Changed name? Huh? You do know that "Anonymous Coward" isn't actually an account... right?
Now you're just being stupid, or pretending to be. The rest of us aren't.
You have already confirmed who you are. You confirmed who you were the other time as well. 2 + 2 still equals 4. I don't think that's changed any lately.
The only thing that matters is that I know who you are, can demonstrate that to others, and that there is a record of your behavior. I do, I can, and there is.
"IANAL, but I do follow legal issues quite closely, and read a lot of legal rulings. Absent ambiguity in the black letter law, which isn't present in this case, judges don't try to deduce intent. I'm fairly confident that in court it would be read exactly the way I'm reading it. "
Why do you say there isn't ambiguity? YOU have, yourself, failed to take into account the clause about charging for the merchandise. Okay, YANAL. But this whole argument is about that ambiguity. I think you are trying to have it both ways.
This law is part of a body of laws that are intended to prevent FRAUD. And not even implicitly (by context), but explicitly (it says so.) A mistake isn't an attempt to defraud. There is nothing ambiguous about that. It is also explicit in the law that it is attempting to quell "unfair business practices". A mistake isn't a "practice", unfair or otherwise.
And you also seem to lack even a basic understanding of what people consider to be a "sock puppet". Even though it has been explained to you thoroughly several times now.
What you are doing is generally considered unacceptable by the Slashdot community. In other words: you are breaking the rules.
I, on the other hand, am not. I am satisfied with the honest mods I get from honest people. Which you have proved you are not.
I wonder how the Slashdot crew would react if I presented them with my proof that you have been using sock-puppet accounts? Especially when I show them you have been using them to mod other people.
(A) That he *IS* in fact using a sockpuppet account (and proves that he uses it for ghost-modding, definitely against Slashdot's accepted social rules), and
(B) exactly who he is.
And he seems to keep forgetting that he was told
(C) these little episodes are being recorded for legal purposes.
"Jane's claim implies that a university with 100% white male students isn't less diverse than a university with at least some students who aren't white and male. What a fascinating definition of diversity..."
FAIL! I neither wrote or suggested anything of the sort. I am not sure whether the problem is your reading comprehension or your grasp of logic, but one of them definitely failed you.
What I actually meant (and for that matter what I actually wrote) is that one American university with exactly the same mix of races as another American university, is no more or less diverse than that other university. They are conformant in that context, not "diverse".
Yes, thank you. Many here seem to have failed to get this basic point.
The "unordered merchandise" law is a law against fraud. A mistake in your mail-order purchase is not "fraud"... unless they refuse to correct it and try to charge you for it.
Repeat: look at the LAW. Not the Post Office page. Because the Post Office page is misleading.
The LAW this refers to is a law against FRAUD. It isn't a law against mistakes. It isn't a law against somebody accidentally sending you a kewpie doll instead of the stuffed dog you ordered. It's a law against somebody just sending you shit you didn't want out of the blue and then trying to charge you for it.
If they didn't do it on purpose, IT ISN'T FRAUD.
If they refuse to correct the problem, and try to CHARGE you for the wrong merchandise, that could be fraud (remember the part that says IF they bill you for it). But the law doesn't cover a simple mistake that they are willing to correct.
"I wasn't convinced about your monoculture argument until it swerved into racist territory in the last paragraph."
Racism, by definition, is treating people differently according to race. It doesn't matter whether that treatment is better or worse... it means different.
"Affirmative Action", as it has been called, is government-sanctioned racism.
You don't get to re-define "racism" as "only if it's against MY race". Or "only if it's against minorities."
"I don't see that at all. USC 39 3009(d) seems perfectly clear to me, and to cover this situation quite well."
That's because you're only reading the letter of the law, and you're ignoring its INTENT. Even the part you cited is not entirely in context... it's out of a body of law that is intended to prevent fraud.
The law is against "unfair" trade practices. The intent of the law is to prevent fraud. It isn't a "trade practice" -- i.e., it's not fraud -- if it was a mistake. Further, it isn't even a "practice" if it was a mistake.
"Your assertion is in disagreement with the US Postal services' word on the matter that "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally in the case of receiving any unordered merchandise . "
Jesus Christ. Do you people even read the threads you are posting to? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS?
Look at THE ACTUAL LAW, not what the Post Office has to say about it. Others have linked to it elsewhere.
The INTENT of this law is to PREVENT FRAUD. It is specifically a law against "unfair trade practices". That is: fraud. In order to be an unfair trade practice, it has to be a business PRACTICE. Which means "intentional".
"You disagree with the morals of people keeping stuff they didn't order. That's fine. Don't impose your morality on our legal system. That's not the law and you shouldn't advocate for it to be so."
