They made no bones of it when interviewing the franchisees on television.
Also, their site gives you the franchise fee, which doesn't include the building, The franchise fee alone is between $420,000.00 and $450,000.00
Now add in a minimum of $50,000.00 of working capital (their figures)
And add in a building... they're not free, you know... or add in the minimum 10-year lease commitment Tim Hortons requires (its usually cheaper to just buy the building).
They have LOTS of room to expand in the US. Up here in Kanuckistan, they ARE everywhere.
Each store represents the investment of over a million bucks. 300 stores is almost 1/2-billion-dollar investment... and they're continuing to grow. Dunkin Donuts is no longer growing.
Its expected that once they're completely spun off from Wendy's that they'll grow even faster, especially since Tim Horton corporate HQ was never integrated with Wendy International, so there's no "unbundling" headaches - just more capital.
1. The "sabotage" is only because everyone down the line is both lazy and negligent, from Microsoft, to the sales people, to the end users. "Contributory negligence" - you're still legally on the hook in many states. Its more akin to leaving food on the counter for a week and then complaining that vermin got in it.
2. There's no need for an "extra tax". Fines would pay for the system. Your machine is a spambot - pay $200, do not pass GO. Any surplus would be distributed as a rebate to other users, so the spambots end up subsidizing the rest. Watch how fast people switch OSes when their ISP sends them the fine (and no, under this system, switching ISPs won't help any more than switching insurance companies does after you've had too many claims. Don't pay the fine, you don't get connected)
Or simply charge people 4x the price if they connect using Windows, and use THAT revenue to subsidize other net connections. It could work out that Windows users pay enough so that everyone else gets a free ride - at least until enough realize that they're paying for a piece of crap.
The judge has absolutely no say as to guilt or innocence in a jury trial, and you can be damn sure you're going to exercise that right in such a case. He can tell the jury what the law says, but the jury is free to ignore the law, as a matter of law.
A decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. Jury nullification has always been an option for juries in England and the United States, although judges will prevent a defense lawyer from urging the jury to acquit on this basis. Nullification was evident during the Vietnam war (when selective service protesters were acquitted by juries opposed to the war) and currently appears in criminal cases when the jury disagrees with the punishment--for example, in "three strikes" cases when the jury realizes that conviction of a relatively minor offense will result in lifetime imprisonment.
It happens all the time. People acquit because the case doesn't pass the "smell test." Remember, the law is whatever a jury says it is. They are the ultimate arbiters, and when too many acquitals go against existing statutes, the statutes get rewritten. A good example today are states with laws against gay sex - a lot of states no longer have such laws, and the few that still do, don't dare even try to enforce them. Another example - abortions.
So yes, if you want to call a jury "mob rule", it fits.
The simple fact is that when someone is in a common space (and the net is considered part of the "commons") they have to accept responsibility for what their equipment does. Same as poop-and-scooping. Same as any accident you're involved in while driving. Just because it was an accident doesn't absolve you of liability. Ditto for stop signs. Didn't see it? Tough - pay the fine, and maybe you'll pay more attention next time.
It sure works with seat belt laws.
Its not a question of "guilty or innocent", but of not crapping in the communal water supply. There is no reason to tolerate it. If someone is repeatedly too stupid to catch on that they're being phished, or that you don't just install any old crao on your machine, then they're too stupid to be allowed unrestricted access to the net.
Its the same thing with your home alarm - 3 false alarms and the police refuse to respond any more, AND you get a $300 fine per subsequent incident. One local bank got hit with $35,000 in fines because they were slack in their training of the tellers. I watched the judge lecture their lawyer about public responsibility, the unnecessary dangers to everyone when the police respond to a false alarm. The excuse of "that branch is used to train people" didn't wash.
Some people are just too stupid to be allowed on the net. And the same applies to some operating systems. Cars AND drivers past a certain age need to be inspected, or they're not allowed on the road. I'm not saying we need testing - much simpler to just fine them and cut them off. The higher cost to IPSs from customers who are cut off after a few months will get them to encourage people to use better systems - say, for example, by charging 4x the amount for Windows clients as for non-Windows clients.
People vote with their wallets. That's why Intel beat out Motorola way back in the '80s. The 68x was a MUCH better chip than the 80x, but systems with an 80x were cheaper.
