Slashdot Mirror


Consumer Revolt Spurred Via the Internet

sas-dot writes "UK's newspaper Independent outlines the brewing consumer revolt being fomented on the web. 'Consumer militancy' is becoming ever more common, as individuals join forces on the internet to fight back against the state and big business. Businesses from banks to soccer clubs have been the target of these groups, in each case facing the fury of consumers who feel they have been wronged. For example, 'A mass revolt has left the high street banks facing thousands of claims from customers seeking to claw back some of the £4.75bn levied annually on charges for overdrafts and bounced cheques. More than one million forms demanding refunds have been downloaded from a number of consumer websites. The banks are settling out of court, often paying £1,000 a time.' Are these kinds of organized 'advocate mobs' going to be the future of internet activism?"

309 comments

  1. Here in the United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our businesses are smarter and have forseen the trend. They are rallying against the consumers who believe they have rights.

    1. Re:Here in the United States by DittoBox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know you're telling the truth but do you mind sharing *why* you feel this way? This comment doesn't deserve an "Insightful" rating unless he can back it up.

      --
      Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
    2. Re:Here in the United States by Grinin · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more

    3. Re:Here in the United States by JonWan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well customers do have rights, but so do businesses. I've run my own business since 1986 and people (in general) think you must be rich because you own a business. I have always used a modified version of an old saying, "The customer may not always be right, but it's OK to let him think so". I forgive late movie fees all the time. In fact my late movie fees exceed my movie rental income by a wide margin. Like wise I give refunds if people don't like my pizzas or I replace a pizza that the customer thinks is over or under done. I try to make my customer happy, but then you have people that try to take advantage of you. They bring a movie back and say it won't play "on their machine" and want another one, or they bring back the almost empty pizza box and say that the pizza was over/under done and want another. These people get what they want, but the are put on my "list" to see if it keeps happening. At some point I'll politelly refuse them and tell them why. This usually stops the problem and I don't lose a customer in the process. The problem is that when a business gets too big you start to lose the personal touch. You deal with employees that would rather be somewhere else, or a boss that has no stake in the business execpt a paycheck. I would like to make more money, but this is a one man operation and most of the time I am doing as much as I can. Getting bigger would require hiring people and the problem above would begin happening.

    4. Re:Here in the United States by kosty · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it's time to pass some internet "bullying" laws... http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/23/13 38243

      --
      "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
    5. Re:Here in the United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's why my calzone had a VHS tape inside. But the laugh's on you, buddy. I finished the calzone AND kept the video.

    6. Re:Here in the United States by Bozdune · · Score: 1

      So that's why my calzone had a VHS tape inside. But the laugh's on you, buddy. I finished the calzone AND kept the video.

      Damn, I ate my video by mistake.

    7. Re:Here in the United States by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see...There's DMCA, anti-P2P sentiment to the point of attempting to have it outlawed along with all uploading by the general public, the attempt to restrict blogging by requiring registration, IP law in general, etc. I'm sure the patriot act fits in there somewhere with its various gag orders and stuff. That's just for starters. These are all things to protect business from the consumer. There's lots more, but you can look it up yourself.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:Here in the United States by JonWan · · Score: 1

      Never had anyone eat one before, but a lady brought one back one time soaking wet and said her 4 year old son thought the tape was dirty because it wouldn't play so he washed it in his wading pool. :-) she insisted on paying for it.

    9. Re:Here in the United States by google · · Score: 1

      I think he was trying to be humorous. Dammit, spilled my double tall non-fat half caf vanilla latte from Starbucks all over my desk...

      --
      "Thank you. Please spellcheck your genitalia references though. :) - Mike D."
    10. Re:Here in the United States by mauddib~ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, if you bring it like that, it is certainly insightful. I've just spend 1 minute reading the rant on empty pizzaboxes and over-rented video's and it somehow is rated 'insightful'. Bye bye, Slashdot!

      --
      This is a replacement signature.
    11. Re:Here in the United States by mgiuca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With all respect, you aren't a giant patent-wielding litigation-happy overlord. It's those companies which cross the line of "consumer rights".

    12. Re:Here in the United States by JonWan · · Score: 1

      Good morning, I think that is the nicest rebuff I've ever read on slashdot. However, My point was that because I'm not a "giant patent-wielding litigation-happy overlord" I'm more friendly to my customers. Blockbuster, Pizza hut, and a slew of others are too big to give a damn and they have consumer rights problems. I have to face my customers every day and a large number of them have known me for years. Their my friends as well as customers.

    13. Re:Here in the United States by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      You sound like you run a quality "local business" built on trust, and that's commendable, especially in this age. Incidentally, do you run a video store and pizza shop in the same store? I've never heard of such a thing!

      Anyway, yes, that's my point too. These huge companies just become faceless.

      But (not wishing to poke flames, but) I think maybe the top parent was referring to our usual Slashdot staple of the really huge companies which can afford to not even consider their customers because they make so much money from monopolies and serving other corporate interests - we all know who I'm talking about. It's those companies who are getting the "Internet backlash" I think, and hope it will continue.

  2. Must just be in England... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "'A mass revolt has left the high street banks facing thousands of claims from customers seeking to claw back some of the £4.75bn levied annually on charges for overdrafts and bounced cheques. "

    I'm actually surprised at the apathy shown towards the Bank of America fiasco of exploiting loopholes in the law to allow them to open accounts and credit cards for illegal aliens!!

    I figured there would have been a much larger rush of people to move their accounts away from them.

    I guess aiding and abetting law breakers just isn't enough to get the typical US citizen's ire up....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Must just be in England... by hal2814 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I guess aiding and abetting law breakers just isn't enough to get the typical US citizen's ire up"

      At least someone is getting money from illegal aliens in that scenario. I withdrew my money from BoA after Clark Howard brought to light the man who was jailed after he asked a teller to verify a shady check, she verified it was genuine, and then he was jailed for cashing that check since it was a fake check. But no, I don't particularly care that a bank is profiting from our government's inability to properly enforce immigration laws.

    2. Re:Must just be in England... by The+Zon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess aiding and abetting law breakers just isn't enough to get the typical US citizen's ire up....
      I'm more concerned about banks that help the super-rich hide their money from the IRS than ones that help impoverished migrant workers open up checking accounts. By the way, isn't it better that they're putting their money into the bank system, where it can be reinvested back into the economy? I thought the main complaint about immigrants was that they don't give anything back.
      --
      Some attitudes replaced or by cgi optimizes
    3. Re:Must just be in England... by NetDanzr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm actually surprised at the apathy shown towards the Bank of America fiasco of exploiting loopholes in the law to allow them to open accounts and credit cards for illegal aliens!!

      Maybe people don't consider this to be a big issue. Usually, to spark a boycott, you need something really unexpected or shocking, which would rally the people into action. A good example of this is Shell, when it tried to sink an oil platform in the North Atlantic, which resulted into massive boycotts all over Europe. Or, more recently, Citgo, which saw a slump in sales after Hugo Chavez had his famous "Bust is Satan" speech at the UN (Citgo is owned by the Venezuelan government).

      The Bank of America case is different. What they did was neither shocking nor unexpected. At times when people speak of amnesty for illegals and when there are efforts to grant them driver licenses and scholarships to their children, giving them credit cards doesn't sound far-fetched enough to spark a large protest. (In addition, people are more interested in Smith's decomposing body and Britney's shaved head at the moment.)

    4. Re:Must just be in England... by maxume · · Score: 1

      It might say something about how people feel about that particular law. As long as they are willing to face the legal consequences, I have no problem with someone aiding and abetting someone who has broken a law they disagree with.

      Laws exist as a guide to generally acceptable behavior, not morality.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Must just be in England... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess aiding and abetting law breakers just isn't enough to get the typical US citizen's ire up....

      Yes, well, that would also involve not eating hot dogs from meat packing plants that are blatantly breaking employment laws, and not fueling the problem by hiring curb-side landscape workers completely outside the law. People can't have it both ways, and... they want to.

      But the whole credit-card-issuing thing brings a new, and especially noxious form of credibility into the illegal alien scenario. You can get a Visa/Debit card in Mexico, for example. So why not just bring your real account with you from home? Oh, right... because you're a criminal. The only plus side of this is that when an illegal is busted for one crime or another, and cut loose pending a trial date, there's a better chance of finding them by tracking their gas station purchases, etc. But... that's not worth the philosophical price paid for rewarding the initial law breaking in the first place. I would think that the legal immigrants would be up in arms over this dillution of what they work so hard to accomplish.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Must just be in England... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
      'm more concerned about banks that help the super-rich hide their money from the IRS than ones that help impoverished migrant workers open up checking accounts.

      I'm concerned about BOTH! And ignoring one to focus on the other is no acceptable solution.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    7. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      >I'm actually surprised at the apathy shown towards the Bank of America fiasco of exploiting loopholes in the law to allow them to open accounts and credit cards for illegal aliens!!

      So... this is a problem... why? That law seems pretty damn stupid to me. Who does it protect? If you have money and want to put it in a bank, why should your citizenship matter? For that matter, why should it even matter if you're a criminal or not, as long as the money put in the bank was legitimately earned? Unless you plan to rob the bank, of course...

      Seems to me a law like this is just another case of racism (or, I guess in this case, some form of jingoism?) and the bank is doing a good thing trying to get around it. Fortunately, in Canada, we don't have laws against people opening bank accounts (or at least we don't have them that I know of).

    8. Re:Must just be in England... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "By the way, isn't it better that they're putting their money into the bank system, where it can be reinvested back into the economy?"

      No...we should be enforcing existing laws, and possibly make some stronger ones that make it virtually impossible to earn a living in the US without proper, legal documentation for immigrant workers. If you withold banking privs, make it impossible to wire money, prosecute employers that hire illegal aliens and make it impossible for illegas to get a job, cut off all social services....basically make it impossible to live in the US as an illegal, dry up all incentive to come here illegally...THEN, you'll have solved the problem. They will leave if they can't work or get a govt. handout.

      I'll agree at the same time, there needs to be a streamlined method of legally getting citizenship (hopefully the end goal of all immigration)...and make it easier to get a temporary visa which would allow the above to be set up for a legal immigrant worker.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Must just be in England... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1, Troll

      I thought the main complaint about immigrants was that they don't give anything back.

      Well, when it comes to big businesses, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't:

      -Bank of America gives CC's to illegals.:

      "OMG j00 are teh violatign teh immigration rulzorz!"

      -Bank of America refuses to give CC's illegals.:

      "OMG y wont j00 extend tehm credit just bcuz tehy are from teh DIFFREN COUNTRY!!!!!!111"

      Oh, and just a nitpick: from what I read here, they're not *specifically* giving cards to illegals, just to people without a SSN. (I know, I know, "Yeah, and let me guess: you're not a mail-order bride pimp, you're a foreign romance counselor, right?")

    10. Re:Must just be in England... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Well why would anybody be bothered in the first place? After all US is a country built by emirgants for emigrants with emigrants. I would be surprised if it was any other way. //

    11. Re:Must just be in England... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe people don't consider this to be a big issue. Usually, to spark a boycott, you need something really unexpected or shocking, which would rally the people into action. A good example of this is Shell, when it tried to sink an oil platform in the North Atlantic, which resulted into massive boycotts all over Europe

      Or, prior to the fall of Apartheid, BofA's massive investment in pro-Apartheid South Africa. Which is what got me to remove all my funds from their bank.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Must just be in England... by anagama · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You actually worried about your cabbage picking job that much?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    13. Re:Must just be in England... by anagama · · Score: 1

      I'm actually surprised at the apathy shown towards the Bank of America fiasco of exploiting loopholes in the law to allow them to open accounts and credit cards for illegal aliens!!
      Maybe people don't consider this to be a big issue.
      Or even a non-issue.

      Or even laudable.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    14. Re:Must just be in England... by Blappo · · Score: 1

      "that help impoverished migrant workers open up checking accounts. "

      I have no problem with banks that help migrant workers open checking accounts. I have a very big problem with banks that help ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS open checking accounts. Your attempt to equate one with the other is a slap in the face to those migrants who jump through hoops to gain legal status.

      --
      Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
    15. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "A good example of this is Shell, when it tried to sink an oil platform in the North Atlantic, which resulted into massive boycotts all over Europe."

      Yup, very good example.

      Where Greenpeace lied through their teeth to pretend that the platform was contaminated (later proved not to be), and Shell had commissioned environmental reports about what to do with it which all said that an artificial reef was the best idea.

      Net result, major environmental nightmare caused by Greenpeace as the platform is dismantled in a quiet bay in Norway, and no decent home for the fish.

      Way to go, Greenpeace!

    16. Re:Must just be in England... by zxnos · · Score: 1

      The only plus side of this is that when an illegal is busted for one crime or another, and cut loose pending a trial date, there's a better chance of finding them by tracking their gas station purchases, etc.
      they have, by definition, already committed a crime. all that has to be done is issue a card and then track them down. if i were illegally in a country i wouldnt do anything that helped locate me.

      I would think that the legal immigrants would be up in arms over this dillution of what they work so hard to accomplish.
      many are. i would thing a country could be consistent , but i guess not.
      --
      always mosh clockwise
    17. Re:Must just be in England... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I'm actually surprised at the apathy shown towards the Bank of America fiasco of exploiting loopholes in the law to allow them to open accounts and credit cards for illegal aliens!!
      I figured there would have been a much larger rush of people to move their accounts away from them.
      I guess aiding and abetting law breakers just isn't enough to get the typical US citizen's ire up....


      Um, I don't really care if a US bank opens and account for a citizen of any country and it gets used. I don't care if my small town back will open and operate an account for "illegal" aliens. I would want the rules that all accounts operate to be the same. For banks to deny "illegal" aliens, foreign nations, or international business clients the ability to open and operate an account, then they'd have to do some background checks on the individual. I just remember filling out address information when opening my checking account and a copy of my DL. I didn't have to go through any big ID check at the bank to verify that it was me or that I had the proper background to do business with that bank.

      Now, you could agrue that we should have some national ID card and if you open any account at any US bank then you need to have that national ID card and a complete background/ID check. Um, I can live with "illegal" foreigners or just foreigners doing business in the US without all those ID checks. There is a part of me that does think that the banks should be able to confirm your ID like that, but that part of me says that every credit card reader in the country should be able to do a complete biometric scan to ID that the person holding the card is the actual card holder or authorized user for each and every credit card transaction. (It should be as quick and seemless as our current system except authorization process is also an ID process to prevent fraud/ID theft.)

      You can't have it both ways.

    18. Re:Must just be in England... by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, I'm worried about my future high-schooler aged child's cabbage picking job.
      People say that the reason the illegals do these jobs is because no-one else will. I call BS. This is easily like the fast food jobs in the city, a high-school or JC job for extra cash while still living at home.

      Mind you I don't fault the immigrants, illegal or otherwise for wanting to come here to better their life, but I firmly believe that starting off by entering the country illegally is the wrong way to do it. A large percentage of specific crimes in high immigrant areas (drug and robbery issues in LA for example) are committed by illegal (and often gang members) immigrants. While I realize that these people may be the minority of their total population, the easiest way to deal with it is deportation of all illegals.
      [ditribe]
      Christ make work visa's easier to get for Mexicans, I DON'T CARE, just stem the tide of people who are outside the system. If they have a work visa then they can get an international drivers license (no need for a state ID) and they can get a TIN (no need for a SSN) and with those two pieces of data along with their passport they can buy US car insurance if they drive. It's all within the existing legal framework. Enforce what we have and tell Pres Fox to go fuck himself when he complains about how we treat illegals in our country. Heaven forbid you enter Mexico illegally. You're below the child molesters in Mexicali prison.
      [/diatribe]

      Ta,
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    19. Re:Must just be in England... by jweller · · Score: 1

      BoA has now given non-Americans the same opportunity as American citizens to bury themselves in enormous ammounts of debt. I'm supposed to be upset by this why?

    20. Re:Must just be in England... by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, it's a tricky situation. I like the policy of granting credit to someone without demanding a social security number, since that use is WAY outside the purpose of the SS number. Even FDR claimed the number would not be used for ANYTHING except social security when he helped create the program (moreover, he imagined it as a temporary solution to an immediate problem with a gradual fade out of the program replaced private retirement accounts, but that's another discussion).

      So I think it's great policy. That it can be abused by illegals is another matter.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    21. Re:Must just be in England... by The+Zon · · Score: 1

      Your attempt to equate one with the other is a slap in the face to those migrants who jump through hoops to gain legal status.
      I love this argument. Isn't it more a slap to the face of those migrants that the government set up all those hoops to keep them out in the first place? People say that the immigration system needs to be reformed, but turn around and demand that the people who couldn't make their way through the insane bureaucracy be thrown out the country. I don't have any problem with people breaking unjust laws, immigration laws included. In fact, unjust laws should be broken, and the people who break them should be respected. Read up on civil disobedience.
      --
      Some attitudes replaced or by cgi optimizes
    22. Re:Must just be in England... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd like to add to what you said.

      I call it "the myth of the $6.00 head of lettuce." This is when someone complaining about illegal aliens gets nailed with the "yeah, but do you want to pay $6.00 for a head of lettuce? Because that's what it would cost if an American were picking it!"

      First of all, by most accounts, these illegals are well paid - well above minimum wage, and not the slave labor rates that so many like to claim they are making. The benefit to the employer is not having to pay payroll taxes, which is a huge hit to any company, and also not having to deal with full time employees that get paid whether there's any work or not.

      But let's say, for sake of argument, that the typical illegal only makes $3.00 an hour picking 30 heads of lettuce. Of course, any monkey can work a lot faster than that, but let's err on the safe side.

      That means that, out of the $1.29 I pay for a head of lettuce at my supermarket, only $0.10 goes to pay the worker who picked it.

      Now let's say that same guy gets paid $12/hour instead. It'd only be $0.40 to pay the worker who picked it. My cost would increase by $0.30.

      So, to all the idiots who say "yeah, but do you want to pay $6.00 for a head of lettuce?" I say "No, but I'll pay $1.59 to help keep out illegals and improve the economy in other ways."

      What part about "illegal" do people not understand? I have sympathy for people wanting to come here. My wife is from South America, it took years for her to become a legal resident (we'd already had one child). I spent thousands of dollars and countless hours taking her for medical exams, to get fingerprinted (several times, since they kept changing the rules about what they'd accept), getting documents translated and notorized...

      I'm not saying it should be that brutal, but I'm saying that I did put my money where my mouth is - there's a right way and wrong way to immigrate to another country. Illegally is the WRONG way.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    23. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was informative. I did not know about Citgo's Venezuela connection.

