Hummassa writes: "If a battered wife wants to talk directly to her abusive husband, then she is absolutely stupid. Sorry. Battered wives should talk to abusive husband thru lawyers and police officers only.
"Wants" has nothing to do with it. Sure, some people might be rich enough to have their $200/hr lawyer handle setting up visitation but most don't.
CD writes: "While we're on the subject, how many people in the US don't have either cable or satellite TV? Seriously...I've asked as many low-income people I know or run into, and I've yet to find ANYbody that gets their TV through rabbit ears or a roof antenna.?"
I work in a retail electronics store just outside Albany, NY, and we sell perhaps 20-40 tv-top antennas per month. And this is a strip mall.
smooth wombat writes: "And what if one or more of the actors gets sick?"
That's called "niche market."
Re:Even in China they can't get cheap lasers?
on
Blu-ray Laser Gadget
·
· Score: 1
This just happnes to be what I *do* these days (import from China). I just asked the president of my company about what it'd cost to import a blu-ray DVD player and he tells me it'd be around 2-3%. He also mentioned he's never paid more than 3.5% for anything we import (membrane keypads, circuit assemblies, etc.).
If you can tell me the harmonized code for the device I can tell you precisely how much it costs to get through customs.
"I was out in the suburbs and the only shop I could find selling batteries was an electronics shop specialising in larger items, like stereos et al. So to buy my AA battery I had to fill in two forms, give address and phone number, etc etc"
You replied:
"Let me guess: the small, poor country you were in was the United States, and the store you went to was the local Radio Shack."
I noted that you were dead wrong and you replied to me, in part:
"Admittedly, I haven't been to Radio Shack in a few years, but they most definitely were collecting that information with even the tiniest purchase the last time I went there."
(emphasis mine)
Radio Shack, at the height of their intrusiveness, has never asked for more than name, phone and address for purchases. And, it should be noted, it was requested but not demanded. It has always been their policy to honor your request to not give that information.
Regardless, at NO time were there any forms to fill out for battery purchases. So your assertion that Radio Shack "most definitely" required forms to be filled out for "even the tiniest purchase the last time I went there" IS 100% false. Period.
This isn't my opinion. It's an objective fact.
Repeat after me.
I am wrong.
I am talking out my ass.
I am sorry.
Then STFU. Sorry if it's hash but there are few things more annoying in life than a person who pretends to educate people by misinforming them.
Except for maybe someone who can't cop to a mistake when they're caught stone-cold.
Dachannien writes: "Let me guess: the small, poor country you were in was the United States, and the store you went to was the local Radio Shack."
Radio Shack does not require you fill out a form for anything other than a cellphone (the contract).
Radio Shack does not require you give your personal information for anything except extended warranties, returns and some subscription-based items like cellphones, satellite radio, etc.
As for warranties, your info is taken in case you lose your receipt, your warranty can still be found. Give dummy info if you want.
As for returns, same deal; give bogus data.
In either case, no ID is checked.
I have this theory that a new age of Enlightenment would blossom if people just stopped talking about subjects they don't know jack shit about in an effort to appear witty, erudite, learned, whatever.
So do me a favor. Shut the fuck up when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
spun writes: "Sitting for eight hours without moving causes DVT. I sleep for eight hours without moving much and haven't yet woken up in the ICU. It's the compression of the vein caused by having your legs hanging off the edge of a chair that does it."
Hallelujah. An intelligent comment on Slashdot. Who'da thunk it?
I have DVT and ya know, I wish this point was made much more frequently. I now tend to sit with my feet on "rests" that place no pressure on the area where the leg hangs over the chair.
pclminion writes: "They make it sounds like an "8 hour coding session" is some kind of monstrous abuse of your body. Uhhh... Don't many of us do this EVERY DAY? Just get out of the damn chair every once in a while! Was this guy pissing in a bottle or something?"
This is ignorance of the dangerous variety. You can get DVT just by sitting in a cramped position for an hour or two. In fact it's more popularly known as Second Class Syndrome.
I'm going to assume that the Second Class passengers don't piss in bottles. Though with the recent amenities cutbacks, who knows?
Please stop giving bad information to people. I thought I was taking proper breaks from my desk to walk around (fetch coffee, bathroom, slack) but apparently I wasn't careful enough.
