Seriously, have you ever heard anyone really run that successful a campaign by calling their opponent a "pervert lover"? Being "soft on crime"?
Can you seriously imagine the commercial they would have to run to convey that image in regards to this bill?
"Representative Hogan is out of touch with America. He voted against a law that would prohibit minors from visiting MySpace.com in public libraries. Does that sound like the kind of guy you'd want in office?"
Yes, that works all the time because voters are stupid. That was one of the centerpieces of Bush I's campaign against Ducaca - soft on crime. Worked like a charm. I guarantee that the 15 people who voted against this will have to fight things like "voted against a bill that saved our children from pedophiles."
When this law is overturned constitutionally...can we please prohibit the author(s) from writing future bills? Since they obviously don't know how to do their 'craft'.
I kind of think that's the point. They know this law has no hope of standing up, since it's almost identical but *more restrictive* than COPA. I believe this is election fodder. Call them stupid, but anyone who votes against this will be called a pervert lover come next election. Think of the children...
It's nice of you to assume that the people saying "could care less" are trying to be sarcastic, but the overwhelming evidence is that they are simply stupid and ignorant.
I love the smell of blanket statements in the morning. Smells like....ignorance.
He wasn't talking about every game his child "might play" (e.g. at a friend's house, etc.); he was talking about every game he gave to his children. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to understand what it is when you're the one giving it!
Yes, that's still unreasonable, and insufficient since, as you mention, there are other places games come from. Also, many games take 50 hours to complete. How much of the game is it necessary to play? And many parents wouldn't have the first idea of how to go about playing those games. I'm with you on music, as you don't need expertise to listen to one, and it takes an hour. But a video game? No way. That's why the ESRB does such a good job - they give an approximate age for appropriate play, they tell what kind of content is in the game (violent, language, etc). That's pretty good.
Better yet, tell me this - what game has there been that a parent couldn't appropriately research in 10 minutes on google? Hit a few review sites with screenshots, check the ESRB, and that will probably do just fine. And it will give you a better idea of what the game is about than struggling through the first few levels.
Personally I can add a my two cents working in Defense Labs and National Labs: the political forces are too strong for blue-sky research to happen there. But if they happen to be already involved in what you like doing, then you will fit. I'm guessing you want to stick with what the parent post suggested. Good luck!
I don't think that's quite true, a lot of the goals at national labs are very blue sky. However, there's one bigger problem: there's so much bureaucracy at those places that you can't get anything done. I interviewed at one (I was in the same position as the submitter a couple of years ago), and it was depressing. Researchers told me they spent all day dodging bureaucrats, and could only get work done after 5 when they went home. Somehow that seemed very unappealing...
I will say, it is pretty hard to get a job in industry doing truly blue-sky research. IBM or Intel would be good choices for a EE, I don't know about ME.
Re:Nice attempt at not connecting the dots.
on
The 64% Violent Pacman
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Do you expect me to purchase a game and play it through before I give it to my children?
Did you expect good parenting to be easy and convenient?
I think expecting a parent to play every game their children might play is a tad excessive. If only there were some organization who was expert in video games, and could provide parents with guidance as to what a game is like, and what ages it might be appropriate for. Oh right....
Oh give up. Nobody believes you. I'm sure you think you bring in so much money, but you don't.
I don't care what you believe, moron. Simple math allows me to calculate how much the bank and CC make from interest and merchant fees on my money, and it's quite a bit. When you get a job and make real money you might too.
Deadbeats cost very little because they always bring themselves back up to teh positive before fucking around and getting negative again.
Um, no, there's something called 'bankruptcty.' Also 'repossession' and 'collections.' The banks have to spend quite a lot of money on delinquent accounts. Quite frankly, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Banker by trade (steps above teller here) with knowledge of far more accounts worth far more than you can dream of and I'm friends with several other guys and gals in the field so I have a nice idea what most banks do. Did you think they're going to put a fucking sign up saying "oh, apply here if you routinely go negative?"
