I never said asking somebody to leave is the same as cuffing. Do you see that in my statement?
It's kind of the whole topic. I assumed we were talking about the case in the story, right? If you were referring to some other real or hypothetical case, well I'm sorry for offending your sense of order; please discontinue reading and disregard my previous comment.
Anyway, if a business doesn't like the way you're conducting yourself, their only real "remedy", so to speak, is to ask you to leave, which the law obliges you to respect. Of course they could risk a citizen's arrest if they suspect you of actual criminal action on the premises, but that's just not a very good idea. Maybe for shoplifting, perhaps, but not for the purpose of enforcing general civil and criminal statutes that don't affect the store, its employees and patrons.
To get back to my point here, it would appear that in the case at hand (again, assuming we're discussing the story above), REI's agents did the opposite of asking the patron to leave by physically restraining him.
What if you have information that will help them? I live in a relatively high-crime neighborhood, and I've had quite a few interactions with the local police regarding crimes committed in my neighborhood or by my neighbors, everything from simple assaults, hit and runs, and drug dealing all the way up to homicides. Granted, I was never treated as a suspect, but I was happy to relay all the information I had to the cops, since I have a vested interest in decreasing crime in this neighborhood.
In that case, it's too bad that they got themselves a reputation that you can't talk to them without risking your own liberty and property. And as far as "if you are a suspect or could possibly become a suspect", well, that's everyone, isn't it?
Stores that are open to the public must sell to the public, although they can remove people for whatever reason as long as the reason is not a wholesale restriction against a protected class. They can remove you because you do not have a shirt, you are too loud, you smell, you are causing a mess, you have been bad in the past and are banned from the store. They can also disguise their reason to make it seem valid, such as when a store owner does not want to serve black folks.
Yes, but asking you to leave is not quite the same thing as cuffing you.
The flip-side of this is that money collected from all these texters helps subsidize my (and your) voice calls.
Now, contrast this with your statement about text costs:
The retail cost is whatever the market will bear. . . . and is not necessarily tied to the actual cost of the good.
So before you said texting costs what it does because of the market, but voice calls are subsidized by profits from texting. Now you've backpedaled, and said the voice price was the "market in action", rather than being subsidized by text profits.
Voice calls used to cost $1.00 a minute but most customers thought that was waaaay too high, so there's been a pressure to move that price lower-and-lower over time to around 20 cents per minute.
So I'll assume you've changed your mind about the text subsidy.
Interesting of all the notable Harvard grads that you would pick those two as "bent on the destruction of the U.S." As opposed to Ted Kaczynski, or maybe Theodore Hall? I mean, DuBois hasn't even been all that active for the last, oh I dunno, 45 years or so . . .
I've no real understanding of how this interacts with bluetooth device pairing, as I've never gotten this to work for me, but hopefully it requires you to first pair the keyboard or mouse in question with the bluetooth chip while running an OS with bluetooth enabled.
I've got a Dell Bluetooth keyboard/mouse combo that works like that: It appears to the OS as a USB mouse and keyboard. It came factory pre-paired with its own adapter. This is incredibly convenient, since you don't even need to have a Bluetooth-aware OS, it works right out of the box. It's also incredibly inconvenient for the same reasons, since you'd need to do some googling to figure out how to un-pair and re-pair.
Also interesting, the Dell hardware appears to be re-packaged Logitech stuff. When using it with Linux, you can see the firmware ID string when the devices appears on the USB. Since I don't want to lose by geek cred: I bought the setup in a wootoff, not from Dell.
I've tried bluetooth mice, and there's a bit too much lag on it for me. Also, bluetooth drains batteries a hell of a lot more than RF wireless.
I assume you mean "more than [other] RF wireless". I've got the Dell-badged Logitech mouse/keyboard combo (from a wootoff). Both the keyboard and mouse are powered by 2 AAs, and I get about 2 months battery life from both. If I use rechargeable batteries, I only get a few weeks, since they self-discharge faster than the hardware drains them . . . I've never found mouse lag to be a problem, except when the mouse is sleeping and has to wake up again -- if I'm using it constantly I don't notice a problem. I don't play games, though, so I can't address lag in that context.
It comes pre-paired with its own dongle, you'd have to do some research to use it with another adapter. The upside to that is that it looks just like a USB keyboard/mouse to your OS in stock configuration.
Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.
