Well while the company may not like that, they couldn't accuse you of stealing. You bought unlimited refills, and you own the coffee so its your right to give it away (unless there is something posted to the contrary). Probably at most they could ask you to leave.
That "overpriced" coffee includes the rent for the space (resources) you take up. If the place is charging for WiFi then it is because too many people were ordering a single small coffee of the day and then plunking themselves down for the day with their laptop and not ordering anything else.
Um, if the coffee house let you use wifi all day after purchasing a single item, what is wrong with taking advantage of that? The coffee house goes under? So what, it was a bad business plan then and should be left to die.
"I like making use of your establishment but I don't feel the need to contribute towards its ongoing operations." seems to be all too common of an attitude these days.
Ya right, like corportations aren't trying to screw you out of every cent possible either. Turn about is fair play you know.
I'm not so sure.. while nobody likes a fucked up commute, I'm sure "we want to be sure its done right so tonnes of metal do not come crashing down in the middle of rush hour" would cause most reasonable people to calm down.
Hmm, maybe I'm more picky about what I like, because its rare that i have three shows on at once I'd want to see, an my dvr seems to be able to handle recording two while watching a third if it does happen (sometimes though.. its weird).
Yes, it does. Simple fact right there. Loudness makes people pay attention.
I'm not debating that. I'm asking whether 1) the negative attention it causes carries over and influces a decision to NOT buy the product and 2) yes, most TVs do have such a feature, Magnovox calls it SmartSound, Sony calls its SteadySound, etc.
Doesn't matter. The point under discussion is whether or not Gmail users have an expectation of privacy. The fact that Google will routinely respond to subpoenas (civil or criminal) means that they have a lower expectation than they might have. The other approach Google could take is to refuse compliance until the user had been notified and given an opportunity to fight it. Good ISPs take that approach.
You miss the point; banks will respond to subpoenas the same way. There's still an expectation of privacy. I seriously doubt ANY ISP will fight a subpoena unless the cost of fighting is less than the cost of fulfilling the subpoena. The only ones that MIGHT do it are mom & pop ISPs, the very ones that likely don't have the cash for a legal battle.
Personal experience from a civil suit I was peripherally involved in a few years ago. The attorney thought it was routine.
Anecdote isn't evidence, nor is one lawyers opinion relevent.
Yes, please read that link. Scroll down to section 'legislative history', fourth paragraph. Notice this is Betty Sutton's bill. She got it passed on HR2454 on May 19th. Here's John Dingell congratulating her about "Fleet Modernization/Cash for Clunkers". Check that previous link I sent you to her website - as of May 21st, it was pulled as an amendment and offered as its own bill, HR 2640, which was re-introduced as HR 2751, which Wikipedia verifies as the CARS program. Go ahead and compare the bills, there are some minor changes (always are if the bill number changes), but it's the same bill.
Yes, good job, I'd already seen all of that. The "Fleet Modernization" is dead, it was changed to something else. So are you really going to focus on the fact that "Fleet Moderinization" was in the title, rather than what the bill actually says? Really, what the hell is your point?
The full title of HR2751, aka CARS aka C4C, is: To accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.
Yes, notice where it says "registered owners." Also notice in the bill where each registered owner is allowed to trade in EXACTLY ONE "clunker" and get the rebate. Also notice that for corporations, the "registered owner" is the corportation. Meaning that a corp could trade in EXACTLY ONE car. Not a fleet of cars as you suggest. I've also not been able to find a single instance of a company trading in its entire fleet under this program.
So it seems to be exactly what I said: a program aimed at CONSUMERS to get their older cars off the road.
Who ever said anything about businesses?
Well what the fuck was your point about "fleet moderization?" Who the fuck cars what the bill USED to be called in a form that WAS NEVER PASSED? Christ you've wasted all this time arguing when we already were talking about the same fucking program?
Eh? I'm well aware of the issues, I was giving you some links since you couldn't find the first hit on Google.
Apperently you are not, since you can only link to articles written when the program just ended.
Do you understand that article? It says that the booked revenue in GDP was inflated due to the Cash for Clunkers sales. It does not refute the source I showed you that the auto manufacturers were ramping up production to back-fill inventory due to C4C, which was counter to your claim. Manufacturing activity would not be booked as GDP revenue.
Do you? Its saying that demand will end as soon as stimulus ends, and C4C is already over. I don't think any of that is a big secret to anyone. As far as your nonsense, yes, they temporarly ramped up production to replace SOME of the cars, not all of them. Or do you really think that the auto makers believe the recession is over and they should start pumping out cars again?
