That's WoT (Wheel of Time) and I don't think there's a RTS game in the works for that franchise, only a piss-poor MMO that'll never get off the ground, what with all the braid-pulling and emoization of the main characters and all.
Any credit card issuer is obligated to refund under these circumstances for purchases between £100 and £30,000 in the UK.
Roughly the same is true in the US, but there is a time limit on filing your dispute in order for the charge to be either (1) charged back to the merchant or (2) placed on hold pending receipt of information from the merchant. I read the link you provided, didn't see anything there about time limits, which is what my post was addressing.
...when I asked for an even exchange they said my receipt was past the 60-day return limit so "sorry we can't exchange sizes". ...
Instead I contacted my credit card, told them what happened, and they reversed the charge on the basis of the merchant not fulfilling contractual obligations (selling the product advertised).
Can you tell us who the credit card issuer was, because I'd like to research switching a card to them. I'm curious what card issuer would have honored a request like that more than 60 days past date of sale. Most will not honor requests for charge reversals after 30 days, though I've had some luck with Amex between 30 and 60 days.
It surely wasn't Visa or Mastercard, since they are contractually obligated to the merchants not to reverse charges after 30 days past sale. Maybe the credit card company just ate it, since the cost of a 3-pack of tighty-whities was insignificant to the amount of money they're making off you.
Privacy isn't just about keeping your illegal activities hidden from an authority that can punish you for those activities. I don't want anyone to be able to glean the details of my day-to-day habits, be they bittorent use, physical locations, or anything else. Even if we had NO copyright laws, I'd still have a problem with people being able to track my actions. And FWIW, I have nothing to hide, AFAIK[1], other than routinely exceeding the speed limit in my car. I refuse on principle to violate copyrights.
[1] the AFAIK is a big problem. There's probably a good chance I violate some law or other occasionally, but I have no idea since there are so many laws on the books. But that just feeds into the privacy issue... I'm no Randian, but the massive amount of laws we have on the books that make innocuous behavior illegal means that I'm probably a criminal without knowing it. The best way to protect against this extant situation is to make sure I maintain the privacy of my activity. Better not to have that situation in the first place, but that's a topic for a different discussion.
That's not proof. That's an incomplete anecdote which only considers times of plenty (as differentiated from times of scarcity in my prevoius post).
They'll eschew the "weird food" unless they are starving, at which point those who take risks by eating the "weird food" survive to procreate while those who will not perish. Furthermore, there are plenty of adventurous people who would try the "weird food" despite cultural unfamiliarity with it -- and these people may have some reproductive advantage. I know some people who prefer adventurous mates.
Thus we have some scenarios where risk-taking is rewarded.
Evolution has taught to minimize risk and avoid it. Let someone else be brave, I'll stay here in my hole.
I disagree. I believe evolution has "taught" us to minimize risk in times of plenty, but to embrace it when competition for resources is stiff.
I also believe we have evolved to have some variety in levels of risk aversion. Coupled with the ability to have several or many offspring, a varied approached maximizes evolutionary fitness since a portion of your descendants will be able to adapt to change. I'm not sure if it's biological or cultural evolution, or some combination, that has done this.
IP is now the major export of the USA. Are you that fucking thick that you think the USA has ANY future unless it enforces IP law?
Perhaps if you'd look in the mirror, you'd see an even bigger gaping cunt staring back at you.
Get your facts right, maggot, before you infest us with your drivel.
Agricultural goods, aircraft, semiconductors, and cars (among other goods!) have higher dollar values exported than IP-related exports. Yes, IP is involved, since patents, etc, are a means by which the US maintains industries when labor is cheaper elsewhere.
But IP is not an export -- and if it were, it wouldn't even be our leading export.
This place is full of ignorant thieves today, as usual.
Well, gambling at its base is a tax on people that can't do math
Au contraire, mon frere.
Gambling is a way for those good at math to take advantage of those who are not good at math.
A casino? Good at math. Its patrons? Not so much.
A bookie? Good at math. His customers? Not so much.
