Up until the point that he got on the Hillary train, I had a LOT of respect for Sanders. You're right that most of his positions are close to "normal" for Democrats, but unlike most politicians, he was not trying to walk both sides of a line, and he was that rare (almost unique) straight shooter. He didn't hide behind weasel words, he didn't equivocate, he stated, simply, what his ideals were, and appeared to live by them.
When's the last time you heard ANYONE at his level of politics say something like "I have to get my tax returns from my wife, she does them" and then further find out that he's actually living on his Senate salary and not "speaking fees" or other similar near bribes?
I'm actually pretty upset over the whole thing--I would NEVER have voted for Sanders, because his politics are too far off from mine, but he was a politician I could admire... until he became just another party hack at convention time.
The former hed of the CIA seems to take this pretty seriously. One does not commit treason even as sarcasm. It isn't funny, and at some point, this is taken pretty seriously.
Your copy of the constitution must have a different definition of treason than mine does (mine's pretty specific, and though people have LOVED to throw the word around for the last 15 years at both the Rs and the Ds at various times, very little of it has actually come even close, much less passed muster).
The really amusing part (to me) is all the people that are getting worked up shouting "treason" etc can't seem to remember that (according to Hillary) none of the contents of that server were classified or sensitive, the data in question is "missing or deleted," and that we're talking about a "personal email server" and not a computer belonging to the US government (a computer that doesn't even exist to be hacked anymore).
I stand behind my statement that this is manufactured controversy. "hey russia, you guys have those 30,000 emails that Hillary didn't turn over to the FBI?" is not an inducement to hack something--at best, it's a request to provide something they may have ALREADY hacked in the past. It's VERY obviously a dig at Hillary's other email problem, and pretty much anyone "viewing with alarm" right now is probably anti-Trump to some degree or another.
I can't believe I'm put in a position where I'm actually defending that walking carrot with a toupee, but the sheer lack of critical thinking involved in this "controversy" is mind boggling.
That's how Billy the Kid got off... they tried him for shooting Sheriff William Brady, but he was acquitted because his iPhone was encrypted and they couldn't get at the data. They even tried getting Steve Jobs' great grandfather involved, but the sonofabitch insisted that he didn't even know what a cell phone was, much less how to remove the encryption from one.
Julius Rosenberg also went free because they couldn't decrypt his thumb drive to prove he was spying for the Soviets.
At least that's the impression I get from listening to these assholes whining that they can't spy on all of us 24/7.
I don't think even Donald Trump is oblivious enough to suggest that someone should hack a server that was decommissioned years ago.
I'll agree that man does a fine job of de-calibrating sarcasm detectors, but I just don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. The idea that professional journalists are doing so (apparently it was played as straight news by CNN as their top story) does not pass the smell test with me, and (in my opinion) is just an excuse to manufacture controversy.
If they're basing this on owning the copyright to the Olympics, this isn't going to work - owning a copyright on the name of a thing doesn't mean that you can prevent anyone from talking about your thing, just that nobody else can sell it. Lawsuits like this fail often - confused people think that they can use copyright to do more than control the right to copy...
They don't have to (and probably don't expect to) win, but they have the power to ruin anyone they choose to that violates their demand (they will simply sue them into the ground, regardless of merits, and their resources will significantly exceed that of their targets).
Your biases have blinded you to the fact that this was humor. I admit that I laughed when I read the story today. This is the same joke my colleagues in Germany have been making to me for the last couple of years ("we don't make backups anymore, if we lose data, we'll just ask you to call the NSA so they can send us their copy")
Trump is a walking train wreck, but your apolplexy over this is just as ridiculous as his candidacy.
Ok, so how do you write laws that apply to a corporation as well?
I'm proposing that criminal laws applying to a corporation shouldn't be written at all. There are more than enough civil laws to go around, and any criminal liability can (and should) be put on the shoulders of those involved.
You're showing a severe lack of legal knowledge. Almost everything is codified to people. A corporation for legal purposes is just like a person. Unlike illegal aliens and foreigners (in America), they can't vote, however.
I never claimed to have much in the way of legal knowledge. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just an IT geek (I promise that is not Phil Hartman reference).
My initial point was to state "people acting together should not have fewer rights than when they act separately" and I stand behind that. That's not legal doctrine, that's philosophy. The opposite outcome in Citizens United would have enshrined just that idea into our wonderful, precedential legal system, and it would have taken decades to undo (if ever it could be).