But please, show me ANYTHING that backs up your claim that every car sold resulted in a new car being built. I highly doubt even half of the inventories will be rebuilt, due to reasons I've already stated. Remember, some people were going to buy cars anyway, and its for these people that the cars are being built now.
Time shifting makes up for some stupid scheduling decision a TV executive may make.
Well, before recording was popular, they'd schedule a popular show of theirs against the competing network. Force you to make a choice. Now you don't have to.. yet it seems they continue to do this. Maybe most people don't record still, but I don't miss either show due to schedule conflicts since I've gotten a dvr.
As far as driving sales? Probably... but has anyone seriously looked at annoying ads which have driven people away? Personally, there are ads so annoying I do end up remembering the name, but anytime I see the name all I have are negative thoughts (due to the annoying ad).
Sorry, loudness works.
Again, does it, or does the fact that most TVs have features to automatically turn the volume down for you negate this?
Well, then good news for the networks, because this story claims that most people DON'T skip the commericals, they watch them, unlike the parent poster.
The second was deep and profound, and at the end offered hope. The third was special effects we've pretty much already seen, no real story, and quashed any hope. As an action movie, it wasn't too bad, but it didn't do much else. The final one was much the same... exploring the future we haven't seen, but it wasn't much more than an action flick.
Let's backtrack a bit. The discussion was whether or not Gmail users have any expectation of privacy in light of Google's policy that they'll provide information in response to a subpoena. The comment was made that because Google must honor warrants, Google's decision to also respond to subpoenas doesn't reduce users' privacy.
I responded that warrants and subpoenas are different, and they are.
Nobody is debating they are different.
See, Google does have a choice about how they handle subpoenas. They do not have a choice about how they handle warrants. Google does not have to simply hand over information in response to a subpoena, they can instead go to court and argue that they should not have to provide said information. They don't even have to have a consistent policy about this. The can in some cases choose to fight and in other cases choose not to. Their stated policy is to ALWAYS comply with a subpoena. That is a reduction in privacy from what is required by law, which implies that there is grounds to believe that Gmail users have a reduced expectation of privacy.
But a judge still oversees a subpoena, based on a case, and will limit the subpeona in scope. That is, no fishing expiditions. The only difference here is that you'll be served a warrant, but won't be notified if a subpoena is issued.
That's only for criminal law. Subpoenas are also used in civil cases, which is why "anyone can issue a subpoena", as I said. You file a civil suit against someone and then you can issue all the subpoenas you want as part of discovery.
Yes, and we're only discussing criminal law here, since the judge is commenting on a criminal case. Otherwise there'd be no consideration at all for the Forth amendment. Even in a civil case though, the judge still reviews subpeonas.
In neither civil nor criminal cases does the judge determine in advance whether the information requested by a subpoena is justified on any sort of probable cause basis. The standard of review is relevance only. If the information requested appears that it would provide facts relevant to the case at hand, it is granted. That's the theory. In practice, judges usually rely on attorneys' ethical behavior and don't review subpoena requests at all. They sign a stack of blank subpoenas and hand them over.
As you said though, the judge still must determine its relevent. As for your assertion that its a matter of routine that they sign blank papers, please provide some evidence of that.
The point is that there is some review, a case must be filed.. subpeonas aren't just handed out like candy to anyone that walks into a courthouse.
The reason for the lower standard of review is that the target of the subpoena has the option of fighting it. If they can show that the information is not relevant, or if they can show some other reason why the harm caused by responding would outweigh the harm caused by not responding, then the judge will quash the subpoena. You can't quash a search warrant; the most you can do is to get the information obtained excluded from evidence.
Which effectively makes the search as if it never happened. Its a correction after the fact for a warrant that shouldn't have been issued, if it was issued improperly. You're also notified of it, which is the heart of the matter here, the notification.
Yes, your argument is silly. You know what the benefits and the downsides of using Windows is upfront. You choose to use it because its the best tool for the job. If it wasn't, you'd use Linux or BSD or Mac instead.
I'm not going to be drawn into your strawman argument. Make your point discussing the issue at hand. Spam is unwanted communication from a usually unknown third party; whether or not you use Windows is a personal chose you make, with full knowledge of the consquences.
No, they can't issue a subpena that's not related to the case at hand. So you're notion that any case can be stretched to ask for unrelated information is nonsense.
Also, many states have grand juries to determine if a case should proceed. Meaning an average citizen has to be convienced that there's probable cause.
