Find me a case anywhere in the the first world where any of that has ever happened.
Hmm, how about every country in the first world that has outlawed recreational drugs? How about the 'sin taxes' that are imposed on booze and tobacco to make them more expensive? How about the fact that victimless crimes like prostitution are illegal in most jurisdictions? How about the fact that most terminally ill patients can't choose to end their own lives in most of the first world?
You also clearly have no idea what it means when hospitals refuse treatment based on inability to pay. Have fun dying unconscious in the ER because you were in an accident and no-one knows who you are or where your insurance card is.
You also clearly have no idea that charitable hospitals exist with the specific mandate to take in people who can't pay.
Or are you planning on getting yourself chipped with credit rating and insurance info? Is that the free conservative utopia you imagine? A society in which the EMTs first action is to scan a potential patient for their income and social status?
They already do that. Ever heard of a wallet biopsy? And no, I don't need myself chipped. There's these amazing technological devices called wallets that you can carry around. You can even put your drivers license and insurance card in them if you so choose.....
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill.
Amen:)
Socialized health care on the other hand understands that humanity has a dignity and if you are unjustly disadvantaged then you can still get treatment according to fairness with everyone else.
Socialized health care undermines my dignity when it takes away my freedom of choice. It also makes health care a political matter. Is Obamacare going to cover birth control? Abortion? Don't even bother to answer -- whatever answer you give is going to alienate 50% of this country and set up a policy that's likely to change every time the majority party in Washington changes.
If I was in the US I'd be living on the street talking to the birds
Says who? You'd be receiving SSI disability payments at the very least and probably medicare as well.
So, the conundrum for the US style of care is: what if you are incapable of caring for your self?
Then a combination of charity and government is there to assist you. I am capable of taking care of myself and don't need Uncle Sam to do it for me.
BTW, for what it's worth, my best friend growing up was diagnosed with schizophrenia. It's a nasty disease and it was really hard to watch him go through it. I've also seen it first hand at work (mental health hospital). I'm not in favor of a policy that would throw schizophrenics out on the street to talk to the birds. I'm just not convinced that turning over our health care system to the Government is going to represent any real improvement. I also resent the inherent loss of freedom that's going to come with anything the Government runs.
No need for hyperbole, hardly anything is done here at gunpoint.
Everything government does is done by gunpoint. If I have a disagreement with you and refuse to pay you money that you think you are owed can you take away my freedom and throw me in jail? Government is the only entity that can do that. As I said earlier, that's a good thing when the power is wielded to keep citizens from murdering each other. I tend to think it's a bad thing when the power is wielded to protect you from yourself
but then again I don't miss the freedoms to drive without a seatbelt
Then you don't understand what freedom is and have surrendered it to become one of the sheep. I tend to be of the opinion that when you turn 18 (or 21 or whatever you think the age of majority should be) that it becomes your job to protect yourself. Governments job should not be to watch over us like children, making sure that we don't hurt ourselves.
or to off myself.
I'm pretty sure you do have the freedom to off yourself. Mind you, not with a gun, because you sheep^WAussies willingly surrendered most of those as well -- but I'd like to hear you explain exactly how the Government can prevent you from offing yourself if you are so inclined?
Are you seriously saying that the ability to do such things is a desired feature of the U.S. legal system, rather than a bug?
Actually yes, it is a desired feature of the U.S. legal system. If he hadn't done that then they would have garnished his paycheck and he wouldn't have had enough money to support his children. Society has decided that supporting your children is more important than repaying your civil debts.
And if you were living in your dumb-ass libertarian paradise, you'd be in debtors prison now.
Says who? "The Congress shall have Power To... To establish... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Libertarianism does not require the support of debtor prison. If someone is unable to pay his or her debts then it's a matter for the courts. Bankruptcy has been a part of our legal system since the beginning. Debt forgiveness goes back further than that.
goddamn you're stupid
I love western Canada. There, are you happy now?
