The OP said using a credit card "doesn't cost [him] anything." I was pointing out that it may in fact cost something, even if he doesn't know it. Costs for the merchant are typically are $0.25 + about 2%, per transaction. The fact that its hidden as part of the price doesn't make it free though. He should be comparing apples to apples, and all that jazz.
I never said they were the best, but MS keyboards (branded or not) and mice are high up there.
I know the Zune doesn't sell well, but that doesn't mean its not better than the iPod. I'm curious though, what other mp3s players interest you more, and have you checked out the upcoming Zune HD?
Ugh. I guess you've never used an MS keyboard or mouse? Exteremly solid. The Zune is an awesome piece of hardware as well... unlike the iPod, where I know serveral people on their 4th one not for the new features, but because their previous one just up and died.
How does someone standing on your front porch represent a threat to your life and liberty? Pretend I'm in the grand jury reviewing your actions and explain to me why a reasonable person (that's the standard in most states) would have feared for their life in the situation that you faced.
1. The person has no right to see me face to face regarding the debt, outside of court that is. What component is there in a face to face meeting that's not over the phone or via mail? The threat of physical violence. The very fact they showed up on my door instead of filing a lawsuit proves they are trying to use physical violence as a threat. 2. When you tell someone to leave, they MUST leave. The fact that they refuse to is also threatening. What valid reason do they have for refusing your request for them to leave your property? Again, they don't want to because that removes their threat of physical violence.
A male facing another male who is roughly his equal in size and weight is not going to be able to make the same claim.
Bull. You also assume both men also posses the same fighting skills. You also seem to think that the outcome of a fight is known before both parties begin. For some reason, you also seem to believe that letting yourself get beat up is just fine and dandy. Personally, if I am in a fight, I'd rather have an absolute advantage, because I wouldn't want to risk losing.
Ability: The actor has the means to creditably threaten your life. This could mean he has a gun, knife or has enough of a size advantage over you that a disparity of force exists.
Huh? No smaller man ever killed a larger, stronger man with his bare fists? You're delusional.
Opportunity: The actor is close enough to use these means against your person. Someone who is 15 yards away with a knife has ability but no opportunity.
Oh, because there's a magical force preventing said person from moving closer. Do you think its ok to draw a knife on someone, even if a bit out of range?
Jeopardy: Your life is actually in danger. My girlfriend who is slicing up onions has both ability (a knife) and opportunity (I'm close to her and my back is turned) but she's obviously not threatening me and thus I'm not in jeopardy.
Yet some stranger I don't know who shows up at my door, well I can't really be sure what his intent is... especially since he SHOULD be filing a lawsuit, not confronting me directly.
Preclusion: You've exhausted all options short of deadly force to avoid the situation. If you can run away from the actor at no risk to yourself then you are expected to do so. The standard here is a little bit different if you are on your own property (you aren't expected to retreat from your own house) or if the life of another is at risk (you don't have to abandon the woman being raped in the alleyway just because you can safely retreat) but the general idea is that deadly force is supposed to be a last resort.
Why should I have to run from someone who is theatening me? Why SHOULDN'T such a person not be shot on site?
You're crying so much about the poor poor person who is THREATENING another that you think they should have no rights? People like you make me sick.
The discussion at hand relates to a debt collector who refuses to leave your property when asked. Nobody said anything about him becoming violent or anything of that nature.
Personally, the fact that he showed up at your house at all is physically threatening, and thus violent. If they have a legitimate debt, there's no reason to show up at someone's house when they can simply file a lawsuit. The whole reason they ARE showing up is to threaten and intimidate you into paying.
Just want to point out that, without property rights (including the right to defend your property from being taken from you), you don't have any other rights.
What if it was your 15 year old kid getting drunk for the first time? How would you feel then?
Stop with the crybaby arguements. Personally, if it were my kid, I'd be mad at myself for not raising him with more sense.
You would be able to tell someone that it was OK for them to kill this kid that you had spent (wasted) 15 years of your life raising.
So the father had nothing good with the 15 years of the kids life already lived? It's not worth it at all, even if you lose the kid? Wow, sounds pretty cold hearted to me.
That his stupid mistake (no malice, no damage done) was worth him losing his life over.
