Well for a start, in this country the correct amount of weapons to carry is zero - carrying anything with intent to use it as a weapon is illegal. However, to correct a misinterpretation, the rule is specifically that you may not use excessive force to neutralise a threat. As a rule of thumb, responding with equal force is preferred because that's easily defensible in court, while responding with something in excess of that (i.e. a knife when the assailant has a stick) will be harder to defend. If the assailant dies, that makes it harder again to defend. Though as a side note if your response includes a gun you are automatically screwed, as firearms are not legally allowed to be carried except for very limited cases (i.e. police).
You do realise that deadly force is not considered an excessive response to deadly force right? I.e. if you're trying to kill me, killing you is valid self defence?
On the flip side, feel free to move to Europe. At least then your fucked-up self will be even further away from me.
So by "stodgiest and most old fashioned" you mean all of them? Where I am, doesn't matter where you work, only managers are ever allowed to work from home. And I suspect "work from home" really means "work from golf course". (Granted, some of those managers work at work and home - we've got one that can be seen working no less than 16 hours per day).
You have a strange definition of "more than nothing". Microsoft makes lots of websites, many of which they have nothing to do with the content of. Why, by that logic you could say that my employer is part owned by Microsoft because they wrote one of our web services.
MSNBC is 100% owned by NBCUniversal, and 0% owned by Microsoft.
I am not, you are correct. That is a frightening statute - I can't imagine what kind of crazy permits murder in response to an angry fellow trying to punch you.
MSNBC is wholly (as in 100%) owned by NBC Universal. Microsoft has 0% ownership of MSNBC. MSNBC partners with Microsoft to provide the website, and that's it.
Too lazy to even look it up on Wikipedia? "Although Microsoft and NBC shared operations of MSNBC cable at its founding, it was announced on December 23, 2005, that NBCUniversal would purchase a majority stake in the television channel, which left Microsoft with 18%, later reduced to zero."
Stupid fuck. What the HELL did you think 0% meant? More than 0?!?!? Stupid, stupid, slashdotter. Microsoft sold their stake in MSNBC half a decade ago.
What's wrong with unmanaged dedicated? The provider doesn't know your password so essentially it's the same as co-locating (i.e. the provider can get into it anyway, since they have physical access but they'll have to hack it to do so).
For what it's worth, it doesn't specifically say you may not be armed (though as we do not permit people to carry guns, weapons or sharp things in public, and guns must be kept unloaded in a locked cabinet at home, it might as well), and the jury does have the discretion to decide based on the evidence whether the response to a threat was justified. The law simply states that you may not use excessive force to defend yourself, and leaves the definition to circumstance. Shooting an unarmed person would be an instant manslaughter charge at the least (plus other charges for illegal use of a firearm).
If you were just wandering about and some guy started following you with a gun, wouldn't you get a bit suspicious, maybe even take an opportunity to attack and disarm that person before they could shoot you?
Sounds to me like he should at least be facing manslaughter charges - if he hadn't decided to go after the unarmed guy with a gun there's good odds that at worst a punch up would have happened and noone ends up dead.
Wow, sounds like that friend of yours needs a new job. Calling the cops to come out and interview every single person who's "wandering around aimlessly" sounds like a thoroughly inefficient use of taxpayer resources. I can't imagine how someone "wandering around" can even scope houses out anyway - I'd say the point that becomes suspicious is when the suspect is also paying an inordinate amount of attention to the houses while wandering.
Does your country not have clauses on the self-defence legislation limiting your actions to only what's reasonably necessary to neutralise the threat? Over here, if someone attacks you and you shoot them, you're on the hook for murder (or manslaughter) unless the threat was also holding a gun. As a general rule, one is permitted only to use equivalent force to that which the attacker is using if you want to trot out the self-defence.. er, defence..
To be honest, the only chance they have is to tax the transaction itself instead - otherwise you essentially give a leg up to foreign merchants. This isn't a new idea - retailers in many countries have been advocating it on the basis that foreign merchants can undercut them because they don't have to pay taxes (newsflash for Aus/NZ retailers: foreign merchants can undercut you even with GST, because you charge too fucking much).
For the billionth time, it isn't "giving Amazon a pass" it's recognition of the fact that the reality is you can't tax purchases that occur over the internet or the telephone. The first problem is whose tax rules should apply... the source? Nice and easy, but that results in double taxation as the destination jurisdiction demands a "use tax" payment - and if the destination is a different country, an entire treaty is needed just to prevent it being taxed twice. The destination rules might work, but what about where the tax should be collected? You could collect it at the source, but then you have the problem of retailers outside of your jurisdiction - you can't apply laws to them (DealExtreme for example would be unlikely to charge and remit the tax. Besides, Europe already tried this and got told to get bent by the USA, so it'd be pretty hypocritical to try it). Collect at the destination instead? Could work - but you either have to do it on the honour system, rely on retailers to hand your local authority their entire sales receipts so they can comb through looking for transactions that need tax collected (not going to happen) or apply it at the border - which doesn't really work in places like the USA where goods don't pass through customs agents getting from A to B.
