If the bank screws up, at most they will give you your money back. This often involves that YOU have to (a) notice the error, (b) complain about it, and (c) see through that you actually get the money, which may involve going several steps up the chain of the command (do you think the local bank teller has the authority to give money to everyone who says they should have it?).
If you miss either of these 3 steps, it's quite possible the bank will never return the money. And since it takes quite a bit of your time to perform the above steps, in case of small losses (such as an ATM giving $20 less than it should) simply choose to give up the money rather than try and recover it.
If, on the other hand, you get too much, then it is also up to YOU to *quickly* let the bank know and give them their money back. If you wait for them to go after you, then you'll end up in jail, can't just "give it back" anymore.
In short, if the bank underpays you, the onus is on you to notice fix the error, or you don't get the money, otherwise you'd get (at most) that money, no compensation for lost time). If the bank overpays you, the onus is also on you to notice and fix the error, otherwise you go to jail.
Forgot to add to original post: Slots are a bit different, because they ARE dependent on chance, so the defense of "I thought I just got lucky" is quite valid (if people didn't hope they'd get lucky they wouldn't play in the first place, would they?), so in the case of a slots machine, unless the prosecution has some solid proof that the defendant *knew* of an error before playing (through some OTHER means then just winning a lot), then you should walk free.
If you see some dude that's not dressed like casino staff, messing with the wiring of the ATM and trying not to get noticed, and then you play it and win, then yes, your ass is up for torching, and justly so.
In short, this is something that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what courts are there for.
Didn't your local friendly MMORPG teach you the consequences of exploiting bugs?
Seriously, just because you were not the one who hacked the thing, doesn't give you the right to exploit the flow. It's like stealing stuff from a shop because the window was broken by someone else.
Accidents do happen, and it should be the burden of the prosecution to prove the defendant knew of the exploit, and not vice versa, but if you see someone withdrawing 1 grand (max daily limit) from a machine that happens to give out $20s instead of $5s (especially if person never previously withdrew such large amounts), and of course the person conveniently "forgot" to check the amount he got, then you got a pretty good circumstantial case of malicious intent, and then the defendant better have some good justification for these actions.
...Which will probably sooner or later avalanche into another big lawsuit.
Say, I signed up with Google (or any other email provider, using Google as a reference for rest of reply) under an existing TOS contract. Everyone is fine and happy, Google serves me ads, I use my mail.
Then, one day, Google changes the contract. By implications of the former decision, Google would be required to get my consent for the new contract before continuing service.
The question is, what if I say NO?
Does that give Google the right to immediately terminate my mail service, sending all my messages to a black hole?
Or would Google be required to provide some accomodation for me to recover my mail before terminating the account?
The point of law would likely depend on whether Google "owns" my mail or not. This is likely not be an issue in case of MMORPGs (they explicitly say in the TOS that they only provide the temporal service, and they "own" your character, items, and whatever, so they can terminate it for any reason they want). But with Google holding my actual emails, it probably will not be successful in arguing that it "owns" my emails, and only provides the service; likely, by a point of law Google would be the storage provider, maybe bailer, but not "owner", and thus cannot confiscate my emails without any option of recovering them.
Any lawyers out there that have a clue on how these things work?
Question people's actions, not their motives -- Cicero
As long as their contributions are valid, it does not matter why they contribute. If you wouldn't delete a given contribution from a PHD, you shouldn't delete it from a highschool student either, because it's the contribution itself that is either good or bad, not the source. The validitity of contributions should be derived from itself (including references provided, which is explicitly required by Wikipedia policies), and it has nothing to do with who actually contributes, because you may not use yourself or your reputation as a reference.
Likewise, it's wrong to censor someone's contributions just because you think he has a political agenda. As long as (and only as long as) the content submitted is valid and conforms to all policies (neutrality, references, no original research), it should make no difference whatsoever what agenda the contributor has.
