I agree. Although I think the real problem here is the idiot policy or person that allowed a large amount sensative data like this to be stored on a laptop
Right, it really doesn't matter as far as the original poster is concerned whether it is the FEC or FCC - he is concerned about extraterratorial jurisdiction of US laws. Which administrative agency is attempting to exert authority extraterritorially is really irrelevant to him.
You are right to point out that the punishment would be against the candidate (or his or her campaign), which makes the question of wheree the server is largely irrelevant. Especially since the FEC is only applying its "coordinated communications" regulations to the internet. I.e., if you aren't working with the candidtate's campaign, you can still say and do whatever you would regardless of this decision.
So for most people - this decision won't affect you at all. It will primarily effect PACs, and special interest groups, things like that.
Okay I admit the goof on the 9 v. 7 years. I had read the article previously, and I just goofed on the years.
But the 80 million spam messages you mention is not in the article that I can see, it just states:
They said the siblings and a third defendant, Richard Rutkowski, sent more than 10,000 spam e-mails over three days in July 2003. Rutkowski was acquitted.
And even if it was 80 million messages, I hate spam as much as anyone else - but 9 years? People who commit much worse crimes, violent crimes, serve less time. I think a large fine, plus 5 years or something of probabtion with the condition no computer use would be a better punishment.
Well no new appeals based on this decision, but that is not to say this case (and others like it) are not rife with plenty of potential appealable issues.
The fact that a guy got 7 years for sending 10,000 emails seems a bit absurd to me. Especially when (according to his lawyer) there wasn't a showing they were even unsolicited. Then of course there are jurisdictional issues...
44% of the Court understood that what they personally thought was moral or immoral was irrelevant to serving their proper role within our constitutional framework.
They may very well be personally against the death penalty (probably not, but they could be).
The Supreme Court is not supposed to be composed of 9 philosopher-kings, they are supposed to merely interpret and apply the constitution. That is all the dissenting justices were saying.
Well this won't even get enacted, but even if it does I agree: so what.
The thing I find interesting is that by doing these background checks True.com is really setting itself up for some really nasty lawsuit at some point. They will screw up a check or something like that and something will happen and they will get sued for millions - as they should frankly. I just don't see this marketing ploy (which is all it really is anyway) as paying off in the long run. The other more well known dating services aren't going to lose market share based on this.
I agree, there really isn't a distinction. A state could take the patent and allow another company to manufacture the drug for use in that state, and that state alone.
Plus, arguably this could be a more legitimate use of eminent domain. The state could restrict the use of the drug produced via eminent domain to only those patients that the state is paying for via public health programs. In such a case it would be a taking for purely public use, so it is even more legitimate.
A patent is just property, and the fact it is granted under federal law shouldn't really matter. (I could be wrong about this). The big fight would be just compensation - all the drug company gets from their patent is profit - so if they are "justly compensated" then they really have nothing to complain about. Except of course "just compensation" under eminent domain jurisprudence is anything but just.
I know nothing about this area of law, however, so I could be completely wrong.
Yeah streaming seems foolish to me - just cost them more bandwidth I would think as opposed to people sharing it from their own servers.
But other than that I think this is a brilliant marketing move. People who wanted to get it "illegally" probably could do so anyway - but by doing this they will in fact grow their viewer base - and probably sell more DVD sets as well.
Thank you. I didn't mean to criticize the moderating per se, just that presumably whoever knew it was flamebait would have known the answers you posted. And I was just saying I wished they would have posted those:)
Thank you for posting your response, it was very informative (hint, hint to other moderators out there).
I think what Microsoft is doing is recognizing that software makers are liable for damage their software causes. So they are trying to cap their damages to $5.00 by including that contractual provision.
It is smart on a shallow level as it makes the EULA look less one-sided (hey, we agreed to pay damages Microsoft will say). But at the same time it is capping those damages at an absurdly low level. But it still looks more reasonable than a provision that says we are not liable for any damages - which would probably just get struck out of the agreement if it ever ended up in litigation (at least I bet that is what Microsoft's lawyers thought).
And I don't think the fact that this software product is free makes a difference, especially since my understanding (as a non-techie) is that most spyware is the result of bugs or holes in IE and/or Windows.
Very good point. I just assumed the problem was probably something that could not get fixed (like a going concern opinion - that will not change unless SCO gets financing in amounts that no one in their right mind would give them).
