Or you could, I dunno actually call up the credit rating agencies and actually describe the problems. Quite often they can actually help you with your problems, though by the time you get to them, you're generally feeling too irate to appreciate it.
I have. Their response was essentially "Fuck you. You can sue us, and if you win, you'll have spent $10,000 to take down a $300 item, or you could just pay it and have it removed. We don't have to validate the claim, we just have to ask the person that filed it if they think it is valid, and they said yes, though were unable to provide any evidence."
If I recall correctly, you can also do other things like flag your personal information, and if anyone attempts to open credit accounts through those credentials, you'll get notified, but I can't remember if that's right or not. If not, it'd be in everyone's benefit to do so if they don't though.
They charge for that. Like the guy that published his SSN as a stunt for his security company. He did have fraud committed in his name, soon enough. They'll take your money then fail to provide the service they claim.
"I could access 70000 records in 4 minutes (if I chose to, but I chose not to)" is different from "I did access 70000 records, and got name, address and SSN". One is a boast (not actionable in court) the other is a public confession to a federal felony. A white hat announcing the second would likely see jail. So it is normal to see the announcements be completely devoid of details, as they could be used against you in court.
The problem with white hat hacking is that the sentence is as long as black hat. Likely the details are deliberately vague to maintain some denyability. And nobody official is acknowledging any weaknesses, let alone detailing what could be lost in a breach. Am I at risk? If so, what of me is?
Language sucks. "you" is not a synonym for "you", as one can be plural, and the other singular. One means "people" and the other "stealth_finger". Generally when you use you, one assumes a more plural reading. This is why "you people" and "y'all" are common, to have two words for the two separate and incompatible meanings.
I hadn't re-looked in a few years. Seems everything you've mentioned is available on other platforms or PC, so not a PS3 incentive. Are there any kid-aimed exclusives on PS3? I can think of some for Xbox and Wii.
No, I don't get it. Judeaism is "important" but not "big" (in numbers). You are arguing that "not big" necessarily makes it "not important". You haven't substantiated that position.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that Christianity and Islam are sects or branches of Judaism (as well as other offshoots, such as Baha'i).
Chrysler was one of the "Big 3" even after Toyota made more cars in the USA and Chrysler was owned by a German company. Sometimes the definitions are updated more slowly that reality.
Regardless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to include Judaism in the religious Big 3.
Rights are not supposed to be just for the people who know how to play the system.
That ended around Miranda. You have more rights after they are read to you than before. You have lots of rights, but if you don't exercise them, they do you no good. If you don't know your rights, you can't exercise them. If yu won't stand up for your own rights, who do you expect will do it for you? The police? The FBI? The NSA?
Even the corporate-issued cell phones were in violation of the policy. Yet, it remained policy all the same.
Where I worked, the corporate phones were all brick Nokias without cameras for that reason. But the execs didn't follow the policy anyway, so it was later scrapped.
I asked whether a better surgeon could charge more and you said they could, and now you say they don't. Is that genuinely true? Are there not a particular hospital or doctor or surgeon that are considered better, which people seek out?
Nearly all socialized medicine countries allow for private practices. Most also allow for some negotiation to participate within the socalized scheme.
No, there are not "better" places where people seek out. The closest to that is when the system will send you somewhere else for free. The burn units are better in the bigger cities, so smaller regional hospitals will often stabilize and give initial treatment, then ship the patient off to the larger hospitals for recovery and grafts and such.
You word your questions like you are trying to find fault. So I'm deliberately not describing the system in its entirity. When you compare two systems, one will always have some benefit over another. If you were genuinely interested, there are piles of sites describing the systems, so if you were just curious, you could look elsewhere. If you are trying to elicit an expected response to attack it on a forum, then you'd aske the questions you are.
There's nothing that prevents private practice, so the better doctors can charge whatever they like. And there are incentives within the socialized system to reward good doctors. No idea if they are logical or effective, but they would satisfy your "can they charge more" question, though they don't cost more to the patient.
I asked whether a better surgeon could charge more and you said they could, and now you say they don't. Is that genuinely true?