You mistake me. I don't suggest picking out "one scapegoat" and holding him accountable. I am serious about "those responsible should be held accountable." In your ecological disaster, it's probably NOT just one guy that made the whole thing happen. There's probably one or more members of upper management, scads of middle management, and people on the ground that all MADE it happen (and probably some poor engineer screaming that whatever idiotic idea led to the issue should never be done for the exact reason that led to the problem).
You've also completely ignored my suggestion (WRT "billions") that there are civil remedies for that, and that the corporate entity should indeed be on the hook for those.
I realize you're just an AC, but next time you may want to consider what I actually said instead of just calling me a dumbass.
The above is rather nonsensical. In your example crime, there is plenty enough criminal liability to go around, and those involved should (certainly!) be tried and, if there is enough evidence, be convicted for their crimes (the negligent homicide itself, and likely conspiracy charges around whatever led to it). "Auctioning the company" etc can follow as part of whatever civil liability may exist on the part of those who "own" it.
"Corporate Personhood" is not (or should not be) a thing. "Jailing" the corporation is silly. Hold PEOPLE accountable. I'll admit (disgustedly) that our law enforcement organizations most certainly do NOT seem to do this, but that is a separate problem, and the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater as a result of uninterested or corrupted government stooges.
This is my main problem with people who complain about the Citizens United decision--none of them ever seem to stop to think about what a "corporation" is, they just yell "four legs good, two legs bad" and talk about "corporate personhood," ignoring the real problems with the idea that people acting in concert (i.e. "corporate entities") should not have the same rights as people acting independently.
America promised not to do it and signed treaties and such. But they have now changed their minds. Seems pretty obviously untrustworthy to anyone who isn't a shill or has an ounce of common sense.
The ABM treaty had withdrawal provisions, and the US exercised them. It's not untrustworthy, and saying so probably indicates the person doing so is either "a shill, or [doesn't have] an ounce of common sense." They could also simply be uninformed and wearing their ignorance as a badge of honor, YMMV.
I still have the unlimited plan for myself and my daughter. This month I used 14.5 GB and my daughter used 7GB so it looks like we will be left alone. But on my bill is states " Unlimited Plan" in several places online and on paper bill. Just saying.......
advertisement noun a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.
So no, they aren't advertising "unlimited" anything.
The problem lies in that they are selecting which users to disconnect based on their data usage, so they are explicitly discriminating against users based on their usage of an unlimited plan. If they cut off ALL unlimited plans, that would be a non-discriminatory act.
It's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against your customers. "Heavy bandwidth user" is not a protected class that invokes various laws designed to protect the marginalized.
This is more akin to having a contract with an $8 Chinese buffet so you can get all you can eat for $120/mo. You then go to eat there every day so you end up eating there for $4 every day. The restaurant can't just break the contract because they didn't expect you needed to eat every day.
They're not breaking the contract. That's what everyone seems to be missing. The contract has ended. Many contracts have a "month to month" provision that says "at the end of this contract, we continue with the same terms unless one party decides not to." In the case of heavy users, Verizon is deciding not to.
There is nothing unethical or illegal in play here. VZW has decided these users are not worth catering to, and elected not to continue the relationship under the existing terms. This isn't even a stupid "we reserve the right to change the contract whenever we want to whatever we want" EULA bullshit. It's simply one party saying "we want out of this."
Your latter metaphor is better, since both parties initially agreed on the dog being okay. If you were throwing loud parties, which you were explicitly allowed to do in your initial contract, then you should kind of be able to tell said neighbors to shove it.
Except that your contract has expired, so those "original terms" are in place only upon the goodwill of both parties (no pun intended). If one of those parties (the landlord) decides that making complaints from the neighbors go away is worth more than your continued tenancy, then no, you shouldn't be able to tell someone to shove it.
Are they still offering unlimited plans? Because this whole stupid thing was caused by them calling it that in the first place; now we're just looking at debris left over from that initial bad decision.
No, they're not. These are people who originally had "unlimited" plans but have been month-to-month customers since VZW discontinued those (and who VZW has elected to allow to remain grandfathered). VZW is now saying, "use what you want, but if you exceed this amount we will not renew your sweetheart deal" and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Certainly Verizon has the right to change the terms on grandfathered month-to-month plans whenever they see fit. I believe the issue is that they're doing so while continuing to call the plan Unlimited If they instead simply transferred all their Unlimited* plans to a newly created "100GB Bargain" plan, then there would be far less justification for calling them out. No doubt many would still call it a jerk move, but it would be an *honest* jerk move.
The plan actually IS unlimited. They've also defined a number they consider "reasonable" (whether or not it is so is immaterial) and said if you exceed this number, we will cease doing business with you, but if you used 1TB of data this month, they would not charge you an overage.
