So tell me... please... how well a business's right to refuse to accept cash would work for things like restaurants and hair stylists?
Simple. If you don't have a card, you have to wait tables or cut hair until you're square with the house. Problem solved. Things get even more interesting when you can't pay your orthodontist.
For no healthcare, no superannuation, no benefits.... itâ(TM)s shitty pay dude.
For a side gig? For royalties on something you've already created? Seems pretty good to me. I don't get paid anything for code I've already written. My boss is hooked on me creating NEW code ALL THE TIME!
For longer than he'll keep spending time creating those skills. That's not bad. I'm expected to keep producing every single work day if I want to keep getting paid.
I really don't understand why anyone is patronizing a business who's main product is profit for itself.
Every business I can think of is motivated by either profit or expansion. Where are you shopping where customer satisfaction comes before the bottom line?
I am stating that refusing to do business with people who don't have credit cards is blatantly discriminatory...
So? Who said vendors can't discriminate?
...and it doesn't matter what the treasury says, because there are many, many other *laws* that matter more than the treasuries *rules*. This is a matter of law, not rules.
And yet, you don't seem able to share a reference to the laws you keep referring to. You do seem to be suggesting that the judiciary is willing to contradict the treasury. That seems unlikely unless you have something to back it up. Lunix shared info from the treasury supporting his assertion. All you've offered is a "nuh-uh".
Can't call cops on someone willing to pay but you just refuse to let pay.
You can call the cops on whoever you want for whatever reason. You just might not get the results you want if they decide you're wasting their time. I could see different individual cops handling this situation differently.
They don't have pencil and paper? That's all that's needed to tally and track a transaction.
Pencil, paper, and training on how to use them. A lot of places don't "waste time" on that last item. Not to mention that a lot of registers will refuse to let the clerk make change if they're powered down. And even that assumes that the clerk can do things like add up tax and calculate change.
The environment is a scam perpetuated by the Chinese to keep America from being competitive. And you can blame "Big Weather" for creating these recent storms to boost ratings.
My current employer has treated me well so far. I've seen them treat my coworkers well, including when it came time to retire. As a result, I try to act in our mutual interest and trust them to do the same. I'm much happier with this arrangement than I would be if I was convinced that everyone was only self-interested.
This isn't always practical. I'm lucky to work for a small company staffed by human beings instead of corporate drones.
Anyone can pick up a newspaper and look in the Help Wanted section.
I'd be very surprised if I learned that my current position had been listed in the paper. I was recruited through Indeed, which I'm assuming has the same age dilemma as FB. However, after a little digging I see nothing there that would enable screening on age for employer or prospect. I'm assuming they decided it was a bad practice since job availability is all they advertise. FB has that screening already built in as a standard metric for advertising, so the only decision is whether to ignore it.
A lot of discrimination is legal. Want a job that requires a security clearance? Better not be a foreign national. Want to be a ballerina? Better not be overweight. Want a job playing a 10yo on TV? Better not be 40. Want a badge and a gun? Meh. Here, they're yours.
You're right. I am confused. I think we both are. Including this post, I've asked 4 times what the "elephant" is that you said I declared off-limits. You haven't even given me a hint. I'm not even interested any more; I just want resolution. You could have cleared this up with one simple post. I'm starting to think you posted nonsense and then got distracted. I'll help:
When I said, "So don't talk about the elephant in the room. Got it.", I was referring to the topic of [TOPIC]. I inferred that you didn't want to talk about it because you said, "[QUOTE]". Sorry for the confusion.
Or are you suggesting I'm confused because I said FB will track you even if you haven't signed up? They will if they can and they're good at it. Not signing up for FB does not mean they'll ignore you.
I didn't mean to imply anything about a solution. What did I write that led you to infer that? I was just trying to figure out what subject I made taboo that inspired you to say, "So don't talk about the elephant in the room". What elephant are we avoiding? The privacy issue is front and center.
But, now that you bring it up, not using FB is not a solution to being tracked. You may have never signed up for an account, that doesn't mean that there isn't a big, fat database entry on you with everything they can collect. Hiding from FB isn't as simple as not signing up.
...the government having to jump in and make new regulations and burdens on companies that isn't needed...
I don't think this is about trying to make new regulations. It's about trying to enforce employee protection regulations already in place that Uber claims don't apply to its drivers. The regulations aren't new to "transportation firms"; they're just new to Uber.
You said "don't talk about the elephant in the room". I asked what the elephant was that I said to avoid. Did you miss my first line?
Invading privacy is what FB bases their business on and criticizing them for it is just fine.
You didn't bitch about the tracking, you bitched about "the elephant." Since I specifically said that the privacy issue should be discussed, I'm trying to figure out what we're avoiding.
Slashdot Mirror
Try and mentally play that out for a second... getting someone who doesn't work for you to cut hair with no prior training, or waiting tables.
I didn't think I needed a </sarc>. Sorry. I wasn't really suggesting that unqualified people should wait tables, cut hair, or perform orthodontia.
If I saw a sign that said âoeno cashâ Iâ(TM)d just think it meant the shop was dead broke and couldnâ(TM)t make change.
The DMV?
So tell me... please... how well a business's right to refuse to accept cash would work for things like restaurants and hair stylists?
Simple. If you don't have a card, you have to wait tables or cut hair until you're square with the house. Problem solved. Things get even more interesting when you can't pay your orthodontist.
For no healthcare, no superannuation, no benefits.... itâ(TM)s shitty pay dude.