Well, we all like to laugh about the "first class dicks" dying first, but I wonder if there just might be some kind of connection between the (1) first, luxurious, prestigious, pride-of-the-airline class having a higher statistical danger, (2) placement of the aforementioned class always in the front of the plane, and (3) multiple airlines repeatedly stating that there is NO safety difference between front and back.
It's not that I support RIAA or anything, but your argument is invalid.
Saying "The measure changes statistics but not attitude" does not mean the measure is bad.
For example, if you have tough sentences for violent robbery, it won't change the attitude of the would-be robbers, just make them more afraid, and thus less robberies are committed.
Let's not get start on the whole "copyright infringement is not a crime" stuff, OK? Crime or no crime, it's something RIAA and co. want to root out. You can have an entirely unrelated argument whether it's morally right or not, but you do have to admit that it does work to that end -- sometimes making people afraid of doing something is the best way to ensure it doesn't get done.
Rules must be *fair* to be *respected*, but being *tough* is fine if all you care is about them being *effective*
Tough luck pal, due process only applies in court. They'd have to follow it if they decided to sue you, throw you in jail for whatever, or something like that.
Cutting you off the campus net is an entirely private decision, no due process required by law.
Think of it like getting banned from a forum because the admin thinks you are a troll.
Way to contribute to the very same problem you are complaining of being treated with (prejudice and irrelevant facts being taken into account).
It's sick to see governments repeatedly marginalize young drivers' rights by blanket higher premiums, harder process to get a car, tougher fines for exactly the same offences, and restrictions which don't apply to older drivers. And I'm not talking about "novice" vs "veteran", I'm talking about real age being taken into account (and even if you are above the legal age of majority you still may be considered "young" for these purposes).
Look, just because there are SOME asshole teens who zip by your street in their pimped out Civic doing 160mph with music so loud you see the windshields vibrating, doesn't mean ALL young drives drive this way, and there should not be a blanket prejudice towards all younger drivers.
Seeing you whine for suffering the consequences of people with big loans being put in the same category as bad drivers for insurance purposes, while implying young drivers should get higher premiums just because they are young, is hypocritical at best.
- I'm already being spied on by close-circuit cameras planted everywhere short of the public toilet (may be wrong on that one as well) - Government agencies and their friendly associates already have records of my name, sex, DOB, address, occupation, salary, and other "general statistics" - Corporate spyware already records my keystrokes, browsing habits, shopping history, porn preferences, dubious sources of owned MP3s, financial credentials, political views, and probably things I don't even know about
And now you are trying to tell me I need to be scared of my 4x3 inch PDA? Right, because OBVIOUSLY that's the only thing threatening my privacy!
Here's a riddle from a HIGHSCHOOL textbook on physics dating back to the FIFTIES:
"You have two empty jars, thin and tall. In one of them, you put thin and tall metal spring vertically, so it follows the shape of the jar while being uncompressed. In the other one, you put exactly the same spring, but insert it horizontally, so it requires compression to be inserted into the jar. Obviously the compressed spring required energy to be compressed, and thus possesses more energy than the identical but uncompressed spring.
Next, you pour sulphuric acid into both jars. The acid gradually disintegrates the springs. The springs disappeared. The question is, what happened to the energy you have used to compress the spring before it disintegrated?"
The book then goes on to explain, "The compressed spring possessed higher elastic energy reserves than the uncompressed spring, the excess energy being equal to the energy required to compress the spring. When both springs disintegrated, it was measured that the compressed spring took longer to disintegrate, and the average temperature of the acid in the jar with the compressed spring was higher than the one with the uncompressed spring. The elastic energy, therefore, was converted into thermal energy".
I guess it has become a mystic revelation to certain marketers that there is more than gross audience numbers to the success of a marketing campaign.
And that maybe marketing sportsware or fashionware to geeks playing Second Life all day, instead of going outside and doing some sports or going to real life parties, may just not be the most cost-effective idea?
One of the prime reasons people are playing second life is because they are so damn fed up with First Life! And advertisers are a big thing that you can be fed up in the first place. Guess what, if you import to Second Life things that were what you hate in First Life already, people are going to be hostile to them?
