The most obvious one that comes to mind are the rules regarding print and air time for political candidates. Remember that while any one journalist at a news paper may report only on candidate A, the paper as a whole must give equal print space to candidates B C and D. For bloggers this would mean that despite you personally despising a candidate, you must write about their positions in an equal manner to the writing you give your favorite candidate.
There are more, but that's the most obvious and I'm in a hurry right now.
Why in the world would you want to be subject to all the rules and regulations about what you say and all the political and commercial preassure that comes from being part of the "media". Why the hell would anyone want to attach that stigma to themselves? For a backstage pass and the chance to go to jail to protect your source? There are bennefits to not being part of the media, embrace them. If you want to be a journalist, apply for a newspaper job.
In what way does that DENY THE PERSON THE WARRENTY or in anyway DENY the warranty.
I think you need to brush up on your critical reading skills:
To enable HP to provide the best possible support and service during the Limited Warranty Period, you will be required to: + Verify configurations, load most recent firmware, install software patches, run HP diagnostics and utilities, and implement temporary procedures or workarounds provided by HP while HP works on permanent solutions. In some cases, HP may require additional software such as drivers and agents to be loaded on your system in order to take advantage of these support solutions and capabilities. + Cooperate with HP in attempting to resolve the problem over the telephone. This may involve performing routine diagnostic procedures, installing additional software updates or patches, removing third-party options, and/or substituting options. + Maintain a procedure to reconstruct your lost or altered files, data, or programs that is not dependent on the HP Hardware Product under warranty support. + Perform additional tasks as defined within each type of warranty service listed below and any other actions that HP may reasonably request in order to best perform the warranty support.
Those are the requirements for waranty support. Reinstalling windows falls under those procedures quite easily, and according to TFA she was told she would get waranty coverage if she reinstalled windows.
Fail to meet the REQUIREMENTS for waranty service and your waranty will be denied.
Um, you do realize that car manufacturers do indeed limit themselves to 3 or 4 models of any given product. How many models of the ford explorer are there? How about the mazda 6? dodge caravan? What you don't see from manufactures is the Toyota Sub-Compact XZC712 Toyota Sub-Compact XZC713 Toyota Sub-Compact XZC722 Toyota Sub-Compact XZC712-N Toyota Sub-Compact XZC863 Toyota Sub-Compact QT7R Toyota Sub-Compact XZB777 and Toyota Sub-Compact XT Ultimate. Yet this is how some companies choose to name thier products. Hell Apple did it in the 90's and it was just as shitty then. Powermac 5300, 5400, 6100, 6200 etc etc etc. The worst about this is that there's usualy no guarantee that a higher number means a better product. A D-Link XT5300-Q might be a less product than a D-Link XT2000.
Why would a company need more than 3 or 4 models of a particular product in the first place at any given time? If you have hundreds of products that all do essentially the same thing, and whose only differention is a small feature here or there and a 6 character alpha numeric string, then you need to rethink your product line.
So the fact that other planets in our solar system are experiencing changes in temperatures which a close to the changes that we are experiencing ourselves is entirely irellevant to the discussion? You aparently have little faith in the effects of the rest of the solar system on our planet (yet something as simple as the moon affects our planet)
Why? Just out of curiosity, why do you think this should be so? What you seem to want here is that any evidence or testimony obtained during the comisson of a crime should be inadmissable. For now, let us ignore whether the law breaker should be punished (they should in my opinion but it's tangental to the topic) So lets try a couple senarios:
1) I break into your house, find heroin and a meth lab, and report you to the police. As you said above, this should be inadmissable.
2) I break into your house and find you strangling your wife, and report you. So far, it seems this should still be inadmissable.
3) I break into your house and find you raping your daughter, and your wife dead on the floor. Again inadmissable.
4) I break into your house and find you dead on the floor and another burglar climbing out your window. Again inadmissable.
Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way, let's try some harder ones:
5) I break into Exxon's corporate offices to spy for another company, and discover documents indicating they are dumping oil in national parks. Inadmissable?
6) I'm a contract killer and someone hires me to kill the president. For whatever reason I have a change of heart. Inadmissable?
7) I'm a drug dealer, during one of our deals, you tell me that you just killed a family up the street because you needed a place to hide from the police. Inadmissable?
