No, you do not have to go to court to dispute a bogus charge on your credit card. You fill in the forms from your bank.
If you have to go to court to dispute a bogus charge for a service you can prove was properly cancelled, it is your own bank you need to sue, not the crooks who dinged your credit card.
1) Put it in writing. 2) Mail it via registered mail, with return receipt. 3) Dispute any and all charges, since you have proof they got the cancellation.
You are apparently unfamiliar with the gaming market. The physical distribution chain has been dead for years. It was the result of a long, lingering illness. Which is to say, it was never much of a market to begin with.
Dan Glickman: John Perry Barlow is the one who's doing a disservice to the consumers, because you see if you don't adequately compensate the artist, the director, the creator, the actor, they won't do it in the first place so people won't get movies.
Patently untrue, as the renaissance of truly independant movies coming out today prove. It is based on the presumpition that money is the only motivation that moves people to create. That is hardly the case, and in generaly, artists who are motivated only by money make an inferior product.
Living next door to Hollywood, I know a number of people in the industry, and all of them are motivated by various combinations of three things: money - yes, they do want to get paid to do it, so they can do it all the time, a desire for fame (which is far easier to meet online these days), and a need to create (which will never go way until the day they die). Mostly, they create because they don't know how to stop.
What Hollywood needs to fear isn't pirates, who, from the evidence we've seen so far, actually increase industry revenues rather than decrease it. Rather, Hollywood should (and does) fear the interent as an independent (as in, beyond their corporate control, and outside their revenue stream) distribution channel. It is no longer necessary to sell your soul to a big studio for a distribution deal to deliver your movie to an audience. Between digital video (which Max Allen Collins called "the keys to the kingdom") and the internet, it is not possible to make a movie, and sell it commercially to people all over the world, and make a profit doing so for an investment smaller than the price of a new car.
It is, I suppose, a happy coincidence for the movie industry that mandatory copy restrictions that depend on patents that require substantial cash outlay to use will just happen to continue to lock out indpendent industry outsiders from the market. I say "happy coincidence" because I see no reason to believe that the indstury tycoons are smart enough to have planned it that way on purpose.
Sing it, brother, long and loud. Having bought several certificates, and had no verification done beyond a computer calling a phone number that I provided on their sign-up form, so far as I can tell, the only thing a certificate authority certifies is that your credit card didn't bounce, and the only thing they are an authority on is processing credit cards.
This isn't about legal immigrants. Nobody cares about legal immigrants. It's illegal immigrants everyone is worked up about. And, of course, the ones who enter the country illegally won't be affected by this proposal at all.
In order to find and track illegal immigrants with RFID chips, we would have to chip everyone else, from birth. Which will be the next proposal, or the one after that.
And then it just might be time to stand a few politicians against the wall.
That should be handled, however, by legislation, not litigation.
I agree. Unfortunately, our choice isn't between handling it judicially or handling it legislatively. Our choice is handling it judicially or not handling it at all. Congress has made it clear they're not going to fix a very, very broken patent system.
Treaties in the US are of equal authority to the Constitution, according to the Constitution. They cannot, however, supersede it, so a treaty cannot violate the first amendment.
Plus, so far as I know, as with most nation, even once it's ratified, it still needs enabling legislation.
Looks to me like the US is sponsoring a treaty that can never be implemented in the US. Perhaps a way of making sure other nations can't compete with us.
The door nazis are not there looking for shoplifters. They're there looking for co-conspirators in employee theft. Take a bunch of expensive stuff to the cashier (who is in on it), pay for the candy bar only, and walk out with thousands in free stuff.
That's why they compare what's in the bag to what's on the receipt.
When you let them. It's not like you can't tell 'em to stuff it, after all.
You may want to google them and use the term unethical when your bored. Walmart is also using imminent domain laws and lobbying to create new super centers. That means Walmart is just taking land away from people.
Simply untrue. Walmart is convincing various local governments to use emminent domain (which I can, at least, spell) to take land, where they can. Walmart does not have the power of emminent domain, not being a government branch.
Mistakes like yours are one of the reasons why Walmart gets away with the crap they do. Their critics sound like idiots.
Also, that's legal, unlike misclassifying employees as salaried exempt.
Also their headquarters was upgraded courtesy of our tax dollars of course costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Disgusting isn't it?