Yeah, well your head flaps when you talk! So there!
It shifts the costs to everyone else. Is that fair? Is that the conservative way? Don't pay your fair share, and then when you get sick, screw your creditor (the hospital) and pass the costs along to the rest of society. Real nice.
No, the Conservative way would be for the hospital to have the choice to refuse to treat you if you can't pay. No business should be forced to service a non-paying customer. I would have no problem with this.
Hey buddy, what do you call it when my premiums go up because *you* decided you could go without insurance?
So are you also going to tell me what I can eat (no big macs I presume?) and what recreational chemicals I can enjoy (no nicotine or booze?) because those can increase your costs as well? What about hobbies? Going to tell me that I can't engage in skydiving or bungee jumping because of the increased risk of injury? Where does it end?
So instead of having the government choose your healthcare, you prefer to have your job choose your healthcare?
No, I prefer to choose my healthcare. If I don't like the plan(s) offered by my employer I can try to buy one on my own or get a different job. At the end of the day I don't want my choice taken away from me by the Government. I want to choose how to spend the fruits of my own labor.
Instead of joining a plan that must care for everyone no matter what, you prefer to join a plan that can drop people whenever it chooses?
My health insurance can't drop me whenever it chooses. If yours can then find a different job or plan.
where health insurance plans will routinely deny first and even second requests just because they can
All insurance companies do that. My Mother just had to battle to get money for her totaled car after someone else ran a stop side and broadsided her. Completely 100% the fault of the other person and their insurance company still tried to drag it out. They only caved after her attorney pointed out that a personal injury action would cost them a lot more than just paying for the damages their insured caused. Should we have the Government take over the automobile insurance industry too?
where the overhead of interoperating with so many different health care providers raises medical fees through the roof if you're paying out of pocket
Fees go up if you pay out of pocket because the insurance companies generally have more bargaining power than you. That said, there's nothing stopping you from bargaining with your medical provider(s) to get a lower rate. Most of the GPs around here are happy to do it because it means they don't have to deal with insurance paperwork when they see you.
How exactly is what we have right now better in any way whatsoever than any alternative?
I'm sure there are alternatives that are better than what we have now. I just don't think a Government run plan is going to be one of them.
The question this leaves open is, what if you have to declare bankruptcy (for whatever reason), and after that rack up medical costs for emergency surgery?
Then they get a judgment against you and you spend a few years trying to pay as little as possible on it until you can file again. In most parts of the US they aren't going to be able to seize your home or anything that really matters. If you are smart about structuring your assets and finances they probably won't even be able to get a dime.
Friend of mine had someone attempt to garnish his paycheck over a debt that he allegedly owed. His simple solution was to have his ex-wife take him to court for child support (which he was already paying willingly) and get a garnishment order for it. Child support garnishments take priority over everything else and at the end of the day there wasn't anything left for the collection agency to get.
That's just one example. There's lots of others things you can do as well. How do you think OJ managed to avoid paying his civil judgment for the better part of two decades?
Really now? It's already been suggested here in the states. Something similar is already being done in Japan. I'm supposed to believe that the fans of the big government nanny state are going to stop sin taxes at alcohol and tobacco and not advance them any further? Sorry, but I'm sick of the Government trying to protect me from myself.
"I'm not going to let the government decide my health care! Instead, I'm going to praise the land of the free because my health insurer chooses to deny me cancer coverage because I forgot to mention I had appendicitis 20 years ago."
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never praised the current system. I only said that it's preferable to a Government run one. There's a lot of things we could fix (tort reform, better preventative care, better regulation of the insurance industry, etc) that don't involve handing the whole system over to Washington.
In Australia I paid 1% of my income as a tax, or 1.5% when my income hit 45,000 a year. Alternatively, I could opt in for private coverage, and pay as much or as little as I liked, and not have that tax.
Could you opt out of coverage entirely? If not then the Government has taken away your freedom of choice at gunpoint.
