So a person admits to her real-life acquaintances that she actually did that?
Does she still feel wronged, or has the publicity changed her opinion of the matter?
Alamo Drafthouse warns you repeatedly. The only sad part is that this is novel and unique, that someone disturbing the rest of the audience will be kicked out.
This woman obviously didn't get it. We are all better off without her in the theater.
I wonder if she has spoken up, admitted to all her friends that it is her voicemail now getting nation-wide attention?
This just makes me even more likely to go back to Alamo Drafthouse whenever I am near one (there are multiple locations) even if I didn't have a specific movie in mind. The food is good, the service is excellent, beer is cold, the seats are comfortable, the theater is clean, and best of all, they have and enforce rules about disrupting the movie.
FYI, if you want to text during a film, go to one of the "Heckle Vision" events, and your texts can be shown on the screen.
so, they patented a service they perform?
No competing company can perform similar calculation?
That sounds like "business method" patents, which ought to be even more obviously stupid.
Sorry nerds, some of us really are sexual tyrannosaurs.
Sorry, I'm not getting your metaphor. Does that mean you haven't had a chance to reproduce in millions of years, or that you have stubby almost useless appendages?
Maybe they are inaccurate in identifying the GENDER of the person they had sex with?
what if 50 guys had sex with a tranny, and all report it as a woman, while that tranny identifies (on the anonymous survey) as a man who had sex with 50 men?
Or maybe the women are only reporting the MEN they slept with, but some are excluded because the woman afterwards decides some of her partners didn't deserve to be called men?
Maybe in new construction, but how many dollars would it cost per airplane already in service?
I think it is probably easier (cheaper) for them to enforce a blanket policy than to rewire every plane in the fleet, or enforce varying policies and keep track of which planes have been retrofitted with shielded wires.
The increase in rear-end collisions would probably be temporary, as more drivers get used to the novel behavior of expecting the driver in front of them not to try to run a red light.
As much as I am opposed to private companies getting cushy deals to run red light cameras, and using "civil fines" to get around rules protecting peoples' rights, I am actually for red light cameras. And I'll tell you why. They save lives.
Oh, I'll admit that the total number of accidents increases slightly, but the types of accidents are important. The serious accidents, people getting t-boned when someone runs a red light, (the kind of accident that often leads to serious injury and death, not to mention severe damage to the vehicles), drop drastically when red light cameras are put up, but the number of minor accidents (someone rear-ends the car that stopped at the intersection) increases - with people getting used to the new behavior, I would expect those to go back down. And I have personally seen the numbers, as compiled by law by my city's Traffic Engineer. He hates the red light cameras, just because they are so much of a hassle, both bureaucracy-wise and politically, but he admits they save lives. The local news stations will interview him, and then report just the part about "total number of accidents increase," leaving out the part where "red light cameras prevent traffic deaths" because that doesn't sell as well.
The issues of proper appeals, confronting your accuser, private companies taking on law-enforcement roles and acting in the government's name, etc. can be dealt with (and should be - the system needs to be fair), but running a red light needs to be discouraged, and this is a cost-effective way to do it.
I have seen no evidence that camera speed traps increase safety.
How about intent to misuse authority and funds for personal amusement by intruding on the privacy of people they are in a position of authority over?
Surely there is a crime in there, somewhere.
This judge just ruled that banks can have less security than your Gmail account and be considered to have done their job.
They are saying that the security is good at their end, so any loss is your fault. The judge just ruled that their "security" is enough, even though the transactions should have been noticed by the people who are supposed to report things like money laundering to the feds.
One of the purposes of keeping your money in a bank is so you don't get cleaned out the first time you get robbed.
Part of the problem seems to be that if this was a person's money, it would be easier to make a claim, but since it is a small business, the bank just let it happen.
Why should the taxpayers pay, and the quality of education suffer (as surely something will be cut so funds can be reallocated to pay the penalties)?
Hold the people who did this PERSONALLY responsible. They should be in jail for this. They should lose their personal assets and their freedom.
Sadly, the school district (and eventually, the public) will suffer because of the actions of a few of the people who were supposed to be serving the public.
because it costs them nothing NOT to do it.
I've even had companies (Paypal) tell me that I must have confirmed the address, because otherwise my address wouldn't be in their files. They accused me of confirming the address, and that it was therefore my problem.
The only "Temporary" laws are the ones that limit the government's power. Laws that expand the government's authority temporarily i.e. during some sort of emergeny will be extended. "Temporary" taxes will become permanent, and grow.
I am liking more and more Herbert's concept of a "Bureau of Sabotage"
Really? Where did you get this information?
Because so far, the government has refused to publish exactly how much radiation each scan uses, except in very vague terms. I am familiar with many ways of measuring radiation, and I'm pretty sure "about as much as a dental xray" is not a unit.
When these are regulated as medical devices, then we'll talk.
You are only supposed to follow links from a content collector, so they can feed you to sites they have agreements with, rather than getting your news and information from multiple unrelated sources.
The last time I bought a used car, the salesman made it very clear he wanted me to tell everyone I know how I felt about the service. If a doctor or dentist doesn't want you to talk about something publicly, run away.
How do the licensing boards feel about these contracts?
Slashdot Mirror
So a person admits to her real-life acquaintances that she actually did that? Does she still feel wronged, or has the publicity changed her opinion of the matter?
How about if part of the deal in entering the theater was that if you text, YOU are liable for refunding the ticket price of the rest of the audience?
This woman obviously didn't get it. We are all better off without her in the theater.
I wonder if she has spoken up, admitted to all her friends that it is her voicemail now getting nation-wide attention?