You know, its ok to admit you were wrong. Stop trying to stretch things out of a reasonable discussion.
Do you know what the Sutton Fleet Modernization Amendment is?
Given that I can find no information that it has yet passed, I really again fail to see your point. As it is, the cash for clunkers program THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT is already over.
The Edmunds report concludes 125,000 cars were sold that would not have otherwise been. I'd have to check if production is [higher] than that across the industry since then, but I'd be very surprised if it's not.
With sales plummitting by 50% or more and inventories at a stand still, do you really think they were pumping out more cars to meet the demand here? Also, check you facts again. IMMEDIATELY after the program ended, sales again plummited. Would you build enough cars to replace the diminished inventory knowing that sales plummited? Or would you stay low on production, keeping inventories lower (remember, you usually pay tax on inventory sitting idle... so no one wants to keep more inventory in stock than needed to meet demand).
Please explain why this isn't happening in any of the cases people have pointed you to. The departments are self run, and use money coming in only to keep the department going and to fund upgrades (bonds may also be issued to fund things as well). You're spouting out nonsense, in what I can only imagine is attempts at trolling. As far as price increases being regulated, the city owned electric company has its prices regulated just like a private company would.
Seriously, quite your trolling and try to learn something, because your garbage post just isn't how its playing out.
That's certainly not the excuse the government gave. They said it was for the environment and the economy. Of course it was really for the politicians.
*sigh* Please work on comprehension. Only individuals could take advantage of cash for clunkers... so your talk of "fleets" is not relevent.
Go check for yourself - it was the most popular cars that were predominantly sold, and those are being replenished.
You act as if popular cars were unaffected by the recession. You also act as if the number of cars built is anywhere near the amount sold.
Slashdot Mirror
Well while the company may not like that, they couldn't accuse you of stealing. You bought unlimited refills, and you own the coffee so its your right to give it away (unless there is something posted to the contrary). Probably at most they could ask you to leave.
That "overpriced" coffee includes the rent for the space (resources) you take up. If the place is charging for WiFi then it is because too many people were ordering a single small coffee of the day and then plunking themselves down for the day with their laptop and not ordering anything else.
Um, if the coffee house let you use wifi all day after purchasing a single item, what is wrong with taking advantage of that? The coffee house goes under? So what, it was a bad business plan then and should be left to die.
"I like making use of your establishment but I don't feel the need to contribute towards its ongoing operations." seems to be all too common of an attitude these days.
Ya right, like corportations aren't trying to screw you out of every cent possible either. Turn about is fair play you know.
This is a US site, and the poster is talking about a state in the US. Unless you're a moron, you should be able to figure out its degrees F.
I thought they were going to build a new eastern span?
I'm not so sure.. while nobody likes a fucked up commute, I'm sure "we want to be sure its done right so tonnes of metal do not come crashing down in the middle of rush hour" would cause most reasonable people to calm down.
Hmm, maybe I'm more picky about what I like, because its rare that i have three shows on at once I'd want to see, an my dvr seems to be able to handle recording two while watching a third if it does happen (sometimes though.. its weird).
Yes, it does. Simple fact right there. Loudness makes people pay attention.
I'm not debating that. I'm asking whether 1) the negative attention it causes carries over and influces a decision to NOT buy the product and 2) yes, most TVs do have such a feature, Magnovox calls it SmartSound, Sony calls its SteadySound, etc.
Doesn't matter. The point under discussion is whether or not Gmail users have an expectation of privacy. The fact that Google will routinely respond to subpoenas (civil or criminal) means that they have a lower expectation than they might have. The other approach Google could take is to refuse compliance until the user had been notified and given an opportunity to fight it. Good ISPs take that approach.
You miss the point; banks will respond to subpoenas the same way. There's still an expectation of privacy. I seriously doubt ANY ISP will fight a subpoena unless the cost of fighting is less than the cost of fulfilling the subpoena. The only ones that MIGHT do it are mom & pop ISPs, the very ones that likely don't have the cash for a legal battle.
Personal experience from a civil suit I was peripherally involved in a few years ago. The attorney thought it was routine.
Anecdote isn't evidence, nor is one lawyers opinion relevent.
Yes, please read that link. Scroll down to section 'legislative history', fourth paragraph. Notice this is Betty Sutton's bill. She got it passed on HR2454 on May 19th. Here's John Dingell congratulating her about "Fleet Modernization/Cash for Clunkers". Check that previous link I sent you to her website - as of May 21st, it was pulled as an amendment and offered as its own bill, HR 2640, which was re-introduced as HR 2751, which Wikipedia verifies as the CARS program. Go ahead and compare the bills, there are some minor changes (always are if the bill number changes), but it's the same bill.