She registered it then promptly filled it with slander and libel (which she removed when his attention was drawn in her direction). Definitely not free speech.
No, deliberately lying with intent to smear someone's reputation should be illegal whether money is involved or not - not to be confused with claiming things under a good faith belief they're true. It's not free speech, and never has been. The restraints you claim aren't needed already exist, and should continue exist.
That's a poor example - Gmail supports OAuth. Slashdot would be a better example, as it doesn't support protocols and technologies invented after 1992.
Well for a start, I've never met a Chinese person who didn't agree with the Great Firewall. So the reality is that the point of it is that people actually like it.
Oh fuck off. People choose to use whatever product they want, and who are you to decree that they are doing it by mistake because you dislike their choices.
God, OSS zealots piss me off more than "social media marketers".
I'm confused. If there's implementations of it in key open source operating systems licensed under OSS terms such as GPL, can you really call it "closed, proprietary" any more? One suspects you'd have to call it "open" then.
The cashier is violating their merchant agreement accepting that card. They are required to hand the card back and demand you sign the back - failing to do so means they can be fined gigantic amounts and/or have their processing cut off. They're also violating their merchant agreement if they ask for ID, with the same penalties.
By writing "REQUIRE ID" and expecting them to honour it you're actually exposing them to some serious business risk.
This is the argument often trotted out by Americans defending Apple's practices, and no matter how many times it gets trotted out it's still a load of crap. This is not new - Apple always had to cover manufacturing defects for 2 years (or more. Where I live in New Zealand, Apple would be expected to cover manufacturing defects for no less than five years). And AppleCare still offers more than the statutory warranty does anyway (coverage for some varieties of accidental damage, phone support, limited "how do I" type support, and most importantly global coverage - all of which are not mandatory).
The price isn't going to go up any more than it already was going to. All that will happen is Apple will release new guidelines for pushing AppleCare to greater focus on what it does give you rather than just the "it's a longer warranty" angle.
Why bother? It doesn't matter how much evidence you have, the issuing bank will still side with the cardholder. Verify the person all you want, it's cheaper to just eat the chargeback than to spend extra time and money verifying individuals and still have to eat the chargeback. The only safe way is to require all purchases to be online, and to require 3DS verification - then liability shift applies and it becomes the issuing bank's problem.
Also, you missed two steps step in the chain - Walmart's processor and merchant service provider (likely their bank).
Slashdot Mirror
Well for a start, in this country the correct amount of weapons to carry is zero - carrying anything with intent to use it as a weapon is illegal. However, to correct a misinterpretation, the rule is specifically that you may not use excessive force to neutralise a threat. As a rule of thumb, responding with equal force is preferred because that's easily defensible in court, while responding with something in excess of that (i.e. a knife when the assailant has a stick) will be harder to defend. If the assailant dies, that makes it harder again to defend. Though as a side note if your response includes a gun you are automatically screwed, as firearms are not legally allowed to be carried except for very limited cases (i.e. police).
You do realise that deadly force is not considered an excessive response to deadly force right? I.e. if you're trying to kill me, killing you is valid self defence?
On the flip side, feel free to move to Europe. At least then your fucked-up self will be even further away from me.
So by "stodgiest and most old fashioned" you mean all of them? Where I am, doesn't matter where you work, only managers are ever allowed to work from home. And I suspect "work from home" really means "work from golf course". (Granted, some of those managers work at work and home - we've got one that can be seen working no less than 16 hours per day).
You have a strange definition of "more than nothing". Microsoft makes lots of websites, many of which they have nothing to do with the content of. Why, by that logic you could say that my employer is part owned by Microsoft because they wrote one of our web services.
MSNBC is 100% owned by NBCUniversal, and 0% owned by Microsoft.
I am not, you are correct. That is a frightening statute - I can't imagine what kind of crazy permits murder in response to an angry fellow trying to punch you.
MSNBC is wholly (as in 100%) owned by NBC Universal. Microsoft has 0% ownership of MSNBC. MSNBC partners with Microsoft to provide the website, and that's it.
Too lazy to even look it up on Wikipedia? "Although Microsoft and NBC shared operations of MSNBC cable at its founding, it was announced on December 23, 2005, that NBCUniversal would purchase a majority stake in the television channel, which left Microsoft with 18%, later reduced to zero."
Stupid fuck. What the HELL did you think 0% meant? More than 0?!?!? Stupid, stupid, slashdotter. Microsoft sold their stake in MSNBC half a decade ago.
What's wrong with unmanaged dedicated? The provider doesn't know your password so essentially it's the same as co-locating (i.e. the provider can get into it anyway, since they have physical access but they'll have to hack it to do so).
For what it's worth, it doesn't specifically say you may not be armed (though as we do not permit people to carry guns, weapons or sharp things in public, and guns must be kept unloaded in a locked cabinet at home, it might as well), and the jury does have the discretion to decide based on the evidence whether the response to a threat was justified. The law simply states that you may not use excessive force to defend yourself, and leaves the definition to circumstance. Shooting an unarmed person would be an instant manslaughter charge at the least (plus other charges for illegal use of a firearm).