Oh, but they do. It's when they advertise things like "free no-balance checking" and "no late fees" and the like. Pay attention to marketing. Some banks reward good customer behavior, some make money off of bad. Most banks do both and simply *treat different customers differently.*
Also, friends with owners of several businesses (perk of having a real job) so I know all about chargebacks. YOU talk to someone who's actually had to deal with the credit card company. You think they're going to bat for you because you didn't get what you like? No, they call up and laugh about the idiotic claims you the consumer generally make and the store does what it would normally do if you didn't go in there and act like an ass. I've been an actual good customer so when I've had problems with shit I have never needed to take it to the credit card companies. As soon as you elevate it to the point you need to tell your card company, the card company knows (1) you're a difficult customer, (2) the store's not buying your lies or you've tried to pull your bullshit on them but failed or else you're just an idiot who doesn't know anything about action chains, (3) that you understand by wasting everyone's time with your temper tantrum they're going to give in just like your parents did.
That's true if you make idiotic claims. However, if you've been a customer for 10 years and don't have a history of those things, it's rather different. And you don't do that for just anything. However, disputes do arise, and if you have evidence to back up your claim, going to your CC company is better than small claims court. I never said to do this frivolously (as some people recommend).
Years ago I worked at an office supply store and remember one customer whose entire argument for trying to return a multiple thousand dollar printer was that she was a good customer. We told her that good customers don't waste our time with frivolous complaints, assinine accusations and nonsense returns.
And that's a good point, actually. You decided that her years of business weren't worth taking back a printer. Not knowing her buying history, that may have been absolutely stupid on your part, or it could have been a good decision. Which is why 1) I don't pester businesses with frivolous complaints, but 2) when I need assistance, *for a legitimate complaint*, I'll probably get it, and have in the past.
Agreed - other than having some emergency cash in savings, it doesn't make sense to keep money in savings while taking out loans for college costs.
Living paycheck to paycheck and floating checks is a bad idea, I think it's a good idea to have a couple thousand dollars readily available should one need it, obviously if means allow.
Some will say you can earn X% in investments vs. Y% in interest costs, and as long as X>Y (don't forget taxes and transaction costs!) you come out ahead, but you're taking on a large risk with that approach
There is a risk, but since interest on student loans doesn't begin until graduation, he could put it in a high-interest savings account at ING (which I would recommend) and make between 3 and 4%, I believe.
going to college should be your primary focus during this time, not investing.
I'd say learning to invest would give him more education than that English lit class. Besides, have you been to college? How much time did you spend partying?
"Banks and credit card companies make more money from delinquint account, routinely late payers and overdraft fees. NBT, one of the largest banks in the northeast here, makes over 30% of its total income from overdraft fees alone and most banks and credit card companies follow similar income structure. The remainder of thier income comes from a combination of interest on loans (or from credit card companies, interest on balances) and investments. A chunk of the fees companies pay for the privilege of accepting your debit card goes straight to the company whose logo is at the bottom (Visa or Mastercard) leaving almost nothing for your bank which is why many encourage using the card as a credit card (where they can make up to a dollar before V or M takes a cut) instead of a debit card (where they make less than a dime per transaction.) Your good banking makes them less than $20 a month. One person who gets one overdraft in the course of the month can earn them between 20 and 35 dollars."
My relationship with my credit card earns them more than $20 a month in merchant fees, actually. And I'm a nil risk since I pay absolutely the entire thing every month. And they treat me *quite well*. With my bank - I earn them a good bit more than $20/month (I'm not going to state my balance, but it's enough for them to care), and it results in great customer service.
You're right, there are crappy banks who prefer to deal with deadbeats and make their money through the moron tax (overdraft, late fees, etc). Not all banks prefer to do business that way because the people who generate those fees also are foreclosure and nonpayment risks. Yes, these people do bring in a lot of money but they also cost a lot.