This just makes me even more likely to go back to Alamo Drafthouse whenever I am near one (there are multiple locations) even if I didn't have a specific movie in mind. The food is good, the service is excellent, beer is cold, the seats are comfortable, the theater is clean, and best of all, they have and enforce rules about disrupting the movie.
FYI, if you want to text during a film, go to one of the "Heckle Vision" events, and your texts can be shown on the screen.
1) A bill must be read aloud, in its entirety, by sponsoring congressman, in session, before it can be voted on.
2) Automatic 15-year sunset for all laws.
1 would make the laws shorter, and prevent stuff getting "snuck in," plus would make the laws with more sponsors easier to pass,
2 would mean that any law not important enough to be revisited every 15 years would not be important enough to be a law.
Also, I'd like there to be a penalty for passing laws that later turn out to be unconstitutional.
so, they patented a service they perform? No competing company can perform similar calculation? That sounds like "business method" patents, which ought to be even more obviously stupid.
Sorry nerds, some of us really are sexual tyrannosaurs.
Sorry, I'm not getting your metaphor. Does that mean you haven't had a chance to reproduce in millions of years, or that you have stubby almost useless appendages?
Maybe they are inaccurate in identifying the GENDER of the person they had sex with? what if 50 guys had sex with a tranny, and all report it as a woman, while that tranny identifies (on the anonymous survey) as a man who had sex with 50 men? Or maybe the women are only reporting the MEN they slept with, but some are excluded because the woman afterwards decides some of her partners didn't deserve to be called men?
Don't just sit there and complain, let's do something about this travesty. How can we collectively get on this asshat's radar?
Maybe in new construction, but how many dollars would it cost per airplane already in service? I think it is probably easier (cheaper) for them to enforce a blanket policy than to rewire every plane in the fleet, or enforce varying policies and keep track of which planes have been retrofitted with shielded wires.
The increase in rear-end collisions would probably be temporary, as more drivers get used to the novel behavior of expecting the driver in front of them not to try to run a red light.
As much as I am opposed to private companies getting cushy deals to run red light cameras, and using "civil fines" to get around rules protecting peoples' rights, I am actually for red light cameras. And I'll tell you why. They save lives. Oh, I'll admit that the total number of accidents increases slightly, but the types of accidents are important. The serious accidents, people getting t-boned when someone runs a red light, (the kind of accident that often leads to serious injury and death, not to mention severe damage to the vehicles), drop drastically when red light cameras are put up, but the number of minor accidents (someone rear-ends the car that stopped at the intersection) increases - with people getting used to the new behavior, I would expect those to go back down. And I have personally seen the numbers, as compiled by law by my city's Traffic Engineer. He hates the red light cameras, just because they are so much of a hassle, both bureaucracy-wise and politically, but he admits they save lives. The local news stations will interview him, and then report just the part about "total number of accidents increase," leaving out the part where "red light cameras prevent traffic deaths" because that doesn't sell as well. The issues of proper appeals, confronting your accuser, private companies taking on law-enforcement roles and acting in the government's name, etc. can be dealt with (and should be - the system needs to be fair), but running a red light needs to be discouraged, and this is a cost-effective way to do it. I have seen no evidence that camera speed traps increase safety.
I think I'd be pretty emotionally disturbed if I found out that for all they pictures they took, there wasn't anything in them I'd want to hide.
'Verb' is a noun. Nouns get verbed all the time.
How about intent to misuse authority and funds for personal amusement by intruding on the privacy of people they are in a position of authority over? Surely there is a crime in there, somewhere.
This judge just ruled that banks can have less security than your Gmail account and be considered to have done their job. They are saying that the security is good at their end, so any loss is your fault. The judge just ruled that their "security" is enough, even though the transactions should have been noticed by the people who are supposed to report things like money laundering to the feds. One of the purposes of keeping your money in a bank is so you don't get cleaned out the first time you get robbed. Part of the problem seems to be that if this was a person's money, it would be easier to make a claim, but since it is a small business, the bank just let it happen.
Why should the taxpayers pay, and the quality of education suffer (as surely something will be cut so funds can be reallocated to pay the penalties)? Hold the people who did this PERSONALLY responsible. They should be in jail for this. They should lose their personal assets and their freedom. Sadly, the school district (and eventually, the public) will suffer because of the actions of a few of the people who were supposed to be serving the public.
Maybe they were all morbidly obese?
You think the CEO of PayPal gives a shit that his company is sending me email intended for some seller in another country?
because it costs them nothing NOT to do it. I've even had companies (Paypal) tell me that I must have confirmed the address, because otherwise my address wouldn't be in their files. They accused me of confirming the address, and that it was therefore my problem.
Why don't we just test them a few at a time? Seems like that might be a little safer.
Because President Obama made congress do this, even though they were all opposed?
The only "Temporary" laws are the ones that limit the government's power. Laws that expand the government's authority temporarily i.e. during some sort of emergeny will be extended. "Temporary" taxes will become permanent, and grow. I am liking more and more Herbert's concept of a "Bureau of Sabotage"
Really? Where did you get this information? Because so far, the government has refused to publish exactly how much radiation each scan uses, except in very vague terms. I am familiar with many ways of measuring radiation, and I'm pretty sure "about as much as a dental xray" is not a unit. When these are regulated as medical devices, then we'll talk.
You are only supposed to follow links from a content collector, so they can feed you to sites they have agreements with, rather than getting your news and information from multiple unrelated sources.
The last time I bought a used car, the salesman made it very clear he wanted me to tell everyone I know how I felt about the service. If a doctor or dentist doesn't want you to talk about something publicly, run away. How do the licensing boards feel about these contracts?