The state? Good at math (in this case). Lottery players? Not so much.
Me being decent at poker? Good at math. My opponents? Not so much (when I win consistently, anyway:)).
Etc.
Although I will mention that for lotto, there's a utility aspect that makes the math equation work in favor of playing the lotto. A dollar a week (even compounded over many years) has almost no utility; life-changing winnings has extremely high utility. It's possible that the probability of winning, however low, is enough to make playing the lotto worth it. It's hard to quantify, though -- is $1 a week worth less than [probability of winning]*[jackpot value]? The human brain has trouble dealing with VLNs, so it's possible that millions of people are wrong, and it's a losing proposition to play the lotto. But I'm not convinced... especially since the act of just playing the lotto has a payoff.
Anyway, I know I digress, but I think calling gambling a tax on people who can't do math isn't quite correct.
The profits won't be going to a US-based casino, unless the operators are idiots. They'll put the business in a tax-sheltered place like the Cayman Islands. There's no compelling reason to have an internet-only business located in the US.
In general, though, I'd be a little more concerned with the level of the vig, and the fact that they want to assess it at the wager level. At competitive levels of play, the return for the good players is not huge -- it's dwarfed by this tax. Online gambling would become "everybody loses, except the taxing authority". I think it's too high, and should be at most 1-2%. Especially at the wager level -- I wouldn't mind so much if the tax was only assessed on cash payouts.
I think what they're looking at is wagers on events -- bookmaking -- not competitive games like poker.
Right, because anti-rejection drugs and a face full of nerve damage are waaaaay better than a few wrinkles.
I won't respond on the anti-rejection drugs... but a face full of nerve damage? That's par for the course for people who use modern medicine to remove wrinkles.
Look at the man in the cubicle across from you. Now look at the two men to the left of you. Now look at the two men to the right of you. One of them is surfing porn at work.*
Wrong. One of them *has* surfed porn at work at some point. They are not doing it necessarily right now. Times were different a few years ago when internet traffic was not routinely monitored and we had offices where no one could see our monitors.
Hell, I worked in a small office where the owner routinely mailed porn to everyone who worked there. I was asked about how I felt about porn when I interviewed there (in '96).
with that logic there would be no cops left in a month.:)
Exactly. Which would leave the local security and power void I need to begin Operation Tragic[1] Destiny, in which I seize control of the world's greatest economy by leveraging the power of my hand-picked local security forces across municipalities in the US.
Mwu-ha-ha-ha.
[1] It's tragic because moments after I achieve total domination of the US economy, I realize it's been surpassed individually by the economies of China, India, and Europe, and is struggling futilely to not be surpassed by the economies of the Pac Rim, Russia, South America, and the nascent powerhouse economy of Madagascar. (It's a long-term plan).
They overstepped their bounds a bit, but not a whole lot.
I disagree. They overstepped their bounds greatly. Regardless of whether they were just trying to defuse a rambunctious drunken crowd, they arrested someone solely for failing to provide ID. If public intoxication was the problem, arrests for public intoxication should have been the solution.
Instead we have officials of the law arresting someone for not showing their papers.
No. They should be charged with making a false arrest. They should be suspended without pay until the trial is resolved, and someone should make sure they aren't put on the PBA payroll during that time. If they are found guilty, they should be fired. Not suspended, fired.
The individuals in the police department that refused to release the video of the arrest -- on false pretenses, by the way -- should also be fired.
Finally, the head of the police department in question should be fired.
Why is that? By definition, then, kudos are egotistical. Kudos == acclaim. If he doesn't consider them worthy of kudos from him, then by definition, they are not.
Once you are above the karma threshold for mod points, it doesn't matter how your current posts are modded (unless they bring you back below the threshold). What matters is how often you access slashdot, and I think how often you post.
If you want to reduce the amount of modpoints you get... either access & post very frequently or access & post rarely.
That's not a requirement. The vast majority of our improvements were made without bothering with such regulation. It's something that can lead to further improvement, if done correctly, but it's not a requirement for raising human society out of the kind of misery and poverty that exist in the majority of the world.
