Any throttling is going to be noticed by this idiot, and if his old man is shit stupid to let him do this kind of thing anyways, you can be sure you'll be getting an unfriendly knock on the door about the slow network
It sound like you have to wait until you meet him in a dark alley until you can start throttling him.
He sells the stuff, so he says he would be willing to have a chip implanted. Then he asked three other people and they told him "fuck off, you pervert" and punched him in the face. At that point he gave up and claimed 25% agreement.
Two or three years ago, when the first two cases were reported (strange enough two cases with the same car type in two weeks, and then nothing for years), a representative of Daimler Benz claimed that on _all_ cars the brakes are about FOUR times stronger than the engine. Including a 400 horse power Mercedes. The only problem is that you have to stop to a stand still _immediately_ because over time the brakes heat up and become useless. So stopping if your car starts accelerating from 70 miles is no problem. But if you try to keep it at 70 mph even though the engine tries to accelerate, you destroy the brakes in a short time.
In his Glitter and Doom tour, Tom Waits pioneered an effective anti scalpers scheme.
A different, simple scheme that benefits the artist: Once the venue is sold out (say 90% to scalpers) announce another concert on the next day. If that gets sold out, do another and so on. Result: Lots of money for the artist, who will play in many sold out but mostly empty halls. No money for scalpers.
In other words, no change at all. Just enough press coverage and feigned outrage to cover themselves and shift the blame if required to do so at a later date. But nobody got fired. Nor did any contract get canceled.
If you had read Apple's report, you would have known that this is wrong. One of the companies that got caught _did_ have their contract cancelled. And $2.2 million got paid to workers who had been charged unfair fees by employment agencies.
As an example, the UK government has an employment website at www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment . All UK government websites in English (and not Welsh, I suppose) should be at www.direct.gov.uk/en/something. If I wanted to know our ministers' salaries, then I might try going to www.direct.gov.uk/en/ministerssalaries . Typing in that URL is not hacking, and I would consider it my right to use any information I find there. Or if the UK government is working on a transport blueprint, I could try www.direct.gov.uk/en/transportblueprint . Just common sense. Why would I try to find a link to the site when I can just type in the URL?
Now if I was told that the ministers' salaries are at www.direct.gov.uk/en/salaries_01934721adouex, then I would have to suspect that something illegal has been going on to get that URL, and that I shouldn't visit that site.
More like if we had a phone system where you typed in the name of the person you want to call and it connects, and you type in the name of a person who isn't listed in the official phone directory.
Actually, contrary to your claim there will be very serious repercussions if the blogger takes this case to court.
When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement. If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act. And since the blogger claims that he had the permission of the copyright holder, it seems that a criminal act happened (assuming the blogger is telling the truth). And I think damages would be awarded against the complainant anyway if the complaint was not justified (that is if the complainant had good reason to believe there was copyright infringement, but turned out to be wrong).
Shouldn't we calculate the price in the same way as iPhone prices are usually calculated?
According to the FTA, he is paying $529 for the phone, plus $80 per month for an unlimited plan = $1920 over two years, total = $2449. That is the cost of the phone.
You (and power users with entrenched habits, in general) may hate Ribbon, but it wasn't just thrown in there to look how well it does. There were surveys and tests before it was accepted, and most casual users were found to do better with the Ribbon.
No, that's not what Microsoft designs for. They don't design for ease of use; their design goal is to design software in such a way that the users blame themselves for any problems instead of blaming Microsoft. The ribbons show so much information all with pretty icons that any user who cannot find things blames themselves for being stupid - that's Microsoft's intention. In contrast, put the same user on a Macintosh using non-Microsoft software, and suddenly the problems go away. And if there are problems, they blame it on the computer and not on themselves.
So in Germany if I am certified in CPR and I see someone not breathing, I can screw up CPR and kill them without being charged for negligence? How many times?
It would be rather hard to kill an adult by CPR. You would be liable if you "should have known that what you are doing is harmful". So if you kill someone by doing CPR (that is a person who would have lived if you hadn't done anything, not a person that would have lived had you done it properly), I would be sure you did something that made you liable.
On the other hand, a few broken ribs can easily happen.
Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them.
If I remember correctly, Lexmark fell flat on their face when they tried that argument on a competitor. It's not as easy as "software + copyright + DRM = DMCA". DMCA prevents unauthorised access to protected copyrighted software. Lexmark's printer cartridges contained _unprotected_ software that was so primitive that it was found to be not deserving of copyright, so copying it was found to be neither copyright violation nor DMCA violation. Lexmark tried to prevent users of their printers from accessing competitors' ink cartridges without authorisation by Lexmark. But DMCA only controls access to software, not to ink cartridges. And even if it controlled access to ink cartridges, it would only be relevant for unauthorised use of Lexmark cartridges, not for unauthorised use of a competitors' cartridge.
