From what I have read and seen about toll roads, they really don't make money for the state or city. The tolls collected basically pay for the cost of toll collection and political crony jobs at the tollroad administration. This explains the use of a $500 million cash register. The Illinois toll road system is a shining example of this. The contractor who originally built the roads is now in federal prison for an embezzlement scandal, and the corruption has been ongoing since then. Recently, the toll authority had to sell their lavish headquarters when the state almost went broke. Considering tax money pays for most of the roadwork anyway, it really would not hurt the average person to eliminate tollroads. It would help them cut a few minutes off their commute, if anything. Toll roads are a good idea in theory, but they usually do not accomplish what they are supposed to.
The problem is, this is not really voluntary. The way auto insurance is priced (in the U.S. anyway) is that it starts with a really high rate, and then various 'discounts' are applied. Usually these discounts add up to at least 30% of the original premium. When 'discounts' for monitoring devices are added, rates will go up across the board and then when you complain to your agent about the increase, you will be told that you can easily reduce it by getting the GPS or whatever they will use. So you would in effect pay a huge surcharge not to be monitored. Granted, this would not be illegal right now, but this is not what I imagine when I think of a 'free' society.
I think the snickering has to do with the last line of the post. The one about Malaysia having fewer ISPs than most small towns in the United States or Europe.
This doesn't really change much, in that state laws by definition are powerless to stop spam. California will have NO luck whatsoever prosecuting a spammer outside the U.S, and very little luck with a spammer in Wisconsin. There is certainly nothing in the law that requires ISPs or anyone else to deliver spam, so existing blocking and filtering techniques are not affected. Technological solutions are really the only thing that can make an impact on spam, and it helps to be able to prosecute someone who forges headers.
As you pointed out, fingerprint and other scans are hardly the 'bulletproof' security that some people seem to think they are. However, they are also not quite the invasion of privacy that they seem like. Fingerprint scanners, as this article explains, do not store the whole fingerprint, but only several minutae points, which are used to recognize a print within a pretty good margin of error. You could not reconstruct someone's fingerprint using the data stored in a scanning system.
Re:Be careful! ATM/MAC/Debit is *NOT* Insured!
on
Fake ATM Fraud Expose
·
· Score: 1
I disagree. A signature is NO security at all. It isn't difficult to forge someone else's signature, especially when you've got the back of their card to practice with. You'll certainly get it good enough to pass for the owner's sig (how many people sign their name EXACTLY the same every time). A PIN is secure when you're entering it into a key pad, but not if you have to tell it to the clerk, which I have never encountered anywhere.
You are correct to an extent. Unethical behavior is typically associated with low buck businesses in very competitive fields with lax regulations. But there are plenty of businesses (Worldcom) in highly regulated fields (Utilities) that behave badly. So more restrictions don't necessarily mean better behavior. When the people in charge of a company are genuinely concerned about the long term well being of the company, things are usually managed in an ethical manner. But when a company is sold to people who have no real long term stake in it, but only want to make as much money in the short term as they can, ethics will suffer, regardless of regulation.
I fully agree that Wal-Mart, Best Buy and similar stores do not exactly have a great selection of music (outside of top 40 pop). Lets not even get started on their lack of listening stations or employees' lack of knowledge about music. The reason I say they have kept prices in check is because when they are selling CDs for about $12-$13, it makes it much harder for the mall music store to sell them for $20, even though some still do. So even if your musical tastes have evolved beyond the flavor of the month pop bands, you are still likely benefitting from lower prices in part caused by Wal-Mart and others.
Re:I DON'T CARE -- I BUY MUSIC LATELY
on
Kazaa-lite Shut Down
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I would gladly pay $10 for a good CD (i.e. one that has more than 2 decent songs on it) by a band that I like. I think what people have a problem with is paying almost $20 for a CD with maybe 1 or 2 songs they actually want to hear. As much as I dislike Wal-Mart and Best Buy, these stores have been holding down the price of most new music.
The problem with Super 8 is that they just don't care about their customers. And why would they? They are just a low buck, low profit margin hotel chain. There are 2 reasons why people stay at a Super 8: Its cheap, or its the only place in town that isn't booked. If they piss people off who don't return, those people will be replaced by other tightwads lured in by the low rates. For this chain, it is more profitable to resort to gimmicky promotions than to try to build any sort of 'customer relationships'.
And this right here is how many 'bastard companies' get started. Its easy to be fair and ethical when the business is doing well. Most people don't screw others because they enjoy it, they do it because they are in a bind (not that it becomes OK). When a company starts to suffer financially, that is when they start cheating customers, replacing loyal staff members with minimum wage drones, providing bad products/service. It takes a very strong person to say no to unethical behavior. Unfortunately, good ethics have a price, and sometimes they will cost you your business.