8) I'm stealing from a closed store at night, across the street, I see someone being mugged. Inadmissable?
9) An accident occurs down the street, in my rush to get there and try to help, I cross the street in the middle (jaywalking) and because of that I can clearly see the license plate of the person who is now driving away from the scene of the accident. Inadmissable?
In each of these senarios, without a doubt my testimony should be called into question, but evidence is evidence and there is no need to immediately exclude it because I shouldn't have been there.
Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID . Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures.
Master card is even worse, though I don't have their manual handy right now. And while the majority of cards don't have pictures on them, and increasing number do.
Here's a couple perfectly valid reasons why a merchant might want to hold on to such information:
1) Transaction history for research (chargebacks, billing disputes, tax purposes, etc)
2) No reciept returns. "No reciept, no problem, if you paid with a card, I can look that reciept up here."
3) Catching fraudulent returns. I once caught a guy who was trying to return stolen merchandise for cash, the way it worked was he returned a stolen item for store credit, and picked up a slightly more expensive item, he paid for that with his debit card (cash equivilent transaction). He would then head to another store in the chain and attempt to return the item for cash back, insisting that he had bought the original (stolen item) with the debit card he paid the difference on. A quick transaction check shows a few months of small purchase large return transactions on this card, and no original purchases. A little bit more digging shows no original purchases associated with this customer at all. The end result is fraudulent transactions are stopped and a shop lifter is uncovered.
While #3 certainly isn't common, #2 and #1 are common enough that I see many merchants being perfectly justified in storing such data. I also see the public being justified in holding that company liable should such data be compromised.
Most merchant agreements that I've seen expressly forbid you from requiring ID if the card is signed. Even worse, many of the merchant agreements require that you accept the picture on the card as valid ID. The problem is, most of those pictures look like old yearbook photos and the person in the pircture looks nothing like the person in front of you.
Not so true for retail stores. While the laws are still generaly in favor of the consumer, the advertised price counts for something. That's why stores don't advertise something for $2 and ring it up at $50 when you get to the registers.
But the deal wasnt two free box sets, the deal was BUY ONE (at regular price) and GET ONE free. This is more akin to you printing up a quote for something that's say $8001 and not realizing when you printed it out and handed it to your customer that the printer glitched and the middle line is missing from the 8 so the price reads $0001. Should your buyer be able to get away with taking advantage of the printer error? Why is it we piss and moan when companies act immoral and stick to the exact letter of laws and policies and then cheer and applaud when consumers do the same?
The record companies would love that. If Apple stops, that gives them all the leverage they need to turn all the other online stores into even worse collections of incompatible restrictions than they already are. The RIAA are brain dead (or pretend to be) they saw the open letter as an invitation to license fair play to other companies. Apple closing down shop on DRM music will be viewed as an admission that permissive or no DRM can't work.
Stunts like that mean nothing. They don't prove anything except that if you make a special event, you will generate more interest and sales than normal, but companies have known this for years. The only way this will change is if the music companies call Apple and Yahoo's bluff and say "ok go for it", but they won't because they know that Apple and Yahoo are right. And for Apple and Yahoo to be right, the RIAA has to be wrong, and that is very damaging for their interests.
I said it before, I'll say it again, the minute that Apple backs down on its "every music file is exactly the same and gets the same treatment" is the minute that along with some songs without DRM, we also see some songs that you can't burn, some that you can't play more than once a day, some that cost $500, some that cost $0.02, some you can't download, some you can't put on your iPod and some that you can't ever backup. Apple's plan is very honest and very forward, it's either all or nothing with DRM, and that's exactly where their barganing power lies.
Must we need an example before we decide that something which goes against the laws of justice in this land is bad? But if you insist, how about the whole Plame incident recently? Hiding the person who revealed the identity of an agent in the field to the public, surely that is malfeasance is it not? And I'm not neccesarily hoisting the specter of president bush, just using a known and hated figure, you could easily replace reporter with police, district attorneys, professors, scientists, priests, mail men or whoever. The point is, you are declaring a member (or members) of society to be above the law.
As far as the whole 6th amendment argument, it's convenient you want a literal translation of the constitution when discussing one's right to face their accuser and yet you want a loose interpretation of the constitution to allow for your journalist shield laws.
