Or in the infamous words of Lee Iacoca:
"You are free to have any color car that you like... as long as its black"
Or in the infamous words of Lee Iacoca:
"You are free to have any color car that you like... as long as its black"
hassle and easy != freedom
iphone is not liberating, its not freeing you from anything.
Improved user experience != freedom
you can say that apple "frees" you from certain user interface detractions, but that's it.
People like you are why we lose our civil liberties everyday.
The movie analogy is pretty bad for a lot of other reaasons. You gain nothing from those concessions. My viewing is not improved because they control the food. Their profits are. My viewing is not affected by their refusal to show porn; if you don't want to watch it don't buy a ticket. Neither of those have any significant impact on the services they offer.
Here's my larger issue. I can produce and sell software for the Mac OS without paying them a dime last time i checked. Similarly I can install what I like. Why is the iphone treated any differently in this regard than a mac or a macbook pro?
As long as they ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY impose that their store is the only way to get apps on the phone the two are one and the same and can not be seperated. By not allowing any other stores they are controlling all apps on the iphone. Its simple logic.
There does not exist an app which can be installed in compliance to the user license on the iphone (by an end user) which is not an apple's store.
They are directly preventing you from getting an app that they dont deem approvable. Today its porn. Tomorrow its something else. They are absolutely controlling what you do while using their products. They are preventing you from running an app which is deemed to be related to porn, or for that matter "adult content" or anything else they don't like.
Until they allow you to go use a non-apple controlled store where you can put ANY app you like on it, they are doing exactly this.
People with your logical capacity seriously scare me. You lack the ability to connect the dots and put together two simple logical statements. I'm not suggesting that this is remotely on the level of genocide or hitler but here's the parallel. Today they ban porn apps because they say protect the children... Tomorrow they ban apps that don't use apple API X (oh wait this just did this..)... the next day they say "no apps that don't show us source code which we take ownership of"...
Apple is being beyond unethical here; its down right assinine. Their entire platform would be crap if not for the users. The biggest claimed "feature" of the iphone is the app store and its billions of apps. Who created those apps? Third parties.
Now that apple has these apps they are saying you know what, screw the third parties without which our platform wouldn't be popular (imagine an iphone without any apps other than the ones that came installed plus the one-three Apple apps). We are now going to start changing the terms and screwing with them now that we are in a dominant position.
its bull crap, and its why I wont renew my iphone and probably won't by an apple product again. How long until apple applies the app store to the mac as whole? Seriously if its so important to the experience you would think they would have done it there first wouldn't you?
Apple's basic pattern is leech off of open source, polish it up real nice, then lock it down tighter and tighter once it catches on at all, and never contribute anything back. (why do you think they prefer BSD style licenses?) There is nothing extraordinarily innovative about the iPad or iPhone, it took what the Palm Pilot and Palm Smart Phone showed us in the early 90's and just went further with today's hardware capabilities. Heck we saw tablet pc's in the 2000's too.
all i want to know is when does the anti-trust investigation start, they've gotten about as anti-competitive as you can get in the smartphone market if you believe half of what they say.
what happens when that 1% get bit is that the 1% gets bit, and potentially that junior whatever gets fired if he didn't investigate the charge sufficiently. No matter what you do there is going to be 1% who do something stupid. There is nothing you can be expected to do to prevent that other than make your best effort.
That's like saying what about the 1% of people who see a charge on their credit card bill that they don't remember making, but see they've been there before and pay it. Ultimately you are responsible for identifying whether you should pay your bill or not.
So all in all i'm not sure what your point is. I agree that 1% might get taken; but at some level if they don't detect they are being billed for something they shouldn't be who can?
And of what significance is this to the op?
All it needs is 1% for what?
what are you talking about?
His clients aren't going to the site, the cloners are using the access to third party information obtained through the sites email fraudulently bill them. When old clients (some might not be any more) all of the sudden see themselves being billed for years of service that they never recieved/paid for or got, who do you think they are going to believe?
Someone telling them there is a scam going on, which would explain the behavior?
Or someone telling them ignore him, everything is fine we are just billing you for no real reason?
What happens when they pick up the phone to follow up with a complain?
He doesn't need a way to prove who is to the customers, he has proof that he paid for the site domain originally and needs to contact the third party service providers to get that account cut off and redirected to him
Shame on you for not updating contact information when you let the domain expire. forget the open customer accounts within your 'profile' I'd be willing to bet that all of the transactions and everything else are tied to an account of his OWN with the 3rd parties, and various bad bits of information that have now been stolen the biggest problem is that the third party services are treating the activity as legit.
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
If Machiavelli were a hacker, he'd have worked for the CSSG. -- Phil Lapsley