Harm was done; home invasion is not a trivial thing. I'd also like to ask, was drinking so much he didn't even know where he was worth losing his life over?
I have made a lot of similarly stupid mistakes in my life (though never what that kid did), and I am glad that I did not have cold-hearted bastards like you in my neighborhood.
What, like breaking into someone's house? Sorry, being a kid is not a blanket excuse for being irresponsible.
It is people like you that provide the arguments for gun control. Complete disregard for human life. Because you own a gun, the first solution you think of for any problem is to shoot now and ask questions later. It is legal to kill him, so that is what I will do. I don't think that we need a "right" to bear arms. It should be a privilege for people who have shown they will use them responsibly.
People like YOU are the reason entire families are tied up with phone cord while their house is robbed, and thank god nothing WORSE happened.
And yes, you know what, breaking into my house IS threatening me, my family and my property. There is NO EXCUSE for breakins, so yes, shot the fuckers doing it, and I bet if MORE people were like that, home invasions would end.
I also am a black belt in karate. One of the most important things that I was taught was how to control a situation and not escalate it. To use the appropriate level of force. That is important, though, because if I do attack someone, I can be charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" because of the black belt. But I am more interested in resolving situations in a way that works out the best for everyone than being able to point at a dead body and say "It was legal for me to kill him". I DO have a conscience and would feel bad about killing anyone, especially a defenseless kid.
Sounds like you've been watching too many movies. Shooting someone where they stand isn't escalating the sitution, its ENDING it. I'm glad you think you're such a badass, but lets see what happens when someone breaks into YOUR house at night when they are likely to be armed to. Got any fancy karate chop to stop a bullet going through your head?
Yay you know what, I don't feel bad at all for that kid. He chose to do something illegal and which he couldn't handle, and sometimes when you fuck up the consequences are pretty harsh.
My attitude is that I'm going to retreat to a defensible location within my home and call the police.
Ya I'm sure that will work real well as they shoot up your house, or decide to burn it down with you in it.
And did your sister get a ticket? Illegally parked or not, she hit a parked car. Not that I think she should have gotten one, but that's how things usually wind up.
One time a lawyer left a long message on the machine for them trying to get them to call her before court the following day (where I assume she got a default judgement, since I doubt they knew or cared about it).
Or more than likely, it was the collection agency lying and trying to scare you into paying.
You call your state's AG office, and report them, because all of those things are illegal to do when attempting to collect a debt. And yes, it shuts them up real quick, because I've done just that.
No... no one is forced to accept checks, so if one ran their business as cash only, they could in theory offer lower prices.
Technically even places that offer to accept cards are allowed to offer cash discounts; most don't either to keep prices lower overall, or to pocket the "extra" profit.
This was really common during computer shows & sales; the cash discounts were pretty steep, sometimes $20 - 30 for a $120 item. Obviously more than the credit card fee.
On top of that, businesses that don't take credit cards have to deal with turning away customers that don't carry cash or won't pay for things in cash.
I'm one of those types of customers; the number of stores that don't take cards is still pretty high, and you're right that I don't go to them because of it, but its not like cards are taken everywhere.
Oddly enough, PayPal manages to find a way to best both in terms of pain-in-the-assedness.
Companies have no way of knowing if someone is a nutjob. Believe it or not, I don't want to have nutjobs working under me, so when it comes time to hire a new tech, you can bet I won't be hiring any nutjobs. You're acting like the company "wants" to hire nutjobs, or has some policy saying the must hire nutjobs.
I never said they wanted to hire nutjobs, but their screening is lacking. I hate to break this to you, but nobody that goes off like this his a complaint free record. They do have a way; proper screening, and monitoring the employee after they are hired.
"He should have been fired." Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty?" How would you like it if some jerk decided to claim you did something you didn't in order to get you fired? One of our collection people where I work was talking to a customer one day, and I heard the customer raising a **** fit. Later that day, when the same customer came in, he claimed that the collection fellow had been cursing him out -- little did he know I was there the whole time listening in.
That only applies to criminal cases. VZ can fire him for any reason, or no reason. And its really fucking clear in this case, being the employee was CAUGHT BY AN OFF DUTY COP WHILE CHASING THE CUSTOMER.
