Insufficient money laundering. He even could've accepted ad payments in Bitcoin. Really, he put less effort into laundering criminal proceeds than your average 1%er puts into not paying taxes.
He was a complete nerd and had to look up "money laundering" in a dictionary.
Disclaimer: Slashdot doesn't condone piracy.
Why not? Everyone should condone "piracy." Piracy enriches our lives and our culture. Copying brings us more of the things we love. The only thing that shouldn't be condoned is using smear words like "piracy" to refer to a basic decent act of human behavior.
Actually I've had a problem recently in that I wanted to get some good Converse knockoffs and Amazon was facing limited supply because of attempts on the part of Converse to crack down on this helpful customer-friendly business practice.
[Birkenstock] added that it will also ban any sales of its products by third-party sellers on Amazon
How can they even do that? Amazon isn't their site, and they aren't even going to be an Amazon seller any more. I suppose what they mean is that they won't sell to resellers who sell on Amazon, perhaps? Good luck with that whackamole game.
I guess we'll all turn to Birkenstock knockoffs!
What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck.
If I buy somebody's loss leader and then don't want to participate in the business model they were expecting, that doesn't mean I've "altered the deal" unless there was an actual deal.
And if somebody's trying to save a buck that doesn't make him bad. In fact if he's the guy supplying our food or something else we need that makes him good.
Are we a society rules by law?
Law governs legal penalties; personal opinion and choice governs everything else we do. It's the law, because we are a free society.
The law should take the position that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be punished. But in our personal dealings we can do whatever the heck we want because we are free people. There are plenty of things that should not be illegal that should still face social consequences. And while under the law the burden of proof should be "beyond a reasonable doubt," I don't have to wait for that standard before deciding I don't want to be around someone or don't want my children to be around them.
science has no business telling people how to live.
It is well within the realm of science to tell people how to live their lives BUT not force them to.
That's what this guy was saying when he said "telling people how to live." You're arguing against a strawman.
Also, you just proved why this whole proposal should never happen.
a peculiar kind of aggravation that mental health experts say can provoke rage in even the most mild-mannered person
Is there a citation for that, or is this one of the 72% of statistics that are just made up? My mental health expert told me that I needed to learn how to control my anger and never lose my temper, because an angry outburst is temporary insanity and will always make my problem worse. He went on to teach me how to practice relaxation as an automatic response to frustration so that my mind would literally rewire my neurons for the new habit of problem solving rather than for the old habit of blowing my stack. I find I'm much better at dealing with the problems I face in life now, much more creative at solving those problems, and much happier as a result.
"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill