Do we really live in a society that coddles people like this?
Like what? People who don't do what they're told just because it's easier, even if they think it's wrong?
The CC manager could have defused the situation at any moment just as easily as the customer (indeed, CC policy almost certainly tells that he should have, and regardless of the legal consequences, this manager is certainly going to get some training). The cop could have searched the bag and said "He didn't steal anything. Have a nice day" and then let everyone get on with their lives.
all they asked to check was the bag that contained his Circuit City purchases and his receipt. I'm not sure what privacy he is protecting
That bag contained his private property that he had just purchased. He gave them money for it, it's his, not theirs.
Should he be able to inspect their cash registers after his purchase? After all, they contain money that was his just moments before.
Would you feel differently about the privacy implications if he were leaving Wal*Mart and had just filled his prescription for an STD, or to prevent his frequent diarrhea? Pharmacists are licensed professionals, trained on the privacy aspects of their profession. You're saying that I should have to expose my medical condition to any minimum-wage flunkie who gets curious?
Ok, call me ignorant, stupid, dumb, whatever. But why, whenever someone makes a mistake or fucks up is the very first thought (or post in this matter) always down the line of lawsuits, cash, court, lawyers etc?
Because when a corporation or municipality is involved, they don't care about anything other than what it costs the bottom line. If they make a mistake and can get away with a press release, they don't really care and won't bother to do anything to prevent the mistake from happening again (maybe add a sentence on page 356 of the employee manual).
It is, in many ways, about using "market forces" to prevent mistakes from happening. When mistakes cost real money, they're less likely to be tolerated by superiors, because that cuts down on the value of their stock options.
as they are leaving I believe that have put my property in their bag, I can prevent them from leaving and call the police.
Yes you can, and if you're wrong, you can find that they own your house when the lawsuit is over. If you see the outline of your prize possession in their bag, by all means stop them and call the cops.
But if they're just walking out and you decide on a total hunch to ask to poke through their bags, you can't then physically prevent them from leaving simply because you think they're refusal to let you search their bags MUST prove that they stole something from you! You can shout "king of the castle" all you want, but once you start assaulting them, "self-defense" is something they can shout just as loudly.
The store's home office would much rather see $100 in merchandise walk out the door than an employee do something stupid and bring down a major lawsuit. My bet is these employees violated company policy, will almost certainly be fired, and maybe even sued personally (tho, if they're just CC employees, they're probably not worth suing). Either way, Circuit City should be ready to cut a large check to keep this guy from suing.
Yeah, the big failure here seems to be CC not training these guys properly (or them ignoring it all due to adrenaline -- this is one of those situations where having female security officers is probably a better bet). While most states do allow security to detain people using reasonable or minimal necessary force, once you apply ANY force to the situation, it's almost guaranteed to escalate out of control, so big companies don't ever want you to do more than ask a person repeatedly to stay put.
...you very likely would have passed by a sign indicating that your entry serves as your consent to having your bags (and often other personal belongings) searched.
And if they put "and we have the right to fondle you", would that make it legal? Of course not. You don't get to change the law by posting a sign (though there are many laws that require posting to be enforced, or allow greater flexibility when posted). Walking past a sign is not the same thing as agreeing to a contract.
I see this all the time on trucks with signs posted on the tailgate "Not responsible for damage done from falling cargo", which is of course ridiculous. The law requires any vehicle operator to secure his load when on public roads. If he doesn't do so, he most certainly is responsible for damage caused by his load falling into the street and hitting other vehicles. Spending 2 dollars on a sign doesn't change your responsibilities (or rights) under the laws. People just like to be able to point to a sign, because then most folks will sheepishly walk away thinking that if a sign says it, they must have to believe it.
The big deal is that Apple is trying to create an even greater Vendor lock-in than what was already usual with mobile phone manufacturers / service operator companies. What really bugs me here is that the iPhone is only available with one operator comany and only with one of their tarif models. So with every successful unlock of the iPhone i think "Yeah, in your face, apple!". And, by the way, I am a big fan of apple products. Not typing this from my MacBook pro becaust the company I work at the moment wants me to work on a Windows PC. Anyway, I don't think it is a good thing what Apple does with the iPhone, and this is exactly why I won't buy one.
You keep saying Apple is locking people in, but have they said anything to indicate they care about unlocking? It's AT&T getting upset and threatening lawyers, Apple seems perfectly happy to sell you a phone and let you do whatever you want with it.
Ah, well you may have forgotten -- the notion of insanity from war WAS "Catch 22". If you were crazy, you could get out of combat, but if you went to the doctor and told him you were crazy, then that self-awareness was proof that you were sane, so you had to stay and fight. Which I think adequately sums up our current War on Terror.
No, I haven't. So now what? I'm left with a choice between someone who's telling me he's going to increase government spending and who I'm sure will follow through on his promise and someone who's telling me he's going to decrease government spending but will most likely increase it some.
Well, your earlier post said that you were socially more in tune with the Democrats, but supported the financial platform of the Republicans. If they aren't doing the one thing you supported them for, shouldn't you then throw your support behind the guys who you do support 50%, rather than the ones you support 0%?
Not that I'm assuming your views are truly black and white, only that your stated reasons for doing what you're doing seemed a little baffling. Obviously you're going to support whoever comes closest to your views, I was just wondering why you were supporting the ones who have done the opposite of what you believed in and what they said they would do. There's certainly something to be said for integrity and doing what you say you'll do.
And while you seem to have bought into the national Republican boogyman that "the Democrats are going to raise all of your taxes and spend billions on junk", I have yet to see any remotely plausible Democratic plan presented that would actually do such a thing, and certainly the few hot-button topics (like health care) are not going to change overnight regardless of who is in power -- President Hillary will have no authority or ability to suddenly raise your taxes and outlaw private health care, even if she wanted to. Either way, she couldn't possibly spend 20 billion dollars a month domestically in a way that was LESS productive than the cargo planes full of American currency and weapons we're handing out like Halloween candy in Iraq.
Interesting piece of rhetoric, but the "proves that it's sane" needs a proof. It's a classic catch 22.
Indeed it is, and if you actually go read the book "Catch 22", I think you'll understand exactly what I was saying. It's a great book (one of the funniest pieces of literature of the 20th century, by far), you should read it!
So, uhhhh, when will Americans start to realize that there's just a wee bit of fascism taking hold of their nation? You'd think with something as clear-cut as this, more people would wake up to that fact...
'cause only faggots and terrorists think there's anything wrong in America other than TOO MUCH KICK-ASS FREEDOM!!!
The Democrat party pushes a platform of people being free to do what they want but at the same time pushes a platform of increased government which can only eventually lead to people not being free to do what they want. The Republican party pushes a platform of personal responsibility and sometimes panders to people wishing to restrict the freedom of others but at the same time pushes decreased government which will actually lead to people being responsible for themselves.
I'm really curious what actual evidence you've seen that these statements are true. It may be their "platform", but given complete control of the entire federal government for 6 years, I certainly didn't see any moves towards decreased government, did you?
Yes, that's why all the greatest advancements take place in unregulated markets like Somalia. All our greatest medical progress was in in the 1890s, when you could just give people cocaine for a toothache and sell them rat poison as a cure for cancer. No pesky FDA in the way demanding "proof" that your product "does what it says" (god, what a bunch of party-poopers!).
Anyone who thinks that the "proof" of unregulated markets is that they produce superior solutions in every situation for every problem in every society at every time...well, hasn't done much examination of markets or history beyond their mom's basement or plush office at the CATO institute.
to have communism it means to take those freedoms away from the people
I suspect you and the OP are using differing definitions of communism. To most pro-communism folks, they're not talking about the political system (which is how communism is defined by some people), they're talking about the economic system that is "beyond" socialism, where everyone voluntarily is participating in society to the best of their ability and receiving back what they need in fair share. There's no taking away of freedom or goods or anything, it's a system that depends on logical self-interest and compassion to build the community.
So yes, according to that ideal of communism, the theory is just as fine and supporting of rights as libertarianism is. The idea is not inherently bad or anti-liberty, it's just extremely unlikely to ever work in a human society (much like libertarianism, which is based on different assumptions of what logical self-interest will achieve).