If the man is guilty, then sue the employee. Once the employee is now branded a criminal, then sue Verizon if they don't fire said criminal. In this system though, it's not fair to fire people over accusations -- which is all this guy has. Now, if you can show me where this guy was convicted (not charged, charged does not mean guilty) then you have a point.
Nope. VZ failed in their duty to make sure their employees can handle stress, THEY ARE LIABLE. Oh, and the employee would only be a "criminal" if criminal charges are filed.. but for some reason the procescutor is refusing to do so.
In this system though, it's not fair to fire people over accusations -- which is all this guy has. Now, if you can show me where this guy was convicted (not charged, charged does not mean guilty) then you have a point.
Again, did you miss the part where the employee wa CAUGHT BY AN OFF DUTY COP WHILE CHASING THE CUSTOMER?? Christ man, get a fucking grip on reality. You really want me to believe the customer beat his own face just to get some random VZ employee fired? WTF dude, you're not even in the same reality anymore.
As is, we have someone who was charged, but not convicted. It's tricky ground, but if anyone needs to be held accountable it should be the justice system that dismissed the case. The employer takes a risk if they fire someone over accusations.
No they don't; employers can fire anyone for any reason, or for no reason. They can fire you for not liking the color of your shirt today.
Oh... a poor doctor crying he has to pay more for insurance. Whaaa, my $450,000 / yr salary isn't enough, wahhh!! Yup, no conflict of interest there. No sir. After all, why SHOULDN'T he be able to leave a scaple inside a patient, and his only penelty should be "oh, sorry about that!"
Not to mention, we get huge lawsuits like this all over the place. Sure, it can be spread out, but cases like this hurt all of us. If you think this is honestly a case of a company not caring about risking customer's lives, then there should be a criminal suit. Why money? Why isn't he trying to get people jailed? That's not what he wants, he wants (b$_$)b vacation plans.
Because you can't put a company in jail? Because he has MEDICAL BILLS which will need to be paid? Why should HIS health insurance pay because of the actions of VZ's employee? Because the victim CAN'T FILE A CRIMINAL SUIT? God damn, d
No... it said carbs + fat or carbs + protien produced less of an insulin spike.
Try eating at mcdonalds or pizzas/whatever for a while, perfect carbs+fat content, and tell me how you will feel after a month of such a diet. The article shows this perfectly.
Interesting that a soda on its own will cause a rush followed by a crash, yet pizza or fries and a burger don't. Hrm.
Well, fire your trainer, require money back, and get a life.
Ya... I'll fire my trainer that helped me lose 80lbs of fat and gain 25lbs of muscle.
What should I do, being that bodybuilding is one of my many hobbies? Oh, I should be a fat slob like you that goes home after coding all day to code some more for free from my moms basement.
And your anger had nothing to do with: "Naturally, there were many supposed licenses which the former tech guy had assured me existed which did not exist, and I ended up uninstalling about fifteen copies of Office 2003 Pro because I simply could not find any evidence that they had been purchased."
And about your problems w/retail vs. volume license, its perfectly reasonable that there may be a difference. If your volume agreement says you'll buy volume licenses and not retail licenses, that's what you're supposed to do. Yes, in this case it may be stupid for the rep, because I'd imagine retail licenses would be more exensive than volume ones, but at the end of the day a volume agree is a contract you voluntarly entered into... on the other hand, it may complicate support issues too, since I believe there are different support channels for retail vs. volume licensed customers.
Just because you think the difference is stupid or irrelevent doen't it mean it is; I'm suprised a super genius like you couldn't have figured that out on your own.
I dunno.. I think it demonstrates a failing eductation system. You need to know where you're coming from before you can understand where you're going. Knowing how the universe works should be common knowledge.
But then, we still have people believing that a zombie doesn't want gay people to get married..
No, MS will sell them softare, it will just be Vista or 7. And if the company refuses, the judge WILL come down on them. What bubble are you living in?
Slashdot Mirror
The OP said using a credit card "doesn't cost [him] anything." I was pointing out that it may in fact cost something, even if he doesn't know it. Costs for the merchant are typically are $0.25 + about 2%, per transaction. The fact that its hidden as part of the price doesn't make it free though. He should be comparing apples to apples, and all that jazz.
I never said they were the best, but MS keyboards (branded or not) and mice are high up there.