I'm sorry but there isn't any argument you can make that's going to convince me that we need a Government-run health care system. I don't like Government. Government exists for one reason: To deprive individuals of the freedom of choice. When they are depriving you of the free choice to murder your neighbor that's a good thing. When they deprive you of the free choice to spend the fruits of your own labor as you see fit then that's a bad thing.
Eh, I still think it'd be a tough case to argue. Did he really have malicious intent when he downloaded those songs? Or was his intent "I want some free music". If RIAA wanted to push the issue they'd have to bring it before the bankruptcy judge and try to convince him that the intent was malicious. A good BK attorney would be able to argue otherwise, although I haven't read the trial transcript and wouldn't be surprised at all if Mr. Tenenbaum had already shot himself in the foot. He seems to have a bad combination of arrogance and naivety, at least from what I've read.
Even if he lost at the BK court though it's still unlikely that RIAA would ever see a dime if Mr. Tenenbaum knows how the system works. Look at how long OJ was able to evade a civil judgment. A judgment that he actually had the means to pay. Does Mr. Tenenbaum have the means to pay this one? Not likely.
Try applying for a home loan and see how far you get. While you may be able to get some amount, you likely won't be able to get anything significant and you won't be able to get a nice low rate.
Somebody didn't tell my mortgage broker that, because I was approved earlier this year for a 30 year mortgage at 4.75% I've also qualified for 0% automobile financing since my bankruptcy. My main credit card from my local credit union is at 7.9% (not that I ever have a balance on it, mind you).
BK really isn't the hurdle that it used to be. There are some lenders (Amex, Wells Fargo, Citi) that will refuse to deal with you but there's plenty of other people on the national level (not to mention local) willing to step up to the plate.
You must be an American, pity you do not have national health insurance program. Sure you may have to wait a bit for elective and non-emergency surgery but at least you don't get bankrupted having emergency surgery. (yes there are a few exceptions, some people die waiting, talking about the vast majority here)
So what? I'd rather have our system even with my experience, thank you very much. Filing bankruptcy is not the end of the World. It's a legal preceding. Nothing more, nothing less. If you've properly structured your assets you aren't likely to lose anything that really matters (house, family heirlooms, etc).
I'm sorry but I've never understood the trauma that some people associate with bankruptcy. Our system is designed so that you can start over after experiencing a setback like that. Businesses use it all the time without shame. At the end of the day it's better for society that a business/individual can get a fresh start and remain a productive member of society instead of a debt slave. There isn't any shame in it.
I'd rather have our bankruptcy process and a free market medical system than have yet another intrusion of Government into my life. "Buy this coverage or we'll fine you. Lose weight or we'll fine you. Don't eat that big mac that we've slapped a sin-tax or we'll fine you." I have choices right now. I'm doubtful that anything that comes out of Washington is going to increase the number of choices I have. History suggests the opposite.
Not much, assuming you have paid your bills in a timely manner and maintain a low amount of debt. Why would a creditor want to ditch someone with an 8 year history of timely payments?
Your credit score can actually drop a little bit at the 10 year mark when the bankruptcy comes off (7 years for Chapter 13s) but that's a side effect of the way the score model works. Fair Issac (the FICO people) has "scorecards" where they score you against similar people. In a group of people that have filed bankruptcy you might look pretty good. Once that bankruptcy goes away then you are scored against people who haven't filed and may look better or worse when compared against them.
So is your plan to file bankruptcy again? I hope you have a strategy for dealing with those credit card bills because that's a bad situation.
Umm, tradeline != debt. My combined credit limit on all (3) of my credit cards is about 50% of my annual salary. My actual debt non-existent as I don't carry a balance on my credit cards and paid off my car/student loans a long time ago.
Go fuck yourself and your condescending superior attitude. My bankruptcy was mainly incurred by medical problems. You ever need to have emergency surgery without medical insurance? Give it a try sometime and let me know how it works out for you.
