I turn to the inspirational science fiction that brings out the concepts of post-humanism.
You have the neo-philus human, who embraces change and looks to the future.
And you have the neo-phobus human, who fears change, and looks back to comfort or tradition as the answer against change.
Remember, most economic markets rely on a lack of change to prop them up. When volatility or change is introduced, heads roll by the hundreds. Beyond "growth", markets crave routine and predictable paths. That's why the natural move is towards a conglomeration or monopoly in big biz - there is less guess work about who is #1 where there are only 2 choices.
It takes the neophiles who also manage to make money to help introduce change into those same systems, and turn new ideas into new policy. We got the space program kicking into full blast when we were against the Soviets, as it was good for business at the time to fight "Communism" and boost Cold-War type spending for all the companies involved. And now space ideas turn into yearly federal budget alotments and not just blue-sky speculative investments from eccentrics.
This is also why the climate change debate is important. We need to be able to turn the renewable energy and CO2 reduction ideas into firm policy by drawing those afraid of change into the camps of the neophiles. Then we will have the financial heft needed to support research to keep moving forward. Even those dinosaur-burning dinosaurs known as the auto & power industries are finally getting on board to some small extent due to years of tireless science showing people that the change is inevitable and soon, no matter what humanity's debated impact is.
They've developed as the fourth estate of government. And that means that the other three aren't happy about losing any sort of power to the new guys. So, how does the press balance that out? They bias coverage. They put on the partisans that support their own agendas.
And so I agree with you - let them work.
This isn't right or wrong, as they are no different from any other group-in-power who sees a watchdog (even the watchdogs themselves) moving in on their turf and influence. Hearst's Yello Journalism helped to spark sentiment for a war, and Vietnam coverage helped to end it.
So again, I prefer this to having the old 3 estate system, because the press is a large group and so will offer me a great deal of information than if I just read Congressional transcripts or judicial case reviews all day long. They help me filter info, even as they filter what I receive. This is why blogging is an interesting addidtion to the cacaphony - I can overwhelm myself with different perspectives, and I get to use my judgement.
I no longer have only channel 4, 5, and 7 telling me 3 possible interpretations - I can choose from 457 people all telling me the relevance of an idea. This is also what history is about. Whereas most actual events or facts are not disputed, their importance to history and the world around them can be endlessly debated. If I get to read 2 histories about America, one from Gore Vidal and one from Simon & Schuster textbooks - then I can decide which interpretation of events had more influence.
I thought that was what the promise of a free(ish) press was all about. No complaints here. I don't expect them to be completely free of bias just as I don't expect my priest to be completely free of sin. How could they be human otherwise?
But I thought one of the admirable things of the internet was cutting out the inter-library loan. I can connect to the Japan cloud, Brasil cloud, and Massachusetts cloud with the same amount of ease. The fact remains that these ISPs keep the backbones humming and the fiber lit - and that is also why we can download huge torrents and stream videos from Youtube and MMORPG with huge graphics and lowered lags. Your town clouds all subsist on those backbones.
One of the ways out of the monopoly market of ISPs comes from towns and cities taking back the maintenance and infrastructure of the backbones that pass through them.
I live in suburban Mass, where cable selection is nil - the company comes in, takes over the wires and upkeep, and gets to have the monopolies. In the cities, where the government controls the wires, the companies have to compete and the consumer gets a deal.
I have no idea about the tug of war btw private industry vs public utility being "better". That is a different debate, but at least we can all agree monopoly abuse always stifles competition and innovation.
I can't imagine that this would concievably be cheaper than the "wizard" chainmail cutting gloves. Those things are excellent.And not all that much money.
Maybe this would be more useful in a construction environment, where your whole body is at a little more risk than a kitchen - where extremities are the main concern for stab stab from rogue rivets, nails, enclosed areas.
It could also be an idea to make existing safety equipment less heavy, like your steeltoe boots or hard hat. Intriguing.
