You have some funny ideas about how the law works.
Repeat: go look at the LAW. Not the Post Office's comment about the law. The LAW says that if someone sends you merchandise you did not order, they cannot then charge you for that merchandise.
The law does NOT say you can keep it. The law does NOT say it is a gift.
And a law that specifically says (as this one does) it is intended to apply to "unfair business practices", does NOT cover situations that are NOT "unfair business practices". A mistake is not an "unfair business practice". An unfair business practice is something someone does intentionally. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a "practice". Repeat: a mistake is not a "practice".
"The customer did not authorize sending the PS Vita, and absent something in the signed sales contract "authorizing" wrong packages, the law would judge it to be an unconditional gift. "
That is not what the LAW actually says. Go read the LAW.
Your mistaken impressions are not the law. I hate to burst your bubble, but I will repeat one more time: a goof on a mail-order purchase is not a "free gift". You're dreaming.
Since this law actually has nothing to do with the mail specifically (don't take my word for it, go look it up and read it), by your logic it would apply if you agreed to buy a used Chevy hatchback and the dealership delivered a brand-new Hummer instead.
Are you really naive enough to think the law says you can just keep it? Dream on.
"Unordered package without "express consent" is an unconditional gift."
That is NOT what the law actually says. Go look it up again (not the Post Office's comment about the law, but the actual law).
THE LAW says that a company that sends you unordered merchandise cannot then try to charge you for that merchandise. It does NOT say the merchandise is a gift.
Not even close. WITHIN the United States, they have no claim of "sovereign immunity". It might apply to actions against those OUTSIDE the U.S., but not inside.
"I was unaware that it is against US law for a US Federal agency tasked with intercepting communications of non-Americans to spy on China."
It isn't. But it *IS* illegal (despite their claims otherwise) to spy on Americans in the process of spying on China. UNLESS they can SHOW some kind of probable cause to believe that American is involved in spying.
That's what the FICA Court rules say, and that's what EFF has been saying all along.
And they haven't just been spying on a few Americans... they've been spying on everybody they had the ability to spy on... regardless of any even pretended connections to espionage. And that is CLEARLY illegal. It's not even a matter of debate.
That's simply not true. There are a number of suits against them going forward right now.
Government (and, more to the point, people in government) are NOT immune from the law. The idea that they are (or even worse, should be) is absolute hogwash.
"The point is that universities have tried to "force" diversity by changing the mix of students from ~100% white males (which might be called homogeneity) to a mix that's not ~100% white males. Which is more diverse."
No, that was NOT the point. I wrote what I meant and I even explained it again. Don't blame me if you failed to understand.
"That mix being something other than 100% white males."
Uh... gee, Mr. Genius, I guess the word "mix" would kind of imply that, wouldn't it? Especially since I already stated that was the subject under discussion.
"Try this: A stranger gives you a box without comment. You open the box, and find that there's something valuable inside. The stranger demands the box back or compensation. "
Just no. That is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situation.
If you want an analogy that even roughly approximates the situation that we have actually been discussing here, you would have to make it like this:
"Try this: you agree to buy a Sony webcam from somebody, and they accidentally give you a Fuji DSLR instead. When the mistake is discovered, they ask for the return of the DSLR."
This is NOT some stranger who just handed you merchandise. It was a customer-authorized transaction that went awry. They are not even remotely the same.
"Are they going to ban them in restaurants next? Movie theaters? What an idiotic premise!"
Since when has Feinstein ever been known to be logical?
For that matter, when has she ever been known to have a real sense of "fairness"? I distrust her motives. Nearly everything she has done has been on the side of "controlling people".
This is funny. But there is something about it that is not.
200 ft. at highway speeds is less than 2 seconds. In order to avoid said small animal, the car would have to rather radically swerve, and disrupt both traffic behind it, maybe in adjacent lanes as well, and would most certainly disturb the occupant(s) of the car.
"Saying "the way U.S. universities have tried to do" refers to their trying to increase their percentage of non-white/female students above ~0%, which makes universities more diverse."
Not even close. I'm the one who wrote it, so I fucking well know what it referred to, and that wasn't it.
I wrote: "... the way U.S. universities have tried to do. When they do that, what they end up with instead is many clones of the same mix.
What that actually referred to, was "affirmative action" quotas, which universities still have (and which was proved in court just last year).
When they enforce similar quotas (and most of them are similar), they end up with approximately the same mix
And frankly, I don't know why I'm bothering to explain to you where you were wrong. Nobody else seemed to have any trouble understanding what I wrote.
"You'd have to go out and install special equipment (similar to a "node" in cable/fiber terminology) within the max span distance of the actual structure you're servicing."
I am aware of this. I didn't claim it was cheap. I just wrote that it was "possibly viable".