Regulating social and environmental abuses is absolutely necessary, at a fundamental level. These are two things that are currently holding hundreds of millions, even billions, in poverty.
One example: Easy access to potable water (which depends on environmental regulations). Millions and millions of people in developing nations have access to water, but not to clean water. Disease and pollution-related ailments are a huge hindrance to economic development required to lift people out of poverty.
I live near a toll road. The state highway patrol will issue a ticket to you, if your average speed between your entry and your exit on that road is over the speed limit.
That's horrid. Can you please share the toll road so none of us get slammed with a ticket if we ever happen to drive there?
I had thought they weren't doing this anywhere... it was considered in NJ for the NJ Turnpike, but in the end they decided not to do it. But if there's precedent now of another state doing this, I'd be surprised if it wasn't revisited, given our budgetary woes.
And FWIW... one of the reasons they decided not to do it is because it would increase congestion during rush hour.
They don't have to know what route was taken. All they need to know is the fastest time you can possibly make the journey between points A and B without exceeding the speed limit, irregardless of routes. Sure, if somebody takes a few detours at twice the speed limit the system might not catch them.
That's all well and good for the normals out there, but what about people like me?
I never exceed the speed limit (ever!), but I routinely bend space in a loop for an immeasurable instant to pinch off the boring parts of my journeys. The satellites aren't going to pick that up, so they will of course assume that I've broken the speeding laws (I don't think they can give me a ticket for breaking the laws of nature, that's beyond their jurisdiction).
So what the hell am I supposed to do in the face of this annoying setup?
Horseshit. Refusing to comply with an order when that order is illegal or against the rules that both parties operate under is definitely justified.
Getting an email saying the boss was knowingly circumventing procedures would have absolved Terry of any hint of wrongdoing no matter what happened.
So it's all about CYA? That's weak, man. What if Terry was truly interested in maintaining security over the systems? What if Terry suspected his boss would plant evidence to condemn him?
They never would understand, and Terry should have figured that out in about 2 minutes and just did what he was told.
I don't want to invoke Godwin's law, so I won't directly. But you do understand the implications of what you're saying, right? That as long as you're following orders and documenting that you believe it's against the rules, then you're OK, because it's the easiest way out for yourself?
Screw that. Principles are more important than CYA, and I've put my money where my mouth is on that issue on more than one occasion.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, wrong franchise.
That's WoT (Wheel of Time) and I don't think there's a RTS game in the works for that franchise, only a piss-poor MMO that'll never get off the ground, what with all the braid-pulling and emoization of the main characters and all.
Roughly the same is true in the US, but there is a time limit on filing your dispute in order for the charge to be either (1) charged back to the merchant or (2) placed on hold pending receipt of information from the merchant. I read the link you provided, didn't see anything there about time limits, which is what my post was addressing.
Can you tell us who the credit card issuer was, because I'd like to research switching a card to them. I'm curious what card issuer would have honored a request like that more than 60 days past date of sale. Most will not honor requests for charge reversals after 30 days, though I've had some luck with Amex between 30 and 60 days.
It surely wasn't Visa or Mastercard, since they are contractually obligated to the merchants not to reverse charges after 30 days past sale. Maybe the credit card company just ate it, since the cost of a 3-pack of tighty-whities was insignificant to the amount of money they're making off you.
That's just silly. It's a matter of scale. Reference units are used within a few powers of ten.
Data: Books -- DVDs -- LOCs
Power: Horsepower -- Households -- POOTs (Power Output of Togo)
Area: Pinhead -- Football fields -- State of Delaware -- State of Texas -- Nothing's bigger than Texas
Volume: Volkswagens -- Buses -- Olympic swimming pools -- Britney Spear's Vagina
Length/height/width: Human hair -- Volkswagens laid end-to-end -- buses laid end-to-end -- Empire State Buildings
There are more, but my American fingers are tired from all this typing, so I need to re-energize myself with a double cheeseburger and fries.
I dunno about that.
