FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Pirate Bay Founders Invent DDo$ Attack (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Pirate Bay Founders Invent DDo$ Attack
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
But it always occurred to me watching Duck Tales, that if Uncle Scrooge actually swam in those coins, he would first die by landing on them head first, and then be crushed by their weight as he swam through them. I was possibly morbid as a child.

Well, if you had gone to the original sources and not wasted your time with the degenerate descendants of once-mighty franchises, you would know that there is a trick to it, which only Scrooge knows.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Magson:
Which is why many small stores require minimum purchase amounts when using a card... and some even charge $0.50 if you use a card for your transaction.

Aside from what scifibum said, it is also illegal to do so in WA state, where I reside.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lupus
Member
Member # 6516

 - posted      Profile for Lupus   Email Lupus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I can't see why, especially if he goes to the trouble of rolling them. That just saves the store manager the trip to the bank for change. People can be such dicks even when you're being helpful.

Because he has no way of knowing if you really put the right amount of money in each roll, or if the middle of the roll is filled with something other than coins. Believe me, people do try this. Giving a store rolled coins is not being helpful, it is a hassle.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
The bank was fine with giving you that many pennies?
Sweet.

Yeah...I had to give them 5 business days notice. [Big Grin]
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Magson:
Which is why many small stores require minimum purchase amounts when using a card... and some even charge $0.50 if you use a card for your transaction.

And THAT is illegal and in violation with the contract each store has with every major credit card company. It happens, but when it does THEY are breaking the law.their contract.


The "minimum purchase" thing, that is...I know, we had a rep come in to a business I worked at once and threaten to pull out machine if we continued to do it.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lupus:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I can't see why, especially if he goes to the trouble of rolling them. That just saves the store manager the trip to the bank for change. People can be such dicks even when you're being helpful.

Because he has no way of knowing if you really put the right amount of money in each roll, or if the middle of the roll is filled with something other than coins. Believe me, people do try this. Giving a store rolled coins is not being helpful, it is a hassle.
Not true at all, it depends on the store. B$N LOVED it when people did....and a small scale which could weigh the rolls along with a list of allowable variances for each denomination make checking them almost foolproof.


It's called LEGAL TENDER for a reason.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Exploit lacks the connotative ring that vandalism or theft has, though.

*shrug* I'm OK with that since exploit seems more accurate. It seems to characterize the credit card minimum purchase issue better too.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Magson:
Which is why many small stores require minimum purchase amounts when using a card... and some even charge $0.50 if you use a card for your transaction.

If they accept Visa and Mastercard, those stores are almost certainly violating terms of service. A condition of accepting those cards is not to set a minimum transaction amount and surcharges are almost never OK. I see places getting away with it, and usually comply with the merchant's wishes without complaint, but it's still against the rules set by the card issuers. You're not supposed to accept those cards if the benefit from additional sales volume doesn't offset the losses at the individual small transaction level.
I've seen chains as large as Dollar Tree do this (minimum purchase, that is), so... I don't know. Case by case exceptions? At any rate, it's a stupidly easy rule to weasel out of; I've seen plenty of places, including one I used to work for, that offered a discount for people paying variously in cash, with debit cards, and/or with checks (and likely hiking their prices the equivalent percentage.)

I can't say I sympathize with the card companies in this regard. It sounds an awful like "Rule #1, we get to hit you. Rule #2, if you try to prevent us from hitting you, we get to hit you."

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Nope...it's pretty much against policy regardless. It isn't always illegal, although in most states it is as well.

It's to protect the consumer, so that they will always be able to use their cards.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/merchants-who-violate-credit-card-terms-1275.php


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11697094/

[ May 13, 2009, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I can't say I sympathize with the card companies in this regard. It sounds an awful like "Rule #1, we get to hit you. Rule #2, if you try to prevent us from hitting you, we get to hit you."
I do sympathize with the merchants. The ones that do a lot of small transactions and almost no big ones, like the sandwich shop in the building next door. They can't make money as a cash-only place, because not enough people carry cash. Accepting credit cards forced them to raise prices, which makes them less attractive to everyone. They struggle. (It's only my belief that nobody owes them a successful sandwich shop that keeps me from shedding a tear.)

But it's right there in the agreement when they sign up to accept the credit cards. *shrug*

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
I know a computer place which does this allowed thing from the second article. I wish more places did it instead of making minimum purchase limits.

quote:
Discount for cash transaction: Merchants can offer this discount as long as the information is clearly disclosed to customers and the cash price is presented as a discount from the standard price charged for all other forms of payment.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seatarsprayan
Member
Member # 7634

 - posted      Profile for Seatarsprayan   Email Seatarsprayan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I've been thinking about this. Under this definition, I think just about anyone who's charged a small purchase (a few dollars or less) on a credit card is quite probably guilty of vandalism.
Intent matters; someone who *purposely* bought a pack of gum with a credit every day to intentionally screw over a business by making them lose money on credit card fees would be a scumbag, in my opinion.

Someone that doesn't know about the fees, or regretfully doesn't have any cash... that's a different story.

Me, I generally try not to use credit cards for small amounts; at big chains like Target I might anyway, if I have no cash; at the local produce store, I'll drive a mile to an ATM and get cash before I try to buy three oranges with a credit card though.

Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, I don't do that, but in the PB situation I think it is creative, and completely justified. I may be donating myself, just because they made me laugh. [Big Grin]
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Well, I don't do that, but in the PB situation I think it is creative, and completely justified. I may be donating myself, just because they made me laugh. [Big Grin]
It's certainly creative, but in what way is it justified?