Long story short, I used to spend long hours in a NOC (like half the people reading this). After one particularly long day of work with little stretch-time, I was walking home and boom, felt like I had a crack in my pelvis. A hospital visit revealed DVT.
A week of self-administered heparin (sp?) injections, three months of warfarin/coumadin with bi-weekly pt/inr blood tests (to adjust the coumadin dosage) and the lifelong worry that it'll act up again. I've had it reappear three times so far though I've been able to keep out of the hospital.
And it can definitely kill you. If a clot travels to the lungs or your heart you're in for a rough time. David Bloom, a reporter in Iraq, (somewhat) recently died from DVT due to sitting in a cramped M88 for days, hours at a time.
I guess what I'm saying is trust me, get up and walk around every hour or so. DVT blows.
avdp writes: You're reading way too much into "his face". That's his shtick, he always says his jokes with a straight face (and succeeds most of the time). I wouldn't read too much into it (like he really really means it this time). I'll say it here, but it applies to many many of the other posts I've read today - this is not a great political statement he has made. It was a comedian act, in an event that hosts such act every year. He's a comedian. He was invited to this event to deliver political humor in front of political-aware people, and he delivered. Trust me, nobody (president included) lost sleep over it. Nobody in the press reported on it, because it's NOT NEWSWORTHY. It was fun to watch though.
While I realize this conversation can't go any deeper than "yes you are" and "no I'm not," I think you're dead wrong and the key here is the audience reaction.
If we can agree that the majority of audience members looked decidedly unamused then that's where I'll draw the line. I think Colbert said a lot of things -- hell the entire speech, really -- that people are not used to hearing said and to a man that isn't used to hearing it, either.
If the audience was laughing it up in the good-natured way that roasts tend to be, then I'd agree that it was pretty much not newsworthy. But the audience, by and large, looked like so many deer in headlights.
As an example; the "Cheney isn't here to shoot me in the face" stuff. Funny. Roast material. People laughed in the way people laugh at unusually harsh material that you'll find at a roast. But when it came to the "Bush believes on Wednesday what he believed on Monday and it doesn't matter what happened on Tuesday" stuff, almost the entire audience was mute.
What you traditionally find at a roast is guffaws and a laughter with a "I can't believe he just said that" overtone (viz: Scalia and the gesture of now-infamous Italian descent). There weren't many points in Colbert's "act" where you couldn't hear the crickets outside.
I pretty much agree with the people who say that this roast was Colbert's "Stewart-Carlson" moment.
ecorona writes: This video along with John Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" should go into textbooks. As much as I like Colbert and John Stewart, how I wish they were not needed. How I wish the press were half as dedicated to the American people as they are to keeping their jobs.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, it isn't going to happen. The problem is rigged right into the system and other people have pointed it out in this thread. You can pretty much destroy your career if you piss off the White House. You don't get to be at the top of your game with a White House Press Corp gig only to go down in flames over a question.
Helen Thomas notwithstanding.
The core problem is that the White House has no obligation to answer the press. Heck, it was learned this week that Andrew Card is considering doing away with live press briefings entirely.
While I don't anticipate this happening anytime soon, I think it would be nice for American citizens to vote on which questions to ask the president. These questions are submitted in writing and the president himself has a chance to answer them (not a spokesperson, er, flack, er, lying sack of sh*t mouthpiece (did I say that?)).
Really, I could care less about Snow taking over the job. Scottie is gone ONLY because he got burned for having the stupidity to vouch for Rove and Libby. Literally, that's his only failing. NOBODY can not answer a question like Scott McClellan. When backed into a wall he'll claim he answered the question already and refuse to repeat the answer. I've seen it dozens of times.
Me, I think it's a slap in the face of every American citizen every time he does it, but that's just me.
Remove the sword of Damocles for asking the "wrong question" and you'll start getting the "right questions." It's really as simple as that.
wh0me writes: I got the feeling that this is de rigeur for this kind of event, simply that we're paying more attentino because it's featured on Slashdot, BoingBoing, and wherever the hell else. So, how accurate is that perception? Has anyone seen one of these from years past? Even last year, with the war in full swing, there would have been sufficiently biting grist for a ballsy comic. Is older video of these annual press club dinners on C-Span or somewhere else? How biting is that commentary? How was it during Clinton's run?