Nothing of the sort. The "unsolicited merchandise" law is a law against unfair (anti-cimpetitive) trade practices. In order for it to be an anti-cimpetitive "trade practice" it has to be a trade practice. In other words, something you did on purpose.
INTENT is a big part of the law. You should look the word up some time.
I agree that the law is often subverted. My point was that there is already a DIFFERENT law that covers this kind of situation. I had to research it a couple of years ago for business reasons. But I don't recall where to find it right now, or I'd cite it.
"Basically, the problem is that beekeeping has a monoculture problem - watch the video at the end of this link which explains that basically the bees are not treated well and there's not really a diversity of managed bees."
Mod parent up.
I've been making this monoculture argument for years. It is just as valid as a reason why spread of "Roundup Ready" corn and other crops are a very Bad Idea.
History is chock-full of examples of why monoculture crops (and bees are a "crop" of sorts) is courting disaster. When you are dependent on a monoculture, any little thing can cause it all to "collapse". The Irish Potato Famine is one good, famous example.
Diversity is a usually good thing, whether you're talking about human cultures, or food crops.
(However, when it comes to people it isn't a matter of "forcing" diversity, 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. It doesn't work that way. That isn't diversity at all; it's homogeneity. When you dump the same ingredients into 100 different blenders, you get 100 times the same old soup.)
"While commercial beekeepers have been having trouble with their bees, here in Florida we've had more wild bees than ever before."
Besides... I've been hearing this "20% last year... 30% last year" BULLSHIT for at least 10 years. If it were even approximately true, the U.S. would be knee-deep in negative bees by now.
(Before anybody replies... yes, I know that 30% of 0.0001 is not negative. Just a slight exaggeration to make a point, okay?)
But on a more serious note: I can also add my "anecdotal evidence" that wild bees have been plentiful in this area. Last summer I had a hard time believing how many bees (and yes, I mean honeybees not any other variety) were all over the flowers.
I am as concerned about problems with bees as anybody... but BS doesn't help solve anything.
"You just reworded what I said in my reply to you, which is not what your original post stated. Your original post seems to be supporting the "I'd keep it." comment you were replying to, with an explanation of why that would be okay; I was pointing out why that is not the case, and it seems you've just agreed with me."
Maybe I simply misunderstood, but what you meant in your earlier reply was not clear to me.
"You just contradicted yourself. It is unsolicited merchandise precisely because you solicited something else."
If you take it literally, yes. But you are being too literal.
The U.S. law about "unsolicited merchandise", is a law against somebody sending you something you hadn't asked for, then trying to force you to pay for it. It is considered to be a form of "unfair" trade practice.
But the law only applies if somebody is doing it on purpose. Mistakes are not "unfair trade practices". Sending you something other than what you DID ask for, if it is a mistake, is not an intent to defraud you and so the unsolicited merchandise law does not apply. You see?
"Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?"
But just to clarify: since this was a mistake, and the company did not try to insist that people pay for the unordered merchandise (subsection c), it isn't "unfair competition" and this law simply would not apply here in the U.S.
The other law I mentioned DOES apply. No, I don't have a citation at hand, but I sure hope you see that this one simply isn't relevant to the case described in TFA
Is this so clear-cut? The law says it is: "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient."
Well, goody for you. You seem to think you can cherry-pick one passage out of context, and decide the whole law on that sentence. Good luck with that.
Let's look at it a bit more in context. First this part:
"...the mailing of unordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15."
Notice the part that says "unfair method of competition". This very clearly implies intent to commit unfair trade practices. And let's not forget the part that says,
"c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications."
The whole POINT here is that sending someone unordered merchandise INTENTIONALLY, and trying to CHARGE them for it, is a violation of fair trade practices.
According to TFA, this was a mistake. Mistakes are NOT "unfair trade practices".
Sheesh. Did you even look at what the law you cited was intended to accomplish?
Slashdot Mirror
Changed name? Huh? You do know that "Anonymous Coward" isn't actually an account... right?
Now you're just being stupid, or pretending to be. The rest of us aren't.
You have already confirmed who you are. You confirmed who you were the other time as well. 2 + 2 still equals 4. I don't think that's changed any lately.
The only thing that matters is that I know who you are, can demonstrate that to others, and that there is a record of your behavior. I do, I can, and there is.
It doesn't get much simpler than that.
"Nobody will ever know, because you're too much of a coward to do anything but whine using your Jane sockpuppet."
You are already proved wrong, because I already had them change your account name once over this harassment you have been doing.
Further, I am a big believer in giving enough rope to really, really hang themselves good. You're doing pretty well so far.