"Courts ruled against me...take action to cost my opponent money." That seems to be the reasoning. Oh, and not liking the opponent.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xann.
Member
Member # 11482

 - posted      Profile for Xann.   Email Xann.         Edit/Delete Post 
Just because the court ruled against them doesn't mean they were at fault, and I bet they disagree vehemently that they were doing anything wrong .
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Just because the court ruled against them doesn't mean they were at fault, and I bet they disagree vehemently that they were doing anything wrong .
Neither of those have anything to do with the question I asked.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Riiiight.

Don't wait for me to answer, assign a stupid, irrational reason and claim it to be mine. Assign a stupid rationale that I never said. It's soooo much easier that way.


It is legal. It meets the standard put forth by the courts, and doing it in this way is a creative form of non-violent objection to the ruling. It highlights both the absurd decision, and the fact that they still disagree with the ruling....and they do so by breaking no rules or laws.

A lot of these people/companies have used the "letter of the law" to increase the duration of copyright laws to absurd amounts, cover things that may or may not have been intended to be covered in the first place, and to prosecute people who do little more than compile lists of independent websites.

I find this to be a completely justified way of showing how little sense some laws make, and to announce what a lot of people thing of this ruling. Civil disobedience in the digital age...using the same "letter of the law" worldview....


It's freaking brilliant!


If they don't like it, they can change banks. Better hurry though. [Wink]

[Big Grin]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Kwea,

quote:
Don't wait for me to answer, assign a stupid, irrational reason and claim it to be mine. Assign a stupid rationale that I never said. It's soooo much easier that way.
I did wait for you to answer. 'Seems to be', you'll recall. I didn't say, "This is what you think." That would've been easier, but then so would reading my reply have been easier:)

quote:

It is legal. It meets the standard put forth by the courts, and doing it in this way is a creative form of non-violent objection to the ruling. It highlights both the absurd decision, and the fact that they still disagree with the ruling....and they do so by breaking no rules or laws.

I'm perfectly aware that this is legal. That is not and has never been the point I was making.

quote:
A lot of these people/companies have used the "letter of the law" to increase the duration of copyright laws to absurd amounts, cover things that may or may not have been intended to be covered in the first place, and to prosecute people who do little more than compile lists of independent websites.
And so, in response to the perceived injustice of this 'letter of the law' style of rulings, it's good to...use precisely the same style of reasoning? That doesn't follow.

quote:
I find this to be a completely justified way of showing how little sense some laws make, and to announce what a lot of people thing of this ruling. Civil disobedience in the digital age...using the same "letter of the law" worldview....
It's a pretty cheap form of civil disobedience - pun intended - that poses no danger and costs next to nothing to those participating.

PS 'Compile lists of independent websites' indeed *rolleyes* I don't believe it should be illegal to do so, but let's not beat around the bush.

Edit: Now that I think about it, though, your reasoning doesn't appear much different than what I thought it seemed like. There's just an added layer of poetic justice tacked on, really.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry man, I am sick as a dog AND it was late, way later than I should have been up....and I was grumpy. [Wink]


I think it DOES follow, and that it highlights the fact that just because something is illegal under current law doesn't make it as cut and dried as some people would like it to seem. I think it IS good to use this to highlight disagreement.

You point may not have been about the legal aspects of it, but part of why I like it is the fact that it is legal. As a matter of fact, to me it's central to why it is brilliant rather than just an exploit, or a regular DOS attack.

It helps that the target is the very law firm that used legalities to win this case too, although that isn't a major reason. I realize that as bad as this ruling is, the law is a very important tool, and lawyers are a necessary evil of it. Not that lawyers are evil, but the fact that the law is so obscure that regular citizens are unable to navigate it without assistance is not good.

I download a lot of content off of a tracker that draws torrents off of PB....and 99% of what I download is legal content, either out of copyright or things that artists release via torrents for publicity. The other 1% would have been legal if copyright had not been extended to an absurd length.

I can find those torrents using Google almost as easily, but you don't see THEM being sued. You may think it a ridiculous concept, but a lot of people don't And not everyone making that argument is lying about what they download either.

I won a copy of MS Office, legally bought, but after going around and around with them about getting a free copy to reinstall on a computer that crashed I finally gave up and downloaded a crack. I don't feel bad about it at all, nor will I ever. If I had an option I would not do business with MS again because of the outcome, but I have to....and I HAD already bought it once before, less then a year later.


Not every person using these trackers are downloading movies or video games.


I have always been a fan of poetic justice, though. [Big Grin]

[ May 14, 2009, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
I can find those torrents using Google almost as easily, but you don't see THEM being sued.

...Yet.

Which is part of the reason the ruling makes me nervous.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
I can find those torrents using Google almost as easily, but you don't see THEM being sued.

...Yet.

Which is part of the reason the ruling makes me nervous.

This strikes me as the inevitable next step. Either there has to be a clear ruling in support of consumer freedom, or I don't know what happens- but then, there is the ruling in favor of video recorders way back in the 80's that defined our attitudes toward set top boxes up to the present day- you never really know how it will all shake out.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
So going to repeat what I said: This isn't going to work.

For either party, no less. by all means, hit a torrent site. hit it as hard as you can. watch it metastasize and evolve an immunity to your best efforts and legal options. watch your efforts merely turn the industry into more of an unrepetant, 'black' industry. continue beating back ocean with broom.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2