Go back marketing soap to soccer moms, marketers. Do a favor to yourself and the rest of society.
Yep, they should definitely be stopped.
Then again, we should also stop local law enforcement from catching identity thieves too, after all, they also keep records!
And to think of it, we should outlaw anti-phishing sites -- they invade the phishers' privacy rights by keeping tabs on their activities.
And stopping people from sending me emails about 3n14r91n9 my p3n15 is clearly an infringement on their freedom of speech rights.
And regulating questionable online pharmacies is infringement on the freedom of contract. I mean, if I choose to buy drugs made in some dude's basement, it's my own right to make a contract, and if I die from them, it's my own fault.
Yea, phishers, online "pharmacies", and identity thieves are sure heaps better than those blasted feds who are only here to oppress us, eh?
This could be the biggest book revolution since Gutenberg. Combine the vastness of digital media out there with the paper medium which can be taken anywhere, anytime. Books, newspapers, journals, office paperwork, faxes -- all could be replaced to a large degree by e-books.
Imagine wanting to read a new novel, and instead of going to buy the book, just go to the seller's website, pay a fraction of the cost, and download the text right onto your e-book, then take it with you anywhere you want and read it in your free time, on the bus, subway, in bed, anywhere you want, without having to deal with the posture and eye strain problems of continuous reading from computer monitors, or having to carry a notebook around with you.
Also imagine how much trees will be saved by this.
Although, I'm pretty sure your friendly neighborhood copyright conglomerate will think otherwise. Anyone else thought of an organization like BIAA, hard at work to curtail the enlightenment of those who cannot afford the Knowledge Tax?
I got a message with a series of points criticizing Americans for blaming companies and institutions rather than themselves. I partly agree with the underlying message that people should take charge and solve problems, rather than just cast blame on others. However, the points go too far--they whitewash companies and institutions that really did something wrong.
Let's see if I understand how America works lately . . .
If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was holding in her lap while driving, she blames the restaurant.
Ordinarily, when you spill coffee on yourself, it hurts but doesn't really injure you. MacDonalds was serving coffee too hot, and as a result, a woman who spilled her coffee was seriously burned. It turns out MacDonalds had been warned about this before--they knew they were doing something dangerous. That's why she won that lawsuit.
If your teen-age son kills himself, you blame the rock 'n' roll music or musician he liked.
Actually, we don't. A few people tried to blame the musicians, but they did not win those cases.
If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family blames the tobacco company.
If the tobacco company got you addicted when you were a child, because they lied and said smoking was safe when they already knew it was dangerous, it has a lot to answer for.
If your daughter gets pregnant by the football captain you blame the school for poor sex education.
A responsible teacher would have taught her effective birth control techniques as well as pleasurable sex techniques.
If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, you blame the bartender.
Bartenders are not supposed to serve alcohol to people who are intoxicated, but they face the temptation to do so anyway in order to sell more booze.
If your cousin gets AIDS because the needle he used to shoot up with heroin was dirty, you blame the government for not providing clean ones.
Actually other people tried to provide clean needles, specifically to prevent the spread of AIDS, and we blame the government for stopping them.
If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you blame television.
I suspect the real culprit is the economic system that is set up so that parents can't spend much time with their children--so they use TV to keep the kids distracted. However, some present evidence that the introduction of TV in a society has an effect on the way children generally behave.
If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you blame the gun manufacturer.
This goes too far, but there is a core of good sense in it. Nowadays there are things gun maufacturers can do to make it hard for anyone other than the owner to use the gun.
And if a crazed person breaks into the cockpit and tries to kill the pilots at 35,000 feet, and the passengers kill him instead, the mother of the deceased blames the airline.
This, if it happened, is the only one I won't try to defend.
I must have lived too long to understand the world as it is. So if I die while my old, wrinkled ^*%#$* is parked in front of this computer, I want you to blame Bill Gates, OK?