ESRB is setup by the software industry as a self-regulatory agency. They did this for the very reason you are upset about - to keep the arbitrary ratings out of the government's hands and keep it in the hands of the producers.
Same thing with the motion picture agency ratings - your movie doesn't have to have a rating, but it does to get shown in any of the big box theatres.
Self-regulation by the business. Hard to say who does a better job - government groups, consumer groups, buisiness groups.
Not necessarily true - most 401k's are comprised of mutual funds, which is a collection of stocks. You buy the fund from a mutual fund company, who decides which stocks go into their funds. Unless you get voting rights, it is irrelevant. And unless you own enough to become a significant or majority holder, you are invisible as a stockholder.
And most, if not all, of your pension fund is invested in long-term bonds, due to IRS regs. Sometimes you get to decide which bonds or investments they use, but you are not a shareholder at all in your pension - your company trust is the one who owns those investments. So again, you are invisible. Maybe you could write up your fund company to yank XYZ stock from the fund due to immorality or some other non-financial reason. Good luck with that.
Our problem as citizens is that we do not have an effective lobby group like industry does. Companies are a group of people, united together for a common goal, market, product, etc. They focus power with combined efforts. Your senators and reps are like a company, they supposedly are focusing the efforts and desires of their constituents towards a common goal, like finance reforms, trade laws, etc.
Same idea with the lobby, they focus efforts of groups of special interests like related companies, towards a single goal of legislation. Lobbies kick the crap outta the representative process b/c they circumvent the citizens and go right to the top. Like if you had a suggestion at work, and you worked in the mailroom - in a big place you'd have a hell of a time getting the CEO to listen. But a CEO of another company (ie the lobbyist) has a much easier time and greater access - they are social / economic equals. And so it goes. The timber lobby has a powerful reach and is comparable to the reach of a DC Senator. One controls lots of logs and the other controls lots of laws.
Getting citizens together to form a cohesive, single-minded lobby is one of the ways to answer this challenge. So would limiting lobbyist access and funding to senators. So would term limits or increasing budget / legislative oversight. However, as many citizens prefer to be single-issue voters, we are kept enthralled with the dog-and-pony weekly show of some new shiny issue, and so the underlying weaknesses in our democracy are propped up by cold cash.
Don't blame the politicians, they are barely human and only exist to bloat each other up with fame, money, and power, because we turned a blind eye and got distracted by this busy world of abortions, evolution, internets, and Beanie Babies. If we find a way to starve them from the lobby tit, we have an opportunity to change thier focus back to the citizens in order to feel powerful and famous again, and consequently actually end up representing the interests of the individual once again.
Sorry again to reader ConteXXt, I forgot about the line breaks in my original post. That sucks.:-)
Not necessarily true - most 401k's are comprised of mutual funds, which is a collection of stocks. You buy the fund from a mutual fund company, who decides which stocks go into their funds. Unless you get voting rights, it is irrelevant. And unless you own enough to become a significant or majority holder, you are invisible as a stockholder.
And most, if not all, of your pension fund is invested in long-term bonds, due to IRS regs. Sometimes you get to decide which bonds or investments they use, but you are not a shareholder at all in your pension - your company trust is the one who owns those investments. So again, you are invisible.
Maybe you could write up your fund company to yank XYZ stock from the fund due to immorality or some other non-financial reason. Good luck with that.
Our problem as citizens is that we do not have an effective lobby group like industry does. Companies are a group of people, united together for a common goal, market, product, etc. They focus power with combined efforts. Your senators and reps are like a company, they supposedly are focusing the efforts and desires of their constituents towards a common goal, like finance reforms, trade laws, etc. Same idea with the lobby, they focus efforts of groups of special interests like related companies, towards a single goal of legislation.
Lobbies kick the crap outta the representative process b/c they circumvent the citizens and go right to the top. Like if you had a suggestion at work, and you worked in the mailroom - in a big place you'd have a hell of a time getting the CEO to listen. But a CEO of another company (ie the lobbyist) has a much easier time and greater access - they are social / economic equals. And so it goes. The timber lobby has a powerful reach and is comparable to the reach of a DC Senator. One controls lots of logs and the other controls lots of laws.