Yes, good job, I'd already seen all of that. The "Fleet Modernization" is dead, it was changed to something else. So are you really going to focus on the fact that "Fleet Moderinization" was in the title, rather than what the bill actually says? Really, what the hell is your point?
The full title of HR2751, aka CARS aka C4C, is: To accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.
Yes, notice where it says "registered owners." Also notice in the bill where each registered owner is allowed to trade in EXACTLY ONE "clunker" and get the rebate. Also notice that for corporations, the "registered owner" is the corportation. Meaning that a corp could trade in EXACTLY ONE car. Not a fleet of cars as you suggest. I've also not been able to find a single instance of a company trading in its entire fleet under this program.
So it seems to be exactly what I said: a program aimed at CONSUMERS to get their older cars off the road.
Who ever said anything about businesses?
Well what the fuck was your point about "fleet moderization?" Who the fuck cars what the bill USED to be called in a form that WAS NEVER PASSED? Christ you've wasted all this time arguing when we already were talking about the same fucking program?
Eh? I'm well aware of the issues, I was giving you some links since you couldn't find the first hit on Google.
Apperently you are not, since you can only link to articles written when the program just ended.
Do you understand that article? It says that the booked revenue in GDP was inflated due to the Cash for Clunkers sales. It does not refute the source I showed you that the auto manufacturers were ramping up production to back-fill inventory due to C4C, which was counter to your claim. Manufacturing activity would not be booked as GDP revenue.
Do you? Its saying that demand will end as soon as stimulus ends, and C4C is already over. I don't think any of that is a big secret to anyone. As far as your nonsense, yes, they temporarly ramped up production to replace SOME of the cars, not all of them. Or do you really think that the auto makers believe the recession is over and they should start pumping out cars again?
But please, show me ANYTHING that backs up your claim that every car sold resulted in a new car being built. I highly doubt even half of the inventories will be rebuilt, due to reasons I've already stated. Remember, some people were going to buy cars anyway, and its for these people that the cars are being built now.
Wait, you're tivo can't record one channel while you watch another?
Time shifting makes up for some stupid scheduling decision a TV executive may make.
Well, before recording was popular, they'd schedule a popular show of theirs against the competing network. Force you to make a choice. Now you don't have to.. yet it seems they continue to do this. Maybe most people don't record still, but I don't miss either show due to schedule conflicts since I've gotten a dvr.
Sorry, advertising works.
As far as driving sales? Probably... but has anyone seriously looked at annoying ads which have driven people away? Personally, there are ads so annoying I do end up remembering the name, but anytime I see the name all I have are negative thoughts (due to the annoying ad).
Sorry, loudness works.
Again, does it, or does the fact that most TVs have features to automatically turn the volume down for you negate this?
Well, then good news for the networks, because this story claims that most people DON'T skip the commericals, they watch them, unlike the parent poster.
The second was deep and profound, and at the end offered hope. The third was special effects we've pretty much already seen, no real story, and quashed any hope. As an action movie, it wasn't too bad, but it didn't do much else. The final one was much the same... exploring the future we haven't seen, but it wasn't much more than an action flick.
Why waste money on a fat client if its not going to be used to its potential?
Let's backtrack a bit. The discussion was whether or not Gmail users have any expectation of privacy in light of Google's policy that they'll provide information in response to a subpoena. The comment was made that because Google must honor warrants, Google's decision to also respond to subpoenas doesn't reduce users' privacy.
I responded that warrants and subpoenas are different, and they are.
Nobody is debating they are different.
See, Google does have a choice about how they handle subpoenas. They do not have a choice about how they handle warrants. Google does not have to simply hand over information in response to a subpoena, they can instead go to court and argue that they should not have to provide said information. They don't even have to have a consistent policy about this. The can in some cases choose to fight and in other cases choose not to. Their stated policy is to ALWAYS comply with a subpoena. That is a reduction in privacy from what is required by law, which implies that there is grounds to believe that Gmail users have a reduced expectation of privacy.
But a judge still oversees a subpoena, based on a case, and will limit the subpeona in scope. That is, no fishing expiditions. The only difference here is that you'll be served a warrant, but won't be notified if a subpoena is issued.