Compassion is not the responsibility of the government, and any compassionate role it plays is not only wasteful but irrelevant.
I think this is actually the key point of the libertarian/geek synergy. As we are all aware from various anecdotes and studies, geeks tend to be more frequently mildly autistic, extremely logical, as well as loners, socially stunted, etc (at least for their formative teen years). Technologists also generally come from middle-class (or better) backgrounds in stable societies that have no real lack of the basic necessities of life.
The appeal of a political philosophy that says basically "let everyone take care of themselves" to such a person is understandable, as the obligations of social contracts just seem a burden. It seems logical that everyone else would WANT to work in their own long-term best interest, so libertarianism seems very workable to people who value logic over emotion (who indeed are less likely to even understand when others feel emotion or have empathy for them).
But most people are not logical (indeed, most "logical" people aren't either, but that's a psychology textbook in itself) and they do feel empathy quite instinctually, so any governing system that basically tells them "hey, just change how you think and feel!" is not going to go over well.
In the US, IMHO, one subscribes to a team, and most facets of your social life are expected to revolve around that particular team.
I think that's what many members of the "teams" would like you to think, but I don't know that it's as true as their politics would depend on. Much like it suits a lot of people to sell the notion that we are divided into red states and blue states, but when people from many places are just sitting around a table hanging out, it clearly isn't the case.
I actually found this out once when I attempted to deposit money into the account of an ex-girlfriend. It wasn't anything illegal or malicious about wanting to do it. Her car broke down and I wanted her to get it fixed knowing that she didn't have the money and wouldn't take it from me. So I figures If I deposited it for her and had one of her friends act like it was a loan or something it would be ok. But without a filled out deposit slip signed by her, they wouldn't take the money. I couldn't even write a check to her. I ended up having to give it to her parents who all the sudden acted concerned and paid to get it fixed with my money.
If you have the correct account number you can deposit all the money you like. What banks can't do is verify that an account exists under a particular name, or deposit money based on any information other than an account number.
this is a more enlightened version of homosexuality, where the need to be identified with a community [geek, hacker, prep, gay] is subservient to just blending in.
Well, that still describes homosexuality in 1950s America. If you think that's better, fine, but it's not like the idea of "blending in" is some new concept these guys have discovered after years of fully exploring all the alternatives.
If anything, it's a more general statement of the desire for westerners to value pride/individualism over social comfort, and has nothing to do with sexuality in particular.
he RIAA and not Empire, BMG, etc... brought all these suits
o, the individual labels bring the suits because it is the individual labels that own the copyrights being violated. The RIAA has no legal standing to sue someone for violating BMG's copyrights -- and in a way, that's the argument being made here, that the RIAA is an organization that is acting more like an agent of collusion than as a trade organization.
This is not about "your rights online". LiveJournal is a private company, not a govenrment agency.
Yes, LJ and K-Mart are private companies. Congratulations on stating the obvious. Can you please point out where anyone claimed they were acting as agents of the government?
Back to the discussion, which is about whether or not it is appropriate, sensible or logical for LJ to implement this policy.
Patches can be slipstreamed anyway [winsupersite.com], and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services [microsoft.com].
Yeah, except that neither of those things does what autopatcher does. I don't want to have to reinstall the whole OS just to keep patches up to date, and I don't want to have to lay ethernet cable several hundred miles to my relatives' homes in order to patch them quickly from a server I control.
Slashdot Mirror
Like what? People who don't do what they're told just because it's easier, even if they think it's wrong?
The CC manager could have defused the situation at any moment just as easily as the customer (indeed, CC policy almost certainly tells that he should have, and regardless of the legal consequences, this manager is certainly going to get some training). The cop could have searched the bag and said "He didn't steal anything. Have a nice day" and then let everyone get on with their lives.
That bag contained his private property that he had just purchased. He gave them money for it, it's his, not theirs.
Should he be able to inspect their cash registers after his purchase? After all, they contain money that was his just moments before.
