because they have to adhere to CAN-SPAM Act or similar laws/regulations in other countries. Not only that, they may have a reputation worth upholding.
True that they may have to honour regulations and uphold their image, but the hundreds of "affiliates" and "partners" they share your address data with may not be so honest and forthright in their dealings. I've seen more than a few "privacy" policies that explicitly mention that the privacy polices of its affiliates may differ significantly.
I've always assumed that opt-out works something like this:
- Customer receives spam.
- Customer opts-out of future spam.
- Company duly removes customers address from "OK for us to spam list.
- Company adds address to "OK for partners and affiliates to spam" list.
If there has ever been a time for a corporate death penalty, it's right the fuck now.
Or, at the very least, a televised kick in the balls.
We could make it a game show, with a national lottery at dollar a ticket for the chance to be the one doing the kicking. Ad pricing could start at Super Bowl levels for the first episode, and double for each subsequent show. The money from the lottery and ad buys could be used to buy up the toxic assets, or buy out the predatory mortgages and relocate the victims into something actually affordable (in Florida).
It'd be a multi-win scenario. The public would get to vent its anger, the CEO's would learn a sharp, public and valuable lesson, and the corporate glass ceiling would be shattered as a host of women get sudden promotions to positions of power.
Though why anyone should care about the Party of someone running for the local School Board is beyond me (yes, one of the elections in question was for the local School Board).
Remember, this is the same state that's home to the Creationist Museum. What better place to make sure that either side of the argument is taught than at the School Board level?
As much as it pains us all, these banks really are too big to fail. That needs to be fixed.
Well the simplest fix would be to change "too big to fail" arrangement into a "too big to exist" arrangement. We've had a hard lesson on how absolutely absolute power will corrupt. Why let it happen again?
Like the original, the story is about the personalities in the room, with the Russina take centering how the men are a cross section of Soviet/Post-Soviet society.
Bold up the bits about specialty. Picking the wrong lawyer can actually end up hurting your case more than anything else. There is no such thing as a lawyer that knows every aspect of every law.
Most attorneys pick an area of law they are comfortable with and learn it, and only it, to the point of expertise. Asking them to represent you in a an area outside of their expertise is akin to asking a duck for directions - sure you might reach your destination, but you'll wade through a swamp to get there. A criminal trial lawyer who is flashy, well dressed, and quick on his feet in an OJ-style case, is likely to be helpless in front of a civil trial judge with a short fuse and a daily calendar of 300+ piss fights he's trying to get sorted by 5:00.
While I think JWT is a nice guy, one only needs to look at the purchase of Veritas to find a completely failed business model, and a CEO who doesn't seem to "get it". Even after that, they continued (and still continue) to snatch up other companies with little regard to how it will really affect shareholders.
I think this is more indicative of a general trend in modern corporate culture that has never really made any sense to me.
Somewhere along the line corporate success has become less equated with how good your products were, and more with how many competitors you could buy out of existence. Larger is not necessarily always better if the only thing you're trying to do is grow for growth's sake, and abandoning innovation and competition in favor of a policy of expensive buyouts does nothing to improve your reputation with your most important assets: your customers. All a customer can see is a CEO throwing shareholder money at his competitors wallets while doing nothing to improve his business model or product development.
In a recent story on catching Internet Criminals, it was brought up that the UK Government has to pay something like $300 per request when requesting user data from ISPs.
It seems kind of surprising to me that an ISP would try to charge the government anything for access to investigatory data. I'd think the government would just respond with an "OK, if that's the way you want to play it. Allow us to introduce you to our little regulatory friend; the "Federal Undernet Cooperative Knowledge and Unification Act" (aka: FUCK-U) that states you will give us this data for free, whenever we ask, and in whatever condition we desire."
Liberals can never understand this, which is why they are perpetual victims.
And neocons can't seem to understand that you can't throw people in jail, and keep them there indefinitely, for something they might do, which is why they are perpetually afraid.
While the blatant bias on Fox is irritating, I just keep mind of the fact that it's the television equivalent of a three year old's screeching as he's being dragged out of the restaurant for a timeout.
Fox once had an opinion that mattered to an administration more interested in promoting divisiveness than intellectual debate. The tables have turned and they're now facing a long stretch in the political wilderness. Like the rabid three year old, they just want to make as much noise as possible on the way out.
The problem here is that the average user is just going to click the first "reply" button he sees . ..
I wonder if the problem stems more from it's proximity to the "Reply" button. Has anyone ever tried re-locating the "Reply All" button, say to the end of the toolbar? If so, did it make a difference?
