People that steal likely aren't going to be buying if they couldn't steal.
You've obviously never known any shoplifters. In my experience, most do it for the thrill, or simply because they can, not because they can't afford to or wouldn't pay for something.
At any rate, yes, it doesn't cost much to manufacture a disc, but the retailer pays 2-4 times that. Also, the retailer paid for real estate to put the product on, paid for the lighting so you can see what you're buying, paid for the air conditioning so you're comfortable inside, paid people to stock the shelves, and paid people to take your money and give you change. So yes, shoplifting IS stealing more than the cost of manufacturing a plastic disc. The losses are real, and they're significant. Of course, most retail theft is internal, but that's another issue.
It's probably channel bonding -- multiple channels on the same cable. Running 4 cables wouldn't make sense from either a practical or price/performance standpoint.
Sorry, jphone is taken. The Japanese adopted the J prefix years ago, and it's probably even more ubiquitous in Japan than i/e-prefixed words are in the US.
>Oh for God sake, we did live ok without bloody mobiles you know.
Not everybody still keeps a landline you know.
I'm not trying to give creedance to the idea that the phones will "crash", but your argument is like saying we got along fine before we had cars. Sure we did, but how many people still have horses?
When I was young, I dropped a phone, which resulted in getting lectured by a policeman and a spanking from my parents.
Somehow the phone had called 911 when I knocked it over, when it hit the floor, when I hung it up, or through some combination thereof. It wasn't a newer phone with a speed dial emergency button either; it was an old rotary phone. I honestly have no idea how it happened. Two 1's I can imagine, but a 9? Obviously nobody believed the truth, and I got one spanking for calling 911, and another for lying about it.
I think it was around that time that I became a liberal, even if I didn't know what it was called at the time.
It doesn't take "less brains." Sure, they routinely hire people with less brains, but that's why the service at most places is like a shop vac -- it sucks AND blows.
An affirmative defense removes liability. If by blame, you mean liability, then you are incorrect. If you mean something else, then it's irrelevant to the context of my post.
the defense applies only if she scans the mag strip on the ID, not just looks at it.
Looks like we're both guilty of failure to read the paragraph above that:
65.4...it shall be an affirmative defense that such person had produced a photographic identification card apparently issued by a governmental entity and that the alcoholic beverage had been sold, delivered or given to such person in reasonable reliance upon such identification.
No mention of scanning there. It goes on to mention written policy of the establishment, but since that would only add liability, I can't imagine any bar would have a written policy. Sort of like being a notary. If you keep a log, you're liable for inaccuracies, so most sane people just don't keep logs.
I suppose I should have declared a lower bound. I was referring to people who were (probably) over the age of 18, as in the case of the individuals whose IDs were confiscated. Of course I don't believe 16 year olds should have unrestricted access to alcohol.
we do have, on the face of it, good reasons to believe that a legal drinking age of 21 is effective at reducing drinking among minors.
Effective != ethical. It would also be effective to force teens to take the birth control pill to prevent teen pregnancy. Removing the rights of one group under the banner of "save the children" is not something I support. I support a drinking age of 18 -- at least while of all the other responsibilities and risks are still associated with that age, such as voting, joining the military and, most importantly, being an adult for all other legal purposes. I understand some people disagree, and the arguments are not without merit, but what this woman is doing is beyond advocating the current drinking age -- she's demeaning those who want to have a beer, and she's doing it simply because they aren't 21, under the guise of liability. Some may applaud her. I do not.
If you are yourself 21 or older, I feel sorry for you that you still see your parents and past teachers as involved in some sort of conspiracy to maliciously oppress and control you.
I'm well over 21 -- not even the same decade -- and you're reading far too much into what I wrote.
She didn't recognize the documents to be false; she recognized the behavior of the minors to be suspicious. She's going above and beyond the letter of the law, which is fine, but unnessecary -- certainly unnessecary for the issue of liability.
Hilarious. Because nothing's funnier than making fun of people who are younger than you.
You're spiteful glare and frustrated "Have a nice life!" as you walked out the door, proved how mature you are. Maybe one day you'll understand. Maybe after you're 21.
Because posting about the incidents, including photos and possibly real addresses, is mature behavior? This is simple bigotry. People feel that since they went through something, everyone else should too (even if it's something as arbitrary as turning 21), and until they do they're somehow less of a person. Furthermore, behaving as if alcohol consumption is some sort of special privilege only makes it that much more enticing for minors.
I really am liable for you drinking if you have that ID. Peter, drink at home. Drink on your dorm rooftop. Drink in a state that doesn't care or a bar where I don't know anyone. But don't come to my neighborhood and try to get us in trouble. You're not from here.
"You're not from here?" Nice.