I attempted to settle my debts for years before I filed bankruptcy only to find that while I was unable to pay them they had increased nearly 400% from the amount I originally borrowed. It's amazing how quickly debt can pile up when they your APR goes up to 34.99% and they keep piling on late/over-the-limit/because-we-can fees every month.
But that's not the end of it. Once you are unable to make payments to your original creditors they eventually give up and sell your debt to a junk debt buyer. This entity buys your debt for pennies on the dollar and then attempts to collect 200-400% of the original amount owed. They keep 100% of what they collect. The people from whom you actually borrowed the money don't see a dime.
I have no regrets about filing bankruptcy. It wasn't a hard choice to pick between paying back people I never borrowed money from and moving on with my life.
Some states will not discharge debt less then a year old or judgments against the person until a certain period of time has lapsed.
Actually it's not up to the states to decide what gets discharged or not. That's Federal Law. The handful of discharge exemptions include debts incurred via fraud (you lied on the loan application), tax debts, government backed student loan debts, debts for personal injury caused while driving drunk, child support/alimony and debts owed to the government for fines/criminal punishments.
A civil judgment by RIAA would not seem to fit into any of those exemptions. They won't be able to collect a dime of that money. Of course collecting money isn't the point of the RIAA extortion campaign. The point is to scare people away from file sharing. How's that working for them, anyway?
The family of the kid who died sued her, the trucking company, the rental company, and the insurance (which attempted to bail) and she ended up with something like a $500k judgment. She had to stop going to school and claim the accident made it impossible to function there with the remaining classmates before filing bankruptcy or her lawyer advised that they would just make her make payments instead of discharging the judgment.
Your friend should have had more liability insurance. Failing that she probably should have just accepted the Chapter 13 instead of dropping out of school. They wouldn't have made her pay back the whole debt. She would have to pay whatever she could afford over 3 to 5 years. That could be 100% of the debt (if your friend has a LOT of disposable income) or as little as 10% or less.
It's amazing what you can find when you RTFA. From NYCL's site:
[Ed. note. The judge's ruling is erroneous. The question : "are you admitting liability" is a legal question, not a factual question, which Mr. Tenenbaum was not qualified to answer. For the Court to base its decision on that is wrong. -R.B.]
I can't help but think there's some strategic reason for his actions that will become clearer upon appeal.
I've never heard stupidity described as strategic. The kid relies on a bunch of law students to draft up a dubious defense relying on fair use, then admits to committing the action that the Plaintiff alleges caused them a financial loss. I don't think I would approach a civil action in the same manner......
What are the consequences for Mr. Tenenbaum? Can't get a credit card for a few years?
Few years? I had a secured credit card the day after my discharge and an unsecured one four months later. I'm now four years from my bankruptcy and have 50% of my annual salary in unsecured revolving tradelines (i.e: credit cards) and can get the same interest rates as anyone else.
There is no such thing as a recipe for galactic war, if you have the resources to wage interplanetary warfare, you won't care about waging interplanetary warfare.
Where did I use the word 'incompetence'? I was referring to the disparity in pay that was noted by the GP. I didn't imply or suggest that they were incompetent.
Isn't hashlimit designed to limit bandwidth? I'd rather just drop the initial connection..
Umm, no? Its designed to limit the number of times it will match. It's based on number of packets seen in a defined interval. AFAIK it doesn't have anything to do with bandwidth or datarate. In fact, I've never seen iptables directly used to limit bandwidth, although I have seen it used to classify packets that then get shaped by the Linux traffic shaper.
However, IP address assigment is not handled by single entity. Theres separate organizations for north and south america, europe, africa and asia. So you're missing the point there.
And who do you think gives those organizations the address pools that they hand out?
Slashdot Mirror
Find me a case anywhere in the the first world where any of that has ever happened.
Hmm, how about every country in the first world that has outlawed recreational drugs? How about the 'sin taxes' that are imposed on booze and tobacco to make them more expensive? How about the fact that victimless crimes like prostitution are illegal in most jurisdictions? How about the fact that most terminally ill patients can't choose to end their own lives in most of the first world?
