>When you buy from eBay, it's easy to know if you are going to get scammed
Untrue. Quite a few of us are pretty savvy, and yet, have been scammed. And quite a few of us have stopped using Ebay forever, as a result. And Ebay protects the scammers, allows them to operate, and essentially, literally, operates as an accessory to wholesale fraud.
>Oh, you must mean the new ebay feature where they let you create your own random feedback number?/rolls eyes...
My last experience with Ebay (believe me it will be the last) was with a seller who does indeed seem to have fabricated his whole feedback profile. Apparently this is not the first time he's done it. He scammed me and several others, and Ebay considers the matter "closed."
I want my money and I personally want to see the perpetrator thrown into prison for a few decades, but that won't happen if Ebay is satisfied.
How did I know without looking, that Zahi Hawass would be the brain behind this idea? That guy, a political appointee archaeological hack, has set the science back 75 years and has done immeasurable damage. Until he dies, you will never see any Egyptian antiquity not connected to him.
Yes, do without TV. I thought this was an outrageous notion myself, until I did it. For me there were numerous benefits:
1. I had more free time, that I never even realized I was spending. Sometimes *five or six hours*, or even more. 2. I quit smoking. Because I wasn't sitting idly, I stopped chain-smoking. Almost by accident. 3. ROOM! I needed room for a grand piano in my house, but never thought I had it. The space occupied by a TV screen, together with the line-of-sight and the seating, is a *huge* investment of real estate. Get rid of it and re-think your room arrangement. You might have ten square meters you never considered before.
With all due respect, "Running for President" is a much higher goal than getting into a position with some authority in a university would be. Few people do the former, many do the latter.
In my life I have personally known only two presidential candidates, but I have known a few thousand people who are in various levels of decision-making authority in university organizations. I even have a brother who is a Dean of an accounting college, and my boss' boss sits on the board of regents of a Pac-10 university.
My advice was given in all seriousness, and you responded with a ridiculous point taking it to an extreme.
If freedom of information were really at stake, there would not already be a separation between "a member of the press" and "a fan" attending this event. When they grant you a press pass, they are asking you to represent them in the media, and in return, giving you special access to the event. If you do not agree with the way the organization asks to be represented, to whatever reasonable degree, you are acting as its adversary, and will not be invited to participate.
If I ask a photographer to shoot my wedding, and somebody does upskirts and downblouses of the bride and all the bridesmaids, he's getting two black eyes and he's gonna eat the camera.
Would you say that's limiting "freedom of information" to put such restrictions on the photographer too?
The blogging restriction is hardly a suppression of free speech.
"What exactly does the NCAA hope to accomplish by revoking press credentials when just about anyone can blog from anywhere with nothing more than a smart phone?"
You have rights that you agree to have abridged when you ask for a license.
If you do not want to be constrained by the NCAA rules, don't go begging them for a press pass. It's that simple.
Complicated if you are a professional journalist but, if you are, it's not the only place you've been asked to abide by the rules.
If you can't follow NCAA rules, how do you think you'll do in the White House press corps?
You can't take back the fact that you sent the letter. It will come out in court, and it can work against the plaintiff's case.
If you made a claim in some correspondence that had no validity, it can destroy your otherwise strong case when it is used by the defense as evidence of bad faith on your part.
Also, if you say something libelous in a C&D letter, it can certainly be used against you as evidence in an entirely separate action.
It's not drivel. Be careful what you let your lawyers say to people.
* You send the C&D letter to someone with litigious interests of their own, and in doing so gave them an argument that you have attempted to abridge *their* rights.
Always consider Risks in your Cost/Benefit analysis. Sending a letter may indeed commit you, legally, to a course of action.
There is always a process by which things like civil asset forfeiture can be challenged. Trouble is, in so many cases, the people having their assets seized are actually guilty (usually drug possession or tax evasion), and giving up property can yield better results than trying to defend oneself from a position of guilt.
If your story is true, you could and should sue the IT worker for damages starting with the amount of the fines. At the very least you can ensure that his future employers see him as a liability (you garnish his pay until the fines are settled, for instance.)
Slashdot Mirror
>When you buy from eBay, it's easy to know if you are going to get scammed
Untrue. Quite a few of us are pretty savvy, and yet, have been scammed. And quite a few of us have stopped using Ebay forever, as a result. And Ebay protects the scammers, allows them to operate, and essentially, literally, operates as an accessory to wholesale fraud.
I didn't believe this until I experienced it.
>Good job pulling the listing of a completed auction, Fraud Department.
This has happened to me recently, and EBay refuses to respond to my questions in any way, and they have closed my complaint.
I consider EBay an accessory to the crime, and I intend to press criminal charges.
>Oh, you must mean the new ebay feature where they let you create your own random feedback number?
My last experience with Ebay (believe me it will be the last) was with a seller who does indeed seem to have fabricated his whole feedback profile. Apparently this is not the first time he's done it. He scammed me and several others, and Ebay considers the matter "closed."
I want my money and I personally want to see the perpetrator thrown into prison for a few decades, but that won't happen if Ebay is satisfied.
For me the lottery is where someone files a lawsuit against me for distributing my own material to which I hold the copyright.
