This sounds an awful lot like computer trespass: coercing somebody else's computer into doing something on your behalf. If an individual pulled this stunt, he or she would be in prison.
Based on this section of ESEA's statement, it was an individual who pulled this stunt.
It came to our attention last night, however, that an employee who was involved in the test has been using the test code for his own personal gain since April 13, 2013. What transpired the past two weeks is a case of an employee acting on his own and without authorization to access our community through our company's resources.
This is one of the points that the AG contends is unclear and/or deceptive. Specifically
and it will no longer fail to "disclose that customers who terminate their T-Mobile wireless service before their device is paid off will have to pay the balance due on the phone at the time of cancellation."
From your statement above I'm not sure you realize this. The terms of the "loan" for the handset are contingent on you maintaining service with T-Mobile. By tying these two together the AG feels this violates the "No Contract" advertising.
Also... what exactly does skin contact with ricin do?
According to this, nothing:
The greatest danger from ricin is inhalation. The LD50 (50% chance of a dose being lethal) for ricin inhalation is 22 micrograms per kg. For an 80kg man this would be just 1.76 milligrams. Accidentally cough while opening the letter and its all over. Just pulling the letter out of the envelope would create enough airborne particles to be dangerous.
What I don't understand is this: Does someone think that the President of the United States actually opens his own mail?
Maybe, maybe not. It might be he's trying to focus the spotlight on how outdated copyright law is in the digital era, and he may be trying to force change. Because he has a point. What's stopping you from duplicating a non-DRM MP3 and then reselling as many copies as you wish via this service?
The service actually tries to address this. Before you can offer a song for sale you have to "quarantine" it to the application on your computer. The service checks to make sure you have not already sold the song before making it available for purchase. How that is accomplished I do not know. Once the song sells, your quarantined copy is deleted. You could have another copy offline somewhere but I think the software will detect it if you try to sell that same copy again. The service really did try to do more than just remind you that you are supposed to delete your copy now.
"Courts have consistently held that the unauthorized duplication of digital music files over the Internet infringes a copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce," Judge Sullivan wrote. "However, courts have not previously addressed whether the unauthorized transfer of a digital music file over the Internet -- where only one file exists before and after the transfer -- constitutes reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The court holds that it does."
Someone needs to audit the bank records for this judge. From his statement it is clear that the judge understands, at least to some extent, the implications of the decision that he is making. That he would issue a summary judgement on such an issue is bordering on misconduct.
Honestly with Slashdot being the way it is these days, I wasn't sure if anyone would notice if they started running gag stories today. At least this way we know.
he Model B is available at MCM Electronics and they have the cases, pi/case combos, Gerboard, Pi-Face, Humble-Pi, Slice of Pi, Arduino goodies, screens, user interface stuff etc.....
An article on arstechnica provides some claims to the contrary.
From the article:
Bitcoin watchers and financial experts aren't as convinced. While the two events may be happening simultaneously, there is little, if any, hard evidence to suggest that one event is fueling the other.
Maybe someone needs a refresher in "correlation does not imply causation"?
This is all well and good, but it still means I have to go into a Walmart. Personally I would rather drag myself over broken glass than go there to get something. At least not without a tetanus shot.
Note to the editor: Please learn how to actually post "Ask Slashdot" questions to the "Ask Slashdot" section. Just sticking the words in the title doesn't make it so.
Thanks.
Sigh. They proposal isn't to tax Amazon. It's to tax *you*. That's how consumption taxes work. So if you live in California and you order something from Amazon you'll pay CA sales tax, in the same way you would if you walked into Fry's.
Which is all well and good, but who is going to collect those taxes? Oregon does not have a state sales tax. If the vendor I purchase from is doing business in Oregon then I do not owe Oregon any sales tax. I did not make a purchase in California, so I do not owe them any sales tax either. This would be no different than if I went to Oregon and made the purchase in person. I could even have the purchase shipped to my home in California directly from the store and still not owe any sales tax. Many states have what is called a "use" tax that they collect for goods that are purchased in other states and brought into their state, but that is something different.