      And that means Citgo will get all my business.

    24. Re:Must just be in England... by bill_kress · · Score: 1

      I think it's just that Bill O'Riley hasn't gotten around to telling us about that yet. As soon as he does, we'll be right on it.

    25. Re:Must just be in England... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I would use a Credit Card that didn't require my SSN.

      I would perfer it for that matter. Right now I don't ahve any Credit Cards specifically because I don't want them to have my SSN.(It's a principle thing, not a paranoia thing.)

      AS far as I am concerned, it's BofA's risk. The only people who seem to really hate BofA not getting SSNS is the credit agencies. Suprise, suprise.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:Must just be in England... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      U.S. is country built by LEGAL immigrants for LEGAL immigrants who work inside the system to pay back their benefactors by ADDING value to the country instead of taking it away.

      Don't play games by obfuscating the issue by mixing the terms "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant." Our country, by and large, LOVES legal immigrants.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    27. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually surprised at the apathy shown towards the Bank of America fiasco of exploiting loopholes in the law to allow them to open accounts and credit cards for illegal aliens!!

      Here is some news for you, you narrow-minded twit. In the USA (and many, many other countries) you do not need to be a legal resident to have a bank account or credit card.

      You seem to have trouble telling the difference between a bank account and a passport. A bank account or credit card does not prove your citizenship or your residency status in the USA. Typically you use a passport or green card to do that.

      There are plenty of reasons for a non-citizen non-resident to have a US bank account. In my case, I live in Canada, and I own a vacation property in the USA. It is very convenient for me to have a US bank account & credit card to use when I am on vacation, and it is perfectly legal for me to do so.

      A US bank account is very useful for anyone that does business in the USA. If your business is making a sale to a foreign client, would you take a cheque from Banco du Bresil? How long will that take to clear? Or would you rather take a cheque from Citibank or Bank of America which clears quickly?

      And frankly, if non-citizen non-residents were not allowed to open bank & brokerage accounts with US financial institutions, the New York stock exchange would collapse. Many, many foreigners hold US stocks & bonds, including me.

      I guess aiding and abetting law breakers just isn't enough to get the typical US citizen's ire up....

      The USA has a big immigration problem. The US construction trade and agriculture would collapse without illegal immigrants. That doesn't seem to stop Americans from buying & renovating houses or eating fruits & vegetables. The fact that the USA refuses to deal with its immigration problem is not the fault of the banks.

      Unlike those who employ illegal immigrants, the banks aren't breaking the law. Don't blame the banks for following the law.

    28. Re:Must just be in England... by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      It'll never happen.

      If it did start to happen, there would be news stories of all the poor illegals that can no longer get jobs or government hand outs, and are starving on the streets. Since Americans are a compassionate people, we would collectively scream that the government needs to fix this, either by allowing them to work illegally, giving them hand outs, or making them legal. Of course the current illegals that are made legal will just be replaced by new illegals, and the cycle starts all over again.

      I'm too young to remember this, but apparently in the 1980's there was an immigration bill that 'fixed' the immigration problem, and look, we still have one. Shocking.

    29. Re:Must just be in England... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Well then I have a question. I didn't get a credit card until age 24, specifically because of all the consumer advisor shows that say not to.

      Then I found out that this basically means you're a ghost for non-credit card transactions, like electricity and renting an apartment.

      Yep, I have enough verifiable liquid assets saved up to pay about 6 years of rent, and still I have to get a cosigner.

      What do you do to establish credit for those kinds of things, plus mortgages if you've gotten one? (Yes, I'm aware that you can have an employment history or simply have mommy and daddy cosign. If you do, that must take real balls, shoving off the SSN privacy violation you consider horrible, onto your parents.)

    30. Re:Must just be in England... by ari+wins · · Score: 1

      I guess aiding and abetting law breakers just isn't enough to get the typical US citizen's ire up....

      Not really, we do it every paycheck when we pay taxes..

      --
      Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
    31. Re:Must just be in England... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "I guess aiding and abetting law breakers..."

      The way it's set up now, everybody is a law breaker. That is by design. So, no, I don't get that exercised about aiding and abetting law breakers, particularly ones who are breaking a very silly set of laws that are set up to maintain them as a permanent underclass.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    32. Re:Must just be in England... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I did use my SSN when buying a house, but you don't need credit crds to establish credt.
      Quite frankly, if you have 6 years of rent in the bank, you might want o looka t buying a house or condo.
      If you go to a mortgage broker, they will be able to set you up with a finance person. They can tell you all kinds of ways the bank can lend you money.

      To answer your question, buying a home is the best way to establish credit.

      I have never had a co-signer.

      You can get a credit card, buy something and then pay it off immediatly. The say you should buy somethng and pay it off over time to establish credit, but they are wrong. Paying it off immediatly is the best way to go.

      I used to work on software that implemented credit calculation for one of the largest credit agencies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    33. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole "illegal alien" idea is pretty fascist to begin with.

      Remember: every American (except a few natives) was an alien once. If that had been illegal, America wouldn't exist as the rich and prosperous country it is. Be a bit more open towards people who want to experience the same today!

    34. Re:Must just be in England... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      I did use my SSN when buying a house,

      Oh, so I guess using the SSN isn't so bad, is it?

      Quite frankly, if you have 6 years of rent in the bank,

      It's not in a bank, it's in mutual funds. (It sounds like a nitpick but "bank" implies "low-yield, will not lose value". Only an idiot would keep that much in the bank.)

      you might want o looka t buying a house or condo.

      Why?

      If you go to a mortgage broker, they will be able to set you up with a finance person. They can tell you all kinds of ways the bank can lend you money.

      Right -- the best offer I got from a bank was 80% financing with 9.75% 3-year adjustable. (Credit union was more reasonable.)

      To answer your question, buying a home is the best way to establish credit.

      ? You need credit to buy a home. A LOT of it. Or at least, if you're me. (Everyone else seems to have it easy because they took on debt before.)

      I have never had a co-signer.

      How did you establish credit for the first apartment?

      I used to work on software that implemented credit calculation for one of the largest credit agencies.

      Well, with all due respect, that software sucks.

      Look at the crunch going on in subprime loans.

      Look at the best offer I got on a home loan, despite the fact that even at the higher rate, it would be less than a quarter of my gross, and my only debt.

      Look at all the things you can do to increase your credit that say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your likelihood of default. (Get a credit card you never pay interest on.)

      Look at all the things that hurt your credit that say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your likelihood of default. (Shop around for a loan.)

    35. Re:Must just be in England... by RoshanCat · · Score: 1

      Classic mistake by someone who doesn't understand economics. The 30c you save on the cabbage can also be used to buy something else. i.e create new employment up the value chain.

      If you raise the wages for cabbage pickings, then the whole nation wants to become cabbage pickers, which may not be good for the country. Remember every country's goal is to increase its own wealth. If wealth can be created cheaply then the nation as a whole benefits. Sure, you may argue that only the rich benefit from this. That is bull-shit. Even the most impoverished american families have TV, Fridge, Car, & a Roof to stay; things that are considered luxuries in many countries that implement your "protectionist" ideas

    36. Re:Must just be in England... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      No, because the economy gets a boost from people not abusing the systems we are paying for, and it gets a boost from the billions of dollars sent back to mexico actually being spent here.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    37. Re:Must just be in England... by Blappo · · Score: 1

      "I love this argument. Isn't it more a slap to the face of those migrants that the government set up all those hoops to keep them out in the first place?"

      Sure, but that's a completely separate argument. One I knew you would try by the way, but unrelated.

      You don't like the law? Nothing about these laws are unjust, they just make things more difficult than you'd like. Being hard isn't the same as being unjust, and you know it.

      --
      Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
    38. Re:Must just be in England... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The unfortunate thing though is that the farmer that makes a few extra cents profit costs us thousands of dollars when uninsured immigrants need medical care. While we have ensured that inflation of food prices stays low medical costs have skyrocketed.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    39. Re:Must just be in England... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "You actually worried about your cabbage picking job that much?"

      No, but there are a LARGE number of US citizens on welfare that could use the job....as long as we are subsidizing them, lets get some work out of them picking cabbage, etc.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    40. Re:Must just be in England... by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      Enforcing immigration laws isn't going to work, and building a big fence is a waste of money. If you really want illegal immigrants to go away, stop using businesses that employ them.

      The cause of the influx of illegal immigrants is that businesses employ them and pay them. And since they're illegal they have to pay them under the table, thus avoiding taxes on them, and the rest of us who pay taxes get to take up the slack. They come here because we give them jobs. If there were no jobs they could get, they wouldn't bother. Point your fingers at your citizen brethren, that's where the problem lies. I'm not racist, I just don't like the fact that they pay no taxes, and send much of the money they make home to support their families. Our economy is bleeding money as a result. Make it legal to employ them, make them and the businesses that hire them pay their share of taxes and I won't give a damn anymore.

      --

      Question everything

    41. Re:Must just be in England... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      Right -- the best offer I got from a bank was 80% financing with 9.75% 3-year adjustable. (Credit union was more reasonable.)


      That can't be right. If you're a first-time homebuyer, you qualify for low loan rates. I should know. I can get a 5.75% with only one point (the max the loan can give) for a 30-year mortgage with 20% down (or in my case, 30%).

      I can't remember what program I qualify for but if you want more info, give me a shout.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    42. Re:Must just be in England... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "It might say something about how people feel about that particular law. As long as they are willing to face the legal consequences, I have no problem with someone aiding and abetting someone who has broken a law they disagree with."

      Ok...so someone disagrees with a law that prevents them from entering your house at anytime of the day or night (breaking and entering/tresspassing/etc). You wouldn't mind them doing this to you or for me to help them do this since 'we' don't think that is a just law. I mean..why should YOU get to sleep and use all that nice air condiditoned space and we don't get to since we don't like to work and earn our own money to pay for a residence?

      If you don't like a law, you work to change it....if you don't work the system that way, rest assured someone will break a law that does affect you...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    43. Re:Must just be in England... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      accounts and credit cards for illegal aliens!!
      aiding and abetting law breakers You know what irks me about you people and your "illegal aliens (many exclamation marks)"?
      It's that I have a hard time believe that you are without sin. You never broke a law? Never jaywalked? Nothing?

      Should banks also refuse to give accounts or credit to people on trial, or with a past conviction? How about blackballing anyone ever involved in any kind of scam or fraud? How far past "foreign people" are you willing to take your hard line on criminals?

      I think "illegal aliens" is to "dirty foreigners" as "public sanitation technician" is to "janitor": A sanitized politically correct wrapper applied to a dirty thought.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    44. Re:Must just be in England... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the FHA welfare loans with strings attached?

    45. Re:Must just be in England... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The only plus side of this is that when an illegal is busted for one crime or another, and cut loose pending a trial date - I am fascinated by your correct usage of the word 'loose', it's a rarity on /. Are you new here?

    46. Re:Must just be in England... by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to know where you get your claim that this country was "built by LEGAL immigrants" from. I think that you are forgetting that, at one time, we were "illegal" immigrants. We sailed to this country, set up colonies, and proceeded to rape, murder, and pillage the true natives. Now those true natives are reduced to living on reservations that are sanctioned by the government. At least they were able to exploit "Joe Sixpack True American!"'s tendency to throw money away by gambling. That's a saving grace that gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, everytime I think of what our ancestors did to them.

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    47. Re:Must just be in England... by alienmole · · Score: 1
      I think your general sentiment is fine, but you have things backwards. This must come first:

      I'll agree at the same time, there needs to be a streamlined method of legally getting citizenship (hopefully the end goal of all immigration)...and make it easier to get a temporary visa which would allow the above to be set up for a legal immigrant worker.
      At the moment, the situation for people wanting to immigrate legally is ridiculous. The only legal immigrants you're getting are people who love dealing with paperwork, bureaucracy, and lawyers, and don't mind waiting in line for years. Cracking down on illegals makes sense, but first make sure that there are sensible policies in place for dealing with legal immigration. Otherwise, whatever is done is doomed to failure. For some reason, in the immigration area people love to act as though unintended consequences don't exist -- as though you can just draw a bright line around a free country and make everyone toe that line with laws. Real life is not so simple.
    48. Re:Must just be in England... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      It's been a while since I've looked at the documents so it could very well be an FHA loan. I got everything lined up a while back and am simply trying to find a house at this point. Unfortunately I don't have the documents in front of me and my mortgage lender is out of the office at this point.

      I do know that other than getting a really good rate, it is just like every other standard mortgage. No strings attached (other than making payments).

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    49. Re:Must just be in England... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      What part about "illegal" do people not understand?
      I have sympathy for people wanting to come here. My wife is from South America, it took years for her to become a legal resident (we'd already had one child). I spent thousands of dollars and countless hours taking her for medical exams, to get fingerprinted (several times, since they kept changing the rules about what they'd accept), getting documents translated and notorized...

      I'm not saying it should be that brutal, but I'm saying that I did put my money where my mouth is - there's a right way and wrong way to immigrate to another country. Illegally is the WRONG way. The part where "illegal" refers to a human being, not an act or an object.
      They are "illegals", it's something deragotary to apply to them that happens to be politically correct, and some of us don't fall for PC naming schemes. Like I said to someone else, they broke a law? Let he who is without sin throw the first stone (I've personally broken a jaywalking law no later than this morning, and I'll do it again later tonight, that would make me an 'OMG t3h illeal p3destr1an!', wouldn't it? But I don't EVER hear that formula applied to street crossing as it is with border crossing, but if "the law i the law", it should).

      You are, of course, right on one thing: Coming to a country illegally is the wrong way to do it
      The thing is, for a lot of people, doing it wrong is the only way they can. They don't have the money you put in, and they don't have the know-how to face the paperwork, so they do what humans have always done, they improvise.

      Sure, it's alarming to know that people come and go in your country without oversight, but remember, all of the accused 9/11 highjackers came to the states legally. Some even had their visa renewals shipped in 2002!
      There's no relation between proper paperwork and proper mentality. If someone comes illegally to do honest work, you should be less annoyed at them then when someone fills all the right forms but comes to screw and/or kill people.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    50. Re:Must just be in England... by maxume · · Score: 1

      If you look real close at the part of my statement that you quoted, you will notice that I qualified it; I would fully expect you to face the legal ramifications, but it wouldn't really offend me terribly if you didn't tell the cops you saw him or whatever(what I mean is, I realize life is complicated and that the 'right' thing can be hard to see, and hard to act on, etc, so hopefully I wouldn't bother with a 'grudge' towards the aide giver in the situation you painted).

      Do you really believe that police(who often look the other way), prosecutors(who often choose their cases) and judges(who often do lots of things) work tirelessly to enforce the system as-it-is rather than the system as-they-would-like-it-to-be? Or are they so much part of the system that they can not and should not be considered separately from the system?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    51. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (In addition, people are more interested in Smith's decomposing body and Britney's shaved head at the moment.)

      speak for yourself. I for one am still interested in a different, yet still shaven, facet of Britney Spears' anatomy. In time I will move on to the more current affairs of her skull but I will not be rushed.

    52. Re:Must just be in England... by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      Take away the incentive, solve the problem. Indeed: once our economy and infrastructure reaches parity with Mexico's, workers wont want to illegally immigrate.

    53. Re:Must just be in England... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well the illegals certainly won't be moving their accounts out of principle. What were their demographics before?

      Also, it's a hassle and a half to set up new banking, close accounts and whatnot. Perhaps some of the so-called apathetic are actually just waiting to see how the case pans out before rashly moving money around. BoA could still do the right thing, though it seems increasingly likely that they will not, nor will they be forced to.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    54. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was informative. I did not know about Citgo's Venezuela connection.

      And that means Citgo will get all my business.

      Maybe the guy was funny when he was just cracking jokes about Bush in the UN. But perhaps you missed the whole "power to rule by decree" mess which was recently passed in Venezuela? Sweeping executive power should not be supported. It's a recipe for a dictatorship, and essentially every time it has happened in the past an oppressive dictatorship has resulted.
    55. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one am still interested in a different, yet still shaven, facet of Britney Spears' anatomy. In time I will move on to the more current affairs of her skull but I will not be rushed.

      Dude, seriously now. Did you actually see the pics? The nasty ass scar, the fat? The "infected by Federline" fungus growing out of it?

    56. Re:Must just be in England... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      The part where "illegal" refers to a human being, not an act or an object.


      The act of coming here contrary to our laws is what's illegal. Don't play the PC card on me - "illegal" is what they've always been called. The PC terms of "immigrant" (without the word "illegal" in front) and "migrant workers" are the terms people are using now to obfuscate the issue.

      That's what PC is, that's what PC does, it tries to change people's impressions of how things really are.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    57. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ancestors emigrated to the US in violation of the laws of the native American Indians. So, please leave. Now.

      Don't worry, I'll help you pack.

    58. Re:Must just be in England... by sapgau · · Score: 1

      Sounds good and fair unito you consider the immigration requirements and delays involved in applying for residency let alone a working visa. Basically you need to be middle (to upper) middle class to prove you have the money to travel and start a living in the States. That is simply not a an option to a migrant worker that might be surviving on US$30 a week in their own country.

    59. Re:Must just be in England... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      One hardly needs the illegal alien issue as an excuse to flee BofA.

      The fact that they seem to treat illegals better than they have treated me personally really doesn't surprise me.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    60. Re:Must just be in England... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The cabbage picking jobs are just an excuse to undermine wages and working conditions across the board in factory jobs and skilled trades that the white working class used to be quite content with. If there's no white trash available to take a particular job in America then some serious examination needs to take place as to why businesses suddenly find the free market in labor too much trouble for them.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    61. Re:Must just be in England... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      By the way, isn't it better that they're putting their money into the bank system, where it can be reinvested back into the economy?

      That'd be nice, but they're sending it to Mexico, where money from illegal workers abroad is the number one income source for the country.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    62. Re:Must just be in England... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That might batter some sacred cows but why not...

      Make the welfare mothers pick cabbage.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    63. Re:Must just be in England... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The part where "illegal" refers to a human being, not an act or an object.

      The act of coming here contrary to our laws is what's illegal. Don't play the PC card on me - "illegal" is what they've always been called. The PC terms of "immigrant" (without the word "illegal" in front) and "migrant workers" are the terms people are using now to obfuscate the issue.
      That's what PC is, that's what PC does, it tries to change people's impressions of how things really are. Here is a 1907 report on immigration, I'll link the section on immigration legislation, so you can see that, no, "illegal immigrants" is not what they've always been called (nor illegal alien). That deliciously crafted bit of doule-speak is a recent invention.
      And "migrant workers" says nothing about the legality of the migration, it's a term for people who go where the work is. The fact that you paint that as a rewording of "illegalimmigrant" says alot about your preconceptions.