Privacy isn't just about keeping your illegal activities hidden from an authority that can punish you for those activities. I don't want anyone to be able to glean the details of my day-to-day habits, be they bittorent use, physical locations, or anything else. Even if we had NO copyright laws, I'd still have a problem with people being able to track my actions. And FWIW, I have nothing to hide, AFAIK[1], other than routinely exceeding the speed limit in my car. I refuse on principle to violate copyrights.
[1] the AFAIK is a big problem. There's probably a good chance I violate some law or other occasionally, but I have no idea since there are so many laws on the books. But that just feeds into the privacy issue... I'm no Randian, but the massive amount of laws we have on the books that make innocuous behavior illegal means that I'm probably a criminal without knowing it. The best way to protect against this extant situation is to make sure I maintain the privacy of my activity. Better not to have that situation in the first place, but that's a topic for a different discussion.
That's not proof. That's an incomplete anecdote which only considers times of plenty (as differentiated from times of scarcity in my prevoius post).
They'll eschew the "weird food" unless they are starving, at which point those who take risks by eating the "weird food" survive to procreate while those who will not perish. Furthermore, there are plenty of adventurous people who would try the "weird food" despite cultural unfamiliarity with it -- and these people may have some reproductive advantage. I know some people who prefer adventurous mates.
Thus we have some scenarios where risk-taking is rewarded.
I disagree. I believe evolution has "taught" us to minimize risk in times of plenty, but to embrace it when competition for resources is stiff.
I also believe we have evolved to have some variety in levels of risk aversion. Coupled with the ability to have several or many offspring, a varied approached maximizes evolutionary fitness since a portion of your descendants will be able to adapt to change. I'm not sure if it's biological or cultural evolution, or some combination, that has done this.
Perhaps if you'd look in the mirror, you'd see an even bigger gaping cunt staring back at you.
Get your facts right, maggot, before you infest us with your drivel.
Agricultural goods, aircraft, semiconductors, and cars (among other goods!) have higher dollar values exported than IP-related exports. Yes, IP is involved, since patents, etc, are a means by which the US maintains industries when labor is cheaper elsewhere.
But IP is not an export -- and if it were, it wouldn't even be our leading export.
So true, thanks for providing an example.
Au contraire, mon frere.
:)).
Gambling is a way for those good at math to take advantage of those who are not good at math.
A casino? Good at math. Its patrons? Not so much.
A bookie? Good at math. His customers? Not so much.
The state? Good at math (in this case). Lottery players? Not so much.
Me being decent at poker? Good at math. My opponents? Not so much (when I win consistently, anyway
Etc.
Although I will mention that for lotto, there's a utility aspect that makes the math equation work in favor of playing the lotto. A dollar a week (even compounded over many years) has almost no utility; life-changing winnings has extremely high utility. It's possible that the probability of winning, however low, is enough to make playing the lotto worth it. It's hard to quantify, though -- is $1 a week worth less than [probability of winning]*[jackpot value]? The human brain has trouble dealing with VLNs, so it's possible that millions of people are wrong, and it's a losing proposition to play the lotto. But I'm not convinced... especially since the act of just playing the lotto has a payoff.
Anyway, I know I digress, but I think calling gambling a tax on people who can't do math isn't quite correct.
The profits won't be going to a US-based casino, unless the operators are idiots. They'll put the business in a tax-sheltered place like the Cayman Islands. There's no compelling reason to have an internet-only business located in the US.
In general, though, I'd be a little more concerned with the level of the vig, and the fact that they want to assess it at the wager level. At competitive levels of play, the return for the good players is not huge -- it's dwarfed by this tax. Online gambling would become "everybody loses, except the taxing authority". I think it's too high, and should be at most 1-2%. Especially at the wager level -- I wouldn't mind so much if the tax was only assessed on cash payouts.
I think what they're looking at is wagers on events -- bookmaking -- not competitive games like poker.
I won't respond on the anti-rejection drugs... but a face full of nerve damage? That's par for the course for people who use modern medicine to remove wrinkles.