It's as hard to prove "this guy didn't ship my stuff" as it is to say "I only used them once and they fell apart." Did you pay extra for delivery confirmation? For insurance? Oh, then you have no proof that I didn't send my stuff. Check with your neighbors, someone must have taken it. The guy's problem is that he was going through the wrong channel. The card isn't going to invest an hour in "investigating" whether or not the transaction happened, trying to negotiate with the company and all that crap, when the pants were probably in the $30 range. Furthermore, there's no doubt that the transaction was made, that he got what he bargained for.
True to an extent, but here's the great thing about CCs (with a good company:) They tend to side with the consumer over the merchant, because any given customer can switch companies, but vendors have to accept all MC and V cards to run a real business. Talk to someone who runs a business and ask them about chargebacks...
"There is this set of annoying poeple on the web who take *any* commonly searched-for term and constuct "amubush sites" full of porn banner ads, spyware installs, whatever, and then try to get their ambush sites ranked high on Google. This is a highly automated process, and the assholes doing this don't are *what* the terms are. It would be nice if we could outlaw this annoyance, but it has nothing to do with children."
I'm aware those sites exist. I think the premise here is that there are other sites that do this intentionally to draw kids in to porno sites, who are just old enough to find the concept interesting. Potentially by then having a guestbook, etc one would establish a relationship with the kid that would lead to Bad Things. That's the theory, anyway, and that's what they seem to be trying to prevent.
However, if you're right, and it's just passive, then the argument is that an ambush site that ends up with a kid looking at porn is more destructive than usual and should be banned.
"Also, theres bound to be a site out there offering "My Little Pony" porn, as there is for evey cartoon ever made (people seem to like to draw porn cartoons, go figure), and I'm not sure where that fits in the debate."
The argument of the people sponsoring this bill would likely be that such things should be illegal seeing as it has significant potential to draw in kids to porn. Figuring out a way to reconcile that with the first amendment is left as an exercise for the reader.
"Do people use websites for that? I thought paedophile grooming generally took place in kids' chatrooms and kid-oriented message boards. You know, places where kids actually want to hang around and chat with this nice man who's going to let them come round some day and ride his pony, rather than sick porno sites that the average kid is going to take one glance at, say "ewww", and go somewhere else fast."
I'm not intimately familiar with the practice. However, if there's a porn site with meta tags like "Furbie","My little pony", and the like - can you think of a legit reason?
Porn sites are not, in general, fronts for child molesters, you fucktard.
Pay attention with however few braincells you have. I didn't equate mainstream porn with pedophilia. This story isn't even about mainstream porn. How many damned legitimate pornsites have meta tags including the word "Furbie" do ya think? None? What legitimate porn site is trying to lure children - and I mean 5-10 year olds - to their sites? That's what is targeted here. I'm waiting for your spirited defense of furbie porn.
What? It's precisely because it can't be codified globally that it's pointless to do anything about it here. Do you honestly think that anyone outside the US is going to voluntarily conform to this law? Do you think anyone inside the US can't get around it by moving their content outside the US?
Not really. The sickos aren't luring kids to nasty sites for the pageviews. They're typically luring them there to establish a relationship, and possibly lead to a real-world meet-up. Which, from the US perspective, is largely only a threat from criminals within the US. Also, the US makes up a ton of traffic. If you can solve 25% of the problem, why not do it?
Listen, I tried this once, the credit card company refused to go to bat for me. I bought a pair of running pants from the mall and they fell apart after only being worn twice. When I disputed the charges the credit card company let them go through and then told me they couldn't do anything about it. The merchant refused to take them back, saying only the manager was authorized to give refunds and that he somehow managed the store from another dimension where he couldn't be contacted.
That's a tougher situation - it's hard to prove that the wear and tear was unreasonable in that situation. Credit card companies are better for clearer things like "this guy didn't ship my stuff."
