I wonder what it is about my account that has kept Paypal from deciding I am a scammer.
I've moved a couple thousand in and out a couple of times, purchasing hardware. I sell, I buy. What is it about my account that shows Paypal I'm not a problem? What is it that other people do that signals Paypal they might be doing something strange?
Those are the real questions. But nobody answers them, they just say "Paypal sucks!"
If my balance over 2 or 3 days is never over $50 or so...how catastrophic can it be?
There must be some weird underground way of using Paypal that all you folks use...do people really keep thousands of dollars (or even hundreds) in their Paypal account? Why? Paypal isn't a bank!! Do people really hook their Paypal account up to a bank account containing their life savings??? Who would do that??
I don't know how you work, but when people put money in my Paypal account, I don't keep it there. I move it somewhere else.
Is it just me, or is the common thread in all these Paypal-sucks stories that people are a bit less than diligent?
Paypal has never told me they were a bank. They've never acted like a bank, and I've never treated them like a bank. I've treated them just like I've treated every other online merchant I've dealt with: minimize exposure at all times, and treat each transaction atomically.
So far, it is working for me.
I guess that's the difference between you and I...I don't keep $12,000 in an account hooked to Paypal, so even if I did experience what you experienced, the total amount of grief would probably be a lot less.
I mean, seriously...you deal with 10 other banks? That's what, 10-20 other accounts? Who has that many accounts? From my perspective, you're already telling me something sketchy just by admitting you have that many accounts. It certainly isn't "normal" in my part of the world to have that many accounts at that many banks.
So, I hope you can see why I would be skeptical of any such stories.
I have one account tied to Paypal. I only keep enough money in there to cover whatever I'm going to do...the rest of my money is in a savings account (where it should be). Transferring money from savings to the account tied to Paypal is a simple phone call that I can make from anywhere. Nice, clean, FDIC insured, no worries...if moeny gets taken from my savings account (which isn't tied to Paypal at all), it isn't my concern, it is my bank's.
I've been using Paypal since 1998. As a seller and a buyer. I also have my iTunes account hooked up to it, and also use their ATM/debit/Mastercard. Transaction amounts have ranged from as little as $1.00 to as high as a couple thousand for a laptop.
I've never once, NOT ONCE, since 1998, had a problem with Paypal. The only issue I have with them is their practice of taking a couple extra days to credit my account, but this somewhat sneaky (it is only sneaky because I don't like it, they clearly state how long I might have to wait for my funds) practice is outweighed tremendously by the convenience of their service.
I've been mystified for years at all the complaints about how bad Paypal is...I've never experienced any evidence of it at all, and neither has anyone I know.
This makes me doubt the stories describing how bad Paypal is...I would think that in 7 years of use, me or someone I know would have experienced something bad if Paypal really was as bad as the stories describe.
That's because a well-run McDonald's calibrates their soda dispensers a couple times a week. It's in the manual.
Calibrating the dispensers consists of getting a measuring cup designed specifically for the purpose, and then timing a certain amount of syrup or water as it is dispensed into the cup. Too much? Tweak the little screw to the right (there's a special screwdriver made specifically for this purpose, too). Too little? Tweak the screw the other way. Do the same thing for the water. Then do the same process on all the other soda flavors.
The correct dispensing times are in the manual, too.
BTW, Coca-Cola syrup at McDonald's is delivered by tanker truck, hundreds of gallons at a time. There's a monster stainless steel tank in the storeroom holding the syrup (the one in my McDonald's was 500 gallons, and that was in 1990...they're probably bigger now...we didn't really didn't sell a lot of super-size back then). The truck driver pulls up, uses his key to unlock a small door panel next to the storeroom door (look at your local McDonald's...you'll see it), then jacks a hose in there and blasts however many hundreds of gallons you ordered in there...just like the guy who delivers gasoline to your local service station or heating oil to a house. My guess is places like big cineplex movie theaters, etc. are the same.
Small restaurants typically use the bag-in-a-box syrup...thus, no consistency from box to box, and they probably don't calibrate their dispensers at all. Cans, depending on where you live, undergo many temperature extremes. They can sit in a hot truck all day before being delivered to the store, they can sit outside on a pallet in the sun where they cool off at night and repeat the cycle, etc. Bulk syrup comes right from the bottler.
McDonald's does use the cheapest option...there's nothing cheaper soda-wise than hundreds of gallons of bulk syrup.