Let's put this whole thing into perspective: you have declared members of society above the law. Regardless of the law and intention, you have effectively created two classes of citizens, those who must follow all the laws, and those who must not, and thus have violated a basic tenet of our democracy, that before the law, all men are equal.
Why and what makes a journalist above the law? And what makes a journalist and how does that make it neccecary for them to be above the law?
This is true for a subset of "our poor" in the USA. It depends on which poor you talk about, and which "many countries" you talk about, as well as what metrics you use to measure "standard of living".
In any country, no matter how high the standard of living, I can find a subset of poor who live off nothing but scraps and garbage. The majority of our poor enjoy such luxuries.
False to all but the cable TV subscriptions. In the US, very few of the poor own anything, except debt. Those who are poor and actually own anything tend to work at least two jobs and have no time to enjoy the things they own, except the TV subscription. The US is run on deficit and debt, and eventually it will be called in, or just collapse, as it did in the 1930's. However, the next time it collapses, the rest of the world will be ready to fill the void left by the implosion.
This is a failing of the people, not a failing of the system. I lived for quite a while on just a hair above minimum wage, and while It was no picnic, it was not some unbeatable cycle (which is why I'm not living as such any more). The problem is, we don't teach (as a society) any sort of responsibility, as you so sickeningly point out, they all have cable TV. WHY? That's $40 a month, which is more than a week's worth of food. That $40/month can be saved up to buy a better car. That $40 a month can be used to care for your health. The problem is not that people can't live on the minimum wage (or even below it) it's that they don't know how. If you live alone, you don't need a 600 sqft appartment, you need a studio appartment. If you make so little money, you don't need McDonalds and BurgerKing for dinner, you need to invest in some rice and some $0.50 pot pies from the store. $40/ month saved for 6 months is money to buy an enrolement at a comunity college and better yourself and your living condition.
The problem is, we as a society drill it into these people that they can't get out, that it's a cycle that will hold them down. And then we implement policies to hold them down, we hike minimum wage, which raises the cost of essential goods like food. We impliment welfare programs that pay better than minimum wage jobs and encourage these people to stay home instead of working and becoming experienced and succesful. We insist that they need cars and homes now rather than studio appartments and public transportation.
You don't see anything wrong with declaring a nebulous subset of society called "reporters" as above the law? You don't see how this harms democracy? You don't see how violating our constitutions right to face your accuser could possibly be bad for this country. You don't see something wrong with having a statute that taken to it's logical end would allow a reporter to accuse you of a crime, present "evidence" and never have to prove any validity because his source is "secret".
Tell me, do you feel the same if you replace reporter with "President Bush"?
You have no idea what I know. You assume that because I'm succesful enough to have a job and a wage which allows me the luxuries of personal internet access that I could not possibly have come from any semblance of poverty. You are part of the problem not I. Where as I encourage those who are down and out to work up and out of their life cycle, you insist it can't be done and beat them back down.
Do you know why at state run institutions like schools, religious teachings and symbols are forbidden? It's not because of the constitution (at least not directly) it's because such schools recieve part of their funding from the federal government, and therefore are part federal institution and therefore subject to the laws that govern the federal government (i.e. the first amendment).
Do you know why it is illegal for a private business to discriminate against you based on your race, religion or gender even if there are no state laws governing such discrimination? Because your business may recieve income from out of state residents and thus you are engaging in commerce between the states and thus subject to the regulations of the federal government.
This is just the next logical extention of the series of laws we've been passing since the beginning of this country. The people have asked that any government involvement with an item means that the government should have some jurisdiction over it, and so this is what you get.
There's an old saying about being careful what you wish for, it's a shame we didn't heed it before now.
How does making evidence public record avoid the truth? Here's the thing, whatever is on that tape is the truth (or a version of it). The prosecution wants that public, the defense only wants a judge to see it. Which side will bring the most truth to the public?
Slashdot Mirror
The most obvious one that comes to mind are the rules regarding print and air time for political candidates. Remember that while any one journalist at a news paper may report only on candidate A, the paper as a whole must give equal print space to candidates B C and D. For bloggers this would mean that despite you personally despising a candidate, you must write about their positions in an equal manner to the writing you give your favorite candidate.
