Which gun law prevents you from getting a gun license, and purchasing a shotgun or something suitable for protecting your home? IANAGE (gun enthusiast) but I feel like the only barrier that the laws really provided was if you expected to walk into a store that minute and walkout with a gun and or a handgun (and some background checks that you aren't a convicted fellon / have outstanding warrants / have otherwise taken choices that resulted in the loss of the privilege to personally own a gun).
    Given that you can get a gun faster than you can get a passport, I'm not sure what your point is other than a general "i hate gun laws because i hate them"

IANAL but i feel like if I am not originating the call in Mississippi I don't see how I am bound by their laws. The state I make the call from allows it, I am not required to know their state laws, I don't set foot in their state, I don't operate a business in their state. I don't know enough about this to know whats involved in spoofing; but I know enough to know that unless they can prove that you willfully did something, and also that you did so under their jurisdiction I don't see how they can do anything.

As stated this seems like moronic, idiotic, technologically inept old politicians reacting to some knee jerk 'my sister got done scammed by them there telemarketers' and passing a law they know nothing about, have no way to enforce, and which targets the wrong group.

If you don't like caller id then stop paying for it. I don't think i have a single phone that uses it anyhow. Most people's cell phones don't actually do caller-id. They merely cross-reference the number from your contacts list. The last time I had a landline the caller-id wasn't smart enough to even do that; and merely stated names of places where calls were thought to have come from.... So i really dont care at all.

All in all, glad to see where these guys are wasting state money on. With real problems going on they are wasting time and taxpayer money on caller-id spoofing. Really? It's that high up on your agenda?

what if his name is Joe though?

what i want to know is why is he not forced to sell off his BMW, hdv, wine collection etc as part of his bankruptcy?
overall, fair or not, the guy sounds like a moron. If you make 6 figures have the common sense to put some of it away in savings. Making that kind of money, he should be able to live for several years or more without working. I'm not saying he should be ready to retire today; but really you had no savings, investments, etc? You threw all of your money away on frivelous crap and are acting surprised now?

Should get funnier when his lease expires for the bmw.

where are the mod points when i need them; this story made my day; and your post was even better.

or your mom could gain some real world skills and learn how to freaking use a computer.... oh wait its just that like computer you have at home and that you use at work...

Because you don't HAVE TO rely on them. You can always create your own repos, add other users repos, etc, etc. They just provide a very good channel for managing to the two together so that you can rely on an already existing infrastructure even if you are an independent dev. Everyone doesn't have to go out write up a crappy version of Installer software..

Furthermore, its linux, you can always grab the source and compile it yourself, or grab a binary. You are not forced to go through those channels to obtain an application; but they are they if you like (and are smart).

Better analogy, think itunes app store, except you can create your own 'store' that people can access in exactly the same way as they access everything else. All they have to do is add your 'store' to the list of approved stores.

The point here is that distro's do some of the approval for you, and can instill in you some confidence that the stuff is safe.

The reason it works for Linux so well is that most all of the software is free as in beer; so all of the software fits well into the architecture. On a PC most software costs something; and the companies involved like MS are in a position where it is their job to make a profit. They have little to gain by providing you with an easy way to install trusted free software, where do they make money by testing free software is safe? Apple almost gets there with their recommended picks and such from their website; they just need to create a decent application to deal with it; (please for the love of god not itunes....)

how is this any different from now? you apply for a job and you give them your drivers license number and your SS#. They could go look it up through the same channels.

I'm sick of people making the arguement that it lets them track everything in the world and that everyone would get access to everything on it.

Think about it for more than a second. Your SS# is usually tied somewhere to your health insurance; do you think that allows anyone working at your health insurance company to check out your passport status or your SS benefits (bad example that answer is 0 always...) ?

It's an ID that authenticates that YOU are YOU. It will do a hell of a lot of a better job than a SS# which you have no way of proving its your or not if it gets compromised stolen lost etc.

What they choose to connect with it is a seperate issue; just be sure to raise hell if they try to connect confidential information together that they cant.

This also doesn't mean that it would supplant your drivers license for everyday use; most likely it would start by replacing the horridly insecure usage of the Social Security number; especially since its highly likely that social security will fail any year now.