The cup, lid, and straw (and the ice) cost far more than the syrup. Kinda puts the $4 32 oz at the movie theater into perspective.
Your rant is just as worthless as his review. Thank you for making that clear to us.
A worthwhile reply to his review would have been something a tad bit more substantial than:
You do not know the purpose Acrylic serves nor what it is capable of, and try comparing it with another app that you are used to. And an app that is not even in the same league as Acrylic.
OK, what purpose does Acrylic serve, if you're Mr. Know-It-All? You never tell us. Yeah, that helps.
Or:
In fact, you're not even comparing it against the right application, and you ignore the fact that _you_ are used to Photoshop's UI and features.
Which is the "right" application? Gosh, you don't tell us that, either! What a surprise.
Or this little gem:
My, my! Do you know anything about software product development at all? Almost all good products of any kind take a good many generations to mature.
Maybe he doesn't, maybe he does. You haven't listed your creds, either, so where do you get off copping an attitude?
Dude, before you sprain your arm patting yourself on the back on what a good job you did giving that guy a piece of your mind, you might want to take a couple seconds and realize that your contribution to the whole issue had zero value.
Man, since when did people start believing that pointless, circular, arrogant drivel with zero concrete information was any less ridiculous than "reviews from Joe Schmoe off the street"?
Depends on what you call "OS X". Darwin is freely available and running on Intel now. The only thing you can't get for free from Apple is the GUI, which can be replaced with GNOME or KDE. Tom Yager discusses: http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/06/03/23TCtige r_1.html
No, NASA discovers SPACE SUITS from the 60's. It's not like there were a bunch of astronauts tucked away in a closet somewhere waiting for the "go" signal.
Information is easy to copy. I will clarify my point: information is easy to create, too. That doesn't make it true, and in the scenario I first replied to, any such damaging information would be immediately suspect.
We're seeing this now...how much of the news is actual, unbiased, investigated news, and not packaged press releases from someone (government, whatever) with a special interest? Yet we see it on TV and automatically assume it is news because it sounds like news, it has anchors and talking heads, and fancy graphics, and grainy footage, and its on TV.
I'm not running away from anything, I'm advocating a bit of critical thinking to address the scenario in the grandparent, as I originally quoted: just because something looks authentic doesn't make it authentic.
How can they make sure someone hasn't burned a CD that contains the truth?
How can the person who burned the CD prove that it actually is the truth?
Remember, anything on a computer, any sort of file, any sort of document, ANYTHING on a computer can be programmatically generated.
It will look authentic, if read out loud it might sound authentic, but there is NO WAY anyone can actually prove any output from a computer is "the truth". That is, "the truth" meaning unadulterated, unedited, unmodified and to quote Donald Sutherland, "un fooled around with".
If a person has such a CD, the only thing they can prove is that they have a CD with some data on it. Whether that data is actual data, created by the actual people in question, is another, completely separate issue and impossible to prove.
IANAL, but it never ceases to amaze me how easily people look at something generated by a computer and say "Oh! That's gotta be true!" I would think that any lawyer with a moderate level of intelligence and a moderate understanding of information systems would be able to blow holes the size of battleships into any argument that some sort of CD or tape or whatever was actual, "true" data.
Hire a college CS student to whip up a perl program to fill a CD with data that looks just like the CD in question ought to be enough. The only thing left after that would be witness testimony, and you could bring all sorts of reasons why someone would lie about the origin of the CD: afraid of losing their job, etc.
I happen to think he's right, and I've been an avid GNU/Linux user, admin, and supporter (yes, with real money) since 1994.
I also firmly believe that NONE of this would have happened if PJ of Groklaw were male. Heck, it wouldn't suprise me if "she" actually was a guy, or a group of people.
Admit it...the way people rabidly jump to her defense at the slightest provocation is a little strange. Keep in mind that the O'Gara drama, as well as the McBride drama and all of the other drama associated with Groklaw has been going on for months. It's just recently boiled over to this level.
Would this much commotion occur if PJ were male? Hell, no.
Which means a significant portion of the indignation the GNU/Linux community exhibits in relation to Groklaw is based not on being right necessarily, but on being horny.
I'm not trolling...I happen to think SCO is wrong, and I appreciate Groklaw as a resource, but the way the community goes spastic at the drop of a hat where Groklaw is concerned is unseemly. It certainly does nothing to further efforts to expand Linux's user base, especially in the enterprise.