Would you feel differently about the privacy implications if he were leaving Wal*Mart and had just filled his prescription for an STD, or to prevent his frequent diarrhea? Pharmacists are licensed professionals, trained on the privacy aspects of their profession. You're saying that I should have to expose my medical condition to any minimum-wage flunkie who gets curious?
Because when a corporation or municipality is involved, they don't care about anything other than what it costs the bottom line. If they make a mistake and can get away with a press release, they don't really care and won't bother to do anything to prevent the mistake from happening again (maybe add a sentence on page 356 of the employee manual).
It is, in many ways, about using "market forces" to prevent mistakes from happening. When mistakes cost real money, they're less likely to be tolerated by superiors, because that cuts down on the value of their stock options.
Yes you can, and if you're wrong, you can find that they own your house when the lawsuit is over. If you see the outline of your prize possession in their bag, by all means stop them and call the cops.
But if they're just walking out and you decide on a total hunch to ask to poke through their bags, you can't then physically prevent them from leaving simply because you think they're refusal to let you search their bags MUST prove that they stole something from you! You can shout "king of the castle" all you want, but once you start assaulting them, "self-defense" is something they can shout just as loudly.
Yeah, the big failure here seems to be CC not training these guys properly (or them ignoring it all due to adrenaline -- this is one of those situations where having female security officers is probably a better bet). While most states do allow security to detain people using reasonable or minimal necessary force, once you apply ANY force to the situation, it's almost guaranteed to escalate out of control, so big companies don't ever want you to do more than ask a person repeatedly to stay put.
And if they put "and we have the right to fondle you", would that make it legal? Of course not. You don't get to change the law by posting a sign (though there are many laws that require posting to be enforced, or allow greater flexibility when posted). Walking past a sign is not the same thing as agreeing to a contract.
I see this all the time on trucks with signs posted on the tailgate "Not responsible for damage done from falling cargo", which is of course ridiculous. The law requires any vehicle operator to secure his load when on public roads. If he doesn't do so, he most certainly is responsible for damage caused by his load falling into the street and hitting other vehicles. Spending 2 dollars on a sign doesn't change your responsibilities (or rights) under the laws. People just like to be able to point to a sign, because then most folks will sheepishly walk away thinking that if a sign says it, they must have to believe it.
You keep saying Apple is locking people in, but have they said anything to indicate they care about unlocking? It's AT&T getting upset and threatening lawyers, Apple seems perfectly happy to sell you a phone and let you do whatever you want with it.
What a compelling argument...I mean, personal opinion. You say it's bad, so it's bad? I'm convinced!
I'm happy to defend porn in real life. lots of folks are. It's entertainment like any other.
Ah, well you may have forgotten -- the notion of insanity from war WAS "Catch 22". If you were crazy, you could get out of combat, but if you went to the doctor and told him you were crazy, then that self-awareness was proof that you were sane, so you had to stay and fight. Which I think adequately sums up our current War on Terror.
Well, your earlier post said that you were socially more in tune with the Democrats, but supported the financial platform of the Republicans. If they aren't doing the one thing you supported them for, shouldn't you then throw your support behind the guys who you do support 50%, rather than the ones you support 0%?
Not that I'm assuming your views are truly black and white, only that your stated reasons for doing what you're doing seemed a little baffling. Obviously you're going to support whoever comes closest to your views, I was just wondering why you were supporting the ones who have done the opposite of what you believed in and what they said they would do. There's certainly something to be said for integrity and doing what you say you'll do.
And while you seem to have bought into the national Republican boogyman that "the Democrats are going to raise all of your taxes and spend billions on junk", I have yet to see any remotely plausible Democratic plan presented that would actually do such a thing, and certainly the few hot-button topics (like health care) are not going to change overnight regardless of who is in power -- President Hillary will have no authority or ability to suddenly raise your taxes and outlaw private health care, even if she wanted to. Either way, she couldn't possibly spend 20 billion dollars a month domestically in a way that was LESS productive than the cargo planes full of American currency and weapons we're handing out like Halloween candy in Iraq.
Indeed it is, and if you actually go read the book "Catch 22", I think you'll understand exactly what I was saying. It's a great book (one of the funniest pieces of literature of the 20th century, by far), you should read it!