You also clearly have no idea what it means when hospitals refuse treatment based on inability to pay. Have fun dying unconscious in the ER because you were in an accident and no-one knows who you are or where your insurance card is.
You also clearly have no idea that charitable hospitals exist with the specific mandate to take in people who can't pay.
Or are you planning on getting yourself chipped with credit rating and insurance info? Is that the free conservative utopia you imagine? A society in which the EMTs first action is to scan a potential patient for their income and social status?
They already do that. Ever heard of a wallet biopsy? And no, I don't need myself chipped. There's these amazing technological devices called wallets that you can carry around. You can even put your drivers license and insurance card in them if you so choose.....
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill.
Amen :)
Socialized health care on the other hand understands that humanity has a dignity and if you are unjustly disadvantaged then you can still get treatment according to fairness with everyone else.
Socialized health care undermines my dignity when it takes away my freedom of choice. It also makes health care a political matter. Is Obamacare going to cover birth control? Abortion? Don't even bother to answer -- whatever answer you give is going to alienate 50% of this country and set up a policy that's likely to change every time the majority party in Washington changes.
If I was in the US I'd be living on the street talking to the birds
Says who? You'd be receiving SSI disability payments at the very least and probably medicare as well.
So, the conundrum for the US style of care is: what if you are incapable of caring for your self?
Then a combination of charity and government is there to assist you. I am capable of taking care of myself and don't need Uncle Sam to do it for me.
BTW, for what it's worth, my best friend growing up was diagnosed with schizophrenia. It's a nasty disease and it was really hard to watch him go through it. I've also seen it first hand at work (mental health hospital). I'm not in favor of a policy that would throw schizophrenics out on the street to talk to the birds. I'm just not convinced that turning over our health care system to the Government is going to represent any real improvement. I also resent the inherent loss of freedom that's going to come with anything the Government runs.
No need for hyperbole, hardly anything is done here at gunpoint.
Everything government does is done by gunpoint. If I have a disagreement with you and refuse to pay you money that you think you are owed can you take away my freedom and throw me in jail? Government is the only entity that can do that. As I said earlier, that's a good thing when the power is wielded to keep citizens from murdering each other. I tend to think it's a bad thing when the power is wielded to protect you from yourself
but then again I don't miss the freedoms to drive without a seatbelt
Then you don't understand what freedom is and have surrendered it to become one of the sheep. I tend to be of the opinion that when you turn 18 (or 21 or whatever you think the age of majority should be) that it becomes your job to protect yourself. Governments job should not be to watch over us like children, making sure that we don't hurt ourselves.
or to off myself.
I'm pretty sure you do have the freedom to off yourself. Mind you, not with a gun, because you sheep^WAussies willingly surrendered most of those as well -- but I'd like to hear you explain exactly how the Government can prevent you from offing yourself if you are so inclined?
Are you seriously saying that the ability to do such things is a desired feature of the U.S. legal system, rather than a bug?
Actually yes, it is a desired feature of the U.S. legal system. If he hadn't done that then they would have garnished his paycheck and he wouldn't have had enough money to support his children. Society has decided that supporting your children is more important than repaying your civil debts.
And if you were living in your dumb-ass libertarian paradise, you'd be in debtors prison now.
Says who? "The Congress shall have Power To ... To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Libertarianism does not require the support of debtor prison. If someone is unable to pay his or her debts then it's a matter for the courts. Bankruptcy has been a part of our legal system since the beginning. Debt forgiveness goes back further than that.
goddamn you're stupid
I love western Canada. There, are you happy now?
Yeah, well your head flaps when you talk! So there!
It shifts the costs to everyone else. Is that fair? Is that the conservative way? Don't pay your fair share, and then when you get sick, screw your creditor (the hospital) and pass the costs along to the rest of society. Real nice.
