Oh, bullshit. His answer was perfectly clear. And the policy is sensible--declaring the war on pot senseless would just fire up the rabid "family-values" far-right lunatic fringe even more, when he's got more important political battles to fight than that.
What public identifier of a unique person should insurers and lenders use to make sure that one person doesn't try to fraudulently establish two distinct customer histories by pretending to be two people?
At least in the U.S., there is none. But pretending that the SSN is one does not make it so.
The store's manager does *NOT* override Apple HQ. If HQ ships her iPhone to the store so that she can go pick it up, she should be able to pick it up. How is that illegal?
Stop playing dumb with this red herring. The store's manager absolutely does have the right to ask anyone to leave, if they're violating policy, if they're being disruptive. It's private property, both the store and the mall, and if you're asked to leave, and you don't, you're trespassing. It doesn't matter if you're buying something, picking up something, interviewing for a job...
And to continue to refuse to leave, instead pitching a fit when the police arrive, that's stupid beyond stupid.
Was the taser an overreaction? Quite possibly. We don't know for sure how long the argument and struggles had been going on before the video recording started.
But "she did nothing illegal" is not only clearly incorrect, it is also disingenuous in the worst way. It is a gross exaggeration with a purpose--to short-circuit any discussion of the relative responsibilities of the parties in this fiasco by declaring one participant the completely innocent victim and thus immediately shifting 100% of the blame to the police (with some overflow for the store manager).
That's cheap, sleazy, slanderous even, and does not contribute anything to responsible discussion or analysis. It's even cheaper the way you've gone back and forth on it--first equating questioning this assertion with defending the tasering, then when called out on that bullshit, falling back to this lie. Stop it.
Shockingly enough, in countries where there are strict gun laws, there appear to be less shootings by criminals than int he U.S.
Ahem, selected countries with strict gun laws have fewer shootings by criminals. On the other hand, some countries with strict gun laws have more. Some countries with lax gun laws have fewer, and some have more.
It's got much more to do with history and sociology than with gun laws.
There's nothing to indicate that this would be any different in schools...
In fact, the scant evidence we do have points quite the other way. But when a teacher or student (college) intervenes in a shooting, somehow this seems to not be newsworthy.
1) Solar PV is only price competitive with electricity from the grid when the government (ie taxpayers and other utility customers) subsidize 60% of the cost, and in high-cost areas.
2) While I can't speak to the whole country, and I'm sure there are localities that are abusive(*), I can assure you that in Colorado the permitting process is quick and easy and not expensive--it's basically no different than any other building permit.
Now, I'm all for continuing to work on PV, including the necessary step of getting them more widely into production and real-world use. If we don't do that, we'll never get to the point where they're really competitive. If we don't do things like this, we'll have no chance at a somewaht smooth transition into a post-oil economy instead of a sudden global crisis. But I think that spreading lies about the current cost/efficiency is more harmful than helpful. (Not entirely unhelpful...)
(*) So when Colorado first put in its large subsidies for PV, some municipalities decided that it wasn't "fair" that homeowners were getting so much money from the state, and jacked up permit fees hugely in order to capture a significant portion of the subsidy into their general funds. The state legislature put a stop to this practice quickly with a new law, but it nicely illustrates both that permitting does vary greatly locally, and that when money starts being diverted to "good" causes by government intervention, weird shit can happen.
I agree with your concept, but in this case it's pretty easy to measure out gas into a marked measuring container..
In New York some years ago, there was a guy who owned a number of gas stations, and rigged them with a switch inside. So when the attendant saw someone with a can, he flipped the switch to the accurate setting. The rest of the time it was set to the "cheat" setting. This of course was intended to thwart inspectors, because dispensing into a (special, accurate) can is exactly what they do. And he got away with it for years.
She was outside the store when they tasered here, so how is that not leaving the property? Sidewalks are public property.
She was in the mall, not outside, not on a sidewalk, not on public property. (Actually, at most malls, outside on the sidewalk will still be private property until you get pretty far away from the building.)