Stock price moves may not have the same kind of "randomness" as a roll of the dice, but they're certainly not deterministic, either. If they were, we'd all be rich, except the other guy, of course. If we were to write a game based on equity trading, the "market model" used would probably be a Monte Carlo simulation.
And what about poker and similar games? The "price" of the bet is determined the players, who are estimating their chances versus each other's predicted actions using limited information. In other words, the poker table is a market.
I'm not arguing just to be contradictory here, but you did say: "Stocks and gambling are NOT equivalents. Not even close." and "Wayyyyyy different than gambling." and lastly ". . . it isn't random, like gambling." Randomness really means something is not perfectly predictable, but can only be predicted in a probabilistic sense.
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
Have you ever dealt with a private insurer for yourself or a relative with an expensive medical problem? I suspect not, or you would have seen plenty of cases of the insurance company denying coverage for various procedures, etc. because "they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children".
The correct term is universal health bureaucracy, there is no care involved.
Says the guy who obviously hasn't yet had to face a serious health problem without coverage or with inadequate health insurance. I know, you shouldn't be made to suffer just because of the poor choices made by others to have genetic disorders, evil employers or the lack of foresight to grow older.
If you think having government administered health coverage vs. private coverage will result in more bureaucracy, then you just haven't had to deal with your health insurance provider yet.
But joining a party different from the one you were elected under, in the middle of your term, should be outright unconstitutional.
To do that, we'd need to amend the Constitution to prohibit switching political parties. And to do that, we'd need to amend the Constitution to define/recognize/regulate political parties. Since political parties aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, it sounds like you've got your work cut out for you.
This is a contest to find and expert on plagiarism. If you're a so-called expert and win, sell your software to somebody else and make another 500 Euro.
I don't really get what you're saying. If the program is showing 35%+ of the paper as plagiarized, that's pretty much a preponderance of evidence right there. The program will tell you were the plagiarism is from, too, if it's anything like what I used.
You raise a good point. If the computer says it's plagiarism, then it is. Assuming that plagiarism is defined as, "what the program catches".
Does the public get any payback if research develops the Next Big Thing? Nope, the scientist goes off, gets a patent and gets wildly personally wealthy.
That would explain why all the kids these days want to grow up to be a wealthy scientist, rather than a pro athlete, rapper, or movie star. Stupid science, stealing our best minds!
I can't list anything to show it so I'm going to call you names" as your entire justification.
Sorry about that. I thought surely you'd find "Fascist Authoritarian" an honorable appellation. My bad, there.
Here is a hint, I asked you to show where I was wrong and you were right, you rambled a legal term that you have no clue what means in a legal sense, you are wrong, you know it, and this isn't 4chan or some kiddy group where the biggest whining and insults trump the truth.
I have no idea what "your" referring to. Do you mean "rejoinder", 'cause I'm not using that as a legal term there. But I don't think that's what you meant, since "rejoinder" just isn't such a long term that I could really give it a good "ramble". So what the hell are you talking about? "Constitution?" "Government?"
What original limitations?
How the hell should I know? You brought up the "original limitations" in the warrant you hypothesized. When you said: "A simple piece of paper in accordance with the law is sufficient as long as the cops/officers/agents/whoever stay within the limitations of the original warrant." I haven't seen this hypothetical warrant, and if we have it your way, I couldn't. So how could I know the limitations you alluded to? How could I point them out to you? Is "The Trial" your favorite book because it would be just awesome if our legal system could be so cool as that?
You seem to have this "i said so" justification for your position which doesn't work at all in reality with anything above a 5 year old who will eventually determine your full of shit and disobey you. Grow up.
Sauce for the goose, eh? Oh, and since we're doing remote analyses of each other's mental disorders, what could it be that you've got that makes you so detached that you completely fail to read my sardonic tone while maintaining your air of smug superiority?
Slashdot Mirror
I never said asking somebody to leave is the same as cuffing. Do you see that in my statement?
It's kind of the whole topic. I assumed we were talking about the case in the story, right? If you were referring to some other real or hypothetical case, well I'm sorry for offending your sense of order; please discontinue reading and disregard my previous comment.
Anyway, if a business doesn't like the way you're conducting yourself, their only real "remedy", so to speak, is to ask you to leave, which the law obliges you to respect. Of course they could risk a citizen's arrest if they suspect you of actual criminal action on the premises, but that's just not a very good idea. Maybe for shoplifting, perhaps, but not for the purpose of enforcing general civil and criminal statutes that don't affect the store, its employees and patrons.
