You assume vetting is just examining dedicated demo product. These days, making sure they are sueable is more likely useful. Amazon 3rd party sellers lets the same person set up 1000 shell identities and sell the same fraudulent item from whichever sell isn't shut down yet. A physical address (verfiied), a business license (verified), and business insurance (verified) wouldn't be too hard for a seller to come up with, and Amazon to verify, and would eliminate 99.44% of the scammers.
So what stops them from scamming Amazon buyers? Amazon has your home address, and the desire to sue you if you defraud its customers. They can't stop someone willing to use their home address to commit mail fraud from. But they can certainly aid in the prosecution of them, which they can't do now.
My insurance covers temporary relocation, and has limits on contents. So if I wanted to relocate 1 year for the house to be torn down and re-built right, I'd have to pay for 9 months or so of accommodation. And the contents would be replaced to the insurance company's satisfaction, not mine. And I'd be paying for the deductible, and possibly have other limits on the policy.
Plus, if I sue, I can recover the sentimental value of the items I have that were hand crafted by my great grandparents back in the day where if you wanted to sit down, you made a chair, or sat on the ground, a feeling known in the modern era by those who must build the IKEA chair if they wish to sit. Plus, everyone sues for "mental harm", hoping to get a $300M judgment.
The grocery store wasn't the seller. Nestle was the seller of the chocolate bar I ate.
Nope, law almost universally agrees, the person you give the money to in order to get the item is the seller. Note, you don't pay eBay for your wins (not including any 3rd party payment services owned by eBay). eBay connects you with a seller, not doesn't directly take payment and dispatch the item, as Amazon (and you supermarket) does.
Amazon should not allow 3rd party sellers, plain and simple
Not without some vetting, or for limited products (like self-published books).
Nothing has ever proposed to do what the A-10 can do. The F-35 was just supposed to get sufficienlty similar results. Just not doing so flying so low and slow that the pilots can recognize individual targets, ensuring fire solely on the enemy. "Air strikes", as we learned in Vietnam, don't care who they hit, they just hit the target area. So cal in one too close, you are dead. Call in your own coordinates, not the enemy, and you are dead (yes, it's happened). But such errors with an A-10 are often less, as the A-10 pilot is low enough and slow enough to be able to visually verify a target. The tactics of the ground troop have adapted to the A-10. If they know they can call in support, they try to engage the enemy first. Get them into a defensive group. Close and moving. Then the A-10 mows them down. With explosives-based air support from an aircraft outside visual range, you call in coordinates of the enemy, and bomb them from afar. This reduces the kills, includes more civilians, and is generally worse than the tactics used with an A-10 nearby.
A-10 works with corrdinated ground and air attack. Most other air support is mutually exclusive with ground support (except on massive fields of engagement we haven't seen in 50 years).
The sign that a person is lying is when they separate out "hydro" from "renewables/green" power. Pull out the one you don't like, list it separate, and try to make the rest look worse. Wind does good. The us has cheap peak because natural gas is nearly free and we don't regulate the pollution from them (so much cleaner than coal, a "dirty" NG plant is still cleaner than "clean coal", and no "clean coal" counts CO2 as a pollutant). Base is cheap in the US because coal is cheap, and we don't regulate the CO2 pollution.
Eliminate those externalities, and the US generation is more expensive than elsewhere. That's why there's so much push-back on "clean". Because we don't want to clean up. It costs to much.
To an untrained uneducated individual, progress is bad (That's why we have so many poor Republicans, as Republican is the party of ant-progress). But to "everyone" (as in the average, not every individual), progress is quite beneficial. As ar as "automation kills jobs" goes, as automation has increased, so has the total number of jobs. So we are improving on all fronts.
So the glass sunroof, offered no support from the sides or bottom, just the mounts on the edges, and is as perpendicular to the storm as the surfaces you mention, should have been damaged if glass was weak? But it wasn't. There were dents around the glass, but the glass was undamaged.