You have a pretty weird idea of what is "reasonable" to assume and what is not.
First, an AC who replied to me earlier pretty clearly identified himself. Second, it is not very reasonable to "assume" that an AC who continues to reply in the same thread, which was so obviously between two people, and particularly when the messages on one side are scored "0", is someone else.
Obviously it is possible. But it sure as hell isn't very likely.
"Presumably your point was that I'm not the Jane impersonator whose name was changed. So I'll generously assume you were just bluffing and accept your apology."
Pretty big presumptions and assumptions there. And the only one you are trying to be "generous" to is yourself. No great surprise.
"These limitations might keep the others from getting too scared; "
That isn't as much of a limitation as you seem to imagine. The majority of costs are "last mile". This means you can take fiber to a city block (more or less) and still get 1Gb to homes (or offices). In many cases this is far cheaper than fiber to the door.
It also means a possibly-viable alternative (competition) to cable. I know LOTS of communities that would like to have a competitor to cable.
"I saw the Jane impersonator, and saw Slashdot change his/her username. That wasn't me, so you're either bluffing or technically incompetent. A similar conundrum applies to your recording internet comments "for legal purposes."
Aaaaaaaaannnnnndddd... you just proved my point. Again.
I will amend that. There is one other thing that matters. And that is:
You just aren't as smart as you think you are. That's about two or three times I've said it, but I'll say it again for good measure: I don't think you're stupid. But you aren't as smart as you think you are.
You'll keep messing up. And I'll be here to catch it.
Slashdot Mirror
He was greeted by Russia with open arms. As it turned out, they were just pretending the "lukewarm" bit as a cover while they moved him elsewhere.
They were ecstatic to get a chance to show up Obama. (Hell, I would have been too if I were them.)
The chance to play the "justified political asylum" card on the U.S. Government? They loved every minute of it!
Repeat: go look at the LAW. Not the Post Office's comment about the law. The LAW says that if someone sends you merchandise you did not order, they cannot then charge you for that merchandise.
The law does NOT say you can keep it. The law does NOT say it is a gift.
And a law that specifically says (as this one does) it is intended to apply to "unfair business practices", does NOT cover situations that are NOT "unfair business practices". A mistake is not an "unfair business practice". An unfair business practice is something someone does intentionally. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a "practice". Repeat: a mistake is not a "practice".
"The customer did not authorize sending the PS Vita, and absent something in the signed sales contract "authorizing" wrong packages, the law would judge it to be an unconditional gift. "
That is not what the LAW actually says. Go read the LAW.
Your mistaken impressions are not the law. I hate to burst your bubble, but I will repeat one more time: a goof on a mail-order purchase is not a "free gift". You're dreaming.
Since this law actually has nothing to do with the mail specifically (don't take my word for it, go look it up and read it), by your logic it would apply if you agreed to buy a used Chevy hatchback and the dealership delivered a brand-new Hummer instead.
Are you really naive enough to think the law says you can just keep it? Dream on.
"Unordered package without "express consent" is an unconditional gift."
That is NOT what the law actually says. Go look it up again (not the Post Office's comment about the law, but the actual law).
THE LAW says that a company that sends you unordered merchandise cannot then try to charge you for that merchandise. It does NOT say the merchandise is a gift.
Not even close. WITHIN the United States, they have no claim of "sovereign immunity". It might apply to actions against those OUTSIDE the U.S., but not inside.
"As a part of the Federal government it is."
NO, it isn't.
The States that make up the United States are sovereign. The Federal government, by itself is not.
The United States is not a "sovereign nation". In fact it is not a "nation" at all. It is a Republic of Sovereign States.
"I was unaware that it is against US law for a US Federal agency tasked with intercepting communications of non-Americans to spy on China."
It isn't. But it *IS* illegal (despite their claims otherwise) to spy on Americans in the process of spying on China. UNLESS they can SHOW some kind of probable cause to believe that American is involved in spying.
That's what the FICA Court rules say, and that's what EFF has been saying all along.
And they haven't just been spying on a few Americans... they've been spying on everybody they had the ability to spy on... regardless of any even pretended connections to espionage. And that is CLEARLY illegal. It's not even a matter of debate.
"They are likely to have sovereign immunity for their actions unless it has been waived, legislated away, or there is an existing precedent."
The NSA is not even remotely "sovereign", in any sense of the term.
" NSA's invulnerable legally."
That's simply not true. There are a number of suits against them going forward right now.
Government (and, more to the point, people in government) are NOT immune from the law. The idea that they are (or even worse, should be) is absolute hogwash.
"The point is that universities have tried to "force" diversity by changing the mix of students from ~100% white males (which might be called homogeneity) to a mix that's not ~100% white males. Which is more diverse."