That's actually pretty reassuring to hear. I work in the city and barely a day goes by that I don't see an officer abusing his authority somehow. The worst part is that the abuse is often so trivial. The best recent example being an officer cutting to the front of a line at a diner and, when a woman asked him to go to the rear, responded with "You don't want to mess with me". Others in line got involved, and he grudgingly went to the back of the line, but the fact that we was so quick to try and throw his authority around over a place in line was deeply disturbing.
Also, we have to ask permission before taking someone's picture on the street.
How long before an officer forgets to ask, or more bluntly, insists he can? It's not the systems that worry me so much (although they do) as the people in charge of them. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
There are two assumptions in the above argument that need addressing.
1. That the wealthiest actually do pay the higher taxes.
It's simply not true as long as off shore "shelters", tax incentives and tax credits combine to erase the debt, or create a negative balance.
2. Threats to the economy in the form of "we'll take our toys and leave" are empty bluffs.
If a business or an individual doesn't like paying taxes now, why are they still here? That's right, the U.S. is still the world's largest purchasing market. Only a fool thinks a business can survive on a global level by ignoring the U.S. market. Feel free to take your toys away - we'll just recover the tax loss by increasing import fees.
A country like China may welcome a company wishing to re-locate, they will most definitely explain that only the truly delusional will believe that the rules of business are going to remain exactly the same. Fuck around with the Chinese economy, and some family will be billed for the bullet in the back of a CEO's skull. The "friendlier" environment you speak of can, and will, rapidly become hostile if it sees the same deceptive and manipulative practices being perpetuated at its expense.
Business needs to get over this notion that the country and its people owe them something. It is also high time business tried becoming a citizen of the world instead of trying to own it. One way or another, business should pay its fair share for the economic freedoms the U.S. has given it over the decades. It's called patriotism. This "beast" that Cheney and others call the U.S. government spends a tremendous amount of time, energy and money making sure that both citizen and corporate "interests" are protected and served. If business does not want to help foot the bill for this service - "feed the beast", so to speak - then so be it. Plenty of people would be more than happy with a 70% cut in defense spending, a closure of all foreign military bases, and a policy of global disengagement. Prove to the people that these interest are their interest, then pony up. Either everybody shares the bill, or the beast doesn't come out to play.
Slashdot Mirror
So who's the manufacturer?
Plug-n-Pray?
True that they may have to honour regulations and uphold their image, but the hundreds of "affiliates" and "partners" they share your address data with may not be so honest and forthright in their dealings. I've seen more than a few "privacy" policies that explicitly mention that the privacy polices of its affiliates may differ significantly.
I've always assumed that opt-out works something like this:
- Customer receives spam.
- Customer opts-out of future spam.
- Company duly removes customers address from "OK for us to spam list.
- Company adds address to "OK for partners and affiliates to spam" list.
Yep, and it did near give me a heart attack . . . up until the point I ordered the exact same memory direct from Crucial for about $80.
Or, at the very least, a televised kick in the balls.
We could make it a game show, with a national lottery at dollar a ticket for the chance to be the one doing the kicking. Ad pricing could start at Super Bowl levels for the first episode, and double for each subsequent show. The money from the lottery and ad buys could be used to buy up the toxic assets, or buy out the predatory mortgages and relocate the victims into something actually affordable (in Florida).
It'd be a multi-win scenario. The public would get to vent its anger, the CEO's would learn a sharp, public and valuable lesson, and the corporate glass ceiling would be shattered as a host of women get sudden promotions to positions of power.
Remember, this is the same state that's home to the Creationist Museum. What better place to make sure that either side of the argument is taught than at the School Board level?
Well the simplest fix would be to change "too big to fail" arrangement into a "too big to exist" arrangement. We've had a hard lesson on how absolutely absolute power will corrupt. Why let it happen again?
Actually,Russia filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov has just released a remake.
Like the original, the story is about the personalities in the room, with the Russina take centering how the men are a cross section of Soviet/Post-Soviet society.
Seriously. And here I thought AIG had a lock on the crown of corporate stupidity.
Does celibacy qualify as an orientation?
Bold up the bits about specialty. Picking the wrong lawyer can actually end up hurting your case more than anything else. There is no such thing as a lawyer that knows every aspect of every law.