I related the Colbert story to my boss this morning and he told me that Don Imus eviscerated the Clintons so badly that they no longer speak.
There is a point where Colbert is talking about Scott McClellan and says something like, "Scott, you're taking time off to spend time with Andrew Card's kids."
I can't think of any other way to read that except "Andrew Card is fscking Scott's wife." Maybe someone has a different explanation.
Jeremy writes: Any number of laws regarding employment discrimination. You wouldn't ask for an interviewee's blood type for the same reason you wouldn't ask for his religion; it would open you up to all sorts of civil suits which you'd almost certainly lose.
That's a fantastic argument, Jeremy.
It would have been even better if the discussion had anything to do with an employer/employee relationship.
You can save yourself the trouble of looking like a full-on ass by reading the thread.
A. Nobody is talking about employment. Please read the thread. We're talking about whether a business can require a SSN as a condition for services. They can. You don't have to give it. They don't have to serve you.
Banks may be able to require it as a term of service since they are federally insured.
But then again we've already covered the federal case. You'd know that if you actually read the thread.
B. If you feel (A) is wrong, cite the law.
PS: This is the last post I'm making to you unless you grow a brain. I can only spoon-feed idiots for so long.
Anonymous Coward (aren't they all?), listen to me. Don't hit the reply button. Don't read while thinking about what you're going to type next. I know it's hard for you but STFU and listen.
This is a conversation about whether I, John Q. Public, a person who runs my own business, can request a SSN. I can. If you disagree, cite the law I'd be violating..
Please. I'm fucking begging you.
If we agree so far, then I further suggest that I do not have to take you on as a customer. Again, if you disagree, cite the law I'd be violating.
Look, I know that talking out of your ass GoatSe.cx-style is de rigueur on Slash but I can't make it any simpler for you. I'm replying to you...not for your edification. I'm replying so that all the little cretins who read this post -- now and in the next decade -- have something to chew on.
So this is my last reply on the subject.
You can cite the law or you cannot. I already know which it is. I have the funny feeling you don't.
In addition, that section makes it illegal for Federal, state, and local government agencies to deny any rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their SSNs unless the disclosure is required by Federal statute.
As a private business owner, I am none of these.
Just...admit you're passing around bum info and be done with it.
davevr writes: First, contrary to popular belief, the sig on the back of the card is not there for identification purposes, but rather to indicate that you accept the terms of your cardholder agreement. If you do not sign the card, you cannot legally use it. Period.
First, let me preface this with a bit I'm Not Sure I'm Right. No flames.
Second, I work for a retail outfit. We're required to match the signature on the pad to the card. If it doesn't match well enough I'm required to ask for another form of ID.
Why would this be necessary if the signature isn't for ident? Are you saying that a chain with several thousand stores nation-wide doesn't know what the sig is for?
It drives me nuts when people spout off about something they know precisely nothing about because they overheard it in a conversation. Or, more likely, on Slashdot.
I run a business myself. I don't collect SSNs but I could. Someone could tell me they wouldn't provide it and then I could tell them that I wouldn't do business with them.
And it's 100% legal.
Hell, I could demand their blood type under the same logic and result.
Sure, it would be suicide for me as a business but for a bank? They don't need you, you need them.
PLEASE. For the love of fuck, STOP MISINFORMING PEOPLE JUST SO YOU CAN HEAR YOURSELF TYPE.
Slashdot Mirror
Hummassa writes:
"If a battered wife wants to talk directly to her abusive husband, then she is absolutely stupid. Sorry. Battered wives should talk to abusive husband thru lawyers and police officers only.
"Wants" has nothing to do with it. Sure, some people might be rich enough to have their $200/hr lawyer handle setting up visitation but most don't.
Hyppy writes:
"So use a prepaid cell phone. The only thing the "abuser" will be able to get is a cell number, which can be turned off at will."
Why should the burden be foisted upon the abused?
And why do you put "abuser" in quotes?
CD writes:
"While we're on the subject, how many people in the US don't have either cable or satellite TV? Seriously...I've asked as many low-income people I know or run into, and I've yet to find ANYbody that gets their TV through rabbit ears or a roof antenna.?"
