Right, but a company in a free market can end up a monopoly. Capitalism allows it, some might even say promotes it. So a totally free market isn't the answer, because part of a free market leads to monopolies.
Like it or not, that mouse is a part of US culture. We SHOULD have the rights to it by now. Jefferson et. al. didn't want culture tied up in business forever.
Well, you can earn a living. Except you need to do it pretty often. As in, I need to go to work almost every weekday to earn my living. Why should an musician be done their "job" after one song?
Except Comcast is a monopoly, in many cases the ONLY choice, so the market can't decide. The solution is either they accept regulate and continue being a monopoly, or they are broken up so that a neutral party controls the lines to allow fair competition.
First, Best Buy has no responsibility for the data lost. We all know that when you send in your computer for repair that unless you have some ueber data protection plan, data is not the repair shop's responsibility.
Why shouldn't it be? That's the only stuff on the laptop anyone cares about. If there were no data on it which you cared about, why not just take home a brand new one? Can a maid service get away with saying "we aren't responsible if we break a vase?"
Second, I don't see where best buy has any responsibility for any privacy implications either. It's not like someone broke into Best Buy's database and accessed information collected and stored by Best Buy. Someone stole a customer laptop with the customer's hard drive on it. Best Buy has no way of knowing what data is on that hard drive, and frankly, if there IS private, sensitive information on the hard drive, that is again the customer's problem, not Best Buy's. Best Buy can't be responsible for the contents of a hard drive they shouldn't even be looking at the contents of. And, there's no reason to notify you that your data is on the loose when you already know you gave someone your hard drive with data.
BB knows very well that there could be personal information on the computer, and that information could be used for identity theft. They need to take "resonable care" of the other party's item, or they are liable. If it had been in a locked room and there was clearly a break-in, fine. But for it just to vanish? No, that's not reasonable care. Now, lets also add in the fact that it was likely stolen by an employee. What else could have happened to it? A wormhole opened and swallowed just this lady's laptop? Get real.
Third, the warranty terms are pretty clear on what the warranty is good for. Replacement of the laptop with a like laptop. So no matter how broke or lost her laptop is, all she is entitled to is replacement of the laptop with a similar model.
The claim probably isn't based on the warranty; that part is fulfilled. The lawsuit likely stems from the fact that BB did not take "resonable care" to ensure the laptops safety. They also are aware that there is likely senstitive personal information on the laptop as well. Given those to facts, and the fact that it was likely stolen by a BB employee, BB is liable. In case you're not getting it, look up a legal definition of "reasonable care."
I have to agree; "losing" someone's thousand dollar item should not be an option period. I also doubt they lost it at all, one of their employees probably stole it. BB is well known for seemingly higher than average employee theft.
Being a national store, $54 million should be enough to get them to rethink how they select who will be hired.
I keep seeing this ludicrous "we can take up arms!" justification for having no control of guns in the United States. You do realize that for any practical purposes, unless they allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, no amount of firepower you amass will do you a damned bit of good, right?
Um, its not so a few people (i.e., less than 10) can do anything effective. Its so that a sizable portion can. If there were such an uprising in the US, its also likely that some of the military would support it. I'd be suprised, because such a split has always happened in the past.
As far as the US government nuking anything here.. do you really think that would not suddenly turn a huge majority to FAVOR the uprising, if their grandma was not suddenly about to fried?
Finally, its one thing for our army to be "over there" shooting "towel heads," its quite another to be marching in a city you very well may have visited or grew up in. Our soliders are still people, not robots. I don't think they'd have an easy time shooting their own citizens.
Agreed. It is much better to work within the system than to destroy the system. All I'm saying is that at present the latter is a real option if the former fails. No sane person wants revolution for revolution's sake.
I agree with the last part, but if our founders followed your first sentiment, we'd still be part of the UK.
There is a Chinese proverb. "The person who says it can't be done shouldn't get in the way of the person who is doing it." There is an American saying, "Where there is a will, there is a way."
Fine. But don't expect to pay for it with my tax dollars. Fund it yourself.
If border security were a huge priority, it would happen. As it is, I don't see it happening. We're going to get an open border via something like the NAU long before we see a closed border. That is a political issue and not an issue of it being unfeasible.