"IANAL, but I do follow legal issues quite closely, and read a lot of legal rulings. Absent ambiguity in the black letter law, which isn't present in this case, judges don't try to deduce intent. I'm fairly confident that in court it would be read exactly the way I'm reading it. "
Why do you say there isn't ambiguity? YOU have, yourself, failed to take into account the clause about charging for the merchandise. Okay, YANAL. But this whole argument is about that ambiguity. I think you are trying to have it both ways.
This law is part of a body of laws that are intended to prevent FRAUD. And not even implicitly (by context), but explicitly (it says so.) A mistake isn't an attempt to defraud. There is nothing ambiguous about that. It is also explicit in the law that it is attempting to quell "unfair business practices". A mistake isn't a "practice", unfair or otherwise.
And you also seem to lack even a basic understanding of what people consider to be a "sock puppet". Even though it has been explained to you thoroughly several times now.
What you are doing is generally considered unacceptable by the Slashdot community. In other words: you are breaking the rules.
I, on the other hand, am not. I am satisfied with the honest mods I get from honest people. Which you have proved you are not.
I wonder how the Slashdot crew would react if I presented them with my proof that you have been using sock-puppet accounts? Especially when I show them you have been using them to mod other people.
Yet again, this AC confirms beyond doubt:
(A) That he *IS* in fact using a sockpuppet account (and proves that he uses it for ghost-modding, definitely against Slashdot's accepted social rules), and
(B) exactly who he is.
And he seems to keep forgetting that he was told
(C) these little episodes are being recorded for legal purposes.
"Jane's claim implies that a university with 100% white male students isn't less diverse than a university with at least some students who aren't white and male. What a fascinating definition of diversity..."
FAIL! I neither wrote or suggested anything of the sort. I am not sure whether the problem is your reading comprehension or your grasp of logic, but one of them definitely failed you.
What I actually meant (and for that matter what I actually wrote) is that one American university with exactly the same mix of races as another American university, is no more or less diverse than that other university. They are conformant in that context, not "diverse".
Yes, thank you. Many here seem to have failed to get this basic point.
The "unordered merchandise" law is a law against fraud. A mistake in your mail-order purchase is not "fraud"... unless they refuse to correct it and try to charge you for it.
Repeat: look at the LAW. Not the Post Office page. Because the Post Office page is misleading.
The LAW this refers to is a law against FRAUD. It isn't a law against mistakes. It isn't a law against somebody accidentally sending you a kewpie doll instead of the stuffed dog you ordered. It's a law against somebody just sending you shit you didn't want out of the blue and then trying to charge you for it.
If they didn't do it on purpose, IT ISN'T FRAUD.
If they refuse to correct the problem, and try to CHARGE you for the wrong merchandise, that could be fraud (remember the part that says IF they bill you for it). But the law doesn't cover a simple mistake that they are willing to correct.
Also, just FYI:
If you're going to try to get away with sock-puppetry, you should be a bit less obvious about it.
"I wasn't convinced about your monoculture argument until it swerved into racist territory in the last paragraph."
Racism, by definition, is treating people differently according to race. It doesn't matter whether that treatment is better or worse... it means different.
"Affirmative Action", as it has been called, is government-sanctioned racism.
You don't get to re-define "racism" as "only if it's against MY race". Or "only if it's against minorities."
No points.
Well, it seems we have lots of "anecdotal evidence" that BEES are doing fine, just not commercial colonies.
Now we just have to formulate an experiment to test the idea.
"Oh, okay. Feel free to spread all the exaggerated BULLSHIT you want, without any consequences."
I thought you'd get the hint. I guess not.
Since I told everybody it was an exaggeration, I wasn't bullshitting.
"I don't see that at all. USC 39 3009(d) seems perfectly clear to me, and to cover this situation quite well."
That's because you're only reading the letter of the law, and you're ignoring its INTENT. Even the part you cited is not entirely in context... it's out of a body of law that is intended to prevent fraud.
The law is against "unfair" trade practices. The intent of the law is to prevent fraud. It isn't a "trade practice" -- i.e., it's not fraud -- if it was a mistake. Further, it isn't even a "practice" if it was a mistake.
"Your assertion is in disagreement with the US Postal services' word on the matter that "finders-keepers" applies unconditionally in the case of receiving any unordered merchandise . "
Jesus Christ. Do you people even read the threads you are posting to? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS?
Look at THE ACTUAL LAW, not what the Post Office has to say about it. Others have linked to it elsewhere.
The INTENT of this law is to PREVENT FRAUD. It is specifically a law against "unfair trade practices". That is: fraud. In order to be an unfair trade practice, it has to be a business PRACTICE. Which means "intentional".
Mistakes are not fraud.
"You disagree with the morals of people keeping stuff they didn't order. That's fine. Don't impose your morality on our legal system. That's not the law and you shouldn't advocate for it to be so."