You wire them up in series and parallel, power them in parallel, with diagnostics, and in series to deliver power.
When one fails, it will light up red, or something like that. If it's too dead to self-identify, every panel on the roof, other than the broken one, glows green. A simple fix, any idiot could think of. But you aren't smart enough to be an idiot, and you are so insane, you think that billions of dollars of engineering wouldn't think of that, or a way to address it.
Windows in the Pentagon survived better than the walls. As someone trying to snipe would likely use a window-shot to sight the target, the windows would survive most man-portable munitions, including small missiles. In "glass".
Had a friend buy a hail-damaged car. He'd heard about hail sales and was looking to buy at the time. We walked the lot after a hail storm. The damaged cars had lots of dents in the metal, but not a single broken glass. The Texas dealership said that was common. Glass designed to take it is quite strong. Even bulletproof.
There wouldn't be that much in change for them, either. If everything you own is nationalized, for most people under $30k, they'd see a net benefit. Wipe out their student loans (nationalized), wipe out their mortgage (then let them rent it back at market rates), and such, being invaded by the communists would improve the lives of most Americans.
You can't take it out because it couldn't be recounted. If you'd be fired for not voting a partcular way, then you get fired, and sue them for $10M. The manager that fires you spends 10 years in prison, and the practice ends. Vote buying is not nearly the problem the fraudsters claims it is. Much bigger is the spoiling of ballots you don't want, stuffing with ones you do, and the inability for anyone to audit the secret vote.
For instance - when I call from my office I want the caller ID to be that of the main front desk so that a customer can have the call answered when they call back (if I'm busy or maybe somebody else can help them). This requires spoofing - even when I'm using my virtual phone.
No it does not requie spoofing. I've done it. The extension you are calling from is passed through the PBX that "owns" the front desk number. Any call from that PBX can legitimately use any number assigned to it without "spoofing". Now, if your "virtual phone" were to use a 3rd party gateway that had no connection to those numbers, then it would be spoofing.
But, as I said, if the fine was on the carrier for $100,000,000, then they'd allow spoofing. They'd just require more paperwork and verification. So your branch office in NY could call out and would "spoof" the main 1-800 number, and the branch office in CA could do the same, while the main office in Chicago would present the 1-800 number without spoofing. Again, it's all trivial. But there are a few edge cases that some would complain about. But those edge cases aren't worth the gain from simply turning off fraud overnight.
It should also be required by law that any number on any service can have "blocked" and "unknown" calls blocked by the carrier with a standard tone/message that indicates that number doesn't accept hidden calls. Most of the collections services and such will always hide their number, and if they can't present a fraudulent one, they'll present nothing. To help with the increase in blocked CLID, the carriers should provide that functionality to protect their customers.
The technical issues are trivial and solved. But there's no business will to turn on these features. So, when the corporations refuse to protect their customers, the law should step in and do it.
Any person who knowingly gives [...] valuable consideration to any other person to
influence such other person: [to vote OR to register to vote] committed a felony.
Yup, the way you wrote it, the law says "encouraging someone to vote, or encouraging someone to register to vote, is a felony."
So now, I'll move on from "that's not illegal" to "that's a stupid law that will be found unconstitutional the first time it's challenged.
The Supreme Court has been sadly consistent in that money is speech. So "valuable consideration" is speech. The argument to the Supreme Court is that the law, as written says:
"Speech that encourages people to register to vote is a felony"
This is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment.
I can't see how the Supreme Court could find such a law to be "legal". As "political speech" is the most "protected". And this is political speech. Again, further reading and examination of the law, as posted indicates I was right the first time in my assessment, but the main portion of my argument is invalid, but the " the "I voted" stickers given out are vote buying." semi-sarcastic qualifier was indeed 100% correct. A "valuable consideration" of a sticker is encouraging people to vote. As such, if the stickers are as common in IL as they are everywhere I've ever voted, then many poll workers are guilty of a felony.
