The difference is those people outside the US are subject to a different set of laws. If PayPal had a problem with an EU citizen, they would have to file outside of the US under those laws.
This is the reason that non-US citizens are not included in the class action suit. With a win on this case, it would not be difficult to find a pro-bono attorney to handle the same case but with non-US citizens.
I always thought "22 Twain" was kind of funny... ripped of from Murder by Death. However, I think I will start using this guys address... at least until the next P-P-Powerbook story comes to/.
Tod: You know, Mrs. Buchman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.
I had the same experience in Houston. I'm a contract programmer (read, paid hourly) and did jury duty for 4 days at $7/day. Parking was $15/day, and lunch in that area can't be had for less than $8. So the days cost me $64 not counting the loss of revenue.
On your other comment, my fiance is a police officer. Every September, she has to go to a 2 day class (at tax payer expense of course) to learn all the new laws that have been implemented in Texas. This past year there were something like 120 new laws. We also have to buy her a new penal code book each year for $60 so she can keep current. I have no idea if all departments do this, but I can imagine there's a mass of officers out there who have no idea what new laws affect their job.
Bloat is bloat, no matter how you look at it, and our legal system(s) are one of the worst. But those new laws give the sleaziticians something to brag about to their constituency.
I've often argued that if we are going to ban guns because guns themselves (rather than irresponsible people weilding them) are dangerous, then we'd have to ban the following short list as well...
automobiles
trains
knives
pencils
scissors
box cutters
forks
saws
hammers
Once we get rid of those, then we'll start another list, because surely criminals will begin bludgeoning people with tree limbs.
The point is that those that wish to do harm will find a way to do it, regardless of the weapon of choice. And there will not always be a police officer around to stop said harm.
Guns are not the problem.... people are the problem.
if most of them wernt tax collection agents for the goverment
If you stuck to the speed limit, you wouldn't be paying any of those extra taxes, would you? I'm not going to tell you to obey all laws, but don't complain when you get caught breaking them.
Once again... it comes down to good parenting. If your children are of school age, then you need to have spent time with them teaching them how to deal with other people. If there is a problem with them in school, then you need to have a conversation with them about it. You also need to have conversations with them all the time regardless of wether or not their behavior is appropriate in group situations.
I'm not perfect, nor are my children. But we spend a lot of time just talking to them about what's going on in their lives. That's where you find out how they're applying the skills you've taught them.
"So and so did this" and "so and so said that" are what you hear. "How did you take it? How did you respond?" are your responses. You get to the right and wrong pretty easily, and very often they'll make you proud in how they deal with adversity they come up against. Don't get me wrong... when they do something irresponsible or downright wrong, not only do we have lengthy conversations with them, but punishment is dealt out as well. One of the hardest things to do in the world is to punish your own child, but it's an important factor in their growth, when appropriate.
That being said, most people can't afford to supervise their children 24x7. But if you're at all suggesting that schools are part of the problem, then I'll simply write you off as one of those parents who think school is a babysitter and you should let them teach your children behavior skills rather than you having to do it.
The hope is that, by 18, your previous years of existence were all in preparation for being an adult. You had time to learn the basics, then you had time to learn how to use logic, then you had time to learn how to choose for yourself.
There's no switch that's thrown when you turn 18... that's just the age that people (hopefully) are mature enough to do the right thing.
Yeah, and someone mentioned Police Academy (##) too... wish I'd thought of those. Actually, those movies do give me nightmares, but in them I'm violent against Hugh Wilson, the director.
Who modded that insightful? For every study there is an equal and opposite study.
I hope that was supposed to be a funny comment, and some mods just don't have a sense of humor. Those youngsters who do not have the ability to do this should have parents. Those parents are pretty much in control of what games/movies are purchased in their house/apartment/cardboard box. Who is to blame then? The game makers or the parents?
p.s. The last thing I want is for some sleazy politicians to protect my children. I think it's my job as a parent.
Erm... that's been a long standing arguement here in the USA, so I hope you didn't get the feeling you'd come up with something original;)
When the founders of this county added the second amendment, they knew that the only way to remove an oppressive government (which they'd just been under) was with force. Protecting the right to own arms was essential to being able to use such force.