I'm actually kind of surprised the states haven't started issuing subpoena to the large online retailers, to get names and addresses of people that have ordered over a certain amount. and then go after them.
Probably because subpoenas are supposed to require probable cause before being issued. Fishing expeditions like you describe are specifically prohibited. Unless the company has a presence in the state in question, it could also simply ignore the subpoena since I don't believe they have any force in other states. (insert oblig. IANAL here)
If they're actually required to track even just 50 states worth and file those forms, they're not going to be able to comply. Their business is close enough on margins that this could quite seriously push them over the edge and make them close up shop should it be too onerous.
From the article
The budget amendment is an initial step toward allowing state and local governments to collect sales taxes from out-of-state retailers who sell more than US$1 million worth of products in a year over the Internet
Unless your friend does a heck of a business they probably would not be affected at this point.
The same reason why gun laws prohibit felons from owning guns, etc...yet the need is seen to pass more laws. They don't need to fix the statute, they need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.
No, it's not the same reason. This is to fix a loophole in the existing FL gambling laws that some businesses are using to run gambling establishments. A hypothetical equivalent version would be that while it's illegal to sell a gun to a felon, the law would allow a felon to buy a ticket in a raffle where the grand prize is a gun. The business then only sells one ticket in that particular raffle and the ticket costs the same price as the retail price of the gun.
Slashdot Mirror
Being a VM, the machine both exists and doesn't exist.
So its Schrodinger's VM then?
I thought it was always referred to as craniorectal inversion.
This sounds an awful lot like computer trespass: coercing somebody else's computer into doing something on your behalf. If an individual pulled this stunt, he or she would be in prison.
Based on this section of ESEA's statement, it was an individual who pulled this stunt.
It came to our attention last night, however, that an employee who was involved in the test has been using the test code for his own personal gain since April 13, 2013. What transpired the past two weeks is a case of an employee acting on his own and without authorization to access our community through our company's resources.
I still have to pay off the phone.
This is one of the points that the AG contends is unclear and/or deceptive. Specifically
and it will no longer fail to "disclose that customers who terminate their T-Mobile wireless service before their device is paid off will have to pay the balance due on the phone at the time of cancellation."
From your statement above I'm not sure you realize this. The terms of the "loan" for the handset are contingent on you maintaining service with T-Mobile. By tying these two together the AG feels this violates the "No Contract" advertising.
I bought my [macbook] Air to run Linux;
Any pointers to good articles on how to do this and have everything work?
touchpoint ("eraser-pointer")
Also known as
Also... what exactly does skin contact with ricin do?
According to this, nothing:
The greatest danger from ricin is inhalation. The LD50 (50% chance of a dose being lethal) for ricin inhalation is 22 micrograms per kg. For an 80kg man this would be just 1.76 milligrams. Accidentally cough while opening the letter and its all over. Just pulling the letter out of the envelope would create enough airborne particles to be dangerous.
What I don't understand is this: Does someone think that the President of the United States actually opens his own mail?
Why does everything like this have to go to the Supreme Court?
Because that is where we set meaningful precedents that will have a significant impact on the interpretation of laws for years to come.
Maybe, maybe not. It might be he's trying to focus the spotlight on how outdated copyright law is in the digital era, and he may be trying to force change. Because he has a point. What's stopping you from duplicating a non-DRM MP3 and then reselling as many copies as you wish via this service?
The service actually tries to address this. Before you can offer a song for sale you have to "quarantine" it to the application on your computer. The service checks to make sure you have not already sold the song before making it available for purchase. How that is accomplished I do not know. Once the song sells, your quarantined copy is deleted. You could have another copy offline somewhere but I think the software will detect it if you try to sell that same copy again. The service really did try to do more than just remind you that you are supposed to delete your copy now.
Thanks for posting this since the site seems to be slashdotted already and the west coast hasn't even had their coffee yet!