So the while thing comes down to the definition of "influence". If I am nice to someone while wearing a campaign button, would that count as trying to "influence" their vote? It would also almost explicitly make it illegal for someone in a Make American Great Again hat to leave a tip in a restaurant. So any reasonable interpretation would mean "vote buying" in a more traditional sense, not just "being nice" to voters while representing a party.
#3 is not correct anwhere I've seen. mail-in votes aren't counted unless the number of votes received is greater than the margin. Perhaps in practice, so few mail-ins are done where you are that it doesn't matter, but other places are not so restrictive of mail-ins.
You are wrong. Child porn is "speech" as covered in the 1st Amendment. The issue is that even "free speech" can be regulated. Where to draw the line is the discussion.
The secret ballot worked for the first 100 years of the USA (failed during a time of open rebellion, but worked fine with a stable country). Still not used in the Legislatures. Would you accept a secret ballot in votes for laws? Then why do you want to mandate it in the election of those same lawmakers?
Paying a registered Democrat to vote isn't vote buying. That registered Democrat is not being directed to vote Democrat. Thus, it's not a vote buying. You might as well argue that the "I voted" stickers given out are vote buying.
It's technically trivial to block that type of spoofing. The only hold-back is that there's no penalty for the phone companies that sell to the scammers. Charge their US provider with accessory to the crime, and fine them $100M and this could never happen again. Require that all CLID sent be a valid call-back for the number sent.
Yes, I know that this will be annoying for the outsourced call centers, where HP sells their call center to India and the Indian company calls an American with the CLID of the 1-800 number for HP, so the call looks like it's coming from the US, and if called back, gets to the right queue. But those edge cases don't justify allowing free range for the scammers.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume vetting is just examining dedicated demo product. These days, making sure they are sueable is more likely useful. Amazon 3rd party sellers lets the same person set up 1000 shell identities and sell the same fraudulent item from whichever sell isn't shut down yet. A physical address (verfiied), a business license (verified), and business insurance (verified) wouldn't be too hard for a seller to come up with, and Amazon to verify, and would eliminate 99.44% of the scammers.
So what stops them from scamming Amazon buyers? Amazon has your home address, and the desire to sue you if you defraud its customers. They can't stop someone willing to use their home address to commit mail fraud from. But they can certainly aid in the prosecution of them, which they can't do now.
My insurance covers temporary relocation, and has limits on contents. So if I wanted to relocate 1 year for the house to be torn down and re-built right, I'd have to pay for 9 months or so of accommodation. And the contents would be replaced to the insurance company's satisfaction, not mine. And I'd be paying for the deductible, and possibly have other limits on the policy.
Plus, if I sue, I can recover the sentimental value of the items I have that were hand crafted by my great grandparents back in the day where if you wanted to sit down, you made a chair, or sat on the ground, a feeling known in the modern era by those who must build the IKEA chair if they wish to sit. Plus, everyone sues for "mental harm", hoping to get a $300M judgment.
Or just drop the scamming 3rd parties. If it's too hard to tell who the scammers are, they should dump them all.
Nope, law almost universally agrees, the person you give the money to in order to get the item is the seller. Note, you don't pay eBay for your wins (not including any 3rd party payment services owned by eBay). eBay connects you with a seller, not doesn't directly take payment and dispatch the item, as Amazon (and you supermarket) does.
Amazon should not allow 3rd party sellers, plain and simple
Not without some vetting, or for limited products (like self-published books).