Its very simple - if you can't tell that your computer is completely ##!ed up with malware, you aren't entitled to connect it to the net, any more than you're entitled to drive a car drunk on the roads. Incompentence is no excuse, not in this day and age when the information is so readily available.
computer use is demanded by his employer.
Then let the employer supply a proper computer, not some piece of shit Windows box. Getting rid of Windows and the mentality behind it solves more than 90% of the problems with idiots on the net. And Vista is going to be just as bad, if not worse, from the latest indications.
At this point, a 2-tiered pricing system for the internet sounds like a good idea - you connect with a WonBox, you pay double.
Being a victim of malware nowadays IS a wilfull act, if you're using Windows and IE and Outlook. There is NO excuse, except laziness and inertia. The choose to continue connecting to the net with a WinBox, they pay the price.
Depending on other crap (Symantec et al) to protect a crap OS is not the answer, any more than depending on chewing gum to "fix" a leaky gas tank is. In neither case are we looking at a viable long-term solution.
Mozilla et al are NOT responsible for the design flaws in Windows that hide the real nature of file names and extensions (and this has been the case since at least Win95, and in some cases, Win3.1). Windows is broken. Always has been. It invites phishing. It enables it to an extent NO other OS does. Why? Because Microsoft knows that people will keep paying no matter what. Inertia. And their "don't want to know" attitude.
You fall for phishing after all the warnings, you deserve what you get. If you're stupid enough to send a "bank" your baning info, you're just another one of those "fools and their money are soon parted" who really are dumb. Ditto for the greedy idiots who fall for the Nigerian scams and their variants. The scammer and the victim deserve each other.
As for the rest, google previous stories on slashdot.
Well, if we're going that route, maybe it'll also play my aunt's 33-1/3 LPs. Better yet, my sister is the "custodian" of a bunch of the original 12" (not the smaller, "more modern ones" from the 40's) 78 rpm shellacs. Definitely antique material, and since the copyright expired LONG ago...
Again, read your quote. Yo specified "crime prevention teams".
Mozilla and Apple are not "crime prevention teams". Neither is the FTC. Law enforcement (your local and state police, the fbi) are unable to handle phishing. The FBI says unless cybercirme results in damages of more than $10k, go fuck yourself - they won't do anything except to file it.
These aren't people whose tires are bald, these are people whose tires were slashed while they were driving.
Wrong. These are people who KNOW their computer is not working properly, and don't take the time to find out why. Wilfull ignorance is not a defense, quite the contrary - it indicates recklessness and irresponsability on the part of the computer owner. Same as someone who insists on driving with bald tires, or no windshield wipers, or burned-out headlights, or drunk. I'd have no problem with fining them $300 per incident, and after 3 incidents in 1 year, they're banned from using a computer for 1 year, after which they have to attend a course (same as people driving drunk) or the ban is made permanent.
People won't change their habits until they're forced to see the consequences of their actions.
Oh, and as for the whole "victims of malware" bit - maybe they should complain to the company that made their OS for making such a buggy POS in the first place. Getting rid of Windows usage among the population should be a national priority for any country worried about their IT security.
Well, if they were doing it in response to you installing spyware on 100 million computers, I seriously doubt that any jury in North America (that hasn't been living in a cave for the last decade) will convict you for beating them with a 2x4. Heck, if the guy was found with a knife sticking out his back, a dozen bullet wounds with entry from the back, etc, it would quickly be ruled as a suicide.
Internet crime gets a lot of press, but receives little attention from crime prevention teams? Interesting. Do you have anything to support that claim?
When was the last time you saw ANY type of anti-phishing crime prevention initiative from ANY level of law enforcement. Sticking a few warnings on a web site that nobody looks at until its too late is NOT crime prevention. A real anti=phishing crime prevention program would work the same as the "don't drink and drive programs:
Ads on tv, the radio and the newspaper advising people that if they have to use Windows, NOT to use Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, or Microsoft Office, so they don't fall victim to a "drive-by";
More ads telling people that only suckers use Windows - that there are cheap/free alternatives for when you need to go on the Internet
Using the existing public mischief laws to charge people whose machines are being used as phishing robots - including 1-year bans from access to the net. This will give ISPs a financial incentive to stop the problem before the police get involved and they lose a customer for a year or more
Setting an eample by making removing Micrsoft products from all levels of government a real priority. Set deadlines, and impose departmental penalties on budgets if they're not met.