Thus began the least-successful marketing campaign in history, which we'll be examining over the next semester...
'cause only faggots and terrorists think there's anything wrong in America other than TOO MUCH KICK-ASS FREEDOM!!!
Yes it is. Too bad you can't prove it's illegal or a conflict of interest because it's a state secret.
And if you think that's insane, it just proves that it's sane, and therefore has to stay until the war is over.
I'm really curious what actual evidence you've seen that these statements are true. It may be their "platform", but given complete control of the entire federal government for 6 years, I certainly didn't see any moves towards decreased government, did you?
Yes, that's why all the greatest advancements take place in unregulated markets like Somalia. All our greatest medical progress was in in the 1890s, when you could just give people cocaine for a toothache and sell them rat poison as a cure for cancer. No pesky FDA in the way demanding "proof" that your product "does what it says" (god, what a bunch of party-poopers!).
Anyone who thinks that the "proof" of unregulated markets is that they produce superior solutions in every situation for every problem in every society at every time...well, hasn't done much examination of markets or history beyond their mom's basement or plush office at the CATO institute.
I suspect you and the OP are using differing definitions of communism. To most pro-communism folks, they're not talking about the political system (which is how communism is defined by some people), they're talking about the economic system that is "beyond" socialism, where everyone voluntarily is participating in society to the best of their ability and receiving back what they need in fair share. There's no taking away of freedom or goods or anything, it's a system that depends on logical self-interest and compassion to build the community.
So yes, according to that ideal of communism, the theory is just as fine and supporting of rights as libertarianism is. The idea is not inherently bad or anti-liberty, it's just extremely unlikely to ever work in a human society (much like libertarianism, which is based on different assumptions of what logical self-interest will achieve).
I think this is actually the key point of the libertarian/geek synergy. As we are all aware from various anecdotes and studies, geeks tend to be more frequently mildly autistic, extremely logical, as well as loners, socially stunted, etc (at least for their formative teen years). Technologists also generally come from middle-class (or better) backgrounds in stable societies that have no real lack of the basic necessities of life.
The appeal of a political philosophy that says basically "let everyone take care of themselves" to such a person is understandable, as the obligations of social contracts just seem a burden. It seems logical that everyone else would WANT to work in their own long-term best interest, so libertarianism seems very workable to people who value logic over emotion (who indeed are less likely to even understand when others feel emotion or have empathy for them).
But most people are not logical (indeed, most "logical" people aren't either, but that's a psychology textbook in itself) and they do feel empathy quite instinctually, so any governing system that basically tells them "hey, just change how you think and feel!" is not going to go over well.
As opposed to watching it on an Apple TV or an iPod? Yeah, that's pretty much what he means. Putting something on a web site in 2007 is retro-tech.
I think that's what many members of the "teams" would like you to think, but I don't know that it's as true as their politics would depend on. Much like it suits a lot of people to sell the notion that we are divided into red states and blue states, but when people from many places are just sitting around a table hanging out, it clearly isn't the case.
If you have the correct account number you can deposit all the money you like. What banks can't do is verify that an account exists under a particular name, or deposit money based on any information other than an account number.
Well, that still describes homosexuality in 1950s America. If you think that's better, fine, but it's not like the idea of "blending in" is some new concept these guys have discovered after years of fully exploring all the alternatives.
If anything, it's a more general statement of the desire for westerners to value pride/individualism over social comfort, and has nothing to do with sexuality in particular.
o, the individual labels bring the suits because it is the individual labels that own the copyrights being violated. The RIAA has no legal standing to sue someone for violating BMG's copyrights -- and in a way, that's the argument being made here, that the RIAA is an organization that is acting more like an agent of collusion than as a trade organization.
Yes, LJ and K-Mart are private companies. Congratulations on stating the obvious. Can you please point out where anyone claimed they were acting as agents of the government?
Back to the discussion, which is about whether or not it is appropriate, sensible or logical for LJ to implement this policy.
Yeah, except that neither of those things does what autopatcher does. I don't want to have to reinstall the whole OS just to keep patches up to date, and I don't want to have to lay ethernet cable several hundred miles to my relatives' homes in order to patch them quickly from a server I control.