Because it would be *self-incrimination*. That is the reason, you simply don't want to accept it. As someone else stated, you very much seem to have some vested interest in seeing things that way.
"There is 'some argument' coming from Koch-sponsored think tanks."
Show arguments pro-AGW that aren't from fund seeking people/organizations. Your point works both directions.
And while peer-review provides some modicum of control, we all know from a large number of articles posted here on SlashDot that it does not prevent absolute bullshit from making it to the top (Bell Labs and more).
We have no idea if it was an exceptional event or not. We simply do not have long term enough measurements.
A meteor strike is an exceptional event as well. This will in no way prevent three meteorites from bombarding the same location in successive years. You are mishandling statistics.
"No, but scientists agree on the external reality after proof, therefore if the scientists agree on something, then there is proof of it."
"After proof". Kind of a little phrase you didn't bother backing up. That's the crux of AGW, there's no *empirical" proof, just hand-picked statistics. It's worthless as science at this point.
They are required to monitor wire transaction accounts but they are *not* required to freeze them without informing. I wrote much of UMB's filtering code for the SWIFT hookup and the flag is set, a supervisor reviews the information and then informs the Feds. The Feds would probably rather a true criminal's account *wasn't* immediately frozen so they could easily watch it's activity with the perp staying unawares.
"The constitution is just a god damn piece of paper..."
Remember that when the Chinese govt closes your business and puts you in a hole where you can't speak with anyone because you didn't buckle under to some bureaucrat. You're a moron.
I've argued that for both PP and BC from the start and, early in both PayPal's and BitCoin's existence, I was argued against right here that I was shallow sighted and didn't recognize the 'new world'. You can still find that attitude in this very topic (but not for PP because they pissed off someone in tech).
Both should immediately be required to assume all the liabilities that banks have to because both are dealing with people's resources.
What he's referring to is an ACH (Automatic Clearing House) payment. The user has to agree to having one set. It then becomes permanent, or extremely difficult to get them decoupled from your account. My guess is PayPal was allowed to ACH once.
"FWIW, it said my information was invalid, and I'd have to be manually identified (and this is all with absolutely correct entries). The second time I tried, it said there's already a user with that email. So, clearly a beta."
So, your personal experience points to the distinct possibility that the entire company (and this article on SlashDot) is trolling for accurate information and not really to provide you with a glimpse at what entities "out there" already know about you.
Slashdot Mirror
My thoughts were 'Repent Harlequin, Cried the Tick Tock Man'.
That first statement was about the most oxymoronic sentence for the day here. Congrats! That's a major accomplishment.
Pedantry, the bottom of the logical barrel.
You're trolling, pure and simple.
Because it would be *self-incrimination*. That is the reason, you simply don't want to accept it. As someone else stated, you very much seem to have some vested interest in seeing things that way.
"I think there's a difference between saying:"
Only to a pedant. In the second case, they're forced to either declare themselves guilty or perjure themselves if they are. .
"So what if revealing the source and answering questions about that source would incriminate yourself?"
Then the Fifth would apply, but that's not the context of the discussion, an uninvolved witness is.
"There is 'some argument' coming from Koch-sponsored think tanks."
Show arguments pro-AGW that aren't from fund seeking people/organizations. Your point works both directions.
And while peer-review provides some modicum of control, we all know from a large number of articles posted here on SlashDot that it does not prevent absolute bullshit from making it to the top (Bell Labs and more).
Pedantry is the sign of a lost debate.
We have no idea if it was an exceptional event or not. We simply do not have long term enough measurements.
A meteor strike is an exceptional event as well. This will in no way prevent three meteorites from bombarding the same location in successive years. You are mishandling statistics.
DID HAPPEN, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.
Nah, the AGW religion is larger, they'll outvote just like in the public news and science forums. .
You honestly believe a graph depicting *twenty friggin' years* is worth a shit when contemplating extended climate change?
You know that's only five years longer than the current halt and drop of temperatures and yet the AGW movement derides anyone bringing that up, right?
"No, but scientists agree on the external reality after proof, therefore if the scientists agree on something, then there is proof of it."
"After proof". Kind of a little phrase you didn't bother backing up. That's the crux of AGW, there's no *empirical" proof, just hand-picked statistics. It's worthless as science at this point.
The second clause is simply wrong.
You have to have misposted your statement. S/he said nothing of the sort.
They are required to monitor wire transaction accounts but they are *not* required to freeze them without informing. I wrote much of UMB's filtering code for the SWIFT hookup and the flag is set, a supervisor reviews the information and then informs the Feds. The Feds would probably rather a true criminal's account *wasn't* immediately frozen so they could easily watch it's activity with the perp staying unawares.
Well, those two actions are not mutually exclusive.
"They are either proactively protecting themselves or are required to do so."
Cite please. I'll be surprised if you find evidence.
Well, I have. Walk in, chat with young, pleasant woman, get the bad billing undone. Maybe twenty minutes.
Perhaps your language and attitude is an issue with them.
To "insightful" no less. "Informative" might get me a chuckle but insightful for a four word snark meaning essentially nothing?
"The constitution is just a god damn piece of paper..."
Remember that when the Chinese govt closes your business and puts you in a hole where you can't speak with anyone because you didn't buckle under to some bureaucrat. You're a moron.
My career was thirty-five years in banking wire-transfer IT. You're not telling the truth.
I've argued that for both PP and BC from the start and, early in both PayPal's and BitCoin's existence, I was argued against right here that I was shallow sighted and didn't recognize the 'new world'. You can still find that attitude in this very topic (but not for PP because they pissed off someone in tech).
Both should immediately be required to assume all the liabilities that banks have to because both are dealing with people's resources.
His fine self may have just been browsing and felt a slight desire to correct error. Don't project.
What he's referring to is an ACH (Automatic Clearing House) payment. The user has to agree to having one set. It then becomes permanent, or extremely difficult to get them decoupled from your account. My guess is PayPal was allowed to ACH once.
I agree it's spam, but it *is* on topic so your assumption it's just at shill troll is not a good one.
"FWIW, it said my information was invalid, and I'd have to be manually identified (and this is all with absolutely correct entries). The second time I tried, it said there's already a user with that email. So, clearly a beta."
So, your personal experience points to the distinct possibility that the entire company (and this article on SlashDot) is trolling for accurate information and not really to provide you with a glimpse at what entities "out there" already know about you.
I'm not interested in improving their database.