I know the Zune doesn't sell well, but that doesn't mean its not better than the iPod. I'm curious though, what other mp3s players interest you more, and have you checked out the upcoming Zune HD?
Ugh. I guess you've never used an MS keyboard or mouse? Exteremly solid. The Zune is an awesome piece of hardware as well... unlike the iPod, where I know serveral people on their 4th one not for the new features, but because their previous one just up and died.
How does someone standing on your front porch represent a threat to your life and liberty? Pretend I'm in the grand jury reviewing your actions and explain to me why a reasonable person (that's the standard in most states) would have feared for their life in the situation that you faced.
1. The person has no right to see me face to face regarding the debt, outside of court that is. What component is there in a face to face meeting that's not over the phone or via mail? The threat of physical violence. The very fact they showed up on my door instead of filing a lawsuit proves they are trying to use physical violence as a threat.
2. When you tell someone to leave, they MUST leave. The fact that they refuse to is also threatening. What valid reason do they have for refusing your request for them to leave your property? Again, they don't want to because that removes their threat of physical violence.
A male facing another male who is roughly his equal in size and weight is not going to be able to make the same claim.
Bull. You also assume both men also posses the same fighting skills. You also seem to think that the outcome of a fight is known before both parties begin. For some reason, you also seem to believe that letting yourself get beat up is just fine and dandy. Personally, if I am in a fight, I'd rather have an absolute advantage, because I wouldn't want to risk losing.
Ability: The actor has the means to creditably threaten your life. This could mean he has a gun, knife or has enough of a size advantage over you that a disparity of force exists.
Huh? No smaller man ever killed a larger, stronger man with his bare fists? You're delusional.
Opportunity: The actor is close enough to use these means against your person. Someone who is 15 yards away with a knife has ability but no opportunity.
Oh, because there's a magical force preventing said person from moving closer. Do you think its ok to draw a knife on someone, even if a bit out of range?
Jeopardy: Your life is actually in danger. My girlfriend who is slicing up onions has both ability (a knife) and opportunity (I'm close to her and my back is turned) but she's obviously not threatening me and thus I'm not in jeopardy.
Yet some stranger I don't know who shows up at my door, well I can't really be sure what his intent is... especially since he SHOULD be filing a lawsuit, not confronting me directly.
Preclusion: You've exhausted all options short of deadly force to avoid the situation. If you can run away from the actor at no risk to yourself then you are expected to do so. The standard here is a little bit different if you are on your own property (you aren't expected to retreat from your own house) or if the life of another is at risk (you don't have to abandon the woman being raped in the alleyway just because you can safely retreat) but the general idea is that deadly force is supposed to be a last resort.
Why should I have to run from someone who is theatening me? Why SHOULDN'T such a person not be shot on site?
You're crying so much about the poor poor person who is THREATENING another that you think they should have no rights? People like you make me sick.
The discussion at hand relates to a debt collector who refuses to leave your property when asked. Nobody said anything about him becoming violent or anything of that nature.
Personally, the fact that he showed up at your house at all is physically threatening, and thus violent. If they have a legitimate debt, there's no reason to show up at someone's house when they can simply file a lawsuit. The whole reason they ARE showing up is to threaten and intimidate you into paying.
Just want to point out that, without property rights (including the right to defend your property from being taken from you), you don't have any other rights.
What if it was your 15 year old kid getting drunk for the first time? How would you feel then?
Stop with the crybaby arguements. Personally, if it were my kid, I'd be mad at myself for not raising him with more sense.
You would be able to tell someone that it was OK for them to kill this kid that you had spent (wasted) 15 years of your life raising.
So the father had nothing good with the 15 years of the kids life already lived? It's not worth it at all, even if you lose the kid? Wow, sounds pretty cold hearted to me.
That his stupid mistake (no malice, no damage done) was worth him losing his life over.
Harm was done; home invasion is not a trivial thing. I'd also like to ask, was drinking so much he didn't even know where he was worth losing his life over?
I have made a lot of similarly stupid mistakes in my life (though never what that kid did), and I am glad that I did not have cold-hearted bastards like you in my neighborhood.
What, like breaking into someone's house? Sorry, being a kid is not a blanket excuse for being irresponsible.