A doctor (good or bad) may elect to not join the socialized system and charge whatever they like. As you've now said "I never said anything about a private practice" then you are asking if the better doctors can negotiate with the government for arbitrary salary, which is not true.
If that doesn't answer your question, please re-phrase. I obviously don't understand what you are asking. There is no such thing as a cap on doctors fees, so they can charge whatever they like. But then, when you add in the "not privately" constraint, that substantially changes the initial question.
Have the 3DS stream video to the TV, so it becomes a controller for a "console" game, but the 3DS *is* the console. And make the 3DS a headphones-only phone. Put a SIM in it, and you have to use plug-in headphones or a bluetooth - no holding the console to your ear.
And side-load Android VMs with one game per VM, so you put on Angry Birds as an app on the 3DS, without actually loading up Android and running the app within it. There are lots of things that could be done to make the 3DS the new console.
Nintendo's win will come from what they did with the Wii. Deliver something neither of the others are doing. PS Move looked pretty bad compared to the other two. Pure camera on person was good. Everything in the controller was good. The special-controller plus special camera made it clunky. It took the others a while to even come up with those responses. The Wii U was an attempt at what I am talking about, but I think it was too rushed in an attempt to get it out before everyone else.
Wii was the cheapest way to buy a Band Hero at the time we got it, and had many more kid-friendly games. The only kid-friendly games on the PS3 are Japanese imports. You can blame the poor graphics on the cartoonishness of some games, but the kids love it. It's simply a better family console than the others.
They only got to see because he caved. If he had laid his head down on the table for a nap and told the interrogators "call me when my lawyer gets here", he'd be a hero. Instead, he's a glasshole who pointed a camera at a movie for the entire length of the movie (though it was "off"), and caved when the FBI asked him a few questions.
The better you are, the more insufferable you are is how you worded it. So you can't stand competent people. As a manager, that'd leave you hiring only dumb people, as they are more sufferable, right?
The same thing applies to organs. The point of the article you linked to was about changing your mind. So what happens if you sell an organ, then change your mind?
I saw something that indicated otherwise, but you'd probably object due to the definition of "donate". People who "donate" to a charity get something back. If that something were cash, is that still a donation? If that something were a free burial, would it still be a donation? A study indicated that paying for organs with a "free" funeral would cap the payment, but still provide a financial advantage. And that small payment would be enough to increase donations to a level that would wipe out the waiting lists.
As things stand right now, humans can each produce two kidneys, one heart, one liver, and two lungs over their lifetimes. That's it. The supply is inelastic,
US last year: ~2,000,000 deaths, ~10,000 donors. If there was payment for organs, and twice as many people were donors, you just doubled the supply. And the demand is inelastic (the criteria for receiving are not mentioned as flexible), so the effect would be more donors, thus more supply. The number of recipients would shrink (the list is so long because people can sit on it for years, when you clear them off, they list does not grow as fast). More supply, less demand. The market would quickly reach an equilibrium at a low price, and everyone would be better off.
So, if I need a lung, how do I buy one on the black market, or steal one for myself? Seems like random theft of organs would work out poorly for the recipient (especially given the diseases/condtions popular among the poor, and near 100% chance of rejection without a match).
enslaving women to have babies for organ harvest and a thousand other ghoulish things
Given the liklihood of a match and the very few number of people actually on donation lists, the chance of a random baby being a match, I can't see the cost of raising a child to donation age to be a financially profitable venture.
Mr. Mohammed was the last of about 500 Indians whose kidneys were removed by a team of doctors running an illegal transplant operation, supplying kidneys to rich Indians and foreigners, police officials said.
So, who did they supply them to, and how did they get a match? Did they just steal random kidneys, hoping to get a match? Where are the prosecutions of those that paid for the illegal organs?
Every report of these leaves out enough details that it doesn't sound plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could, I dunno actually call up the credit rating agencies and actually describe the problems. Quite often they can actually help you with your problems, though by the time you get to them, you're generally feeling too irate to appreciate it.
I have. Their response was essentially "Fuck you. You can sue us, and if you win, you'll have spent $10,000 to take down a $300 item, or you could just pay it and have it removed. We don't have to validate the claim, we just have to ask the person that filed it if they think it is valid, and they said yes, though were unable to provide any evidence."