      So, who's trying to change people's impressions of how things really are? The one saying "illegal immigrants is what they've always been called", or the one supplying proof that this isn't the case?
      Hint: It's not the guy with the historical documents supporting his assertions.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    64. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these illegals are well paid - well above minimum wage

      Which would mean something if a person could survive on minimum wage in the first place. There are two kinds of minimum wage, the joke one that is required by law, and the actual one that allows you to not be homeless.

    65. Re:Must just be in England... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Are they written down somewhere? Do tell.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    66. Re:Must just be in England... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Well, at the very least, one string is that you're on the government dole.

      But I suspect there are more: what tactics does the government use to enforce it? Does it check this against other databases? Does it have higher priority against other loans, hurting your credit rating?

    67. Re:Must just be in England... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I think "illegal aliens" is to "dirty foreigners" as "public sanitation technician" is to "janitor": A sanitized politically correct wrapper applied to a dirty thought."

      Nope...and please don't start even trying to play the 'race' card. I, like most posting on this thread with similar thoughts to my own have said nothing of race of a migrant worker. In fact, most people don't have a problem with a migrant worker, as long as he is here LEGALLY. I agree, we need to streamline the system to allow it to be easier for a migrant worker to come here as either someone (hopefully) wanting to become a citizen of the US, or if not, a least a temporary worker that is documented, and after a time, goes home.

      Dennis Miller said it best as I paraphrase..."Hey, I don't mind you coming into my country, just at least sign the f*cking guest book on the way in..."

      If a person comes here wanting to be a citizen...they are more apt to meld into the US culture. The are more likely to learn English...a language needed to really succeed in this nation. We need that MUCH more than people sneaking in illegally...maintaining a subculture...and not becoming a true part of this nation. You can see that from the massive protests months ago...with so many flying the freakin' Mexican flag?!?

      I don't think anyone should forget their original culture...actually bringing it into the US helps us grow as it is absorbed in the melting pot. But, for God's sake..don't protest your 'rights' when you aren't trying to go for citizenship, and feeling like this is part of another country! If you are so proud to be a citizen of another country...stay there. If you want to come here, and contribute and become a citizen..come here. If you want to come work here for awhile and go back home..do that.

      Just do it the LEGAL way.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    68. Re:Must just be in England... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I am fascinated by your correct usage of the word 'loose', it's a rarity on /. Are you new here?

      Woops! Was I posting on slashdot? Sorry, it was a temporary lapse. Ahem:

      I must have losed my mind. On a Friday, its easy to loose track of you're gramer because its so hard, and to complicaded. Two bad for me! I didn't mean to shock u with my righting 133tness. It was a looser thing to do.

      Is that betterer?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    69. Re:Must just be in England... by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1

      I've heard of quite a few people closing their accounts over this. However, unless you happen to live in a sanctuary city like San Diego or Houston, the average person hasn't heard this story, and doesn't know what Bank of America is doing.

      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
    70. Re:Must just be in England... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Now that I'm at home, I see it is a loan through a state agency. In my case, PHFA (Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency). The bank writes and processes the loan but I pay PHFA.

      There are income and loan limits for this program but other than that, it's just like any other mortgage.

      Regardless, even when I was looking and the folks were looking at regular mortgages for me (ignoring I'm a first-time buyer), the best rate quoted to me was ~6.25% with 3 points for a 30-year. As things haven't changed that much since I last looked, I'm certain I could get the same rate.

      My credit rating is very high. The only thing that is holding me back from getting a higher rating is, ironically, carrying debt on my credit card and having a mortgage. Since I pay off my credit card every month, I don't carry a balance and so my credit score is affected.

      See what type of mortgages your state offers. 9%+ for an adjustable is ridiculous considering adjustables are supposed to be much cheaper.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    71. Re:Must just be in England... by thogard · · Score: 1

      How did you come to the conclusion that the large banks don't have your SSN already? Just because you didn't give it to them doesn't mean they didn't get it from some place else.

    72. Re:Must just be in England... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      My credit rating is very high.

      Right. See, the thing is, my credit is *unranked*. That's worse than bad credit.

      So I didn't take on debt before? That means I'm more likely to default.

      So I've paid bills (rent, cable, electric, insurance, etc.) for three years? Doesn't matter.

      So the debt would be my only debt and less than a quarter of my gross (1/6 at a normal rate)? Doesn't matter.

      Apparently, if over that time, I had put those EXACT SAME PAYMENTS on a credit card and paid it off, that would reveal that I am a much better credit risk.

      Can you see why I'm pissed?

      Can you see why I like hearing about lenders going under because of bad loans?

    73. Re:Must just be in England... by mspohr · · Score: 2, Informative
      I agree with you that a fence is a waste of money. Also, numerous studies have shown that illegal labor is not a drain on taxpayers.

      However, you can't really stop using the services and businesses of illegal aliens. In California, the entire economy is dependent on illegal labor. If all of the illegal labor left tomorrow, the economy would collapse.

      This is the real hypocrisy of the problem. Everyone is dependent on illegal labor so they shouldn't get upset but they do get up and make stupid statements.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    74. Re:Must just be in England... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I would rather that Mexico's economy and infrastructure rises to our own rather than allow ours to degrade to their current level...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    75. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "power to rule by decree" mess which was recently passed in Venezuela? Sweeping executive power should not be supported.
      I agree it is worrisome, however, it was grossly misrepresented in the press. It's not an Adolf-Hitler-style enabling act with unlimited power, rather it's pretty restricted to 10 (iirc) specific areas which in many countries are run through administrative fiat anyway, it won't allow him to override the constitution (unlike Adolf Hitler) and his decrees can be repealed by congress. I'm still not happy about it but what was reported was plain wrong.
    76. Re:Must just be in England... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Nope. We showed up and 90% of the people dies from the diseases we brought. We then slaughtered the ones who didn't have backing from the british until you get what we have today. We weren't illegal aliens (no nation, anyway), we were conquerers.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    77. Re:Must just be in England... by hugzz · · Score: 1

      But let's say, for sake of argument, that the typical illegal only makes $3.00 an hour picking 30 heads of lettuce. Of course, any monkey can work a lot faster than that, but let's err on the safe side. That means that, out of the $1.29 I pay for a head of lettuce at my supermarket, only $0.10 goes to pay the worker who picked it. Now let's say that same guy gets paid $12/hour instead. It'd only be $0.40 to pay the worker who picked it. My cost would increase by $0.30.

      This is based on a misunderstanding of business. The main motivator in business and finance is return on investment (ROI). Everyone in the chain puts down a certain amount of money, and wants a certain PERCENTAGE return on it.

      Lets say that hypothetically it costs a farmer $0.50 to grow a lettuce, and, using your hypothetical, $0.10 to pick this lettuce. He has now invested $0.60 for this lettuce, and he may want a ROI of 150%. So for every $1 he spends, he wants to make $1.5. For every $0.60 lettuce, he wants to sell it for $0.9.

      So he sells it to the distributor for $0.9. This distributor then sells it to the store. The distributor ALSO wants a ROI, of also (for simplicity) 150%. So for the $0.90 he spent, he wants to make $1.35. So he sells it to the store for $1.35

      And guess what? The store also wants a ROI of 150%, so for their $1.35 investment they want to make $2.

      This all makes sense because everyone wants to make a certain percentage return on their investment of money.

      NOW, as per your hypothetical, if the lettuce cost $0.40 to pick then it now cost the farmer $0.50 to grow + $0.40 to pick, or $0.9. The farmer still wants the same ROI, so he wants to make $1.35 for his $0.90 investment. So the distributor pays $1.35, so to maintain his ROI he must sell it to the shop for $2.025. The shop has to keep its ROI too, so the end product now costs $3.03

      So you see that an increase in the original stage will cause multiples all along the chain. This is because people want a certain return on their investment, or else they just plain wont invest in that item anymore

      A $0.30 price cost increase doesn't make the product cost $0.30 more, it makes it cost $1.68 more. It makes sense: do you really think you could double the cost to produce the item, without doubling the price that its sold for?

      Disclaimer: this is in no way intended to be a comment about the immigrant situation in america. I'm not even american.

    78. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Bust is Satan"

      oh no!

    79. Re:Must just be in England... by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

      immigrant - A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.

      We most certainly were immigrants. The natives didn't exactly want us there in the first place, and so you could say that our ancestors, in a way, "illegally" immigrated from England to North America. We may have "conquered" part of North America in time, in a loose sense of the word, but it certainly did not start out that way. Early attempts to make peace with the native people and coexist provide ample evidence of that.

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    80. Re:Must just be in England... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      immigrant implies that the destination has a unified government and peaceful migration. We weren't immigrants - we were conquerers.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    81. Re:Must just be in England... by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

      You're using semantics. Every definition of the word immigrant that I've ever come across says nothing about a "unified government", or "peaceful migration". It's absurd to think that all immigrants throughout history have migrated peacefully anyway. Who exactly set these rules up?

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    82. Re:Must just be in England... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Our economy is bleeding money as a result...
      ...of a raging trade deficit across the board. I'd wager that "immigrants sending money home" doesn't make up a significant part of the trade deficit at all. If you're really worried about the economy "bleeding money", then the trade deficit is what you ought to be taking a look at.

      Enforcing immigration laws isn't going to work, and building a big fence is a waste of money. If you really want illegal immigrants to go away, stop using businesses that employ them.
      If we have unenforceable laws (about anything, including immigration), then those laws need to be changed. So yes, economic means perhaps are the proper way to make illegal immigrants go away. However, thinking that they need to go away because they make the economy bleed is sloppy thinking. Not pulling their weight in the tax system OTOH is a good reason to think they need to go away (or become citizens, one way or the other).
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    83. Re:Must just be in England... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      It's implied. The immigrants at Ellis island weren't an army, and the current crop (legal and otherwise) are mostly peaceful people who want to live their lives. The tools that fly mexican flags in California schools are an exception. It's William the Conqueror, not Bill the Immigrant.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    84. Re:Must just be in England... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      don't have a problem with a migrant worker, as long as he is here LEGALLY. [...] meld into the US culture. The are more likely to learn English...a language needed [...] flying the freakin' Mexican flag?!?[...] absorbed in the melting pot.
      Just do it the LEGAL way. Now, see, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

      You start with a rational of legality and documentation, which is all fine and dandy, but then you launch into a rant about english and flags. You peppered it with mentions of legality, but it's not illegal not to speak english nor is it illegal to wave another country's flag.
      Your issues obviously aren't limited to legality... But you say they are.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    85. Re:Must just be in England... by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      My political opinion here is that you should then vote Democratic...

    86. Re:Must just be in England... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      If they have a work visa then they can get an international drivers license (no need for a state ID) and they can get a TIN (no need for a SSN) and with those two pieces of data along with their passport they can buy US car insurance if they drive.

      There are even easier ways to do this. While Ohio now requires legal presence documentation to issue a driver's license, the state never bothered to require an Ohio driver's license for Ohio insurance.

      Smartest thing they never did do. Even some of the big insurance companies will give out Ohio insurance on a Mexican state license. It's cheap easy and affordable, so our illegals tend to be insured.

    87. Re:Must just be in England... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually surprised at the apathy shown towards the Bank of America fiasco of exploiting loopholes in the law to allow them to open accounts and credit cards for illegal aliens!!

      I don't know the case or cases to which you refer (and since it's in some foreign country, I don't particularly care), but you must have some particularly limp immigration laws over on your side of the pond.
      Here in Britain it's practically impossible for LEGAL aliens to get a bank account (it's cost me almost £900/ USD1800 in visa & residence permit fees, another £500/ USD1000 in transport fees and several days off work plus declined jobs to get to attend the Home Office interviews to make sure that my wife is LEGAL ; but it'll be another year before she can get a full bank account), so I'm slightly surprised at the lack of crucified ILLEGAL aliens in the country.
      Actually, since I'm going to have to AC this (don't need to invoke the wrath of government!), I might as well propose that we just take the Spartacus Solution - line the ferry terminals, roads and airport runways with the screaming crucified bodies of the caught illegals, then arrest everyone who is sweating or looking worried.
      --
      xyzzy

    88. Re:Must just be in England... by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      (In addition, people are more interested in Smith's decomposing body and Britney's shaved head at the moment.)
      Do people choose anything other then the information channel and feeding on that? TV,Radio,Newspapers.
      Only internet has such luxury as interaction and generation of information by end users.
      I realized that long ago,and didn't use them since.

    89. Re:Must just be in England... by gfxguy · · Score: 1
      Wow, one whole report. I did not download and read it because the text version was garbage and the PDF was over 140MB, but I've heard the expression "illegal alien" since before PC started becomming a problem. I don't what term they used in 1907. In 1970 it was illegal alien.

      And "migrant workers" says nothing about the legality of the migration...

      And that is exactly the problem with using that expression when you are talking about people who come here illegally, yet that's the term a lot of (especially democratic) politicians use to dance around the fact they are referring to people who've broken the law.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    90. Re:Must just be in England... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      referring to people who've broken the law. Somehow, only dirty foreigners end up being called "illegals", not embezlers or any others who break the law.
      Again, the law aspect appears to be a red herring, since it's only used this way for one class of people who have broken the law. A class of people who's more traditional epitheths have fallen out of political corerctness.

      It's doublespeak, and doublespeak is bad, mmm kay?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    91. Re:Must just be in England... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      It's not double-speak, it's an accurate description.

      Moreover, we hear the term "illegal" all the time, like "illegal campaign contribution."

      And the term applies equally to everyone who is here illegally. I don't know why, but it's only those that support these illegal immigrants that seem to pretend the expression applies only to those from south of the border. If you get that impression it's only because the vast majority of illegals ARE from south of the border, but I don't hear anybody clamboring to not apply that term to people from elsewhere.

      PC is a method to obfuscate the truth (often in an attempt to not "offend" anyone). Illegal Immigrant very correctly and conscisely describes what someone who has immigrated here illegally is.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    92. Re:Must just be in England... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      It's not double-speak, it's an accurate description.
      Moreover, we hear the term "illegal" all the time, like "illegal campaign contribution." I've told you, it's when applying it to a person, an illegal PERSON, as oopposed to the act. Why do you come back with "illegal is a real word, I can use it in a sentence"? Hard to tell if you're obtuse or pretending to be...

      Meh, you know what, I don't care if you're dumb or faking dumb, I'm done repeating this, you don't want to be wrong, so you'll pretend you're right no matter what. Buh bye.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    93. Re:Must just be in England... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Immigration IS an act, and you call me stupid!

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  3. Boycott!! by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's time we stop putting up with their crap, people! It's time to Boycott Organized 'Advocate mobs'!

    1. Re:Boycott!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm holding a protest against picketing this weekend ... anyone care to join in?

    2. Re:Boycott!! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      I'm holding a protest against picketing this weekend ... anyone care to join in?

      Sure. I'll bring the lawn chairs, beer, and Scrabble.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
  4. Soccer.. arggggggh! by Ckwop · · Score: 2, Informative

    Businesses from banks to soccer clubs have been the target of these groups, in each case facing the fury of consumers who feel they have been wronged.

    English: Football
    Spanish: fútbol
    Protuguse: futebol
    Romanian: fotbal
    Galician: fútbot
    Catalan: futbol
    French: le football
    Russian: futbol
    Turkish: futbol
    Serbian: fudbal
    German: Fußball
    Dutch: voetbal
    Norweian: fotball
    Swedish: fotboll
    Danish: fodbold
    American: Soccer

    The United States, it seems, is the only country in the world that prefers to use the name football to refer to a game that doesn't actually use the feet.

    All we ask is that you please call the biggest sport in the world by its commonly accepted name! :)

    Thanks in advance,

    Rest of World

    PS: Now if only we could get our overpaid under-performing team to win something...

    1. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by RandoX · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's right, all American football players travel the field in wheelchairs.

    2. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by hal2814 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      We don't need your football. You see, we've already got one. It's very nice. And kickers are used though they are not part of every play.

      Most Americans* do make some attempt to specify American football when the term football can be ambiguous, but you it'll be a cold, cold day in hell before I start using a word other than "football" to talk about American football to my fellow American-football-watching friends.

      * America apparently includes the US, Canada, and Australia from your argument since they all use the term soccer frequently. They already each have their own football and tend to use the term to describe their own version (unless they are in mixed company).

    3. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0, Troll
      The United States, it seems, is the only country in the world that prefers to use the name football to refer to a game that doesn't actually use the feet.

      The Football is called so in USA because the ball used is exactly 12 inches long. The name Football is already taken, sorry you have to call it soccer in USA. You can make bubbly wine, but you cant call it champaigne. Google is talking to some small German email provider over the name gmail, because it is already taken in Germany. Cisco took the name iPhone before Apple did. So they talked and came to an understanding. You want to call it football in your country. Do so. But dont expect the land of the free and home of the brave to follow you like sheep.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Petrushka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      All we ask is that you please call the biggest sport in the world by its commonly accepted name! :)

      Speak for yourself! -- damn whingeing pommies.

      (No, no other English-speaking nation in the world is on your side in this .. well, maybe Ireland.)

    5. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by finkployd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In the words of our glorious leader: "You forgot Poland"

      Finkployd

    6. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "The United States, it seems, is the only country in the world that prefers to use the name football to refer to a game that doesn't actually use the feet."

      Umm.. yeah. Ready the pitchforks.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 offtopic mods all in a row all for the same discussion thread? This smells of opinion-quashing from on high. Looks like someone running Slashdot wants to hide complaints and defenses on it's American-centric nature.

    8. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Sneakernets · · Score: 1

      You mean, one word can piss people off this much? It's just a word...



      Soccer soccer soccer soccer!! :D

      --
      "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
    9. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by DoomfrogBW · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong! The football you are referring is aka soccer or "Association Football". There is also rugby football, etc. So your bigot-like comment is way off. See quote from Wikipedia:

      "The rules of football were codified in England by the Football Association in 1863, and the name association football was coined to distinguish the game from the other forms of football played at the time, specifically rugby football. The term soccer first appeared in the 1880s as a slang abbreviation of Association football, often credited to Charles Wreford-Brown.[18]

      Today the sport is known by a number of names throughout the English-speaking world, the most common being football and soccer. The term used depends largely on the need to differentiate the sport from other types of football played in a community. Football is the term used by FIFA, the sport's world governing body, and the International Olympic Committee. For more details of naming throughout the world, please refer to the main articles above."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(soccer)

    10. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Skrynesaver · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, no other English-speaking nation in the world is on your side in this .. well, maybe Ireland.)

