Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 1) 260

That's because the IRS started forcing companies to track what their employees consumed and include the value of it in their W-2's (wage statements, for you non-USians). Most companies just decided it wasn't worth the trouble and made it the policy that the employees had to buy the food like everyone else.

Comment Re:Why would Disney do this? (Score 1) 260

Wickard v. Filburn

An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for use to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. In 1941 Filburn grew more than the limits permitted and he was ordered to pay a penalty of $117.11. He claimed his wheat was not sold in interstate commerce and so the penalty could not apply to him.The Supreme Court stated "The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated..."and later "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was "production," "consumption," or "marketing" is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us [...] [b]ut even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
The Supreme Court has since relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. The Supreme Court subsequently held that, as with the home-grown wheat at issue in the present case, home-grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce. As the Court explained in Gonzales v. Raich (2005):

"Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself 'commercial', in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity."

Comment As a player of Blizzard's games (Score 3, Insightful) 129

I have about this -->||<-- much sympathy for Bossland.

The code in question allowed users to violate a very reasonable clause in Blizzard's TOS: Don't cheat or use 'bots.

I hope that now Blizz can analyze the code and go after the users of said 'bots, which I'm sure is their intention behind getting the code.

Hopefully they'll go after the freelancers behind the other game's bots.

Comment Re:Worse (Score 1) 148

All hypothetically, obviously. (But I wouldn't put it completely past some megacorp.)

If a company were really determined to pursue this, they could put a cheap GPS chip in the TV.

Then, the TV only needs a momentary connection to the actual network (like, while you're upgrading your short range null router) to say, "Hey, I'm at location xxx,yyy and I've been running for 635 days, and sent you 60000 packets of information and received zero replies."

The company also files a lawsuit against John Doe (before they even find out who you are) and subpoenas the customer list of the manufacturer of the very short range null route cellphone repeaters (which, in itself, may be running afoul of FCC rules simply by making the devices).

Then the company tracks you down and sues you for contract infringement, and also turns you over to the FCC to make an example of you.

Everyone else sees what happened to you and a handful of other targets and learns to toe the line.

Comment Re:Worse (Score 1) 148

I wonder if the FCC might have something to say about effectively jamming a communication signal, even if it is your own TV that you're jamming.

And if such a thing happens, I'll bet you that, somewhere in the 95 page EULA for your new TV is buried a clause that says, "You agree that you will not interfere with communications from this TV to the manufacturer".

No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it. -- C. Schulz