Nothing has ever proposed to do what the A-10 can do. The F-35 was just supposed to get sufficienlty similar results. Just not doing so flying so low and slow that the pilots can recognize individual targets, ensuring fire solely on the enemy. "Air strikes", as we learned in Vietnam, don't care who they hit, they just hit the target area. So cal in one too close, you are dead. Call in your own coordinates, not the enemy, and you are dead (yes, it's happened). But such errors with an A-10 are often less, as the A-10 pilot is low enough and slow enough to be able to visually verify a target. The tactics of the ground troop have adapted to the A-10. If they know they can call in support, they try to engage the enemy first. Get them into a defensive group. Close and moving. Then the A-10 mows them down. With explosives-based air support from an aircraft outside visual range, you call in coordinates of the enemy, and bomb them from afar. This reduces the kills, includes more civilians, and is generally worse than the tactics used with an A-10 nearby.
A-10 works with corrdinated ground and air attack. Most other air support is mutually exclusive with ground support (except on massive fields of engagement we haven't seen in 50 years).
You assume gains have been made.
The sign that a person is lying is when they separate out "hydro" from "renewables/green" power. Pull out the one you don't like, list it separate, and try to make the rest look worse. Wind does good. The us has cheap peak because natural gas is nearly free and we don't regulate the pollution from them (so much cleaner than coal, a "dirty" NG plant is still cleaner than "clean coal", and no "clean coal" counts CO2 as a pollutant). Base is cheap in the US because coal is cheap, and we don't regulate the CO2 pollution.
Eliminate those externalities, and the US generation is more expensive than elsewhere. That's why there's so much push-back on "clean". Because we don't want to clean up. It costs to much.
To an untrained uneducated individual, progress is bad (That's why we have so many poor Republicans, as Republican is the party of ant-progress). But to "everyone" (as in the average, not every individual), progress is quite beneficial. As ar as "automation kills jobs" goes, as automation has increased, so has the total number of jobs. So we are improving on all fronts.
Your desires of what should and shouldn't be done don't affect what is done.
So the glass sunroof, offered no support from the sides or bottom, just the mounts on the edges, and is as perpendicular to the storm as the surfaces you mention, should have been damaged if glass was weak? But it wasn't. There were dents around the glass, but the glass was undamaged.
You wire them up in series and parallel, power them in parallel, with diagnostics, and in series to deliver power.
When one fails, it will light up red, or something like that. If it's too dead to self-identify, every panel on the roof, other than the broken one, glows green. A simple fix, any idiot could think of. But you aren't smart enough to be an idiot, and you are so insane, you think that billions of dollars of engineering wouldn't think of that, or a way to address it.
Windows in the Pentagon survived better than the walls. As someone trying to snipe would likely use a window-shot to sight the target, the windows would survive most man-portable munitions, including small missiles. In "glass".
Had a friend buy a hail-damaged car. He'd heard about hail sales and was looking to buy at the time. We walked the lot after a hail storm. The damaged cars had lots of dents in the metal, but not a single broken glass. The Texas dealership said that was common. Glass designed to take it is quite strong. Even bulletproof.
There wouldn't be that much in change for them, either. If everything you own is nationalized, for most people under $30k, they'd see a net benefit. Wipe out their student loans (nationalized), wipe out their mortgage (then let them rent it back at market rates), and such, being invaded by the communists would improve the lives of most Americans.
You can't take it out because it couldn't be recounted. If you'd be fired for not voting a partcular way, then you get fired, and sue them for $10M. The manager that fires you spends 10 years in prison, and the practice ends. Vote buying is not nearly the problem the fraudsters claims it is. Much bigger is the spoiling of ballots you don't want, stuffing with ones you do, and the inability for anyone to audit the secret vote.
For instance - when I call from my office I want the caller ID to be that of the main front desk so that a customer can have the call answered when they call back (if I'm busy or maybe somebody else can help them). This requires spoofing - even when I'm using my virtual phone.
No it does not requie spoofing. I've done it. The extension you are calling from is passed through the PBX that "owns" the front desk number. Any call from that PBX can legitimately use any number assigned to it without "spoofing". Now, if your "virtual phone" were to use a 3rd party gateway that had no connection to those numbers, then it would be spoofing.