Actually, she's not at all liable, and neither is the bar.
7. (a) In any proceeding pursuant to subdivision one of section
sixty-five of this article, it shall be an affirmative defense that such
person had produced a driver's license or non-driver identification card
apparently issued by a governmental entity, successfully completed the
transaction scan, and that the alcoholic beverage had been sold,
delivered or given to such person in reasonable reliance upon such
identification and transaction scan. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c5/a6.html
(Emphasis mine).
If she asked for an ID, and reasonable documentation was provided, she's fulfilled her obligation under the law, and the liability now rests with the minor. If it's obviously false then she could be in trouble, but none of the posted photos were obviously false. The only reason to push the issue is to exercise authority and/or moral superiority. Which is fine -- legal anyway, and people are certainly entitled to their opinions -- but at least own up to it instead of shifting the blame to the state.
You're not likely to find any damning evidence in the communications to the lawyers. Nonetheless, attorney-client privilege is not all-encompassing. Attorneys are permitted (in some cases obligated, in some not) to report any preventable criminal activity, especially those involving bodily or financial harm and/or fraud, esp. against a court.
Also, in many states only client->attorney communication is privileged; attorney->client is not. California is an exception.
In short, it would be pretty stupid (though certainly not unheard of) for an attorney to knowingly facilitate a fraud or other crime; moreso for them to keep records stating as much.
...beyond reproach. In a statistical analysis by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Bob Steiner, CSICOP Fellow and magician, has observed that her techniques and methodology were infalliable.
Fox pioneered this terrible technique of interjecting their own opinion via the construct "Some say...", and it's terrible journalism.
Presenting dissenting opinions, with which you may or may not agree, is terrible journalism?
It's only terrible if the opinions are misrepresented, otherwise it's both effective and expected. This article in particular is a poor choice to attack, since the opposition is a loosely defined collective. "Some people believe" is no more or less authoritative than "angel_eyez1103 on mypony.com says...", or "Slashdot believes..." In fact, it's probably about as accurate as you can get. I agree that Fox abuses the technique by misrepresenting opposing points of view, but that doesn't mean it's "terrible journalism" to present conflicting opinions without attribution, especially when there is no focal point for the opposition.
Such ambiguity is naturally undesirable in places like Wikipedia, but that's because it's supposed to be a reference of sorts, and as such should have attributable sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Just e-mail me all your passwords for safe keeping!
demand a return to proper naming conventions.
HA! A return.. that's a good one.
People that steal likely aren't going to be buying if they couldn't steal.
You've obviously never known any shoplifters. In my experience, most do it for the thrill, or simply because they can, not because they can't afford to or wouldn't pay for something.
At any rate, yes, it doesn't cost much to manufacture a disc, but the retailer pays 2-4 times that. Also, the retailer paid for real estate to put the product on, paid for the lighting so you can see what you're buying, paid for the air conditioning so you're comfortable inside, paid people to stock the shelves, and paid people to take your money and give you change. So yes, shoplifting IS stealing more than the cost of manufacturing a plastic disc. The losses are real, and they're significant. Of course, most retail theft is internal, but that's another issue.
It's probably channel bonding -- multiple channels on the same cable. Running 4 cables wouldn't make sense from either a practical or price/performance standpoint.
Sorry, jphone is taken. The Japanese adopted the J prefix years ago, and it's probably even more ubiquitous in Japan than i/e-prefixed words are in the US.
>Oh for God sake, we did live ok without bloody mobiles you know.
Not everybody still keeps a landline you know.
I'm not trying to give creedance to the idea that the phones will "crash", but your argument is like saying we got along fine before we had cars. Sure we did, but how many people still have horses?
Don't get me wrong, I thought Spidey 3 was by far the worst, but is was certainly no sillier than SW Episode 1 or 2.
When I was young, I dropped a phone, which resulted in getting lectured by a policeman and a spanking from my parents.
Somehow the phone had called 911 when I knocked it over, when it hit the floor, when I hung it up, or through some combination thereof. It wasn't a newer phone with a speed dial emergency button either; it was an old rotary phone. I honestly have no idea how it happened. Two 1's I can imagine, but a 9? Obviously nobody believed the truth, and I got one spanking for calling 911, and another for lying about it.
I think it was around that time that I became a liberal, even if I didn't know what it was called at the time.
It doesn't take "less brains." Sure, they routinely hire people with less brains, but that's why the service at most places is like a shop vac -- it sucks AND blows.
It was either that or death.
Maybe, but it's certainly redundant.
homeland security (what the fuck is that)
Fatherland was taken.
Ha.. think again. I live to your north, in Guam, and we get no federal votes here. Of course, if you accept statehood...
the defense applies only if she scans the mag strip on the ID, not just looks at it.