Look, it's not okay to taser someone unless they are threatening your life or someone else with a non range weapon. If she had a gun, I would expect them to shoot her. If she has a knife, i would expect her to be tasered. She was half handcuffed (1 hand in a cuff) when she was tasered. Outside the store on the sidewalk. That is police being bullies.
As I've pointed out over and over and over now, I was not defending the tasering--just calling bullshit on the GP which claimed that she did nothing illegal.
You know, jay walking is illegal too. Is tasering the right response? So is spitting on the sidewalk. Is tasering the right response?
Since tasering is considered OK - is it OK to shoot them too if the taser ran out of juice?
What a dumbass.
Perhaps you should develop some fucking reading skills. I did not defend the use of the taser. I merely pointed out that the assertion that she did nothing that was (or should be) illegal was completely wrong.
Um, that's not what the cops are supposed to do when someone does that. They're supposed to arrest them for trespassing. The taser is supposed to be a last resort before/instead of using a firearm.
Agreed, to a point--the taser may not have been justified. I was only pointing out the glaring error made by those asserting that she did nothing illegal.
I have to admit I'm a bit divided on this. On the one hand, I do believe she was probably intentionally being obtuse and refusing to comply. On the other hand, tasering for every mildly difficult or confrontational situation is ridiculous.
Oh, I certainly do not mean to defend the use of the taser in this case. I only wish to argue with the "BUT SHE DIDN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING WRONG JUST BECAUSE SHE BOUGHT MULTIPLE IPHONES" crowd;-)
You're missing the point. The police tastered this person because she did something perfectly legal, which is to say, buy iPhones. She may or may not have had an intent to later export them, which would be illegal-- but this is no excuse for their actions.
No, they tasered her because she did something perfectly illegal--refusing to leave private property when asked to do so. They didn't give a damn about (indeed, probably do not even know about) the arcana of encryption export controls.
Of course, this is the U.N. we're talking about here, so OF COURSE there will be an argument.
Yes, and to any skilled politician the answer is blindingly obvious, compromise on 512, the average--except of course that leaves room to argue that it should be rounded down to 511 instead of up;-)
(You think I'm kidding? Why do you think the packet length in ATM is 48 instead of 32 or 64? Yep, the average of two competing proposals over length...)
Whilst the tax arrangements are strictly legal, there has been outrage on how companies are avoiding paying their fair share of tax generated in the country.
So, if the country's tax laws do not require these companies to pay their "fair share", then how exactly does one define their "fair share"??? Exactly how much more should they pay than what they are legally obligated to??? How large of an over payment would satisfy these critics???
This is likely to be an opening bid, with the final figure being far larger.
Bullshit. They already tried to auction them once, and failed to get bids anywhere near high enough to satisfy them. This second auction has not magically made these patents vastly more valuable.
Actually, it depends on which part of the UK. England & Wales has the libel law you are referring to. Scotland does not - libel falls under defamation which has truth as an absolute defence. I don't know about Northern Ireland.
Yes, I meant England, because that's all I knew about. But like many of us here in the U.S., I am frequently guilty of sloppy usage as thought "Britain", "England" and "the U.K." were all identical. Thanks for the clarification--much more useful than the other respondent who's still arguing with me that truth is an absolute defense, by quoting an excerpt from Wikipedia that says it is an allowable defense;-)
An "allowable defense" is not the same thing as an "absolute defense", nor is it a "barrier to litigation". Also, that's civil--under some circumstances truth is not even an allowable defense for criminal defamation--or it was, if you google you'll quickly find a 2011 article in The Guardian about proposed changes to British defamation law to bring it more in line with the rest of the civilized world, but no follow-up as to whether the changes ever happened.
But posting it to Facebook is not making it available to the public. It is making it available to the members of Facebook.