Getting citizens together to form a cohesive, single-minded lobby is one of the ways to answer this challenge. So would limiting lobbyist access and funding to senators. So would term limits or increasing budget / legislative oversight. However, as many citizens prefer to be single-issue voters, we are kept enthralled with the dog-and-pony weekly show of some new shiny issue, and so the underlying weaknesses in our democracy are propped up by cold cash.
Don't blame the politicians, they are barely human and only exist to bloat each other up with fame, money, and power, because we turned a blind eye and got distracted by this busy world of abortions, evolution, internets, and Beanie Babies. If we find a way to starve them from the lobby tit, we have an opportunity to change thier focus back to the citizens in order to feel powerful and famous again, and consequently actually end up representing the interests of the individual once again.
In any sort of contract, legal or otherwise, the lawyer's job is to make as many claims as possible to try and cover all their bases. They are not laws, only claims. That is why those stupid thnigs are so huge and full of evasive language. There is ALWAYS a legal recourse against an unfair contract, but it sucks b/c it makes you come to them first with your lawyer. Even if the contract is legal binding, you still have recourse in those situations - don't say die when your cash is on the line. They spend all that money thinking up clever claims to add to the contract just to keep your dollars - don't give them the satisfaction of defeat, and make 'em pay your lawyer fees as well. It is not a perfect system, but it does give you an avenue.
But kids don't just choose meals b/c they want to look good and presentable - sometimes they get stressed and use the food as a cheat or escape. You have more control over what the kids eat at home for breakfast and dinner (hopefully) so the least the schools can do is offer similar control there. THis seems like a no-brainer to me. You don't HAVE to do this to your children, so what is the big deal? Want to give them more freedom? Go for it.
Or Rendevous with Rama, the similar sci-fi text adventure (infocom I think) on my dusty C64. Full of brain work. Good times, based on the excellent Rama series.
This is why voting is tantamount to throwing away your righteous anger. Take to the streets if we care enough and if we aren't kept too busy with making ends meet and being endlessly entertained. Bread and circuses, my fellow proles. Impeach? He could eat a baby and be complimented on his good taste at this stage of the game. A 3 year lame duck presidency.
Dark Queen of Krynn, and there were 2 other games as well, whose names escape me. Look up Gold Box series for those old TSR games. Those were fantastic, in the same engine as Pool of Radiance.
No, they use JDAM munitions for bunker shots. Or maybe those clever new mini-nukes that are somehow less offensive than the regular genocidal ones...:-)
Great point there! We have that balance that private industry is almost always more efficient at production, but the capital created from their efforts is almost never benefiting the people who create.
Like the diamond mines in some of the poor African nations or the Coca-cola bottling in India that dries up irrigation for farmers and doesn't help the people whose wells they are draining.
Chavez's popularity is certainly in part to his opposition to the strong arm companies who want to privatize the national resources and take the lion's share outwards. Definitely a comparable situation to the Middle Eastern poverty problem.
Please keep in mind the real issue with those hostile countries. Their nobility are the only ones who are really reaping a benefit from the West - their poverty is embarassing because they control such a vital resource and yet only a few benefit. Chavez did the opposite with his countries resources - booted the private companies and kleptocrats and shared the wealth with the poor. He was removed by a coup back in the day, and the poor people rose up and stuck him back in power.
Maybe if the Saudis, et al, were interested in improving their country and not building indoor ski mountains in Dubai - maybe then I wouldn't have as much of an issue with foreign oil involvement. But don't blame the whole countries, just their rotten kleptocracies.
I wouldn't mind buying oil from Chavez, even though he is a autocratic blowhard - he puts the money to good use for the impoverished and might pull the country out of its nosedive.
That is why the countries that hate us so much would not think to slow down the flow - there is a disconnect between the poor who hate and the rich who enjoy. The Shah of Iran is a great historical example of what happens in that disconnect. It's the same reason why Bush can call the Saudis great allies and incubators of terrorism in the same breath.
