I hope you have no specific meaning when you mention 'friend'. It isn't me or I wouldn't be talking about it.
I mean "friend" in the sense of some person you may think of as a friend but I wouldn't trust once they left the room, and maybe not even then. Anyone who's willing to proudly break the law simply to be an asshole to innocent people (friends and family of debtors are not involved in, and are most likely not even aware of, the debtors debt but he seems proud that he calls and harrasses them despite the law) is no one I would consider even capable of actual friendship.
It isn't Allied Interstate either. But good try!
That's fine. There are plenty of other debt collectors who are almost as bad (and one worse, JBR). There seems to be no shortage of ongoing legal action somewhere against debt collectors who just can't seem to obey the law. I'm sure your friend is right at home wherever he may work.
I have, thankfully, never been hounded by debt collectors but I know someone who does do it for a living. Telling them not to call YOU doesn't mean that they stop. They call your friends, your family, your boss, your co-workers, your babysitters, anyone...
Then your friend is violating the law and is one of those scumbag debt collectors who fancies himself sort of of skip tracer or PI.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 805, part B:
(b) COMMUNICATION WITH THIRD PARTIES. Except as provided in section 804, without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector, or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as reasonably necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy,
a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of any debt, with any person other than a consumer, his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt collector.
They can call your acquaintances to find you, but they cannot communicate why they're looking for you and they cannot keep doing so once they have made contact with you. Section 805, Part C says that debt collectors must cease contact with you if you tell them to, at the point they must do so and from then on can only contact you to tell you they're taking some sort of legal remedy (like suing you).
Oh yeah, and if by "Allied Group" you mean "Allied Interstate" I see why your 'friend' is such a scumbag. Look them up on Google and you'll find story after story of innocent people hounded by these pricks because they're too fucking incompetent and aggressive to do their job properly. Minnesota, for one, has taken legal action against them for their unlawful operations.
Yes. You can find the FTC notice here. Basically telemarketers must provide a real number (and name if technically able). This name/number must be either theirs or the company they're calling on behalf of and it must be a number that is answered during normal business hours.
I count 5 after the decimal point. I guess I have to be really really really really exact
No, but you could at least be correct. "Five nines" is an accepted term industry wide meaning "99.999%". It's not a matter of common sense, common sense tells us why you screwed up, you simply misunderstood "five nines" as meaning fives nines after the decimal and not five nines total. Just because "common sense" let us figure out what you really meant doesn't make you less wrong. If I write something like "Your going to install Office?" people know I meant "you're" rather than "your" but it doesn't make me correct.
It was not a large or important mistake so launching an involved rant to cover up a minor mistake is really rather childish.
Whereas in the good ole US of A where there's the sacro-saint consumer choice, there's a kajillion incompatible cell phone standards.
Sure, but there's also the worldwide standard available at the same price thanks to it having to compete with other kajillion formats. People who don't choose the worldwide standard find some aspect of the other services to be better for them. Everyone still wins.
I don't see that at all. Even taking rebates into account (though they ruin the sample of a given week, they do rotate through many brands and models over time and will even out) the prices are fairly even.
Unless you're telling me that you routinely find one format DVD burners for $40 or less shipped? We have here a nice NEC ND-2500A for $60 shipped.
A million different labels? There's two (some places may still have -RAM, but that was never a serous contender): -R and +R, each of those has a rewritable RW version but it's the same format. Consumer DVD players play both (yes some may choke or one or the other but that's how it goes with any consumer product) and dual format burners are no more expensive than single. Buy a dual format burner and whichever good media is cheapest (which is usually -R), there's no reason to wait.
Read the site:
"We are negotiating special volume-discount licensing fees for the academic community from music labels and studios"
Sure, it's a sparse on who they specifically have deals with but anyone with half a brain will make sure there's an indemnification clause in the contract.
The reason, I believe, for this is that there is a big legal distinction between downloading somebody else's content and making money from other people downloading that content.
Yes there is, but that's not relevant. The RIAA doesn't go after downloaders, they go after sharers. And there is no legal difference between sharing for free and sharing for pay, with the sole exception of the amount of damages that can be awarded.
I'm pretty sure that if someone accused of downloading music actually proceeded to go into court that they could have a reasonable chance at getting off
Luckily for them, the people being served are retaining actual legal council who don't talk out of their ass.
And I use Explorer because there are websites that don't render properly under anything else.
I hear this a lot, but rarely do I see solid examples of websites that are unusable under anything but Windows. Usually people just mean "doesn't look quite as pretty/fancy" when they say "doesn't work with anything but IE". Of course anything that relies on ActiveX is unusable, but I really don't see much else. There are plenty of us that use Linux exclusively and don't come across these sort of show stopping problems.
It didn't happen due to a broken blade, I was watching that match. I don't know specifically how it happened, but the guards were entangled briefly.