No, the Conservative way would be for the hospital to have the choice to refuse to treat you if you can't pay. No business should be forced to service a non-paying customer. I would have no problem with this.
Hey buddy, what do you call it when my premiums go up because *you* decided you could go without insurance?
So are you also going to tell me what I can eat (no big macs I presume?) and what recreational chemicals I can enjoy (no nicotine or booze?) because those can increase your costs as well? What about hobbies? Going to tell me that I can't engage in skydiving or bungee jumping because of the increased risk of injury? Where does it end?
So instead of having the government choose your healthcare, you prefer to have your job choose your healthcare?
No, I prefer to choose my healthcare. If I don't like the plan(s) offered by my employer I can try to buy one on my own or get a different job. At the end of the day I don't want my choice taken away from me by the Government. I want to choose how to spend the fruits of my own labor.
Instead of joining a plan that must care for everyone no matter what, you prefer to join a plan that can drop people whenever it chooses?
My health insurance can't drop me whenever it chooses. If yours can then find a different job or plan.
where health insurance plans will routinely deny first and even second requests just because they can
All insurance companies do that. My Mother just had to battle to get money for her totaled car after someone else ran a stop side and broadsided her. Completely 100% the fault of the other person and their insurance company still tried to drag it out. They only caved after her attorney pointed out that a personal injury action would cost them a lot more than just paying for the damages their insured caused. Should we have the Government take over the automobile insurance industry too?
where the overhead of interoperating with so many different health care providers raises medical fees through the roof if you're paying out of pocket
Fees go up if you pay out of pocket because the insurance companies generally have more bargaining power than you. That said, there's nothing stopping you from bargaining with your medical provider(s) to get a lower rate. Most of the GPs around here are happy to do it because it means they don't have to deal with insurance paperwork when they see you.
How exactly is what we have right now better in any way whatsoever than any alternative?
I'm sure there are alternatives that are better than what we have now. I just don't think a Government run plan is going to be one of them.
The question this leaves open is, what if you have to declare bankruptcy (for whatever reason), and after that rack up medical costs for emergency surgery?
Then they get a judgment against you and you spend a few years trying to pay as little as possible on it until you can file again. In most parts of the US they aren't going to be able to seize your home or anything that really matters. If you are smart about structuring your assets and finances they probably won't even be able to get a dime.
Friend of mine had someone attempt to garnish his paycheck over a debt that he allegedly owed. His simple solution was to have his ex-wife take him to court for child support (which he was already paying willingly) and get a garnishment order for it. Child support garnishments take priority over everything else and at the end of the day there wasn't anything left for the collection agency to get.
That's just one example. There's lots of others things you can do as well. How do you think OJ managed to avoid paying his civil judgment for the better part of two decades?
You do NOT get fined for being overweight.
Really now? It's already been suggested here in the states. Something similar is already being done in Japan. I'm supposed to believe that the fans of the big government nanny state are going to stop sin taxes at alcohol and tobacco and not advance them any further? Sorry, but I'm sick of the Government trying to protect me from myself.
"I'm not going to let the government decide my health care! Instead, I'm going to praise the land of the free because my health insurer chooses to deny me cancer coverage because I forgot to mention I had appendicitis 20 years ago."
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never praised the current system. I only said that it's preferable to a Government run one. There's a lot of things we could fix (tort reform, better preventative care, better regulation of the insurance industry, etc) that don't involve handing the whole system over to Washington.
In Australia I paid 1% of my income as a tax, or 1.5% when my income hit 45,000 a year. Alternatively, I could opt in for private coverage, and pay as much or as little as I liked, and not have that tax.
Could you opt out of coverage entirely? If not then the Government has taken away your freedom of choice at gunpoint.
I'm sorry but there isn't any argument you can make that's going to convince me that we need a Government-run health care system. I don't like Government. Government exists for one reason: To deprive individuals of the freedom of choice. When they are depriving you of the free choice to murder your neighbor that's a good thing. When they deprive you of the free choice to spend the fruits of your own labor as you see fit then that's a bad thing.