But, as I said, if the fine was on the carrier for $100,000,000, then they'd allow spoofing. They'd just require more paperwork and verification. So your branch office in NY could call out and would "spoof" the main 1-800 number, and the branch office in CA could do the same, while the main office in Chicago would present the 1-800 number without spoofing. Again, it's all trivial. But there are a few edge cases that some would complain about. But those edge cases aren't worth the gain from simply turning off fraud overnight.
It should also be required by law that any number on any service can have "blocked" and "unknown" calls blocked by the carrier with a standard tone/message that indicates that number doesn't accept hidden calls. Most of the collections services and such will always hide their number, and if they can't present a fraudulent one, they'll present nothing. To help with the increase in blocked CLID, the carriers should provide that functionality to protect their customers.
The technical issues are trivial and solved. But there's no business will to turn on these features. So, when the corporations refuse to protect their customers, the law should step in and do it.
So, let's re-write that:
Any person who knowingly gives [...] valuable consideration to any other person to influence such other person:
[to vote OR to register to vote]
committed a felony.
Yup, the way you wrote it, the law says "encouraging someone to vote, or encouraging someone to register to vote, is a felony."
So now, I'll move on from "that's not illegal" to "that's a stupid law that will be found unconstitutional the first time it's challenged.
The Supreme Court has been sadly consistent in that money is speech. So "valuable consideration" is speech. The argument to the Supreme Court is that the law, as written says:
"Speech that encourages people to register to vote is a felony"
This is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment.
I can't see how the Supreme Court could find such a law to be "legal". As "political speech" is the most "protected". And this is political speech. Again, further reading and examination of the law, as posted indicates I was right the first time in my assessment, but the main portion of my argument is invalid, but the " the "I voted" stickers given out are vote buying." semi-sarcastic qualifier was indeed 100% correct. A "valuable consideration" of a sticker is encouraging people to vote. As such, if the stickers are as common in IL as they are everywhere I've ever voted, then many poll workers are guilty of a felony.
So a Democratic bus driving "voters" around isn't vote buying? There are some posters above who disagree.
So the while thing comes down to the definition of "influence". If I am nice to someone while wearing a campaign button, would that count as trying to "influence" their vote? It would also almost explicitly make it illegal for someone in a Make American Great Again hat to leave a tip in a restaurant. So any reasonable interpretation would mean "vote buying" in a more traditional sense, not just "being nice" to voters while representing a party.
Re read what you wrote? The word "protected" appears nowhere in the chain of posts, and no other A/C posted. So which post are you referring to?
#3 is not correct anwhere I've seen. mail-in votes aren't counted unless the number of votes received is greater than the margin. Perhaps in practice, so few mail-ins are done where you are that it doesn't matter, but other places are not so restrictive of mail-ins.
You are wrong. Child porn is "speech" as covered in the 1st Amendment. The issue is that even "free speech" can be regulated. Where to draw the line is the discussion.
The secret ballot worked for the first 100 years of the USA (failed during a time of open rebellion, but worked fine with a stable country). Still not used in the Legislatures. Would you accept a secret ballot in votes for laws? Then why do you want to mandate it in the election of those same lawmakers?
Paying a registered Democrat to vote isn't vote buying. That registered Democrat is not being directed to vote Democrat. Thus, it's not a vote buying. You might as well argue that the "I voted" stickers given out are vote buying.
It's technically trivial to block that type of spoofing. The only hold-back is that there's no penalty for the phone companies that sell to the scammers. Charge their US provider with accessory to the crime, and fine them $100M and this could never happen again. Require that all CLID sent be a valid call-back for the number sent.
Yes, I know that this will be annoying for the outsourced call centers, where HP sells their call center to India and the Indian company calls an American with the CLID of the 1-800 number for HP, so the call looks like it's coming from the US, and if called back, gets to the right queue. But those edge cases don't justify allowing free range for the scammers.