Lean on vendors to make products that work with other OSes
Accept "reduced functionality" and/or more trianing as the price to be paid for a more secure system
We parade drunks through the media when they're caught drinkig and driving - do the same for assholes who go "gee, my machine is so slow now" but don't do anything about it. If someone drives a car with bald tires, they're liable for any accidents/harm they cause. Same thing here
Visit community groups, schools, old age homes, etc. and SHOW people how stupid they are when they give their account information to anyone for any reason whatsoever.
Draconian? Maybe, but these are all examples of initiatives that can be done, and won't be done. Prevention is they key - and law enforcement is doing ZERO prevention. Heck, they think that a perl script to "dd/dev/hda | grep 'some key phrase' > suspicious.txt" is advanced. (yes, that's basically what one of their "tools" does - something that a script kiddie can throw together in seconds).
Crime prevention is more than sitting around in chat rooms pretending to be a 13-year-old girl.
The way it works here is they have to submit it all, and there's no refund to the consumer of the taxes paid when calculating the refund (inother words, a $10.00 rebate is just that, $10.00, not $10.00 plus taxes). The governments love it. Here the feds get 6% (it was just lowered from 7% last week) and Quebec gets 7.5% (and they get the 7.5% on the 6% as well - tax on tax, if you will).
Obviously the governments aren't going to try to "correct" this.
Look at the conviction rates. As close to zero as you can get. Heck, look at the number of people charged. Not all that many, are there. Phishing is profitable, and almost punishment-free.
Let them start with paypal and eBay - then I'll believe they're gonna do something.
You're confusing number with proportion.
How many people EVER go to jail for phishing? Try reporting it to your local cop shop - you'll get the "we don't handle that here" bit. Then you're told to post your complaint to such-and-such a web site... and nothing happens, because they're after the easy-to-bust ones - they guys running boiler-rooms going "You've just won a vacation, just send us the money for the taxes and duties."
They HAVE the tools to deal with that, so that's what they do. They DON'T have the tools to deal with phishers.
Not a problem... you see, all those idiots who think they look so uber-cool using a bluetooth headset can't even chew gum and WALK, never mind talk. And for those who exceptions, it not like anyone on the other end is listening anyway...
Internet crime gets a lot of press, but receives little attention from crime prevention teams? Interesting. Do you have anything to support that claim?
How many 419 and other scams do you get in the mail EVERY DAY? I get more con mails every month than ALL the scam artists who have ever been jailed over phishing since the birth of the Internet.
One guy up here was convicted for "hacking" into the local police squad's voicemail system.
Everyone's password was (and I'm not making this up, and its NOT a Spaceballs reference) "1" "2" "3" "4" "5"
For months he listened into all sorts of messages for the detectives, including from informants, wives and girlfriends (nice to be able to blackmail a cop by threatening to tell his wife about his action on the side), etc.
You KNOW most systems have an easy password (or still have the default password).
Convicted, sentenced... and caught doing it again - they hadn't changed the passwords a year later!!! Of course, once the story made the news, they HAD to change them (hint: if you remember the story and the police station, try "54321")
You're a dumbass. You're not taxed on $200. You're taxed on $150. It's an INSTANT REBATE. And who the hell cares anyway? Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Hey, asswipe, in MY jurisdiction you're taxed on ALL rebates, both mail-in AND at the cash.
Read what I wrote:
What pisses me off is having to pay the full sales tax on the artificially inflated price, not the true (or "rebate") price.
"Look, its $200.00, but they have a $50.00 instant rebate, plus $100.00 mail-in rebate... " but you're still taxed on $200.00, for what is in reality a $50.00 purchase.
That's what I have to pay. Didn't say it was everyone, everywhere... there are different rules for different jurisdictions. Your experience isn't necessarily going to be the same as mine or someone elses. Or did you forget what YMMV means?
If an item is $10.00, with an $10.00 instant rebate, I still pay the tax on the full $10.0.
Their assets were bought out by Dunkin' Donuts parent company.
Up here, most of the franchisees went bankrupt (there are only 3 left in all of Canada).
(and isn't Mister Donut a Japanese shop? Why would it be opening in North America- not to mention that with the roaring success/monopoly that they are here it seems near-impossible for me to see them fail?)