Wrong. One of them *has* surfed porn at work at some point. They are not doing it necessarily right now. Times were different a few years ago when internet traffic was not routinely monitored and we had offices where no one could see our monitors.
Hell, I worked in a small office where the owner routinely mailed porn to everyone who worked there. I was asked about how I felt about porn when I interviewed there (in '96).
Exactly. Which would leave the local security and power void I need to begin Operation Tragic[1] Destiny, in which I seize control of the world's greatest economy by leveraging the power of my hand-picked local security forces across municipalities in the US.
Mwu-ha-ha-ha.
[1] It's tragic because moments after I achieve total domination of the US economy, I realize it's been surpassed individually by the economies of China, India, and Europe, and is struggling futilely to not be surpassed by the economies of the Pac Rim, Russia, South America, and the nascent powerhouse economy of Madagascar. (It's a long-term plan).
I disagree. They overstepped their bounds greatly. Regardless of whether they were just trying to defuse a rambunctious drunken crowd, they arrested someone solely for failing to provide ID. If public intoxication was the problem, arrests for public intoxication should have been the solution.
Instead we have officials of the law arresting someone for not showing their papers.
Fuck that.
No. They should be charged with making a false arrest. They should be suspended without pay until the trial is resolved, and someone should make sure they aren't put on the PBA payroll during that time. If they are found guilty, they should be fired. Not suspended, fired.
The individuals in the police department that refused to release the video of the arrest -- on false pretenses, by the way -- should also be fired.
Finally, the head of the police department in question should be fired.
Cops who abuse their authority are despicable.
Trust me, I know the feeling, you twit.
:)
Why is that? By definition, then, kudos are egotistical. Kudos == acclaim. If he doesn't consider them worthy of kudos from him, then by definition, they are not.
Ew.
I mean, I know how we all feel about DRM'd games, but... ew.
Then you're doing it wrong.
Once you are above the karma threshold for mod points, it doesn't matter how your current posts are modded (unless they bring you back below the threshold). What matters is how often you access slashdot, and I think how often you post.
If you want to reduce the amount of modpoints you get... either access & post very frequently or access & post rarely.
Regulating social and environmental abuses is absolutely necessary, at a fundamental level. These are two things that are currently holding hundreds of millions, even billions, in poverty.
One example: Easy access to potable water (which depends on environmental regulations). Millions and millions of people in developing nations have access to water, but not to clean water. Disease and pollution-related ailments are a huge hindrance to economic development required to lift people out of poverty.
What state are you in (I'm assuming you're in the US)? Not all states require front license plates, though all require rear plates.
That's horrid. Can you please share the toll road so none of us get slammed with a ticket if we ever happen to drive there?
I had thought they weren't doing this anywhere... it was considered in NJ for the NJ Turnpike, but in the end they decided not to do it. But if there's precedent now of another state doing this, I'd be surprised if it wasn't revisited, given our budgetary woes.
And FWIW... one of the reasons they decided not to do it is because it would increase congestion during rush hour.
That's all well and good for the normals out there, but what about people like me?
I never exceed the speed limit (ever!), but I routinely bend space in a loop for an immeasurable instant to pinch off the boring parts of my journeys. The satellites aren't going to pick that up, so they will of course assume that I've broken the speeding laws (I don't think they can give me a ticket for breaking the laws of nature, that's beyond their jurisdiction).
So what the hell am I supposed to do in the face of this annoying setup?
Horseshit. Refusing to comply with an order when that order is illegal or against the rules that both parties operate under is definitely justified.
So it's all about CYA? That's weak, man. What if Terry was truly interested in maintaining security over the systems? What if Terry suspected his boss would plant evidence to condemn him?
I don't want to invoke Godwin's law, so I won't directly. But you do understand the implications of what you're saying, right? That as long as you're following orders and documenting that you believe it's against the rules, then you're OK, because it's the easiest way out for yourself?
Screw that. Principles are more important than CYA, and I've put my money where my mouth is on that issue on more than one occasion.
Sure, 1.0 was released in 1975. But was there an open beta?