In it, you state that we need to come up with laws that support the use of guns for hunting and self protection. In my opinion, we already have those laws.
1) Nasty guns ("machine" guns, automatic rifles, bazookas, tanks, etc) are all illegal and have been for decades.
2) In most states where people get uptight about guns, there are laws requiring waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, mandatory registration, and more for everything that isn't in the "nasty" category and isn't a long gun (shotgun or rifle).
3) That leaves long guns - shotguns and rifles.
So, you're unhappy with the current laws. Since the current laws already make "nasty" guns illegal with severe punishment for breaking the laws, and since the current laws in most places place heavy restrictions and registration requirements on handguns (if they aren't illegal outright), you must, therefore, want even stricter laws.
In my opinion, you can't get any stricter than the current legislation unless you ban guns entirely. Think about it: what more do you want to do? That was my point earlier, which you deflected by saying "I don't have all of the answers" or words to that effect.
You also made the remark about "cater to every idiot who thinks he's an action hero."
So, you've got (paraphrasing) "we need more quality laws, the current strict laws aren't good enough" and "some people who have guns think they're action heros".
In short, you want to have a "dialogue" about "quality laws" but you haven't identified what's wrong with the current laws, though we can guess how you feel about them and law-abiding gun owners in general from your statements. Therefore, in my opinion, your "dialogue" about "quality" gun laws will consist of something along the lines of making all guns impossible to own or nearly so, or making them illegal completely. That's not a dialogue, that's a demand. Because, as I've described, the current laws already make it very difficult or impossible to get a gun that most people would define as "bad" (the nasty ones and handguns). So what more can there be to make you happy except getting rid of all of them, long guns included?
Maybe you're speaking from the point of view of your particular state, I don't know. But if your state has poor gun laws, that isn't my problem, because my state has good, reasonable gun laws. My state also has areas of high gun crime, but I've already pointed out that more or stricter gun laws will do nothing against criminals because criminals don't obey any law in the first place, let alone a gun law.
Ah, so how do you judge a law's quality? What is the metric?
What's your proposal, then? You want more gun laws, how will you guarantee that your laws are "better" (higher "quality" whatever that means) than those already on the books?
You have a strange point of view, and a strange way of relating completely unconnected circumstances.
Our high prison population is not caused by a large number of guns. It is caused by economic and cultural problems, like poor schools, lack of decent jobs, a huge number of single parent and no-parent households, and more. No, I'm not saying all single parent households are bad or lead to crime, I'm saying it is a lot more difficult to raise children by yourself, and when you do, there will be times when you can't be everywhere at once to protect or watch your child, which can lead to your child going astray.
I'm not sure what you mean by every country in the free world allowing more personal freedom than the US. That comment doesn't make any sense, frankly. Sure, some things that people do are frowned upon by certain segments of American society (the religious right, for example) but that doesn't mean you can't do them, and it certainly doesn't mean those things are illegal.
I'm not trying to persuade you, that's obviously a lost cause. As I pointed out, a gun allows you to prevent someone else from forcing you to do something you don't want to do. Pretty simple concept, actually.
A gun may be a "pussy's" weapon in a street fight, but street fights aren't why the Second amendment was written. The reason for the Second amendment was to prevent tyranny and dictatorship in a free society. In short, if the government has all the guns, and you don't have any, what do you do when the government tells you to do something you don't want to do? Where do you run to?
How do you know your 4 foot street punk isn't armed? You're saying no criminals in the UK have weapons? I find that hard to believe. I'd welcome some proof, and not just something that's anecdotal.
Like I said, you have it exactly backwards. More gun laws do not keep criminals from having guns, because criminals do not obey the law in the first place (by definition), so why would they obey a gun law?
I haven't agreed with anything you've said, BTW. On a side note, Canada has a huge number of guns, but much less crime than the US. Kinda lends credence to the idea that high crime and high prison populations aren't directly related to the number of guns now, doesn't it?
The US is based on the idea that you can point a gun at someone and tell them what to do.
You have it exactly backwards.
The US is based on the idea that you can point a gun at someone and keep THEM from telling YOU what to do.
Ironically, the US developed that point of view specifically because leaders of some places (like the UK) DID point guns at you and tell you what to do.
Maybe you could realize that there are hundreds, perhaps many thousands, of gun laws already in place, and adding more does nothing.