So Lexmark's arguments were based on a complete lack of understanding or wilful misinterpretation of the DMCA.
If you accept the RIAA's contention that each of these songs could be passed on to other people, who could in turn pass them on to more people, it may sound reasonable.
That always seemed completely unreasonable to me. Ok, if some person A puts music on their computer and allows others to download it, then damage is done every time someone downloads. That's fine. Now the downloader B has the music on their computer. That person can again allow more people to download from his or her computer, but that's B's problem. Whether B distributes music that comes from his own CDs, or music that was illegally downloaded from A's computer, that doesn't make a difference. And it has nothing to do with the original distributor A.
should be a nice precedent. In that case, Apple asked for $30,000 damages for actually proven distribution of more than 700 illegal copies of MacOS X Leopard, each worth $30,000, and another for an (unknown to me) number of illegal copies of MacOS X Snow Leopard. (They also asked for damages for DMCA violation, but that is a different matter).
Using that as precedent, $80,000 seems about right if there is evidence that 200,000 copies of a song were distributed.
Now, they may *possibly* be asking people to break and NDA, but that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one, and therefore it wouldn't be illegal.
The legal problem is not the NDA, but opening a trade secret to the public. Both doing it and inducing a person to do so is illegal under Californian law.
Seriously, what makes you think there would be any corporate data on my home computer when I work from home? Allowing anything like that is just insane. No sane organisation would ever allow that. (Obviously the UK government is no sane organisation by that definition).
I agree that it doesn't make sense for a desktop PC. However you are neglecting to consider a laptop. It can be a pain to attach and detach a laptop to a television or digital projector using a VGA cable.
Five meter VGA cable, and five meter headphone cable, running along the bottom of the wall, that works just fine. Certainly not worth spending $100 for.
Slashdot Mirror
Any throttling is going to be noticed by this idiot, and if his old man is shit stupid to let him do this kind of thing anyways, you can be sure you'll be getting an unfriendly knock on the door about the slow network
It sound like you have to wait until you meet him in a dark alley until you can start throttling him.
"Unruly youths" is journalism code in Europe for "gangs of young Muslim men."
You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
He sells the stuff, so he says he would be willing to have a chip implanted. Then he asked three other people and they told him "fuck off, you pervert" and punched him in the face. At that point he gave up and claimed 25% agreement.
Two or three years ago, when the first two cases were reported (strange enough two cases with the same car type in two weeks, and then nothing for years), a representative of Daimler Benz claimed that on _all_ cars the brakes are about FOUR times stronger than the engine. Including a 400 horse power Mercedes. The only problem is that you have to stop to a stand still _immediately_ because over time the brakes heat up and become useless. So stopping if your car starts accelerating from 70 miles is no problem. But if you try to keep it at 70 mph even though the engine tries to accelerate, you destroy the brakes in a short time.
In his Glitter and Doom tour, Tom Waits pioneered an effective anti scalpers scheme.
A different, simple scheme that benefits the artist: Once the venue is sold out (say 90% to scalpers) announce another concert on the next day. If that gets sold out, do another and so on. Result: Lots of money for the artist, who will play in many sold out but mostly empty halls. No money for scalpers.
In other words, no change at all. Just enough press coverage and feigned outrage to cover themselves and shift the blame if required to do so at a later date. But nobody got fired. Nor did any contract get canceled.
If you had read Apple's report, you would have known that this is wrong. One of the companies that got caught _did_ have their contract cancelled. And $2.2 million got paid to workers who had been charged unfair fees by employment agencies.
As an example, the UK government has an employment website at www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment . All UK government websites in English (and not Welsh, I suppose) should be at www.direct.gov.uk/en/something. If I wanted to know our ministers' salaries, then I might try going to www.direct.gov.uk/en/ministerssalaries . Typing in that URL is not hacking, and I would consider it my right to use any information I find there. Or if the UK government is working on a transport blueprint, I could try www.direct.gov.uk/en/transportblueprint . Just common sense. Why would I try to find a link to the site when I can just type in the URL?
Now if I was told that the ministers' salaries are at www.direct.gov.uk/en/salaries_01934721adouex, then I would have to suspect that something illegal has been going on to get that URL, and that I shouldn't visit that site.
More like an unlisted phone number.
More like if we had a phone system where you typed in the name of the person you want to call and it connects, and you type in the name of a person who isn't listed in the official phone directory.
If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.
Well, the law _does_ make them illegal.
Actually, contrary to your claim there will be very serious repercussions if the blogger takes this case to court.
When you file a DMCA complaint, you declare that you are the copyright holder or an agent of the copyright holder, and that there has been a good reason to suspect copyright infringement. If that is not the case, then the DMCA complaint is actually a criminal act. And since the blogger claims that he had the permission of the copyright holder, it seems that a criminal act happened (assuming the blogger is telling the truth). And I think damages would be awarded against the complainant anyway if the complaint was not justified (that is if the complainant had good reason to believe there was copyright infringement, but turned out to be wrong).