      Nope, In Ireland football is a game played with 15 players a side and run by the GAA
      Soccer is something played by delicate flowers who fall in a breeze and generally bring disgrace upon themselves and their nation and shouldn't be confused with sport being more in the realm of performance art.

      Though footie as played in Oz seems suited to a bunch of ex-crims, they really shouldn't be allowed abroad to perpetrate International rules on others ;)

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    11. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 3, Funny

      Japanese: sakkaa

      Score one for the bad guys! Yee-haw!

    12. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You want to call it football in your country. Do so. But dont expect the land of the free and home of the brave to follow you like sheep.

      What? the land of the free?
      Whoever told you that is your enemy

      Now something must be done
      About vengeance, a badge and a gun
      cause Ill rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
      I was born to rage against em

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      You can make bubbly wine, but you cant call it champaigne.

            No, but you could certainly call it champagne. Which happens to be called that way because of a province of France. Of course you can't call it Dom Perignon - that will get you in trouble real fast...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by VShael · · Score: 1

      I thought the yankee colonials call their sport "football" because the ball is approximately a foot long, no?

    15. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by mgblst · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why don't you ask all english speaking nations?

      Australia: Soccer
      Canada: Soccer
      USA: Soccer
      New Zealand: Soccer
      Britan: who cares, you all suck at it anyway!

    16. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they call it hand-egg?

    17. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japanese: sakkaa

      I wouldn't be surprised if there were other languages that borrowed the term from American English rather than British English either. In any case, you made a hasty generalization. There are other languages or dialects than American English which use soccer over football.

      (Also, for the record, there is no language called "American." It's a dialect of English.)

    18. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't go so far as to say Britain "sucks at it." If you want to judge the Premiership against MLS and say that Britain sucks at it, then the Americans truly swallow. Oh, and congratulations for making your overly generous contribution to the Beckham Memorial Plastic Surgery Fund, Los Angeles MLS team. Old Spice is going to need it.

    19. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the last time, Wikipedia is not an authority on things. It is written and edited by people like you and me.

    20. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in this case its right and $RANDOM_SLASHDOT_USER is wrong.

    21. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by despisethesun · · Score: 1

      American football is descended from rugby football which is probably where it got its name. Its popularity in the U.S. and Canada vs. association football (aka soccer) is probably why it's referred to simply as "football" here. Contrary to what the English would have you believe, the term "football" covers a number of different but related sports.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    22. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by bluemonq · · Score: 1

      Nope, sorry. It's called "Californian Sparkling Wine" for a reason.

    23. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The United States, it seems, is the only country in the world that prefers to use the name football to
      refer to a game that doesn't actually use the feet. You forgot Canadia:
      English: Soccer
      French: Le soccer

      And they OCCASIOANLLY kick the "ball", you know.

      P.S. But you said "American", so I assume you included other countries of america in there, maybe I shouldn't corect you ;-)
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    24. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go so far as to say Britain "sucks at it." If you want to judge the Premiership against MLS and say that Britain sucks at it, then the Americans truly swallow. Oh, and congratulations for making your overly generous contribution to the Beckham Memorial Plastic Surgery Fund, Los Angeles MLS team. Old Spice is going to need it.
       
      Hey, I am an aussie who lives in UK, so you are way off. And holding up the premiership, where some teams have NO british players at all, is a bit of a joke. The Premiership might be the best competition, but that has everything to do with money, and nothing to do with Britian.

    25. Re:Soccer.. arggggggh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All we ask is that you please call the biggest sport in the world by its commonly accepted name!

      In an attempt to handle the conflict with American Football, for a while there was a movement to change from calling it Soccer to WatchingPaintDry, but then the Cricket people claimed they were already using that nickname, so it died out.

  5. Consider my mountain bike... by AdamInParadise · · Score: 5, Informative

    A few months ago, I bought a nice mountain bike from a well-known vendor. Right from the start I had issues with the front crank. So I went online and founds hundreds of people having exactly the same problem on the very same model. It gave me a much stronger case to get the shop to replace the problematic part by another brand: they could not claim that it was my fault. So yeah, online consumer activist is good, but you already knew that, right ?

    --
    Nobox: Only simple products.
    1. Re:Consider my mountain bike... by Gerald · · Score: 1

      Front crank? Did you buy a tandem?

  6. No loophole there by davidwr · · Score: 1

    That's not a loophole, it's by design.

    While the Republican Business-Friendly Congress has no problem with making businesses "know your customer" except for known terrorists, drug dealers, and people from terrorist countries, they won't tell banks who they can and cannot lend to.

    If Bank Of America wants to do do business with non-Americans, that's their business. Just make sure to get a taxpayer-ID number OR do backup withhold taxes on any interest paid, as required by law.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  7. Yes, yes they will by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Are these kinds of organized 'advocate mobs' going to be the future of internet activism?


    Yes, yes they will. See the current bruhaha over Bank of America and their giving credit cards to illegal aliens as well as allowing unapproved documents to be used to open accounts.

    Even, gasp!, Michelle Malkin is getting into scrum and accusing the Bush administration of ignoring and condoning the actions of Bank of America.

    One need only do searches for things like "lawsuit Match.com" to see that (maybe) consumers will be getting the upper hand. Until businesses bribe, er, lobby, Congress to protect them that is.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Yes, yes they will by Aladrin · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I'm sure this confused more people than just me, so...

      He's talking about scrum not scrum.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Yes, yes they will by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If someone wants to extend credit someone with little or no documantation, isn't it their perogative to do so?

      So what if BofA has decided to take that risk?

      And god forbid people trying to make a better life be able to save a few bucks so there children can get a better schooling and become productive tax paying members of the US.
      no no, lets just spend billions upon billions of dollars throughing out people who will do jobs no locals will. I would also argue that if BofA wants to hold money for people with lttle or no documentation that's their business.

      And people who work here pay taxes. Some taxes they will never get back or used by them in any way.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Yes, yes they will by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes they will. See the current bruhaha over Bank of America and their giving credit cards to illegal aliens as well as allowing unapproved documents to be used to open accounts.

      I sure hope this will finally drive a wedge between big-business Republicans and "social conservative" Republicans (former Southern Democrats who fled that party in protest of its civil rights platform). Every other year, those poor suckers elect another Republican to office to end immigration and abortion forever, get prayer back in schools and crack down on the homosexuals. And every time they get upper-bracket tax breaks and corporate welfare and a line about how the godless "demmycrat" party kept them from passing the important social legislation. So they send them back again to try again to prevail over the forces of darkness and the process repeats.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:Yes, yes they will by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      If someone wants to extend credit someone with little or no documantation, isn't it their perogative to do so?


      In the case of banks, no. When opening an account, banks must, by law be provided with certain documentation which proves who you are. For a quick and dirty list, see this from Rice University (pdf). Note that a matricular consular card IS NOT a valid form of identification yet Bank of America, and others, are being allowed to use it anyway.

      So what if BofA has decided to take that risk?

      By violating federal law, the government, if it so chose to do so, could suspend or revoke Bank of America's charter or even take it over. If you had accounts with them, would you want them to be risking your money?

      And god forbid people trying to make a better life be able to save a few bucks so there children can get a better schooling and become productive tax paying members of the US.

      Strawman argument. No one is saying that non-citizens shouldn't be allowed to open accounts. What is being said is that people who shouldn't be here in the first place are being allowed to circumvent the law with the aid and assistance of banks.

      no no, lets just spend billions upon billions of dollars throughing out people who will do jobs no locals will.

      False argument. While certainly some jobs like maid service in hotels or grunt work on construction sites are jobs that the vast majority of Americans wouldn't do, the issue is that these people have not followed very basic rules to get a green card to work here legally.

      Further, the vast majority of their money isn't even spent in this country. It is sent to their home country to support their families which means the money they make is propping up other, corrupt, governments who can't see the way to take care of their own people.

      I would also argue that if BofA wants to hold money for people with lttle or no documentation that's their business.

      See my above comments. Further, Bank of America is a publicly traded company. They are responsible to the shareholders. By endangering their status they are risking the money of the owners of the company.

      Think about how many mutual funds or pension accounts have money invested in Bank of America stock. Imagine what would happen if Bank of America stock gets suspended pending investigations of its activities. Can you say panic?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Yes, yes they will by terrymr · · Score: 1

      I don't think the law spells out which forms of documentation you're required to produce to prove your identity. If it does then the banks don't know about it because they act really confused if you don't produce a drivers license.

      Additionally - what does immigration status have to do with bank accounts ? there are a lot of people that spend a lot of time legally in the USA without ever obtaining permanent resident status (business visitors and such) should they be denied access to banks too ?

    6. Re:Yes, yes they will by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      But they still have valid Visas. There's plenty of ways to demonstrate that you are here legally if you are not a U.S. citizen.

      For the record, while I would like to see people provide that evidence, I'm glad the bank is not abusing the social security system by not requiring the social security number. Now, an interest bearing savings account (or other investments) might be an exception, but it should not be required for a checking account.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    7. Re:Yes, yes they will by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      I don't think the law spells out which forms of documentation you're required to produce to prove your identity.


      See this link (pdf) from the Federal Reserve in regards to opening accounts for people affected by Katrina. The answer to the second question lays out what a bank must do to verify a person's identity. It lists some forms of identification which may be used. As a rule, the document presented must be an official form of identification. That is why I qualified my previous statements by saying that a matricula consular card is not a valid document for proving the identity of a person.

      Additionally - what does immigration status have to do with bank accounts ?

      I had an aunt who, until recently, was a legal resident of the U.S. Both she and her husband (one of my father's older brothers) were not born here. He became a U.S. citizen (and served in the military during Korea) while she continued to be a citizen of their native country, Germany.

      She was able to open accounts, run a business and everything else because she did what was necessary to follow the law. In her case, she obtained a tax ID number and other related documents.

      The issue is not about immigration status. It's about following the rules that have been set down so that all persons not citizens, are correctly accounted for and yes, taxed correctly.

      Since a majority of illegal aliens are paid under the table, their earnings are not taxed and, as I said previously, the money they earn is sent out of the country to be spent elsewhere.

      It's not that difficult to obtain legal documents to open an account. A passport or green card will do.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    8. Re:Yes, yes they will by terrymr · · Score: 1

      I was actually told i couldn't open an account with a green card and had to go get a drivers license. The licensing office looked at me funny when I asked where the check writing test was.

      The other problem with a green card is that it takes about 3 years to get one even though you are here legally for that time but have nothing to prove it other than a laminated employment authorization card which almost everybody claims is not valid ID.

    9. Re:Yes, yes they will by terrymr · · Score: 1

      As a person who has been through the process - it's not as easy as it sounds - it takes forever for an application to get processed. During the processing period you are deemed as authorized by the secreatary of state to remain in the US - but it's not like they give you a piece of paper that says that. You get a cash register receipt which I suppose is proof of a pending application and a work permit card that disclaims any use as proof of immigration status and they take your entry/exit receipt from your passport so you can't use that to prove legal entry.

  8. Stating a general theory of political reality. by GodInHell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We are the people. Individually we are weak. Together we rule the world.

    Those who oppress us cannot do so unless we help them. Those who go against our-selves rampant, shall suffer the only possible consequence.

    As humanity learns to speak with one another, breaking down barriers of distance, language, and culture, the existing governmental powers are going to have a very interesting dillema on their hands. One people, one world, one government.

    -GiH
    The preceding has been your dose of political idealism for the day. Overdosiong on political idealism may lead to conspiracy theories, or dellusions of power. Use only as recomneded.

    1. Re:Stating a general theory of political reality. by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      Overdosiong on political idealism may get you killed.

      That is the preferred disclaimer throughout most of the world. Lon Horiuchi has to have something to keep him busy.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    2. Re:Stating a general theory of political reality. by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      If there is something I NEVER want to see in my life is one gov't to rule them all. I hate my own gov't and the EU and the UN enough already. The existance of a WG would be the end of me.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    3. Re:Stating a general theory of political reality. by spun · · Score: 1

      You anarchist! What's next, advocating human sacrifice and dogs and cats sleeping together? That will only lead to mass hysteria.

      Those who oppress us cannot do so unless we help them.
      Specifically, no one can oppress you unless you first oppress yourself. Do not ever use moral judgement or punishment as a tool to become the person you want to be. It WILL backfire, and it will leave a backdoor in your mind that mental hackers can use to root your head.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  9. football does use the feet by davidwr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ever watched a 60-yard field goal attempt? Now that's drama.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  10. Mob activism against corporate criminals by maynard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    RE: that British bank scandal, the courts there determined that banks were breaking the law. This was then reported by the news (such as BBC) who published handy tips on reclaiming unfair fees.

    Is it thus fair to call a press which publishes information about this issue, along with all the people who makes use of that information, an "advocate mob" out to bully corporations out of their profits? In fact, who is the more organized here? The private companies with enough funds to hire PR agents, attorneys, and lobbyists, or those citizens who assert their rights as legislated by parliament and enforced by the courts?

    1. Re:Mob activism against corporate criminals by size8 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Using the word "mob" to describe disgruntled consumers who've got together to demand their rights is just just another way for corporations and their apologists to cast these protestors in a bad light. The use of insults and defamatory terms is an old tactic. It's good that wronged consumers are using the web and related available technology to fight the corporations. In the past, protesting consumers were pretty much isolated. The corporation would have a gang of lawyers and coordinating tactics, while the complaining consumer was on his own - even if there were a whole bunch of other consumers in the same situation, chances are they would never learn of each others' existence. The only way to disseminate such info was through the media - newspapers, TV and radio, etc - organizations that are owned by corporations and so have a vested interest in keeping these matters quiet. But now, the decentralized nature of the web and the existence of many sites that are willing to discuss these matters means the average consumer now has a decent chance to fight back. These cases will become more and more commonplace. We now have a chance of winnning battles that we should rightfully win in any case. No wonder they want to call us "mobs".

  11. NFL? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All we ask is that you please call the biggest sport in the world by its commonly accepted name! :) So by which name should we refer to the descendant of rugby played by NFL, CFL, and AFL?
    1. Re:NFL? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Advertisement filler ?

      Whatever you call it, it's not football. Big nancy girls footballers may be but at least they don't need to encase themselves in body armour and helmets to prevent their hair getting messed up.

      Rugby is far more exciting than either football or that daft american off-shoot ( not to mention american rounders and american netball or whatever you call them ).

    2. Re:NFL? by hal2814 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Historically, American football players didn't "encase themselves in body armour." The rules changes from rugby allowing for distinct downs had a nasty habit killing people, especially with the advent of the flying V formation. If it weren't for the deaths, there would probably be no padding despite the huge number of injuries. Even after a few deaths occurred here and there, American football players resisted any sort of padding for a very long time. It was only after padding became reluctantly common that it morphed into the monstrosity it is today. And there are still serious injuries but it has been a long time since there was a death in the middle of an American football game (though there have been deaths during practice in the meantime).

    3. Re:NFL? by rosscoe · · Score: 1

      As much as I like wave the Union Jack I have to point out that netball is an American invention, obvious really as if it was British we'd be crap at it.

    4. Re:NFL? by Thwomp · · Score: 1

      Blurnball? :)

    5. Re:NFL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dumb jocks fight!!!

  12. It is not the future by Bullfish · · Score: 1

    of consumer activism, it is the now of consumer activism. Actually, the net may make boycotts more effective too. In the past, consumer boycotts worked poorly due to the difficulty in organizing so many far flung people. The net may finally make boycotts easier to organize, track and upkeep. Now that, may be the future. Ditto for the governments. Before only political parties and large scale consumer/activist organizations had the infrastructure to get heard. Now ordinary voters can mass on-line and organize too

  13. Re:Soccer Clubs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That's "stupid game that goes on for four hours to end in a 1-1 tie, leaving rioting and holliganism as the only option". Real football is much better than that dump spheriod spinoff to the rest of is.

  14. "Advocate Mobs"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are these kinds of organized 'advocate mobs' going to be the future of internet activism?"

    Wait until such a "mob" hits Slashdot and demands journalism.

    1. Re:"Advocate Mobs"? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Wait until such a "mob" hits Slashdot and demands journalism.

            Personally I'll wait for the dupe.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:"Advocate Mobs"? by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

      They could start with the Independent. You could almost see the "will this do?" comment at the end to the sub and hear the door clang as he ran for the local pub.

  15. Chase Bank Please. by neo · · Score: 1

    We still have an account there until some final payments come out, but we have been charged outrageous amounts of money for $3 overdrafts and on numerous occasions told that a check would clear "the next day" only to have it clear three days later... again incurring bounce check fees. At $35 a pop, Chase is making a huge profit. On one of my paychecks we ended up only getting 70% of the money into the account after bank fees.

    Anyone up for doing this?

    1. Re:Chase Bank Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone up for doing this?

      Up for doing what?? Mismanaging my finances to the extent that a check clearing after 72 hours instead of 24 will bounce? No thanks, I'll leave you to it.

    2. Re:Chase Bank Please. by symes · · Score: 1
      When I lived in America I got charged $20 for writing a cheque that would have taken me $20 over drawn. They bounced the cheque. I was outraged - they could take my account $20 overdrawn but I couldn't. Nevermind the fact that I had ample funds in a savings account. So I marched into the Cambridge branch and at the top of my voiced declared that I wanted to complain. I received immediate service, a full refund and a written apology.

      The moral being, if you don't get a bit shouty now and then you risk being walked on.

      So try shouting at Chase first - if that doesn't work come back and I'll agree to not open an account with Chase.

    3. Re:Chase Bank Please. by Zephyr14z · · Score: 1

      Chase bank screwed me over too. I got the same "Your check will clear in one day" nonsense. A few days later, I notice that it still isn't there, so I go to the bank, and present them with the issue. It turns out the check did clear, but into somebody else's account. The account number wasn't even similar enough to warrant a possible typo at some point. I closed out my account that day, and moved to Bank of America. They may give cards and accounts to illegal aliens, but that doesn't really affect me in any way. Their service has been pretty good, I've had no problems with my money getting into MY account, and they offered me a lower interest rate on my car than anywhere else. In summary, yes, Chase sucks.