When you mean cheap, do you also indicate fail rates, read-write rates, costs of keeping HDD powered up and ready to go? Those are all cost factors too, not just retail price. I have no idea on the data btw. the two types, but certainly there are a few factors here as they are not exactly the same thing. They serve the same function of storage, but differently.
And isn't the corp a modern form of mob, all people moving together towards a common goal or ideal, with individuals' opinions specifically muted to prevent dissolution?
This is consumer mob vs producer mob. I like it. Word to that.
You sir have explained the big problem here. The onus is now put on the consumer to protect themselves, and the credit companies get the ease-of-use and business convenience to not have rigorous checks in place for this sort of thing. Even a simple mandatory check to the agencies to see if there are any flags on your account (like yours, the Victim) and then you would need to go to a new level of authentication.
I work at Fidelity, and when the HP laptop was stolen, we put in a new series of authenticators to verify people who might have been affected by the theft. It would be extremely difficult for someone to get these questions answered and so far it's been succesfull.
But even that is not enough.
We need new laws in place that change the nature of credit and how it is too easily given out. The speed of business MUST slow down to keep the consumer from being run over with convenience. Good luck trying to lobby for that one. The country has seen a rash of the high profile data losses and still nobody talks about changing the fundaments of credit and the consumer's relation to it. That would fix the issue quite well, in my opinion.
But remember that the whole concept of these EULA's and contract law in general has the first party always claiming as much as possible, and then the plaintiff's job is to show why contested provisions are not allowable. They are not set in stone; they are trying to set precedent and anticipate challenges, but they are NOT a law or anything like that. And IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
I turn to the inspirational science fiction that brings out the concepts of post-humanism.
You have the neo-philus human, who embraces change and looks to the future.
And you have the neo-phobus human, who fears change, and looks back to comfort or tradition as the answer against change.
Remember, most economic markets rely on a lack of change to prop them up. When volatility or change is introduced, heads roll by the hundreds. Beyond "growth", markets crave routine and predictable paths. That's why the natural move is towards a conglomeration or monopoly in big biz - there is less guess work about who is #1 where there are only 2 choices.
It takes the neophiles who also manage to make money to help introduce change into those same systems, and turn new ideas into new policy. We got the space program kicking into full blast when we were against the Soviets, as it was good for business at the time to fight "Communism" and boost Cold-War type spending for all the companies involved. And now space ideas turn into yearly federal budget alotments and not just blue-sky speculative investments from eccentrics.
This is also why the climate change debate is important. We need to be able to turn the renewable energy and CO2 reduction ideas into firm policy by drawing those afraid of change into the camps of the neophiles. Then we will have the financial heft needed to support research to keep moving forward. Even those dinosaur-burning dinosaurs known as the auto & power industries are finally getting on board to some small extent due to years of tireless science showing people that the change is inevitable and soon, no matter what humanity's debated impact is.
Do you know how I know YOU'RE gay?
Cuz you do dudes...
It's from The 40-Year-Old Virgin.
They've developed as the fourth estate of government. And that means that the other three aren't happy about losing any sort of power to the new guys. So, how does the press balance that out? They bias coverage. They put on the partisans that support their own agendas.
And so I agree with you - let them work.
This isn't right or wrong, as they are no different from any other group-in-power who sees a watchdog (even the watchdogs themselves) moving in on their turf and influence. Hearst's Yello Journalism helped to spark sentiment for a war, and Vietnam coverage helped to end it.
So again, I prefer this to having the old 3 estate system, because the press is a large group and so will offer me a great deal of information than if I just read Congressional transcripts or judicial case reviews all day long. They help me filter info, even as they filter what I receive. This is why blogging is an interesting addidtion to the cacaphony - I can overwhelm myself with different perspectives, and I get to use my judgement.
