Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They have not been trained for this

ccc.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: They have not been trained for this

#151

Post by School-Cotton »

boneitis wrote: post #62
jdiez17 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The payment information is a bit obfuscated, being only a parenthesized sequence of letters and numbers in the OP. IBAN: DE41 2001 0020 0599 0902 01 BIC: PBNKDEFFXXX Purpose: Lokomotive Payee: CCC eV

I don't suppose they have any other published, easier methods? I spent almost an hour trying to jump through the fiery, spinning hoops being dangled by my bank website only to finally at the end be given an "It looks like this part of our site isn't working. Please try again later." Thank you, bank /s For anyone else wanting to try their hand and weather the gauntlet, I found slightly more detail of their published b…

If you are American the easiest way to send money to a European bank account is Wise. If you’re European you should be able to do it through your bank.

Re: They have not been trained for this

#152

Post by School-Cotton »

immibis wrote: post #64
boneitis wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't suppose they have any other published, easier methods? I spent almost an hour trying to jump through the fiery, spinning hoops being dangled by my bank website only to finally at the end be given an "It looks like this part of our site isn't working. Please try again later." Thank you, bank /s For anyone else wanting to try their hand and weather the gauntlet, I found slightly more detail of their published b…

For Europeans, this is an extremely easy method and the normal way to send money electronically. The information provided is all that's needed. If you're trying to send from America, it's still the normal way to send a payment to Europe so see how your bank sends international payments.

I have to contradict this, as an American. Don’t attempt to send from your bank as it is likely to be difficult and complicated and involve huge fees. Use Wise instead.

Re: They have not been trained for this

#153

Post by anticensor »

graemep wrote: post #47
trod1234 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If businesses are unable to regulate themselves, it must be done by law. If copyright is the root of the problem, it may be time to remove that protection; or at least revert it so it is more in-line with patent law expiration. No more author's life + 75. Lets try 15-20 once again, and no derivative protection, unless significantly different, receive protection.

Also, different terms for different works. Having the same rules for software, drugs, books, paintings etc. is ridiculous. Software should require disclosure of details of what is protected (e.g. the source) so it can be public used post expiry - just as patents give you a monopoly only what is disclosed in the patent.

They already have different rules (music and sculpture have very different rules from that of books). What kind of difference do you mean?

Re: They have not been trained for this

#154

Post by graemep »

anticensor wrote: post #153
graemep wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, different terms for different works. Having the same rules for software, drugs, books, paintings etc. is ridiculous. Software should require disclosure of details of what is protected (e.g. the source) so it can be public used post expiry - just as patents give you a monopoly only what is disclosed in the patent.

They already have different rules (music and sculpture have very different rules from that of books). What kind of difference do you mean?

AFAIK where I live (in the UK) recorded music has (or had?) a shorter term than books, but sheet music and lyrics did not.

Most things have the same (too long for anything) life + 70.

There is a bad edit in my comment. One item was supposed to go in a second para about the same regarding patents...

Re: They have not been trained for this

#155

Post by immibis »

RandomThoughts3 wrote: post #138
vsl wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're trying to send from America, it's still the normal way to send a payment to Europe It’s not; SWIFT is, and that requires additional information not shown there (although some of it is encoded in the IBAN if you know how to decode it).

SWIFT is not a payment system. It’s only a messaging system. It’s generally used to send initiating orders between financial institutions but they then have to be cleared or directly settled through something else.

IBAN isn't a payment system either, but I'm talking about the end user experience: insert account number, insert amount, click send. Sometimes you also need the SWIFT code which specifies the receiving bank.

Re: They have not been trained for this

#156

Post by etruong42 »

anovikov wrote: post #135
jdiez17 wrote: post #4

I just donated 133,7€ and will gladly do it again if further legal costs arise. Please consider also making a generous donation and post about it in this thread. What Newag is doing here is absolutely vile. They want to charge 20.000€ per train to “reactivate” them after they have been serviced at third party workshops. We must not let them win and set a precedent. I highly encourage everyone to watch the previous pr…

Precedent isn't as big a concern as many might think, most of Europe does not operate under a precedent-based justice system: it doesn't matter what were the previous decisions of courts on similar cases, the law is the only thing that matters.

Can you elaborate? I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the value of precedent is to have courts rule on matters in a manner that is consistent with past rulings. Are you suggesting that courts can interpret the law completely differently from how past courts have ruled? Do you feel like that makes court decisions unpredictable?

To be clear, the law changes over time, so newer laws have less precedence, and I expect courts to respect new laws even though no courts have made ruling based on such a law before.

Re: They have not been trained for this

#157

Post by sizzle »

sfjailbird wrote: post #150
sizzle wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not use Bitcoin, ethereum, or monero address to receive funds from the tech saavy viewership?

Those downvotes. The amount of bile on HN against crypto is a mark of shame on this community.

Yeah I don’t get it honestly. This is a tech enthusiast forum isn’t it?

Re: They have not been trained for this

#158

Post by philosopher1234 »

DirkH wrote: post #140
philosopher1234 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose interests does it serve to place the blame on individual employees?

Sounds like a cop out response. Placing blame on individual employees is not mutually exclusive with placing blame on a company's board.

You dont have to either blame one set of people or another. You could put the blame in the right place instead, the design of the system which all but dictates the individuals choices.

Re: They have not been trained for this

#159

Post by silexia »

jdiez17 wrote: post #4

I just donated 133,7€ and will gladly do it again if further legal costs arise. Please consider also making a generous donation and post about it in this thread. What Newag is doing here is absolutely vile. They want to charge 20.000€ per train to “reactivate” them after they have been serviced at third party workshops. We must not let them win and set a precedent. I highly encourage everyone to watch the previous pr…

We need to fight for the Right to Repair to be in legislation for ALL products! If we buy a product, we should have full access to all software and have the ability to fix it!

Re: They have not been trained for this

#160

Post by hmottestad »

etruong42 wrote: post #156
anovikov wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precedent isn't as big a concern as many might think, most of Europe does not operate under a precedent-based justice system: it doesn't matter what were the previous decisions of courts on similar cases, the law is the only thing that matters.

Can you elaborate? I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of the value of precedent is to have courts rule on matters in a manner that is consistent with past rulings. Are you suggesting that courts can interpret the law completely differently from how past courts have ruled? Do you feel like that makes court decisions unpredictable? To be clear, the law changes over time, so newer laws have less precedence, and I ex…

Norway works on a precedent system.

When electric scooters were reclassified as «small electric vehicles» they suddenly came under the same drunk drive laws as motorbikes and cars. So the lower courts ruled a bunch of drunk driving of electric scooters as severely as they would drunk driving of a 2000 kg car that can go 200 km/h. Essentially they just followed the precedence of previous rulings on drunk driving without taking into consideration the intent of the law. People got huge fines and lost their car licenses for several months on the assumption that if they were careless enough to drink and drive an electric scooter they would be just as likely to drink and drive their car.

Eventually a case went all the way to the Supreme Court where they actually thought it through and and decided that there wasn’t any reason to assume that a person would drink and drive a car just because they did so with an electric scooter.

Post reply on HN