Maybe you could realize that gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens, which are exactly the people that DON'T cause problems with guns. The people who do (they're called criminals) ignore laws against things like rape, murder, assault, and more and there's a really really good chance they'll ignore any other law, gun or not, that you and your friends put on the books.
Wow, you are so wrong. Trent Reznor and Nine Inch Nails have a huge following, worldwide. I'm sure there are thousands of people burning up the chatwaves right now with questions like "what's GarageBand?" and "Do you have it?" and/or "Can you get it?". Even "Does it run on Windows?" and "Do you know someone with a Mac?". Every NIN fan is going to know about this, and I guarantee you there are WAY more of them then there are people with a copy of Reason. It's a good bet, then, that there will be lots of remix activity.
GoDaddy is a negative in my book, based on personal experiences.
I can't say enough good things about Name Cheap (namecheap.com). They rock...only $8.88 per year per domain, and I've had domains lapsed many weeks (2-3 months) and they were able to pull them back from the "about to be released" pool (or whatever the official term is) and renew them for me.
Fast customer support, and above all, they tell you what's going on when you ask a question, I've never gotten a boilerplate response from them.
I have no relationship with Name Cheap other than as a very satisfied customer.
It's not about someone stealing Granny Smith's data. It's about Granny Smith suing the pharmacy because someone stole her data. Imagine a pharmacy that fills 10,000 prescriptions. Now imagine half of that data gets compromised. That's 5,000 potential lawsuits. Even if the lawsuits are bogus, the pharmacy is still going to incur costs dealing with them, not to mention any insurance premiums that might go up and any loss in business if word gets around on the street that dealing with that pharmacy is a good way to get your identity stolen.
My Dad's retired...fear of identity theft is HUGE in the senior population...I'd say people are more afraid of that now than they are of getting terminally ill. Insurance covers getting sick, nothing covers someone cleaning out your life savings and leaving you to eat cat food.
Huh??? Why not just move the PC with the person? Then it wouldn't make any difference at all where the user stored their files, they'd have the same PC and the same drive.
Where I work, that's how it is done. We don't wipe anything...the PC you have when you start is your PC until it gets renewed (every 3 years).
It's been a long time since I was a manager at McDonald's so things might have changed since then, but I can tell you that when I was there, no such policy existed, in either franchised or corporate stores.
At the time I worked there, the policy was pretty simple:
- if someone complained about being shortchanged while they were at the register (or soon thereafter), the register was immediately closed, the drawer pulled, and a count done. If the customer was right, you gave them their money right then with an apology. No forms, nothing of the sort. If the customer was wrong, you went in the back, closed out the drawer in the computer, got a new one from the safe, and put the employee back on a register with the new drawer.
- if no customer complained during a cashier's shift, the drawer was pulled at the end of the shift and counted. Any variance, positive or negative, was logged into the computer. $2 variance was a write-up. More than $2 and you were fired, or at least told not to come back until the GM talked to you. Anything under a $2 variance was tracked monthly, keeping a running total. If it ever got to $2, you wrote them up.
As long as the cashier ran the month less than $2 off total either way, nothing happened. I used to have 16 year olds who kept their number in their head...if they got close to $2, their drawer would miraculously come up with a variance the other way to balance it out.
The only forms were computer screens filled out after each drawer was counted. The system already knew what the drawer should have in it based on the sales on that register. The closing manager would balance everything, and make sure the overnight money was correct (it was called "counting the safe"). Each drawer had $50 in it, there were usually 10-15 drawers, plus $200-$300 in change, plus the day's sales receipts which were kept in the safe until the next business day, when they'd be deposited.
Incidentally, a good manager could count a drawer in less than 5 minutes, never more than 10. Cash policy dictated that periodically during a rush you would skim the 20 dollar bills from all registers, and put them in the safe, so if you were on the ball, a cashier's drawer rarely had more than $200 or so in it at the end of a shift. Counting it took no time at all.
Also, it was policy during a rush, especially in drive-thru, to simply take all change and dump it in the drawer without counting it. It was quicker to ask "is it all there?" or "is it exact?" and take them at their word then to sit there and count it. We never had a problem...the drawer might be off $0.25 or so either way after a rush, but that was nothing if you were doing several thousands of dollars per hour in sales.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what it is about my account that has kept Paypal from deciding I am a scammer. I've moved a couple thousand in and out a couple of times, purchasing hardware. I sell, I buy. What is it about my account that shows Paypal I'm not a problem? What is it that other people do that signals Paypal they might be doing something strange? Those are the real questions. But nobody answers them, they just say "Paypal sucks!"