If you were just wandering about and some guy started following you with a gun, wouldn't you get a bit suspicious, maybe even take an opportunity to attack and disarm that person before they could shoot you?
Sounds to me like he should at least be facing manslaughter charges - if he hadn't decided to go after the unarmed guy with a gun there's good odds that at worst a punch up would have happened and noone ends up dead.
Correction: MSNBC. No relation to Microsoft.
Um, Microsoft has absolutely nothing to do with MSNBC and hasn't for at least five years. It's called MSNBC not MicrosoftNBC.
Wow, sounds like that friend of yours needs a new job. Calling the cops to come out and interview every single person who's "wandering around aimlessly" sounds like a thoroughly inefficient use of taxpayer resources. I can't imagine how someone "wandering around" can even scope houses out anyway - I'd say the point that becomes suspicious is when the suspect is also paying an inordinate amount of attention to the houses while wandering.
Does your country not have clauses on the self-defence legislation limiting your actions to only what's reasonably necessary to neutralise the threat? Over here, if someone attacks you and you shoot them, you're on the hook for murder (or manslaughter) unless the threat was also holding a gun. As a general rule, one is permitted only to use equivalent force to that which the attacker is using if you want to trot out the self-defence.. er, defence..
To be honest, the only chance they have is to tax the transaction itself instead - otherwise you essentially give a leg up to foreign merchants. This isn't a new idea - retailers in many countries have been advocating it on the basis that foreign merchants can undercut them because they don't have to pay taxes (newsflash for Aus/NZ retailers: foreign merchants can undercut you even with GST, because you charge too fucking much).
For the billionth time, it isn't "giving Amazon a pass" it's recognition of the fact that the reality is you can't tax purchases that occur over the internet or the telephone. The first problem is whose tax rules should apply... the source? Nice and easy, but that results in double taxation as the destination jurisdiction demands a "use tax" payment - and if the destination is a different country, an entire treaty is needed just to prevent it being taxed twice. The destination rules might work, but what about where the tax should be collected? You could collect it at the source, but then you have the problem of retailers outside of your jurisdiction - you can't apply laws to them (DealExtreme for example would be unlikely to charge and remit the tax. Besides, Europe already tried this and got told to get bent by the USA, so it'd be pretty hypocritical to try it). Collect at the destination instead? Could work - but you either have to do it on the honour system, rely on retailers to hand your local authority their entire sales receipts so they can comb through looking for transactions that need tax collected (not going to happen) or apply it at the border - which doesn't really work in places like the USA where goods don't pass through customs agents getting from A to B.
She registered it then promptly filled it with slander and libel (which she removed when his attention was drawn in her direction). Definitely not free speech.
No, deliberately lying with intent to smear someone's reputation should be illegal whether money is involved or not - not to be confused with claiming things under a good faith belief they're true. It's not free speech, and never has been. The restraints you claim aren't needed already exist, and should continue exist.
That's a poor example - Gmail supports OAuth. Slashdot would be a better example, as it doesn't support protocols and technologies invented after 1992.
Well for a start, I've never met a Chinese person who didn't agree with the Great Firewall. So the reality is that the point of it is that people actually like it.
Oh fuck off. People choose to use whatever product they want, and who are you to decree that they are doing it by mistake because you dislike their choices.
God, OSS zealots piss me off more than "social media marketers".
I'm confused. If there's implementations of it in key open source operating systems licensed under OSS terms such as GPL, can you really call it "closed, proprietary" any more? One suspects you'd have to call it "open" then.
The cashier is violating their merchant agreement accepting that card. They are required to hand the card back and demand you sign the back - failing to do so means they can be fined gigantic amounts and/or have their processing cut off. They're also violating their merchant agreement if they ask for ID, with the same penalties.
By writing "REQUIRE ID" and expecting them to honour it you're actually exposing them to some serious business risk.
Unless you can't replace the damn thing yourself, then it gets considered part and parcel of the device.
This is the argument often trotted out by Americans defending Apple's practices, and no matter how many times it gets trotted out it's still a load of crap. This is not new - Apple always had to cover manufacturing defects for 2 years (or more. Where I live in New Zealand, Apple would be expected to cover manufacturing defects for no less than five years). And AppleCare still offers more than the statutory warranty does anyway (coverage for some varieties of accidental damage, phone support, limited "how do I" type support, and most importantly global coverage - all of which are not mandatory).
The price isn't going to go up any more than it already was going to. All that will happen is Apple will release new guidelines for pushing AppleCare to greater focus on what it does give you rather than just the "it's a longer warranty" angle.
Why bother? It doesn't matter how much evidence you have, the issuing bank will still side with the cardholder. Verify the person all you want, it's cheaper to just eat the chargeback than to spend extra time and money verifying individuals and still have to eat the chargeback. The only safe way is to require all purchases to be online, and to require 3DS verification - then liability shift applies and it becomes the issuing bank's problem.
Also, you missed two steps step in the chain - Walmart's processor and merchant service provider (likely their bank).