    4. Re:Chase Bank Please. by TechForensics · · Score: 1

      In the USA this kind of abuse will never be addressed effectively under a Republican administration. VOTE DEMOCRAT! It's time to ELIMINATE CORPORATE PREFERENCES.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    5. Re:Chase Bank Please. by Control-Z · · Score: 1

      Yeah Chase pissed me off with my credit card. I pay my bills online. Let's say the due date for my Chase credit card was Jan 15th. I'd log to the chase.com website on Jan 12th to make an electronic payment debited from my checking account. When you were filling out how much to pay, there was a notice that payments take 2-3 days to process. WTF? They have my bank account information, it's an electronic transfer, why is it my problem that it takes them 2-3 days to take my money?

      And, the thing that made me cancel my card was that there was an expedited payment option; that they wanted to charge you something like $3 for!!!

  16. yeah, let's talk about it! by Uksi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No it's not, because, frankly it doesn't affect anyone I know. People don't care. I don't care.

    If an illegal alien can go and open a bank account, it's fine by me. Bank of America is not in the law enforcement business, it's in the banking business. This alien is supporting an American business by opening that bank account.

    No, let's talk about predatory lending, sneaky credit card terms, deceitful charges, etc.

    Let's talk about MBNA (now part of Bank of America) and BofA being some of the heaviest hitters to push through new bankruptcy law that makes everyone a peon to credit card companies, regardless of circumstances! Let's talk about the fact that an amendment to limit credit card interest rates to 30% (yes, that's thirty f'ing percent) was rejected last yaer. Yes, credit card companies did not want their interest rate limited to a cut-throat ceiling of 30%!

    Let's talk about my platinum Bank of America card moving from 2 late payments (by even a day!) in 6 months to 2 late payments in 12 months to 1 late payment in 12 months before they bump your rate from a good APR to an insane 20%+ default APR. Let's talk about two-cycle billing (my roommate, who normally pays off his entire balance got bitten by this because he miscalculated and payed off a $1 less than the balance)

    Let's talk about CapitalOne (and some other predatory lenders) not reporting your credit limit to the credit reporting agencies, which is ILLEGAL to do, but there is not enough activism or pressure to change that.

    So yeah, let's talk about that, and then you can tell me why I should care that Bank of America issues a bank account to an illegal alien, when there are all these other topics out there that affect every damn American.

    1. Re:yeah, let's talk about it! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "No, let's talk about predatory lending, sneaky credit card terms, deceitful charges, etc."

      While I'll agree that these are problems....these CAN be avoided by people that have self control, live within their means...and don't run up credit balances they cannot afford to pay off in a reasonable manner.

      If you do this...you can generate a good credit rating, and you can then get credit cards with very reasonable rates.

      I got in to CC trouble once...took a miracle to get out of, and I'll NEVER do it again...I pretty much stick to Amex for everything, so I have to pay off in full each month. Other regular CC's are for emergencies only...with the odd expenditure for something that might take 2 or 3 months absolute maximum to pay off.

      No exceptions.

      But, do things like I described that I do...your credit rating goes up, you have money for savings/retirmeent/health care....and are not under the stress of living paycheck to paycheck.

      Predatory banking is bad, but, it only works on ignorant people....and if you're in that category...everyone is out to get you, not just banks. Everyone out to make a buck loves a 'sucker'.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:yeah, let's talk about it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a BOA credit card with 35% interest. Or rather, I had - I paid that motherfucker off once they jacked my rates. I can't imagine how people who are living paycheck to paycheck can deal with it when suddenly their interest rates get raised. They are totally fucked. BOA is really fucking sneaky too because they hide their rate increase notification inside of junk mail. Unless you carefully examine every piece of shit they send you (and I get at least 3 pieces of junk mail a week from them), you will totally miss the rate increase unless you notice it on your bill.

      When BOA bought MBNA I got a notice on my MBNA credit card saying that unless I sent a hand written note to someplace on the other side of the country (totally different locations than where I send my payments) within one week they would jack my rates up to 30%. If I sent the note I could keep my existing rate. Totally fucking bizarre but I sent the damn note. About two months later they jacked my rate anyways without telling me. And really, don't bother trying to deal with those fuckers on the phone. Once you finally talk to a human they don't give a shit. They'll put you on "hold" and hang up on you. They'll say a manager will call you back and no one ever will. They'll tell you your fucked and your only choice is to just pay off the card.

      I am going credit card free after these experiences (and I haven't even gotten into the bullshit fees they charge!). The credit card companies are totally corrupt and run by people who must have cut their teeth as mafia loansharks.

    3. Re:yeah, let's talk about it! by natophonic · · Score: 2

      While I'll agree that these are problems....these CAN be avoided by people that have self control, live within their means...
      Yes people, please do have the self control not to be diagnosed with a debilitating illness, ever get laid off or have a slump in income, or have your house burned down when your neighbor shoots off fireworks that land on your roof... *sigh*

      It's great that you got out of your self-created emergency by some 'miracle', and that it leaves you time to worry about things like 'ohhh noooesss the brown people are takin over mah country!'. Just keep in mind that not everyone else's emergency is self-created. Consumers banding together to take large corporations to task for *illegal* fraud and deceit is more worthy than brow-beating them for legal and legitimate business practices.
    4. Re:yeah, let's talk about it! by Maniakes · · Score: 1

      Yes people, please do have the self control not to be diagnosed with a debilitating illness, ever get laid off or have a slump in income, or have your house burned down when your neighbor shoots off fireworks that land on your roof...

      This is why we have things like disability insurance, emergency savings, and homeowner's insurance. There are some people who genuinely can't afford a safety margin, or who get hit with catastrophies that exhaust their reasonable safety margins, but the vast majority of people can afford to prepare for misfortune, unless they dig themselves into debt by habitually living beyond their means.

      --
      A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
    5. Re:yeah, let's talk about it! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ALL of which can still NOT BE ENOUGH.

      This is why THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS WERE PUT IN PLACE TO BEGIN WITH.

      Not everyone has the LUXURY of making accomodations ahead of time. Even if you do, those accomodations might not be enough. ANYone in IT should understand that much.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:yeah, let's talk about it! by Maniakes · · Score: 1

      I strongly suspect that poor planning is a much more common cause of bad financial situations than catastrophic misfortune. You can never get rid of all the risk, but there are sensible precautions that most people can afford which greatly reduce it.

      --
      A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
    7. Re:yeah, let's talk about it! by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      I really don't have any idea why anyone would use a credit card in the first place.

  17. A few notes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not a fskcing consumer- I am a person-a human. Stop calling me a 'consumer'. I do not buy into Sparrow's, Dyson,Smith or anyone else who thinks I have "perfect" information (or at times any information at all). I do not have perfect competition. If I did I wouldn't have to get my diamonds from the the Deyburse family-I do however have a gripe, and a bone to pick with whom ever can't seem to help me resolve my problem-Namely that you're jewlery department want's to rip me a new one in order to to put some fake diamonds back into a watch band, becasue you coudn't do the job right the first 20k times! If I had perfect competition I wouldn't be looking at getting a Mac or a "Windows PC" for work!

  18. The Short Answer by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Are these kinds of organized 'advocate mobs' going to be the future of internet activism?

    The short answer: Yes!

    The longer answer: Yes, as long as it's more effective than other courts or methods. Banks that did nothing wrong should have little to fear from a better informed consumer.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  19. Re:Must just be in England...1 Problem by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Informative
    I figured there would have been a much larger rush of people to move their accounts away from them.

    The problem is that there are fewer and fewer acceptable choices every year as alternatives. BofA isn't the only bank you wouldn't want to do business with.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  20. the bush administration is in pocket of big biz by Uksi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Big business profits motivate Bush administration's every single action:

    * ignoring BofA bruhaha
    * encouraging "guest worker status" to permit legal under-minimum-wage labor
    * signing the bankruptcy bill
    * pushing ethanol fuel (big ethanol lobby)
    * against discount drugs from Canada
    * crazy cronyism in Iraq (KBR, Halliburton)

    I mean, there is very little that's not big business motivated.

    1. Re:the bush administration is in pocket of big biz by thue · · Score: 1

      pushing ethanol fuel (big ethanol lobby)

      This one is not a bad idea. Though it is not really worth it to use lots of land for a marginal energy gain with mais, it will build the infrastructure for when we can make it from cellulose.

    2. Re:the bush administration is in pocket of big biz by can'tthinkofagoodnic · · Score: 1

      You've got to be kidding me...

      * ignoring BofA bruhaha What is Bush supposed to do about this? This requires either investigation (Judicial) or law changes (Legislative). Bush can't write laws or judge anyone. He *could* hold a press conference I suppose, but we all know he's no good at those.

      * signing the bankruptcy bill You can't tell me you think the old bankruptcy system was fair. Just about anybody could run up a bunch of debt then file for bankruptcy and not pay anyone. This was badly in need of restructuring. The law is in place so that you can rebuild your life if catastrophe happens, not so you can go crazy with 10 credit cards and buy everything you want.

      * pushing ethanol fuel (big ethanol lobby) Big ethanol lobby? The purpose in this law was to boost production so that the price can come down eventually, and we can do what we've wanted to do for 50 years: have a secondary fuel source besides oil.

      * against discount drugs from Canada I keep hearing this one, but it just doesn't make sense. Basically, Canada's government artificially limits the prices on drugs, and some people want that price control to apply in the U.S. If that's what they want they should just lobby for our own government to introduce price controls, which I also disagree with. This is capitalism. Money=motivation. If we artificially limit the amount of money that drug companies are "entitled" to make, we will limit their R&D budget and will essentially keep them from developing any more expensive drugs. The free market is a much better system for controlling this, although the insurance situation needs to be fixed to make this really work.

      * crazy cronyism in Iraq (KBR, Halliburton) Okay I don't know much about Halliburton, but I'm guessing you don't either. I've heard that they are the only company that does what they do, whatever that is, so there's not really a choice in the matter when it comes to deciding who to hire. But regardless, the president is going to choose people he trusts, and he has experience with those people already, so it's natural for him to choose them.

    3. Re:the bush administration is in pocket of big biz by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      The business of America is BUSINESS. Leave your morality at the door.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:the bush administration is in pocket of big biz by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Informative

      This requires either investigation (Judicial)

      What branch does the FBI fall under? The Attorney General is appointed by whom? The Executive branch is the branch in charge of enforcement. Judicial tries them after the executive investigates.

      Basically, Canada's government artificially limits the prices on drugs, and some people want that price control to apply in the U.S.

      Nope. People want to be able to exercise free-market buying. That is, if I can buy from anywhere, I buy wherever it is cheapest. If the drugs are sold for a loss in Canada, then the drug companies should leave that market. That's what a free market does. Blocking importation from Canada is blocking the free market so that the drug companies can gouge the Americans with inflated prices that are illegal to circumvent. I can buy a DVD player from Canada. Why can't I buy drugs made in the US from Canada as well? The US government claimed safety only, and never protecting profits. So you disagree with our government as to why such a ban should be in place. I don't think you even understand the issues. You obviously have only a tenuous grasp as to what the three branches do.

    5. Re:the bush administration is in pocket of big biz by can'tthinkofagoodnic · · Score: 1

      I don't think you even understand the issues.

      I forgot...anyone on slashdot that's not an extreme liberal is obviously an idiot...

      In all reality, what BOA is doing (unfortunately) isn't illegal. Which is why the only way to change it is to change the laws (congress).

      As far as selling at a loss goes, it's not that simple. Drugs are relatively cheap to physically produce. That's why generics are so cheap. So it's not that they're selling at a loss in Canada, it's that they're not selling at a high enough price to recoup their R&D. Pulling out of that market would just make it worse. As far as it being a free market--it's not! Canada controls the prices. You can buy a DVD player from Canada because it's not price controlled. But even then, you can't buy a truckload of DVD players and bring them back. Free market buying only applies inside our borders, and even then there are things you can't buy in large quantity in other states (cigarettes) and bring back home.

      Yes, I do disagree with what the government claims is the reason. I mean, it's a valid reason as well, and probably a bit easier to explain to the public.

    6. Re:the bush administration is in pocket of big biz by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      As far as selling at a loss goes, it's not that simple.

      Every drug sold in Canada by a US firm is sold for a profit (that is, more than the production cost). That you imply otherwise indicates that you are either stupid or lying. It has nothing to do with liberal and all that. That you bring up politics when discussing corporate profits also indicates some cognative disconnect. My personal political beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is or is not safe to have US drugs sold in the US by US companies that have passed all US regulations.

    7. Re:the bush administration is in pocket of big biz by can'tthinkofagoodnic · · Score: 1

      This *IS* about politics! This is COMPLETELY about whether or not you think the government should control the cost of medicine. Canada does, the US does not. Most liberals lean toward a socialist state where the government controls more business, and most conservatives lean toward a more independent state where the government is more hands off with business. Just because it's another government controlling the price of the medicine doesn't mean it's free market buying!

      And you once again ignore R&D, which is the bulk of the cost of making a new drug. Just because they can sell it for more than they make it for does *not* insure profit on their end. The same is true for cars and microprocessors--the total price of car parts is well under the price of the car, and a microprocessor's cost is more than just a fraction of the cost of the silicon wafer.

    8. Re:the bush administration is in pocket of big biz by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Just be aware that the Democrats are just as guilty. If you don't believe me Google for the Nancy Pelosi Starkist American Samoa minimum wage fiasco.

      Neither party is immune this bs.

      And that's why I will be voting Libertarian, Constitutional, and independent every chance I get.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  21. Bank Charges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for one of the major UK banks in their customer service department. We daily get flooded with calls from people who have been hit with massive charges for being merely a few pounds (or even pence) over their overdraft limit. The company line we spout is that the UK is the only country in the world where you bank for free and that we believe its fair to pass charges for services along to customers who don't run their account within the terms and conditions, rather than make the majority of our customers pay to bank with us.

    Personally, I think the charges are excessive, and that people should do everything they can to claim them back. The forthcoming results of the Office of Fair Trading's investigation into the charges should help them, and make our lives a lot easier as well. One of the biggest problems is that since people in the UK are not used to paying any fees for a bank account, they see it as a service they are entitled to, rather than a business. Banks are out to make money, however possible and see a breach of your terms and conditions as an ideal opportunity to do so. If the OFT forces charges to lower though, we may see an end to free banking in the UK.

    To anyone who's been charged, check out Martin Lewis's website http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
    There's some good advice about how to go about claiming charges back. Just remember that the person on the other end of the line probably agrees with you about the charges, so don't give them a hard time!

    1. Re:Bank Charges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the UK is the only country in the world where you bank for free"???

      I had a free bank account years ago in the US and my current account in Germany even pays me interest on my deposits with absolutely no charges. Not even for withdrawing cash at any cash machine world wide!

      Free banking is not unique to the UK.

  22. Re:Soccer Clubs by ookabooka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's "football clubs" to the rest of us.
    Disclaimer: I am an American.

    Ah, but see, by saying "soccer" it removes all the ambiguity. Most non-Americans know what "soccer" is, they just think it is an incorrect term to describe that sport with 2 goals and a buncha guys kicking a ball around. Had the poster said "football" then the American population would assume the summary was referring to American football while the non-american population wouldn't be confused for they would expect to see "American football" to describe football and "football" to describe soccer; a clever non-American would however assume that since this is an Amermican website that the summarry was actually referring to American footbal by saying "football". So had the summary said "football" to describe soccer, only non-presumptuous non-American's would infer the correct meaning...By saying soccer, everyone infers the correct meaning, and a few people get pissed off and/or roll their eyes.


    P.S. I'm not arguing over which is the more correct term, thats a useless debate...Seeing as I am an American and a Slashdotter, I suppose I'm supposed to be double-arrogant and double-argumentative. . so yeah, soccer is THE correct term :-)

    --
    If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
  23. Newsflash!! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Most people know that people opening bank accounts is a good thing for the economy, even if they are for people who aren't here legally. Most peopel also know that immigrant workers are good for the US and Mexico, countrary to what the whacko minutemen say on the news.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Newsflash!! by moeinvt · · Score: 2, Insightful



      "Most peopel also know that immigrant workers are good for the US . . ."

      So truth is now a function of popular opinion?

      Illegal immigrants are great for the factories and construction companies that can get them to work for sub-minimum wages. They're just a burden on the rest of us that have to pay taxes to build the public infrastructure and fund the public services that everyone uses(and illegals don't pay for). It's also a documented fact that illegals ship substantial portions of their earnings back to their home countries, so the wealth doesn't even circulate in the rest of the economy. Not to mention the grave security risk of having 20 million illegals that we know nothing about running around our country. That's supposed to be a "benefit to the US"?

      Who's a whacko? Somebody that dares to defy the status quo and question insane government policies?

    2. Re:Newsflash!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just a burden on the rest of us that have to pay taxes to build the public infrastructure and fund the public services that everyone uses(and illegals don't pay for).

      REALLY?!! How does that work? Do they go to McDonald's and ask for the tax to be deducted from the bill? Or do they buy their food at the supermarket, and get a special "illegal alien tax free" discount?

      Or perhaps they don't buy clothes, food, they live in cages or in tents under the trees so they don't pay any VAT (or whatever the equivalent is in the US)?

      I know! They send their money to their relative in Mexico and Central America, and their relatives buy all their needs and send them back to them, so the illegal aliens don't have to pay any "imperialist" tax. And of course, all the bank transactions, fund transfers and even goods shipments are also tax free because as illegal aliens they don't "pay taxes"!

      Here is a suggestion for all of you Americans: go to Mexico, bribe some officer to get a Mexican citizenship, renounce to your American citizenship and go back to the US as an illegal alien. Imagine how much you'll be saving on taxes!

        To the poster above: Maybe I should clarify that my comments are sarcastic. Just in case you fail to see the obvious. Also, if you don't understand some of the long words, you'll find millions of illegal aliens that have at least ten times your IQ working in factories under sub-minimum wage that may be able to explain them to you.

    3. Re:Newsflash!! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's not the wages. It's the working conditions.

      Illegals don't file workers comp claims and won't unionize. This allows ConAgra to run meat packing plants that my uncles wouldn't work at despite having retired from the meat packing industry.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  24. Re:Soccer Clubs by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Which of the following should we call FOOTball?

    1. A bunch of players maneuvering a ball around a field using mainly their FEET.

    2. A bunch of 'roid monkeys in full body armour running full pelt into each other, sometimes holding a ball, sometimes throwing it. Rarely does it touch the feet.

    --
    Software patents delenda est.
  25. Re:Soccer Clubs by mgblst · · Score: 1

    Hey, I am with you. In Australia they play a real game as well, and call it football. I don't think football should refer to a girls game, do you?