If my balance over 2 or 3 days is never over $50 or so...how catastrophic can it be? There must be some weird underground way of using Paypal that all you folks use...do people really keep thousands of dollars (or even hundreds) in their Paypal account? Why? Paypal isn't a bank!! Do people really hook their Paypal account up to a bank account containing their life savings??? Who would do that??
I don't know how you work, but when people put money in my Paypal account, I don't keep it there. I move it somewhere else. Is it just me, or is the common thread in all these Paypal-sucks stories that people are a bit less than diligent? Paypal has never told me they were a bank. They've never acted like a bank, and I've never treated them like a bank. I've treated them just like I've treated every other online merchant I've dealt with: minimize exposure at all times, and treat each transaction atomically. So far, it is working for me.
I guess that's the difference between you and I...I don't keep $12,000 in an account hooked to Paypal, so even if I did experience what you experienced, the total amount of grief would probably be a lot less.
I mean, seriously...you deal with 10 other banks? That's what, 10-20 other accounts? Who has that many accounts? From my perspective, you're already telling me something sketchy just by admitting you have that many accounts. It certainly isn't "normal" in my part of the world to have that many accounts at that many banks.
So, I hope you can see why I would be skeptical of any such stories.
I have one account tied to Paypal. I only keep enough money in there to cover whatever I'm going to do...the rest of my money is in a savings account (where it should be). Transferring money from savings to the account tied to Paypal is a simple phone call that I can make from anywhere. Nice, clean, FDIC insured, no worries...if moeny gets taken from my savings account (which isn't tied to Paypal at all), it isn't my concern, it is my bank's.
I've been using Paypal since 1998. As a seller and a buyer. I also have my iTunes account hooked up to it, and also use their ATM/debit/Mastercard. Transaction amounts have ranged from as little as $1.00 to as high as a couple thousand for a laptop.
I've never once, NOT ONCE, since 1998, had a problem with Paypal. The only issue I have with them is their practice of taking a couple extra days to credit my account, but this somewhat sneaky (it is only sneaky because I don't like it, they clearly state how long I might have to wait for my funds) practice is outweighed tremendously by the convenience of their service.
I've been mystified for years at all the complaints about how bad Paypal is...I've never experienced any evidence of it at all, and neither has anyone I know.
This makes me doubt the stories describing how bad Paypal is...I would think that in 7 years of use, me or someone I know would have experienced something bad if Paypal really was as bad as the stories describe.
That's because a well-run McDonald's calibrates their soda dispensers a couple times a week. It's in the manual.
Calibrating the dispensers consists of getting a measuring cup designed specifically for the purpose, and then timing a certain amount of syrup or water as it is dispensed into the cup. Too much? Tweak the little screw to the right (there's a special screwdriver made specifically for this purpose, too). Too little? Tweak the screw the other way. Do the same thing for the water. Then do the same process on all the other soda flavors.
The correct dispensing times are in the manual, too.
BTW, Coca-Cola syrup at McDonald's is delivered by tanker truck, hundreds of gallons at a time. There's a monster stainless steel tank in the storeroom holding the syrup (the one in my McDonald's was 500 gallons, and that was in 1990...they're probably bigger now...we didn't really didn't sell a lot of super-size back then). The truck driver pulls up, uses his key to unlock a small door panel next to the storeroom door (look at your local McDonald's...you'll see it), then jacks a hose in there and blasts however many hundreds of gallons you ordered in there...just like the guy who delivers gasoline to your local service station or heating oil to a house. My guess is places like big cineplex movie theaters, etc. are the same.
Small restaurants typically use the bag-in-a-box syrup...thus, no consistency from box to box, and they probably don't calibrate their dispensers at all. Cans, depending on where you live, undergo many temperature extremes. They can sit in a hot truck all day before being delivered to the store, they can sit outside on a pallet in the sun where they cool off at night and repeat the cycle, etc. Bulk syrup comes right from the bottler.
McDonald's does use the cheapest option...there's nothing cheaper soda-wise than hundreds of gallons of bulk syrup.
The cup, lid, and straw (and the ice) cost far more than the syrup. Kinda puts the $4 32 oz at the movie theater into perspective.
Your rant is just as worthless as his review. Thank you for making that clear to us.