No, it was founded in the US in 1956 by the brother-in-law of the guy who started Dunkin Donuts in 1950. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_donut
Slashdot Mirror
They made no bones of it when interviewing the franchisees on television.
Also, their site gives you the franchise fee, which doesn't include the building, The franchise fee alone is between $420,000.00 and $450,000.00
Now add in a minimum of $50,000.00 of working capital (their figures)
And add in a building ... they're not free, you know ... or add in the minimum 10-year lease commitment Tim Hortons requires (its usually cheaper to just buy the building).
They have LOTS of room to expand in the US. Up here in Kanuckistan, they ARE everywhere.
Funny thing is that this was predicted by that old saw "Nature abhors a vacuum".
If there's energy in it, it ain't completely empty now, is it - or does e=mc squared not count any more?
Each store represents the investment of over a million bucks. 300 stores is almost 1/2-billion-dollar investment ... and they're continuing to grow. Dunkin Donuts is no longer growing.
Its expected that once they're completely spun off from Wendy's that they'll grow even faster, especially since Tim Horton corporate HQ was never integrated with Wendy International, so there's no "unbundling" headaches - just more capital.
1. The "sabotage" is only because everyone down the line is both lazy and negligent, from Microsoft, to the sales people, to the end users. "Contributory negligence" - you're still legally on the hook in many states. Its more akin to leaving food on the counter for a week and then complaining that vermin got in it.
2. There's no need for an "extra tax". Fines would pay for the system. Your machine is a spambot - pay $200, do not pass GO. Any surplus would be distributed as a rebate to other users, so the spambots end up subsidizing the rest. Watch how fast people switch OSes when their ISP sends them the fine (and no, under this system, switching ISPs won't help any more than switching insurance companies does after you've had too many claims. Don't pay the fine, you don't get connected)
Or simply charge people 4x the price if they connect using Windows, and use THAT revenue to subsidize other net connections. It could work out that Windows users pay enough so that everyone else gets a free ride - at least until enough realize that they're paying for a piece of crap.
The judge has absolutely no say as to guilt or innocence in a jury trial, and you can be damn sure you're going to exercise that right in such a case. He can tell the jury what the law says, but the jury is free to ignore the law, as a matter of law.
It happens all the time. People acquit because the case doesn't pass the "smell test." Remember, the law is whatever a jury says it is. They are the ultimate arbiters, and when too many acquitals go against existing statutes, the statutes get rewritten. A good example today are states with laws against gay sex - a lot of states no longer have such laws, and the few that still do, don't dare even try to enforce them. Another example - abortions.
So yes, if you want to call a jury "mob rule", it fits.
The simple fact is that when someone is in a common space (and the net is considered part of the "commons") they have to accept responsibility for what their equipment does. Same as poop-and-scooping. Same as any accident you're involved in while driving. Just because it was an accident doesn't absolve you of liability. Ditto for stop signs. Didn't see it? Tough - pay the fine, and maybe you'll pay more attention next time.
It sure works with seat belt laws.
Its not a question of "guilty or innocent", but of not crapping in the communal water supply. There is no reason to tolerate it. If someone is repeatedly too stupid to catch on that they're being phished, or that you don't just install any old crao on your machine, then they're too stupid to be allowed unrestricted access to the net.
Its the same thing with your home alarm - 3 false alarms and the police refuse to respond any more, AND you get a $300 fine per subsequent incident. One local bank got hit with $35,000 in fines because they were slack in their training of the tellers. I watched the judge lecture their lawyer about public responsibility, the unnecessary dangers to everyone when the police respond to a false alarm. The excuse of "that branch is used to train people" didn't wash.
Some people are just too stupid to be allowed on the net. And the same applies to some operating systems. Cars AND drivers past a certain age need to be inspected, or they're not allowed on the road. I'm not saying we need testing - much simpler to just fine them and cut them off. The higher cost to IPSs from customers who are cut off after a few months will get them to encourage people to use better systems - say, for example, by charging 4x the amount for Windows clients as for non-Windows clients.
People vote with their wallets. That's why Intel beat out Motorola way back in the '80s. The 68x was a MUCH better chip than the 80x, but systems with an 80x were cheaper.
