It's kind of a tough call. On the one hand, if you sign off on something government-y that's technically false, that can boomerang on you later on. On the other hand, since the US and Canadian dollar are within a percent or two of parity, the discrepancy is trivial, so any future correction would be trivial. Me, I'd have probably STFU and signed.
But I could only afford a used boat.So maybe I don't understand...
The flaw in the system seems to be the inordinate amount of power in one agent's hands. If the agent had to call a superior to do the seizure, and explain the stupid reason... I bet the matter would have evaporated at that point.
Hell yeah. I'm 100% on board with ya on this one.
Unfortunately, certain people have more of a tendency to squabble over small things fearing the loss of something later on. In this case, the "wealthy" class fears possible loss of money should they have made a mistake by signing anything incorrectly. Well, that and other things, but the primary focus of those with major money is money.
Heck, why not pay a lawyer to go with you if you've got that much money to blow. You pay up front to avoid paying more later based on error. Eh, I'm rambling.
No; apparently you didn't read what I typed but read what you wanted to read...
What I said was that the legal grounds existed for seizing based on improper information. That's a closed deal. If the person who is trying to transfer the property is an ass, the official that is reviewing the information may SMILE when they seize the property *rather* than maintain a straight face, FROWN, or APOLOGIZE.
If he was being an incredible dick toward the agent, I'm sure she was excited to seize property from an asshole who thinks his money makes him the coolest thing since the last ice age.
I'm just sayin'... There are always two sides to a story. Unfortunately, since this agent is an official government employee, her TRUE side can't be heard; only the legal facts (the numbers did not match, etc).
If I were being a real prick toward someone and they relieved their vengeance toward me, I would sensationalize the story about it to try and one-up them, just like this story sounds. If I would, millions of others would, too.
Any time there is a big pile of money somewhere, there will always be people who will try their best to get some of it in their pockets. The availability of medical insurance has jacked up medical costs. Anything the government subsidizes always costs somebody more than it otherwise would. For most of us that increased cost comes in the form of taxes.
Sadly, your comment is superior to a lot of online college essays (you know, the ones that aren't plagiarized).
Anyone else find it interesting that, in general, red states (Republican) are mostly blue (unhappy) on the map, while blue states (Democrat) are mostly red (happy) on the map?
This could be worthless information, but I'm just throwing my thoughts out into the open here...
I believe that the liberals have more "hope" than conservatives. Conservatives are more rational and change-limited. Logically, one with hope is more of a happy person with the belief that there is more positive coming in the future. One with rational thought is more likely to know that there are positives and negatives coming in the future which offset each other, thereby limiting overall happiness to a median state (no pun intended).
Just rambling, but hey... "think about it won't you, thank you." - Sub-quote from MST3K
Budgets for all these different groups are growing,' says Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, which compiled the data on funding of the anti-climate groups using tax records. 'These groups are increasingly getting money from sources that are anonymous or untraceable.'
I would like to see what Greenpeace has to say to these:
No, lazy is not soliciting comment, or not updating the article if facebook responds to the request.
So you're saying it's okay to slam a company (regardless of size) because they didn't respond to an RFC within a day or two? That's unfair to do and to back up.
So you're saying that someone with some news about malfeasance should wait until the perpetrator prepares a statement before they report it? That's not unfair, that's pure bullshit.
That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the use of "so-and-so didn't reply to our questions" is a superfluous and negativity-arousing phrase when there is no reasonable time given for a truthful and correct reply. Shorten that down and it basically says "stop using that damn statement because it just draws weighted attention to something rather than actual 'news'".
Demanding that anyone immediately respond and then publishing an article saying they didn't is just slander, IMH and non-legal O.
There's nothing humble about your opinion or your insistence on sharing it, especially since you consider yourself the arbiter of what news The People have a right to receive.
This is a comment on subject matter, not a power struggle. Where did you get the impression that I desire to be the "arbiter" of "rights"? Talk about mislabeling. Are you having a bad day or something?
Actually that's pretty spot-on. I hate how every news organization today has to have its own downloadable app. "Welcome to the South Butt-hole Sentinel! Click OK to download our app! Or [typesize=0.001]click here to continue to site."
I don't want to have a whole menagerie of single-site news apps of varying quality and usability. Aggregator apps such as Currents and Flipboard are a step in the right direction, but they leave me cold as well; they're weird, they pick and choose articles they think I want to see (usually off the mark) and a lot of the periodical's value is lost in translation. Among other things, the talkbacks are stripped out and these days, I find the talkbacks more entertaining and, sometimes more informative, than the original article.