It is people like you that provide the arguments for gun control. Complete disregard for human life. Because you own a gun, the first solution you think of for any problem is to shoot now and ask questions later. It is legal to kill him, so that is what I will do. I don't think that we need a "right" to bear arms. It should be a privilege for people who have shown they will use them responsibly.
People like YOU are the reason entire families are tied up with phone cord while their house is robbed, and thank god nothing WORSE happened.
http://www.longislandpress.com/2009/08/14/family-tied-up-during-armed-home-invasion-burglary/
And yes, you know what, breaking into my house IS threatening me, my family and my property. There is NO EXCUSE for breakins, so yes, shot the fuckers doing it, and I bet if MORE people were like that, home invasions would end.
I also am a black belt in karate. One of the most important things that I was taught was how to control a situation and not escalate it. To use the appropriate level of force. That is important, though, because if I do attack someone, I can be charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" because of the black belt. But I am more interested in resolving situations in a way that works out the best for everyone than being able to point at a dead body and say "It was legal for me to kill him". I DO have a conscience and would feel bad about killing anyone, especially a defenseless kid.
Sounds like you've been watching too many movies. Shooting someone where they stand isn't escalating the sitution, its ENDING it. I'm glad you think you're such a badass, but lets see what happens when someone breaks into YOUR house at night when they are likely to be armed to. Got any fancy karate chop to stop a bullet going through your head?
Yay you know what, I don't feel bad at all for that kid. He chose to do something illegal and which he couldn't handle, and sometimes when you fuck up the consequences are pretty harsh.
My attitude is that I'm going to retreat to a defensible location within my home and call the police.
Ya I'm sure that will work real well as they shoot up your house, or decide to burn it down with you in it.
And did your sister get a ticket? Illegally parked or not, she hit a parked car. Not that I think she should have gotten one, but that's how things usually wind up.
Best lawyer wins. A good lawyer can prove anything they need to.
Nope, a laywer can only do so much when they have no proof.
Using force only helps them convince others you are guilty of something.
Of what? Removing a trespasser from your own property? I'm tired of this logic; sometimes force is acceptable and called for.
One time a lawyer left a long message on the machine for them trying to get them to call her before court the following day (where I assume she got a default judgement, since I doubt they knew or cared about it).
Or more than likely, it was the collection agency lying and trying to scare you into paying.
You call your state's AG office, and report them, because all of those things are illegal to do when attempting to collect a debt. And yes, it shuts them up real quick, because I've done just that.
I never said anything about it costing less to use paypal, did i? I was simply stating what many merchants do.
No... no one is forced to accept checks, so if one ran their business as cash only, they could in theory offer lower prices.
Technically even places that offer to accept cards are allowed to offer cash discounts; most don't either to keep prices lower overall, or to pocket the "extra" profit.
This was really common during computer shows & sales; the cash discounts were pretty steep, sometimes $20 - 30 for a $120 item. Obviously more than the credit card fee.
On top of that, businesses that don't take credit cards have to deal with turning away customers that don't carry cash or won't pay for things in cash.
I'm one of those types of customers; the number of stores that don't take cards is still pretty high, and you're right that I don't go to them because of it, but its not like cards are taken everywhere.
Oddly enough, PayPal manages to find a way to best both in terms of pain-in-the-assedness.
Well it is owned by eBay.
Should have learned about WW2 by then, I'd imagine.
Companies have no way of knowing if someone is a nutjob. Believe it or not, I don't want to have nutjobs working under me, so when it comes time to hire a new tech, you can bet I won't be hiring any nutjobs. You're acting like the company "wants" to hire nutjobs, or has some policy saying the must hire nutjobs.
I never said they wanted to hire nutjobs, but their screening is lacking. I hate to break this to you, but nobody that goes off like this his a complaint free record. They do have a way; proper screening, and monitoring the employee after they are hired.
"He should have been fired." Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty?" How would you like it if some jerk decided to claim you did something you didn't in order to get you fired? One of our collection people where I work was talking to a customer one day, and I heard the customer raising a **** fit. Later that day, when the same customer came in, he claimed that the collection fellow had been cursing him out -- little did he know I was there the whole time listening in.
That only applies to criminal cases. VZ can fire him for any reason, or no reason. And its really fucking clear in this case, being the employee was CAUGHT BY AN OFF DUTY COP WHILE CHASING THE CUSTOMER.