That's only for criminal law. Subpoenas are also used in civil cases, which is why "anyone can issue a subpoena", as I said. You file a civil suit against someone and then you can issue all the subpoenas you want as part of discovery.
Yes, and we're only discussing criminal law here, since the judge is commenting on a criminal case. Otherwise there'd be no consideration at all for the Forth amendment. Even in a civil case though, the judge still reviews subpeonas.
In neither civil nor criminal cases does the judge determine in advance whether the information requested by a subpoena is justified on any sort of probable cause basis. The standard of review is relevance only. If the information requested appears that it would provide facts relevant to the case at hand, it is granted. That's the theory. In practice, judges usually rely on attorneys' ethical behavior and don't review subpoena requests at all. They sign a stack of blank subpoenas and hand them over.
As you said though, the judge still must determine its relevent. As for your assertion that its a matter of routine that they sign blank papers, please provide some evidence of that.
The point is that there is some review, a case must be filed.. subpeonas aren't just handed out like candy to anyone that walks into a courthouse.
The reason for the lower standard of review is that the target of the subpoena has the option of fighting it. If they can show that the information is not relevant, or if they can show some other reason why the harm caused by responding would outweigh the harm caused by not responding, then the judge will quash the subpoena. You can't quash a search warrant; the most you can do is to get the information obtained excluded from evidence.
Which effectively makes the search as if it never happened. Its a correction after the fact for a warrant that shouldn't have been issued, if it was issued improperly. You're also notified of it, which is the heart of the matter here, the notification.
Wow, really? The very first hit from Google?
To save you the trouble, "Cash for Clunkers" is the colloquial name for the Sutton Fleet Modernization Amendment.
Um, no, that's another program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System or CARS. THATS cash for clunkers. But please, feel free to check out the offical site and show me where it says businesses are eligible for the rebate: http://www.cars.gov/
This is all I've been asking as well. To save you the trouble of searching again
If you've been curious, why have you wanted until now to search? But let me do some searching for you and point you to an article thats NOT three months old already: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQcFan9QMe0k
Wouldn't work. The sites you actually go to regularly would start to show as a pattern.
Why should email not be private?
Yes, your argument is silly. You know what the benefits and the downsides of using Windows is upfront. You choose to use it because its the best tool for the job. If it wasn't, you'd use Linux or BSD or Mac instead.
I'm not going to be drawn into your strawman argument. Make your point discussing the issue at hand. Spam is unwanted communication from a usually unknown third party; whether or not you use Windows is a personal chose you make, with full knowledge of the consquences.
Dozens of programs allow you to convert to the video format ipod uses. An added step... but no one telling you how to use your ipod.
No, they can't issue a subpena that's not related to the case at hand. So you're notion that any case can be stretched to ask for unrelated information is nonsense.
Also, many states have grand juries to determine if a case should proceed. Meaning an average citizen has to be convienced that there's probable cause.
You know, its ok to admit you were wrong. Stop trying to stretch things out of a reasonable discussion.
Do you know what the Sutton Fleet Modernization Amendment is?
Given that I can find no information that it has yet passed, I really again fail to see your point. As it is, the cash for clunkers program THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT is already over.
The Edmunds report concludes 125,000 cars were sold that would not have otherwise been. I'd have to check if production is [higher] than that across the industry since then, but I'd be very surprised if it's not.
With sales plummitting by 50% or more and inventories at a stand still, do you really think they were pumping out more cars to meet the demand here? Also, check you facts again. IMMEDIATELY after the program ended, sales again plummited. Would you build enough cars to replace the diminished inventory knowing that sales plummited? Or would you stay low on production, keeping inventories lower (remember, you usually pay tax on inventory sitting idle... so no one wants to keep more inventory in stock than needed to meet demand).
Please explain why this isn't happening in any of the cases people have pointed you to. The departments are self run, and use money coming in only to keep the department going and to fund upgrades (bonds may also be issued to fund things as well). You're spouting out nonsense, in what I can only imagine is attempts at trolling. As far as price increases being regulated, the city owned electric company has its prices regulated just like a private company would.
Seriously, quite your trolling and try to learn something, because your garbage post just isn't how its playing out.
That's certainly not the excuse the government gave. They said it was for the environment and the economy. Of course it was really for the politicians.
*sigh* Please work on comprehension. Only individuals could take advantage of cash for clunkers... so your talk of "fleets" is not relevent.
Go check for yourself - it was the most popular cars that were predominantly sold, and those are being replenished.
You act as if popular cars were unaffected by the recession. You also act as if the number of cars built is anywhere near the amount sold.