To get back to my point here, it would appear that in the case at hand (again, assuming we're discussing the story above), REI's agents did the opposite of asking the patron to leave by physically restraining him.
What if you have information that will help them? I live in a relatively high-crime neighborhood, and I've had quite a few interactions with the local police regarding crimes committed in my neighborhood or by my neighbors, everything from simple assaults, hit and runs, and drug dealing all the way up to homicides. Granted, I was never treated as a suspect, but I was happy to relay all the information I had to the cops, since I have a vested interest in decreasing crime in this neighborhood.
In that case, it's too bad that they got themselves a reputation that you can't talk to them without risking your own liberty and property. And as far as "if you are a suspect or could possibly become a suspect", well, that's everyone, isn't it?
Stores that are open to the public must sell to the public, although they can remove people for whatever reason as long as the reason is not a wholesale restriction against a protected class. They can remove you because you do not have a shirt, you are too loud, you smell, you are causing a mess, you have been bad in the past and are banned from the store. They can also disguise their reason to make it seem valid, such as when a store owner does not want to serve black folks.
Yes, but asking you to leave is not quite the same thing as cuffing you.
This was on private property, though.
"In public" does not necessarily imply "on public property".
To say nothing of putting up this story wihtout giving REI or Loomis a chance to apologize.
Getting cuffed goes beyond a simple "I'm sorry", I think, and into "free kayak" territory.
I could hear the "whoosh!" of that "offtopic" moderation from here! cf: http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F06.html
The flip-side of this is that money collected from all these texters helps subsidize my (and your) voice calls.
Now, contrast this with your statement about text costs:
The retail cost is whatever the market will bear. . . . and is not necessarily tied to the actual cost of the good.
So before you said texting costs what it does because of the market, but voice calls are subsidized by profits from texting. Now you've backpedaled, and said the voice price was the "market in action", rather than being subsidized by text profits.
Voice calls used to cost $1.00 a minute but most customers thought that was waaaay too high, so there's been a pressure to move that price lower-and-lower over time to around 20 cents per minute.
So I'll assume you've changed your mind about the text subsidy.
The retail cost is whatever the market will bear. This idea goes all the way back to John Smith
Adam Smith?
Without texting the voice calls would have to be significantly higher in order to cover the maintenance/electricity costs.
Wouldn't the voice calls also cost whatever the market would bear, as you assert for text messages, and if not, why is this a special case?
Interesting of all the notable Harvard grads that you would pick those two as "bent on the destruction of the U.S." As opposed to Ted Kaczynski, or maybe Theodore Hall? I mean, DuBois hasn't even been all that active for the last, oh I dunno, 45 years or so . . .
I've no real understanding of how this interacts with bluetooth device pairing, as I've never gotten this to work for me, but hopefully it requires you to first pair the keyboard or mouse in question with the bluetooth chip while running an OS with bluetooth enabled.
I've got a Dell Bluetooth keyboard/mouse combo that works like that: It appears to the OS as a USB mouse and keyboard. It came factory pre-paired with its own adapter. This is incredibly convenient, since you don't even need to have a Bluetooth-aware OS, it works right out of the box. It's also incredibly inconvenient for the same reasons, since you'd need to do some googling to figure out how to un-pair and re-pair.
Also interesting, the Dell hardware appears to be re-packaged Logitech stuff. When using it with Linux, you can see the firmware ID string when the devices appears on the USB. Since I don't want to lose by geek cred: I bought the setup in a wootoff, not from Dell.
I've tried bluetooth mice, and there's a bit too much lag on it for me. Also, bluetooth drains batteries a hell of a lot more than RF wireless.
I assume you mean "more than [other] RF wireless". I've got the Dell-badged Logitech mouse/keyboard combo (from a wootoff). Both the keyboard and mouse are powered by 2 AAs, and I get about 2 months battery life from both. If I use rechargeable batteries, I only get a few weeks, since they self-discharge faster than the hardware drains them . . . I've never found mouse lag to be a problem, except when the mouse is sleeping and has to wake up again -- if I'm using it constantly I don't notice a problem. I don't play games, though, so I can't address lag in that context.
It comes pre-paired with its own dongle, you'd have to do some research to use it with another adapter. The upside to that is that it looks just like a USB keyboard/mouse to your OS in stock configuration.
Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.
Stock price moves may not have the same kind of "randomness" as a roll of the dice, but they're certainly not deterministic, either. If they were, we'd all be rich, except the other guy, of course. If we were to write a game based on equity trading, the "market model" used would probably be a Monte Carlo simulation.