But you are right to point out that they could fix the problem.
As far as the quarterly statement (which I don't think requires auditor sign off either - but I am not sure) Whatever they don't wnat to disclose in the year-end filing (be it a going concern opinion or whatever) would have to be disclosed in that filing or the filing would be fraudulent. So that is why they aren't filing that one either probably.
Not filing an SEC filing on time is just a really bad thing, it opens up the directors and officers to both civil and criminal liability. So when a company chooses to do that you have to assume that what they are not disclosing is extremely bad.
Very good point. The credit card companies are responsible for fraud, so while I obviously am careful about who I give my CC info to, I am not all that worried about it being on some company's database out there in cyberspace.
Everyone should look at their monthly bills and notify the CC company of any erroneous/fraudulent charges. Then the CC company can take that up with the vendor that made the charge. It's the beauty of using a credit card.
The will get delisted. They always grant companies these hearings if the company seeks one - and then they almost always delist the company.
So this was to be expected, but probably won't change the ultimate result (being delisted).
I am as close to 100% sure as I can be that Ebay has liability insurance (D&O insurance) that would cover this type of claim.
So even if it did cost them "hundreds of millions" - which it won't - they would be okay because their insurance would pick up all/most of that.
If the suit doesn't get dismissed, it will probably settle for significantly less than what the story projects - and probably not even cash but "ebay coupons" or something like that instead, plus cash to the plaintiff's lawyers.
No one reads them and everyone (including the companies that include them with their products) knows that no one reads them.
Re:Sooner or later, this flag will no longer wave.
on
Broadcast Flag in Trouble
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That is a good point. But you also need to remember the comment was made by one judge on a panel of 3. And the D.C. Circuit probably has a dozen or more judges. So even if this panel all thought the FCC overstepped their authority, they could still be overruled en banc by the entire circuit.
And of course this is only one circuit, others could hold differently if multiple challenges were filed around the country.
So judicially, this could play out for a long time.
And of course, Congress could just pass a bill mandating the broadcast flag or expanding the FCC's authority so that they can readopt this rule.
Good point. I also wonder how these laws are constitutional. It would seem to me there would be some sort of interstate commerce or equal protection type arguement. But I haven't seen any of the acts.
Completely agree. Common sense has to enter the equation at some point. Email is obviously a very useful tool for allowing customers or potential customers to contact your business.
But the use of that tool shouldn't open you up to having to sort through thousands of mass-mailed advertisements that you could care less about.
Yeah the article was a bit confusing on the details, but I think that summary is accurate.
In addition to those two, there are other "standards" out there made by different proprietary makers. Microsoft has XAML, Macromedia has Flash MX, and Mozilla has XUL....
It sounds like the splinter faction is concerned about the lack of backward compatibility in XForms, i.e., it wouldn't be supported by their browsers and would probably require a plug-in.
Sense no current browser supports Xforms, this group figures that Microsoft won't implement it and instead use its XAML form specification. And since IE has over 90% of the market, that would make Xforms essentially irrelevant. XAML would become the defacto standard, and the spliter group's products (alternative browsers to IE) would not be able to implement the proprietary XAML standard. This would effectively lock thei products out of any corporate market that utilized form technology.
So it is a pretty big deal, and it makes sense that the splinter group members are concerned enough to take this action.
I think it is about our rights. Our rights to new products and technological innovations that are being suppressed from us by large companies that are creating monopolies of technology through the patent system.
Patents are (at least arguably) a necessary mechanism, but the way patents are being used in the United States is a problem. Especially when patents are being issued that are clearly barred by prior art and then used to extort money from small businesses that cannot afford to fight those patents. See the EFF for more info.
I think the big difference between this situation and the bubble is that the investors are investing in the software and hosting companies that power blogs (for a fee - revenue stream is good), and not specific blogs (i.e., Bob's blog isn't getting 2 million dollars in investment based on his 10,000 unique hits per day).
I think investing in the moveable type company is a smart investment. You have millions of people willing to pay a monthly fee, and millions more likely to sign up in the coming months. That is a good revenue source.
And you are correct that blogger is free, but that could always change, and blogger has limits. I personally use blogger right now, but I often think of changing to moveable type because it is simply a better product with more features (but I am cheap, so I don't:P)
Moveable type is the best blogging software on the market, and again, it is a big market, so it sounds like a pretty smart investment to me.