    Back to the article, I really don't think these campaigns make much of a difference. I hope that changes, and they start to make more of a difference, and stopping Tesco is a great start, but the fact is consumers have to choose from the lesser evil. When talking about energy companies, or banks, or supermarkets, there isn't any difference between them all. I wish there was.

  26. Better than Class Actions? by MrSoccerMom · · Score: 1

    Maybe this could be leveraged to get the paybacks to consumers instead of to the Class Action lawyers.

  27. As long as it is just the Internet... by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    What I would expect to see is mobs (thousands or more) storming businesses that are accused of some kind of unfair practices. Then we would start to see some action. A mob standing outside of a bank with pitchforks, axes and staves. Guns, too. Smashing everything in sight, killing anyone that seems to represent the business. This would get some action.

    Some patheticly weak "boycott" where people decide they aren't going to buy their slave-labor products from one store and instead buy them at an inflated price down the street is a joke. People sending email to the CEO (actually his secretary) to complain about something is a joke. None of these things will inspire action.

    People in the streets destroying property gets results. Look at the Watts riot or the nationwide unrest after Martin Luther King was shot. Of course, not much happened there because these focused on people destroying their own property and own community rather than the property of those they saw as oppressing them. What was the result? Their lives were worse than before because they destroyed what little they had. Misdirected anger, it was.

    The principle problem is that today you have "activists" that are perfectly willing to sit behind a keyboard and type. Where are the people that claim the president is a war criminal and should be tried and executed? Behind keyboards, not out in the street where they might actually do something. They aren't going to do anything. Neither is anyone else. Oh sure, they will complain and in some cases someone will take pity on them and toss them a bone. But real change? No. Change is the domain of the strong and the courageous. There is no courage left in the US nor Western Europe. Courage is the now held by the people that know the way to win is to strike terror in the heart of their opponent. You behead a few schoolgirls. You blow up some restaurant where your opponent is comfortable, thinking they have nothing to fear. This is activism. This is courage.

    Come out from behind your keyboard and do something if you feel that strongly about it. Stop whining.

    1. Re:As long as it is just the Internet... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Smashing everything in sight, killing anyone that seems to represent the business. This would get some action.

      It would. In fact, it would get a lot of people killed, probably including many innocents, and it would get a lot more people in jail for murder.

      Speaking as someone who lives near a business that had a direct action campaign run against it for some considerable time, though, I can guarantee that such campaigns are not reliably effective in changing the behaviour of a business.

      There is no courage left in the US nor Western Europe. Courage is the now held by the people that know the way to win is to strike terror in the heart of their opponent. You behead a few schoolgirls. You blow up some restaurant where your opponent is comfortable, thinking they have nothing to fear. This is activism. This is courage.

      No, it's anarchy, vigilantism, murder, criminal damage...

      The fact that we don't do these things is what separates us from the terrorists. The fact that we are finding ways to share knowledge among the people and act collectively in the interests of the people without resorting to violence and within our own legal systems is exactly why our society is worth defending.

      There are a few things in this life that I might consider to justify direct physical action. Overthrowing an abusive government to restore power to the people would be an obvious one. But I'm afraid being upset with that toy you bought your kid from Best Buy is short of the mark by, oh, a few light years.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:As long as it is just the Internet... by 0x0000 · · Score: 1

      What I would expect to see is mobs (thousands or more) storming businesses that are accused of some kind of unfair practices. Then we would start to see some action. A mob standing outside of a bank with pitchforks, axes and staves. Guns, too. Smashing everything in sight, killing anyone that seems to represent the business. This would get some action.

      Nice imagery! I've been wondering about this too - why are we so hesitant to get up, go out, and burn something down? I mean, if the RIAA was e.g. losing 2 lawyers to, say, accidental death or "random" violence for each suit they filed, not only would the overall number of lawyers be reduced (generally counted a Good Thing, iirc), but the cost of filing the lawsuits would go up as the supply of lawyers ran short.

      Likewise, if a "record label" office were firebombed each time a new batch of lawsuits were filed, the member organizations of the RIAA might eventually begin to realize just how unpopular they really are. This might draw the attention of the courts and the congress-critters when the next constitutional challenge to their copyright bullshite came up, or the next wave of corporate-bought legistlation hit the floor in congress.

      There's an old saying: "Every now and then you have to hang a few judges."

      If the government won't move to protect the citizens, the citizens must defend themselves.

      And don't let's go to that nonsense about the [alleged] moral disparity between RIAA lawsuits and blowing up a few offices or whacking a few lawyers. The damage those fukkers do to individuals and families with their unbridled racketeering and systematic abuses under color of Law makes simple murder look like child's play. These fukkers have created a systemactic culture of death by poverty - the same one enabled and supported by the Regime that overthrew the US Federal government in 2000. Poor people, brown people - these are their victims, and if you think it's not murder I suggest you spend a little time outside your white-bread W.A.S.P. enclaves and find out what the hell really is being done in your name...

      not much happened there because these focused on people destroying their own property and own community rather than the property of those they saw as oppressing them

      This is a critical point that is widely overlooked. In fact, this is a tivial way to tell who - "outside agitators" or disaffected citizens - is actually responsible for any damage. It's also the difference between Revolution and simple Anarchy.

      To put it in plain terms: The Man wants you to burn down your own neighboorhood - and to do it as loudly and wildly as possible. The Man will just bulldoze the smoking wreckage and put up another office tower - and he'll be relieved that so many were killed, since that's just that many fewer that he has to pretend to "re-locate"...

      I will say again - if Tim McVeigh had been for real, he would have blown up an insurance company office, not the Federal Building. There was no Revolution there, only an empty gesture conceived by those same entities who wanted to be percieved as the victims of his action - the Federal agencies. The needed money, the created a reason to get some allocated. Likewise WTC - the Regime needed a reason to take down the Constitution, so they created one... Reichstag Fire; whatever. What's so remarkable to me is that not only did people not take up arms in the defense of their nation in 2000, they didn't even blink when their TVs told them the attacks in 2001 came from the outside.

      The principle problem is that today you have "activists" that are perfectly willing to sit behind a keyboard and type.

      Actually, I don't think this is the principle problem - in saying it, you are blaming the victims, after all - bad form, and usually innaccurate.

      I think the principle problem is t

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    3. Re:As long as it is just the Internet... by unitron · · Score: 1

      Unless shoplifters at the Rockford Wal-Mart get shot on a regular basis, the woman you mentioned was, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, shot by actual police officers after she shot and wounded two security guards and an assistant manager and refused police orders to drop her weapon.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    4. Re:As long as it is just the Internet... by 0x0000 · · Score: 1

      Unless shoplifters at the Rockford Wal-Mart get shot on a regular basis, the woman you mentioned was, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, shot by actual police officers after she shot and wounded two security guards and an assistant manager and refused police orders to drop her weapon.

      Amazing - revisionism in action. Just to make sure we're both referring to the same event: If memory serves, this event occurred in 2001 - (I can nail the date down more precisely if necessary by looking up the dates I was there in Rockford) - there was a "Grand Opening" event going on for the store in question - I believe it was the first "SuperCenter" opening in Rockford.

      The local paper (don't recall the name of it, but I'm quite sure it was not the Chicago paper, since I don't read that one) was very explicit that a) no 3rd gun was found, b) the "shoplifting" was not shown - i.e. the woman had no goods on her when killed, the officers were moonlighting as Walmart security, and were not on duty at the time of the shooting. No store employees were injured.

      This was a white woman - I believe in her 30s - there was some question about whether or not she may have been a mental patient or on disability.

      This is from memory - I don't have a cite - but I am very sure of the bits I've listed above - if there is a Sun Times story to the contrary, I'd very much like to have a cite to it, since the event was well publicized at the time, and I'm relatively certain that I can produce records to show the Sun's "spin doctoring" if they are saying anything to the contrary...

      Of course, if there have been other shootings at that store it wouldn't surprise me at all, since overall both Walmart and the local cops seemed quite satisfied with themselves over the incident, and would certainly - in the event they had a chance to do it all over again - rememeber to plant a gun on the "perp", since repeated shootings of unarmed persons might eventually draw unwanted attention.

      I would postulate that the event you mention is probably a more recent shooting, since the "official" spin on the story within the month after the shooting was to simply sweep it under the rug and encourage people to forget it. Too much info came out too quickly for them to be able to flatly deny what happened. Although I do find it entirely plausible that five years later the official line could have been modified slightly once they were able to claim that it was far enough in the past that no one would remember it accurately... Unfortunately, I had some "marker" events going on that have caused me to remember it quite vividly.

      If there had been store employees shot or killed during the incident I mentioned, I would not have bothered to mention it, and would not particularly care about a perp getting shot; I do favor shooting people who are shooting at unarmed civilians - I also question the comptence of anyone - officer or otherwise - who requires two full clips to do drop a defenseless "suspect" at close range in a locked 9x12 room. What'd she do, try to hide under a table? They said she tried to open the door, which strongly implies she was standing and not obscured by e.g. furniture. Regardless, there should have been an investigation - a fuck up of that magnitude - on duty or off - should have resulted in those two particular James Bond wannabes having their license to kill permanently revoked...

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    5. Re:As long as it is just the Internet... by unitron · · Score: 1
      The reason I googled for the incident in question in the first place is because your description sounded like something that would have been a big enough stink long enough that I should hae heard about it somewhere. I don't remember exactly what search terms I used but I no longer get the original Sun-Times article. Instead it comes wrapped up in a page from something calling itself FindArticles.com. Since it seems to be a moving target I decided to plagiarize and just paste it in here instead of providing a link. Here 'tis.

      Shooter dead, 3 hurt at Rockford Wal-Mart
      Chicago Sun-Times, May 23, 2001

      ROCKFORD A suspected shoplifter at a Wal-Mart store pulled a gun Tuesday and shot three employees before she was killed by police, authorities said.

      Laura Gassaway, 33, of Rockford, died at a hospital from gunshot wounds, said Rockford Police Sgt. Joe Westmoreland. He said his department previously had arrested Gassaway on misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct charges.

      "She has had some run-in with the police, but there's been nothing else this violent," Westmoreland said.

      Gassaway was pregnant at the time of the shooting, Police Chief Jeff Nielsen said at a press conference. But Winnebago County Coroner Sue Fiduccia said she could not confirm that until an autopsy, scheduled for today or Thursday.

      The incident began when store employees refused to sell Gassaway bullets because she did not have a state firearm owner's identification card, Nielsen said.

        Gassaway then began shoplifting other items-worth about $20 or less-and was stopped by store security, Westmoreland said. Security officers called police and took the suspect to their office, where she pulled a handgun from inside her pants and opened fire, he said.

      "When police heard the shots, they went back to the security room and found her shooting the three employees. That's when they shot her," Westmoreland said.

      Two officers fired 21 shots at Gassaway because she would not drop her weapon, Nielsen said at a news conference.

      Gassaway was taken to Rockford Memorial Hospital, where she was pronounced dead, said Mary Reinke, a hospital spokeswoman.

      Two of the wounded employees were Wal-Mart security guards, and the other was an assistant manager, said Tom Williams, a spokesman for Wal-Mart at its headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.

      Williams said the incident took place in an area with no customers.

      "We're just very pleased that apparently none of our three employees who were hurt had life-threatening injuries, and that no customers were hurt," he said.

      Copyright The Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
      Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.
      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    6. Re:As long as it is just the Internet... by 0x0000 · · Score: 1

      The reason I googled for the incident in question in the first place is because your description sounded like something that would have been a big enough stink long enough that I should hae heard about it somewhere.

      Okay, yes, I remember this second incident - it is not the one to which I was referring. I remember this one because it was so bizarre - the incident I referred to happened some months before this - the dates are not lining up with my recollection, though.

      I spent some time searching for the original reports after responding to you post previously, and found basically nothing at all, but I do remember specific information from the newspaper stories (there were at least two in the Rockford paper):

      1. the store was having or was about to have a grand opening
      2. there was a good deal of talk about the womans boyfriend, (it was never clear why this was reported)
      3. the weapons used were specifically identified as "Glock" 9mm handguns
      4. specific mention was made of having gotten the woman off the "floor" of the store and into a room [basically a holding cell or interrogation room] in the back of the store where she was "being questioned"
      5. There was mention of the fact that the cops thought she was going for a gun in the waistband of her pants, but there was no gun found

      I remember thinking how odd when the story about the pregnant woman hit CNN - such an eerie similarity - I don't think they mentioned the earlier incident, though

      Note that in the story you cite, the statement that the woman in question was pregnant was later shown to have been false.

      Given the apparent lack of visibility for the first incident, I would very much like to visit the morgue of the Rockford paper and look for the stories I remember seeing - just to verify this to myself, now ...

      Still, I feel it's fairly clear what happened to the first story - I'm sure Walmart's publicity flacks put on a major push to play it down - they kept it out of the major networks specifically so that now - years later - anyone bringing it up will be expected to prove that it ever happened - how convenient for them that there was a second incident so nearby and so close in time - as is demonstrated by the results of your search: I can't prove it happened, you present a plausible alternative explanation, and everyone except me is convinced... Of course, I'm going to start saying that Walmart created the second incident to whitewash the first, which will marginalize me a bit more, but frankly, I don't really give a crap - as with the [other] neo-cons: Marginalizing people whose memory extends beyond last week won't make their actions any less socio-pathic, nor will it create a better informed, more thoughtful populace. It will prop up their failing paradigms for a few more cycles, but it will also push them further to the "big" side of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall"...

      So - anyone making book on whether or not the Rockford shooting(s) was actually just a semi-public failure of a beta version of the facial-recognition/full-body-language profiling Walmart is now applying using their in-store video surveillance networks?

      I can see it now - controller in the command and control center gets a red flag box around the waistband and right wrist of the shopper in aisle 3; a beeper goes off; controller alerts security; they box her in and herd her toward the secure room in the back of the store; open the door of secure room and rush her, sweeping her inside where the door is then shut and locks automatically; confused, she stands there for a moment, then wheels around and tries to open the door; she is order to move away from the door; she moves the hand that was indicated by the software a little bit too close to the area at her waistband - the cops, primed for just that move by the heads-up they got from the software - blaze away the Glocks, splattering her guts and brains all over

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    7. Re:As long as it is just the Internet... by unitron · · Score: 1

      If you ever find a link to the story about the first woman, I'd appreciate an email at coastalnet.com(just add user name).

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    8. Re:As long as it is just the Internet... by 0x0000 · · Score: 1

      will do - i just found walmartwatch.com today, so i may take this over there, too

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
  28. Re:Soccer Clubs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, Soccer is right.

    The others are:

    Aussie Rules
    Gaelic Football
    American Football (AKA that wussie game)

    and finally, my school game, Football.

    An Old Rugbeian

  29. Re:Soccer Clubs by GungaDan · · Score: 3, Funny

    My solution has been to refer to soccer as "unamerican football." Things are a bit different with handball, though. American-style handball is either "handball" or "racquetless racquetball," while team handball is now either "handsoccer" or "dry water polo."

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  30. Consumer revolt spurred by unethical businesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't blame or credit the net for peoples' behaviors

    the blame here clearly lies with those who corrupt society

  31. Banks have it coming to them by Alioth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The banks have it coming, they really do. Unfortunately, when this happened to me, HTTP was brand new and only geeks used it, and I was still a student.

    I had to pay a deposit to my landlord for a new place I was going to rent. Unfortunately, due to a foul up which was entirely my fault, this put me something like £1 overdrawn (a trivial amount in anyone's book). So the bank sent me a letter that they were going to charge me (IIRC) £25 for unarranged borrowing and a further £3 per day for each day overdrawn! Then they took the £25 out just before my first pay day, making me overdrawn AGAIN, causing them to charge me £25 again for unarranged borrowing as a direct consequence of them charging me for the previous problem! You'd think before they charged you they would check that the charge wouldn't cause you to go overdrawn again and be charged again.

    Of course they refused to refund it. Natwest - bastards. They used to like also withdrawing the funds on a cheque written the day it hit the payee's bank, but not add the funds on a cheque you were paying in for 3 to 5 days.

    If my current bank tries that trick, I will move my account elsewhere - including my mortgage. I'll make sure it ends up costing them more than it does me.

    1. Re:Banks have it coming to them by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      So if it was their published policy to anally rape you if you hit your overdraft, you'd be fine with that?

      The point of the whole thing is: their published policy was unfair.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    2. Re:Banks have it coming to them by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The _first_ time it was my fault, and I admitted as such. The second time was _their_ fault: they could have quite easily programmed their system to not withdraw fees if it made a customer overdrawn again. When you're not very wealthy, that can easily set up a cycle of debt that lasts years (if I was in the situation of living from paycheck to paycheck, that £1 mistake could have cost me thousands). That's hardly fair and equitable.

      I can understand a charge for unarranged borrowing - but it needs to be proportionate, and not potentially set up an endless loop of charges that drives a customer who's only just keeping above the waterline into permanent debt.

    3. Re:Banks have it coming to them by Stevecrox · · Score: 1

      I think Banks have learned alittle since then I'm currently a University Student with HSBC and I'm treated like royalty, the only time the bank has fasely taken money from my account (took bank fees for no reasons I could discover) within a hour of entering the bank I had the fees back and £50 in my pocket (based on two days of a standard bank fee, it took me two days to notice.)

      I'm not advocating that banks are good by any means but they are far better these days (yes including Natwest whom many of my mates are with) to students. Today the building society is the truely evil customer hating entity go into an alliance and leciester at any time of day and you will have one angry customer asking why they can't access money from the account they just put money in, why Alliance and Leceister delayed the payment of their wage and then charged them because no money was in the account at midday then suddenly their wage will appear at 12:30 or 1pm. I've had reason to pop into an alliance and leciester many a time and the stories are facinating. Halifax are awfull as well I have a 'savings account' which gives less interest on it than my current account, when I question this and ask for anouther I'm told tough.

      Banking fees need to be kurbed, far tougher measures need to be imposed on them, already we can see the rise of incredibly arrogant *cough* First Direct *cough*. If the internet means I can make this happen go internet!

  32. Bouncing Your Bank by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

    A funny letter snarking a bank for bouncing a check against a pensioner now insisting banks deal with her own new defensive bureaucracy circulates the Net in an email claiming to be from an old pensioner. It reportedly was written by an Australian columnist as humor. But practically everyone can relate. And now, with our PCs, I hope to see everyone actually apply the policies and procedures the letter mentions.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  33. Which of the following should we call FOOTball? by geekoid · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    1. A bunch of players maneuvering a ball around a field measured with the metric system? Meterball.