Also, best thing you can do is become a valuable customer. Pay for a lot of things with a credit card, and hold on for multiple years. I've had one since 1997, I use it to pay for practically everything, never pay late, and make them a ton of money in merchant fees (though not a cent of interest in nearly 10 years). If they *don't* go to bat for me when I need them, I'll cancel the card on the spot.
That's why I like keeping my businsess with a few companies - I have a mortgage and a fairly decent balance with a single bank. When I didn't get my $100 cash return while depositing checks (I didn't notice for a day or so), I had a manager involved pronto - but only after they looked me up and found that I was a customer worth paying attention to. The situation was resolved in less than a day. Admittedly not everyone is so lucky to have sufficient resources (like college kids), but trying to consolidate as much business as possible at a single bank (car payment, checking, credit card, any investments, whatever) is a really good idea. They're more likely to listen to you.
Also, maybe things have changed, but I've always found that credit card companies are more likely than other businesses to get involved, simply because they have other customers to protect from that merchant as well.
I don't need you to tell me that I'm right, because I already know. I just need you to indicate that you understand I am right. Also, your statement is not correct. Testimony of the parties to the contract is certainly proof of it. We needn't a recorded conversation or a signature.
No shit sherlock, however one of the parties in THIS question is stating categorically that a multi-year contract doesn't exist, and the other party is a telemarketer who talks to about 1000 people a day and has no chance of recalling a specific conversation with a specific customer. I assumed that much was obvious.
I have no idea who "they" is, or what you claim my contention is. It is clear that a contract exists. The ISP offered services, and the geezers accepted by paying money, which supplied the consideration. A contract exists.
That is proof of an at-will business relationship. Now tell me where that relationship proves that the customers signed up for multiple years, and agreed to pay a penalty for terminating the agreement before that, which is what is being claimed here
Yeah, he could countersue, but that doesn't help anybody. Most people don't have the financial means to enter into a civil suit with an organization the size of the MPAA. They have no fear of that.
If he got damages it could. It would establish a roadmap if not a legal precedent. If he gets real damages out of the MPAA you'll find lawyers lining up to take clients being sued by the MPAA.
Hello. I am an attorney licensed to practice in Florida. It is false to say, "If they don't have a signature or a recorded conversation where you agreed to this then you don't have a contract". The requirement of a signature passed some time ago (as did the requirement of a seal). Similarly, no recording of the conversation is needed for an oral contract to exist.
That having been said, enforcement of an oral contract is not the easiest thing in the world, and I would be surprised to learn of a ISP that uses one with its subscribers. I suspect the terms of the contract in this case were contained in a document such as the application for the account.
You're right. What the guy meant was "in the absense of a signature or recorded conversation, you have no *proof* of a contract," since we're not talking about a situation where witnesses are present.
I suspect the terms of the contract in this case were contained in a document such as the application for the account.
The "ask slashdot" would indicate otherwise - they were doing it through a web form that he never signed up for. If your contention were correct, this wouldn't be a story, as that happens all the time and is completely legitimate (assuming the salesperson doesn't contradict the contract terms as they often do).
Rather, his point seems to be that nothing of the sort was ever agreed to, written, oral, or webform. This seems to be following a disturbing practice of many companies lately, namely they try to lie to you and tell you a contract exists when in fact you agreed to no such thing, in any form, not even signing at the bottom of the tiny print or saying "OK" on the phone.
Personally, things like this are why I pay for damned near everything with a credit card. I've never had to resort to it, but if it comes down to it, you call your card, tell them what's up, and they investigate. If this guy is right, and the telco has no evidence whatsoever of a contract, they don't get paid. And if they try to continue to charge after that, the card company can rescind their ability to take that card. And they better not try to ruin your credit through TransUnion's database (or the other two).
