net10 doesn't require any sign up info in the U.S. (but they do try to walk you towards providing info during the activation process).
Also, they lock SIM cards to particular phones and then deactivate the SIM, so reactivating the phone means that they get some shipping information (but you can often purchase a new phone, with airtime, for less than the cost of airtime alone (but that airtime will come with a new number)).
Oh yeah, it all breaks down into semantics. Certainly, the person matching the identity used in the fraud is victimized, but they are more a victim of the legal framework and the lending institution than they are a victim of the fraud.
I'm operating under the presumption that they would focus more effort on loss prevention than loss absorption (because I'm pretty sure it would be relatively inexpensive).
Anyway, most people saying that the banks should be responsible for the losses mean that they would support consumer rights legislation that forced banks to demonstrate some sort of proof before they sent a collections letter to Joe, or at least gave Joe a simple way to challenge the account (such a challenge would require the bank to immediately start treating the account as not being connected to Joe until they provided some measure of documentation that it indeed did belong to Joe). They feel this way because the current situation is woefully unfair to consumers.
I guess that might make banking a little more expensive for the lucky majority that never has to deal with fraudulent use of their identity information, but I'm okay with that, because I think it would make society more fair (to clarify, I don't see a completely fair society as an end goal, life isn't fair, but I do oppose legal frameworks that actively diminish fairness).
A general solution to the problem is impossible (there are lots of situations where it is fairly easy, say, where the bank manager has known the applicant for their entire life). Even in a situation where a very good government agency is tracking identity and handing out identity documents, the authentication is still only as good as their practices and the security features of the documents (both of which involve humans, so are unlikely to be perfect, and thus fall short of a guarantee).
So perfection is (probably) impossible. Short of perfection, making the party that is handing out the money responsible for their choices makes a lot more sense to me than blithely accepting the collateral damage to an arbitrary third party. In your scenario, Joe had better be real careful to avoid using the money for anything the bank's investigators will notice.
And if you are going to cite all the various technologies that came out of the space program, try to cite the ones that came out of the manned space program in the last 20 years, not velcro, tang and ICBMs.
China has quite a lot of coal, and they are more active in exploiting certain other mineral resources. And there is less popular reticence there about moving to exploit other parts of the world (the U.S. obviously doesn't hesitate to work towards various interests, but there are quite a few people who are unhappy about it).
I think it is much more likely that internal pressure will force China to reduce the distortion in exchange rates, making U.S. labor gradually more attractive on a relative basis. It is already happening in some industries.
HFCS is pretty much already digested. Both fructose and glucose (the great majority of the stuff in HFCS) are absorbed directly by the small intestine.
If they aren't contributing much information, then, by definition, they aren't taking much of the money either.
If it is really a huge problem, buyers and sellers will move to trading systems with higher per-trade fees, or with promises about the nature of the other party in each trade.
Why are all you people so sure that there is a museum that even wants it?
And I don't say that from opposition to preserving interesting history. Is NASA's disposition process really so broken that the Smithsonian isn't getting stuff they want?
There is something strange about illustrating your rigidly literal interpretation of my comment with some business about some game.
I didn't mean to say that the price would reflect that actual amount of energy used to produce the item, I meant that the cost of the energy used to produce the item is quite unlikely to exceed the price of the item (there are lots of easy exceptions, but a big industrial battery isn't really going to be one of them).
Slashdot Mirror
net10 doesn't require any sign up info in the U.S. (but they do try to walk you towards providing info during the activation process).
Also, they lock SIM cards to particular phones and then deactivate the SIM, so reactivating the phone means that they get some shipping information (but you can often purchase a new phone, with airtime, for less than the cost of airtime alone (but that airtime will come with a new number)).
Then you should stick to cash, it is already designed to authenticate itself and not require attachment to any particular identity.
Oh yeah, it all breaks down into semantics. Certainly, the person matching the identity used in the fraud is victimized, but they are more a victim of the legal framework and the lending institution than they are a victim of the fraud.