I work in a retail electronics store just outside Albany, NY, and we sell perhaps 20-40 tv-top antennas per month. And this is a strip mall.
Are you snorting dandelions again?? Don't you know what that can do you to you? Good lord, it can't be good...
smooth wombat writes:
"And what if one or more of the actors gets sick?"
That's called "niche market."
This just happnes to be what I *do* these days (import from China). I just asked the president of my company about what it'd cost to import a blu-ray DVD player and he tells me it'd be around 2-3%. He also mentioned he's never paid more than 3.5% for anything we import (membrane keypads, circuit assemblies, etc.).
If you can tell me the harmonized code for the device I can tell you precisely how much it costs to get through customs.
I mean "harsh," not "hash." =)
Wrong again!
The original poster wrote:
"I was out in the suburbs and the only shop I could find selling batteries was an electronics shop specialising in larger items, like stereos et al. So to buy my AA battery I had to fill in two forms, give address and phone number, etc etc"
You replied:
"Let me guess: the small, poor country you were in was the United States, and the store you went to was the local Radio Shack."
I noted that you were dead wrong and you replied to me, in part:
"Admittedly, I haven't been to Radio Shack in a few years, but they most definitely were collecting that information with even the tiniest purchase the last time I went there."
(emphasis mine)
Radio Shack, at the height of their intrusiveness, has never asked for more than name, phone and address for purchases. And, it should be noted, it was requested but not demanded. It has always been their policy to honor your request to not give that information.
Regardless, at NO time were there any forms to fill out for battery purchases. So your assertion that Radio Shack "most definitely" required forms to be filled out for "even the tiniest purchase the last time I went there" IS 100% false. Period.
This isn't my opinion. It's an objective fact.
Repeat after me.
I am wrong.
I am talking out my ass.
I am sorry.
Then STFU. Sorry if it's hash but there are few things more annoying in life than a person who pretends to educate people by misinforming them.
Except for maybe someone who can't cop to a mistake when they're caught stone-cold.
Dachannien writes:
"Let me guess: the small, poor country you were in was the United States, and the store you went to was the local Radio Shack."
Radio Shack does not require you fill out a form for anything other than a cellphone (the contract).
Radio Shack does not require you give your personal information for anything except extended warranties, returns and some subscription-based items like cellphones, satellite radio, etc.
As for warranties, your info is taken in case you lose your receipt, your warranty can still be found. Give dummy info if you want.
As for returns, same deal; give bogus data.
In either case, no ID is checked.
I have this theory that a new age of Enlightenment would blossom if people just stopped talking about subjects they don't know jack shit about in an effort to appear witty, erudite, learned, whatever.
So do me a favor. Shut the fuck up when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Pretty please.
pclminion writes:
"From your post it sounds like you've suffered DVT even though you thought you were doing things right. THAT'S informative."
Not really. I was getting up to get drinks, take a leak, etc. But no set times and no real plan. Again, it can hit you with just one cramped session.
Now I ALWAYS walk around and stretch a great deal if the part of my leg than hangs over the seat feels pinched at ALL.
spun writes:
"Sitting for eight hours without moving causes DVT. I sleep for eight hours without moving much and haven't yet woken up in the ICU. It's the compression of the vein caused by having your legs hanging off the edge of a chair that does it."
Hallelujah. An intelligent comment on Slashdot. Who'da thunk it?
I have DVT and ya know, I wish this point was made much more frequently. I now tend to sit with my feet on "rests" that place no pressure on the area where the leg hangs over the chair.
pclminion writes:
"They make it sounds like an "8 hour coding session" is some kind of monstrous abuse of your body. Uhhh... Don't many of us do this EVERY DAY? Just get out of the damn chair every once in a while! Was this guy pissing in a bottle or something?"
This is ignorance of the dangerous variety. You can get DVT just by sitting in a cramped position for an hour or two. In fact it's more popularly known as Second Class Syndrome.
I'm going to assume that the Second Class passengers don't piss in bottles. Though with the recent amenities cutbacks, who knows?
Please stop giving bad information to people. I thought I was taking proper breaks from my desk to walk around (fetch coffee, bathroom, slack) but apparently I wasn't careful enough.
