Probably because there's a lot of anti-private-prison coverage, and (unfortunately for any rational discourse) there are many groups who are perfectly willing to make numbers up to bolster their case even if making those numbers up isn't actually necessary. I've fallen victim to it myself on a number of occasions.
Fraud typically requires intent, and that site doesn't even attempt to make cursory coverage of what actually constitutes fraud. The person who designed it should be charged with criminal abuse of my eyesight though...
What the site does cover is civil penalties which can come into play even absent a criminal act.
So while a bad check may be actionable as a civil matter, it is still not a criminal act unless it meets the rest of the standards I previously outlined.
That's a major problem with the US. Even those who support rights typically only support a subset of them. Those they disagree with are the subject of derision. Only protest they support is valid and deserving of protection from abuse by authorities. Well, unless they're those who don't believe in any rights at all, just whatever is "good for society" at the moment.
Depends on the state, and the estimated damages. There are, in fact, some states which require a police report to be filed in the case of an accident where the property damage exceeds a certain threshold even if there was no crime committed and no injury.
If only it were that easy to get around police Guilds and whatever organization represents Lieutenants & Chiefs. Usually, that's almost impossible to do.
Writing a check that bounces isn't a criminal act even. Only if there are indicators of fraud is it a criminal act. It requires evidence that the check was written with foreknowledge that the funds did not exist to cover it and there existed intent to not honor the incurred debt.
That story, if it occurred in the US, is either missing some very important elements explaining the circumstances or it is a fabrication. I'm assuming the former, since people will frequently go out of their way to represent their situation in such a way as to gain sympathy, even if it involves omitting pertinent parts of the story.
Societal heterogeneity is not limited to skin color. In fact, skin color is often named only because the person using it as a descriptive device cannot separate the thing that merely correlates with crime (skin color) from the thing that is an actual cause (socio-economic status, cultural norms, etc).
Much of the crime in the US has nothing to do with population segments that have a history of slavery. However, all those groups do tend to share a history of being repressed for being different than the culture of those who were politically dominant. That's the important heterogeneous aspect; race is the card used by those who can't actually think critically.
And burglaries broken down by a number of other socio-economic and cultural factors.
From the perspective of cultural heterogeneity or historical development, there is no other country in the world comparable to the US. The closest comparison (at least to the former) would probably be the EU, but nobody likes that because they can't get past the (largely artificial) difference between member borders being international versus intranational. There is very little in the way of potential comparison with the latter.
My god, with rates like that I'd just post a freakin' bond and not pay for insurance at all. Of course, I don't know if that's possible in the UK in the same way it is in the States.
Yup, unfortunately that's a common reaction when opposing any political philosophy. You're instantly branded as someone who supports the behavior if you oppose even the most ill-conceived attempt to address it (even if it addresses it in name only, and is a functionally impotent policy).
I'm not from the area, but know lots of musicians and a number of industry insiders from all over the country, and today is the first I've heard of it.
So, while it may be popular, it's certainly not universally known.
As distasteful as it may be in the case of images produced with the intent to be a form of child pornography, it sickens me to see artificially-produced images classified as child pornography. It opens the door to criminally penalizing people for something which must be judged based solely on opinion. There cannot be an objective judgment that an artificially-produced image constitutes "underage pornography," and criminal penalties should be based as closely on objectivity as possible.
These resources should be directed toward finding and jailing people who produce child pornography using actual children, not those who produce images which require (sometimes highly) subjective interpretation.
I'm not sure how most of this applies to my comment. Older plan prices don't change. The only time they change is when you add or remove services which are integral to the plan you're on. You may have switched to a standard plan before the 2-year contract requirement was re-implemented. All this assumes the rep I talked to wasn't lying or misinformed, of course.
The change may have been recent, but as of about a month ago they no longer offer no-contract plans other than pay-as-you-go unless it's some super secret. I wish I hadn't had to re-up with them, but my circumstances didn't allow for switching to pay-as-you-go at the time.