While analogy is always suspect, look at it this way: You go to the local Chinese Buffet which is "all you can eat for $8.95" and proceed to eat enough food to fill a small SUV. The cashier politely charges you the $8.95 and asks you to never return.
That's what we're talking about. You had all you can eat, but you're not welcome back.
Verizon actually are NOT advertising their plans as unlimited--that's exactly the point here, the people involved are grandfathered users from a time when Verizon DID advertise such a thing (largely before 4G deployments were of real size). What it looks like here is they are telling "unlimited" users, "if you use more than 100GB we're not going to do business with you under these terms." Given that 100% of these users are out of contract (that's how they're still on unlimited plans--they haven't signed a new contract) there's no legal problem here--Verizon will just terminate their service if the user doesn't switch plans.
They did a remake in the 90s. I don't remember everyone in the cast, but it had Jack Lemmon, Geroge C. Scott, Courtney B. Vance, James Gandolfini, Tony Danza (that was was a bit of a WTF, but he wasn't bad), and some other people you'd recognize. The biggest problem with the movie is that it was really just a remake, completely faithful to the original with minimal changes. That said, it was a solid effort and I prefer it to the original (probably because the actors are closer to my generation).
Ironically, this complete breakdown was caused by the threat of terrorism driving a "necessity" for an Orwellian solution.
This has been going on far longer than that. Terrorism is just the excuse de jure to further expand the assault on your rights. Before that (and actually concurrently) it's the war on drugs and child molesters. There's also currently the SJW war on the first amendment (with the liberal types who should be screaming loudest in protest jumping on the bandwagon and yelling "yee-haw!"). Before that it was the hippies and the black panthers. Before that it was the commies. Before that it was nazis. Before that it was the Great Depression.
Blaming the excuse de jure is just playing into the hands of those out to take your rights away (whatever their motives). As the GP noted, "compromise" has already happened... over and over. "Compromise" is a code word for "we'll be back later."
Slashdot Mirror
Up until the point that he got on the Hillary train, I had a LOT of respect for Sanders. You're right that most of his positions are close to "normal" for Democrats, but unlike most politicians, he was not trying to walk both sides of a line, and he was that rare (almost unique) straight shooter. He didn't hide behind weasel words, he didn't equivocate, he stated, simply, what his ideals were, and appeared to live by them.
When's the last time you heard ANYONE at his level of politics say something like "I have to get my tax returns from my wife, she does them" and then further find out that he's actually living on his Senate salary and not "speaking fees" or other similar near bribes?
I'm actually pretty upset over the whole thing--I would NEVER have voted for Sanders, because his politics are too far off from mine, but he was a politician I could admire... until he became just another party hack at convention time.
The former hed of the CIA seems to take this pretty seriously. One does not commit treason even as sarcasm. It isn't funny, and at some point, this is taken pretty seriously.
Your copy of the constitution must have a different definition of treason than mine does (mine's pretty specific, and though people have LOVED to throw the word around for the last 15 years at both the Rs and the Ds at various times, very little of it has actually come even close, much less passed muster).
The really amusing part (to me) is all the people that are getting worked up shouting "treason" etc can't seem to remember that (according to Hillary) none of the contents of that server were classified or sensitive, the data in question is "missing or deleted," and that we're talking about a "personal email server" and not a computer belonging to the US government (a computer that doesn't even exist to be hacked anymore).
I stand behind my statement that this is manufactured controversy. "hey russia, you guys have those 30,000 emails that Hillary didn't turn over to the FBI?" is not an inducement to hack something--at best, it's a request to provide something they may have ALREADY hacked in the past. It's VERY obviously a dig at Hillary's other email problem, and pretty much anyone "viewing with alarm" right now is probably anti-Trump to some degree or another.
I can't believe I'm put in a position where I'm actually defending that walking carrot with a toupee, but the sheer lack of critical thinking involved in this "controversy" is mind boggling.
I called Trump a train wreck and said his candidacy was ridiculous. In what universe does that make me a supporter of his?
If you want to see a fool, look in the mirror.
That's how Billy the Kid got off... they tried him for shooting Sheriff William Brady, but he was acquitted because his iPhone was encrypted and they couldn't get at the data. They even tried getting Steve Jobs' great grandfather involved, but the sonofabitch insisted that he didn't even know what a cell phone was, much less how to remove the encryption from one.
Julius Rosenberg also went free because they couldn't decrypt his thumb drive to prove he was spying for the Soviets.
At least that's the impression I get from listening to these assholes whining that they can't spy on all of us 24/7.
I don't think even Donald Trump is oblivious enough to suggest that someone should hack a server that was decommissioned years ago.