Long story short, I used to spend long hours in a NOC (like half the people reading this). After one particularly long day of work with little stretch-time, I was walking home and boom, felt like I had a crack in my pelvis. A hospital visit revealed DVT.
A week of self-administered heparin (sp?) injections, three months of warfarin/coumadin with bi-weekly pt/inr blood tests (to adjust the coumadin dosage) and the lifelong worry that it'll act up again. I've had it reappear three times so far though I've been able to keep out of the hospital.
And it can definitely kill you. If a clot travels to the lungs or your heart you're in for a rough time. David Bloom, a reporter in Iraq, (somewhat) recently died from DVT due to sitting in a cramped M88 for days, hours at a time.
I guess what I'm saying is trust me, get up and walk around every hour or so. DVT blows.
avdp writes:
You're reading way too much into "his face". That's his shtick, he always says his jokes with a straight face (and succeeds most of the time). I wouldn't read too much into it (like he really really means it this time). I'll say it here, but it applies to many many of the other posts I've read today - this is not a great political statement he has made. It was a comedian act, in an event that hosts such act every year. He's a comedian. He was invited to this event to deliver political humor in front of political-aware people, and he delivered. Trust me, nobody (president included) lost sleep over it. Nobody in the press reported on it, because it's NOT NEWSWORTHY. It was fun to watch though.
While I realize this conversation can't go any deeper than "yes you are" and "no I'm not," I think you're dead wrong and the key here is the audience reaction.
If we can agree that the majority of audience members looked decidedly unamused then that's where I'll draw the line. I think Colbert said a lot of things -- hell the entire speech, really -- that people are not used to hearing said and to a man that isn't used to hearing it, either.
If the audience was laughing it up in the good-natured way that roasts tend to be, then I'd agree that it was pretty much not newsworthy. But the audience, by and large, looked like so many deer in headlights.
As an example; the "Cheney isn't here to shoot me in the face" stuff. Funny. Roast material. People laughed in the way people laugh at unusually harsh material that you'll find at a roast. But when it came to the "Bush believes on Wednesday what he believed on Monday and it doesn't matter what happened on Tuesday" stuff, almost the entire audience was mute.
What you traditionally find at a roast is guffaws and a laughter with a "I can't believe he just said that" overtone (viz: Scalia and the gesture of now-infamous Italian descent). There weren't many points in Colbert's "act" where you couldn't hear the crickets outside.
I pretty much agree with the people who say that this roast was Colbert's "Stewart-Carlson" moment.
ecorona writes:
This video along with John Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" should go into textbooks. As much as I like Colbert and John Stewart, how I wish they were not needed. How I wish the press were half as dedicated to the American people as they are to keeping their jobs.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, it isn't going to happen. The problem is rigged right into the system and other people have pointed it out in this thread. You can pretty much destroy your career if you piss off the White House. You don't get to be at the top of your game with a White House Press Corp gig only to go down in flames over a question.
Helen Thomas notwithstanding.
The core problem is that the White House has no obligation to answer the press. Heck, it was learned this week that Andrew Card is considering doing away with live press briefings entirely.
While I don't anticipate this happening anytime soon, I think it would be nice for American citizens to vote on which questions to ask the president. These questions are submitted in writing and the president himself has a chance to answer them (not a spokesperson, er, flack, er, lying sack of sh*t mouthpiece (did I say that?)).
Really, I could care less about Snow taking over the job. Scottie is gone ONLY because he got burned for having the stupidity to vouch for Rove and Libby. Literally, that's his only failing. NOBODY can not answer a question like Scott McClellan. When backed into a wall he'll claim he answered the question already and refuse to repeat the answer. I've seen it dozens of times.
Me, I think it's a slap in the face of every American citizen every time he does it, but that's just me.
Remove the sword of Damocles for asking the "wrong question" and you'll start getting the "right questions." It's really as simple as that.
avdp writes:
I heard that part, and didn't get it. Must be a real insider's joke, or just not funny.
IMO, the joke is fairly straightforward. It's a variation on "how's your wife and my kids?" More specifically, "how's your wife and Andy Card's kids?"