Yes. But legal.
And the worst part is, Walmart has been accused of illegal acts, quite a few times, including in class action lawsuits. Things like locking employees in to the store to force them to work unpaid overtime. But you didn't come up with a single one. Instead, you parrot the same tired, stupid lies that have been helping them get away with it for years.
If you were a Walmart shill trying to make the other side look bad, you couldn't do a better job of it.
(Laws varied by state, but this is the minimum standard to protect employees.)
I would be amazed if anyone with as much money as Walmart or any bank would ever consider such a blatantly illegal scheme (though many have tried other, more subtle schemes).
The law - and the courts - have said otherwise. Abusive contract provisions are not enforceable, and are routinely struck down in cases like this.
There is a difference between salaried and salaried exempt, after all. Were you aware of this?
As a general rule (and it varies somewhat by state, though the feds set minimum standards), to be salaried exempt (without the exempt, you are very explicitly entitles to overtime), you must be one of the following:
1) A regulated professional (as in, your profession is regulated by some government agency as to your competence).
2) A manager - that means you must have subordinates, and you must spend at least half your time supervising them (among other restrictions).
3) An executive - which means you get very broad discretion in how you do your job.
4) A computer professional (who meets specific criteria in the labor code) who makes a minimum amount per week (which varies rather a lot by state (in California, for example, the minimum is the equivalent of $47.81 per hour, or nearly $100,000 a year).
If you meet one of those criteria, you may legally be salaried exempt. Otherwise, regardless of what your contract says, you may not legally be classsified as salaried exempt.
Of course, all this applies only to employees. What I would expect Activision to claim is that these folks are contract labor, but that can get mighty complicated, too. Microsoft got hit a few years ago on the same thing, and lost, despite what they thought were bulletproof contracts.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Activision is paying taxes for these people, which will definitely make them employees, not contractors.
(I am not a lawyer, and laws vary by state. If this matters to you, you'd have to be an idiot to not consult a qualified labor attorney local to you.)
"players may not transmit or post any content or language which, in the sole and absolute discretion of Blizzard Entertainment, is deemed to be offensive,"
What part of that is unclear? Don't like it? Don't give them your money.
You call it censorship? I call it freedom of association.
As I recall, out of town checks must be cleared or rejected, and the funds available, within five days. "Out of town" being a check from a different federal reserve district, so "town" is pretty big. "Local" checks have to be cleared within one business day.
As a practical matter, the banks know within hours if a check is good or not.
Banks like their asses off, to hold your money without paying you interest, and to generate bogus fees for bounced checks that shouldn't bounce.
Or the bank was lying. One cannot discount the possibility that the bank just routinely holds large payments in order to generate more intererest before crediting it. Unless you complain.
They do, after all, have the perfect fall guy for their own dishonestly.
Unless I'm mistaken, generally speaking, it is illegal to interfere with cell phone operation. Not often enforced, but it's generally not easy to actually interfere.
I wouldn't want to be the theater who used this stuff without clear signs on the entrances, and an emergency call is blocked.
The sad thing is, there is a proper and perfectly legal solution: Enforce reasonable standards of behavior in places like theaters or restaraunts. Give people notice on their way in that if their cell phone disturbs other patrons, they will be required (not asked) to leave, without a refund. I guess that's too complicated, though.
You're not familiar with "Hollywood accounting," are you? You know, the sort of accounting where the studio will rent itself a $10 lamp for $300/day, to ensire the movie never makes a profit (because somebody gets a cut of the profit).
If they're admitting it made a profit, it was probably in the black from the box office alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Her response? "Computers don't make mistakes."
"Yeah, that's why there's a multi-billion dollar a year industry to repair them."
No, you do not have to go to court to dispute a bogus charge on your credit card. You fill in the forms from your bank.
If you have to go to court to dispute a bogus charge for a service you can prove was properly cancelled, it is your own bank you need to sue, not the crooks who dinged your credit card.
Why doesn't Adobe upgrade their PDF generators to include a "Real Redact" button that actually deletes the redacted data?
They already have one: the full version of Acrobat. It's not free.
It's not that complicated:
1) Put it in writing.
2) Mail it via registered mail, with return receipt.
3) Dispute any and all charges, since you have proof they got the cancellation.