True, true, and I'm a computer scientist, not a biological/evolutionary scientist. I don't like probing things that go squish. I have, however, noticed that our vision seems to be pretty good at helping us notice small lurking snakes before we go climbing over them in trees (Admittedly it's been a while since I've done that.)
I'm gonna fall back on the uniqueness argument here. Our vision is also good at tracking flying objects. So it's much more likely that our sophisticated vision helps us *be* predators by chucking spears at things, not escape them. Additionally, I believe most other organisms that actually *are* preyed on by snakes develop better senses of hearing, since the snake generally has you by the time you can see it.
Therefore we can record what people are like in regions where the snakes are still pissed off and quite deadly to humans, wait a couple thousand years and check again.
Some could say that's already happened, and vision doesn't differ that much in humans across regions...
The bottom line is there is absolutely *no* unique evidence here pertaining to snakes. None. It's entirely conjecture, and not particularly convincing conjecture. For an animal to develop something as complex as our sophosticated vision, it would have to be to avoid a *major* predator, something snakes have really never been, to my knowledge.
TFA referrs to proto-primates. Meaning animals that evolved into primates, which later evolved into humans. Sure, by and large snakes don't eat many people today, but they did eat some of our genetic ancestors...
No shit. However, there's still no actual causal evidence, nor is there a uniqueness argument for why snakes, above the other predators that ate primates, would be the driving force.
It's still, at best, blatant conjecture. You could also make the same exact case for every predator alive at the time - so why is this new ability not to avoid lions, leopards, eagles, etc., all of which were known to prey on humans?
In other words, 1) there's no evidence, and 2) there's no uniqueness to snakes. So this theory needs to go back to the drawing board.
The issue at hand is not what we are doing in Iraq. It is about the president effectively saying that, since we are at "war", he no longer has to act in accordance with the Constitution (ie., warrantless monitoring of US citizens' phone calls).
Different story. I was responding to a post that claimed that everything done in Iraq is 'illegal' since it wasn't an official declaration of war. Certainly a question needs to be raised, namely how far do war powers extend?
"I worked at IBM for a number of years as a sysadmin and developer. I can say with certainty that IBM isn't at all concerned with this case and never has been. In fact, the majority of IBM's employees aren't even aware that the suit exists, let alone that it's ongoing."
Does IBM share it's legal strategies with it's sysadmins?
This is what happens when you have a government that can be purchased. Make no mistake about it, in the US laws/justice/rights/people/myself is for sale and the RIAA/MPAA is buying. As long as they have money they will be able to manipulate any system set up in the US to serve their needs.
As opposed to where? Many countries pay taxes on all CD-R's purchased regardless of purpose. Face it, government everywhere is for sale, and the RIAA clones in most countries exploit the fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that works all the time because voters are stupid. That was one of the centerpieces of Bush I's campaign against Ducaca - soft on crime. Worked like a charm. I guarantee that the 15 people who voted against this will have to fight things like "voted against a bill that saved our children from pedophiles."
I kind of think that's the point. They know this law has no hope of standing up, since it's almost identical but *more restrictive* than COPA. I believe this is election fodder. Call them stupid, but anyone who votes against this will be called a pervert lover come next election. Think of the children...
I love the smell of blanket statements in the morning. Smells like....ignorance.
Yes, that's still unreasonable, and insufficient since, as you mention, there are other places games come from. Also, many games take 50 hours to complete. How much of the game is it necessary to play? And many parents wouldn't have the first idea of how to go about playing those games. I'm with you on music, as you don't need expertise to listen to one, and it takes an hour. But a video game? No way. That's why the ESRB does such a good job - they give an approximate age for appropriate play, they tell what kind of content is in the game (violent, language, etc). That's pretty good.
Better yet, tell me this - what game has there been that a parent couldn't appropriately research in 10 minutes on google? Hit a few review sites with screenshots, check the ESRB, and that will probably do just fine. And it will give you a better idea of what the game is about than struggling through the first few levels.