I just think of how funny it is that apps were a positive feature in phones because of their small screens and lack of desktop browser functionality...
Now that tablets are getting more and more desktop-feature-like, those apps just aren't as helpful in overcoming challenged hardware anymore.
I guess there's gold in them App-hills and management is having a damn hard time accepting and adapting to change... AGAIN.
I agree. I'm not even sure if you could call a General Manager and a Director part of "IT". They're management. Yes, they may have worked in the IT department, but they're not really IT. I've seen too many organizations, including my current company, where there are just way too many "Directors", and none of them have a clue, and, personally, I wish we would get rid of some of these "inefficiencies" around the office.
You're dead-on there.
When you ask knowledgeable management for data/opinions on the departments they technically (or otherwise) manage, they will always seem to provide data that makes everyone under them look like they are the cause of the problem(s) or lack of perfection. When top-level clueless management PAYS knowledgeable management more for this information, it has a baseline that always has to climb to keep that data lookin' good!
Conversely, when things are positive, ever notice how top-level management asks how things got so damn good and the response from the management underneath them is, "Well *I* made some changes that... yadda yadda."
Not to get off-topic, but why don't we start reverse-questioning? When business is sucking, have top-level management ask the management beneath them how things are looking so excellent. Act accordingly on responses. Lather, rinse, repeat.
They're dying anyway and mostly just propaganda and spin, which is just entertaining as you want, but useless for actual news. Eventually,when it cannot sustain itself, all will be fired and assets sold off. It was replaced by the internet. Just like the music industry, it is already dead and being eaten alive, it just won't admit it to itself.
Read what I have to say, please, before you mods troll it out; I'm serious about what I'm saying.
Those stages all sound like a drug habit.
That's always been my opinion of successful media-oriented businesses; they start out with good intention. They make money. Things sort of level off. They see some idea that can make them more money and jump at it. It profits like you wouldn't believe. They invest more, more, more in it so they can profit more, more, more. The baseline for what's considered 'acceptable profit base' goes up with each success... Eventually, they do something stupid themselves or the profit-providing sources run dry and they have what I cannot say is any different than withdrawal symptoms.
That's where the self-destructive (firings) or stealing for a fix (money laundering, tax evasion, etc) tendencies kick in.
The outcome is determined by how and when they get caught.
From this article's perspective, it looks like they're at the stage "But I gotta have MORE because it's been so damn good up until now!"
No, lazy is not soliciting comment, or not updating the article if facebook responds to the request.
So you're saying it's okay to slam a company (regardless of size) because they didn't respond to an RFC within a day or two?
That's unfair to do and to back up.
I say that because if i were a company (again, any size) I would be contacting a legal person (or team) to have them come up with a response that isn't going to screw me over publicly. That generally takes more than a day or two; time increases the smaller you get (meaning less money you have). For a large company like Facebook, I would imagine they can come up with a response within four days or so.
That is, if they aren't giving O'Bama campaign or other contributions. Then, well, their lack of response is self-destructive. I digress.
Demanding that anyone immediately respond and then publishing an article saying they didn't is just slander, IMH and non-legal O.
How much TNT did it take to simulate this nuclear test?
What is the evidence that North Korea set off a nuclear bomb? There was an earthquake, and we theorize it was caused by an explosion that was "6 to 7 kilotons." That is entirely feasible to do with conventional explosives. There have been accidents with coal trains and ships colliding that have produced explosions equivalent to over 2 kilotons. Doesn't this seem more likely? Or is there some evidence that this really was nuclear?
How is it that Iran can't get enough centrifuges to make a nuclear bomb, but North Korea can? Iran is much more advanced as far as I know. (Please reply and enlighten me if I am wrong here). If they really do have a nuclear weapon in NK, it seems most likely that they bought old soviet surplus or got it from China.
Good point. I don't see any measurements of fallout.
What ferocious act is NK claiming the US did against it? Are they claiming we shot down their satellite?
That's valid.
What do stupid idiots do when they do something that effectively destroys their reputation? Blame it on someone else and threaten them openly, then make sure they act on said threat to prove that it wasn't just a personal image defense.
Fits that model perfectly.
Well, then there's the more simplistic development of a false scenario in order to have a semi-valid excuse to execute an action that would be otherwise 100% scorned and retaliated against. I digress.
I suggest you go to your local government office or branch and "demand" that you have better health care, "demand" that the TSA ban their backscatter x-ray machines from airports. See how long it takes some off duty cop or LAPD officer to shoot and taze the shit out of you for being a "terrorist."
