They then had the audacity to ask my to file a police report
Um, someone stole from you and commited credit card fraud. What makes you think you SHOULDN'T report it to the police?
I had a $200 show up on my card, and I caught it very quickly. The only thing I regret is trying to work with the bank instead of the police. Because I told my bank that I called the number and they promised to refund the money, they couldn't do anything for 30 DAYS (due to VISA regulations).
Think about what you're saying here. I'm not suggesting we should be able to kill over property (although that's pretty much been our nature from day one), but when the property you lose is your house, your food, medicine... it does become pretty important. You need property to live, and ID theft can screw up your life for years to come.
Somehow, a punishment/rehabilitation that forces this person to be broken and rebuild themselves from scratch is probably best- fixing them as a person, rather than keeping around a broken shell of a person that drags on us all.
Sounds great. Perhaps we should just do this to everyone as they start school.
I agree with the death penalty, but only in cases of 100% certainty. The only problem is you never really know that the police (or whoever) aren't planting evidence to frame an innocent person. There are far too many times this has actually happened...
I think executing an innocent man is far worse, and its the main reason I can't support the death penalty. Nothing is worth that cost. Right now, that cost is pretty high.. there have been an alarming amount of such cases.
Also, I doubt you can ever be 100% certain of anything. I don't think I could convict someone of anything and be 100% certain, I'd always have some doubt. I would hope any reasonable person would.
The parent was on the phone near the walkway in the airport when he shot the instructor point blank in the head. That's justice at minimal cost to the public.
That's not justice, that's revenge, plain and simple. Justice includes following our own laws... if we can't even do that, I don't think we can claim to be very civilized.
People don't pay attention because usually they get a bunch of shit and have already been ignoring a lot of hold music / hold advertisments by the time they get to talk to someone.
The UK has one of the most virulent and productive paparazzi in existence. They make a fortune off of candid pictures taken without the consent of the subjects. They do this all over Europe. They have been doing this for a number of years.
Its similar here in the US too, but the difference is that the subjects are celeberties, and thus have a much lower expectation of privacy than someone walking down a street.
Um, I don't think they HAVE to do anything. The summary comes off as being very arrogant. Why is releasing the source to Office their "only choice?"
Seems to me there are plenty of closed shops out there, and I don't think they should have to open anything if they don't want to. They built it, they can chose to do with it what they wish.
The comment to which I responded said to never use email for anything important, and that you should contact via other methods. You obviously can't do that if a physical item needs to be delivered, you have no choice but to use email.
It's all about risk. A person that did something bad in the past (a crime, defaulted on a loan, misrepresented a product) is much more likely to do something bad again in the future.
That's actually the main point I was contending; I don't believe people are necessarly much more likely to repeat bad behavior.
This system actually does work well provided that each person has only a single ID, the person is adequately authenticated, and that a person's record is accurate, secure, and fairly managed.
You raise another point. I would argue that you can never keep an accurate, secure and fairly managed record. You simply can't jot down a few 'facts' about someone and say you can accurately predict their behavior.
Finally, you need to consider the possiblity that such lines of thought end up being self re-enforcing. Someone is convicted for a second crime because he was convicted of it the first time, although in the second case there really isn't any solid evidence. It happens quite a bit. Lets also not ignore those that get convicted and have never done anything wrong (including the crime they were convicted of).
But in this situation, you should not be using email, because email is not reliable and was never intended to be. If you really, truly need reliable communications, you use the phone. That way you get confirmation that someone the other end has received the message, you know when it was received, and you can get a record that it has been received (by, for example, recording it).
I guess you've never had to send a document to someone across the country Right Now. The only other method would be overnight... which is just overnight.
He should be using !QAZ2wsx@company.com aliased via Active Directory to "Personnel Manager"
Yes, he should be unreachable, especially to people that may not know the address for sure, like new hires. I wouldn't even apply to a company that had that for their HR email..
Funny, because those kinds of assumptions typically turn out wrong. Just because you did something bad before, doesn't mean you'll repeat it again.
Of course in our nanny state must have a law prohibiting anything but consuming, you're bound to get many people with 'bad' records. As for the credit agencies, I'd say we'd be better off without them.. now even having a good record is a liability.
While I support the FSP, The point is that the structure of government here is amazing open and accessible, and the culture is already liberty-oriented.
If the culture were already liberty oriented, why are those liberty limiting laws in place?
Slashdot Mirror
They then had the audacity to ask my to file a police report
Um, someone stole from you and commited credit card fraud. What makes you think you SHOULDN'T report it to the police?
I had a $200 show up on my card, and I caught it very quickly. The only thing I regret is trying to work with the bank instead of the police. Because I told my bank that I called the number and they promised to refund the money, they couldn't do anything for 30 DAYS (due to VISA regulations).
Next time, fuck that. Right to the police.
Actually I believe it comes out of VISA or MC's pocket.
Think about what you're saying here. I'm not suggesting we should be able to kill over property (although that's pretty much been our nature from day one), but when the property you lose is your house, your food, medicine... it does become pretty important. You need property to live, and ID theft can screw up your life for years to come.