Slashdot Mirror
^_^ > ;-)
That's why:
If the bank screws up, at most they will give you your money back. This often involves that YOU have to (a) notice the error, (b) complain about it, and (c) see through that you actually get the money, which may involve going several steps up the chain of the command (do you think the local bank teller has the authority to give money to everyone who says they should have it?).
If you miss either of these 3 steps, it's quite possible the bank will never return the money. And since it takes quite a bit of your time to perform the above steps, in case of small losses (such as an ATM giving $20 less than it should) simply choose to give up the money rather than try and recover it.
If, on the other hand, you get too much, then it is also up to YOU to *quickly* let the bank know and give them their money back. If you wait for them to go after you, then you'll end up in jail, can't just "give it back" anymore.
In short, if the bank underpays you, the onus is on you to notice fix the error, or you don't get the money, otherwise you'd get (at most) that money, no compensation for lost time).
If the bank overpays you, the onus is also on you to notice and fix the error, otherwise you go to jail.
Forgot to add to original post: Slots are a bit different, because they ARE dependent on chance, so the defense of "I thought I just got lucky" is quite valid (if people didn't hope they'd get lucky they wouldn't play in the first place, would they?), so in the case of a slots machine, unless the prosecution has some solid proof that the defendant *knew* of an error before playing (through some OTHER means then just winning a lot), then you should walk free.
If you see some dude that's not dressed like casino staff, messing with the wiring of the ATM and trying not to get noticed, and then you play it and win, then yes, your ass is up for torching, and justly so.
In short, this is something that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what courts are there for.
Didn't your local friendly MMORPG teach you the consequences of exploiting bugs?
Seriously, just because you were not the one who hacked the thing, doesn't give you the right to exploit the flow. It's like stealing stuff from a shop because the window was broken by someone else.
Accidents do happen, and it should be the burden of the prosecution to prove the defendant knew of the exploit, and not vice versa, but if you see someone withdrawing 1 grand (max daily limit) from a machine that happens to give out $20s instead of $5s (especially if person never previously withdrew such large amounts), and of course the person conveniently "forgot" to check the amount he got, then you got a pretty good circumstantial case of malicious intent, and then the defendant better have some good justification for these actions.
...Which will probably sooner or later avalanche into another big lawsuit.
Say, I signed up with Google (or any other email provider, using Google as a reference for rest of reply) under an existing TOS contract. Everyone is fine and happy, Google serves me ads, I use my mail.
Then, one day, Google changes the contract. By implications of the former decision, Google would be required to get my consent for the new contract before continuing service.
The question is, what if I say NO?
Does that give Google the right to immediately terminate my mail service, sending all my messages to a black hole?
Or would Google be required to provide some accomodation for me to recover my mail before terminating the account?
The point of law would likely depend on whether Google "owns" my mail or not. This is likely not be an issue in case of MMORPGs (they explicitly say in the TOS that they only provide the temporal service, and they "own" your character, items, and whatever, so they can terminate it for any reason they want). But with Google holding my actual emails, it probably will not be successful in arguing that it "owns" my emails, and only provides the service; likely, by a point of law Google would be the storage provider, maybe bailer, but not "owner", and thus cannot confiscate my emails without any option of recovering them.
Any lawyers out there that have a clue on how these things work?
Question people's actions, not their motives -- Cicero
As long as their contributions are valid, it does not matter why they contribute. If you wouldn't delete a given contribution from a PHD, you shouldn't delete it from a highschool student either, because it's the contribution itself that is either good or bad, not the source. The validitity of contributions should be derived from itself (including references provided, which is explicitly required by Wikipedia policies), and it has nothing to do with who actually contributes, because you may not use yourself or your reputation as a reference.
Likewise, it's wrong to censor someone's contributions just because you think he has a political agenda. As long as (and only as long as) the content submitted is valid and conforms to all policies (neutrality, references, no original research), it should make no difference whatsoever what agenda the contributor has.
>If this is adopted across the EU
If.