Bullshit. By your logic: publishing something in a newspaper is not making it available to the public, it is only making it available to subscribers; sending out a press release is not making it available to the public, it is only making it available to subscribers of the press release service; putting something in an 8-K filing is not making it available to the public, it is only making it available to people who sign up for that service; announcing something in a conference call is not making it available to the public; it is only making it available to people who call in for that call.
All those methods have the same salient features: thought not everyone subscribes to them, *many* people do, including many analysts, journalists, and bloggers who will distribute the information (even more) very widely very quickly.
It's kind of rude, really, how Slashdotters assume horrible motivations, corruption, and incompetence on the part of every government lawyer.
This is not about every government lawyer;-)
It's kind of interesting how you assume that not a single person at the SEC is a shithead. Really? The agency where some days it feels like they do less enforcing than they do watching of porn. Or, have you forgotten that little fiasco?
So how many Facebook pages do you think investors would have to subscribe to in order to follow every senior executive of every company in their portfolio?
How many press release services would they have to follow? How many financial news shows would they have to watch? How many financial news web sites would they have to follow, and how closely? How many blogs would they have to read?
The company's obligation is to make sure that the information is available to the public, not that it is noticed by every single member of the public.
Having said that, the regulation is vague as to whether a Facebook page would fit the bill. Any material information has to be disseminated through a Form 8-K filing or "through another method (or combination of methods) of disclosure that is reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public."
Yes, and somebody at the SEC is being a shithead about this.
All of the above are things that should be taken seriously if they actually happened. Complaining on Yelp/Angies List only and not following through in the correct legal channels gives credence to the lawsuit against her.
Not really. It's perfectly possible that she consulted an attorney and found that it would cost more than it was worth to pursue her claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, bullshit. His answer was perfectly clear. And the policy is sensible--declaring the war on pot senseless would just fire up the rabid "family-values" far-right lunatic fringe even more, when he's got more important political battles to fight than that.
What public identifier of a unique person should insurers and lenders use to make sure that one person doesn't try to fraudulently establish two distinct customer histories by pretending to be two people?
At least in the U.S., there is none. But pretending that the SSN is one does not make it so.
The store's manager does *NOT* override Apple HQ. If HQ ships her iPhone to the store so that she can go pick it up, she should be able to pick it up. How is that illegal?
Stop playing dumb with this red herring. The store's manager absolutely does have the right to ask anyone to leave, if they're violating policy, if they're being disruptive. It's private property, both the store and the mall, and if you're asked to leave, and you don't, you're trespassing. It doesn't matter if you're buying something, picking up something, interviewing for a job...
And to continue to refuse to leave, instead pitching a fit when the police arrive, that's stupid beyond stupid.
Was the taser an overreaction? Quite possibly. We don't know for sure how long the argument and struggles had been going on before the video recording started.
But "she did nothing illegal" is not only clearly incorrect, it is also disingenuous in the worst way. It is a gross exaggeration with a purpose--to short-circuit any discussion of the relative responsibilities of the parties in this fiasco by declaring one participant the completely innocent victim and thus immediately shifting 100% of the blame to the police (with some overflow for the store manager).
That's cheap, sleazy, slanderous even, and does not contribute anything to responsible discussion or analysis. It's even cheaper the way you've gone back and forth on it--first equating questioning this assertion with defending the tasering, then when called out on that bullshit, falling back to this lie. Stop it.
Shockingly enough, in countries where there are strict gun laws, there appear to be less shootings by criminals than int he U.S.
Ahem, selected countries with strict gun laws have fewer shootings by criminals. On the other hand, some countries with strict gun laws have more. Some countries with lax gun laws have fewer, and some have more.
It's got much more to do with history and sociology than with gun laws.
There's nothing to indicate that this would be any different in schools...
In fact, the scant evidence we do have points quite the other way. But when a teacher or student (college) intervenes in a shooting, somehow this seems to not be newsworthy.
1) Solar PV is only price competitive with electricity from the grid when the government (ie taxpayers and other utility customers) subsidize 60% of the cost, and in high-cost areas.