If I recall correctly, you can also do other things like flag your personal information, and if anyone attempts to open credit accounts through those credentials, you'll get notified, but I can't remember if that's right or not. If not, it'd be in everyone's benefit to do so if they don't though.
They charge for that. Like the guy that published his SSN as a stunt for his security company. He did have fraud committed in his name, soon enough. They'll take your money then fail to provide the service they claim.
"I could access 70000 records in 4 minutes (if I chose to, but I chose not to)" is different from "I did access 70000 records, and got name, address and SSN". One is a boast (not actionable in court) the other is a public confession to a federal felony. A white hat announcing the second would likely see jail. So it is normal to see the announcements be completely devoid of details, as they could be used against you in court.
The problem with white hat hacking is that the sentence is as long as black hat. Likely the details are deliberately vague to maintain some denyability. And nobody official is acknowledging any weaknesses, let alone detailing what could be lost in a breach. Am I at risk? If so, what of me is?
Looks like they waited until Move to release anything. But I'll have another look.
Language sucks. "you" is not a synonym for "you", as one can be plural, and the other singular. One means "people" and the other "stealth_finger". Generally when you use you, one assumes a more plural reading. This is why "you people" and "y'all" are common, to have two words for the two separate and incompatible meanings.
I hadn't re-looked in a few years. Seems everything you've mentioned is available on other platforms or PC, so not a PS3 incentive. Are there any kid-aimed exclusives on PS3? I can think of some for Xbox and Wii.
No, I don't get it. Judeaism is "important" but not "big" (in numbers). You are arguing that "not big" necessarily makes it "not important". You haven't substantiated that position.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that Christianity and Islam are sects or branches of Judaism (as well as other offshoots, such as Baha'i).
Chrysler was one of the "Big 3" even after Toyota made more cars in the USA and Chrysler was owned by a German company. Sometimes the definitions are updated more slowly that reality.
Regardless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to include Judaism in the religious Big 3.
Rights are not supposed to be just for the people who know how to play the system.
That ended around Miranda. You have more rights after they are read to you than before. You have lots of rights, but if you don't exercise them, they do you no good. If you don't know your rights, you can't exercise them. If yu won't stand up for your own rights, who do you expect will do it for you? The police? The FBI? The NSA?
Even the corporate-issued cell phones were in violation of the policy. Yet, it remained policy all the same.
Where I worked, the corporate phones were all brick Nokias without cameras for that reason. But the execs didn't follow the policy anyway, so it was later scrapped.
I asked whether a better surgeon could charge more and you said they could, and now you say they don't. Is that genuinely true? Are there not a particular hospital or doctor or surgeon that are considered better, which people seek out?
Nearly all socialized medicine countries allow for private practices. Most also allow for some negotiation to participate within the socalized scheme.
No, there are not "better" places where people seek out. The closest to that is when the system will send you somewhere else for free. The burn units are better in the bigger cities, so smaller regional hospitals will often stabilize and give initial treatment, then ship the patient off to the larger hospitals for recovery and grafts and such.
You word your questions like you are trying to find fault. So I'm deliberately not describing the system in its entirity. When you compare two systems, one will always have some benefit over another. If you were genuinely interested, there are piles of sites describing the systems, so if you were just curious, you could look elsewhere. If you are trying to elicit an expected response to attack it on a forum, then you'd aske the questions you are.
There's nothing that prevents private practice, so the better doctors can charge whatever they like. And there are incentives within the socialized system to reward good doctors. No idea if they are logical or effective, but they would satisfy your "can they charge more" question, though they don't cost more to the patient.
I asked whether a better surgeon could charge more and you said they could, and now you say they don't. Is that genuinely true?
A doctor (good or bad) may elect to not join the socialized system and charge whatever they like. As you've now said "I never said anything about a private practice" then you are asking if the better doctors can negotiate with the government for arbitrary salary, which is not true.
If that doesn't answer your question, please re-phrase. I obviously don't understand what you are asking. There is no such thing as a cap on doctors fees, so they can charge whatever they like. But then, when you add in the "not privately" constraint, that substantially changes the initial question.