I'm operating under the presumption that they would focus more effort on loss prevention than loss absorption (because I'm pretty sure it would be relatively inexpensive).
Anyway, most people saying that the banks should be responsible for the losses mean that they would support consumer rights legislation that forced banks to demonstrate some sort of proof before they sent a collections letter to Joe, or at least gave Joe a simple way to challenge the account (such a challenge would require the bank to immediately start treating the account as not being connected to Joe until they provided some measure of documentation that it indeed did belong to Joe). They feel this way because the current situation is woefully unfair to consumers.
I guess that might make banking a little more expensive for the lucky majority that never has to deal with fraudulent use of their identity information, but I'm okay with that, because I think it would make society more fair (to clarify, I don't see a completely fair society as an end goal, life isn't fair, but I do oppose legal frameworks that actively diminish fairness).
A general solution to the problem is impossible (there are lots of situations where it is fairly easy, say, where the bank manager has known the applicant for their entire life). Even in a situation where a very good government agency is tracking identity and handing out identity documents, the authentication is still only as good as their practices and the security features of the documents (both of which involve humans, so are unlikely to be perfect, and thus fall short of a guarantee).
So perfection is (probably) impossible. Short of perfection, making the party that is handing out the money responsible for their choices makes a lot more sense to me than blithely accepting the collateral damage to an arbitrary third party. In your scenario, Joe had better be real careful to avoid using the money for anything the bank's investigators will notice.
I blame the victim.
Of course, I also think that the victim is the lender.
There are preferences to turn on the old version.
"highlighting my failure to keep things minimalistic"
Does it create some sort of severe strategic gap?
And if you are going to cite all the various technologies that came out of the space program, try to cite the ones that came out of the manned space program in the last 20 years, not velcro, tang and ICBMs.
China has quite a lot of coal, and they are more active in exploiting certain other mineral resources. And there is less popular reticence there about moving to exploit other parts of the world (the U.S. obviously doesn't hesitate to work towards various interests, but there are quite a few people who are unhappy about it).
I think it is much more likely that internal pressure will force China to reduce the distortion in exchange rates, making U.S. labor gradually more attractive on a relative basis. It is already happening in some industries.
Liebnizes.
That's a pretty brave subject line, at least given that you are, at a minimum, extending the usage of genome well beyond the popular.
The genes are transferred to the gut bacteria of the people in question, not to the people in question.
If it doesn't have live cultures in it, it isn't quite yogurt.
That's true everywhere.
HFCS is pretty much already digested. Both fructose and glucose (the great majority of the stuff in HFCS) are absorbed directly by the small intestine.
I prefer to say that it needs to be 'blessed' by iTunes before it will work.
If they aren't contributing much information, then, by definition, they aren't taking much of the money either.
If it is really a huge problem, buyers and sellers will move to trading systems with higher per-trade fees, or with promises about the nature of the other party in each trade.
Isn't pride a sin?
He means in the sense that they almost certainly have some water in them, which usually has some oxygen as a component.
You also contradicted the subject of your post in the first sentence.
(I do realize that you were more imprecise than you were wrong...)
That's sort of a bad way to frame it; mostly, for a long time after life arose there wasn't any free oxygen.
Once there was free oxygen, it didn't take life very long to start using it.
So it was more of a come-after than it was a latecomer.
Religion cares very little for nature, it is more about ideas of dead men.
Why are all you people so sure that there is a museum that even wants it?
And I don't say that from opposition to preserving interesting history. Is NASA's disposition process really so broken that the Smithsonian isn't getting stuff they want?
There is something strange about illustrating your rigidly literal interpretation of my comment with some business about some game.
I didn't mean to say that the price would reflect that actual amount of energy used to produce the item, I meant that the cost of the energy used to produce the item is quite unlikely to exceed the price of the item (there are lots of easy exceptions, but a big industrial battery isn't really going to be one of them).
The $25 million is an excellent proxy for the maximum amount of energy used to produce it.
Element 121 is theorized to be in a group by itself (and so on for 122 through 138).