That's where the idea comes from :-)
Shouldn't we calculate the price in the same way as iPhone prices are usually calculated?
According to the FTA, he is paying $529 for the phone, plus $80 per month for an unlimited plan = $1920 over two years, total = $2449. That is the cost of the phone.
You (and power users with entrenched habits, in general) may hate Ribbon, but it wasn't just thrown in there to look how well it does. There were surveys and tests before it was accepted, and most casual users were found to do better with the Ribbon.
No, that's not what Microsoft designs for. They don't design for ease of use; their design goal is to design software in such a way that the users blame themselves for any problems instead of blaming Microsoft. The ribbons show so much information all with pretty icons that any user who cannot find things blames themselves for being stupid - that's Microsoft's intention. In contrast, put the same user on a Macintosh using non-Microsoft software, and suddenly the problems go away. And if there are problems, they blame it on the computer and not on themselves.
So in Germany if I am certified in CPR and I see someone not breathing, I can screw up CPR and kill them without being charged for negligence? How many times?
It would be rather hard to kill an adult by CPR. You would be liable if you "should have known that what you are doing is harmful". So if you kill someone by doing CPR (that is a person who would have lived if you hadn't done anything, not a person that would have lived had you done it properly), I would be sure you did something that made you liable.
On the other hand, a few broken ribs can easily happen.
So why have the restriction at all if all it adds is inconvenience to customers?
How is having _one_ store that has _all_ available applications an inconvenience to the customer?
So Apple is basically saying that we should stop buying MacBooks and iPhones?
No. Apple is saying we should stop buying netbooks. And laptops running Windows. But mostly netbooks.
In order to reconcile our credit card accounts, we are required to "go on a trip".
Did you mention that you can't go on two trips on the same day?
Printer Ink costs a lot because the DMCA made it a felony for the low cost and refillable ink cartridge makers to engineer compatible cartridges since the big companies started including DRM in them.
If I remember correctly, Lexmark fell flat on their face when they tried that argument on a competitor. It's not as easy as "software + copyright + DRM = DMCA". DMCA prevents unauthorised access to protected copyrighted software. Lexmark's printer cartridges contained _unprotected_ software that was so primitive that it was found to be not deserving of copyright, so copying it was found to be neither copyright violation nor DMCA violation. Lexmark tried to prevent users of their printers from accessing competitors' ink cartridges without authorisation by Lexmark. But DMCA only controls access to software, not to ink cartridges. And even if it controlled access to ink cartridges, it would only be relevant for unauthorised use of Lexmark cartridges, not for unauthorised use of a competitors' cartridge.
So Lexmark's arguments were based on a complete lack of understanding or wilful misinterpretation of the DMCA.
If you accept the RIAA's contention that each of these songs could be passed on to other people, who could in turn pass them on to more people, it may sound reasonable.
That always seemed completely unreasonable to me. Ok, if some person A puts music on their computer and allows others to download it, then damage is done every time someone downloads. That's fine. Now the downloader B has the music on their computer. That person can again allow more people to download from his or her computer, but that's B's problem. Whether B distributes music that comes from his own CDs, or music that was illegally downloaded from A's computer, that doesn't make a difference. And it has nothing to do with the original distributor A.
should be a nice precedent. In that case, Apple asked for $30,000 damages for actually proven distribution of more than 700 illegal copies of MacOS X Leopard, each worth $30,000, and another for an (unknown to me) number of illegal copies of MacOS X Snow Leopard. (They also asked for damages for DMCA violation, but that is a different matter).
Using that as precedent, $80,000 seems about right if there is evidence that 200,000 copies of a song were distributed.
Now, they may *possibly* be asking people to break and NDA, but that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one, and therefore it wouldn't be illegal.
The legal problem is not the NDA, but opening a trade secret to the public. Both doing it and inducing a person to do so is illegal under Californian law.
Seriously, what makes you think there would be any corporate data on my home computer when I work from home? Allowing anything like that is just insane. No sane organisation would ever allow that. (Obviously the UK government is no sane organisation by that definition).
I agree that it doesn't make sense for a desktop PC. However you are neglecting to consider a laptop. It can be a pain to attach and detach a laptop to a television or digital projector using a VGA cable.
Five meter VGA cable, and five meter headphone cable, running along the bottom of the wall, that works just fine. Certainly not worth spending $100 for.
The real question is, if they had the billing address, why was the rest even necessary to give out?
Maybe the billing address was an old address from which he moved away long time ago.
To me giving out privacy related data is worse then whatever a person did.
1. Your name and address are not "privacy related data".
2. Giving out any really private data about a drug dealer is not worse than dealing drugs.