Americans complain about this stuff all of the time, often loudly and rudely, both to government bureaucrats and anyone else who will listen, and they're not usually shot. North Koreans, on the other hand, get shot if they want to leave the country.
You're right, they're not usually shot. That's ridiculous.
They're just given carbon-copied "I care" letters that their staff lackeys send out. I've seen it tried with a group of three people with completely different opinions, and each one was answered with a letter stating that the representative completely agrees with them.
There is no such thing as "copyrightable". Copyright is something that comes with anything that is written, drawn, sung, or another activity that involves creativity.
Poindexter, is that you?
They were making a statement, not a direct reference to definitive elements.
They've been actively helping in disaster situations since the early 1900s, digitally since the 70s.
So unless someone wants to patent an idea, just ask old HAMs for excellent working designs and units; it's a quick set of technological changes to use WiFi handheld devices.
Even though I would say use patent trolls as the new mice, how do you try out potentially lethal compounds in humans with good conscience (that is humans who are not patent trolls?)
How about suicidal ones that want to die and have been reasoned with repeatedly to no avail? Wait, that makes too much sense. Disregard.
Without this narrative, there wouldn't be hundreds of slashdotters reading this. This is a great non-story... I think everyone knows that there isn't a high correlation of what works in mice / works in humans and vice versa, but it's the best we have. It's not like you can just give people random drugs and see if it kills them.
You *CAN*, scientifically. You just can't morally. Death penalty should be expanded upon a hair, IMHO. Not to 'go Hitler' or anything, but hey.
Slashdot Mirror
It's kind of a tough call. On the one hand, if you sign off on something government-y that's technically false, that can boomerang on you later on. On the other hand, since the US and Canadian dollar are within a percent or two of parity, the discrepancy is trivial, so any future correction would be trivial. Me, I'd have probably STFU and signed.
But I could only afford a used boat.So maybe I don't understand...
The flaw in the system seems to be the inordinate amount of power in one agent's hands. If the agent had to call a superior to do the seizure, and explain the stupid reason... I bet the matter would have evaporated at that point.
Hell yeah. I'm 100% on board with ya on this one.
Unfortunately, certain people have more of a tendency to squabble over small things fearing the loss of something later on. In this case, the "wealthy" class fears possible loss of money should they have made a mistake by signing anything incorrectly. Well, that and other things, but the primary focus of those with major money is money.
Heck, why not pay a lawyer to go with you if you've got that much money to blow. You pay up front to avoid paying more later based on error. Eh, I'm rambling.
See my other reply. Same goes here.
No; apparently you didn't read what I typed but read what you wanted to read...
What I said was that the legal grounds existed for seizing based on improper information. That's a closed deal. If the person who is trying to transfer the property is an ass, the official that is reviewing the information may SMILE when they seize the property *rather* than maintain a straight face, FROWN, or APOLOGIZE.
Simple Human behavior.
If he was being an incredible dick toward the agent, I'm sure she was excited to seize property from an asshole who thinks his money makes him the coolest thing since the last ice age.
I'm just sayin'... There are always two sides to a story. Unfortunately, since this agent is an official government employee, her TRUE side can't be heard; only the legal facts (the numbers did not match, etc).
If I were being a real prick toward someone and they relieved their vengeance toward me, I would sensationalize the story about it to try and one-up them, just like this story sounds. If I would, millions of others would, too.
Again, just sayin'.
they should be in a trade / apprenticeship then some people learn better that way to bad HR does not see it that way.
If I were in HR, run-on sentences would be worse than nails on a chalk board to me, regardless of the "trade".
Any time there is a big pile of money somewhere, there will always be people who will try their best to get some of it in their pockets. The availability of medical insurance has jacked up medical costs. Anything the government subsidizes always costs somebody more than it otherwise would. For most of us that increased cost comes in the form of taxes.
Sadly, your comment is superior to a lot of online college essays (you know, the ones that aren't plagiarized).
So you can afford, maybe two new decent Macs?
With that insurance money from "5 TVs", I think he can only partially afford one Mac. Maybe not even partially.
5 Vizio 60" tvs - $5k
5 Nexus 10 Tablets with Keyboard Folios - $2.5k
Vacation to the Bahamas - $2.5k
Ah, you forgot to mention the word "insurance" under your breath.
Get a tube TV, VHS VCR, antiquated DVR -- nobody's going to want to steal that sh!t, PROBLEM SOLVED!
If only we could transmit electricity wirelessly inside the house......
And this helps against a burglary when he's away exactly how? (Except that this gets more guns in the hands of criminals in the case of a burglary.)