There are more, but that's the most obvious and I'm in a hurry right now.
Why in the world would you want to be subject to all the rules and regulations about what you say and all the political and commercial preassure that comes from being part of the "media". Why the hell would anyone want to attach that stigma to themselves? For a backstage pass and the chance to go to jail to protect your source? There are bennefits to not being part of the media, embrace them. If you want to be a journalist, apply for a newspaper job.
In what way does that DENY THE PERSON THE WARRENTY or in anyway DENY the warranty.
I think you need to brush up on your critical reading skills:
To enable HP to provide the best possible support and service during the Limited Warranty Period, you will be required to:
+ Verify configurations, load most recent firmware, install software patches, run HP diagnostics and utilities, and implement temporary procedures or workarounds provided by HP while HP works on permanent solutions.
In some cases, HP may require additional software such as drivers and agents to be loaded on your system in order to take advantage of these support solutions and capabilities.
+ Cooperate with HP in attempting to resolve the problem over the telephone. This may involve performing routine diagnostic procedures, installing additional software updates or patches, removing third-party options, and/or substituting options.
+ Maintain a procedure to reconstruct your lost or altered files, data, or programs that is not dependent on the HP Hardware Product under warranty support.
+ Perform additional tasks as defined within each type of warranty service listed below and any other actions that HP may reasonably request in order to best perform the warranty support.
Those are the requirements for waranty support. Reinstalling windows falls under those procedures quite easily, and according to TFA she was told she would get waranty coverage if she reinstalled windows.
Fail to meet the REQUIREMENTS for waranty service and your waranty will be denied.
Um, you do realize that car manufacturers do indeed limit themselves to 3 or 4 models of any given product. How many models of the ford explorer are there? How about the mazda 6? dodge caravan? What you don't see from manufactures is the Toyota Sub-Compact XZC712 Toyota Sub-Compact XZC713 Toyota Sub-Compact XZC722 Toyota Sub-Compact XZC712-N Toyota Sub-Compact XZC863 Toyota Sub-Compact QT7R Toyota Sub-Compact XZB777 and Toyota Sub-Compact XT Ultimate. Yet this is how some companies choose to name thier products. Hell Apple did it in the 90's and it was just as shitty then. Powermac 5300, 5400, 6100, 6200 etc etc etc. The worst about this is that there's usualy no guarantee that a higher number means a better product. A D-Link XT5300-Q might be a less product than a D-Link XT2000.
Why would a company need more than 3 or 4 models of a particular product in the first place at any given time? If you have hundreds of products that all do essentially the same thing, and whose only differention is a small feature here or there and a 6 character alpha numeric string, then you need to rethink your product line.
Which would lead one to ask why Corporate IT Guy bought systems that didn't run their key application in the first place. He should be fired for that.
So the fact that other planets in our solar system are experiencing changes in temperatures which a close to the changes that we are experiencing ourselves is entirely irellevant to the discussion? You aparently have little faith in the effects of the rest of the solar system on our planet (yet something as simple as the moon affects our planet)
How much does the glass display for an aircraft cost compared to your camera? How much of that cost is testing?
Why? Just out of curiosity, why do you think this should be so? What you seem to want here is that any evidence or testimony obtained during the comisson of a crime should be inadmissable. For now, let us ignore whether the law breaker should be punished (they should in my opinion but it's tangental to the topic) So lets try a couple senarios:
1) I break into your house, find heroin and a meth lab, and report you to the police. As you said above, this should be inadmissable.
2) I break into your house and find you strangling your wife, and report you. So far, it seems this should still be inadmissable.
3) I break into your house and find you raping your daughter, and your wife dead on the floor. Again inadmissable.
4) I break into your house and find you dead on the floor and another burglar climbing out your window. Again inadmissable.
Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way, let's try some harder ones:
5) I break into Exxon's corporate offices to spy for another company, and discover documents indicating they are dumping oil in national parks. Inadmissable?
6) I'm a contract killer and someone hires me to kill the president. For whatever reason I have a change of heart. Inadmissable?
7) I'm a drug dealer, during one of our deals, you tell me that you just killed a family up the street because you needed a place to hide from the police. Inadmissable?