I no longer have only channel 4, 5, and 7 telling me 3 possible interpretations - I can choose from 457 people all telling me the relevance of an idea. This is also what history is about. Whereas most actual events or facts are not disputed, their importance to history and the world around them can be endlessly debated. If I get to read 2 histories about America, one from Gore Vidal and one from Simon & Schuster textbooks - then I can decide which interpretation of events had more influence.
I thought that was what the promise of a free(ish) press was all about. No complaints here. I don't expect them to be completely free of bias just as I don't expect my priest to be completely free of sin. How could they be human otherwise?
But I thought one of the admirable things of the internet was cutting out the inter-library loan. I can connect to the Japan cloud, Brasil cloud, and Massachusetts cloud with the same amount of ease. The fact remains that these ISPs keep the backbones humming and the fiber lit - and that is also why we can download huge torrents and stream videos from Youtube and MMORPG with huge graphics and lowered lags. Your town clouds all subsist on those backbones.
One of the ways out of the monopoly market of ISPs comes from towns and cities taking back the maintenance and infrastructure of the backbones that pass through them.
I live in suburban Mass, where cable selection is nil - the company comes in, takes over the wires and upkeep, and gets to have the monopolies. In the cities, where the government controls the wires, the companies have to compete and the consumer gets a deal.
I have no idea about the tug of war btw private industry vs public utility being "better". That is a different debate, but at least we can all agree monopoly abuse always stifles competition and innovation.
I can't imagine that this would concievably be cheaper than the "wizard" chainmail cutting gloves. Those things are excellent.And not all that much money.
Maybe this would be more useful in a construction environment, where your whole body is at a little more risk than a kitchen - where extremities are the main concern for stab stab from rogue rivets, nails, enclosed areas.
It could also be an idea to make existing safety equipment less heavy, like your steeltoe boots or hard hat. Intriguing.
ESRB is setup by the software industry as a self-regulatory agency. They did this for the very reason you are upset about - to keep the arbitrary ratings out of the government's hands and keep it in the hands of the producers.
Same thing with the motion picture agency ratings - your movie doesn't have to have a rating, but it does to get shown in any of the big box theatres.
Self-regulation by the business. Hard to say who does a better job - government groups, consumer groups, buisiness groups.
No easy answer on that score, anyways.
Not necessarily true - most 401k's are comprised of mutual funds, which is a collection of stocks. You buy the fund from a mutual fund company, who decides which stocks go into their funds. Unless you get voting rights, it is irrelevant. And unless you own enough to become a significant or majority holder, you are invisible as a stockholder.
:-)
And most, if not all, of your pension fund is invested in long-term bonds, due to IRS regs. Sometimes you get to decide which bonds or investments they use, but you are not a shareholder at all in your pension - your company trust is the one who owns those investments. So again, you are invisible. Maybe you could write up your fund company to yank XYZ stock from the fund due to immorality or some other non-financial reason. Good luck with that.
Our problem as citizens is that we do not have an effective lobby group like industry does. Companies are a group of people, united together for a common goal, market, product, etc. They focus power with combined efforts. Your senators and reps are like a company, they supposedly are focusing the efforts and desires of their constituents towards a common goal, like finance reforms, trade laws, etc.
Same idea with the lobby, they focus efforts of groups of special interests like related companies, towards a single goal of legislation. Lobbies kick the crap outta the representative process b/c they circumvent the citizens and go right to the top. Like if you had a suggestion at work, and you worked in the mailroom - in a big place you'd have a hell of a time getting the CEO to listen. But a CEO of another company (ie the lobbyist) has a much easier time and greater access - they are social / economic equals. And so it goes. The timber lobby has a powerful reach and is comparable to the reach of a DC Senator. One controls lots of logs and the other controls lots of laws.
Getting citizens together to form a cohesive, single-minded lobby is one of the ways to answer this challenge. So would limiting lobbyist access and funding to senators. So would term limits or increasing budget / legislative oversight. However, as many citizens prefer to be single-issue voters, we are kept enthralled with the dog-and-pony weekly show of some new shiny issue, and so the underlying weaknesses in our democracy are propped up by cold cash.