So can you give me the name and number of one of these employees who takes fraud seriously? I'd like to see someone jailed, please.
If you want to get worked up over something like this, look up the stories of Philo T. Farnsworth or Nathan Stubblefield.
How did I know without looking, that Zahi Hawass would be the brain behind this idea?
That guy, a political appointee archaeological hack, has set the science back 75 years and has done immeasurable damage.
Until he dies, you will never see any Egyptian antiquity not connected to him.
Let's hear from theater lighting pros, visual artists, and photographers on this.
>Perhaps you are not aware, but televisions can be used to view things besides OTA signals.
In my sample, I find not one single person actually using a TV receiver and an antenna to receive broadcast TV.
Yes, do without TV. I thought this was an outrageous notion myself, until I did it.
For me there were numerous benefits:
1. I had more free time, that I never even realized I was spending. Sometimes *five or six hours*, or even more.
2. I quit smoking. Because I wasn't sitting idly, I stopped chain-smoking. Almost by accident.
3. ROOM! I needed room for a grand piano in my house, but never thought I had it. The space occupied by a TV screen, together with the line-of-sight and the seating, is a *huge* investment of real estate. Get rid of it and re-think your room arrangement. You might have ten square meters you never considered before.
They actually know to back down when somebody has an answer to "Oh yeah? You and what army?"
>I wonder why this isn't taught in driver's ed.
It is taught, but like many reasonable things that conflict with instinctive nature, it is not learned.
With all due respect, "Running for President" is a much higher goal than getting into a position with some authority in a university would be. Few people do the former, many do the latter.
In my life I have personally known only two presidential candidates, but I have known a few thousand people who are in various levels of decision-making authority in university organizations. I even have a brother who is a Dean of an accounting college, and my boss' boss sits on the board of regents of a Pac-10 university.
My advice was given in all seriousness, and you responded with a ridiculous point taking it to an extreme.
>I doubt that's how the NCAA sees it.
I'm sure the stadium can make a "no phones/PDA's in use" policy and apply it to press, fans, officials, etc., too.
Nothing in this discussion is relevant to anyone who is not a sports journalist covering college athletics in the US.
>This idea that you have to have a press pass to blog about a game is outdated.
You read the article backwards.
If you want that press pass, you agree to blog under certain conditions.
If you don't want that press pass, you can text the game play by play on your handy.
Do whatever it takes to get yourself on the board of regents of a university with a voting stake in the NCAA, and change the status quo.
Can't do that? Accept what is beyond your power to change, realizing that other have done what you cannot.
>freedom of information
If freedom of information were really at stake, there would not already be a separation between "a member of the press" and "a fan" attending this event. When they grant you a press pass, they are asking you to represent them in the media, and in return, giving you special access to the event. If you do not agree with the way the organization asks to be represented, to whatever reasonable degree, you are acting as its adversary, and will not be invited to participate.
If I ask a photographer to shoot my wedding, and somebody does upskirts and downblouses of the bride and all the bridesmaids, he's getting two black eyes and he's gonna eat the camera.
Would you say that's limiting "freedom of information" to put such restrictions on the photographer too?
The blogging restriction is hardly a suppression of free speech.
"What exactly does the NCAA hope to accomplish by revoking press credentials when just about anyone can blog from anywhere with nothing more than a smart phone?"
You have rights that you agree to have abridged when you ask for a license.
If you do not want to be constrained by the NCAA rules, don't go begging them for a press pass. It's that simple.
Complicated if you are a professional journalist but, if you are, it's not the only place you've been asked to abide by the rules.
If you can't follow NCAA rules, how do you think you'll do in the White House press corps?
>If violence was used, they are too be dismissed immediately
s/dismissed/executed/
>You can't (successfully) sue for receiving a C&D
You can't take back the fact that you sent the letter. It will come out in court, and it can work against the plaintiff's case.
If you made a claim in some correspondence that had no validity, it can destroy your otherwise strong case when it is used by the defense as evidence of bad faith on your part.
Also, if you say something libelous in a C&D letter, it can certainly be used against you as evidence in an entirely separate action.
It's not drivel. Be careful what you let your lawyers say to people.
You left off:
Risks:
* You send the C&D letter to someone with litigious interests of their own, and in doing so gave them an argument that you have attempted to abridge *their* rights.
Always consider Risks in your Cost/Benefit analysis. Sending a letter may indeed commit you, legally, to a course of action.
There is always a process by which things like civil asset forfeiture can be challenged.
Trouble is, in so many cases, the people having their assets seized are actually guilty
(usually drug possession or tax evasion), and giving up property can yield better results
than trying to defend oneself from a position of guilt.
If your story is true, you could and should sue the IT worker for damages starting with the amount of the fines. At the very least you can ensure that his future employers see him as a liability (you garnish his pay until the fines are settled, for instance.)
>It's hardly impossible to buy a home PC with XP on it these days.
Microsoft can force the issue by refusing to provide new activations.
>there's only like a couple hundred cs majors here
That's not surprisingly small, considering the smallish undergrad enrollment.
How many EE's? Do Eng majors take cross-listed CS courses?
Is there an obvious ethnic divide between "CS" majors and "EE" majors?