8) I'm stealing from a closed store at night, across the street, I see someone being mugged. Inadmissable?
9) An accident occurs down the street, in my rush to get there and try to help, I cross the street in the middle (jaywalking) and because of that I can clearly see the license plate of the person who is now driving away from the scene of the accident. Inadmissable?
In each of these senarios, without a doubt my testimony should be called into question, but evidence is evidence and there is no need to immediately exclude it because I shouldn't have been there.
Seems that you haven't read the agreements too carefully then:
v isa_merchants.pdf
.
http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/rules_for_
Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID . Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures
Master card is even worse, though I don't have their manual handy right now. And while the majority of cards don't have pictures on them, and increasing number do.
Here's a couple perfectly valid reasons why a merchant might want to hold on to such information:
1) Transaction history for research (chargebacks, billing disputes, tax purposes, etc)
2) No reciept returns. "No reciept, no problem, if you paid with a card, I can look that reciept up here."
3) Catching fraudulent returns. I once caught a guy who was trying to return stolen merchandise for cash, the way it worked was he returned a stolen item for store credit, and picked up a slightly more expensive item, he paid for that with his debit card (cash equivilent transaction). He would then head to another store in the chain and attempt to return the item for cash back, insisting that he had bought the original (stolen item) with the debit card he paid the difference on. A quick transaction check shows a few months of small purchase large return transactions on this card, and no original purchases. A little bit more digging shows no original purchases associated with this customer at all. The end result is fraudulent transactions are stopped and a shop lifter is uncovered.
While #3 certainly isn't common, #2 and #1 are common enough that I see many merchants being perfectly justified in storing such data. I also see the public being justified in holding that company liable should such data be compromised.
It may be different in Australia, but in the US, it is a violation of the merchant agreements to require ID.
Most merchant agreements that I've seen expressly forbid you from requiring ID if the card is signed. Even worse, many of the merchant agreements require that you accept the picture on the card as valid ID. The problem is, most of those pictures look like old yearbook photos and the person in the pircture looks nothing like the person in front of you.
Not so true for retail stores. While the laws are still generaly in favor of the consumer, the advertised price counts for something. That's why stores don't advertise something for $2 and ring it up at $50 when you get to the registers.
But the deal wasnt two free box sets, the deal was BUY ONE (at regular price) and GET ONE free. This is more akin to you printing up a quote for something that's say $8001 and not realizing when you printed it out and handed it to your customer that the printer glitched and the middle line is missing from the 8 so the price reads $0001. Should your buyer be able to get away with taking advantage of the printer error? Why is it we piss and moan when companies act immoral and stick to the exact letter of laws and policies and then cheer and applaud when consumers do the same?
The record companies would love that. If Apple stops, that gives them all the leverage they need to turn all the other online stores into even worse collections of incompatible restrictions than they already are. The RIAA are brain dead (or pretend to be) they saw the open letter as an invitation to license fair play to other companies. Apple closing down shop on DRM music will be viewed as an admission that permissive or no DRM can't work.
Stunts like that mean nothing. They don't prove anything except that if you make a special event, you will generate more interest and sales than normal, but companies have known this for years. The only way this will change is if the music companies call Apple and Yahoo's bluff and say "ok go for it", but they won't because they know that Apple and Yahoo are right. And for Apple and Yahoo to be right, the RIAA has to be wrong, and that is very damaging for their interests.
I said it before, I'll say it again, the minute that Apple backs down on its "every music file is exactly the same and gets the same treatment" is the minute that along with some songs without DRM, we also see some songs that you can't burn, some that you can't play more than once a day, some that cost $500, some that cost $0.02, some you can't download, some you can't put on your iPod and some that you can't ever backup. Apple's plan is very honest and very forward, it's either all or nothing with DRM, and that's exactly where their barganing power lies.
Which is all well and good until the clones sell computers without the OS and then sell you a copy of the retail version of the OS.
Must we need an example before we decide that something which goes against the laws of justice in this land is bad? But if you insist, how about the whole Plame incident recently? Hiding the person who revealed the identity of an agent in the field to the public, surely that is malfeasance is it not? And I'm not neccesarily hoisting the specter of president bush, just using a known and hated figure, you could easily replace reporter with police, district attorneys, professors, scientists, priests, mail men or whoever. The point is, you are declaring a member (or members) of society to be above the law.