Don't blame the politicians, they are barely human and only exist to bloat each other up with fame, money, and power, because we turned a blind eye and got distracted by this busy world of abortions, evolution, internets, and Beanie Babies. If we find a way to starve them from the lobby tit, we have an opportunity to change thier focus back to the citizens in order to feel powerful and famous again, and consequently actually end up representing the interests of the individual once again.
Sorry again to reader ConteXXt, I forgot about the line breaks in my original post. That sucks.
Not necessarily true - most 401k's are comprised of mutual funds, which is a collection of stocks. You buy the fund from a mutual fund company, who decides which stocks go into their funds. Unless you get voting rights, it is irrelevant. And unless you own enough to become a significant or majority holder, you are invisible as a stockholder. And most, if not all, of your pension fund is invested in long-term bonds, due to IRS regs. Sometimes you get to decide which bonds or investments they use, but you are not a shareholder at all in your pension - your company trust is the one who owns those investments. So again, you are invisible. Maybe you could write up your fund company to yank XYZ stock from the fund due to immorality or some other non-financial reason. Good luck with that. Our problem as citizens is that we do not have an effective lobby group like industry does. Companies are a group of people, united together for a common goal, market, product, etc. They focus power with combined efforts. Your senators and reps are like a company, they supposedly are focusing the efforts and desires of their constituents towards a common goal, like finance reforms, trade laws, etc. Same idea with the lobby, they focus efforts of groups of special interests like related companies, towards a single goal of legislation. Lobbies kick the crap outta the representative process b/c they circumvent the citizens and go right to the top. Like if you had a suggestion at work, and you worked in the mailroom - in a big place you'd have a hell of a time getting the CEO to listen. But a CEO of another company (ie the lobbyist) has a much easier time and greater access - they are social / economic equals. And so it goes. The timber lobby has a powerful reach and is comparable to the reach of a DC Senator. One controls lots of logs and the other controls lots of laws. Getting citizens together to form a cohesive, single-minded lobby is one of the ways to answer this challenge. So would limiting lobbyist access and funding to senators. So would term limits or increasing budget / legislative oversight. However, as many citizens prefer to be single-issue voters, we are kept enthralled with the dog-and-pony weekly show of some new shiny issue, and so the underlying weaknesses in our democracy are propped up by cold cash. Don't blame the politicians, they are barely human and only exist to bloat each other up with fame, money, and power, because we turned a blind eye and got distracted by this busy world of abortions, evolution, internets, and Beanie Babies. If we find a way to starve them from the lobby tit, we have an opportunity to change thier focus back to the citizens in order to feel powerful and famous again, and consequently actually end up representing the interests of the individual once again.
In any sort of contract, legal or otherwise, the lawyer's job is to make as many claims as possible to try and cover all their bases. They are not laws, only claims. That is why those stupid thnigs are so huge and full of evasive language. There is ALWAYS a legal recourse against an unfair contract, but it sucks b/c it makes you come to them first with your lawyer. Even if the contract is legal binding, you still have recourse in those situations - don't say die when your cash is on the line. They spend all that money thinking up clever claims to add to the contract just to keep your dollars - don't give them the satisfaction of defeat, and make 'em pay your lawyer fees as well. It is not a perfect system, but it does give you an avenue.
But kids don't just choose meals b/c they want to look good and presentable - sometimes they get stressed and use the food as a cheat or escape. You have more control over what the kids eat at home for breakfast and dinner (hopefully) so the least the schools can do is offer similar control there. THis seems like a no-brainer to me. You don't HAVE to do this to your children, so what is the big deal? Want to give them more freedom? Go for it.
Or Rendevous with Rama, the similar sci-fi text adventure (infocom I think) on my dusty C64. Full of brain work. Good times, based on the excellent Rama series.
This is why voting is tantamount to throwing away your righteous anger. Take to the streets if we care enough and if we aren't kept too busy with making ends meet and being endlessly entertained. Bread and circuses, my fellow proles. Impeach? He could eat a baby and be complimented on his good taste at this stage of the game. A 3 year lame duck presidency.