If the man is guilty, then sue the employee. Once the employee is now branded a criminal, then sue Verizon if they don't fire said criminal. In this system though, it's not fair to fire people over accusations -- which is all this guy has. Now, if you can show me where this guy was convicted (not charged, charged does not mean guilty) then you have a point.
Nope. VZ failed in their duty to make sure their employees can handle stress, THEY ARE LIABLE. Oh, and the employee would only be a "criminal" if criminal charges are filed.. but for some reason the procescutor is refusing to do so.
In this system though, it's not fair to fire people over accusations -- which is all this guy has. Now, if you can show me where this guy was convicted (not charged, charged does not mean guilty) then you have a point.
Again, did you miss the part where the employee wa CAUGHT BY AN OFF DUTY COP WHILE CHASING THE CUSTOMER?? Christ man, get a fucking grip on reality. You really want me to believe the customer beat his own face just to get some random VZ employee fired? WTF dude, you're not even in the same reality anymore.
As is, we have someone who was charged, but not convicted. It's tricky ground, but if anyone needs to be held accountable it should be the justice system that dismissed the case. The employer takes a risk if they fire someone over accusations.
No they don't; employers can fire anyone for any reason, or for no reason. They can fire you for not liking the color of your shirt today.
Doctors Insurance:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/OPINION/803130304
Oh... a poor doctor crying he has to pay more for insurance. Whaaa, my $450,000 / yr salary isn't enough, wahhh!! Yup, no conflict of interest there. No sir. After all, why SHOULDN'T he be able to leave a scaple inside a patient, and his only penelty should be "oh, sorry about that!"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25120613/
Not to mention, we get huge lawsuits like this all over the place. Sure, it can be spread out, but cases like this hurt all of us. If you think this is honestly a case of a company not caring about risking customer's lives, then there should be a criminal suit. Why money? Why isn't he trying to get people jailed? That's not what he wants, he wants (b$_$)b vacation plans.
Because you can't put a company in jail? Because he has MEDICAL BILLS which will need to be paid? Why should HIS health insurance pay because of the actions of VZ's employee? Because the victim CAN'T FILE A CRIMINAL SUIT? God damn, d
Poor stupid baby, can't admit he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Merchants build the fees they pay into the items you buy... so the theory is the item costs more than if nobody took credit cards.
No... it said carbs + fat or carbs + protien produced less of an insulin spike.
Try eating at mcdonalds or pizzas/whatever for a while, perfect carbs+fat content, and tell me how you will feel after a month of such a diet. The article shows this perfectly.
Interesting that a soda on its own will cause a rush followed by a crash, yet pizza or fries and a burger don't. Hrm.
Well, fire your trainer, require money back, and get a life.
Ya... I'll fire my trainer that helped me lose 80lbs of fat and gain 25lbs of muscle.
What should I do, being that bodybuilding is one of my many hobbies? Oh, I should be a fat slob like you that goes home after coding all day to code some more for free from my moms basement.
And your anger had nothing to do with: "Naturally, there were many supposed licenses which the former tech guy had assured me existed which did not exist, and I ended up uninstalling about fifteen copies of Office 2003 Pro because I simply could not find any evidence that they had been purchased."
And about your problems w/retail vs. volume license, its perfectly reasonable that there may be a difference. If your volume agreement says you'll buy volume licenses and not retail licenses, that's what you're supposed to do. Yes, in this case it may be stupid for the rep, because I'd imagine retail licenses would be more exensive than volume ones, but at the end of the day a volume agree is a contract you voluntarly entered into... on the other hand, it may complicate support issues too, since I believe there are different support channels for retail vs. volume licensed customers.
Just because you think the difference is stupid or irrelevent doen't it mean it is; I'm suprised a super genius like you couldn't have figured that out on your own.
Good vs evil is argued by those of low intelligence.
I dunno.. I think it demonstrates a failing eductation system. You need to know where you're coming from before you can understand where you're going. Knowing how the universe works should be common knowledge.
But then, we still have people believing that a zombie doesn't want gay people to get married..
What year? We didn't cover WW2 until 10th grade, IIRC.
Um let me get this straight... you're mad because you were caught using pirated software?
No, MS will sell them softare, it will just be Vista or 7. And if the company refuses, the judge WILL come down on them. What bubble are you living in?