Something tells me this 'admin' is the type who is trying very badly to justify his own job, and wants people bugging him to restart services all day long. The company I used to work for had a guy like this (only he could make changes on DEVELOPMENT servers).
I ANAL, but I do believe that perpetuating or auto-renewing contracts beyond 30 days are illegal in most states. Health clubs such as Bally were nailed for this by the state of Wisconsin several years ago.
True, but you sold borrowed shares, so you must pay the owner interest until you buy them back. Remember, shorting is a loan, only you are borrowing shares instead of cash.
I think the answer is not to go to a 'loser pays' legal system, but instead to have attorney fees automatically rewarded to the defendant if the case is dismissed in summary judgement. Currently, the defendant must file additional motions to have fees awarded in a case like this. Frivolous suits will be discouraged but people who have a legitimate complaint should not be deterred from filing it just because they are not guaranteed to win.
It appears the SCO stock price pump is wearing out. Today's FUD did not have the effect they are used to getting. What will be plan C once the stock scam no longer works?
Here's an idea: Use what you're paying for. Switch to a company that does not have this fee. Sprint will get a clue (or not) once a big chunk of their customer base has done this.
The way I see it, this is a non-problem. Since shipping charges are disclosed in advance, factor that into the total cost and compare it to the people offering free (or cheap) shipping on the same item. People can only charge what someone is willing to pay. If the seller tries to add an additional fee after the purchase, you're justified in backing out.
This will probably be done in a backdoor sort of way. For example, a future version of Windows will only run code that has been authenticated by a 'security certificate', which the developer must pay Microsoft a lot of money for. I believe this, along with Palladium hardware control is already being considered for future Microsoft OSs.
If your carrier charges a 'portability fee' then go ahead and use what you're paying for and switch to a carrier that doesn't charge that fee. Sprint will get the message after enough people do this.
I think this was their plan all along. They certainly realized that taking these people to court would be a big mistake. Not only would they likely lose, but the bad publicity would cause people to assume the worst about them and governments would be pressured to not use their voting machines. The legal letters were simply an attempt to silence easily intimidated people.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I have read and seen about toll roads, they really don't make money for the state or city. The tolls collected basically pay for the cost of toll collection and political crony jobs at the tollroad administration. This explains the use of a $500 million cash register. The Illinois toll road system is a shining example of this. The contractor who originally built the roads is now in federal prison for an embezzlement scandal, and the corruption has been ongoing since then. Recently, the toll authority had to sell their lavish headquarters when the state almost went broke. Considering tax money pays for most of the roadwork anyway, it really would not hurt the average person to eliminate tollroads. It would help them cut a few minutes off their commute, if anything. Toll roads are a good idea in theory, but they usually do not accomplish what they are supposed to.
The problem is, this is not really voluntary. The way auto insurance is priced (in the U.S. anyway) is that it starts with a really high rate, and then various 'discounts' are applied. Usually these discounts add up to at least 30% of the original premium. When 'discounts' for monitoring devices are added, rates will go up across the board and then when you complain to your agent about the increase, you will be told that you can easily reduce it by getting the GPS or whatever they will use. So you would in effect pay a huge surcharge not to be monitored. Granted, this would not be illegal right now, but this is not what I imagine when I think of a 'free' society.
Yes, but, is the tin foil hat included as well? You know, can't be too careful!
He'll be getting 'spammed' in a way he never imagined before.
I think the snickering has to do with the last line of the post. The one about Malaysia having fewer ISPs than most small towns in the United States or Europe.
This doesn't really change much, in that state laws by definition are powerless to stop spam. California will have NO luck whatsoever prosecuting a spammer outside the U.S, and very little luck with a spammer in Wisconsin. There is certainly nothing in the law that requires ISPs or anyone else to deliver spam, so existing blocking and filtering techniques are not affected. Technological solutions are really the only thing that can make an impact on spam, and it helps to be able to prosecute someone who forges headers.
As you pointed out, fingerprint and other scans are hardly the 'bulletproof' security that some people seem to think they are. However, they are also not quite the invasion of privacy that they seem like. Fingerprint scanners, as this article explains, do not store the whole fingerprint, but only several minutae points, which are used to recognize a print within a pretty good margin of error. You could not reconstruct someone's fingerprint using the data stored in a scanning system.