The only thing that makes me think it can't be this is because that would be, I think, even out of bounds for a roast.
wh0me writes:
I got the feeling that this is de rigeur for this kind of event, simply that we're paying more attentino because it's featured on Slashdot, BoingBoing, and wherever the hell else. So, how accurate is that perception? Has anyone seen one of these from years past? Even last year, with the war in full swing, there would have been sufficiently biting grist for a ballsy comic. Is older video of these annual press club dinners on C-Span or somewhere else? How biting is that commentary? How was it during Clinton's run?
I related the Colbert story to my boss this morning and he told me that Don Imus eviscerated the Clintons so badly that they no longer speak.
There is a point where Colbert is talking about Scott McClellan and says something like, "Scott, you're taking time off to spend time with Andrew Card's kids."
I can't think of any other way to read that except "Andrew Card is fscking Scott's wife." Maybe someone has a different explanation.
Jeremy writes:
Any number of laws regarding employment discrimination. You wouldn't ask for an interviewee's blood type for the same reason you wouldn't ask for his religion; it would open you up to all sorts of civil suits which you'd almost certainly lose.
That's a fantastic argument, Jeremy.
It would have been even better if the discussion had anything to do with an employer/employee relationship.
You can save yourself the trouble of looking like a full-on ass by reading the thread.
A. Nobody is talking about employment. Please read the thread. We're talking about whether a business can require a SSN as a condition for services. They can. You don't have to give it. They don't have to serve you.
Banks may be able to require it as a term of service since they are federally insured.
But then again we've already covered the federal case. You'd know that if you actually read the thread.
B. If you feel (A) is wrong, cite the law.
PS: This is the last post I'm making to you unless you grow a brain. I can only spoon-feed idiots for so long.
Anonymous Coward (aren't they all?), listen to me. Don't hit the reply button. Don't read while thinking about what you're going to type next. I know it's hard for you but STFU and listen.
...not for your edification. I'm replying so that all the little cretins who read this post -- now and in the next decade -- have something to chew on.
This is a conversation about whether I, John Q. Public, a person who runs my own business, can request a SSN. I can. If you disagree, cite the law I'd be violating..
Please. I'm fucking begging you.
If we agree so far, then I further suggest that I do not have to take you on as a customer. Again, if you disagree, cite the law I'd be violating.
Look, I know that talking out of your ass GoatSe.cx-style is de rigueur on Slash but I can't make it any simpler for you. I'm replying to you
So this is my last reply on the subject.
You can cite the law or you cannot. I already know which it is. I have the funny feeling you don't.
First, tell me which law I'd be in violation of if I required a customer's SSN as a prerequisite to doing business with them.
...admit you're passing around bum info and be done with it.
Second, from the SSN FAQ:
In addition, that section makes it illegal for Federal, state, and local government agencies to deny any rights, privileges or benefits to individuals who refuse to provide their SSNs unless the disclosure is required by Federal statute.
As a private business owner, I am none of these.
Just
I wrote:
Hell, I could demand their blood type under the same logic and result.
jemfinch replied:
Except you'd probably be sued, and you'd lose. Sounds like discrimination by blood type to me.
Which law would I be in violation of?
davevr writes:
First, contrary to popular belief, the sig on the back of the card is not there for identification purposes, but rather to indicate that you accept the terms of your cardholder agreement. If you do not sign the card, you cannot legally use it. Period.
First, let me preface this with a bit I'm Not Sure I'm Right. No flames.
Second, I work for a retail outfit. We're required to match the signature on the pad to the card. If it doesn't match well enough I'm required to ask for another form of ID.
Why would this be necessary if the signature isn't for ident? Are you saying that a chain with several thousand stores nation-wide doesn't know what the sig is for?
It drives me nuts when people spout off about something they know precisely nothing about because they overheard it in a conversation. Or, more likely, on Slashdot.
I run a business myself. I don't collect SSNs but I could. Someone could tell me they wouldn't provide it and then I could tell them that I wouldn't do business with them.
And it's 100% legal.
Hell, I could demand their blood type under the same logic and result.
Sure, it would be suicide for me as a business but for a bank? They don't need you, you need them.
PLEASE. For the love of fuck, STOP MISINFORMING PEOPLE JUST SO YOU CAN HEAR YOURSELF TYPE.