No, that was NOT the point. I wrote what I meant and I even explained it again. Don't blame me if you failed to understand.
"This isn't good for anyone."
Despite the beliefs of some who are ignorant of history, censorship has never been good for anyone.
Prohibited speech is just like other prohibited behavior: it just gets driven underground, where it festers.
"That mix of something other than 100% white males is more diverse than a "mix" of 100% white males.
No shit, Sherlock. But that wasn't the point.
WHOOSH!
"That mix being something other than 100% white males."
Uh... gee, Mr. Genius, I guess the word "mix" would kind of imply that, wouldn't it? Especially since I already stated that was the subject under discussion.
Holy crap.
"Try this: A stranger gives you a box without comment. You open the box, and find that there's something valuable inside. The stranger demands the box back or compensation. "
Just no. That is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situation.
If you want an analogy that even roughly approximates the situation that we have actually been discussing here, you would have to make it like this:
"Try this: you agree to buy a Sony webcam from somebody, and they accidentally give you a Fuji DSLR instead. When the mistake is discovered, they ask for the return of the DSLR."
This is NOT some stranger who just handed you merchandise. It was a customer-authorized transaction that went awry. They are not even remotely the same.
There is nothing in the law about "intent to defraud".
Yes, there is. The law specifically says that it is intended to prevent "unfair business practices". A mistake is not a "practice".
"Are they going to ban them in restaurants next? Movie theaters? What an idiotic premise!"
Since when has Feinstein ever been known to be logical?
For that matter, when has she ever been known to have a real sense of "fairness"? I distrust her motives. Nearly everything she has done has been on the side of "controlling people".
This is funny. But there is something about it that is not.
200 ft. at highway speeds is less than 2 seconds. In order to avoid said small animal, the car would have to rather radically swerve, and disrupt both traffic behind it, maybe in adjacent lanes as well, and would most certainly disturb the occupant(s) of the car.
It has to do better than that to be practical.
Correction: that should have read "ordered merchandise from the company."
"They showed the intent to send an unsolicited package by paying a shipping company to send an un-ordered product to the receiver's home. "
Just no.
The customers that TFA is about ORDERED merchandise to the company. The company MISTAKENLY sent them the wrong merchandise.
That is not "intent to defraud". Unless it can be shown that it was done intentionally (for example, if they they tried to charge for the wrong item).
It is pretty obvious to everybody (except, it seems, you) that this was a mistake. Mistakes do not indicate intent.
"Saying "the way U.S. universities have tried to do" refers to their trying to increase their percentage of non-white/female students above ~0%, which makes universities more diverse."
Not even close. I'm the one who wrote it, so I fucking well know what it referred to, and that wasn't it.
I wrote: "... the way U.S. universities have tried to do. When they do that, what they end up with instead is many clones of the same mix.
What that actually referred to, was "affirmative action" quotas, which universities still have (and which was proved in court just last year).
When they enforce similar quotas (and most of them are similar), they end up with approximately the same mix
And frankly, I don't know why I'm bothering to explain to you where you were wrong. Nobody else seemed to have any trouble understanding what I wrote.
"You'd have to go out and install special equipment (similar to a "node" in cable/fiber terminology) within the max span distance of the actual structure you're servicing."
I am aware of this. I didn't claim it was cheap. I just wrote that it was "possibly viable".
You have a pretty weird idea of what is "reasonable" to assume and what is not.
First, an AC who replied to me earlier pretty clearly identified himself. Second, it is not very reasonable to "assume" that an AC who continues to reply in the same thread, which was so obviously between two people, and particularly when the messages on one side are scored "0", is someone else.
Obviously it is possible. But it sure as hell isn't very likely.
"Presumably your point was that I'm not the Jane impersonator whose name was changed. So I'll generously assume you were just bluffing and accept your apology."
Pretty big presumptions and assumptions there. And the only one you are trying to be "generous" to is yourself. No great surprise.
"These limitations might keep the others from getting too scared; "
That isn't as much of a limitation as you seem to imagine. The majority of costs are "last mile". This means you can take fiber to a city block (more or less) and still get 1Gb to homes (or offices). In many cases this is far cheaper than fiber to the door.
It also means a possibly-viable alternative (competition) to cable. I know LOTS of communities that would like to have a competitor to cable.
"I saw the Jane impersonator, and saw Slashdot change his/her username. That wasn't me, so you're either bluffing or technically incompetent. A similar conundrum applies to your recording internet comments "for legal purposes."
Aaaaaaaaannnnnndddd... you just proved my point. Again.
I will amend that. There is one other thing that matters. And that is:
You just aren't as smart as you think you are. That's about two or three times I've said it, but I'll say it again for good measure: I don't think you're stupid. But you aren't as smart as you think you are.
You'll keep messing up. And I'll be here to catch it.