2) While I can't speak to the whole country, and I'm sure there are localities that are abusive(*), I can assure you that in Colorado the permitting process is quick and easy and not expensive--it's basically no different than any other building permit.
Now, I'm all for continuing to work on PV, including the necessary step of getting them more widely into production and real-world use. If we don't do that, we'll never get to the point where they're really competitive. If we don't do things like this, we'll have no chance at a somewaht smooth transition into a post-oil economy instead of a sudden global crisis. But I think that spreading lies about the current cost/efficiency is more harmful than helpful. (Not entirely unhelpful...)
(*) So when Colorado first put in its large subsidies for PV, some municipalities decided that it wasn't "fair" that homeowners were getting so much money from the state, and jacked up permit fees hugely in order to capture a significant portion of the subsidy into their general funds. The state legislature put a stop to this practice quickly with a new law, but it nicely illustrates both that permitting does vary greatly locally, and that when money starts being diverted to "good" causes by government intervention, weird shit can happen.
I agree with your concept, but in this case it's pretty easy to measure out gas into a marked measuring container..
In New York some years ago, there was a guy who owned a number of gas stations, and rigged them with a switch inside. So when the attendant saw someone with a can, he flipped the switch to the accurate setting. The rest of the time it was set to the "cheat" setting. This of course was intended to thwart inspectors, because dispensing into a (special, accurate) can is exactly what they do. And he got away with it for years.
She was outside the store when they tasered here, so how is that not leaving the property? Sidewalks are public property.
She was in the mall, not outside, not on a sidewalk, not on public property. (Actually, at most malls, outside on the sidewalk will still be private property until you get pretty far away from the building.)
Look, it's not okay to taser someone unless they are threatening your life or someone else with a non range weapon. If she had a gun, I would expect them to shoot her. If she has a knife, i would expect her to be tasered. She was half handcuffed (1 hand in a cuff) when she was tasered. Outside the store on the sidewalk. That is police being bullies.
As I've pointed out over and over and over now, I was not defending the tasering--just calling bullshit on the GP which claimed that she did nothing illegal.
And these idiots think the banks are responsible and/or control the Internet and its content? - sigh
Remember that some of these people live under regimes where no media is ever created without government involvement, or at least complicity.
You know, jay walking is illegal too. Is tasering the right response? So is spitting on the sidewalk. Is tasering the right response?
Since tasering is considered OK - is it OK to shoot them too if the taser ran out of juice?
What a dumbass.
Perhaps you should develop some fucking reading skills. I did not defend the use of the taser. I merely pointed out that the assertion that she did nothing that was (or should be) illegal was completely wrong.
Um, that's not what the cops are supposed to do when someone does that. They're supposed to arrest them for trespassing. The taser is supposed to be a last resort before/instead of using a firearm.
Agreed, to a point--the taser may not have been justified. I was only pointing out the glaring error made by those asserting that she did nothing illegal.
I have to admit I'm a bit divided on this. On the one hand, I do believe she was probably intentionally being obtuse and refusing to comply. On the other hand, tasering for every mildly difficult or confrontational situation is ridiculous.
Oh, I certainly do not mean to defend the use of the taser in this case. I only wish to argue with the "BUT SHE DIDN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING WRONG JUST BECAUSE SHE BOUGHT MULTIPLE IPHONES" crowd ;-)
You're missing the point. The police tastered this person because she did something perfectly legal, which is to say, buy iPhones. She may or may not have had an intent to later export them, which would be illegal-- but this is no excuse for their actions.
No, they tasered her because she did something perfectly illegal--refusing to leave private property when asked to do so. They didn't give a damn about (indeed, probably do not even know about) the arcana of encryption export controls.
In a century or two, people will have forgotten the light-hearted unbelieving nature of this, and the Jedi will be true believers.
Of course, this is the U.N. we're talking about here, so OF COURSE there will be an argument.