We have laws banning such substances as cocaine, marijuana, crystal meth, etc... None of these laws stop criminals from being in possession of those substances. The long standing arguement against banning guns is it means only the criminals will have them.
ontopic
The idea behind laws such as this one is that children/teens are desensitized by violence in games and on tv. I don't agree with that, but it's what these pretentious lawmakers think. These same people seem to think that, in the 1950's, the world really was like Leave it to Beaver portrayed.
The simple solution is for parents to become parents again. We (I have 3), collectively, need to quit blaming other people for our shortcomings as parents and own up to the fact that kids turn out pretty much how we raise them (and who we let them hang out with). We, not laws, should be the filters that sort out what our kids watch and do.
My 11 year old boy is a big fan of Will Smith, and we own (lease?) the Bad Boyz DVD's, and he's allowed to watch both of them. Why? Because we speak with our children all the time about how people should act and how they should treat other people. He understands that what he's watching is purely for entertainment, and stuffing people in trunks, while funny on tv, isn't funny in real life.
The idea of having more laws on the books infuriates me, wether it be banning violent games or guns. We just need to stop blaming other people when our ignored child turns out rotten.
I think they're attacked by people under 18 who play violent video games and have some sort of addiction to gorgonzola, though I'm not sure where that fits in to the whole scheme of things...
I wholeheartedly agree. My fiance (a police officer) and I have three kids. GTA hasn't found its way into our collection of PS2 games, because, strangely enough, we act like parents. Neither of us is going to try to tell other people they can't play it... that's not any of our business.
What's interesting about her job is she is now a PO with the local ISD. When she worked at the school in east county where the average income is much lower, and people are more "common" for lack of a better term, a phone call to a parent resulted in an apology and an action. Now that she works at the school in the "affluent" neighborhood, a phone call to a parent results in blamestorming, "not my child" and "you people should be doing more to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen." Those folks want the rest of the world to raise their children so they're not inconvenienced, and they're the people that think laws like this are a good idea.
I think the differing viewpoints we have surrounds "public television." There is a difference between public televison, and television that is free to view by the public. The latter being ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/WB etc... while the former is PBS and local public access, if it's available. The former is also paid for by taxpayer dollars. You'll find a much narrower view across America as to what should be allowed on a channel paid for by the people, given you can get Dennis Franz butt on another "free" channel, available to both rich and poor people alike.
The term "Public Television" has nothing to do with real and virtual public space. It's because it's paid for by the public, wether they like to or not.
V-Chips were designed for filtering shows made available to people, on both "free" and paid for tv. But public television is very different from "free" and paid for tv. While people "vote" for shows in the "free tv" arena by tuning in/not tuning in and buying/not buying from sponsors, they "vote" for taxpayer supported television by calling their representation. If PBS doesn't like that, they can simply stop accepting taxpayer dollars and look for more money from sponsors.
It's become obvious that we are both arguers, and also that we've both fallen short of being compelling enough to with the other over to our side. So maybe we should just end with this... I appreciate your opinion but don't share it, and I hope you appreciate mine. As neither of us will be swayed, I say good luck to you and yours.
I didn't realize that boolean logic included 4 choices, which the November election will certainly carry. Since I don't like Bush or Kerry, I will choose between the other two options. Unfortunately, most American's think as you do... that Rep and Dem are the only choices available.
The reason for the filtering is this channel is paid for by most American adults with no chance for them to opt out of paying for it. When people pay of their own free will for something, their vote is simple... paying for it == yes, not paying for it == no. A channel with content not suitable for children, sush as Spice, will make some money from people who are willing to pay for it, but the public as a whole doesn't have to worry about filtering its content... they simply don't pay for it. When they have no choice whatsoever, such as the public highways, then everyone gets more of a say as to what their tax dollar is being used for. If your senator/representative (be they Dem, Rep, Green, Libertarian, Ind.) is not representing your best interest, then you cast your vote. If the majority feels the way you do, then guess what... you get different representation, and maybe that highway you use most of the time will finally be widened. If the one tv channel that's paid for out of your tax dollars is not airing what you think is appropriate, then guess what. Your congressperson gets a phone call or e-mail. If the majority of their constituents feel the same way, then guess what. The programming will change.