Well, we all like to laugh about the "first class dicks" dying first, but I wonder if there just might be some kind of connection between the (1) first, luxurious, prestigious, pride-of-the-airline class having a higher statistical danger, (2) placement of the aforementioned class always in the front of the plane, and (3) multiple airlines repeatedly stating that there is NO safety difference between front and back.
Nah, I'm just being paranoid, right?
It's not that I support RIAA or anything, but your argument is invalid.
Saying "The measure changes statistics but not attitude" does not mean the measure is bad.
For example, if you have tough sentences for violent robbery, it won't change the attitude of the would-be robbers, just make them more afraid, and thus less robberies are committed.
Let's not get start on the whole "copyright infringement is not a crime" stuff, OK? Crime or no crime, it's something RIAA and co. want to root out. You can have an entirely unrelated argument whether it's morally right or not, but you do have to admit that it does work to that end -- sometimes making people afraid of doing something is the best way to ensure it doesn't get done.
Rules must be *fair* to be *respected*, but being *tough* is fine if all you care is about them being *effective*
Tough luck pal, due process only applies in court. They'd have to follow it if they decided to sue you, throw you in jail for whatever, or something like that.
Cutting you off the campus net is an entirely private decision, no due process required by law.
Think of it like getting banned from a forum because the admin thinks you are a troll.
>18-year-old
Way to contribute to the very same problem you are complaining of being treated with (prejudice and irrelevant facts being taken into account).
It's sick to see governments repeatedly marginalize young drivers' rights by blanket higher premiums, harder process to get a car, tougher fines for exactly the same offences, and restrictions which don't apply to older drivers. And I'm not talking about "novice" vs "veteran", I'm talking about real age being taken into account (and even if you are above the legal age of majority you still may be considered "young" for these purposes).
Look, just because there are SOME asshole teens who zip by your street in their pimped out Civic doing 160mph with music so loud you see the windshields vibrating, doesn't mean ALL young drives drive this way, and there should not be a blanket prejudice towards all younger drivers.
Seeing you whine for suffering the consequences of people with big loans being put in the same category as bad drivers for insurance purposes, while implying young drivers should get higher premiums just because they are young, is hypocritical at best.
So let's get this straight...
- I'm already being spied on by close-circuit cameras planted everywhere short of the public toilet (may be wrong on that one as well)
- Government agencies and their friendly associates already have records of my name, sex, DOB, address, occupation, salary, and other "general statistics"
- Corporate spyware already records my keystrokes, browsing habits, shopping history, porn preferences, dubious sources of owned MP3s, financial credentials, political views, and probably things I don't even know about
And now you are trying to tell me I need to be scared of my 4x3 inch PDA? Right, because OBVIOUSLY that's the only thing threatening my privacy!
Is this supposed to be "news"?
Here's a riddle from a HIGHSCHOOL textbook on physics dating back to the FIFTIES:
"You have two empty jars, thin and tall. In one of them, you put thin and tall metal spring vertically, so it follows the shape of the jar while being uncompressed. In the other one, you put exactly the same spring, but insert it horizontally, so it requires compression to be inserted into the jar. Obviously the compressed spring required energy to be compressed, and thus possesses more energy than the identical but uncompressed spring.
Next, you pour sulphuric acid into both jars. The acid gradually disintegrates the springs. The springs disappeared. The question is, what happened to the energy you have used to compress the spring before it disintegrated?"
The book then goes on to explain, "The compressed spring possessed higher elastic energy reserves than the uncompressed spring, the excess energy being equal to the energy required to compress the spring. When both springs disintegrated, it was measured that the compressed spring took longer to disintegrate, and the average temperature of the acid in the jar with the compressed spring was higher than the one with the uncompressed spring. The elastic energy, therefore, was converted into thermal energy".
I guess it has become a mystic revelation to certain marketers that there is more than gross audience numbers to the success of a marketing campaign.
And that maybe marketing sportsware or fashionware to geeks playing Second Life all day, instead of going outside and doing some sports or going to real life parties, may just not be the most cost-effective idea?