Now that we know you've pre-planned and thought this out, removing the obstacles in your way, would you like to be a burglar or security consultant?
Anyone else find it interesting that, in general, red states (Republican) are mostly blue (unhappy) on the map, while blue states (Democrat) are mostly red (happy) on the map?
This could be worthless information, but I'm just throwing my thoughts out into the open here...
I believe that the liberals have more "hope" than conservatives. Conservatives are more rational and change-limited. Logically, one with hope is more of a happy person with the belief that there is more positive coming in the future. One with rational thought is more likely to know that there are positives and negatives coming in the future which offset each other, thereby limiting overall happiness to a median state (no pun intended).
Just rambling, but hey... "think about it won't you, thank you." - Sub-quote from MST3K
Budgets for all these different groups are growing,' says Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, which compiled the data on funding of the anti-climate groups using tax records. 'These groups are increasingly getting money from sources that are anonymous or untraceable.'
I would like to see what Greenpeace has to say to these:
2003 - http://www.eco-imperialism.com/the-enron-of-nonprofits/
2010 - http://consumersforpeace.org/index.php?filename=archive-irs-audited-greenpeace.html
2011 - http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/08/12/greenpeace-accused-shady-fund-raising.html
Who threw the first stone and who retaliated? Discuss.
No, lazy is not soliciting comment, or not updating the article if facebook responds to the request.
So you're saying it's okay to slam a company (regardless of size) because they didn't respond to an RFC within a day or two? That's unfair to do and to back up.
So you're saying that someone with some news about malfeasance should wait until the perpetrator prepares a statement before they report it? That's not unfair, that's pure bullshit.
That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the use of "so-and-so didn't reply to our questions" is a superfluous and negativity-arousing phrase when there is no reasonable time given for a truthful and correct reply. Shorten that down and it basically says "stop using that damn statement because it just draws weighted attention to something rather than actual 'news'".
Demanding that anyone immediately respond and then publishing an article saying they didn't is just slander, IMH and non-legal O.
There's nothing humble about your opinion or your insistence on sharing it, especially since you consider yourself the arbiter of what news The People have a right to receive.
This is a comment on subject matter, not a power struggle. Where did you get the impression that I desire to be the "arbiter" of "rights"? Talk about mislabeling. Are you having a bad day or something?
Actually that's pretty spot-on. I hate how every news organization today has to have its own downloadable app. "Welcome to the South Butt-hole Sentinel! Click OK to download our app! Or [typesize=0.001]click here to continue to site."
I don't want to have a whole menagerie of single-site news apps of varying quality and usability. Aggregator apps such as Currents and Flipboard are a step in the right direction, but they leave me cold as well; they're weird, they pick and choose articles they think I want to see (usually off the mark) and a lot of the periodical's value is lost in translation. Among other things, the talkbacks are stripped out and these days, I find the talkbacks more entertaining and, sometimes more informative, than the original article.
I just think of how funny it is that apps were a positive feature in phones because of their small screens and lack of desktop browser functionality...
Now that tablets are getting more and more desktop-feature-like, those apps just aren't as helpful in overcoming challenged hardware anymore.
I guess there's gold in them App-hills and management is having a damn hard time accepting and adapting to change... AGAIN.
I agree. I'm not even sure if you could call a General Manager and a Director part of "IT". They're management. Yes, they may have worked in the IT department, but they're not really IT. I've seen too many organizations, including my current company, where there are just way too many "Directors", and none of them have a clue, and, personally, I wish we would get rid of some of these "inefficiencies" around the office.
You're dead-on there.
When you ask knowledgeable management for data/opinions on the departments they technically (or otherwise) manage, they will always seem to provide data that makes everyone under them look like they are the cause of the problem(s) or lack of perfection. When top-level clueless management PAYS knowledgeable management more for this information, it has a baseline that always has to climb to keep that data lookin' good!
Conversely, when things are positive, ever notice how top-level management asks how things got so damn good and the response from the management underneath them is, "Well *I* made some changes that... yadda yadda."
Not to get off-topic, but why don't we start reverse-questioning? When business is sucking, have top-level management ask the management beneath them how things are looking so excellent. Act accordingly on responses. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Wait, that makes sense and might work. Disregard.
They're dying anyway and mostly just propaganda and spin, which is just entertaining as you want, but useless for actual news. Eventually,when it cannot sustain itself, all will be fired and assets sold off. It was replaced by the internet. Just like the music industry, it is already dead and being eaten alive, it just won't admit it to itself.
Read what I have to say, please, before you mods troll it out; I'm serious about what I'm saying.