Let me guess, he generally doesn't receive money.
Dark Queen of Krynn, and there were 2 other games as well, whose names escape me. Look up Gold Box series for those old TSR games. Those were fantastic, in the same engine as Pool of Radiance.
But remember DHS is paid from your taxes. So you paid for the message one way or the other. Maybe even twice!
Our group is also now making firefox a mandatory browser, and just keeping ie for a select few systems.
No, they use JDAM munitions for bunker shots. Or maybe those clever new mini-nukes that are somehow less offensive than the regular genocidal ones... :-)
Great point there! We have that balance that private industry is almost always more efficient at production, but the capital created from their efforts is almost never benefiting the people who create.
Like the diamond mines in some of the poor African nations or the Coca-cola bottling in India that dries up irrigation for farmers and doesn't help the people whose wells they are draining.
Chavez's popularity is certainly in part to his opposition to the strong arm companies who want to privatize the national resources and take the lion's share outwards. Definitely a comparable situation to the Middle Eastern poverty problem.
When I saw the ad for that movie, I shouted out at the end of the trailer "how are they gonna land the plane without Samuel??" What a crapload.
Please keep in mind the real issue with those hostile countries. Their nobility are the only ones who are really reaping a benefit from the West - their poverty is embarassing because they control such a vital resource and yet only a few benefit. Chavez did the opposite with his countries resources - booted the private companies and kleptocrats and shared the wealth with the poor. He was removed by a coup back in the day, and the poor people rose up and stuck him back in power. Maybe if the Saudis, et al, were interested in improving their country and not building indoor ski mountains in Dubai - maybe then I wouldn't have as much of an issue with foreign oil involvement. But don't blame the whole countries, just their rotten kleptocracies. I wouldn't mind buying oil from Chavez, even though he is a autocratic blowhard - he puts the money to good use for the impoverished and might pull the country out of its nosedive. That is why the countries that hate us so much would not think to slow down the flow - there is a disconnect between the poor who hate and the rich who enjoy. The Shah of Iran is a great historical example of what happens in that disconnect. It's the same reason why Bush can call the Saudis great allies and incubators of terrorism in the same breath.
When you mean cheap, do you also indicate fail rates, read-write rates, costs of keeping HDD powered up and ready to go? Those are all cost factors too, not just retail price. I have no idea on the data btw. the two types, but certainly there are a few factors here as they are not exactly the same thing. They serve the same function of storage, but differently.
And isn't the corp a modern form of mob, all people moving together towards a common goal or ideal, with individuals' opinions specifically muted to prevent dissolution? This is consumer mob vs producer mob. I like it. Word to that.
You sir have explained the big problem here. The onus is now put on the consumer to protect themselves, and the credit companies get the ease-of-use and business convenience to not have rigorous checks in place for this sort of thing. Even a simple mandatory check to the agencies to see if there are any flags on your account (like yours, the Victim) and then you would need to go to a new level of authentication. I work at Fidelity, and when the HP laptop was stolen, we put in a new series of authenticators to verify people who might have been affected by the theft. It would be extremely difficult for someone to get these questions answered and so far it's been succesfull. But even that is not enough. We need new laws in place that change the nature of credit and how it is too easily given out. The speed of business MUST slow down to keep the consumer from being run over with convenience. Good luck trying to lobby for that one. The country has seen a rash of the high profile data losses and still nobody talks about changing the fundaments of credit and the consumer's relation to it. That would fix the issue quite well, in my opinion.
Like who was Richard Nixon's Vice President! I remember those. Hilarious and effective. At least effective before google and wikipedia.
But remember that the whole concept of these EULA's and contract law in general has the first party always claiming as much as possible, and then the plaintiff's job is to show why contested provisions are not allowable. They are not set in stone; they are trying to set precedent and anticipate challenges, but they are NOT a law or anything like that. And IANAL.