I'll agree that man does a fine job of de-calibrating sarcasm detectors, but I just don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. The idea that professional journalists are doing so (apparently it was played as straight news by CNN as their top story) does not pass the smell test with me, and (in my opinion) is just an excuse to manufacture controversy.
If they're basing this on owning the copyright to the Olympics, this isn't going to work - owning a copyright on the name of a thing doesn't mean that you can prevent anyone from talking about your thing, just that nobody else can sell it. Lawsuits like this fail often - confused people think that they can use copyright to do more than control the right to copy...
They don't have to (and probably don't expect to) win, but they have the power to ruin anyone they choose to that violates their demand (they will simply sue them into the ground, regardless of merits, and their resources will significantly exceed that of their targets).
Your biases have blinded you to the fact that this was humor. I admit that I laughed when I read the story today. This is the same joke my colleagues in Germany have been making to me for the last couple of years ("we don't make backups anymore, if we lose data, we'll just ask you to call the NSA so they can send us their copy")
Trump is a walking train wreck, but your apolplexy over this is just as ridiculous as his candidacy.
Ok, so how do you write laws that apply to a corporation as well?
I'm proposing that criminal laws applying to a corporation shouldn't be written at all. There are more than enough civil laws to go around, and any criminal liability can (and should) be put on the shoulders of those involved.
You're showing a severe lack of legal knowledge. Almost everything is codified to people. A corporation for legal purposes is just like a person. Unlike illegal aliens and foreigners (in America), they can't vote, however.
I never claimed to have much in the way of legal knowledge. I'm not a lawyer, I'm just an IT geek (I promise that is not Phil Hartman reference).
My initial point was to state "people acting together should not have fewer rights than when they act separately" and I stand behind that. That's not legal doctrine, that's philosophy. The opposite outcome in Citizens United would have enshrined just that idea into our wonderful, precedential legal system, and it would have taken decades to undo (if ever it could be).
You mistake me. I don't suggest picking out "one scapegoat" and holding him accountable. I am serious about "those responsible should be held accountable." In your ecological disaster, it's probably NOT just one guy that made the whole thing happen. There's probably one or more members of upper management, scads of middle management, and people on the ground that all MADE it happen (and probably some poor engineer screaming that whatever idiotic idea led to the issue should never be done for the exact reason that led to the problem).
You've also completely ignored my suggestion (WRT "billions") that there are civil remedies for that, and that the corporate entity should indeed be on the hook for those.
I realize you're just an AC, but next time you may want to consider what I actually said instead of just calling me a dumbass.
Seriously dude, there's plenty of negative things to say that are legitimate. Stop making crap up, or provide citations. You just look like a fool.
It's possible that this is just tone deaf instead of racist, but that is the "CP time" incident referred to above.
The above is rather nonsensical. In your example crime, there is plenty enough criminal liability to go around, and those involved should (certainly!) be tried and, if there is enough evidence, be convicted for their crimes (the negligent homicide itself, and likely conspiracy charges around whatever led to it). "Auctioning the company" etc can follow as part of whatever civil liability may exist on the part of those who "own" it.
"Corporate Personhood" is not (or should not be) a thing. "Jailing" the corporation is silly. Hold PEOPLE accountable. I'll admit (disgustedly) that our law enforcement organizations most certainly do NOT seem to do this, but that is a separate problem, and the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater as a result of uninterested or corrupted government stooges.
Yes. Not for profit. Not for profit what?
This is my main problem with people who complain about the Citizens United decision--none of them ever seem to stop to think about what a "corporation" is, they just yell "four legs good, two legs bad" and talk about "corporate personhood," ignoring the real problems with the idea that people acting in concert (i.e. "corporate entities") should not have the same rights as people acting independently.
America promised not to do it and signed treaties and such. But they have now changed their minds. Seems pretty obviously untrustworthy to anyone who isn't a shill or has an ounce of common sense.
The ABM treaty had withdrawal provisions, and the US exercised them. It's not untrustworthy, and saying so probably indicates the person doing so is either "a shill, or [doesn't have] an ounce of common sense." They could also simply be uninformed and wearing their ignorance as a badge of honor, YMMV.
I still have the unlimited plan for myself and my daughter. This month I used 14.5 GB and my daughter used 7GB so it looks like we will be left alone. But on my bill is states " Unlimited Plan" in several places online and on paper bill. Just saying .......
advertisement
noun
a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.
So no, they aren't advertising "unlimited" anything.
The problem lies in that they are selecting which users to disconnect based on their data usage, so they are explicitly discriminating against users based on their usage of an unlimited plan. If they cut off ALL unlimited plans, that would be a non-discriminatory act.