I fail to see any point which lets you make a logical jump from merchant swiping your id to see your old enough to buy beer to the merchant also seeing that you've been arrested 6 times for disorderly conduct.

Directly addressing your points:
what do you buy now that requires your SS#? next to nothing? Why would that change? Seems to me this would replace your SSN not your Driver's License. You don't have to be a citizen to buy things here.
Even if you did 'buy stuff' and have it checked; how does this information become the governments? They already check your ID when you fly anyways. You are making a huge jump that automagically a. it will always get logged to the government where and when your id is checked, and B. that without a warrant they will even be able to query such information. The only purchases you even mention are transportation based where your ID is already checked, whats the difference? make it such that all they can do is check that its valid and can't log that it was checked or where it was checked...

Your bit on crimes makes no sense at all. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter how many crimes are given to you because thats unrelated and independent from this ID. All this does is make the background checks done by your company and police officers potentially more accurate and collaborated. It doesn't change when they may occur. You take a new job, they run a background check. What's changed here?

its rather simple, don't allow stuff to get stored that shouldn't be. don't allow people to access information they have no need for.

What freedom is being reduced? Can you name one?

There is nothing wrong with the card in itself, its the implementation and usage that you should be concerned and vigilante about. Until then, just keep staring at your SSN card.

1. Explicitly prohibited by the licensing agreements of the tickets
2. Explicitly prohibited by the terms of the sellers (both the distributing retailer and the originating party)
and (granted this is not a truly legitimate reason as its speculative, but more of a motivation)
3. Because 99 times out of 100 scalping is not done through a legitimate business, with no papertrail (i.e. cash only) and all proceeds becoming unreported income, thus escaping the clutches of uncle sam and taxes.

I for one agree in one sense, that their needs to be competition to make TicketMaster imparticular stop price gouging. I think it is beyond egregious that while the ticket may cost "$78" it actually costs ~100$ to buy after they add in a 15$ convenience change (convenience for what?), sales tax, and then another charge to get your ticket printed (charge ranges from a couple dollars for online printing, to several dozen for express shipping), with no option being free. Oh and no refunds, I love that one too (although allowing refunds to large extent would likely only further encourage scalping... can't sell it for crazy markup? return it and have no risk at all)

To me this screams of two things. One, misrepresentation of costs. If you can't physically acquire the ticket for less than FULL_COST = (COST + CONVENIENCE_CHARGE + OTHER_FEES) than they shouldn't be allowed to ever quote a price for that ticket at less than FULL_COST. (For what it's worth I think cable and telco industries should be held to this same standard, and not be allowed to remove various 'this isn't a tax/government fee but we present it separately as though it is one' costs as well as cost for the minimum needed equipment to receive the service (i.e. if you have to rent at least one cable box per month from them to receive anything they should have to put that price, at least of the cheapest box, right into the advertised monthly rate)

Two, and the real problem I have with scalping from a more ethical standpoint, is that it is not done in a true market. People are using dubious means to acquire tickets ( a limited consumable resource ) to an event, and then trying to turn around and sell it again at a vast markup providing no service or benefit to the customer. All that it does is raise costs to end users and decrease availability. IANAL but if this were done in the stock market it would sound a lot like pump and dump, or in banking being a loan shark. If they want to distribute tickets, form a legitimate business and secure a contract to distribute tickets.

Or in other words give them rights to snoop where they have no right to be snooping. When the person breaks the law, punish them suitably for it. end of story. Being a group who desires to overthrow the government is legal. Deal with it. You do remember how this country was founded right?

They seem ridiculous because they are. They admit how faulty our system is to need such things. There is no way to abuse something for good. If you abuse the law you are doing something ethically wrong. Because by so doing, you lay groundwork for others to circumvent vent it. If the law is wrong, change it.