Somehow, a punishment/rehabilitation that forces this person to be broken and rebuild themselves from scratch is probably best- fixing them as a person, rather than keeping around a broken shell of a person that drags on us all.
Sounds great. Perhaps we should just do this to everyone as they start school.
I agree with the death penalty, but only in cases of 100% certainty. The only problem is you never really know that the police (or whoever) aren't planting evidence to frame an innocent person. There are far too many times this has actually happened...
I think executing an innocent man is far worse, and its the main reason I can't support the death penalty. Nothing is worth that cost. Right now, that cost is pretty high.. there have been an alarming amount of such cases.
Also, I doubt you can ever be 100% certain of anything. I don't think I could convict someone of anything and be 100% certain, I'd always have some doubt. I would hope any reasonable person would.
The parent was on the phone near the walkway in the airport when he shot the instructor point blank in the head. That's justice at minimal cost to the public.
That's not justice, that's revenge, plain and simple. Justice includes following our own laws... if we can't even do that, I don't think we can claim to be very civilized.
People don't pay attention because usually they get a bunch of shit and have already been ignoring a lot of hold music / hold advertisments by the time they get to talk to someone.
The UK has one of the most virulent and productive paparazzi in existence. They make a fortune off of candid pictures taken without the consent of the subjects. They do this all over Europe. They have been doing this for a number of years.
Its similar here in the US too, but the difference is that the subjects are celeberties, and thus have a much lower expectation of privacy than someone walking down a street.
So what are your thoughts on the original requirement that you had to be a land owner to vote?
Honestly though do we really need the vote of some drunk? I'd rather prefer they didn't vote.
The elimination of political parties would also go a long way.
I suppose its not obvious if you're a typical /.er...
At no time did I say that you emailed a phyiscal object. I send email a document or send one overnight via UPS.. Next time I'll include pictures.
Um, I don't think they HAVE to do anything. The summary comes off as being very arrogant. Why is releasing the source to Office their "only choice?"
Seems to me there are plenty of closed shops out there, and I don't think they should have to open anything if they don't want to. They built it, they can chose to do with it what they wish.
I was obviously refering to documents, which can be sent via email or printed and snail-mailed.
That's not what you said though; you said you simply shouldn't use it at all if its important.
The comment to which I responded said to never use email for anything important, and that you should contact via other methods. You obviously can't do that if a physical item needs to be delivered, you have no choice but to use email.
It's all about risk. A person that did something bad in the past (a crime, defaulted on a loan, misrepresented a product) is much more likely to do something bad again in the future.
That's actually the main point I was contending; I don't believe people are necessarly much more likely to repeat bad behavior.
This system actually does work well provided that each person has only a single ID, the person is adequately authenticated, and that a person's record is accurate, secure, and fairly managed.
You raise another point. I would argue that you can never keep an accurate, secure and fairly managed record. You simply can't jot down a few 'facts' about someone and say you can accurately predict their behavior.
Finally, you need to consider the possiblity that such lines of thought end up being self re-enforcing. Someone is convicted for a second crime because he was convicted of it the first time, although in the second case there really isn't any solid evidence. It happens quite a bit. Lets also not ignore those that get convicted and have never done anything wrong (including the crime they were convicted of).
I still content that NH, if its culture always was liberty oriented, would not have certain laws.
I'm also not sure how any believer in freedom can pick and choose taxes vs. marijuana laws; both are an affront to freedom.
Of course you're right as clearly your data shows. Ugh.
Hint: its not the geeks that are causing FF usage rates to climb and climb.
But in this situation, you should not be using email, because email is not reliable and was never intended to be. If you really, truly need reliable communications, you use the phone. That way you get confirmation that someone the other end has received the message, you know when it was received, and you can get a record that it has been received (by, for example, recording it).
I guess you've never had to send a document to someone across the country Right Now. The only other method would be overnight... which is just overnight.
He should be using !QAZ2wsx@company.com aliased via Active Directory to "Personnel Manager"
Yes, he should be unreachable, especially to people that may not know the address for sure, like new hires. I wouldn't even apply to a company that had that for their HR email..
Telemarketers call you on cell phones, and I would assume that they pay a phone bill. Same thing.
You're right, it is the same thing, and we have laws providing opt-out lists for those that don't want telemarketing calls.
Spam isn't a bigger deal than junkmail, it's actually less costly, so why do we care so much that we'd let them ruin e-mail?
No, it simply shifts costs from those sending it to those receiving it.
Honestly, did you just write this post because you knew it would annoy people?
Funny, because those kinds of assumptions typically turn out wrong. Just because you did something bad before, doesn't mean you'll repeat it again.
Of course in our nanny state must have a law prohibiting anything but consuming, you're bound to get many people with 'bad' records. As for the credit agencies, I'd say we'd be better off without them.. now even having a good record is a liability.
While I support the FSP, The point is that the structure of government here is amazing open and accessible, and the culture is already liberty-oriented.
If the culture were already liberty oriented, why are those liberty limiting laws in place?