I don't think that's quite true, a lot of the goals at national labs are very blue sky. However, there's one bigger problem: there's so much bureaucracy at those places that you can't get anything done. I interviewed at one (I was in the same position as the submitter a couple of years ago), and it was depressing. Researchers told me they spent all day dodging bureaucrats, and could only get work done after 5 when they went home. Somehow that seemed very unappealing...
I will say, it is pretty hard to get a job in industry doing truly blue-sky research. IBM or Intel would be good choices for a EE, I don't know about ME.
I think expecting a parent to play every game their children might play is a tad excessive. If only there were some organization who was expert in video games, and could provide parents with guidance as to what a game is like, and what ages it might be appropriate for. Oh right....
I don't care what you believe, moron. Simple math allows me to calculate how much the bank and CC make from interest and merchant fees on my money, and it's quite a bit. When you get a job and make real money you might too.
Deadbeats cost very little because they always bring themselves back up to teh positive before fucking around and getting negative again.
Um, no, there's something called 'bankruptcty.' Also 'repossession' and 'collections.' The banks have to spend quite a lot of money on delinquent accounts. Quite frankly, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Banker by trade (steps above teller here) with knowledge of far more accounts worth far more than you can dream of and I'm friends with several other guys and gals in the field so I have a nice idea what most banks do. Did you think they're going to put a fucking sign up saying "oh, apply here if you routinely go negative?"
Oh, but they do. It's when they advertise things like "free no-balance checking" and "no late fees" and the like. Pay attention to marketing. Some banks reward good customer behavior, some make money off of bad. Most banks do both and simply *treat different customers differently.*
Also, friends with owners of several businesses (perk of having a real job) so I know all about chargebacks. YOU talk to someone who's actually had to deal with the credit card company. You think they're going to bat for you because you didn't get what you like? No, they call up and laugh about the idiotic claims you the consumer generally make and the store does what it would normally do if you didn't go in there and act like an ass. I've been an actual good customer so when I've had problems with shit I have never needed to take it to the credit card companies. As soon as you elevate it to the point you need to tell your card company, the card company knows (1) you're a difficult customer, (2) the store's not buying your lies or you've tried to pull your bullshit on them but failed or else you're just an idiot who doesn't know anything about action chains, (3) that you understand by wasting everyone's time with your temper tantrum they're going to give in just like your parents did.
That's true if you make idiotic claims. However, if you've been a customer for 10 years and don't have a history of those things, it's rather different. And you don't do that for just anything. However, disputes do arise, and if you have evidence to back up your claim, going to your CC company is better than small claims court. I never said to do this frivolously (as some people recommend).
Years ago I worked at an office supply store and remember one customer whose entire argument for trying to return a multiple thousand dollar printer was that she was a good customer. We told her that good customers don't waste our time with frivolous complaints, assinine accusations and nonsense returns.
And that's a good point, actually. You decided that her years of business weren't worth taking back a printer. Not knowing her buying history, that may have been absolutely stupid on your part, or it could have been a good decision. Which is why 1) I don't pester businesses with frivolous complaints, but 2) when I need assistance, *for a legitimate complaint*, I'll probably get it, and have in the past.
Living paycheck to paycheck and floating checks is a bad idea, I think it's a good idea to have a couple thousand dollars readily available should one need it, obviously if means allow.
Some will say you can earn X% in investments vs. Y% in interest costs, and as long as X>Y (don't forget taxes and transaction costs!) you come out ahead, but you're taking on a large risk with that approach
There is a risk, but since interest on student loans doesn't begin until graduation, he could put it in a high-interest savings account at ING (which I would recommend) and make between 3 and 4%, I believe.
going to college should be your primary focus during this time, not investing.
I'd say learning to invest would give him more education than that English lit class. Besides, have you been to college? How much time did you spend partying?