    2. A bunch of players maneuvering a ball around a field measured with the 'english' system? Football

    Since neither of the sports uses just one foot, shouldn't it be feetball?

    FYI: the NFL takes steroids very seriously and tests with great rigor. Not to be confused with there testing of recreation drugs, which they treat as a medical problem. The policy makes sense when you consider it's about maintaing a balance of competitive edges.

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/6744864

    I would be surprised if any professional soccer league in world was a strigent about "'roids" as the NFL is.

    People are people. If there are people that play football that would take "'roids" then there are people whio play soccer who would take it. The question then becomes "What does the league do to curb it's use?"

    on the funny side, while looking up some information, I cvame accross this tidbit:

    http://www.athleticscholarships.net/history-of-soc cer.htm

    "that took place in the united States was watched by an estimated 33 billion people around the world for almost 27 days. "

    33 billion? heh.

    Also, at one point it was outlawed in England.

    It's a silly debate because Rugby, Football(soccer) and football(football) all go back to the same sport.

    If you want to get pendantic, then soccer should be called 'Mob Ball' as it was in Britain at one time. Especially since soccer is a direct descendant of 'Mob Ball'

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. Consumer Revolts by TaleSpinner · · Score: 1

    > Are these kinds of organized 'advocate mobs' going to be the future of internet activism?

    One can only hope...

  35. Get the bank back by nottoogeeky · · Score: 1

    I'm having the same problem with my bank. A few bounced direct debits and they have a field day.
    Found this site www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk which gave me everything i need to get my money back.
    Next i'm going after my previous bank who raped me of my cash during hard times.

    I'm happy i can actually do something about it. To be honest, the banks deserve it!

  36. To be brief: by erroneus · · Score: 1

    "Are these kinds of organized 'advocate mobs' going to be the future of internet activism?"

    I simply hope so. And not just for consumer issues, but for environmental, ethical and human rights issues as well. The public needs to vote with more than their dollars and care about more than convenience.

    I'm hopeful that this is a sign of the pendulum swinging the other way at last!

  37. Also by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yes, we should also put in some stronger laws that make it impossible to share music.

    Also, we should put governors in all cars so they can't go over 65MPH.

    Oh, and all computers should report to government agencies to help prevent crime.

    Here's on for you:
    In new Mexico there are farms the pay over 10 bucks an hour, and have benefits, and they can't find anyone to do the work. Picking is a very hard, and supprisingly skilled labor. Most peopel would rather take there 5 dollar an hour fast food job rather then pick.

    It used to be, migrant workers came to the US, picked, got paid, took the money back home with them and the end of the season.

    While here they would, of course, spend money.
    remember, this is to do a job NO LOCAL CITIZEN WILL DO.

    Of course, you could pay 100 dollars an hour, but all that will do is make it so everyone needs to get a 75% pay raise which would make 100 bucks not very valuable.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Also by operagost · · Score: 1

      In new Mexico there are farms the pay over 10 bucks an hour, and have benefits, and they can't find anyone to do the work.
      This is a phenomenon peculiar to NM, which has an extremely low population density. Of course you can't easily find large numbers of workers in the local area. Maybe you should send the farm trucks north instead of south. The issue here isn't getting enough people-- it's getting legal workers. I would be fine with nearly the same number of migrant workers if they were "documented". They would be paid better, since they are no longer working outside the law, and this would certainly not result in any fewer Mexicans willing to work.

      Picking is a very hard, and supprisingly skilled labor. Most peopel would rather take there 5 dollar an hour fast food job rather then pick.
      Picking is a very hard, and supprisingly skilled labor. Heh heh... no it's not. I picked and planted when I was a kid, and it was mind numbing and not skilled (unless you count telling the difference between a vegetable and the plant or the ground "skilled").
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  38. no you can't by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    you can't market a drink called "champagne" if it's not made in the champagne area - at least within europe, anyway. in much the same way, you can't sell port or parma ham unless it came from a specific region of spain or italy...

  39. consumer revolt by crimperman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are these kinds of organized 'advocate mobs' going to be the future of internet activism?


    I'm not sure, probably, but one of the best I have seen so far is saynoto0870 which lists the equivalent geographical telephone numbers for the 0870 (national rate non-geographical) numbers that companies give out for support and such. ( Okay so it should have been called saynoto0870.co.uk but that's a little OT )

    Considering how long some of them keep you on hold, dialling non-geographical numbers (which are often excluded from discount pricing plans) can cost you a fortune.
  40. you and I are not in the majority by Uksi · · Score: 1
    I ran up my credit card debt because I spent without budgeting properly. I am paying things off now, on my road to positive net worth. However, I have to watch my credit card statements like a hawk, because they sneak in various APR increases and B.S. things quite often.

    Predatory banking is bad, but, it only works on ignorant people.

    This is a false impression. The problem with predatory lending is that people who should not be lent money are given that money. This is irresponsible because the bank well knows that the borrower is in a high risk area.

    So what happens is that when payments are missed, the APR shoots up from 15-some % to 25, 30%. Now, it's that much more difficult to get out of this debt (that should not have been provided in the first place). Add on top the overcharge fees, late fees and others, and you're looking at easily over 40% effective APR. It becomes a downward spiral. If the borrower eventually defaults on that loan, the credit card company gets a big tax write-off, so they don't lose all that money. If the credit card company is lucky, the borrower signs up to a debt repayment program (often credit card company backed), and diligently repays the balance with all the fees and interest charges. $$$ profit all around.

    Now, this is orthogonal to the reason why people get subprime credit cards. Half of bankruptcy is due to medical bills--so many of these cards are run up for that reason.

    Here is another tidbit to consider:

    The fact is 40 percent of credit card holders pay off their debt every month; 40 percent make only the minimum payment; and 20 percent are kind of 50/50 in that category. For those 60 percent who are generally people who are not as informed, not as able to pay back their bill, who may have one, two, three, four, five, six different credit cards, because this is a credit economy, credit card companies have been able, with very little notice to the payer of the debt, to solicit huge fees, penalties, and interest rates.
    1. Re:you and I are not in the majority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a false impression. The problem with predatory lending is that people who should not be lent money are given that money. This is irresponsible because the bank well knows that the borrower is in a high risk area.

      But completely within their right to decline accepting the money. But hey...with BoA giving out CC's to anyone w/o a SSN file for bankruptcy and then go get a CC w/o a SSN. If illegals can do it what's to stop you?

  41. Re:Soccer Clubs by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

    "A bunch of 'roid monkeys in full body armour" Funny irony here. Since Rugby Union went Professional (and since I can remember Rugby League) it seems to me that more and more body armour is appearing on a rugby field and the players seem to be more and more 'roid-full. Are we seeing the evolution of Rugby Union to Rugby League to Amercian Football. Perhaps the ssad thing is that Amercian Football is just the pinicle of this evolution of paying people to play a contact sport? Perhaps we should look at the correlation between salary, physical contact and body armour?

    --
    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
  42. right on! by Uksi · · Score: 1

    I hear ya there.

  43. Wonder if the U.S. will see such benefits by mutterc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (Disclaimer: I don't know if the U.K.'s any better than the U.S. in this regard):

    In the U.S., if consumer revolt ever becomes enough of a problem, the companies will just buy some laws making it illegal for consumers to collude against them, and/or crush complainers under the weight of the civil court system.

    1. Re:Wonder if the U.S. will see such benefits by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      which would then precipitate a bunch of dead corporate officers.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  44. The classic Big Brother question now has an answer by VernonNemitz · · Score: 1

    "Who will watch the watchers?"

    Everybody!

  45. Law Breakers by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess aiding and abetting law breakers just isn't enough to get the typical US citizen's ire up....

    Americans don't have any respect for the law, because the law doesn't have any respect for us.

    There's just no way someone can look at the American revolution and its causes -- the very principles that the country was founded upon -- and then look at today's America and not see hipocrisy. The Drug War?! DMCA!? All the creepy shit that's been happening since September 2001? Even little day-to-day stuff, like speed traps that are set up to generate revenue instead of improve safety.

    It's a joke. Today's America is an "us versus them" situation where "them" is the government itself -- which is supposed to be us. The only law that Americans respect is this law: don't get caught. Why would you expect anyone to get their ire up over breaking immigration law? Most Americans don't know jack shit about what the immigration laws are -- all we know is that the laws are probably unfair, and almost certainly arbitrary and not tuned to maximize any particular political ideal -- neither racist protectionism nor freedom and the power of diversity. There are no ethical principles upon which any of our laws are based; they're all made from compromises between competing special interests. Why should anyone expect immigration law to be any different?

    It's not worth getting upset over. (Except when you're in the crosshairs.)

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Law Breakers by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

      I would mod you up in a second, if I had any mod points. The only thing that we should care about in our country right now is the capitalist bourgeois that the government has become, and what can be done about it.

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
  46. Newsflash by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    All those big banks are out to screw you. I'd suggest looking into a credit union. They may still screw you but at least it'll be at a local level and you'll know where to go and who to yell at when it happens. I've been so happy with mine that I just moved my credit card over to them too and they'll be the first place I go to next time I need an auto or home loan.

    Along those lines, a few years back I got a letter in the mail saying that I was elegable to join in a class action lawsuit against whichever bank I'd been using a year or two earlier. Turns out they'd been ordering the checks they had from largest to smallest and paying them off in that order. This would generate more overdraft fees if the large checkes happened to overdraw the accounts. Also turns out that a lot of people write checks sequentually starting with the small bills and working their way up, I guess to avoid that same situation. I seem to recall that the bank lost that case and ended up having to pay the lawyers a lot of money.

    The predatory practise of credit card companies are well known and well documented. Somehow despite Congress always getting around to protecting them from us they never seem to do much to protect us from them. That might be worth getting outraged about. I'll think about it. Maybe I'll get outraged later. Best thing to do with them is be ready to switch if one of them is screwing you and never run a balance it's absolutely necessary (Emergency surgery is a good excuse, a PS3 is not.)

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  47. There is a choice other than evil banks... by mutterc · · Score: 1

    ... credit unions! (in the U.S. at least)

    Credit unions are nonprofit, so there's no incentive for them to nickel-and-dime you to death with fees. (Account owners are the only shareholders anyway). I have free, interest-bearing checking through mine, as well as a credit card with actual reasonable terms and conditions (and fixed rate), a mortgage and a car loan, both at decent rates.

    It's not hard to affiliate a group (e.g. an employer, church, etc.) with a credit union, and the only disadvantage over banks that I've ever noticed is that they don't have a branch on every corner. I don't understand why more people who are being screwed over by banks don't go this way.

    1. Re:There is a choice other than evil banks... by nyctopterus · · Score: 0

      On other disadvantage is that credit unions aren't guaranteed by the central or reserve bank, like banks are, so that if they go bust, you lose your money. I remember a large credit union in Australia a few years back, can't remember it's name though.

    2. Re:There is a choice other than evil banks... by mutterc · · Score: 1

      aren't guaranteed by the central or reserve bank

      Not true in the U.S though. There's an equivalent to FDIC for credit unions.

  48. Err... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > Mind you I don't fault the immigrants, illegal or otherwise for wanting to come here to better their life, but I firmly believe that starting off by entering the country illegally is the wrong way to do it.

    It would be nice if there was a reasonable way to do so legally, but people are against that, too, for some reason.

    > A large percentage of specific crimes in high immigrant areas (drug and robbery issues in LA for example) are committed by illegal (and often gang members) immigrants.

    A large percentage of specific crimes in high white areas are committed by whites. A high percentage of gang related violence involves gang members. A high percentage of the sky is blue. A high percentage of illegal aliens are here illegally.

    Shocking, I know.

    > While I realize that these people may be the minority of their total population, the easiest way to deal with it is deportation of all illegals.

    Good idea, let's send all our criminals to another country. Maybe... Australia?

    > make work visa's easier to get for Mexicans, I DON'T CARE, just stem the tide of people who are outside the system.

    Here, I can agree.

    1. Re:Err... by networkBoy · · Score: 1
      Responding to AC...
      I easily understand your disagreements with my position on the issues, Just wanted to say thanks for the lucid response rather than the flamewar it coulda become.

      A large percentage of specific crimes in high immigrant areas (drug and robbery issues in LA for example) are committed by illegal (and often gang members) immigrants.

      A large percentage of specific crimes in high white areas are committed by whites. A high percentage of gang related violence involves gang members. A high percentage of the sky is blue. A high percentage of illegal aliens are here illegally.

      Shocking, I know. Point taken, but the argument I was trying to make is that rather than have to delve into whether some illegals are good while others are bad, remove the entire class and be done with that particular subset of criminal element. I remember reading that a high percentage of Mexican gang bangers in the US are illegals. I see getting rid of them as two birds with one stone.

      At least we agree that the visa program is busted and should be made easier. Flipside: violating the visa should be a reasonable fine and immediate deportation (say cost of deportation and processing your paperwork in and out of the country).
      -nB
      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Err... by Damastus+the+WizLiz · · Score: 1

      >> While I realize that these people may be the minority of their total population, the easiest way to deal with it is deportation of all illegals. >Good idea, let's send all our criminals to another country. Maybe... Australia? Deportation has been a solution for this issue for a long time. I see no issue in sending people back to the country they came from if they refuse to follow the process to enter this country legally.

      --
      I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
    3. Re:Err... by operagost · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if there was a reasonable way to do so legally
      Here's the information. Enjoy. http://travel.state.gov/visa/visa_1750.html
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  49. Bank of America Sucks anyways by aktiveradio · · Score: 1

    I'm actually surprised at the apathy shown towards the Bank of America fiasco of exploiting loopholes in the law to allow them to open accounts and credit cards for illegal aliens!! I figured there would have been a much larger rush of people to move their accounts away from them. I guess aiding and abetting law breakers just isn't enough to get the typical US citizen's fired up.... http://www.bankofamericasux.com/ didn't really get flooded with Complaints from customers.

  50. Re:Soccer Clubs by rudeboy1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    We should also consider the evolution of the sport since its birth. Back in the day, leather helmets were worn, with minimal padding. This was in the days long before super agents and scouts were hand picking the biggest, meanest ogres they could find. Long before the days where a bone shattering hit was expected on every tackle. Give me the best runningback from the early days of football, and I'll laugh my ass off as he gets trampled to death 10 out of 10 times by the most mediocre backfielder in the NFL.
        The modern American football pad set evolved from intense competition, where everyone was looking for a better edge. However, it is my opinion that the inception of hard plactic components that spurred our current suit of armor look. Would you rather get speared in the gut by a guy wearing a thick, soft leather helmet, or a guy wearing a bulletproof shell on his head? Thus it became necessary to wear hard plastic shoulders as well as elbow, knee and girdle pads.
        As far as the purists accross the pond mocking American football, I say, if you hadn't spent the majority of the 20th century without 2 nickels to rub together, your rugby would have evolved similarly. If rugby was a billion dollar industry like American football, you would be importing only the most ferocious animals alive to play the game. Competition would spur the need for stronger, lighter protection, and eventually, the only difference between American football and rugby would be that nifty little gay pride celebration you chaps call a scrum.

    --
    Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
  51. But it could benefit other customers by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    BoA seems to make most of their money from horrendous charges levied against less well off customers. So in theory if you can introduce a new class at the bottom of the pyramid then they can afford to treat their citizen customers a little better.

    However if they way they treat their good customers isn't enough to make you vow never to do business with them again, then I can't imagine how this would deter you. /dropped them after they wouldn't budge on a payment that was a day late because we had to leave town in a rush for a funeral. /citi & amex both extended my due date with a 2 second call.

    1. Re:But it could benefit other customers by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Once I heard that BofA bought MBNA I knew that it was only a matter of time before I would be canceling my Yoda card. It's a shame too. I really liked the little green guy. He was very handy for places (like Frys) that don't take AMEX.

      Any suggestions for a good alternate bank for VISA/MC?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  52. banks are in the law enforcement business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a result of the Bank Secrecy Act (Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970); the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986; the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988; Section 2532 of the Crime Control Act of 1990; Section 206 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991; the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act (Title XV of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992); the Money Laundering Suppression Act of 1994 (Title IV of the Riegle-Neal Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994); the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act of 1998; and the USA PATRIOT Act (Title III, International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 2001).

    Read more about what the US Treasury has to say at http://www.occ.treas.gov/moneylaundering2002.pdf/ and stop making up un-true assertions to justify your pre-conceived prejudice.

    1. Re:banks are in the law enforcement business by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      This is absolutely true.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  53. Market transparency ... by golodh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The only thing the Internet does in this case is to make communication several orders of magnitude cheaper (in time, money, and efort). This in turn makes the market more transparant.

    Apparently, in the cases mentioned in the article, businesses were doing things that prompted their customers to leave when they found out that what they were faced with was "policy" instead of just "bad luck".

    Market transparency is great ... it forces businesses to be honest and to actually compete on value instead of relying on (modest) barriers (including ignorance) to keep their customers. If a business uses practices that hurt it when the public finds out about it (as was the case here), can those practices be either good or reasonable? What's not to like?

    And look at the flip side of the coin ... if people are happy with the way a business works they will write about that too.

  54. Cellulose fuel?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Though it is not really worth it to use lots of land for a marginal energy gain with mais, it will build the infrastructure for when we can make it from cellulose.

    Great, I'll be able to burn my wife for fuel. Oh wait, that cellulite. Nevermind.

  55. You overlooked a major issue by geekoid · · Score: 0

    Even at over 10 dollars an hour and benefits(in NM), farms still can't find locals to do the work. You wuold probably have to pay 3 times that, at least, to get local workers. Why? because it is very, very hard work that leaves you in pain every single day.

    "The benefit to the employer is not having to pay payroll taxes,.."? What? COmpanies still ahve to pay a payroll tax. Do you think the IRS doesn't know what's going on? If they are not paying a payroll tax, the company may be shut down.

    oh, but the head of lettus went up, so what other people need to get payed to live goes up, and so on.

    "What part about "illegal" do people not understand?"
    What part of migrant don't you understand? Migrant workers have a long history with this country. It used to be they came in, worked the season and left and that gave them a better life. Now they come here for a better life, and have to stay even during the off season time. And that is a far harder hit to the ecionomy then letting them come and go.

    "Illegally is the WRONG way."

    You really just don't get it, do you?
    Sneaking into a country to help your family maybe be illegal, but it is not wrong.
    Do you relize that it is practically impossible to legally migrate to the US from Mexico, don't you?