Maybe this is a subtle extradition joke (or, in the case of recent events, what/should/ be a joke but is not), in which case the following does not apply:
Southampton, England, at least last I checked, is located on the southern coast of Great Britain, just north of the Isle of Wight. Barring some incredible changes to world geopolitics, that is still firmly within the jurisdiction of the UK.
Interesting. In most cases I've heard, the UK legal system is not particularly friendly to defendants of pretty much any sort. It's good to hear that might not be the case here, though the owner of the pub does not appear to be nearly so optimistic regarding the outcome.
No, they won't waste a court hearing over a couple hundred bucks. They'll try to collect the ETF (assuming they decide they really want it) then sell the "debt" to a collection agency if they can't collect. It then goes onto a credit record for as much as 7 years, barring the person suing AT&T and/or the agency who purchased the debt (and winning, of course). They can do this even when they could not claim damages, such as if the person owned their own phone outright. They don't need the courts in most cases. They have enormous power to inflict lasting financial harm, and all it requires is a single, automated electronic notification to be sent out from their collections system.
I just discovered that T-Mobile no longer offers no-contract plans for people who already own phones. Used to be you'd actually get a discount over a comparable contract plan if you owned your own phone. Not anymore...
I believe I'll be moving to pay-as-you go the second my contract is up (or they change the terms of it by so much as a single word).
You most certainly can trademark a person's name, and it can be very commercial. If you are named such (and not the person holding the trademark), you can be legally prevented from using your own name in branding if it covers an industry in which another has registered it as a trademark.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because there's a lot of anti-private-prison coverage, and (unfortunately for any rational discourse) there are many groups who are perfectly willing to make numbers up to bolster their case even if making those numbers up isn't actually necessary. I've fallen victim to it myself on a number of occasions.
Fraud typically requires intent, and that site doesn't even attempt to make cursory coverage of what actually constitutes fraud. The person who designed it should be charged with criminal abuse of my eyesight though...
What the site does cover is civil penalties which can come into play even absent a criminal act.
So while a bad check may be actionable as a civil matter, it is still not a criminal act unless it meets the rest of the standards I previously outlined.
That's a major problem with the US. Even those who support rights typically only support a subset of them. Those they disagree with are the subject of derision. Only protest they support is valid and deserving of protection from abuse by authorities. Well, unless they're those who don't believe in any rights at all, just whatever is "good for society" at the moment.
Depends on the state, and the estimated damages. There are, in fact, some states which require a police report to be filed in the case of an accident where the property damage exceeds a certain threshold even if there was no crime committed and no injury.
If only it were that easy to get around police Guilds and whatever organization represents Lieutenants & Chiefs. Usually, that's almost impossible to do.
Writing a check that bounces isn't a criminal act even. Only if there are indicators of fraud is it a criminal act. It requires evidence that the check was written with foreknowledge that the funds did not exist to cover it and there existed intent to not honor the incurred debt.
That story, if it occurred in the US, is either missing some very important elements explaining the circumstances or it is a fabrication. I'm assuming the former, since people will frequently go out of their way to represent their situation in such a way as to gain sympathy, even if it involves omitting pertinent parts of the story.
Societal heterogeneity is not limited to skin color. In fact, skin color is often named only because the person using it as a descriptive device cannot separate the thing that merely correlates with crime (skin color) from the thing that is an actual cause (socio-economic status, cultural norms, etc).
Much of the crime in the US has nothing to do with population segments that have a history of slavery. However, all those groups do tend to share a history of being repressed for being different than the culture of those who were politically dominant. That's the important heterogeneous aspect; race is the card used by those who can't actually think critically.
And burglaries broken down by a number of other socio-economic and cultural factors.
From the perspective of cultural heterogeneity or historical development, there is no other country in the world comparable to the US. The closest comparison (at least to the former) would probably be the EU, but nobody likes that because they can't get past the (largely artificial) difference between member borders being international versus intranational. There is very little in the way of potential comparison with the latter.