As far as the whole 6th amendment argument, it's convenient you want a literal translation of the constitution when discussing one's right to face their accuser and yet you want a loose interpretation of the constitution to allow for your journalist shield laws.
Let's put this whole thing into perspective: you have declared members of society above the law. Regardless of the law and intention, you have effectively created two classes of citizens, those who must follow all the laws, and those who must not, and thus have violated a basic tenet of our democracy, that before the law, all men are equal.
Why and what makes a journalist above the law? And what makes a journalist and how does that make it neccecary for them to be above the law?
This is true for a subset of "our poor" in the USA. It depends on which poor you talk about, and which "many countries" you talk about, as well as what metrics you use to measure "standard of living".
In any country, no matter how high the standard of living, I can find a subset of poor who live off nothing but scraps and garbage. The majority of our poor enjoy such luxuries.
False to all but the cable TV subscriptions. In the US, very few of the poor own anything, except debt. Those who are poor and actually own anything tend to work at least two jobs and have no time to enjoy the things they own, except the TV subscription. The US is run on deficit and debt, and eventually it will be called in, or just collapse, as it did in the 1930's. However, the next time it collapses, the rest of the world will be ready to fill the void left by the implosion.
This is a failing of the people, not a failing of the system. I lived for quite a while on just a hair above minimum wage, and while It was no picnic, it was not some unbeatable cycle (which is why I'm not living as such any more). The problem is, we don't teach (as a society) any sort of responsibility, as you so sickeningly point out, they all have cable TV. WHY? That's $40 a month, which is more than a week's worth of food. That $40/month can be saved up to buy a better car. That $40 a month can be used to care for your health. The problem is not that people can't live on the minimum wage (or even below it) it's that they don't know how. If you live alone, you don't need a 600 sqft appartment, you need a studio appartment. If you make so little money, you don't need McDonalds and BurgerKing for dinner, you need to invest in some rice and some $0.50 pot pies from the store. $40/ month saved for 6 months is money to buy an enrolement at a comunity college and better yourself and your living condition.
The problem is, we as a society drill it into these people that they can't get out, that it's a cycle that will hold them down. And then we implement policies to hold them down, we hike minimum wage, which raises the cost of essential goods like food. We impliment welfare programs that pay better than minimum wage jobs and encourage these people to stay home instead of working and becoming experienced and succesful. We insist that they need cars and homes now rather than studio appartments and public transportation.
You don't see anything wrong with declaring a nebulous subset of society called "reporters" as above the law? You don't see how this harms democracy? You don't see how violating our constitutions right to face your accuser could possibly be bad for this country. You don't see something wrong with having a statute that taken to it's logical end would allow a reporter to accuse you of a crime, present "evidence" and never have to prove any validity because his source is "secret".
Tell me, do you feel the same if you replace reporter with "President Bush"?
You have no idea what being poor means.
You have no idea what I know. You assume that because I'm succesful enough to have a job and a wage which allows me the luxuries of personal internet access that I could not possibly have come from any semblance of poverty. You are part of the problem not I. Where as I encourage those who are down and out to work up and out of their life cycle, you insist it can't be done and beat them back down.
This is hardly new or in any way unusual.
Do you know why at state run institutions like schools, religious teachings and symbols are forbidden? It's not because of the constitution (at least not directly) it's because such schools recieve part of their funding from the federal government, and therefore are part federal institution and therefore subject to the laws that govern the federal government (i.e. the first amendment).
Do you know why it is illegal for a private business to discriminate against you based on your race, religion or gender even if there are no state laws governing such discrimination? Because your business may recieve income from out of state residents and thus you are engaging in commerce between the states and thus subject to the regulations of the federal government.
This is just the next logical extention of the series of laws we've been passing since the beginning of this country. The people have asked that any government involvement with an item means that the government should have some jurisdiction over it, and so this is what you get.
There's an old saying about being careful what you wish for, it's a shame we didn't heed it before now.
How does making evidence public record avoid the truth? Here's the thing, whatever is on that tape is the truth (or a version of it). The prosecution wants that public, the defense only wants a judge to see it. Which side will bring the most truth to the public?