Given that the only real solution is the one I propose, and that it wouldn't work, I don't see how its just a political issue. We'd go bankrupt trying to implement it, and it STILL WOULDN'T WORK. There will always be ways for people to sneak in. Just like increasing the amount of police doesn't deter crime, and in fact doesn't help stop it at all, because the police can't be everywhere. Nor would we want them to be, because that would have to fit the definition of police state, and I don't think that's where we really want to go.
I'll tell you what. Compare the figures between Coto de Caza, CA and any of the surrounding neighborhoods (Rancho Santa Margarita, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Nigel, etc) and see what the differences are.
Interesting, because I believe that's specifically the town Dateline was in. All it took was some crooks with a moving van, and they were able to unload a house.
Sorry, what Mac does is irrelevent to this discussion. Those computers are never going to run Vista, and the OS maker also makes the hardware, so of course you'll always get the "recommended" system.
Lattitudes are BUSINESS class laptops. Go check out what Inspirons are shipping with. A good number are 1GB, some 512MB. Sorry, I'm not going to rule out the cheaper ones just because you say so, BECAUSE PEOPLE STILL BUY THEM. And I bet they sell very well.
Moron. Of course you can say "all new laptops" come with 3GB+ if you artifically set a lowest price. Many people though have a price ceiling in place though.
The stronger controls that I am talking about are border security and good identification systems. Not only did I think before I posted, I already addressed your gripe on a meta level that you managed to miss.
Ahh, you mean stronger controls that can't actually be put into place. Unless you're talking about having an armed guard or camera every 20 ft. around the ENTIRE border of the US? Ya, feasible.
There will always be residental burglaries. Does that mean you shouldn't lock your doors and install a monitored alarm system if you can afford one? Does that mean you shouldn't move into a gated community with active patrols if you can afford the luxury?
Yet gated communities with active patrols still have burglaries. Do you have evidence that it lowers crime in any significate way? There are some Dateline episodes that say "no." So, is all that extra expense worth it? Nope.. all it buys you is the fact that you can say "I'm better than you because I live in a gated community."
Criminals, like other people, don't want to die either. When the honest people out number criminals 50 to 1, criminals will move on to something else. Crime rates are lowest where people's right to bear and carry arms are the least restricted. Go do some research.
But please, keep thinking that by acting like sheep, and that its smart to let a group of wolves protect use from a group of jackels.
No, pardons apply only to an individual for a punishment already being served. It doesn't change the status of the law though, nor would it prevent that person from being tried and convicted for breaking the same law again.
Or is is just uni-directional. You cannot make something retroactively illegal but you can make it retroactively legal.
Yes, that's how its setup. Technically is not "retroactively legal," an unconstitutional law can be thought of as never having existed to begin with. Its unconsitutional from the moment it is signed into law, not from when it is simply declared unconsitutional.
Is that we have 50 state governments each with bureaucracies the size of national governments
Wrong. They are the size required for the size of the state. Any anyway, who cares? Each "bureacracy" is limited to a single state, of which you are a residient of only one, and you have much more control at teh state leve.
each already the final executors of the federal government's policies
A problem with the system as is; the feds dictate something must be done, and force the states to do it, usually without funding. Of course if this were eliminated, states could decide if they even wanted to continue, and if they did, lack of most Federal taxes means the states could tax more. If the people in the state choose to do so.
The whole platform is little more than a sweet-smelling red herring designed to attract people's unfocused angst and lack of understanding of federalism while simultaneously claiming to be the embodiment thereof.
Your lack of understanding of the issue is pretty embarrasing. But go ahead, delude yourself into thinking that you're one out of 250 million votes matters in the slightest. In the mean time, everyone will continue to be raped finacially and we have no say over how much they are going to take and where they will spend it. Personally, I'd like my vote to matter more by being one of 624,000, instead of one of 300,000,000.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but a company in a free market can end up a monopoly. Capitalism allows it, some might even say promotes it. So a totally free market isn't the answer, because part of a free market leads to monopolies.
Soon they'll want to get paid every time I hear the &^$^^& song.
Where have you been? They've been wanting that for years, and have publicly said as much.
Like it or not, that mouse is a part of US culture. We SHOULD have the rights to it by now. Jefferson et. al. didn't want culture tied up in business forever.
Well, you can earn a living. Except you need to do it pretty often. As in, I need to go to work almost every weekday to earn my living. Why should an musician be done their "job" after one song?
Oh well, tough. That's what happens to people employed in other jobs. Its call "life insurance." Look it up sometime.