A worthwhile reply to his review would have been something a tad bit more substantial than:
You do not know the purpose Acrylic serves nor what it is capable of, and try comparing it with another app that you are used to. And an app that is not even in the same league as Acrylic.
OK, what purpose does Acrylic serve, if you're Mr. Know-It-All? You never tell us. Yeah, that helps.
Or:
In fact, you're not even comparing it against the right application, and you ignore the fact that _you_ are used to Photoshop's UI and features.
Which is the "right" application? Gosh, you don't tell us that, either! What a surprise.
Or this little gem:
My, my! Do you know anything about software product development at all? Almost all good products of any kind take a good many generations to mature.
Maybe he doesn't, maybe he does. You haven't listed your creds, either, so where do you get off copping an attitude?
Dude, before you sprain your arm patting yourself on the back on what a good job you did giving that guy a piece of your mind, you might want to take a couple seconds and realize that your contribution to the whole issue had zero value.
Man, since when did people start believing that pointless, circular, arrogant drivel with zero concrete information was any less ridiculous than "reviews from Joe Schmoe off the street"?
Depends on what you call "OS X". Darwin is freely available and running on Intel now. The only thing you can't get for free from Apple is the GUI, which can be replaced with GNOME or KDE. Tom Yager discusses: http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/06/03/23TCtige r_1.html
I love the headline, inaccurate as it is.
NASA Discovers Space Spies From the 60's
No, NASA discovers SPACE SUITS from the 60's. It's not like there were a bunch of astronauts tucked away in a closet somewhere waiting for the "go" signal.
Running away? I'm not running away from anything.
Information is easy to copy. I will clarify my point: information is easy to create, too. That doesn't make it true, and in the scenario I first replied to, any such damaging information would be immediately suspect.
We're seeing this now...how much of the news is actual, unbiased, investigated news, and not packaged press releases from someone (government, whatever) with a special interest? Yet we see it on TV and automatically assume it is news because it sounds like news, it has anchors and talking heads, and fancy graphics, and grainy footage, and its on TV.
I'm not running away from anything, I'm advocating a bit of critical thinking to address the scenario in the grandparent, as I originally quoted: just because something looks authentic doesn't make it authentic.
How can they make sure someone hasn't burned a CD that contains the truth?
How can the person who burned the CD prove that it actually is the truth?
Remember, anything on a computer, any sort of file, any sort of document, ANYTHING on a computer can be programmatically generated.
It will look authentic, if read out loud it might sound authentic, but there is NO WAY anyone can actually prove any output from a computer is "the truth". That is, "the truth" meaning unadulterated, unedited, unmodified and to quote Donald Sutherland, "un fooled around with".
If a person has such a CD, the only thing they can prove is that they have a CD with some data on it. Whether that data is actual data, created by the actual people in question, is another, completely separate issue and impossible to prove.
IANAL, but it never ceases to amaze me how easily people look at something generated by a computer and say "Oh! That's gotta be true!" I would think that any lawyer with a moderate level of intelligence and a moderate understanding of information systems would be able to blow holes the size of battleships into any argument that some sort of CD or tape or whatever was actual, "true" data.
Hire a college CS student to whip up a perl program to fill a CD with data that looks just like the CD in question ought to be enough. The only thing left after that would be witness testimony, and you could bring all sorts of reasons why someone would lie about the origin of the CD: afraid of losing their job, etc.
I happen to think he's right, and I've been an avid GNU/Linux user, admin, and supporter (yes, with real money) since 1994.
I also firmly believe that NONE of this would have happened if PJ of Groklaw were male. Heck, it wouldn't suprise me if "she" actually was a guy, or a group of people.
Admit it...the way people rabidly jump to her defense at the slightest provocation is a little strange. Keep in mind that the O'Gara drama, as well as the McBride drama and all of the other drama associated with Groklaw has been going on for months. It's just recently boiled over to this level.
Would this much commotion occur if PJ were male? Hell, no.
Which means a significant portion of the indignation the GNU/Linux community exhibits in relation to Groklaw is based not on being right necessarily, but on being horny.
I'm not trolling...I happen to think SCO is wrong, and I appreciate Groklaw as a resource, but the way the community goes spastic at the drop of a hat where Groklaw is concerned is unseemly. It certainly does nothing to further efforts to expand Linux's user base, especially in the enterprise.
Perhaps I misread your post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=148803&thresh old=1&commentsort=0&tid=187&mode=thread&cid=124719 84)
In it, you state that we need to come up with laws that support the use of guns for hunting and self protection. In my opinion, we already have those laws.