Coincidentally, that match also was also the venue for the most disgusting display of "sportsmanship" (or lack thereof) I've seen outside an NFL end zone. Immediately after the match Touya ran around holding his saber like a machine gun and mimed "shooting" Smart several times. Personally I think he should have been tossed out and stripped of his standing at that point. (And no, not because he's French or something stupid like that. Note that I compared him to the NFL, I think those players should be tossed too)
That doesn't stop people NOW, why will it stop them in the future? There's plenty of people on Usenet right now downloading more content than there is time in the day to watch/listen to/read.
Okay hyperbole aside. We have those fancy reinforced cockpit doors on all airliners that serve the US now. The other pilot gets up to go to the bathroom (and really, on a cross country or longer flight, he's going to) and *click* that reinforced door is locked and it's all over. A pilot who wanted to could assuredly kill every person on the plane as long as he took himself with them. The only thing a "pilot with an Uzi" could do is do it without risking himself out. Until he landed, then it's all over for him anyway.
Umm, and how does the current system prevent this? Pilots are searched like everyone else, and then allowed to fly the plane. If we're going to let them fly the planes, do we really need to make sure they don't have scissors or nail clippers in their pockets?
No, it's not complicated at all so I'm not sure why you need to resort to this level of academic dishonesty. Of course, you're posting AC so you doat least have the decency to be ashamed of what you're saying.
I'll explain it one more time. When such a small number of cases are handled it can quite easily explained away as a fluke and not at all representative of the Circuit's decision making process. When a large number of cases have gone to the Supremes it's much easier to take the stand that it is typical of the Circuit. Despite using terms like "100%" this isn't a really math problem, it's a social discussion. Try not to let that confuse you in the future.
Exactly. That's why the sample size is too small. We can't exactly say that the 2nd Circuit, for example, is overturned 100% of the time with any academic honesty. Sure, it's technically true, but the Supremes only reviewed two cases from the 2nd so it would be dishonest to make that claim. But when you talk about the top three busiest Circuits you can say with reasonable certainty that those numbers do say something about the Circuit.
Except that they're not seen as being liberal. 17 of the 28 judges were appointed by Dems, but 5 of those are considered solidly conservative. The high rate of reversals is because the 9th Circuit is activist. Like the article says, "Specifically, in pursuing political and policy preferences at the expense of established precedent and textual commands, some 9th Circuit judges seem to invite review and reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court."
Decisions, even controversial ones, based on solid precedent don't get overturned.
You're comparing irrelevant numbers. It doesn't matter that the SC has overturned 3/4 of the cases they decided to review and that they overturned 3/4 of the 9th Circuit cases. Those number have no real bearing on each other. It is significant that they decided to review a much higher percentage of 9th Circuit cases than any other.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean "friend" in the sense of some person you may think of as a friend but I wouldn't trust once they left the room, and maybe not even then. Anyone who's willing to proudly break the law simply to be an asshole to innocent people (friends and family of debtors are not involved in, and are most likely not even aware of, the debtors debt but he seems proud that he calls and harrasses them despite the law) is no one I would consider even capable of actual friendship.
It isn't Allied Interstate either. But good try!
That's fine. There are plenty of other debt collectors who are almost as bad (and one worse, JBR). There seems to be no shortage of ongoing legal action somewhere against debt collectors who just can't seem to obey the law. I'm sure your friend is right at home wherever he may work.
Then your friend is violating the law and is one of those scumbag debt collectors who fancies himself sort of of skip tracer or PI.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 805, part B:
They can call your acquaintances to find you, but they cannot communicate why they're looking for you and they cannot keep doing so once they have made contact with you. Section 805, Part C says that debt collectors must cease contact with you if you tell them to, at the point they must do so and from then on can only contact you to tell you they're taking some sort of legal remedy (like suing you).
Oh yeah, and if by "Allied Group" you mean "Allied Interstate" I see why your 'friend' is such a scumbag. Look them up on Google and you'll find story after story of innocent people hounded by these pricks because they're too fucking incompetent and aggressive to do their job properly. Minnesota, for one, has taken legal action against them for their unlawful operations.
Yes. You can find the FTC notice here. Basically telemarketers must provide a real number (and name if technically able). This name/number must be either theirs or the company they're calling on behalf of and it must be a number that is answered during normal business hours.
No, but you could at least be correct. "Five nines" is an accepted term industry wide meaning "99.999%". It's not a matter of common sense, common sense tells us why you screwed up, you simply misunderstood "five nines" as meaning fives nines after the decimal and not five nines total. Just because "common sense" let us figure out what you really meant doesn't make you less wrong. If I write something like "Your going to install Office?" people know I meant "you're" rather than "your" but it doesn't make me correct. It was not a large or important mistake so launching an involved rant to cover up a minor mistake is really rather childish.