And what about poker and similar games? The "price" of the bet is determined the players, who are estimating their chances versus each other's predicted actions using limited information. In other words, the poker table is a market.
I'm not arguing just to be contradictory here, but you did say: "Stocks and gambling are NOT equivalents. Not even close." and "Wayyyyyy different than gambling." and lastly ". . . it isn't random, like gambling." Randomness really means something is not perfectly predictable, but can only be predicted in a probabilistic sense.
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
Have you ever dealt with a private insurer for yourself or a relative with an expensive medical problem? I suspect not, or you would have seen plenty of cases of the insurance company denying coverage for various procedures, etc. because "they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children".
The correct term is universal health bureaucracy, there is no care involved.
Says the guy who obviously hasn't yet had to face a serious health problem without coverage or with inadequate health insurance. I know, you shouldn't be made to suffer just because of the poor choices made by others to have genetic disorders, evil employers or the lack of foresight to grow older.
If you think having government administered health coverage vs. private coverage will result in more bureaucracy, then you just haven't had to deal with your health insurance provider yet.
But joining a party different from the one you were elected under, in the middle of your term, should be outright unconstitutional.
To do that, we'd need to amend the Constitution to prohibit switching political parties. And to do that, we'd need to amend the Constitution to define/recognize/regulate political parties. Since political parties aren't even mentioned in the Constitution, it sounds like you've got your work cut out for you.
This is a contest to find and expert on plagiarism. If you're a so-called expert and win, sell your software to somebody else and make another 500 Euro.
I don't really get what you're saying. If the program is showing 35%+ of the paper as plagiarized, that's pretty much a preponderance of evidence right there. The program will tell you were the plagiarism is from, too, if it's anything like what I used.
You raise a good point. If the computer says it's plagiarism, then it is. Assuming that plagiarism is defined as, "what the program catches".
Does the public get any payback if research develops the Next Big Thing? Nope, the scientist goes off, gets a patent and gets wildly personally wealthy.
That would explain why all the kids these days want to grow up to be a wealthy scientist, rather than a pro athlete, rapper, or movie star. Stupid science, stealing our best minds!
Unfortunately that's called embezzlement and it's sort-of highly illegal.
Sounds more like fraud than embezzlement. But someone's gonna take advantage of the hypothetical boss, he's practically begging for it.
"There's a sale at Pennies!"
...giving part of your earnings to the community is an altruistic gesture...
I don't think it's altruism if I can be thrown in jail if I decide not to pay my taxes.
. . . and then spending my tax dollars to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate you? Thanks a lot, buddy!
It's true that our current income tax system is complex...
This is certainly an exciting off-topic thread. We really ought to have a poll/discussion on the merits of different forms of taxation!
Project much?
I can't list anything to show it so I'm going to call you names" as your entire justification.
Sorry about that. I thought surely you'd find "Fascist Authoritarian" an honorable appellation. My bad, there.
Here is a hint, I asked you to show where I was wrong and you were right, you rambled a legal term that you have no clue what means in a legal sense, you are wrong, you know it, and this isn't 4chan or some kiddy group where the biggest whining and insults trump the truth.
I have no idea what "your" referring to. Do you mean "rejoinder", 'cause I'm not using that as a legal term there. But I don't think that's what you meant, since "rejoinder" just isn't such a long term that I could really give it a good "ramble". So what the hell are you talking about? "Constitution?" "Government?"
What original limitations?
How the hell should I know? You brought up the "original limitations" in the warrant you hypothesized. When you said: "A simple piece of paper in accordance with the law is sufficient as long as the cops/officers/agents/whoever stay within the limitations of the original warrant." I haven't seen this hypothetical warrant, and if we have it your way, I couldn't. So how could I know the limitations you alluded to? How could I point them out to you? Is "The Trial" your favorite book because it would be just awesome if our legal system could be so cool as that?
You seem to have this "i said so" justification for your position which doesn't work at all in reality with anything above a 5 year old who will eventually determine your full of shit and disobey you. Grow up.
Sauce for the goose, eh? Oh, and since we're doing remote analyses of each other's mental disorders, what could it be that you've got that makes you so detached that you completely fail to read my sardonic tone while maintaining your air of smug superiority?
Didn't they even have space for an extra upper-case 'G'?
No, they already used it for Ctrl-G to ring the bell.