1) Nasty guns ("machine" guns, automatic rifles, bazookas, tanks, etc) are all illegal and have been for decades.
2) In most states where people get uptight about guns, there are laws requiring waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, mandatory registration, and more for everything that isn't in the "nasty" category and isn't a long gun (shotgun or rifle).
3) That leaves long guns - shotguns and rifles.
So, you're unhappy with the current laws. Since the current laws already make "nasty" guns illegal with severe punishment for breaking the laws, and since the current laws in most places place heavy restrictions and registration requirements on handguns (if they aren't illegal outright), you must, therefore, want even stricter laws.
In my opinion, you can't get any stricter than the current legislation unless you ban guns entirely. Think about it: what more do you want to do? That was my point earlier, which you deflected by saying "I don't have all of the answers" or words to that effect.
You also made the remark about "cater to every idiot who thinks he's an action hero."
So, you've got (paraphrasing) "we need more quality laws, the current strict laws aren't good enough" and "some people who have guns think they're action heros".
In short, you want to have a "dialogue" about "quality laws" but you haven't identified what's wrong with the current laws, though we can guess how you feel about them and law-abiding gun owners in general from your statements. Therefore, in my opinion, your "dialogue" about "quality" gun laws will consist of something along the lines of making all guns impossible to own or nearly so, or making them illegal completely. That's not a dialogue, that's a demand. Because, as I've described, the current laws already make it very difficult or impossible to get a gun that most people would define as "bad" (the nasty ones and handguns). So what more can there be to make you happy except getting rid of all of them, long guns included?
Maybe you're speaking from the point of view of your particular state, I don't know. But if your state has poor gun laws, that isn't my problem, because my state has good, reasonable gun laws. My state also has areas of high gun crime, but I've already pointed out that more or stricter gun laws will do nothing against criminals because criminals don't obey any law in the first place, let alone a gun law.
Unless you are White Anglo Saxan Prodestant (wasp), the odds are against you from the start.
I heartily disagree, though discussing it would be pointless.
You have me confused with someone who is intolerant.
I'm perfectly happy with a dialog, provided it doesn't start with or include "outlaw all guns" or "anyone who owns a gun is a nut".
Ah, so how do you judge a law's quality? What is the metric? What's your proposal, then? You want more gun laws, how will you guarantee that your laws are "better" (higher "quality" whatever that means) than those already on the books?
You have a strange point of view, and a strange way of relating completely unconnected circumstances.
Our high prison population is not caused by a large number of guns. It is caused by economic and cultural problems, like poor schools, lack of decent jobs, a huge number of single parent and no-parent households, and more. No, I'm not saying all single parent households are bad or lead to crime, I'm saying it is a lot more difficult to raise children by yourself, and when you do, there will be times when you can't be everywhere at once to protect or watch your child, which can lead to your child going astray.
I'm not sure what you mean by every country in the free world allowing more personal freedom than the US. That comment doesn't make any sense, frankly. Sure, some things that people do are frowned upon by certain segments of American society (the religious right, for example) but that doesn't mean you can't do them, and it certainly doesn't mean those things are illegal.
I'm not trying to persuade you, that's obviously a lost cause. As I pointed out, a gun allows you to prevent someone else from forcing you to do something you don't want to do. Pretty simple concept, actually.
A gun may be a "pussy's" weapon in a street fight, but street fights aren't why the Second amendment was written. The reason for the Second amendment was to prevent tyranny and dictatorship in a free society. In short, if the government has all the guns, and you don't have any, what do you do when the government tells you to do something you don't want to do? Where do you run to?
How do you know your 4 foot street punk isn't armed? You're saying no criminals in the UK have weapons? I find that hard to believe. I'd welcome some proof, and not just something that's anecdotal.
Like I said, you have it exactly backwards. More gun laws do not keep criminals from having guns, because criminals do not obey the law in the first place (by definition), so why would they obey a gun law?
I haven't agreed with anything you've said, BTW. On a side note, Canada has a huge number of guns, but much less crime than the US. Kinda lends credence to the idea that high crime and high prison populations aren't directly related to the number of guns now, doesn't it?
You have it exactly backwards.
The US is based on the idea that you can point a gun at someone and keep THEM from telling YOU what to do.
Ironically, the US developed that point of view specifically because leaders of some places (like the UK) DID point guns at you and tell you what to do.