Looks like we're both guilty of failure to read the paragraph above that:No mention of scanning there. It goes on to mention written policy of the establishment, but since that would only add liability, I can't imagine any bar would have a written policy. Sort of like being a notary. If you keep a log, you're liable for inaccuracies, so most sane people just don't keep logs.
I suppose I should have declared a lower bound. I was referring to people who were (probably) over the age of 18, as in the case of the individuals whose IDs were confiscated. Of course I don't believe 16 year olds should have unrestricted access to alcohol.
we do have, on the face of it, good reasons to believe that a legal drinking age of 21 is effective at reducing drinking among minors.
Effective != ethical. It would also be effective to force teens to take the birth control pill to prevent teen pregnancy. Removing the rights of one group under the banner of "save the children" is not something I support. I support a drinking age of 18 -- at least while of all the other responsibilities and risks are still associated with that age, such as voting, joining the military and, most importantly, being an adult for all other legal purposes. I understand some people disagree, and the arguments are not without merit, but what this woman is doing is beyond advocating the current drinking age -- she's demeaning those who want to have a beer, and she's doing it simply because they aren't 21, under the guise of liability. Some may applaud her. I do not.
If you are yourself 21 or older, I feel sorry for you that you still see your parents and past teachers as involved in some sort of conspiracy to maliciously oppress and control you.
I'm well over 21 -- not even the same decade -- and you're reading far too much into what I wrote.
She didn't recognize the documents to be false; she recognized the behavior of the minors to be suspicious. She's going above and beyond the letter of the law, which is fine, but unnessecary -- certainly unnessecary for the issue of liability.
You're spiteful glare and frustrated "Have a nice life!" as you walked out the door, proved how mature you are. Maybe one day you'll understand. Maybe after you're 21.
Because posting about the incidents, including photos and possibly real addresses, is mature behavior? This is simple bigotry. People feel that since they went through something, everyone else should too (even if it's something as arbitrary as turning 21), and until they do they're somehow less of a person. Furthermore, behaving as if alcohol consumption is some sort of special privilege only makes it that much more enticing for minors.
I really am liable for you drinking if you have that ID. Peter, drink at home. Drink on your dorm rooftop. Drink in a state that doesn't care or a bar where I don't know anyone. But don't come to my neighborhood and try to get us in trouble. You're not from here.
"You're not from here?" Nice.
Actually, she's not at all liable, and neither is the bar. If she asked for an ID, and reasonable documentation was provided, she's fulfilled her obligation under the law, and the liability now rests with the minor. If it's obviously false then she could be in trouble, but none of the posted photos were obviously false. The only reason to push the issue is to exercise authority and/or moral superiority. Which is fine -- legal anyway, and people are certainly entitled to their opinions -- but at least own up to it instead of shifting the blame to the state.
Oops.. I stand corrected!
Sorry to nitpick, but the quote is "let loose the dogs of war." Aside from using a proper quote, slipping is an unintentional act..
You're not likely to find any damning evidence in the communications to the lawyers. Nonetheless, attorney-client privilege is not all-encompassing. Attorneys are permitted (in some cases obligated, in some not) to report any preventable criminal activity, especially those involving bodily or financial harm and/or fraud, esp. against a court.
Also, in many states only client->attorney communication is privileged; attorney->client is not. California is an exception.
In short, it would be pretty stupid (though certainly not unheard of) for an attorney to knowingly facilitate a fraud or other crime; moreso for them to keep records stating as much.
Fox pioneered this terrible technique of interjecting their own opinion via the construct "Some say...", and it's terrible journalism.
Presenting dissenting opinions, with which you may or may not agree, is terrible journalism?
It's only terrible if the opinions are misrepresented, otherwise it's both effective and expected. This article in particular is a poor choice to attack, since the opposition is a loosely defined collective. "Some people believe" is no more or less authoritative than "angel_eyez1103 on mypony.com says...", or "Slashdot believes..." In fact, it's probably about as accurate as you can get. I agree that Fox abuses the technique by misrepresenting opposing points of view, but that doesn't mean it's "terrible journalism" to present conflicting opinions without attribution, especially when there is no focal point for the opposition.
Such ambiguity is naturally undesirable in places like Wikipedia, but that's because it's supposed to be a reference of sorts, and as such should have attributable sources.
Either the law is the same in the two countries, which is the case here, and thus it is unfair to extradate the person
Actually, that's the only time extradition occurs: When the crime is a crime in both countries, and when the damage occured in the other country.
I'm in. Where do US citizens register to vote in this election?
Oh. Well, I just assumed since we're claiming jurisdiction...
If this article is any indication, open-source developers cause boredom.
OMG, I think we've discovered a perpetual motion machine!