Eh, I still think it'd be a tough case to argue. Did he really have malicious intent when he downloaded those songs? Or was his intent "I want some free music". If RIAA wanted to push the issue they'd have to bring it before the bankruptcy judge and try to convince him that the intent was malicious. A good BK attorney would be able to argue otherwise, although I haven't read the trial transcript and wouldn't be surprised at all if Mr. Tenenbaum had already shot himself in the foot. He seems to have a bad combination of arrogance and naivety, at least from what I've read.
Even if he lost at the BK court though it's still unlikely that RIAA would ever see a dime if Mr. Tenenbaum knows how the system works. Look at how long OJ was able to evade a civil judgment. A judgment that he actually had the means to pay. Does Mr. Tenenbaum have the means to pay this one? Not likely.
Try applying for a home loan and see how far you get. While you may be able to get some amount, you likely won't be able to get anything significant and you won't be able to get a nice low rate.
Somebody didn't tell my mortgage broker that, because I was approved earlier this year for a 30 year mortgage at 4.75% I've also qualified for 0% automobile financing since my bankruptcy. My main credit card from my local credit union is at 7.9% (not that I ever have a balance on it, mind you).
BK really isn't the hurdle that it used to be. There are some lenders (Amex, Wells Fargo, Citi) that will refuse to deal with you but there's plenty of other people on the national level (not to mention local) willing to step up to the plate.
You must be an American, pity you do not have national health insurance program. Sure you may have to wait a bit for elective and non-emergency surgery but at least you don't get bankrupted having emergency surgery. (yes there are a few exceptions, some people die waiting, talking about the vast majority here)
So what? I'd rather have our system even with my experience, thank you very much. Filing bankruptcy is not the end of the World. It's a legal preceding. Nothing more, nothing less. If you've properly structured your assets you aren't likely to lose anything that really matters (house, family heirlooms, etc).
I'm sorry but I've never understood the trauma that some people associate with bankruptcy. Our system is designed so that you can start over after experiencing a setback like that. Businesses use it all the time without shame. At the end of the day it's better for society that a business/individual can get a fresh start and remain a productive member of society instead of a debt slave. There isn't any shame in it.
I'd rather have our bankruptcy process and a free market medical system than have yet another intrusion of Government into my life. "Buy this coverage or we'll fine you. Lose weight or we'll fine you. Don't eat that big mac that we've slapped a sin-tax or we'll fine you." I have choices right now. I'm doubtful that anything that comes out of Washington is going to increase the number of choices I have. History suggests the opposite.
Not much, assuming you have paid your bills in a timely manner and maintain a low amount of debt. Why would a creditor want to ditch someone with an 8 year history of timely payments?
Your credit score can actually drop a little bit at the 10 year mark when the bankruptcy comes off (7 years for Chapter 13s) but that's a side effect of the way the score model works. Fair Issac (the FICO people) has "scorecards" where they score you against similar people. In a group of people that have filed bankruptcy you might look pretty good. Once that bankruptcy goes away then you are scored against people who haven't filed and may look better or worse when compared against them.
So is your plan to file bankruptcy again? I hope you have a strategy for dealing with those credit card bills because that's a bad situation.
Umm, tradeline != debt. My combined credit limit on all (3) of my credit cards is about 50% of my annual salary. My actual debt non-existent as I don't carry a balance on my credit cards and paid off my car/student loans a long time ago.
Go fuck yourself and your condescending superior attitude. My bankruptcy was mainly incurred by medical problems. You ever need to have emergency surgery without medical insurance? Give it a try sometime and let me know how it works out for you.
I attempted to settle my debts for years before I filed bankruptcy only to find that while I was unable to pay them they had increased nearly 400% from the amount I originally borrowed. It's amazing how quickly debt can pile up when they your APR goes up to 34.99% and they keep piling on late/over-the-limit/because-we-can fees every month.