A dual layer dual format NEC is only $68 for an 8x or $87 for a 16x.
My NEC was in the low $90's when I got it last fall.
Sure, but there's also the worldwide standard available at the same price thanks to it having to compete with other kajillion formats. People who don't choose the worldwide standard find some aspect of the other services to be better for them. Everyone still wins.
Unless you're telling me that you routinely find one format DVD burners for $40 or less shipped? We have here a nice NEC ND-2500A for $60 shipped.
A million different labels? There's two (some places may still have -RAM, but that was never a serous contender): -R and +R, each of those has a rewritable RW version but it's the same format. Consumer DVD players play both (yes some may choke or one or the other but that's how it goes with any consumer product) and dual format burners are no more expensive than single. Buy a dual format burner and whichever good media is cheapest (which is usually -R), there's no reason to wait.
You mean like Windows?
Sure, it's a sparse on who they specifically have deals with but anyone with half a brain will make sure there's an indemnification clause in the contract.
Yes there is, but that's not relevant. The RIAA doesn't go after downloaders, they go after sharers. And there is no legal difference between sharing for free and sharing for pay, with the sole exception of the amount of damages that can be awarded.
I'm pretty sure that if someone accused of downloading music actually proceeded to go into court that they could have a reasonable chance at getting off
Luckily for them, the people being served are retaining actual legal council who don't talk out of their ass.
Oh, and for the record, only about 600 people have settled as of June. The rest of the 3,249 are still going slowly through the court process.
"We are negotiating special volume-discount licensing fees for the academic community from music labels and studios"
Hey, welcome to your first day at Slashdot!
You use time as your excuse not to switch, yet you'll write custom software to stay with an inferior choice? I don't follow that logic.
I hear this a lot, but rarely do I see solid examples of websites that are unusable under anything but Windows. Usually people just mean "doesn't look quite as pretty/fancy" when they say "doesn't work with anything but IE". Of course anything that relies on ActiveX is unusable, but I really don't see much else. There are plenty of us that use Linux exclusively and don't come across these sort of show stopping problems.
Coincidentally, that match also was also the venue for the most disgusting display of "sportsmanship" (or lack thereof) I've seen outside an NFL end zone. Immediately after the match Touya ran around holding his saber like a machine gun and mimed "shooting" Smart several times. Personally I think he should have been tossed out and stripped of his standing at that point. (And no, not because he's French or something stupid like that. Note that I compared him to the NFL, I think those players should be tossed too)
That doesn't stop people NOW, why will it stop them in the future? There's plenty of people on Usenet right now downloading more content than there is time in the day to watch/listen to/read.
See the first entry of the first list.
Do you have a cite for that? It's an interesting idea, but I haven't been able find anything about it on the FAA's Airweb site.
Okay hyperbole aside. We have those fancy reinforced cockpit doors on all airliners that serve the US now. The other pilot gets up to go to the bathroom (and really, on a cross country or longer flight, he's going to) and *click* that reinforced door is locked and it's all over. A pilot who wanted to could assuredly kill every person on the plane as long as he took himself with them. The only thing a "pilot with an Uzi" could do is do it without risking himself out. Until he landed, then it's all over for him anyway.
Umm, and how does the current system prevent this? Pilots are searched like everyone else, and then allowed to fly the plane. If we're going to let them fly the planes, do we really need to make sure they don't have scissors or nail clippers in their pockets?
I'll explain it one more time. When such a small number of cases are handled it can quite easily explained away as a fluke and not at all representative of the Circuit's decision making process. When a large number of cases have gone to the Supremes it's much easier to take the stand that it is typical of the Circuit. Despite using terms like "100%" this isn't a really math problem, it's a social discussion. Try not to let that confuse you in the future.
Exactly. That's why the sample size is too small. We can't exactly say that the 2nd Circuit, for example, is overturned 100% of the time with any academic honesty. Sure, it's technically true, but the Supremes only reviewed two cases from the 2nd so it would be dishonest to make that claim. But when you talk about the top three busiest Circuits you can say with reasonable certainty that those numbers do say something about the Circuit.
Except that they're not seen as being liberal. 17 of the 28 judges were appointed by Dems, but 5 of those are considered solidly conservative. The high rate of reversals is because the 9th Circuit is activist. Like the article says, "Specifically, in pursuing political and policy preferences at the expense of established precedent and textual commands, some 9th Circuit judges seem to invite review and reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court." Decisions, even controversial ones, based on solid precedent don't get overturned.
You're comparing irrelevant numbers. It doesn't matter that the SC has overturned 3/4 of the cases they decided to review and that they overturned 3/4 of the 9th Circuit cases. Those number have no real bearing on each other. It is significant that they decided to review a much higher percentage of 9th Circuit cases than any other.