    Think abiut this for a minute:
    Many Mexican's pay a lot of money to have someone smubble them in, don't you think if there was a reasonable way for them to migrate in they would chose that over paying a lot of money to soneone who may leave you for dead in the desert?

    The migration issue is mostly the mexican government, not the US rules... mostly.

    Yuo are think emotional based on what the media you read is feeding you.
    A serious and factual look at migration paints a different picture then whay a fat tard on the radio says to get ratings.

    Yes, it is counter intuitive, but when looking into it it turns out to not be a bad thing.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:You overlooked a major issue by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      My experience has been that you get 10$ hour cash for a hard labor job, illegal or not.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:You overlooked a major issue by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sneaking into a country to help your family maybe be illegal, but it is not wrong.
      Based on whose morality? If we are truly a secular society, the law is king. If you don't like the law, change it through participation in the democratic process (and the judicial system itself, to an extent).
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:You overlooked a major issue by anagama · · Score: 1

      I'd like to add to this as one of those who once tried farm labor as a high-school summer job in 1984 or 5. In my area of Washington state, there are lots of berry farms, strawberries in particular. Back then, it was common for high school kids to work the fields in the summer for spending money. We even got transported to the fields in school buses -- it was pretty well organized. I was probably 14, not fat, decent shape and all that. I worked two days and quit. My entire body ached so much, it wasn't even remotely worth it to me. Currently, most of the berry picking is being done by migrant labor because it's so much easier for local kids to get a much less demanding job that pays more money (our min wage is over $7/hr).

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:You overlooked a major issue by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If you don't like the law, change it through participation in the democratic process (and the judicial system itself, to an extent). I'd like to read your proposal on how illegal immigrants could, rather than cross the border without filling the proper paperwork, participate in a foreign country's democratic and judicial processes.

      I'd really like to know how that would work.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:You overlooked a major issue by rhakka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The existence of a law has no correlation with the prescence of morality. Many immoral things have been and are still legal. Many things that could very well be considered not only moral, but righteous, are illegal.

      You're right that attempting to change a situation through the democratic process is important, and that to some extent law is a social contract we all deal with to get along a bit better... but that does not mean that all laws should be obeyed, and it MOST CERTAINLY does not mean that any particular law is MORAL.

      Sometimes, you do need to break laws.

    6. Re:You overlooked a major issue by operagost · · Score: 1

      I imagine that if the tide of illegals was stemmed, that wage for berry-picking would go up and more strong-backed students would be willing to work. Of course, this is what people who don't understand that the laws of supply and demand apply to both services and products think is a "problem".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:You overlooked a major issue by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'd like to read your proposal on how illegal immigrants could, rather than cross the border without filling the proper paperwork, participate in a foreign country's democratic and judicial processes.
      They wouldn't, because they're not citizens. Do I go to France and dictate to them what their immigration policies should be? The democratic process is for citizens. Non-citizens must go through the proper channels. If they are truly dedicated to working (and maybe living) in the USA, they will go to the trouble. If they are just interested in a buck, they can stay away.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:You overlooked a major issue by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm not about to stand up for the rights of aliens to violate our laws.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:You overlooked a major issue by rhakka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that's fine. But don't pretend that law is the ultimate arbitration of morality, that's all. Law and morality are not even passingly related. And incidentally, I think you'd find that if your family is living in abject poverty, you'd do whatever you could to help or protect them, so on purely moral grounds I'd have a hard time faulting an "alien" for trying to get work here. Their action may be Illegal, sure, but not immoral. They are still human beings doing the best they know how to. If, for some reason, we feel the need to protect ourselves from them, then so be it. But that doesn't make them immoral people, nor necessarily us immoral, unless you're advocating for extreme violations of basic human rights like torturing them to make an example or something perhaps.

      Basically, if someone wants to treat them like criminals then they should feel free, but they should at least man up and admit that the "illegals" or "aliens" are people who aren't necessarily some slavering horde of theives and rapists. It's not ok to justify the actions behind some guise of "morality". if it's justified then it may be a pragmatic reality, but it's not a moral question, and pretending something is a moral question when it is not, ironically, often allows quite immoral behaviour to be justified, so I'm a little distrustful of people using it lightly. People tend to more extreme reactions if they paint their target as an immoral being.

      Not saying you were; you were just asking a question. Just explaining my reaction and its cause.

    10. Re:You overlooked a major issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ""What part about "illegal" do people not understand?"
      What part of migrant don't you understand?"

      I don't care whether they're migrant or not. ILLEGAL means WRONG. End of argument. If you think it's OK for this sort of thing to go on, get the law changed. Don't try to justify BREAKING THE RULES just because it's convenient for you. Or do you get pissed at everyone who doesn't do 90 in a 55, just because you think it's inconvenient for you to get stuck behind others who know what "illegal" means? Whiner.

    11. Re:You overlooked a major issue by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Didn't you already try that?

      On another note, it's callous attitudes like that that make this world what it is today. You hear about illegal immigrants and all you think is "our jobs" and "our money" and "our economy". Do you really think that a man who is watching his children starve cares about abstract things like "secular adherence to the Rule of Law" or "democratic process"? Do you think he cares about taking one job out of the wealthiest nation on Earth? Do you think he can vote for a Feed My Kids political party? No, he just wants food for his family, and if you can't understand that then I would suggest you are lacking part of what makes humans human.

      --
      I hate printers.
    12. Re:You overlooked a major issue by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Sneaking into a country to help your family maybe be illegal, but it is not wrong.

      Based on whose morality? If we are truly a secular society, the law is king.

      Yes... But since in a truly secular society the king has no divine right, you are free to ignore it whenever you can get away with it. Doing away with divinity also does away with absolute moral values (including "hypocrisy is bad"), since there's no one left with authority to dictate one set of morals better than another; consequently, there's no moral imperative to comply with laws, so there's nothing immoral in breaking them. In fact in a truly secular society the terms "moral" and "immoral" have no meaning, since anyone is free to define "moral" as they please and change the definition anytime.

      Basically, in a truly secular society you comply with the laws when you think doing so will benefit you, and break them when you think that doing so will benefit you. I believe this is one of the reasons why the majority of history's significant societiess have been religious: truly secular societies need to spend far more resources in law enforcement, and run far greater risk of corruption of said enforcement. Natural selection favors religious societies - I wonder what Dawkins thinks about that ?-)

      So the answer to your question is: Based on the morality of the GP. In a truly secular society that's as good as any other morality. Therefore in a truly secular society the question of morality is meaningless and your question therefore invalid.

      Now let's see how many flames I'll get for this...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:You overlooked a major issue by rhakka · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, how is anything other than a secular society supposed to have "absolute moral values", unless all members of that society follow the same dogmatic paradigm?

      Even in, say, a religious society, not all members ascribe to the dominant religion. So their moral choices are not dictated by "divine right" either, you're still free to disregard whatever you think you can get away with, and I see no difference, except the nature of the authority creating the laws.

      And morality is not dictated by authority in the first place. Punishment and legality are dictated by authority, but morality can never be. Your morality is obviously influenced by your society, even heavily so, but it is not dictated by society. Even if you believe in the same higher power that DID bestow morality, the differences in personal interpetations of what that morality really means various from member to member in the society.

      Now I"m confused, but I'm interested in hearing more about this stance you have.

  56. Re:Soccer Clubs by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a purist from across the pond your plasticy standing about game might produce a load of hugely muscled ogres but for strength, stamina, endurance and speed you'd be better off with rugby players. I just read that your teams are actually 2 seperate teams because your players just can't hack playing the full match ! Incredible, especially since they stop for breaks every 5 seconds and those girlish gossipy chats they always seem to be having.

  57. Re:The classic Big Brother question now has an ans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Who will watch the watchers?"
    Nielson, er the fcc, er google... Yah, google will watch everything.

  58. Mod parent down: Uninformed / delusional / OT by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    2. A bunch of players maneuvering a ball around a field measured with the 'english' system? Football
    Since neither of the sports uses just one foot, shouldn't it be feetball? Official NFL rules: THE FIELD
    The field measures 100 yards long and 53 yards wide.

    And how many fucking times have you seen someone apply both feet to the ball?
    I've seen that... NEVER. You kick a ball with your foot, never with both your feet! Sheesh!
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  59. Wow :) by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    The United States, it seems, is the only country in the world that prefers to use the name football to refer to a game that doesn't actually use the feet.

    All we ask is that you please call the biggest sport in the world by its commonly accepted name! :)

    Thanks in advance,

    Rest of World


    Until now, I thought the lamest, most pathetic expression of inferiority complex I had ever seen was facing the bass speakers in your car outward. But I think this tops it :)

  60. Re:Soccer Clubs by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I don't think football should refer to a girls game, do you? "That's a stupid thing to say, and you're stupid for saying it."

    But: Australian Rules Football > other Footballs;//granted
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  61. Alternative Immigrant Policy by Khammurabi · · Score: 1

    From a business perspective, legal immigrants are a good thing. If a person is willing to do the same quality work for lower pay, the business becomes not only more profitable, but more competitive in the market.

    From a US Citizen perspective, it stinks because it's that much harder to break out of the poverty class range. If the job market gets flooded (short term) with low-income workers, not only will the poverty class have tooth and nail competition for jobs, but more and more middle class families will slip into the poverty bracket as a result.

    From a government perspective, as long as there is a net job increase and a relatively static unemployment rate, it's happy. The government gets more tax money as a result, U.S. businesses become more competitive, and the economy overall gets a boost due to the increased amount of consumers.

    My immigration solution would be to hand out a set amount of "citizen visas" each year. Each country would have a different amount alloted to it. (For example: 500,000 to Mexico, 50,000 to Russia, etc.) The U.S. government can reject anyone for any reason (stealing, etc.) during this visa period. Each person must hold a job from an accredited business (babysitting type stuff doesn't count) for a set period of time. (Let's say during a three year period you are allowed to be unemployed for a total of four months.) If you meet these requirements, you've proved you will be beneficial to the country and are put on the fast track to citizenship. (If not, well, at least you were given a shot at becoming one.)

    Illegal immigrants are a problem because they only contribute to the U.S. in trivial amounts. Give them a viable way to contribute to the U.S. and the problem will become less of an issue. Right now our current solution is either too limited or too inadequate, so we see all these issues.

  62. AC Here in the United States is ...? by OldHawk777 · · Score: 2, Funny

    AC is indeed insightful, because to be insightful you must be observant of situations, people, processes ... and then be able to (via epiphany or logic) derive a reasonable or accurate description of facts and/or causes of the situations, people, processes ... conditions.

    I do not know who AC is, but if I did I would click-friend the person AC. AC's ability to observe and derive personal conclusions that indeed do reflect reality in the USA, EU, China, Russia, Canada, Mexico ... is beyond insightful ... it is prescient. I regret that I have no moderator points today to provide to AC.

    Ditto: "I know you're telling the truth but do you mind sharing *why* you feel this way? This comment doesn't deserve an "Insightful" rating unless he can back it up." This is a statement in conflict (I feel) with logical use of words. You know AC is truthful implies that you may be in possession of facts that would support AC's insightful observations, but then you ask AC for feelings, rather than more facts to support those you appear to already have obtained by some real data collection. It was just odd to me the way you worded your comment, which I understand when folks use ESL. The support you provided to AC ... I am sure is appreciated by AC.

    JonWan: "Well customers do have rights, but so do businesses." is incorrect, because rights as in "Civil/Human Rights" cannot be reserved or legislated to cover any institutions with "RIGHTS". Institutions (society, businesses, governments, religions, clubs, marriage ...) are created by "Civil Law" mandated by "Human Citizens" any institution can be dissolved, terminated, destroyed ... by "Civil Law" when mandated by "Human Citizens" for whatever reason. However, when a "Human Citizens" is destroyed, terminated, dissolved ... by an institution then a crime against humanity has occurred, this is true for capital-punishment, war, famine, genocide ... :"FOR ME" only self-defense to protect the life of family, friends, others and self is justifiable, but might be punishable by an institutions following the letters of the law, legal yes, but never would it be justice. Institutions cannot think, feel, and/or act in anyway, institutions are inanimate objects created and controlled by "Human Citizens". My observations, make me believe, that USA prison populations should be 50/50, one half murders, pedophiles, drug-dealers ... the other half should be politicians, CEOs/CFOs, market-traders, pseudo-prophet/televangelists ....

    Having said the above, please notice I do not include SBA/AFF [Small Business Americans or American Family Farmers in the Western Hemisphere]. I know the SBA/AFF are as fucked as the rest of US, EU ....

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    1. Re:AC Here in the United States is ...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want to see the free documentary called, The Corporation, which tells the history of how the law and rights have evolved the governing force behind corporations, along with how the constitution amendment that freed slaves seeded the quest for greed and corporation gaining the legal status of a person.

  63. Re:Soccer Clubs by drsquare · · Score: 1

    Had the poster said "football" then the American population would assume the summary was referring to American football
    How often are NFL teams referred to as 'clubs' like in the summary? It also says it's in Britain where there are no professional American football teams.
  64. Re:Soccer Clubs by mgblst · · Score: 1

    "That's a stupid thing to say, and you're stupid for saying it."
     
    Why is that? If you have ever seen a real game played of (American football, Rugby, or Aussie rules), you can not seriously compare it to soccer. I am not saying that there isn't a great level of skill displayed by soccer players, but it is a girls game. You can't tackle, you can't trip, you get in trouble for even touching another player half the time. The reason it has gained any sort of traction in the US, is because of mums not wanting their kids to get hurt (hence the term, soccer moms)!

  65. Knowledge is a two-edged sword. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Increased consumer knowledge combined with a way to implement it can keep business from treating customers unfairly or criminally. That same knowledge and implementation can also be used to treat businesses unfairly and criminally.


    The end result should be that both consumer and business adapt to treat each other in ways that are fair and legal.


    But it won't always work out that way because human nature generally seems to be skewed towards a desire for screwing one another other over.


    So our practices will change, but our underlying motivation will not. This explains the paradox of why civilization appears to progress and get worse simultaneously.

  66. Re:Soccer Clubs by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    "That's a stupid thing to say, and you're stupid for saying it."

    Why is that? Because "football" says nothing about boys or girls, it only mentions a foot and a ball. No matter how much of a sissy sport soccer is, that has nothing to with which one should be called "football". Not a thing.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  67. Ok since we are going offtopic... by Afecks · · Score: 1

    Please stop calling every Digital Media Player on the planet an iPod.

    Thanks in advance,

    Those of us that aren't dumb asses.

  68. Must just be in Microland. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might want to read Worldchanging: A User's Guide for the 21st Century Especially page 349-351. I think your stance on remittance will be different.

  69. Meaning of immigration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, people move around for many, many reasons.

    Often it has nothing to do with the label slapped on them by whichever national government issued them a passport. Some people might even move to a place where they have no reason to accept citizenship even if it were on offer. Some people might go somewhere as experts for a task, and stay there for ten or twenty years, and move on later. They might even be there for reasons which have nothing to do with their personal desires; their location is then quite incidental to their citizenship. Citizenship law between different countries are so sticky and so variable that generalising about why people might or might not move around, and might or might not accept citizenship, is very deceptive and dangerous.

    Trying to restrict immigration to those seeking citizenship is very blinkered indeed.

  70. Nothing new. by Irvu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Honestly, this kind of networking is what has happened before as have mass runs on stores and banks of the type described. The only difference is in how the groups are organizing and the speed with which it is happening. And Amen I say. The public does not exist to serve the state or business. Those fat bastards exist to serve us!

  71. yeah, let's point fingers at it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is why we have things like disability insurance, emergency savings, and homeowner's insurance. There are some people who genuinely can't afford a safety margin, or who get hit with catastrophies that exhaust their reasonable safety margins, but the vast majority of people can afford to prepare for misfortune, unless they dig themselves into debt by habitually living beyond their means."

    Vast majority? Is that slashdot "vast majority"? Or is that reality "vast majority"? My "margins" have been exausted due to someone else negligence. Lawyers working on it, but nevertheless the world goes on, and so do obligations. Guess it must be "my fault" in your world.

  72. Stating a general theory of social reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are the people. Individually we are weak. Together we rule the world."

    Read this book and say that again.

  73. Taxes? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

    First of all, by most accounts, these illegals are well paid - well above minimum wage, and not the slave labor rates that so many like to claim they are making. The benefit to the employer is not having to pay payroll taxes, which is a huge hit to any company

    Err, what? I don't know how many businesses you've run, but dodging taxes on payroll has one major downside... you can't claim your payroll as a business expense. So either you're paying peanuts (and small peanuts at that), or you'd be a lot better off just to pay the taxes. Its set up like that. Anyway taxes aren't paid on top of wages, they are taken out of wages. Businesses pay them slave labour rates because they can, and because there is literally no financial gain otherwise.

  74. SLAPP by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    One word: SLAPP.

  75. Re:Soccer Clubs by mgblst · · Score: 1

    This was more an argument on why soccer sucks, IMHO, rather than why it should be called soccer. Most of the English speaking countries of the world call it soccer, even in the UK they will refer to it as association football. This was my argument on why it should be called soccer.

  76. Re:Soccer Clubs by ibbo · · Score: 1

    You wont ever see rugby taking on the full body armour of American football. You may see them put on some shoulder padding and taping their ears down, you may even see the odd leather padded helmet BUT and I stress BUT the pathetic covering of the entire body from helmet to thigh padding has totaly made that version of Rugby you play a complete boring farce. (if thats evolution its a bad thing).

    As America is the only country to play American football while the rest of us enjoy Rugby in a few flavours you must agree that the world cannot be wrong and only American right. If it was such a good game the world would flock to play it YET they play Rugby instead. Answers it all for me and throws you speculations of sporting evolution right out of the window. (especialy when it took a presidential decree to introduce the forward pass which completey changed the game to what you now play).

    And the gay pride celebration you think of a scrum just shows how silly and jelous you realy are of the original form of the game you now call football.

    Rugby is more fluid more continuos and better to watch. (unless you have bladder problems, and need all the time outs for a piss stop).

    --
    Linux user #349545 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBAzWjX+MZAIjBWXGURAmflAKCntuBbuKC WenpmXoA7LNydllVQOwCfdjyzXscd
  77. Re:Soccer Clubs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You in Australia are descendants of deported criminals so it's understandable that you refer to football as a girl game.

    Also both Australian and American football, shouldn't even be named football, they should be named footegg, or something like this.

    [flame mode off]

    I personally don't have anything against Australian or Americans so please take it with grain of humor ;-)