For a side gig? For royalties on something you've already created? Seems pretty good to me. I don't get paid anything for code I've already written. My boss is hooked on me creating NEW code ALL THE TIME!
For longer than he'll keep spending time creating those skills. That's not bad. I'm expected to keep producing every single work day if I want to keep getting paid.
I really don't understand why anyone is patronizing a business who's main product is profit for itself.
Every business I can think of is motivated by either profit or expansion. Where are you shopping where customer satisfaction comes before the bottom line?
He's a fucking code monkey who think he is an engineer.
Hey! I'm a fucking code monkey who thinks he's an engineer! I refuse to be lumped into a category with that idiot Zero__Kelvin!
(MSEE by education, working as a C++ programmer for a little over a year. Dedicated Zero__Kelvin combatant.)
I am stating that refusing to do business with people who don't have credit cards is blatantly discriminatory...
So? Who said vendors can't discriminate?
...and it doesn't matter what the treasury says, because there are many, many other *laws* that matter more than the treasuries *rules*. This is a matter of law, not rules.
And yet, you don't seem able to share a reference to the laws you keep referring to. You do seem to be suggesting that the judiciary is willing to contradict the treasury. That seems unlikely unless you have something to back it up. Lunix shared info from the treasury supporting his assertion. All you've offered is a "nuh-uh".
Can't call cops on someone willing to pay but you just refuse to let pay.
You can call the cops on whoever you want for whatever reason. You just might not get the results you want if they decide you're wasting their time. I could see different individual cops handling this situation differently.
Are you suggesting that the judicial branch would ignore rules set by the treasury? Maybe you have a link that contradicts Lunix's treasury statement?
They don't have pencil and paper? That's all that's needed to tally and track a transaction.
Pencil, paper, and training on how to use them. A lot of places don't "waste time" on that last item. Not to mention that a lot of registers will refuse to let the clerk make change if they're powered down. And even that assumes that the clerk can do things like add up tax and calculate change.
...you prove that a theory is correct. You don't prove that a theory is incorrect.
You don't disprove that a theory isn't incorrect.
The environment is a scam perpetuated by the Chinese to keep America from being competitive. And you can blame "Big Weather" for creating these recent storms to boost ratings.
The only way this would work is to scan everyone at the airport.
It's an idea. Apparently the Chinese have already gone much further than that.
My current employer has treated me well so far. I've seen them treat my coworkers well, including when it came time to retire. As a result, I try to act in our mutual interest and trust them to do the same. I'm much happier with this arrangement than I would be if I was convinced that everyone was only self-interested.
This isn't always practical. I'm lucky to work for a small company staffed by human beings instead of corporate drones.
Do you think they're only scanning Visa holders?
Or any other brief video clip of the person can be played back to easily bypass a system that relies on motion in a camera.
That sounds much more difficult than printing the person's picture.
Anyone can pick up a newspaper and look in the Help Wanted section.
I'd be very surprised if I learned that my current position had been listed in the paper. I was recruited through Indeed, which I'm assuming has the same age dilemma as FB. However, after a little digging I see nothing there that would enable screening on age for employer or prospect. I'm assuming they decided it was a bad practice since job availability is all they advertise. FB has that screening already built in as a standard metric for advertising, so the only decision is whether to ignore it.
A lot of discrimination is legal. Want a job that requires a security clearance? Better not be a foreign national. Want to be a ballerina? Better not be overweight. Want a job playing a 10yo on TV? Better not be 40. Want a badge and a gun? Meh. Here, they're yours.
Repetition works, David. Repetition works, David.
A second floor basement is a garage.
You're right. I am confused. I think we both are. Including this post, I've asked 4 times what the "elephant" is that you said I declared off-limits. You haven't even given me a hint. I'm not even interested any more; I just want resolution. You could have cleared this up with one simple post. I'm starting to think you posted nonsense and then got distracted. I'll help:
When I said, "So don't talk about the elephant in the room. Got it.", I was referring to the topic of [TOPIC]. I inferred that you didn't want to talk about it because you said, "[QUOTE]". Sorry for the confusion.
Or are you suggesting I'm confused because I said FB will track you even if you haven't signed up? They will if they can and they're good at it. Not signing up for FB does not mean they'll ignore you.
I didn't mean to imply anything about a solution. What did I write that led you to infer that? I was just trying to figure out what subject I made taboo that inspired you to say, "So don't talk about the elephant in the room". What elephant are we avoiding? The privacy issue is front and center.
But, now that you bring it up, not using FB is not a solution to being tracked. You may have never signed up for an account, that doesn't mean that there isn't a big, fat database entry on you with everything they can collect. Hiding from FB isn't as simple as not signing up.
when Apple uses my data, it's to improve my user experience with Apple hardware and software.
Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners
Apple's "strategic partners" are not Apple.
...the government having to jump in and make new regulations and burdens on companies that isn't needed...
I don't think this is about trying to make new regulations. It's about trying to enforce employee protection regulations already in place that Uber claims don't apply to its drivers. The regulations aren't new to "transportation firms"; they're just new to Uber.
You said "don't talk about the elephant in the room". I asked what the elephant was that I said to avoid. Did you miss my first line?
Invading privacy is what FB bases their business on and criticizing them for it is just fine.
You didn't bitch about the tracking, you bitched about "the elephant." Since I specifically said that the privacy issue should be discussed, I'm trying to figure out what we're avoiding.