It's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against your customers. "Heavy bandwidth user" is not a protected class that invokes various laws designed to protect the marginalized.
This is more akin to having a contract with an $8 Chinese buffet so you can get all you can eat for $120/mo. You then go to eat there every day so you end up eating there for $4 every day. The restaurant can't just break the contract because they didn't expect you needed to eat every day.
They're not breaking the contract. That's what everyone seems to be missing. The contract has ended. Many contracts have a "month to month" provision that says "at the end of this contract, we continue with the same terms unless one party decides not to." In the case of heavy users, Verizon is deciding not to.
There is nothing unethical or illegal in play here. VZW has decided these users are not worth catering to, and elected not to continue the relationship under the existing terms. This isn't even a stupid "we reserve the right to change the contract whenever we want to whatever we want" EULA bullshit. It's simply one party saying "we want out of this."
Your latter metaphor is better, since both parties initially agreed on the dog being okay. If you were throwing loud parties, which you were explicitly allowed to do in your initial contract, then you should kind of be able to tell said neighbors to shove it.
Except that your contract has expired, so those "original terms" are in place only upon the goodwill of both parties (no pun intended). If one of those parties (the landlord) decides that making complaints from the neighbors go away is worth more than your continued tenancy, then no, you shouldn't be able to tell someone to shove it.
Are they still offering unlimited plans? Because this whole stupid thing was caused by them calling it that in the first place; now we're just looking at debris left over from that initial bad decision.
No, they're not. These are people who originally had "unlimited" plans but have been month-to-month customers since VZW discontinued those (and who VZW has elected to allow to remain grandfathered). VZW is now saying, "use what you want, but if you exceed this amount we will not renew your sweetheart deal" and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Certainly Verizon has the right to change the terms on grandfathered month-to-month plans whenever they see fit. I believe the issue is that they're doing so while continuing to call the plan Unlimited If they instead simply transferred all their Unlimited* plans to a newly created "100GB Bargain" plan, then there would be far less justification for calling them out. No doubt many would still call it a jerk move, but it would be an *honest* jerk move.
The plan actually IS unlimited. They've also defined a number they consider "reasonable" (whether or not it is so is immaterial) and said if you exceed this number, we will cease doing business with you, but if you used 1TB of data this month, they would not charge you an overage.
While analogy is always suspect, look at it this way: You go to the local Chinese Buffet which is "all you can eat for $8.95" and proceed to eat enough food to fill a small SUV. The cashier politely charges you the $8.95 and asks you to never return.
That's what we're talking about. You had all you can eat, but you're not welcome back.
Verizon actually are NOT advertising their plans as unlimited--that's exactly the point here, the people involved are grandfathered users from a time when Verizon DID advertise such a thing (largely before 4G deployments were of real size). What it looks like here is they are telling "unlimited" users, "if you use more than 100GB we're not going to do business with you under these terms." Given that 100% of these users are out of contract (that's how they're still on unlimited plans--they haven't signed a new contract) there's no legal problem here--Verizon will just terminate their service if the user doesn't switch plans.
Without the e?
They did a remake in the 90s. I don't remember everyone in the cast, but it had Jack Lemmon, Geroge C. Scott, Courtney B. Vance, James Gandolfini, Tony Danza (that was was a bit of a WTF, but he wasn't bad), and some other people you'd recognize. The biggest problem with the movie is that it was really just a remake, completely faithful to the original with minimal changes. That said, it was a solid effort and I prefer it to the original (probably because the actors are closer to my generation).
Airbags and seat belts cannot cause accident putting others at risk, autopolit can, that's a big difference.
Not sure about seatbelts, but I'd put money on airbags.
Ironically, this complete breakdown was caused by the threat of terrorism driving a "necessity" for an Orwellian solution.
This has been going on far longer than that. Terrorism is just the excuse de jure to further expand the assault on your rights. Before that (and actually concurrently) it's the war on drugs and child molesters. There's also currently the SJW war on the first amendment (with the liberal types who should be screaming loudest in protest jumping on the bandwagon and yelling "yee-haw!"). Before that it was the hippies and the black panthers. Before that it was the commies. Before that it was nazis. Before that it was the Great Depression.
Blaming the excuse de jure is just playing into the hands of those out to take your rights away (whatever their motives). As the GP noted, "compromise" has already happened... over and over. "Compromise" is a code word for "we'll be back later."
I think you missed what I was getting at... your original post is conspicuously missing the word "only."
It describes every whole number.
Your nitpick is incorrect (and I see you were downmodded for it). It in fact describes every real number.