My god, with rates like that I'd just post a freakin' bond and not pay for insurance at all. Of course, I don't know if that's possible in the UK in the same way it is in the States.
Glad I scrolled down through all the comments before posting, as this was exactly what I was planning to post in response.
All evidence points to the availability of pornographic outlets reducing the incidence of sexual crimes.
Yup, unfortunately that's a common reaction when opposing any political philosophy. You're instantly branded as someone who supports the behavior if you oppose even the most ill-conceived attempt to address it (even if it addresses it in name only, and is a functionally impotent policy).
Yes, states vary in percentages. I was speaking of the overall prison population of the entire United States as a whole.
Oh, I'm aware of the pre-paid plans. They're not nearly the same type of plan that their no-contract regular plans were.
I'm not from the area, but know lots of musicians and a number of industry insiders from all over the country, and today is the first I've heard of it.
So, while it may be popular, it's certainly not universally known.
Unfortunately, the USSC ruled long ago that roadblocks are a reasonable warrantless search.
You can thank MADD for helping pave that particular superhighway to run right through the 4th Amendment.
Only 10% of the prison population in the USA is incarcerated in private prisons.
While I don't agree with private prisons, 10% does not constitute "largely privatized."
As distasteful as it may be in the case of images produced with the intent to be a form of child pornography, it sickens me to see artificially-produced images classified as child pornography. It opens the door to criminally penalizing people for something which must be judged based solely on opinion. There cannot be an objective judgment that an artificially-produced image constitutes "underage pornography," and criminal penalties should be based as closely on objectivity as possible.
These resources should be directed toward finding and jailing people who produce child pornography using actual children, not those who produce images which require (sometimes highly) subjective interpretation.
I'm not sure how most of this applies to my comment. Older plan prices don't change. The only time they change is when you add or remove services which are integral to the plan you're on. You may have switched to a standard plan before the 2-year contract requirement was re-implemented. All this assumes the rep I talked to wasn't lying or misinformed, of course.
The change may have been recent, but as of about a month ago they no longer offer no-contract plans other than pay-as-you-go unless it's some super secret. I wish I hadn't had to re-up with them, but my circumstances didn't allow for switching to pay-as-you-go at the time.
Maybe this is a subtle extradition joke (or, in the case of recent events, what /should/ be a joke but is not), in which case the following does not apply:
Southampton, England, at least last I checked, is located on the southern coast of Great Britain, just north of the Isle of Wight. Barring some incredible changes to world geopolitics, that is still firmly within the jurisdiction of the UK.
Interesting. In most cases I've heard, the UK legal system is not particularly friendly to defendants of pretty much any sort. It's good to hear that might not be the case here, though the owner of the pub does not appear to be nearly so optimistic regarding the outcome.
Quite true. I missed what the original statement applied to.
No, they won't waste a court hearing over a couple hundred bucks. They'll try to collect the ETF (assuming they decide they really want it) then sell the "debt" to a collection agency if they can't collect. It then goes onto a credit record for as much as 7 years, barring the person suing AT&T and/or the agency who purchased the debt (and winning, of course). They can do this even when they could not claim damages, such as if the person owned their own phone outright. They don't need the courts in most cases. They have enormous power to inflict lasting financial harm, and all it requires is a single, automated electronic notification to be sent out from their collections system.
I just discovered that T-Mobile no longer offers no-contract plans for people who already own phones. Used to be you'd actually get a discount over a comparable contract plan if you owned your own phone. Not anymore...
I believe I'll be moving to pay-as-you go the second my contract is up (or they change the terms of it by so much as a single word).
Unfortunately, Hollywood has two major advantages:
1) Lots of money for lawyers.
2) It's the UK legal system.
You most certainly can trademark a person's name, and it can be very commercial. If you are named such (and not the person holding the trademark), you can be legally prevented from using your own name in branding if it covers an industry in which another has registered it as a trademark.