Maybe you could realize that there are hundreds, perhaps many thousands, of gun laws already in place, and adding more does nothing.
Maybe you could realize that gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens, which are exactly the people that DON'T cause problems with guns. The people who do (they're called criminals) ignore laws against things like rape, murder, assault, and more and there's a really really good chance they'll ignore any other law, gun or not, that you and your friends put on the books.
Wow, you are so wrong. Trent Reznor and Nine Inch Nails have a huge following, worldwide. I'm sure there are thousands of people burning up the chatwaves right now with questions like "what's GarageBand?" and "Do you have it?" and/or "Can you get it?". Even "Does it run on Windows?" and "Do you know someone with a Mac?". Every NIN fan is going to know about this, and I guarantee you there are WAY more of them then there are people with a copy of Reason. It's a good bet, then, that there will be lots of remix activity.
GoDaddy is a negative in my book, based on personal experiences.
I can't say enough good things about Name Cheap (namecheap.com). They rock...only $8.88 per year per domain, and I've had domains lapsed many weeks (2-3 months) and they were able to pull them back from the "about to be released" pool (or whatever the official term is) and renew them for me.
Fast customer support, and above all, they tell you what's going on when you ask a question, I've never gotten a boilerplate response from them.
I have no relationship with Name Cheap other than as a very satisfied customer.
It's not about someone stealing Granny Smith's data. It's about Granny Smith suing the pharmacy because someone stole her data. Imagine a pharmacy that fills 10,000 prescriptions. Now imagine half of that data gets compromised. That's 5,000 potential lawsuits. Even if the lawsuits are bogus, the pharmacy is still going to incur costs dealing with them, not to mention any insurance premiums that might go up and any loss in business if word gets around on the street that dealing with that pharmacy is a good way to get your identity stolen. My Dad's retired...fear of identity theft is HUGE in the senior population...I'd say people are more afraid of that now than they are of getting terminally ill. Insurance covers getting sick, nothing covers someone cleaning out your life savings and leaving you to eat cat food.
Huh??? Why not just move the PC with the person? Then it wouldn't make any difference at all where the user stored their files, they'd have the same PC and the same drive.
Where I work, that's how it is done. We don't wipe anything...the PC you have when you start is your PC until it gets renewed (every 3 years).
Isn't that authentication, and not security? They aren't the same thing.
It's been a long time since I was a manager at McDonald's so things might have changed since then, but I can tell you that when I was there, no such policy existed, in either franchised or corporate stores.
At the time I worked there, the policy was pretty simple:
- if someone complained about being shortchanged while they were at the register (or soon thereafter), the register was immediately closed, the drawer pulled, and a count done. If the customer was right, you gave them their money right then with an apology. No forms, nothing of the sort. If the customer was wrong, you went in the back, closed out the drawer in the computer, got a new one from the safe, and put the employee back on a register with the new drawer.
- if no customer complained during a cashier's shift, the drawer was pulled at the end of the shift and counted. Any variance, positive or negative, was logged into the computer. $2 variance was a write-up. More than $2 and you were fired, or at least told not to come back until the GM talked to you. Anything under a $2 variance was tracked monthly, keeping a running total. If it ever got to $2, you wrote them up.
As long as the cashier ran the month less than $2 off total either way, nothing happened. I used to have 16 year olds who kept their number in their head...if they got close to $2, their drawer would miraculously come up with a variance the other way to balance it out.
The only forms were computer screens filled out after each drawer was counted. The system already knew what the drawer should have in it based on the sales on that register. The closing manager would balance everything, and make sure the overnight money was correct (it was called "counting the safe"). Each drawer had $50 in it, there were usually 10-15 drawers, plus $200-$300 in change, plus the day's sales receipts which were kept in the safe until the next business day, when they'd be deposited.
Incidentally, a good manager could count a drawer in less than 5 minutes, never more than 10. Cash policy dictated that periodically during a rush you would skim the 20 dollar bills from all registers, and put them in the safe, so if you were on the ball, a cashier's drawer rarely had more than $200 or so in it at the end of a shift. Counting it took no time at all.
Also, it was policy during a rush, especially in drive-thru, to simply take all change and dump it in the drawer without counting it. It was quicker to ask "is it all there?" or "is it exact?" and take them at their word then to sit there and count it. We never had a problem...the drawer might be off $0.25 or so either way after a rush, but that was nothing if you were doing several thousands of dollars per hour in sales.