Nothing of the sort. The "unsolicited merchandise" law is a law against unfair (anti-cimpetitive) trade practices. In order for it to be an anti-cimpetitive "trade practice" it has to be a trade practice. In other words, something you did on purpose.
INTENT is a big part of the law. You should look the word up some time.
"Maybe they're also making a point with slight exaggerations. Otherwise known as BULLSHIT."
The DIFFERENCE is that I'm not pretending to be a major news company or somebody with a product to promote. I'm just giving my opinion on Slashdot. :)
I agree that the law is often subverted. My point was that there is already a DIFFERENT law that covers this kind of situation. I had to research it a couple of years ago for business reasons. But I don't recall where to find it right now, or I'd cite it.
"How do I know what their true intention was? I'm sure someone has tried to defraud people in this way."
The way you know it's true, is to tell the company about the mistake, and see if they try to charge you for it anyway.
That would put them square under this law.
"Basically, the problem is that beekeeping has a monoculture problem - watch the video at the end of this link which explains that basically the bees are not treated well and there's not really a diversity of managed bees."
Mod parent up.
I've been making this monoculture argument for years. It is just as valid as a reason why spread of "Roundup Ready" corn and other crops are a very Bad Idea.
History is chock-full of examples of why monoculture crops (and bees are a "crop" of sorts) is courting disaster. When you are dependent on a monoculture, any little thing can cause it all to "collapse". The Irish Potato Famine is one good, famous example.
Diversity is a usually good thing, whether you're talking about human cultures, or food crops.
(However, when it comes to people it isn't a matter of "forcing" diversity, 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. It doesn't work that way. That isn't diversity at all; it's homogeneity. When you dump the same ingredients into 100 different blenders, you get 100 times the same old soup.)
"... we've had more wild bees than ever before"
Maybe they're tired of their "keepers" and just want to be free. :)
"While commercial beekeepers have been having trouble with their bees, here in Florida we've had more wild bees than ever before."
Besides... I've been hearing this "20% last year... 30% last year" BULLSHIT for at least 10 years. If it were even approximately true, the U.S. would be knee-deep in negative bees by now.
(Before anybody replies... yes, I know that 30% of 0.0001 is not negative. Just a slight exaggeration to make a point, okay?)
But on a more serious note: I can also add my "anecdotal evidence" that wild bees have been plentiful in this area. Last summer I had a hard time believing how many bees (and yes, I mean honeybees not any other variety) were all over the flowers.
I am as concerned about problems with bees as anybody... but BS doesn't help solve anything.
"You just reworded what I said in my reply to you, which is not what your original post stated. Your original post seems to be supporting the "I'd keep it." comment you were replying to, with an explanation of why that would be okay; I was pointing out why that is not the case, and it seems you've just agreed with me."
Maybe I simply misunderstood, but what you meant in your earlier reply was not clear to me.
"You just contradicted yourself. It is unsolicited merchandise precisely because you solicited something else."
If you take it literally, yes. But you are being too literal.
The U.S. law about "unsolicited merchandise", is a law against somebody sending you something you hadn't asked for, then trying to force you to pay for it. It is considered to be a form of "unfair" trade practice.
But the law only applies if somebody is doing it on purpose. Mistakes are not "unfair trade practices". Sending you something other than what you DID ask for, if it is a mistake, is not an intent to defraud you and so the unsolicited merchandise law does not apply. You see?
"Is there a different law I'm unfamiliar with that you're referring to?"
But just to clarify: since this was a mistake, and the company did not try to insist that people pay for the unordered merchandise (subsection c), it isn't "unfair competition" and this law simply would not apply here in the U.S.
The other law I mentioned DOES apply. No, I don't have a citation at hand, but I sure hope you see that this one simply isn't relevant to the case described in TFA
Is this so clear-cut? The law says it is: "merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient."
Well, goody for you. You seem to think you can cherry-pick one passage out of context, and decide the whole law on that sentence. Good luck with that.
Let's look at it a bit more in context. First this part:
"...the mailing of unordered merchandise or of communications prohibited by subsection (c) of this section constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice in violation of section 45(a)(1) of title 15."
Notice the part that says "unfair method of competition". This very clearly implies intent to commit unfair trade practices. And let's not forget the part that says,
"c) No mailer of any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, shall mail to any recipient of such merchandise a bill for such merchandise or any dunning communications."
The whole POINT here is that sending someone unordered merchandise INTENTIONALLY, and trying to CHARGE them for it, is a violation of fair trade practices.
According to TFA, this was a mistake. Mistakes are NOT "unfair trade practices".
Sheesh. Did you even look at what the law you cited was intended to accomplish?