Your link indicated that MP3s and CDs were patched in, but said nothing about DVDs. So, can the PS4 play DVDs? Was it able to day-1?
Have the 3DS stream video to the TV, so it becomes a controller for a "console" game, but the 3DS *is* the console. And make the 3DS a headphones-only phone. Put a SIM in it, and you have to use plug-in headphones or a bluetooth - no holding the console to your ear.
And side-load Android VMs with one game per VM, so you put on Angry Birds as an app on the 3DS, without actually loading up Android and running the app within it. There are lots of things that could be done to make the 3DS the new console.
Nintendo's win will come from what they did with the Wii. Deliver something neither of the others are doing. PS Move looked pretty bad compared to the other two. Pure camera on person was good. Everything in the controller was good. The special-controller plus special camera made it clunky. It took the others a while to even come up with those responses. The Wii U was an attempt at what I am talking about, but I think it was too rushed in an attempt to get it out before everyone else.
Wii was the cheapest way to buy a Band Hero at the time we got it, and had many more kid-friendly games. The only kid-friendly games on the PS3 are Japanese imports. You can blame the poor graphics on the cartoonishness of some games, but the kids love it. It's simply a better family console than the others.
They only got to see because he caved. If he had laid his head down on the table for a nap and told the interrogators "call me when my lawyer gets here", he'd be a hero. Instead, he's a glasshole who pointed a camera at a movie for the entire length of the movie (though it was "off"), and caved when the FBI asked him a few questions.
The better you are, the more insufferable you are is how you worded it. So you can't stand competent people. As a manager, that'd leave you hiring only dumb people, as they are more sufferable, right?
If you sold yourself into slavery, why couldn't you buy a replacement slave or buy your freedom if you changed your mind?
The same thing applies to organs. The point of the article you linked to was about changing your mind. So what happens if you sell an organ, then change your mind?
In short, I totally agree with the article since I am against slavery.
So, if I can't sell myself into slavery, then the government owns me? You are against slavery so much you are for slavery.
So since you are so dumb to not understand the difference between unwilling and unable, then this scheme is unworkable?
Why would he be unwilling? If he's unable, then he'd not get asked to donate, even if willing.
I saw something that indicated otherwise, but you'd probably object due to the definition of "donate". People who "donate" to a charity get something back. If that something were cash, is that still a donation? If that something were a free burial, would it still be a donation? A study indicated that paying for organs with a "free" funeral would cap the payment, but still provide a financial advantage. And that small payment would be enough to increase donations to a level that would wipe out the waiting lists.
As things stand right now, humans can each produce two kidneys, one heart, one liver, and two lungs over their lifetimes. That's it. The supply is inelastic,
US last year: ~2,000,000 deaths, ~10,000 donors. If there was payment for organs, and twice as many people were donors, you just doubled the supply. And the demand is inelastic (the criteria for receiving are not mentioned as flexible), so the effect would be more donors, thus more supply. The number of recipients would shrink (the list is so long because people can sit on it for years, when you clear them off, they list does not grow as fast). More supply, less demand. The market would quickly reach an equilibrium at a low price, and everyone would be better off.
Organ theft is not an urban myth.
So, if I need a lung, how do I buy one on the black market, or steal one for myself? Seems like random theft of organs would work out poorly for the recipient (especially given the diseases/condtions popular among the poor, and near 100% chance of rejection without a match).
enslaving women to have babies for organ harvest and a thousand other ghoulish things
Given the liklihood of a match and the very few number of people actually on donation lists, the chance of a random baby being a match, I can't see the cost of raising a child to donation age to be a financially profitable venture.
Where do you live?
Mr. Mohammed was the last of about 500 Indians whose kidneys were removed by a team of doctors running an illegal transplant operation, supplying kidneys to rich Indians and foreigners, police officials said.
So, who did they supply them to, and how did they get a match? Did they just steal random kidneys, hoping to get a match? Where are the prosecutions of those that paid for the illegal organs?
Every report of these leaves out enough details that it doesn't sound plausible.
To be honest, probably the better you are at it, the more of an insufferable twat you become.
So you only hire people not competent to do the job that's available? "I'm sorry, but you are competent, so you must be a twat."