My relationship with my credit card earns them more than $20 a month in merchant fees, actually. And I'm a nil risk since I pay absolutely the entire thing every month. And they treat me *quite well*. With my bank - I earn them a good bit more than $20/month (I'm not going to state my balance, but it's enough for them to care), and it results in great customer service.
You're right, there are crappy banks who prefer to deal with deadbeats and make their money through the moron tax (overdraft, late fees, etc). Not all banks prefer to do business that way because the people who generate those fees also are foreclosure and nonpayment risks. Yes, these people do bring in a lot of money but they also cost a lot.
It's as hard to prove "this guy didn't ship my stuff" as it is to say "I only used them once and they fell apart." Did you pay extra for delivery confirmation? For insurance? Oh, then you have no proof that I didn't send my stuff. Check with your neighbors, someone must have taken it. The guy's problem is that he was going through the wrong channel. The card isn't going to invest an hour in "investigating" whether or not the transaction happened, trying to negotiate with the company and all that crap, when the pants were probably in the $30 range. Furthermore, there's no doubt that the transaction was made, that he got what he bargained for.
True to an extent, but here's the great thing about CCs (with a good company:) They tend to side with the consumer over the merchant, because any given customer can switch companies, but vendors have to accept all MC and V cards to run a real business. Talk to someone who runs a business and ask them about chargebacks...
I'm aware those sites exist. I think the premise here is that there are other sites that do this intentionally to draw kids in to porno sites, who are just old enough to find the concept interesting. Potentially by then having a guestbook, etc one would establish a relationship with the kid that would lead to Bad Things. That's the theory, anyway, and that's what they seem to be trying to prevent.
However, if you're right, and it's just passive, then the argument is that an ambush site that ends up with a kid looking at porn is more destructive than usual and should be banned.
"Also, theres bound to be a site out there offering "My Little Pony" porn, as there is for evey cartoon ever made (people seem to like to draw porn cartoons, go figure), and I'm not sure where that fits in the debate."
The argument of the people sponsoring this bill would likely be that such things should be illegal seeing as it has significant potential to draw in kids to porn. Figuring out a way to reconcile that with the first amendment is left as an exercise for the reader.
I'm not intimately familiar with the practice. However, if there's a porn site with meta tags like "Furbie","My little pony", and the like - can you think of a legit reason?
Pay attention with however few braincells you have. I didn't equate mainstream porn with pedophilia. This story isn't even about mainstream porn. How many damned legitimate pornsites have meta tags including the word "Furbie" do ya think? None? What legitimate porn site is trying to lure children - and I mean 5-10 year olds - to their sites? That's what is targeted here. I'm waiting for your spirited defense of furbie porn.
Not really. The sickos aren't luring kids to nasty sites for the pageviews. They're typically luring them there to establish a relationship, and possibly lead to a real-world meet-up. Which, from the US perspective, is largely only a threat from criminals within the US. Also, the US makes up a ton of traffic. If you can solve 25% of the problem, why not do it?
That's a tougher situation - it's hard to prove that the wear and tear was unreasonable in that situation. Credit card companies are better for clearer things like "this guy didn't ship my stuff."
Also, best thing you can do is become a valuable customer. Pay for a lot of things with a credit card, and hold on for multiple years. I've had one since 1997, I use it to pay for practically everything, never pay late, and make them a ton of money in merchant fees (though not a cent of interest in nearly 10 years). If they *don't* go to bat for me when I need them, I'll cancel the card on the spot.
That's why I like keeping my businsess with a few companies - I have a mortgage and a fairly decent balance with a single bank. When I didn't get my $100 cash return while depositing checks (I didn't notice for a day or so), I had a manager involved pronto - but only after they looked me up and found that I was a customer worth paying attention to. The situation was resolved in less than a day. Admittedly not everyone is so lucky to have sufficient resources (like college kids), but trying to consolidate as much business as possible at a single bank (car payment, checking, credit card, any investments, whatever) is a really good idea. They're more likely to listen to you.