Except that as soon as someone does stand up, they seem to drop the suit..
Except Comcast is a monopoly, in many cases the ONLY choice, so the market can't decide. The solution is either they accept regulate and continue being a monopoly, or they are broken up so that a neutral party controls the lines to allow fair competition.
As a former customer of Comcast, let me tell you something: THEY'RE GOING TO RAISE YOUR RATES NO MATTER WHAT!!
Well, totally free markets aren't always good either. Breaking up Bell was one of the best things, as was the other trust busting decades before.
I think the solution here is for each community to own and run the lines, then let companies lease access to them.
First, Best Buy has no responsibility for the data lost. We all know that when you send in your computer for repair that unless you have some ueber data protection plan, data is not the repair shop's responsibility.
Why shouldn't it be? That's the only stuff on the laptop anyone cares about. If there were no data on it which you cared about, why not just take home a brand new one? Can a maid service get away with saying "we aren't responsible if we break a vase?"
Second, I don't see where best buy has any responsibility for any privacy implications either. It's not like someone broke into Best Buy's database and accessed information collected and stored by Best Buy. Someone stole a customer laptop with the customer's hard drive on it. Best Buy has no way of knowing what data is on that hard drive, and frankly, if there IS private, sensitive information on the hard drive, that is again the customer's problem, not Best Buy's. Best Buy can't be responsible for the contents of a hard drive they shouldn't even be looking at the contents of. And, there's no reason to notify you that your data is on the loose when you already know you gave someone your hard drive with data.
BB knows very well that there could be personal information on the computer, and that information could be used for identity theft. They need to take "resonable care" of the other party's item, or they are liable. If it had been in a locked room and there was clearly a break-in, fine. But for it just to vanish? No, that's not reasonable care. Now, lets also add in the fact that it was likely stolen by an employee. What else could have happened to it? A wormhole opened and swallowed just this lady's laptop? Get real.
Third, the warranty terms are pretty clear on what the warranty is good for. Replacement of the laptop with a like laptop. So no matter how broke or lost her laptop is, all she is entitled to is replacement of the laptop with a similar model.
The claim probably isn't based on the warranty; that part is fulfilled. The lawsuit likely stems from the fact that BB did not take "resonable care" to ensure the laptops safety. They also are aware that there is likely senstitive personal information on the laptop as well. Given those to facts, and the fact that it was likely stolen by a BB employee, BB is liable. In case you're not getting it, look up a legal definition of "reasonable care."
I have to agree; "losing" someone's thousand dollar item should not be an option period. I also doubt they lost it at all, one of their employees probably stole it. BB is well known for seemingly higher than average employee theft.
Being a national store, $54 million should be enough to get them to rethink how they select who will be hired.
I keep seeing this ludicrous "we can take up arms!" justification for having no control of guns in the United States. You do realize that for any practical purposes, unless they allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, no amount of firepower you amass will do you a damned bit of good, right?
Um, its not so a few people (i.e., less than 10) can do anything effective. Its so that a sizable portion can. If there were such an uprising in the US, its also likely that some of the military would support it. I'd be suprised, because such a split has always happened in the past.
As far as the US government nuking anything here.. do you really think that would not suddenly turn a huge majority to FAVOR the uprising, if their grandma was not suddenly about to fried?
Finally, its one thing for our army to be "over there" shooting "towel heads," its quite another to be marching in a city you very well may have visited or grew up in. Our soliders are still people, not robots. I don't think they'd have an easy time shooting their own citizens.
Agreed. It is much better to work within the system than to destroy the system. All I'm saying is that at present the latter is a real option if the former fails. No sane person wants revolution for revolution's sake.
I agree with the last part, but if our founders followed your first sentiment, we'd still be part of the UK.
There is a Chinese proverb. "The person who says it can't be done shouldn't get in the way of the person who is doing it." There is an American saying, "Where there is a will, there is a way."
Fine. But don't expect to pay for it with my tax dollars. Fund it yourself.
If border security were a huge priority, it would happen. As it is, I don't see it happening. We're going to get an open border via something like the NAU long before we see a closed border. That is a political issue and not an issue of it being unfeasible.