Yes, and to any skilled politician the answer is blindingly obvious, compromise on 512, the average--except of course that leaves room to argue that it should be rounded down to 511 instead of up ;-)
(You think I'm kidding? Why do you think the packet length in ATM is 48 instead of 32 or 64? Yep, the average of two competing proposals over length...)
Whilst the tax arrangements are strictly legal, there has been outrage on how companies are avoiding paying their fair share of tax generated in the country.
So, if the country's tax laws do not require these companies to pay their "fair share", then how exactly does one define their "fair share"??? Exactly how much more should they pay than what they are legally obligated to??? How large of an over payment would satisfy these critics???
Well, this has been happening for years in the U.S., with all brands of GPS. But of course, if it's Apple, it's international news.
No matter whether it's the Australian Outback, or Death Valley, just because there's a line on a map does not actually mean you should drive there!
This is likely to be an opening bid, with the final figure being far larger.
Bullshit. They already tried to auction them once, and failed to get bids anywhere near high enough to satisfy them. This second auction has not magically made these patents vastly more valuable.
Actually, it depends on which part of the UK. England & Wales has the libel law you are referring to. Scotland does not - libel falls under defamation which has truth as an absolute defence. I don't know about Northern Ireland.
Yes, I meant England, because that's all I knew about. But like many of us here in the U.S., I am frequently guilty of sloppy usage as thought "Britain", "England" and "the U.K." were all identical. Thanks for the clarification--much more useful than the other respondent who's still arguing with me that truth is an absolute defense, by quoting an excerpt from Wikipedia that says it is an allowable defense ;-)
I've made my point and backed it up.
No, you haven't. You've changed the subject from "absolute defense" to "allowable defense".
Here, try this google search "libel reform site:www.guardian.co.uk"
An "allowable defense" is not the same thing as an "absolute defense", nor is it a "barrier to litigation". Also, that's civil--under some circumstances truth is not even an allowable defense for criminal defamation--or it was, if you google you'll quickly find a 2011 article in The Guardian about proposed changes to British defamation law to bring it more in line with the rest of the civilized world, but no follow-up as to whether the changes ever happened.
But posting it to Facebook is not making it available to the public. It is making it available to the members of Facebook.
Bullshit. By your logic: publishing something in a newspaper is not making it available to the public, it is only making it available to subscribers; sending out a press release is not making it available to the public, it is only making it available to subscribers of the press release service; putting something in an 8-K filing is not making it available to the public, it is only making it available to people who sign up for that service; announcing something in a conference call is not making it available to the public; it is only making it available to people who call in for that call.
All those methods have the same salient features: thought not everyone subscribes to them, *many* people do, including many analysts, journalists, and bloggers who will distribute the information (even more) very widely very quickly.
It's kind of rude, really, how Slashdotters assume horrible motivations, corruption, and incompetence on the part of every government lawyer.
This is not about every government lawyer ;-)
It's kind of interesting how you assume that not a single person at the SEC is a shithead. Really? The agency where some days it feels like they do less enforcing than they do watching of porn. Or, have you forgotten that little fiasco?
So how many Facebook pages do you think investors would have to subscribe to in order to follow every senior executive of every company in their portfolio?
How many press release services would they have to follow? How many financial news shows would they have to watch? How many financial news web sites would they have to follow, and how closely? How many blogs would they have to read?
The company's obligation is to make sure that the information is available to the public, not that it is noticed by every single member of the public.
Having said that, the regulation is vague as to whether a Facebook page would fit the bill. Any material information has to be disseminated through a Form 8-K filing or "through another method (or combination of methods) of disclosure that is reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public."
Yes, and somebody at the SEC is being a shithead about this.
All of the above are things that should be taken seriously if they actually happened. Complaining on Yelp/Angies List only and not following through in the correct legal channels gives credence to the lawsuit against her.
Not really. It's perfectly possible that she consulted an attorney and found that it would cost more than it was worth to pursue her claims.