"Courts have consistently held that the unauthorized duplication of digital music files over the Internet infringes a copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce," Judge Sullivan wrote. "However, courts have not previously addressed whether the unauthorized transfer of a digital music file over the Internet -- where only one file exists before and after the transfer -- constitutes reproduction within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The court holds that it does."
Someone needs to audit the bank records for this judge. From his statement it is clear that the judge understands, at least to some extent, the implications of the decision that he is making. That he would issue a summary judgement on such an issue is bordering on misconduct.
The hard part is writing up specs that accurately reflect what is actually needed. Often, specs are ambiguous, incomplete or simply incorrect.
Not to mention the fact that even if they are clear, complete, and correct today, the user will want something else tomorrow.
Honestly with Slashdot being the way it is these days, I wasn't sure if anyone would notice if they started running gag stories today. At least this way we know.
The problem with using someone else to buy it is that there is still a person that may be able to identify you if forced to
Don't leave any loose ends then.
Dear Editors,
There is an 'Ask Slashdot' section for a reason. Please use it!
Thanks.
Fnord666
PS Putting "Ask Slashdot" in the title doesn't do it.
he Model B is available at MCM Electronics and they have the cases, pi/case combos, Gerboard, Pi-Face, Humble-Pi, Slice of Pi, Arduino goodies, screens, user interface stuff etc.... .
With $15.99 shipping. No thank you.
I wish my fellow countrymen and women were more difficult to control with fear,
Don't forget to include an equal measure of apathy.
From the article:
Bitcoin watchers and financial experts aren't as convinced. While the two events may be happening simultaneously, there is little, if any, hard evidence to suggest that one event is fueling the other.
Maybe someone needs a refresher in "correlation does not imply causation"?
This is all well and good, but it still means I have to go into a Walmart. Personally I would rather drag myself over broken glass than go there to get something. At least not without a tetanus shot.
There is an 'Ask Slashdot' section for a reason. Please use it!
Thanks.
Fnord666
Note to the editor: Please learn how to actually post "Ask Slashdot" questions to the "Ask Slashdot" section. Just sticking the words in the title doesn't make it so.
Thanks.
Sigh. They proposal isn't to tax Amazon. It's to tax *you*. That's how consumption taxes work. So if you live in California and you order something from Amazon you'll pay CA sales tax, in the same way you would if you walked into Fry's.
Which is all well and good, but who is going to collect those taxes? Oregon does not have a state sales tax. If the vendor I purchase from is doing business in Oregon then I do not owe Oregon any sales tax. I did not make a purchase in California, so I do not owe them any sales tax either. This would be no different than if I went to Oregon and made the purchase in person. I could even have the purchase shipped to my home in California directly from the store and still not owe any sales tax. Many states have what is called a "use" tax that they collect for goods that are purchased in other states and brought into their state, but that is something different.
I'm actually kind of surprised the states haven't started issuing subpoena to the large online retailers, to get names and addresses of people that have ordered over a certain amount. and then go after them.
Probably because subpoenas are supposed to require probable cause before being issued. Fishing expeditions like you describe are specifically prohibited. Unless the company has a presence in the state in question, it could also simply ignore the subpoena since I don't believe they have any force in other states. (insert oblig. IANAL here)
If they're actually required to track even just 50 states worth and file those forms, they're not going to be able to comply. Their business is close enough on margins that this could quite seriously push them over the edge and make them close up shop should it be too onerous.
From the article
The budget amendment is an initial step toward allowing state and local governments to collect sales taxes from out-of-state retailers who sell more than US$1 million worth of products in a year over the Internet
Unless your friend does a heck of a business they probably would not be affected at this point.
The same reason why gun laws prohibit felons from owning guns, etc...yet the need is seen to pass more laws. They don't need to fix the statute, they need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.
No, it's not the same reason. This is to fix a loophole in the existing FL gambling laws that some businesses are using to run gambling establishments. A hypothetical equivalent version would be that while it's illegal to sell a gun to a felon, the law would allow a felon to buy a ticket in a raffle where the grand prize is a gun. The business then only sells one ticket in that particular raffle and the ticket costs the same price as the retail price of the gun.