Its very simple - if you can't tell that your computer is completely ##!ed up with malware, you aren't entitled to connect it to the net, any more than you're entitled to drive a car drunk on the roads. Incompentence is no excuse, not in this day and age when the information is so readily available.
computer use is demanded by his employer.
Then let the employer supply a proper computer, not some piece of shit Windows box. Getting rid of Windows and the mentality behind it solves more than 90% of the problems with idiots on the net. And Vista is going to be just as bad, if not worse, from the latest indications.
At this point, a 2-tiered pricing system for the internet sounds like a good idea - you connect with a WonBox, you pay double.
Being a victim of malware nowadays IS a wilfull act, if you're using Windows and IE and Outlook. There is NO excuse, except laziness and inertia. The choose to continue connecting to the net with a WinBox, they pay the price.
Depending on other crap (Symantec et al) to protect a crap OS is not the answer, any more than depending on chewing gum to "fix" a leaky gas tank is. In neither case are we looking at a viable long-term solution.
Mozilla et al are NOT responsible for the design flaws in Windows that hide the real nature of file names and extensions (and this has been the case since at least Win95, and in some cases, Win3.1). Windows is broken. Always has been. It invites phishing. It enables it to an extent NO other OS does. Why? Because Microsoft knows that people will keep paying no matter what. Inertia. And their "don't want to know" attitude.
You fall for phishing after all the warnings, you deserve what you get. If you're stupid enough to send a "bank" your baning info, you're just another one of those "fools and their money are soon parted" who really are dumb. Ditto for the greedy idiots who fall for the Nigerian scams and their variants. The scammer and the victim deserve each other.
As for the rest, google previous stories on slashdot.
Well, if we're going that route, maybe it'll also play my aunt's 33-1/3 LPs. Better yet, my sister is the "custodian" of a bunch of the original 12" (not the smaller, "more modern ones" from the 40's) 78 rpm shellacs. Definitely antique material, and since the copyright expired LONG ago ...
reads and writes all disk formats
Cool - my 5-1/4" floppies aren't obsolete after all! Arkanoids, anyone?
Again, read your quote. Yo specified "crime prevention teams".
Mozilla and Apple are not "crime prevention teams". Neither is the FTC. Law enforcement (your local and state police, the fbi) are unable to handle phishing. The FBI says unless cybercirme results in damages of more than $10k, go fuck yourself - they won't do anything except to file it.
Wrong. These are people who KNOW their computer is not working properly, and don't take the time to find out why. Wilfull ignorance is not a defense, quite the contrary - it indicates recklessness and irresponsability on the part of the computer owner. Same as someone who insists on driving with bald tires, or no windshield wipers, or burned-out headlights, or drunk. I'd have no problem with fining them $300 per incident, and after 3 incidents in 1 year, they're banned from using a computer for 1 year, after which they have to attend a course (same as people driving drunk) or the ban is made permanent.People won't change their habits until they're forced to see the consequences of their actions.
Oh, and as for the whole "victims of malware" bit - maybe they should complain to the company that made their OS for making such a buggy POS in the first place. Getting rid of Windows usage among the population should be a national priority for any country worried about their IT security.
Well, if they were doing it in response to you installing spyware on 100 million computers, I seriously doubt that any jury in North America (that hasn't been living in a cave for the last decade) will convict you for beating them with a 2x4. Heck, if the guy was found with a knife sticking out his back, a dozen bullet wounds with entry from the back, etc, it would quickly be ruled as a suicide.
You said:
When was the last time you saw ANY type of anti-phishing crime prevention initiative from ANY level of law enforcement. Sticking a few warnings on a web site that nobody looks at until its too late is NOT crime prevention. A real anti=phishing crime prevention program would work the same as the "don't drink and drive programs:
- Ads on tv, the radio and the newspaper advising people that if they have to use Windows, NOT to use Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, or Microsoft Office, so they don't fall victim to a "drive-by";
- More ads telling people that only suckers use Windows - that there are cheap/free alternatives for when you need to go on the Internet
- Using the existing public mischief laws to charge people whose machines are being used as phishing robots - including 1-year bans from access to the net. This will give ISPs a financial incentive to stop the problem before the police get involved and they lose a customer for a year or more
- Setting an eample by making removing Micrsoft products from all levels of government a real priority. Set deadlines, and impose departmental penalties on budgets if they're not met.