I disagree. A signature is NO security at all. It isn't difficult to forge someone else's signature, especially when you've got the back of their card to practice with. You'll certainly get it good enough to pass for the owner's sig (how many people sign their name EXACTLY the same every time). A PIN is secure when you're entering it into a key pad, but not if you have to tell it to the clerk, which I have never encountered anywhere.
You are correct to an extent. Unethical behavior is typically associated with low buck businesses in very competitive fields with lax regulations. But there are plenty of businesses (Worldcom) in highly regulated fields (Utilities) that behave badly. So more restrictions don't necessarily mean better behavior. When the people in charge of a company are genuinely concerned about the long term well being of the company, things are usually managed in an ethical manner. But when a company is sold to people who have no real long term stake in it, but only want to make as much money in the short term as they can, ethics will suffer, regardless of regulation.
I fully agree that Wal-Mart, Best Buy and similar stores do not exactly have a great selection of music (outside of top 40 pop). Lets not even get started on their lack of listening stations or employees' lack of knowledge about music. The reason I say they have kept prices in check is because when they are selling CDs for about $12-$13, it makes it much harder for the mall music store to sell them for $20, even though some still do. So even if your musical tastes have evolved beyond the flavor of the month pop bands, you are still likely benefitting from lower prices in part caused by Wal-Mart and others.
I would gladly pay $10 for a good CD (i.e. one that has more than 2 decent songs on it) by a band that I like. I think what people have a problem with is paying almost $20 for a CD with maybe 1 or 2 songs they actually want to hear. As much as I dislike Wal-Mart and Best Buy, these stores have been holding down the price of most new music.
The problem with Super 8 is that they just don't care about their customers. And why would they? They are just a low buck, low profit margin hotel chain. There are 2 reasons why people stay at a Super 8: Its cheap, or its the only place in town that isn't booked. If they piss people off who don't return, those people will be replaced by other tightwads lured in by the low rates. For this chain, it is more profitable to resort to gimmicky promotions than to try to build any sort of 'customer relationships'.
And this right here is how many 'bastard companies' get started. Its easy to be fair and ethical when the business is doing well. Most people don't screw others because they enjoy it, they do it because they are in a bind (not that it becomes OK). When a company starts to suffer financially, that is when they start cheating customers, replacing loyal staff members with minimum wage drones, providing bad products/service. It takes a very strong person to say no to unethical behavior. Unfortunately, good ethics have a price, and sometimes they will cost you your business.
Something tells me this 'admin' is the type who is trying very badly to justify his own job, and wants people bugging him to restart services all day long. The company I used to work for had a guy like this (only he could make changes on DEVELOPMENT servers).
I ANAL, but I do believe that perpetuating or auto-renewing contracts beyond 30 days are illegal in most states. Health clubs such as Bally were nailed for this by the state of Wisconsin several years ago.
In other words, people who are desperately starved for attention, and willing to look as ridiculous as possible to get it.
True, but you sold borrowed shares, so you must pay the owner interest until you buy them back. Remember, shorting is a loan, only you are borrowing shares instead of cash.
I think the answer is not to go to a 'loser pays' legal system, but instead to have attorney fees automatically rewarded to the defendant if the case is dismissed in summary judgement. Currently, the defendant must file additional motions to have fees awarded in a case like this. Frivolous suits will be discouraged but people who have a legitimate complaint should not be deterred from filing it just because they are not guaranteed to win.
It appears the SCO stock price pump is wearing out. Today's FUD did not have the effect they are used to getting. What will be plan C once the stock scam no longer works?
Here's an idea: Use what you're paying for. Switch to a company that does not have this fee. Sprint will get a clue (or not) once a big chunk of their customer base has done this.
The way I see it, this is a non-problem. Since shipping charges are disclosed in advance, factor that into the total cost and compare it to the people offering free (or cheap) shipping on the same item. People can only charge what someone is willing to pay. If the seller tries to add an additional fee after the purchase, you're justified in backing out.
This will probably be done in a backdoor sort of way. For example, a future version of Windows will only run code that has been authenticated by a 'security certificate', which the developer must pay Microsoft a lot of money for. I believe this, along with Palladium hardware control is already being considered for future Microsoft OSs.
Wow. What a great example of history repeating itself.
If your carrier charges a 'portability fee' then go ahead and use what you're paying for and switch to a carrier that doesn't charge that fee. Sprint will get the message after enough people do this.
I think this was their plan all along. They certainly realized that taking these people to court would be a big mistake. Not only would they likely lose, but the bad publicity would cause people to assume the worst about them and governments would be pressured to not use their voting machines. The legal letters were simply an attempt to silence easily intimidated people.