Given that the only real solution is the one I propose, and that it wouldn't work, I don't see how its just a political issue. We'd go bankrupt trying to implement it, and it STILL WOULDN'T WORK. There will always be ways for people to sneak in. Just like increasing the amount of police doesn't deter crime, and in fact doesn't help stop it at all, because the police can't be everywhere. Nor would we want them to be, because that would have to fit the definition of police state, and I don't think that's where we really want to go.
I'll tell you what. Compare the figures between Coto de Caza, CA and any of the surrounding neighborhoods (Rancho Santa Margarita, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Nigel, etc) and see what the differences are.
Interesting, because I believe that's specifically the town Dateline was in. All it took was some crooks with a moving van, and they were able to unload a house.
What, honda doesn't make 6 or 8 cylinder engines? I have one.. except it says Acura instead of honda, but that's just a faceplate change.
Sorry, what Mac does is irrelevent to this discussion. Those computers are never going to run Vista, and the OS maker also makes the hardware, so of course you'll always get the "recommended" system.
Lattitudes are BUSINESS class laptops. Go check out what Inspirons are shipping with. A good number are 1GB, some 512MB. Sorry, I'm not going to rule out the cheaper ones just because you say so, BECAUSE PEOPLE STILL BUY THEM. And I bet they sell very well.
Moron. Of course you can say "all new laptops" come with 3GB+ if you artifically set a lowest price. Many people though have a price ceiling in place though.
The stronger controls that I am talking about are border security and good identification systems. Not only did I think before I posted, I already addressed your gripe on a meta level that you managed to miss.
Ahh, you mean stronger controls that can't actually be put into place. Unless you're talking about having an armed guard or camera every 20 ft. around the ENTIRE border of the US? Ya, feasible.
There will always be residental burglaries. Does that mean you shouldn't lock your doors and install a monitored alarm system if you can afford one? Does that mean you shouldn't move into a gated community with active patrols if you can afford the luxury?
Yet gated communities with active patrols still have burglaries. Do you have evidence that it lowers crime in any significate way? There are some Dateline episodes that say "no." So, is all that extra expense worth it? Nope.. all it buys you is the fact that you can say "I'm better than you because I live in a gated community."
Criminals, like other people, don't want to die either. When the honest people out number criminals 50 to 1, criminals will move on to something else. Crime rates are lowest where people's right to bear and carry arms are the least restricted. Go do some research.
But please, keep thinking that by acting like sheep, and that its smart to let a group of wolves protect use from a group of jackels.
No, pardons apply only to an individual for a punishment already being served. It doesn't change the status of the law though, nor would it prevent that person from being tried and convicted for breaking the same law again.
Or is is just uni-directional. You cannot make something retroactively illegal but you can make it retroactively legal.
Yes, that's how its setup. Technically is not "retroactively legal," an unconstitutional law can be thought of as never having existed to begin with. Its unconsitutional from the moment it is signed into law, not from when it is simply declared unconsitutional.
Is that we have 50 state governments each with bureaucracies the size of national governments
Wrong. They are the size required for the size of the state. Any anyway, who cares? Each "bureacracy" is limited to a single state, of which you are a residient of only one, and you have much more control at teh state leve.
each already the final executors of the federal government's policies
A problem with the system as is; the feds dictate something must be done, and force the states to do it, usually without funding. Of course if this were eliminated, states could decide if they even wanted to continue, and if they did, lack of most Federal taxes means the states could tax more. If the people in the state choose to do so.
The whole platform is little more than a sweet-smelling red herring designed to attract people's unfocused angst and lack of understanding of federalism while simultaneously claiming to be the embodiment thereof.
Your lack of understanding of the issue is pretty embarrasing. But go ahead, delude yourself into thinking that you're one out of 250 million votes matters in the slightest. In the mean time, everyone will continue to be raped finacially and we have no say over how much they are going to take and where they will spend it. Personally, I'd like my vote to matter more by being one of 624,000, instead of one of 300,000,000.
Well, things would quickly clear up if the war on drugs was ended, and those same honest hardworking people exercised their right to bear arms.
Ya you're right, because collecting this data will help us identify those that sneak across the border. Did you think at all before you posted?
Not quite. If a law is rule unconstitutional, it is null and void. In the eyes of our Constitution, the law never existed to begin with.
What's next? Retro-actively making something illegal and then putting you in jail for it?
Again, the Constitution expressely forbids this.. for now.
More and more I think I may vote for Ron Paul, even if he's inconsistent.
As in against the law, you know, violating the 4th Amendment.