So if you have a problem with PBS not airing foul language, call your congressperson and demand foul language on the channel that hosts such other shows as Sesame Street, NOVA (not, as you put it, content appropriate only for children), History Detectives (not, as you put it, content appropriate only for children), American Woodshop (not, as you put it, content appropriate only for children), etc...
I doubt they'll get many calls from their constituents feeling the same way.
I also don't think public interest and attitudes, especially those that actually tune into PBS, include the desire to hear foul language. Frankly, it's trashy, and wholly unnecessary (unless you're Donald Rumsfeld evidently). I, who would be included in the "mostly adult" don't care to hear it. The English language is full of descriptive words, and shit and fuck are not necessary at all to make a point.
I am in favor of policing public spaces, in the sense that I don't want the words shit and fuck showing up on the door to the public library, nor the sign atop the city capital. I also don't want to see the words on billboard signs, because I don't have much of a choice in wether or not my children see them. So yes, in that sence, I am wholly in favor of policing public spaces. Maybe I'm in the minority. Then again, maybe I'm not, as congress is weighed more heavily toward the conservative side.
Why don't you start your own public channel? Then you can say shit and fuck as often as you deem necessary... as long as your advertisers or funders agree of course.
That's cool, and thank you for the information. I think, however, that Opera got it right by making it easier to use those features by default. I'm going to download those extensions though, and see which one I prefer after using them.
Um... I am a responsible parent, and I do control what my children watch. In the past, PBS has been a channel that I could be comfortable with them watching without me filtering content. And guess what... it's still going to be that kind of channel. When my tax dollars are used to fund tv, it's going to be something everyone can watch, not just liberally minded people who think children should be subjected to foul language.
And once again, the political spin comes in. Here's something you should ask your parents... "What's the difference between being Republican and being conservative?" I am a conservative person by nature, but have been known to vote Democrat on occasion, as long as they weren't extremely liberal, which is a viewpoint I've never sided with. Some Republican's are liberal too. If everything is Rep/Dem to you, you've got some self education to administer.
I think my point is getting totally overlooked. I have no real problem with fuck and shit being said on tv. However, I do have a problem with them being said on a channel that my children watch. It's not said on Nickelodeon, Disney, History, and as far as I can tell, on Discovery or Learning. Those words are wholly inappropriate for young children. Say all you want about freedom of speech, but I want my children raised better than to speak like they grew up in a crack house.
As a parent, I am doing my part by "filtering" what they watch. Most shows that I consider inappropriate for them come on late at night, and that makes it easier. PBS has, in the past, been a trusted channel like the others I mentioned.
PBS is also partially funded with taxpayers' dollars, and with that in mind, the general public should have a say in what kind of programming they choose to air. I can only speak for my family and friends who have children, but if my money is going to be taken from me without choice (taxes) to pay for a tv channel, it's going to be clean content. With regard to cable/satellite, I get to choose what I pay for.... completely different story there. We get HBO, and my wife and I watch the Soprano's. that's freedom of choice. They can air whatever they want to, and we can choose wether or not to pay for it.
That being said, I'm not going to tell other parents what their children should watch. But my tax dollars are not going to pay for foul language on a tv channel that my children watch.
I was wondering if someone was going to point out that it is in fact the UPC barcodes they're discussing.
There are still many barcodes used in the US that will continue to be used, such as
Code 3 of 9
Code 128
POSTNET
Interleaved 2 of 5
The coolest are the 2D barcodes like PDF417, which can hold 1108 bytes of data.
UPC is simply the barcode used in the US and Canada for retail items, and was limited to 12 digits (11 with a checkdigit). Of course it was going to reach it's limit of usability.
Slashdot Mirror
Damnit! If I hadn't just used my last mod point a few minutes ago, I'd have given it to you.
The difference is those people outside the US are subject to a different set of laws. If PayPal had a problem with an EU citizen, they would have to file outside of the US under those laws.