One of the prime reasons people are playing second life is because they are so damn fed up with First Life! And advertisers are a big thing that you can be fed up in the first place. Guess what, if you import to Second Life things that were what you hate in First Life already, people are going to be hostile to them?
Go back marketing soap to soccer moms, marketers. Do a favor to yourself and the rest of society.
Yep, they should definitely be stopped.
Then again, we should also stop local law enforcement from catching identity thieves too, after all, they also keep records!
And to think of it, we should outlaw anti-phishing sites -- they invade the phishers' privacy rights by keeping tabs on their activities.
And stopping people from sending me emails about 3n14r91n9 my p3n15 is clearly an infringement on their freedom of speech rights.
And regulating questionable online pharmacies is infringement on the freedom of contract. I mean, if I choose to buy drugs made in some dude's basement, it's my own right to make a contract, and if I die from them, it's my own fault.
Yea, phishers, online "pharmacies", and identity thieves are sure heaps better than those blasted feds who are only here to oppress us, eh?
This could be the biggest book revolution since Gutenberg. Combine the vastness of digital media out there with the paper medium which can be taken anywhere, anytime. Books, newspapers, journals, office paperwork, faxes -- all could be replaced to a large degree by e-books. Imagine wanting to read a new novel, and instead of going to buy the book, just go to the seller's website, pay a fraction of the cost, and download the text right onto your e-book, then take it with you anywhere you want and read it in your free time, on the bus, subway, in bed, anywhere you want, without having to deal with the posture and eye strain problems of continuous reading from computer monitors, or having to carry a notebook around with you. Also imagine how much trees will be saved by this. Although, I'm pretty sure your friendly neighborhood copyright conglomerate will think otherwise. Anyone else thought of an organization like BIAA, hard at work to curtail the enlightenment of those who cannot afford the Knowledge Tax?
I got a message with a series of points criticizing Americans for blaming companies and institutions rather than themselves. I partly agree with the underlying message that people should take charge and solve problems, rather than just cast blame on others. However, the points go too far--they whitewash companies and institutions that really did something wrong. Let's see if I understand how America works lately . . . If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was holding in her lap while driving, she blames the restaurant. Ordinarily, when you spill coffee on yourself, it hurts but doesn't really injure you. MacDonalds was serving coffee too hot, and as a result, a woman who spilled her coffee was seriously burned. It turns out MacDonalds had been warned about this before--they knew they were doing something dangerous. That's why she won that lawsuit. If your teen-age son kills himself, you blame the rock 'n' roll music or musician he liked. Actually, we don't. A few people tried to blame the musicians, but they did not win those cases. If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family blames the tobacco company. If the tobacco company got you addicted when you were a child, because they lied and said smoking was safe when they already knew it was dangerous, it has a lot to answer for. If your daughter gets pregnant by the football captain you blame the school for poor sex education. A responsible teacher would have taught her effective birth control techniques as well as pleasurable sex techniques. If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, you blame the bartender. Bartenders are not supposed to serve alcohol to people who are intoxicated, but they face the temptation to do so anyway in order to sell more booze. If your cousin gets AIDS because the needle he used to shoot up with heroin was dirty, you blame the government for not providing clean ones. Actually other people tried to provide clean needles, specifically to prevent the spread of AIDS, and we blame the government for stopping them. If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you blame television. I suspect the real culprit is the economic system that is set up so that parents can't spend much time with their children--so they use TV to keep the kids distracted. However, some present evidence that the introduction of TV in a society has an effect on the way children generally behave. If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you blame the gun manufacturer. This goes too far, but there is a core of good sense in it. Nowadays there are things gun maufacturers can do to make it hard for anyone other than the owner to use the gun. And if a crazed person breaks into the cockpit and tries to kill the pilots at 35,000 feet, and the passengers kill him instead, the mother of the deceased blames the airline. This, if it happened, is the only one I won't try to defend. I must have lived too long to understand the world as it is. So if I die while my old, wrinkled ^*%#$* is parked in front of this computer, I want you to blame Bill Gates, OK?