You are apparently unfamiliar with the gaming market. The physical distribution chain has been dead for years. It was the result of a long, lingering illness. Which is to say, it was never much of a market to begin with.
Dan Glickman: John Perry Barlow is the one who's doing a disservice to the consumers, because you see if you don't adequately compensate the artist, the director, the creator, the actor, they won't do it in the first place so people won't get movies.
Patently untrue, as the renaissance of truly independant movies coming out today prove. It is based on the presumpition that money is the only motivation that moves people to create. That is hardly the case, and in generaly, artists who are motivated only by money make an inferior product.
Living next door to Hollywood, I know a number of people in the industry, and all of them are motivated by various combinations of three things: money - yes, they do want to get paid to do it, so they can do it all the time, a desire for fame (which is far easier to meet online these days), and a need to create (which will never go way until the day they die). Mostly, they create because they don't know how to stop.
What Hollywood needs to fear isn't pirates, who, from the evidence we've seen so far, actually increase industry revenues rather than decrease it. Rather, Hollywood should (and does) fear the interent as an independent (as in, beyond their corporate control, and outside their revenue stream) distribution channel. It is no longer necessary to sell your soul to a big studio for a distribution deal to deliver your movie to an audience. Between digital video (which Max Allen Collins called "the keys to the kingdom") and the internet, it is not possible to make a movie, and sell it commercially to people all over the world, and make a profit doing so for an investment smaller than the price of a new car.
It is, I suppose, a happy coincidence for the movie industry that mandatory copy restrictions that depend on patents that require substantial cash outlay to use will just happen to continue to lock out indpendent industry outsiders from the market. I say "happy coincidence" because I see no reason to believe that the indstury tycoons are smart enough to have planned it that way on purpose.
Sing it, brother, long and loud. Having bought several certificates, and had no verification done beyond a computer calling a phone number that I provided on their sign-up form, so far as I can tell, the only thing a certificate authority certifies is that your credit card didn't bounce, and the only thing they are an authority on is processing credit cards.
This isn't about legal immigrants. Nobody cares about legal immigrants. It's illegal immigrants everyone is worked up about. And, of course, the ones who enter the country illegally won't be affected by this proposal at all.
In order to find and track illegal immigrants with RFID chips, we would have to chip everyone else, from birth. Which will be the next proposal, or the one after that.
And then it just might be time to stand a few politicians against the wall.
That should be handled, however, by legislation, not litigation.
I agree. Unfortunately, our choice isn't between handling it judicially or handling it legislatively. Our choice is handling it judicially or not handling it at all. Congress has made it clear they're not going to fix a very, very broken patent system.
You take youself far too seriously.
The short answer is "no." The long answer is Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Treaties in the US are of equal authority to the Constitution, according to the Constitution. They cannot, however, supersede it, so a treaty cannot violate the first amendment.
Plus, so far as I know, as with most nation, even once it's ratified, it still needs enabling legislation.
Looks to me like the US is sponsoring a treaty that can never be implemented in the US. Perhaps a way of making sure other nations can't compete with us.
The door nazis are not there looking for shoplifters. They're there looking for co-conspirators in employee theft. Take a bunch of expensive stuff to the cashier (who is in on it), pay for the candy bar only, and walk out with thousands in free stuff.
That's why they compare what's in the bag to what's on the receipt.
When you let them. It's not like you can't tell 'em to stuff it, after all.
Walmart? Your kidding?
Nope.
You may want to google them and use the term unethical when your bored. Walmart is also using imminent domain laws and lobbying to create new super centers. That means Walmart is just taking land away from people.
Simply untrue. Walmart is convincing various local governments to use emminent domain (which I can, at least, spell) to take land, where they can. Walmart does not have the power of emminent domain, not being a government branch.
Mistakes like yours are one of the reasons why Walmart gets away with the crap they do. Their critics sound like idiots.
Also, that's legal, unlike misclassifying employees as salaried exempt.
Also their headquarters was upgraded courtesy of our tax dollars of course costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Disgusting isn't it?
Yes. But legal.
And the worst part is, Walmart has been accused of illegal acts, quite a few times, including in class action lawsuits. Things like locking employees in to the store to force them to work unpaid overtime. But you didn't come up with a single one. Instead, you parrot the same tired, stupid lies that have been helping them get away with it for years.