This is the reason that non-US citizens are not included in the class action suit. With a win on this case, it would not be difficult to find a pro-bono attorney to handle the same case but with non-US citizens.
I always thought "22 Twain" was kind of funny... ripped of from Murder by Death. However, I think I will start using this guys address... at least until the next P-P-Powerbook story comes to /.
on that note... a quote from Parenthood.
Tod: You know, Mrs. Buchman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.
I had the same experience in Houston. I'm a contract programmer (read, paid hourly) and did jury duty for 4 days at $7/day. Parking was $15/day, and lunch in that area can't be had for less than $8. So the days cost me $64 not counting the loss of revenue.
On your other comment, my fiance is a police officer. Every September, she has to go to a 2 day class (at tax payer expense of course) to learn all the new laws that have been implemented in Texas. This past year there were something like 120 new laws. We also have to buy her a new penal code book each year for $60 so she can keep current. I have no idea if all departments do this, but I can imagine there's a mass of officers out there who have no idea what new laws affect their job.
Bloat is bloat, no matter how you look at it, and our legal system(s) are one of the worst. But those new laws give the sleaziticians something to brag about to their constituency.
- automobiles
- trains
- knives
- pencils
- scissors
- box cutters
- forks
- saws
- hammers
Once we get rid of those, then we'll start another list, because surely criminals will begin bludgeoning people with tree limbs.The point is that those that wish to do harm will find a way to do it, regardless of the weapon of choice. And there will not always be a police officer around to stop said harm.
Guns are not the problem.... people are the problem.
if most of them wernt tax collection agents for the goverment
If you stuck to the speed limit, you wouldn't be paying any of those extra taxes, would you? I'm not going to tell you to obey all laws, but don't complain when you get caught breaking them.
Yeah, and usually there's a windfall lawsuit on the back end of it these days too.
1. Blame others
2. Sue
3. Profit!
You don't even need the obligatory #. ??? in there.
Gotta go now... I have to go find someone to blame. I want a new motorcycle.
Once again... it comes down to good parenting. If your children are of school age, then you need to have spent time with them teaching them how to deal with other people. If there is a problem with them in school, then you need to have a conversation with them about it. You also need to have conversations with them all the time regardless of wether or not their behavior is appropriate in group situations.
I'm not perfect, nor are my children. But we spend a lot of time just talking to them about what's going on in their lives. That's where you find out how they're applying the skills you've taught them.
"So and so did this" and "so and so said that" are what you hear. "How did you take it? How did you respond?" are your responses. You get to the right and wrong pretty easily, and very often they'll make you proud in how they deal with adversity they come up against. Don't get me wrong... when they do something irresponsible or downright wrong, not only do we have lengthy conversations with them, but punishment is dealt out as well. One of the hardest things to do in the world is to punish your own child, but it's an important factor in their growth, when appropriate.
That being said, most people can't afford to supervise their children 24x7. But if you're at all suggesting that schools are part of the problem, then I'll simply write you off as one of those parents who think school is a babysitter and you should let them teach your children behavior skills rather than you having to do it.
The hope is that, by 18, your previous years of existence were all in preparation for being an adult. You had time to learn the basics, then you had time to learn how to use logic, then you had time to learn how to choose for yourself.
There's no switch that's thrown when you turn 18... that's just the age that people (hopefully) are mature enough to do the right thing.
Yeah, and someone mentioned Police Academy (##) too... wish I'd thought of those. Actually, those movies do give me nightmares, but in them I'm violent against Hugh Wilson, the director.
GTA is much more "light" than any cops movie
Yeah, I still have nightmares about Car 54, Where Are You?.
Who modded that insightful? For every study there is an equal and opposite study.
I hope that was supposed to be a funny comment, and some mods just don't have a sense of humor. Those youngsters who do not have the ability to do this should have parents. Those parents are pretty much in control of what games/movies are purchased in their house/apartment/cardboard box. Who is to blame then? The game makers or the parents?
p.s. The last thing I want is for some sleazy politicians to protect my children. I think it's my job as a parent.
Offtopic, but ontopic later...