Most attorneys pick an area of law they are comfortable with and learn it, and only it, to the point of expertise. Asking them to represent you in a an area outside of their expertise is akin to asking a duck for directions - sure you might reach your destination, but you'll wade through a swamp to get there. A criminal trial lawyer who is flashy, well dressed, and quick on his feet in an OJ-style case, is likely to be helpless in front of a civil trial judge with a short fuse and a daily calendar of 300+ piss fights he's trying to get sorted by 5:00.
I think this is more indicative of a general trend in modern corporate culture that has never really made any sense to me.
Somewhere along the line corporate success has become less equated with how good your products were, and more with how many competitors you could buy out of existence. Larger is not necessarily always better if the only thing you're trying to do is grow for growth's sake, and abandoning innovation and competition in favor of a policy of expensive buyouts does nothing to improve your reputation with your most important assets: your customers. All a customer can see is a CEO throwing shareholder money at his competitors wallets while doing nothing to improve his business model or product development.
It seems kind of surprising to me that an ISP would try to charge the government anything for access to investigatory data. I'd think the government would just respond with an "OK, if that's the way you want to play it. Allow us to introduce you to our little regulatory friend; the "Federal Undernet Cooperative Knowledge and Unification Act" (aka: FUCK-U) that states you will give us this data for free, whenever we ask, and in whatever condition we desire."
aofdsnpqewv daddee? ;odufbpqa9euiejrnvqe
Sorry about that. The cat . . .
And neocons can't seem to understand that you can't throw people in jail, and keep them there indefinitely, for something they might do, which is why they are perpetually afraid.
While the blatant bias on Fox is irritating, I just keep mind of the fact that it's the television equivalent of a three year old's screeching as he's being dragged out of the restaurant for a timeout.
Fox once had an opinion that mattered to an administration more interested in promoting divisiveness than intellectual debate. The tables have turned and they're now facing a long stretch in the political wilderness. Like the rabid three year old, they just want to make as much noise as possible on the way out.
...coming to visit.
I wonder if the problem stems more from it's proximity to the "Reply" button. Has anyone ever tried re-locating the "Reply All" button, say to the end of the toolbar? If so, did it make a difference?
Look on the bright side. Of all the endangered species out there, magma would be the only one that actually stood a chance when fighting back.
Imagine some redneck magma poacher, stalking his prey, suddenly being ambushed by a hostile flow:
That's actually pretty reassuring to hear. I work in the city and barely a day goes by that I don't see an officer abusing his authority somehow. The worst part is that the abuse is often so trivial. The best recent example being an officer cutting to the front of a line at a diner and, when a woman asked him to go to the rear, responded with "You don't want to mess with me". Others in line got involved, and he grudgingly went to the back of the line, but the fact that we was so quick to try and throw his authority around over a place in line was deeply disturbing.
How long before an officer forgets to ask, or more bluntly, insists he can? It's not the systems that worry me so much (although they do) as the people in charge of them. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Which would you rather have, a tax cut, or the TSA?
The cock punching, though. That's still good . . .
Thanks to the provision making copyright violations a felony, we won't have too many people left to vote for foolish shit like this.
There are two assumptions in the above argument that need addressing.
1. That the wealthiest actually do pay the higher taxes.
It's simply not true as long as off shore "shelters", tax incentives and tax credits combine to erase the debt, or create a negative balance.
2. Threats to the economy in the form of "we'll take our toys and leave" are empty bluffs.
If a business or an individual doesn't like paying taxes now, why are they still here? That's right, the U.S. is still the world's largest purchasing market. Only a fool thinks a business can survive on a global level by ignoring the U.S. market. Feel free to take your toys away - we'll just recover the tax loss by increasing import fees.
A country like China may welcome a company wishing to re-locate, they will most definitely explain that only the truly delusional will believe that the rules of business are going to remain exactly the same. Fuck around with the Chinese economy, and some family will be billed for the bullet in the back of a CEO's skull. The "friendlier" environment you speak of can, and will, rapidly become hostile if it sees the same deceptive and manipulative practices being perpetuated at its expense.
Business needs to get over this notion that the country and its people owe them something. It is also high time business tried becoming a citizen of the world instead of trying to own it. One way or another, business should pay its fair share for the economic freedoms the U.S. has given it over the decades. It's called patriotism. This "beast" that Cheney and others call the U.S. government spends a tremendous amount of time, energy and money making sure that both citizen and corporate "interests" are protected and served. If business does not want to help foot the bill for this service - "feed the beast", so to speak - then so be it. Plenty of people would be more than happy with a 70% cut in defense spending, a closure of all foreign military bases, and a policy of global disengagement. Prove to the people that these interest are their interest, then pony up. Either everybody shares the bill, or the beast doesn't come out to play.