But that's not the end of it. Once you are unable to make payments to your original creditors they eventually give up and sell your debt to a junk debt buyer. This entity buys your debt for pennies on the dollar and then attempts to collect 200-400% of the original amount owed. They keep 100% of what they collect. The people from whom you actually borrowed the money don't see a dime.
I have no regrets about filing bankruptcy. It wasn't a hard choice to pick between paying back people I never borrowed money from and moving on with my life.
Some states will not discharge debt less then a year old or judgments against the person until a certain period of time has lapsed.
Actually it's not up to the states to decide what gets discharged or not. That's Federal Law. The handful of discharge exemptions include debts incurred via fraud (you lied on the loan application), tax debts, government backed student loan debts, debts for personal injury caused while driving drunk, child support/alimony and debts owed to the government for fines/criminal punishments.
A civil judgment by RIAA would not seem to fit into any of those exemptions. They won't be able to collect a dime of that money. Of course collecting money isn't the point of the RIAA extortion campaign. The point is to scare people away from file sharing. How's that working for them, anyway?
The family of the kid who died sued her, the trucking company, the rental company, and the insurance (which attempted to bail) and she ended up with something like a $500k judgment. She had to stop going to school and claim the accident made it impossible to function there with the remaining classmates before filing bankruptcy or her lawyer advised that they would just make her make payments instead of discharging the judgment.
Your friend should have had more liability insurance. Failing that she probably should have just accepted the Chapter 13 instead of dropping out of school. They wouldn't have made her pay back the whole debt. She would have to pay whatever she could afford over 3 to 5 years. That could be 100% of the debt (if your friend has a LOT of disposable income) or as little as 10% or less.
It's amazing what you can find when you RTFA. From NYCL's site:
[Ed. note. The judge's ruling is erroneous. The question : "are you admitting liability" is a legal question, not a factual question, which Mr. Tenenbaum was not qualified to answer. For the Court to base its decision on that is wrong. -R.B.]
I can't help but think there's some strategic reason for his actions that will become clearer upon appeal.
I've never heard stupidity described as strategic. The kid relies on a bunch of law students to draft up a dubious defense relying on fair use, then admits to committing the action that the Plaintiff alleges caused them a financial loss. I don't think I would approach a civil action in the same manner......
What are the consequences for Mr. Tenenbaum? Can't get a credit card for a few years?
Few years? I had a secured credit card the day after my discharge and an unsecured one four months later. I'm now four years from my bankruptcy and have 50% of my annual salary in unsecured revolving tradelines (i.e: credit cards) and can get the same interest rates as anyone else.
Somebody has to be it. Wouldn't it be cool, albeit unlikely, if we were the first?
Does that mean that in two million years we'll be using the younger races as pawns and telepathically programming them to view us as their gods?
There is no such thing as a recipe for galactic war, if you have the resources to wage interplanetary warfare, you won't care about waging interplanetary warfare.
Human history suggests otherwise......
Where did I use the word 'incompetence'? I was referring to the disparity in pay that was noted by the GP. I didn't imply or suggest that they were incompetent.
Isn't hashlimit designed to limit bandwidth? I'd rather just drop the initial connection..
Umm, no? Its designed to limit the number of times it will match. It's based on number of packets seen in a defined interval. AFAIK it doesn't have anything to do with bandwidth or datarate. In fact, I've never seen iptables directly used to limit bandwidth, although I have seen it used to classify packets that then get shaped by the Linux traffic shaper.
I do like the rules that you use though.
But that someone should be distributed, i.e. a group instead of a single entity
Why?
And the systems should be distributed and mirrored too.
The systems are distributed and mirrored. There isn't a single root server for the entire internet running in ICANNs basement......
However, IP address assigment is not handled by single entity. Theres separate organizations for north and south america, europe, africa and asia. So you're missing the point there.
And who do you think gives those organizations the address pools that they hand out?