;)
Erm... that's been a long standing arguement here in the USA, so I hope you didn't get the feeling you'd come up with something original
When the founders of this county added the second amendment, they knew that the only way to remove an oppressive government (which they'd just been under) was with force. Protecting the right to own arms was essential to being able to use such force.
We have laws banning such substances as cocaine, marijuana, crystal meth, etc... None of these laws stop criminals from being in possession of those substances. The long standing arguement against banning guns is it means only the criminals will have them.
ontopic
The idea behind laws such as this one is that children/teens are desensitized by violence in games and on tv. I don't agree with that, but it's what these pretentious lawmakers think. These same people seem to think that, in the 1950's, the world really was like Leave it to Beaver portrayed.
The simple solution is for parents to become parents again. We (I have 3), collectively, need to quit blaming other people for our shortcomings as parents and own up to the fact that kids turn out pretty much how we raise them (and who we let them hang out with). We, not laws, should be the filters that sort out what our kids watch and do.
My 11 year old boy is a big fan of Will Smith, and we own (lease?) the Bad Boyz DVD's, and he's allowed to watch both of them. Why? Because we speak with our children all the time about how people should act and how they should treat other people. He understands that what he's watching is purely for entertainment, and stuffing people in trunks, while funny on tv, isn't funny in real life.
The idea of having more laws on the books infuriates me, wether it be banning violent games or guns. We just need to stop blaming other people when our ignored child turns out rotten.
I think they're attacked by people under 18 who play violent video games and have some sort of addiction to gorgonzola, though I'm not sure where that fits in to the whole scheme of things...
I wholeheartedly agree. My fiance (a police officer) and I have three kids. GTA hasn't found its way into our collection of PS2 games, because, strangely enough, we act like parents. Neither of us is going to try to tell other people they can't play it... that's not any of our business.
What's interesting about her job is she is now a PO with the local ISD. When she worked at the school in east county where the average income is much lower, and people are more "common" for lack of a better term, a phone call to a parent resulted in an apology and an action. Now that she works at the school in the "affluent" neighborhood, a phone call to a parent results in blamestorming, "not my child" and "you people should be doing more to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen." Those folks want the rest of the world to raise their children so they're not inconvenienced, and they're the people that think laws like this are a good idea.
Or just a Cartesian product.
I think the differing viewpoints we have surrounds "public television." There is a difference between public televison, and television that is free to view by the public. The latter being ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/WB etc... while the former is PBS and local public access, if it's available. The former is also paid for by taxpayer dollars. You'll find a much narrower view across America as to what should be allowed on a channel paid for by the people, given you can get Dennis Franz butt on another "free" channel, available to both rich and poor people alike.
The term "Public Television" has nothing to do with real and virtual public space. It's because it's paid for by the public, wether they like to or not.
V-Chips were designed for filtering shows made available to people, on both "free" and paid for tv. But public television is very different from "free" and paid for tv. While people "vote" for shows in the "free tv" arena by tuning in/not tuning in and buying/not buying from sponsors, they "vote" for taxpayer supported television by calling their representation. If PBS doesn't like that, they can simply stop accepting taxpayer dollars and look for more money from sponsors.
It's become obvious that we are both arguers, and also that we've both fallen short of being compelling enough to with the other over to our side. So maybe we should just end with this... I appreciate your opinion but don't share it, and I hope you appreciate mine. As neither of us will be swayed, I say good luck to you and yours.
Regards.
Jeff
I didn't realize that boolean logic included 4 choices, which the November election will certainly carry. Since I don't like Bush or Kerry, I will choose between the other two options. Unfortunately, most American's think as you do... that Rep and Dem are the only choices available.
The reason for the filtering is this channel is paid for by most American adults with no chance for them to opt out of paying for it. When people pay of their own free will for something, their vote is simple... paying for it == yes, not paying for it == no. A channel with content not suitable for children, sush as Spice, will make some money from people who are willing to pay for it, but the public as a whole doesn't have to worry about filtering its content... they simply don't pay for it. When they have no choice whatsoever, such as the public highways, then everyone gets more of a say as to what their tax dollar is being used for. If your senator/representative (be they Dem, Rep, Green, Libertarian, Ind.) is not representing your best interest, then you cast your vote. If the majority feels the way you do, then guess what... you get different representation, and maybe that highway you use most of the time will finally be widened. If the one tv channel that's paid for out of your tax dollars is not airing what you think is appropriate, then guess what. Your congressperson gets a phone call or e-mail. If the majority of their constituents feel the same way, then guess what. The programming will change.