And as for the all you will have is blogs about cats, sure there are many blogs that are like that. But there are also that are very professionally run that provide good information. Slashdot is essentially a blog for example. Instapundit, Vodkapundit, and probably a thousand more I don't know about are all run very professionally. I suspect they are both turning a profit.
I would compare blogs to magazines. There are a million crappy or very niche magazines out there. I am sure hundreds of them fail every year, and hundreds more are started every year. But no one thinks all magazines are going to go away anytime soon. If you turn out a quality product that attracts a broad following, be it a magazine, a newspaper, or a blog, you will be successful. If you have a poor quality product about a topic no one cares about, then you won't.
If you have the time, I would try to read as many as possible and then simply select the one you think is the best.
This will also benefit you in that it may give you ideas for your class, and conversely, if you know what your general curriculum will be already then you can simply see what book matches best with that.
Slashdot Mirror
That is just begging for a class action lawsuit.
And here I was thinking the "Betamax shield" was some new form of birth control.....
You are right to point out that the punishment would be against the candidate (or his or her campaign), which makes the question of wheree the server is largely irrelevant. Especially since the FEC is only applying its "coordinated communications" regulations to the internet. I.e., if you aren't working with the candidtate's campaign, you can still say and do whatever you would regardless of this decision.
So for most people - this decision won't affect you at all. It will primarily effect PACs, and special interest groups, things like that.
But the 80 million spam messages you mention is not in the article that I can see, it just states:
And even if it was 80 million messages, I hate spam as much as anyone else - but 9 years? People who commit much worse crimes, violent crimes, serve less time. I think a large fine, plus 5 years or something of probabtion with the condition no computer use would be a better punishment.The fact that a guy got 7 years for sending 10,000 emails seems a bit absurd to me. Especially when (according to his lawyer) there wasn't a showing they were even unsolicited. Then of course there are jurisdictional issues...
44% of the Court understood that what they personally thought was moral or immoral was irrelevant to serving their proper role within our constitutional framework.
They may very well be personally against the death penalty (probably not, but they could be).
The Supreme Court is not supposed to be composed of 9 philosopher-kings, they are supposed to merely interpret and apply the constitution. That is all the dissenting justices were saying.
The thing I find interesting is that by doing these background checks True.com is really setting itself up for some really nasty lawsuit at some point. They will screw up a check or something like that and something will happen and they will get sued for millions - as they should frankly. I just don't see this marketing ploy (which is all it really is anyway) as paying off in the long run. The other more well known dating services aren't going to lose market share based on this.
Plus, arguably this could be a more legitimate use of eminent domain. The state could restrict the use of the drug produced via eminent domain to only those patients that the state is paying for via public health programs. In such a case it would be a taking for purely public use, so it is even more legitimate.
A patent is just property, and the fact it is granted under federal law shouldn't really matter. (I could be wrong about this). The big fight would be just compensation - all the drug company gets from their patent is profit - so if they are "justly compensated" then they really have nothing to complain about. Except of course "just compensation" under eminent domain jurisprudence is anything but just.
I know nothing about this area of law, however, so I could be completely wrong.
But other than that I think this is a brilliant marketing move. People who wanted to get it "illegally" probably could do so anyway - but by doing this they will in fact grow their viewer base - and probably sell more DVD sets as well.
Very smart move in my opinion.
Thank you for posting your response, it was very informative (hint, hint to other moderators out there).
It is smart on a shallow level as it makes the EULA look less one-sided (hey, we agreed to pay damages Microsoft will say). But at the same time it is capping those damages at an absurdly low level. But it still looks more reasonable than a provision that says we are not liable for any damages - which would probably just get struck out of the agreement if it ever ended up in litigation (at least I bet that is what Microsoft's lawyers thought).
And I don't think the fact that this software product is free makes a difference, especially since my understanding (as a non-techie) is that most spyware is the result of bugs or holes in IE and/or Windows.
Is it untrue? (I hope so since I use firefox and love the product) If it is true, are these things not really anything to be concerned about?
I am honestly just curious since, as I said, I am a non-techie.
But you are right to point out that they could fix the problem.
As far as the quarterly statement (which I don't think requires auditor sign off either - but I am not sure) Whatever they don't wnat to disclose in the year-end filing (be it a going concern opinion or whatever) would have to be disclosed in that filing or the filing would be fraudulent. So that is why they aren't filing that one either probably.
