, Linux, OS2, Windows (from 3.0 and after), MS-DOS and OSX.
The only computer that simply worked was my Macbook Pro running OSX.
This has nothing to do with image. I have a black case surrounding my Mac so that it doesn't even look like a mac.
In the same amount of time I've owned my macbook, I can remember needing to reinstall Windows XP on my previous laptop about 5 times. I've never needed to reinstall OSX after using the same machine for almost 2 years.
With all the linux machines I've used invariably I have some kind of issue getting one piece of hardware or another to work.
Yes. I pay the premium of owning a Mac, and I'm fine with it. My time is more valuable than what I could save by using another OS.
I just upgraded to snow leopard and the entire process took place literally while I was sleeping. I put in the DVD, clicked install, clicked continue, it told me it would take 58 minutes so I went to sleep, I woke up later and lo and behold my computer was upgraded.
I've never had a more painless upgrade experience of any OS in my life.
I just want my computer to work. OSX on the Mac is the closest I've ever come to that ideal.
You aren't being punished for defending your innocence. You are being punished for defending your guilt.
How will I resolve my disbelief of atheism with my atheism?
try using a dictionary.
I'm willing to bet $10 million that no one is going to get laid off over this.
When a company starts to have unexpected costs here and there, 10 million at a time, it adds up to real money after a while and can end up having some real life consequences.
Then before you know it, some exec will run a PowerPoint presentation going "Well, last year we had to pay out 65 millions to various litigious annoying people, but if we close this plant here and relocate it to this Chinese work camp, our profit will still be up by 13.8% which is above predictions for the sector. So I suggest we all give ourselves a raise".
Remember, you read it here first.
The later part of your statement is still true regardless of whether or not they had to pay out 65 million in damages. A company is ALWAYS looking for ways to boost profit margins.
What I don't understand is why is this not covered under previous harassment laws?
it probably is. but politicians need to pass new laws in order to appear "tough on crime".
1 in 250,000 is far better than the odds of winning the lottery.
Because it wouldn't be a corporation, it would be a partnership. And partners are financially liable for a failed business venture in a way that stockholders are not.
Got take a Business 101 class before you start spouting off about things you obviously know nothing of.
Once again you are wrong. Unfortunately Business 101 is the not the best place to learn economic theory, or the definitions of words for that matter.
A 'corporation' is any group of people authorized to act as a single legal entity.
The word in and of itself does not indicate that members are shielded from liability. It may be the case in certain jurisdictions and in others it is not the case.
A corporation would still be a corporation whether or not the law granted limited liability to its shareholders. For example in the UK prior to 1855 shareholders of a corporation were fully liable for the corporation's debts.
It is the ability to act as a single entity which makes an association of people into a corporation.
I'm done with you. in lieu of argument based on facts you throw insults around. Moreover you are ignorant.
have a nice day.
This can easily be resolved by acknowledging that there is no right to privacy.
yeah but there is.
The entire economic system is already collapsing. Or haven't you noticed?
And why would shareholders lose everything they own if the corporation fails? That's an incredibly false dichotomy. Not every failing corporation fails so spectacularly that every investor will necessarily lose everything they own simply for holding a single share. But then again, people would be more willing to trust corporations if the investors were investing their LIVES into the endevour. Investors who absolutely wanted to insure that the corporation worked legally, economically and didn't harm anyone in a way to create a liability, because if would be their own heads the sword falls on if they do wrong. Just like people.
These laws shielding investors simply spread the hurt to everyone else in the economy. Its not like the hurt vanishes. Why should innocent bistanders have to pay for the mistakes of investors?
Investors would still be willing to invest in corporations managed by people who they truly trusted as moral and legal representatives of the power that their money gives them. Business leaders would then actually deserve the title for the first time in hundreds of years. Corporations would begin to behave like true members of the community who care about others. i would still invest in some way, just not as detached from the process or the consequences.
Money is power. And with power must come responsibility or the inevitable result is power that answers to nobody and cares about nobody. You can call that prosperity if want. But it sounds more like tyranny. And that is what every corporation wants to be: a tyrant.
it would take someone to complain before facebook is aware of the group. Since everyone universally hates Jack Thompson, who's gonna complain?
As the court said you had to install it "because of his actions".
On the other hand if you didn't bother having a door on your garage, and caught him without installing one, you can't argue that you needed to buy one "because of his actions".
The US government is attempting to be made more than whole. They want their system to actually be SUPERIOR to how it was before the hacking attempt and they want him to pay for it.
You convinced the judge that you had no choice but to attempt to catch this recurrent thief with a security system because locks could not keep him out. And you proved it, because that is what happened.
Don't discount normal people; everybody's a genius at something and an idiot at something else.
Some people are only genius at being idiotic.
That example is not exactly analogous because the burglar has no pre-existing evidence sharing relationship with the state.
This is more like the cops entering into an agreement with a burglar in advance, that if he was to find any evidence while committing his burglary that he would turn it over in exchange for immunity and then the burglar does so.
In subpoena-ing facebook, have they gotten probable cause without relying on the illegal search to obtain that knowledge in the first place?
I wrote, " the cops subpoena Facebook without using the found weed, just your having been arrested in public to get the warrant". So yes, they have to have probable cause without the search or the judge won't let them subpeona FaceBook.
can you explain the probable cause to me? I don't see logic:
1. Person A was found in possession of weed in public.
2. Person A uses facebook.
conclusion: Person A posted photographs of himself with weed on facebook. (The very same weed he is accused of possessing in public.)
That is what we call a logical leap. It's utterly non-sequitur.
Its like the chewbacca theory of obtaining a search warrant.
How does the Govt. having this information help the govt. stop terrorism? Anyone?
Their job is not to stop terrorism, but rather to make people "feel" safer.
And by "feel safer" we really mean "scared shitless".
It's all part of opting into the system.
except that opting into the system is mandatory.
I don't really see how this represents much of an improvement.
How much of an improvement must something be in order to convince you it is worthwhile?
Not denying anything bad happened....just that there aren't any of the perpetrators around to apologize for it. I didn't do it...not apologizing for it if I didn't do it.
When the perpetrator of the crimes in question is the government or another organization that still exists, then the perpetrator still exists. Nothing wrong with demanding that it make amends.