So if you have a problem with PBS not airing foul language, call your congressperson and demand foul language on the channel that hosts such other shows as Sesame Street, NOVA (not, as you put it, content appropriate only for children), History Detectives (not, as you put it, content appropriate only for children), American Woodshop (not, as you put it, content appropriate only for children), etc...
I doubt they'll get many calls from their constituents feeling the same way.
I also don't think public interest and attitudes, especially those that actually tune into PBS, include the desire to hear foul language. Frankly, it's trashy, and wholly unnecessary (unless you're Donald Rumsfeld evidently). I, who would be included in the "mostly adult" don't care to hear it. The English language is full of descriptive words, and shit and fuck are not necessary at all to make a point.
I am in favor of policing public spaces, in the sense that I don't want the words shit and fuck showing up on the door to the public library, nor the sign atop the city capital. I also don't want to see the words on billboard signs, because I don't have much of a choice in wether or not my children see them. So yes, in that sence, I am wholly in favor of policing public spaces. Maybe I'm in the minority. Then again, maybe I'm not, as congress is weighed more heavily toward the conservative side.
Why don't you start your own public channel? Then you can say shit and fuck as often as you deem necessary... as long as your advertisers or funders agree of course.
Damnit! I do to!
That's cool, and thank you for the information. I think, however, that Opera got it right by making it easier to use those features by default. I'm going to download those extensions though, and see which one I prefer after using them.
Thanks again.
Um... I am a responsible parent, and I do control what my children watch. In the past, PBS has been a channel that I could be comfortable with them watching without me filtering content. And guess what... it's still going to be that kind of channel. When my tax dollars are used to fund tv, it's going to be something everyone can watch, not just liberally minded people who think children should be subjected to foul language.
And once again, the political spin comes in. Here's something you should ask your parents... "What's the difference between being Republican and being conservative?" I am a conservative person by nature, but have been known to vote Democrat on occasion, as long as they weren't extremely liberal, which is a viewpoint I've never sided with. Some Republican's are liberal too. If everything is Rep/Dem to you, you've got some self education to administer.
I think my point is getting totally overlooked. I have no real problem with fuck and shit being said on tv. However, I do have a problem with them being said on a channel that my children watch. It's not said on Nickelodeon, Disney, History, and as far as I can tell, on Discovery or Learning. Those words are wholly inappropriate for young children. Say all you want about freedom of speech, but I want my children raised better than to speak like they grew up in a crack house.
As a parent, I am doing my part by "filtering" what they watch. Most shows that I consider inappropriate for them come on late at night, and that makes it easier. PBS has, in the past, been a trusted channel like the others I mentioned.
PBS is also partially funded with taxpayers' dollars, and with that in mind, the general public should have a say in what kind of programming they choose to air. I can only speak for my family and friends who have children, but if my money is going to be taken from me without choice (taxes) to pay for a tv channel, it's going to be clean content. With regard to cable/satellite, I get to choose what I pay for.... completely different story there. We get HBO, and my wife and I watch the Soprano's. that's freedom of choice. They can air whatever they want to, and we can choose wether or not to pay for it.
That being said, I'm not going to tell other parents what their children should watch. But my tax dollars are not going to pay for foul language on a tv channel that my children watch.
Well, that ought to be modded informative.
There are still many barcodes used in the US that will continue to be used, such as
- Code 3 of 9
- Code 128
- POSTNET
- Interleaved 2 of 5
The coolest are the 2D barcodes like PDF417, which can hold 1108 bytes of data.UPC is simply the barcode used in the US and Canada for retail items, and was limited to 12 digits (11 with a checkdigit). Of course it was going to reach it's limit of usability.