Those stages all sound like a drug habit.
That's always been my opinion of successful media-oriented businesses; they start out with good intention. They make money. Things sort of level off. They see some idea that can make them more money and jump at it. It profits like you wouldn't believe. They invest more, more, more in it so they can profit more, more, more. The baseline for what's considered 'acceptable profit base' goes up with each success... Eventually, they do something stupid themselves or the profit-providing sources run dry and they have what I cannot say is any different than withdrawal symptoms.
That's where the self-destructive (firings) or stealing for a fix (money laundering, tax evasion, etc) tendencies kick in.
The outcome is determined by how and when they get caught.
From this article's perspective, it looks like they're at the stage "But I gotta have MORE because it's been so damn good up until now!"
No, lazy is not soliciting comment, or not updating the article if facebook responds to the request.
So you're saying it's okay to slam a company (regardless of size) because they didn't respond to an RFC within a day or two?
That's unfair to do and to back up.
I say that because if i were a company (again, any size) I would be contacting a legal person (or team) to have them come up with a response that isn't going to screw me over publicly. That generally takes more than a day or two; time increases the smaller you get (meaning less money you have). For a large company like Facebook, I would imagine they can come up with a response within four days or so.
That is, if they aren't giving O'Bama campaign or other contributions. Then, well, their lack of response is self-destructive. I digress.
Demanding that anyone immediately respond and then publishing an article saying they didn't is just slander, IMH and non-legal O.
How much TNT did it take to simulate this nuclear test?
What is the evidence that North Korea set off a nuclear bomb? There was an earthquake, and we theorize it was caused by an explosion that was "6 to 7 kilotons." That is entirely feasible to do with conventional explosives. There have been accidents with coal trains and ships colliding that have produced explosions equivalent to over 2 kilotons. Doesn't this seem more likely? Or is there some evidence that this really was nuclear?
How is it that Iran can't get enough centrifuges to make a nuclear bomb, but North Korea can? Iran is much more advanced as far as I know. (Please reply and enlighten me if I am wrong here). If they really do have a nuclear weapon in NK, it seems most likely that they bought old soviet surplus or got it from China.
Good point. I don't see any measurements of fallout.
What ferocious act is NK claiming the US did against it? Are they claiming we shot down their satellite?
That's valid.
What do stupid idiots do when they do something that effectively destroys their reputation? Blame it on someone else and threaten them openly, then make sure they act on said threat to prove that it wasn't just a personal image defense.
Fits that model perfectly.
Well, then there's the more simplistic development of a false scenario in order to have a semi-valid excuse to execute an action that would be otherwise 100% scorned and retaliated against. I digress.
I suggest you go to your local government office or branch and "demand" that you have better health care, "demand" that the TSA ban their backscatter x-ray machines from airports. See how long it takes some off duty cop or LAPD officer to shoot and taze the shit out of you for being a "terrorist."
Americans complain about this stuff all of the time, often loudly and rudely, both to government bureaucrats and anyone else who will listen, and they're not usually shot. North Koreans, on the other hand, get shot if they want to leave the country.
You're right, they're not usually shot. That's ridiculous.
They're just given carbon-copied "I care" letters that their staff lackeys send out. I've seen it tried with a group of three people with completely different opinions, and each one was answered with a letter stating that the representative completely agrees with them.
There is no such thing as "copyrightable". Copyright is something that comes with anything that is written, drawn, sung, or another activity that involves creativity.
Poindexter, is that you?
They were making a statement, not a direct reference to definitive elements.
Ask an amateur radio operator how to do it.
They've been actively helping in disaster situations since the early 1900s, digitally since the 70s.
So unless someone wants to patent an idea, just ask old HAMs for excellent working designs and units; it's a quick set of technological changes to use WiFi handheld devices.
Even though I would say use patent trolls as the new mice, how do you try out potentially lethal compounds in humans with good conscience (that is humans who are not patent trolls?)
How about suicidal ones that want to die and have been reasoned with repeatedly to no avail? Wait, that makes too much sense. Disregard.
1. Mice have no lobby.
Oh, God. Don't let animal activists read this or even mice won't be valid test subjects anymore.
Wait.... Keep talking. ;)
Without this narrative, there wouldn't be hundreds of slashdotters reading this. This is a great non-story... I think everyone knows that there isn't a high correlation of what works in mice / works in humans and vice versa, but it's the best we have. It's not like you can just give people random drugs and see if it kills them.
You *CAN*, scientifically. You just can't morally. Death penalty should be expanded upon a hair, IMHO. Not to 'go Hitler' or anything, but hey.