How is it any more possible for a witness to see the driver doing her makeup than for the police man to do so himself? Frankly I'm surprised they don't put a cop on foot at traffic lights in cities, walk around take down the plates of hundreds of drivers using cell phones w/o headsets and have them all pulled over several blocks away...

except this law is saying its illegal to do legal things

too bad this is going to be found unconstitutional. but thanks for letting us know you are a bunch of authoritarian red necks. Just in case we needed more proof that North Carolina is much cooler than South Carolina.
and 20 bucks says this was proposed by some republicans, since everyone seems to focus on calling the democrats the socialists. You know whats a million times worse than what you allege to be socialism? Fascism and Authoritarianism. Our constitution gives us not only the right, but the responsibility to revolt and throw a revolution if the government falls out of touch. That's the whole point of democracy.
f-ing asshats

that its 'old' doesn't make it "well established". it means you are content with being ripped off and being jacked up for them to earn interest. just because they are ripping you off doesn't make it right.

key difference is that in those scenarios you are billed for the service provided. They don't bill you 1000 extra and say you'll have use the remainder of the funds on us as well. its like a credit card bill but in reverse... imagine that.

not a patron, a drunken patron. i dont know, but i would hope that is the only reason he is able to sue them (along with and in addition to the drunken patron himself).

not that strange. if you leave a bar and drive home drunk and hit someone the bar is usually sued..

let the case speak for itself, whether its actually valid or not i dont know, and I'd agree with you if he didn't contact support, but if he did I have no sympathy for them. Companies seem to love to not resolve problems these days. Took me 4 months to get a refund from AT&T for a cable bill they charged me for a month that was over a full month after I had cancelled service and turned in my equipment.

I mentioned this in another reply, just becuase they are good at it doesnt mean they didn't make an error. I'm not saying they made one and that I believe him, all i'm saying is that their reputation doesn't matter. what matters is whether they made an error or not. Thats the part the court determines (and that's the part where it seems the judicial system seems to be lost at times in)

i dont get why it matters to you, if he didn't attempt to contact them he's going to end up losing the case and probably have to pay their lawyers attourneys fees which is far more of a punishment than having the case "thrown out"... that's whats needed, I'm not going to speculate about issues we don't even know about, theres plenty to speculate about with the parts we do know

While i don't think the first paragraph point you talk about is that part being contested there is a MAJOR problem with your logic. You are generating a list in the wrong direction. Whether it works for 1 person or 1 million people is irrelevant in the validity of his claim. If it's not working with any consistency for anyone there is a problem. All that list does is exclude people from the class.

If I were his lawyer (and also was contesting that issue (which I'm not on both counts) ) I'd draw up a list of the number of users who over a period of 48 hours have been UNABLE to download the content (or whatever is deemed to be a 'reasonable amount of time'). If that list has at least 1 member in it, which he suggests he might be in, then MS is liable for something and has a problem they need to rectify. Whether the list is big enough that they settle it individually, or a class is formed is up to people who know that stuff... but thats the only list that really matters.

Whether you provided service or not is not an issue of character or credibility, its not an issue of opinion, its an issue of fact. The service is either provided or it isn't, and each transaction's fulfillment has no impact on one another. If my someone charges you for service and doesn't provide it to you, YOU are the one entitled to recourse, those who have been provided it are not. The fact that no one else had a problem doesn't make it OK for them to rip off you (or someone else), and doesn't prove or disapprove that you did/didn't have a problem.

I think it's utterly attrocious that they get to make a fake currency, force people to buy it in absurd bundled quantities basically force you to waste money. The only legal tender in this country is USD last time I checked. Forcing me to buy your funny money seems pretty much by definition an anticompetitive and fraudulent practice done solely on the premise of making a profit on unused points and forcing us to buy something we wouldn't with our "leftover" otherwise unusable cash, or to give them a few more dollars so as to have enough to make a similar non desired purcahse..

all of which are tactics of a horrible business model. If you seriously depend upon these profits that are created by forcing your clients to either waste money or buy something they don't want then you have a horrible business and should reconsider your product. Frankly I would consider you uninvestable, you aren't creating profit from value.

At least on the wii, 100 points is 1 dollar and you can buy them at the 100 point interval.. MS seeks to confuse people by selling at bizzarre rates that don't align with anything they sell. most (not all) items are sold for multiples of 400; while points are acquired in multiples of 500. and of course there is no reverse transaction and they can terminate the system whenever they want.

The lawsuit from the article doesnt appear to be about the failed downloads per see... but the whole 'hassle' of having content transferred seems to be a bit of BS as well. Tie the content to the user ID and dont let user ID's be signed in from more than one place at a time.. not that complicated. If you can't handle this then you shouldn't be in the business of selling DLC.