- Lean on vendors to make products that work with other OSes
- Accept "reduced functionality" and/or more trianing as the price to be paid for a more secure system
- We parade drunks through the media when they're caught drinkig and driving - do the same for assholes who go "gee, my machine is so slow now" but don't do anything about it. If someone drives a car with bald tires, they're liable for any accidents/harm they cause. Same thing here
- Visit community groups, schools, old age homes, etc. and SHOW people how stupid they are when they give their account information to anyone for any reason whatsoever.
Draconian? Maybe, but these are all examples of initiatives that can be done, and won't be done. Prevention is they key - and law enforcement is doing ZERO prevention. Heck, they think that a perl script to "ddCrime prevention is more than sitting around in chat rooms pretending to be a 13-year-old girl.
The way it works here is they have to submit it all, and there's no refund to the consumer of the taxes paid when calculating the refund (inother words, a $10.00 rebate is just that, $10.00, not $10.00 plus taxes). The governments love it. Here the feds get 6% (it was just lowered from 7% last week) and Quebec gets 7.5% (and they get the 7.5% on the 6% as well - tax on tax, if you will).
Obviously the governments aren't going to try to "correct" this.
Look at the conviction rates. As close to zero as you can get. Heck, look at the number of people charged. Not all that many, are there. Phishing is profitable, and almost punishment-free.
Let them start with paypal and eBay - then I'll believe they're gonna do something.
That's what I get for typing while eating and trying to convince the dogs that MY food is for moi!
You're confusing number with proportion. How many people EVER go to jail for phishing? Try reporting it to your local cop shop - you'll get the "we don't handle that here" bit. Then you're told to post your complaint to such-and-such a web site ... and nothing happens, because they're after the easy-to-bust ones - they guys running boiler-rooms going "You've just won a vacation, just send us the money for the taxes and duties."
They HAVE the tools to deal with that, so that's what they do. They DON'T have the tools to deal with phishers.
Lets just hope he didn't refill the toner cartridge by eating burritos :-)
What if you're chewing gum while talking?
Not a problem ... you see, all those idiots who think they look so uber-cool using a bluetooth headset can't even chew gum and WALK, never mind talk. And for those who exceptions, it not like anyone on the other end is listening anyway ...
Internet crime gets a lot of press, but receives little attention from crime prevention teams? Interesting. Do you have anything to support that claim?
How many 419 and other scams do you get in the mail EVERY DAY? I get more con mails every month than ALL the scam artists who have ever been jailed over phishing since the birth of the Internet.
One guy up here was convicted for "hacking" into the local police squad's voicemail system.
Everyone's password was (and I'm not making this up, and its NOT a Spaceballs reference) "1" "2" "3" "4" "5"
For months he listened into all sorts of messages for the detectives, including from informants, wives and girlfriends (nice to be able to blackmail a cop by threatening to tell his wife about his action on the side), etc.
You KNOW most systems have an easy password (or still have the default password).
Convicted, sentenced ... and caught doing it again - they hadn't changed the passwords a year later!!! Of course, once the story made the news, they HAD to change them (hint: if you remember the story and the police station, try "54321")
Hey, asswipe, in MY jurisdiction you're taxed on ALL rebates, both mail-in AND at the cash.
Read what I wrote:
That's what I have to pay. Didn't say it was everyone, everywhere ... there are different rules for different jurisdictions. Your experience isn't necessarily going to be the same as mine or someone elses. Or did you forget what YMMV means?
If an item is $10.00, with an $10.00 instant rebate, I still pay the tax on the full $10.0.
Hw long before eBay (who own paypal) strt a rumur that Google Checkout is behind this?
Their assets were bought out by Dunkin' Donuts parent company.
Up here, most of the franchisees went bankrupt (there are only 3 left in all of Canada).
(and isn't Mister Donut a Japanese shop? Why would it be opening in North America- not to mention that with the roaring success/monopoly that they are here it seems near-impossible for me to see them fail?) No, it was founded in the US in 1956 by the brother-in-law of the guy who started Dunkin Donuts in 1950. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_donut
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up ... I think a LOT of us are unhappy with this "brave new world" and feel we've been lied to/cheated/manipulated.
... or are they going to make me declare the "$150.00 incentive" as income ...?
Oops - quick, burn all copies of this post, or we'll be giving the undead another vein to suck the lifeblood from ...