Also, maybe things have changed, but I've always found that credit card companies are more likely than other businesses to get involved, simply because they have other customers to protect from that merchant as well.
No shit sherlock, however one of the parties in THIS question is stating categorically that a multi-year contract doesn't exist, and the other party is a telemarketer who talks to about 1000 people a day and has no chance of recalling a specific conversation with a specific customer. I assumed that much was obvious.
I have no idea who "they" is, or what you claim my contention is. It is clear that a contract exists. The ISP offered services, and the geezers accepted by paying money, which supplied the consideration. A contract exists.
That is proof of an at-will business relationship. Now tell me where that relationship proves that the customers signed up for multiple years, and agreed to pay a penalty for terminating the agreement before that, which is what is being claimed here
I think it's mainly high school and college kids saying Ruby (or whatever) will solve everything. Anyone in the real world knows better.
Well, if damages were to arise in even one case, they would care because it would be proverbial chum in the water.
If he got damages it could. It would establish a roadmap if not a legal precedent. If he gets real damages out of the MPAA you'll find lawyers lining up to take clients being sued by the MPAA.
You're right. What the guy meant was "in the absense of a signature or recorded conversation, you have no *proof* of a contract," since we're not talking about a situation where witnesses are present.
I suspect the terms of the contract in this case were contained in a document such as the application for the account.
The "ask slashdot" would indicate otherwise - they were doing it through a web form that he never signed up for. If your contention were correct, this wouldn't be a story, as that happens all the time and is completely legitimate (assuming the salesperson doesn't contradict the contract terms as they often do).
Rather, his point seems to be that nothing of the sort was ever agreed to, written, oral, or webform. This seems to be following a disturbing practice of many companies lately, namely they try to lie to you and tell you a contract exists when in fact you agreed to no such thing, in any form, not even signing at the bottom of the tiny print or saying "OK" on the phone.
Personally, things like this are why I pay for damned near everything with a credit card. I've never had to resort to it, but if it comes down to it, you call your card, tell them what's up, and they investigate. If this guy is right, and the telco has no evidence whatsoever of a contract, they don't get paid. And if they try to continue to charge after that, the card company can rescind their ability to take that card. And they better not try to ruin your credit through TransUnion's database (or the other two).
I'm gonna fall back on the uniqueness argument here. Our vision is also good at tracking flying objects. So it's much more likely that our sophisticated vision helps us *be* predators by chucking spears at things, not escape them. Additionally, I believe most other organisms that actually *are* preyed on by snakes develop better senses of hearing, since the snake generally has you by the time you can see it.
Therefore we can record what people are like in regions where the snakes are still pissed off and quite deadly to humans, wait a couple thousand years and check again.
Some could say that's already happened, and vision doesn't differ that much in humans across regions...
The bottom line is there is absolutely *no* unique evidence here pertaining to snakes. None. It's entirely conjecture, and not particularly convincing conjecture. For an animal to develop something as complex as our sophosticated vision, it would have to be to avoid a *major* predator, something snakes have really never been, to my knowledge.
No shit. However, there's still no actual causal evidence, nor is there a uniqueness argument for why snakes, above the other predators that ate primates, would be the driving force.
It's still, at best, blatant conjecture. You could also make the same exact case for every predator alive at the time - so why is this new ability not to avoid lions, leopards, eagles, etc., all of which were known to prey on humans?
In other words, 1) there's no evidence, and 2) there's no uniqueness to snakes. So this theory needs to go back to the drawing board.
Different story. I was responding to a post that claimed that everything done in Iraq is 'illegal' since it wasn't an official declaration of war. Certainly a question needs to be raised, namely how far do war powers extend?
Does IBM share it's legal strategies with it's sysadmins?
As opposed to where? Many countries pay taxes on all CD-R's purchased regardless of purpose. Face it, government everywhere is for sale, and the RIAA clones in most countries exploit the fact.