If you were a Walmart shill trying to make the other side look bad, you couldn't do a better job of it.
I am absolutely certain.
y /fs17a_overview.htm is a link to the Department of Labor's fact sheet on the subject.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpa
(Laws varied by state, but this is the minimum standard to protect employees.)
I would be amazed if anyone with as much money as Walmart or any bank would ever consider such a blatantly illegal scheme (though many have tried other, more subtle schemes).
The law - and the courts - have said otherwise. Abusive contract provisions are not enforceable, and are routinely struck down in cases like this.
There is a difference between salaried and salaried exempt, after all. Were you aware of this?
As a general rule (and it varies somewhat by state, though the feds set minimum standards), to be salaried exempt (without the exempt, you are very explicitly entitles to overtime), you must be one of the following:
1) A regulated professional (as in, your profession is regulated by some government agency as to your competence).
2) A manager - that means you must have subordinates, and you must spend at least half your time supervising them (among other restrictions).
3) An executive - which means you get very broad discretion in how you do your job.
4) A computer professional (who meets specific criteria in the labor code) who makes a minimum amount per week (which varies rather a lot by state (in California, for example, the minimum is the equivalent of $47.81 per hour, or nearly $100,000 a year).
If you meet one of those criteria, you may legally be salaried exempt. Otherwise, regardless of what your contract says, you may not legally be classsified as salaried exempt.
Of course, all this applies only to employees. What I would expect Activision to claim is that these folks are contract labor, but that can get mighty complicated, too. Microsoft got hit a few years ago on the same thing, and lost, despite what they thought were bulletproof contracts.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Activision is paying taxes for these people, which will definitely make them employees, not contractors.
(I am not a lawyer, and laws vary by state. If this matters to you, you'd have to be an idiot to not consult a qualified labor attorney local to you.)
"players may not transmit or post any content or language which, in the sole and absolute discretion of Blizzard Entertainment, is deemed to be offensive,"
What part of that is unclear? Don't like it? Don't give them your money.
You call it censorship? I call it freedom of association.
That's so gay.
My question is why are there so many people who refuse to consider the much more logical course of creating ".safe" domains?
Because a ".safe" domain is about controlling one's own behavior. A ".xxx" domain is about controlling other people's behavior.
And some people simply can't live with not being able to control other people's behavior.
I mean, really. If you fall into that category, what distinguishes you from a monkey pressing a lever?
The monkey is far more likely to be entertaining. It may throw its own feces at you.
It works because a lot of people are idiots.
Including the ones who needed to do a study to figure that out.
As I recall, out of town checks must be cleared or rejected, and the funds available, within five days. "Out of town" being a check from a different federal reserve district, so "town" is pretty big. "Local" checks have to be cleared within one business day.
As a practical matter, the banks know within hours if a check is good or not.
Banks like their asses off, to hold your money without paying you interest, and to generate bogus fees for bounced checks that shouldn't bounce.
It's some sort of secret law. . .
Or the bank was lying. One cannot discount the possibility that the bank just routinely holds large payments in order to generate more intererest before crediting it. Unless you complain.
They do, after all, have the perfect fall guy for their own dishonestly.
Can't help but wonder.
Some users commit libel/slander, harass, break copyright law, etc. and law enforcement needs a way to be able to get these users.
The same can be said of anonymous pamphlets. The same has been done with anonymous pamphlets.
And yet, anonymous pamphlets have been very specifically ruled to be constititonally protected by the Supreme Court.
The cops' "need" to find people does not supersede the people's right to free expression, even anonymously.
Unless I'm mistaken, generally speaking, it is illegal to interfere with cell phone operation. Not often enforced, but it's generally not easy to actually interfere.
I wouldn't want to be the theater who used this stuff without clear signs on the entrances, and an emergency call is blocked.
The sad thing is, there is a proper and perfectly legal solution: Enforce reasonable standards of behavior in places like theaters or restaraunts. Give people notice on their way in that if their cell phone disturbs other patrons, they will be required (not asked) to leave, without a refund. I guess that's too complicated, though.
You're not familiar with "Hollywood accounting," are you? You know, the sort of accounting where the studio will rent itself a $10 lamp for $300/day, to ensire the movie never makes a profit (because somebody gets a cut of the profit).
If they're admitting it made a profit, it was probably in the black from the box office alone.