Not filing an SEC filing on time is just a really bad thing, it opens up the directors and officers to both civil and criminal liability. So when a company chooses to do that you have to assume that what they are not disclosing is extremely bad.
Everyone should look at their monthly bills and notify the CC company of any erroneous/fraudulent charges. Then the CC company can take that up with the vendor that made the charge. It's the beauty of using a credit card.
The will get delisted. They always grant companies these hearings if the company seeks one - and then they almost always delist the company.
So this was to be expected, but probably won't change the ultimate result (being delisted).
So even if it did cost them "hundreds of millions" - which it won't - they would be okay because their insurance would pick up all/most of that.
If the suit doesn't get dismissed, it will probably settle for significantly less than what the story projects - and probably not even cash but "ebay coupons" or something like that instead, plus cash to the plaintiff's lawyers.
Yes it is fraud - wire and mail fraud. There would also be potential RICO exposure too.
And perhaps there are other claims to be made too.
No one reads them and everyone (including the companies that include them with their products) knows that no one reads them.
And of course this is only one circuit, others could hold differently if multiple challenges were filed around the country.
So judicially, this could play out for a long time.
And of course, Congress could just pass a bill mandating the broadcast flag or expanding the FCC's authority so that they can readopt this rule.
Good point. I also wonder how these laws are constitutional. It would seem to me there would be some sort of interstate commerce or equal protection type arguement. But I haven't seen any of the acts.
Completely agree. Common sense has to enter the equation at some point. Email is obviously a very useful tool for allowing customers or potential customers to contact your business.
But the use of that tool shouldn't open you up to having to sort through thousands of mass-mailed advertisements that you could care less about.
In addition to those two, there are other "standards" out there made by different proprietary makers. Microsoft has XAML, Macromedia has Flash MX, and Mozilla has XUL....
It sounds like the splinter faction is concerned about the lack of backward compatibility in XForms, i.e., it wouldn't be supported by their browsers and would probably require a plug-in.
Sense no current browser supports Xforms, this group figures that Microsoft won't implement it and instead use its XAML form specification. And since IE has over 90% of the market, that would make Xforms essentially irrelevant. XAML would become the defacto standard, and the spliter group's products (alternative browsers to IE) would not be able to implement the proprietary XAML standard. This would effectively lock thei products out of any corporate market that utilized form technology.
So it is a pretty big deal, and it makes sense that the splinter group members are concerned enough to take this action.
Patents are (at least arguably) a necessary mechanism, but the way patents are being used in the United States is a problem. Especially when patents are being issued that are clearly barred by prior art and then used to extort money from small businesses that cannot afford to fight those patents. See the EFF for more info.
I think the big difference between this situation and the bubble is that the investors are investing in the software and hosting companies that power blogs (for a fee - revenue stream is good), and not specific blogs (i.e., Bob's blog isn't getting 2 million dollars in investment based on his 10,000 unique hits per day).
:P)
I think investing in the moveable type company is a smart investment. You have millions of people willing to pay a monthly fee, and millions more likely to sign up in the coming months. That is a good revenue source.
And you are correct that blogger is free, but that could always change, and blogger has limits. I personally use blogger right now, but I often think of changing to moveable type because it is simply a better product with more features (but I am cheap, so I don't
Moveable type is the best blogging software on the market, and again, it is a big market, so it sounds like a pretty smart investment to me.
And as for the all you will have is blogs about cats, sure there are many blogs that are like that. But there are also that are very professionally run that provide good information. Slashdot is essentially a blog for example. Instapundit, Vodkapundit, and probably a thousand more I don't know about are all run very professionally. I suspect they are both turning a profit.
I would compare blogs to magazines. There are a million crappy or very niche magazines out there. I am sure hundreds of them fail every year, and hundreds more are started every year. But no one thinks all magazines are going to go away anytime soon. If you turn out a quality product that attracts a broad following, be it a magazine, a newspaper, or a blog, you will be successful. If you have a poor quality product about a topic no one cares about, then you won't.
If you have the time, I would try to read as many as possible and then simply select the one you think is the best.
This will also benefit you in that it may give you ideas for your class, and conversely, if you know what your general curriculum will be already then you can simply see what book matches best with that.