I gave the facts related to the post I was replying to. You guessed wrong
You can't blame me for poor reading comprehension when you present the lawyer's case and leave it at that. It's poor writing if you don't want to be associated with the position. I'd bet most people thought similar.
But none of that matters to the question of "can you fight it". To that the answer is"no",.You will not be able to successfully fight a tarnish on your report for less than paying it and getting it removed.
That's what one lawyer said (or rather, what you said one lawyer said). The person you responded to you say court costs come out of the defendant. But even if the lawyer is 100% right, your plain answer here to "can you fight it" is wrong. You can fight it, it just might cost you more money than otherwise. Some people value principle more than giving money to a bully or suffering a poor credit report.
That's a lot of text to justify your pussy remark.
But I never paid the bill.
You didn't state that originally.
The question wasn't about paying it.
You made it so by giving the lawyer's suggestion. You even furthered that by saying, " I also didn't buy any cars or houses on credit for 10 years. Well, I did, but in a different country, so my credit was clean. "
The really amazing part is that the neighbor (who filed the charges) testified that she noted that the rabbit was not getting fed, and yet she didn't actually do anything about it either. The food was not under lock and key.
For that matter, she could have just thrown the poor thing a carrot.
The question is why continue to support companies that do this? In the '90s, people boycotted companies like Nike for the labor practices of their sub-contractors
And how well did that work out? It got lip service in the press, but people still bought Nike. And where, exactly, are you going to buy your e-gadget that isn't made in a place like Foxconn or worse, and how much extra are you willing to pay? That's the free market.
The problem is that the api to widgets is far larger than the images themselves. Remote widgets would actually increase bandwidth, not decrease it.
Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. Just consider the number of pixels that would be rendered in an editor window with a scrollbar. Now imagine all the painting a remote host would do if it wasn't native and you scrolled down.
The difference is night and day between a non-native widget and a native one. I've done professional work using remote desktop, and I always knew when an app wasn't using native widgets.
Best yet, when the user customizes fonts, colors and whatever else, your program adapts like other truly native applications.
It also makes a huge difference if you're using an app via a remote desktop. Native widgets can be efficiently mirrored without sending all the pixels over.
That's a silly thing to say - most libertarians would not advocate everybody suing everybody else for everything, because that's a crummy liberty position for all
"Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, the responsible managers and employees, should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000 "
On the other hand there are market-based approaches that could deal with situations like these, now that we've got an Internet that require neither prior restraints on liberty nor hyperlitigiousness.
I don't understand how your market-based approach works without either regulation or lawsuits to define the market (make the polluters pay). Again, another example of why I am not a Libertarian.
Regulation is the wrong approach though. This is why we have COURTS. If its leaking an effecting your health / property, then your neighbor has not met his obligation to not damage the property of others.
This is an example of why I say have a Libertarian bent, but am emphatically not a Libertarian. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Oh, look, I have cancer. Let me go sue that guy.
Federal standards have done a lot to clean up the environment. You can look at the before and after of the environmental movement.
Nokia had excellent products and a very large and loyal 'user base'.
Blackberry had nothing similar.
Err, what? They didn't call them "Crackberries" for nothing. Even Obama had one. Before Android and iPhone took over, pretty much anybody in business had one.
It's not really a false dilemma, because as you said yourself, "It's a soft limit, but still an effective limit." The issue about not voting for the minor party is a real one, not something made up by the media.
If you care about which party wins, and enough people don't vote your way, then in a very legitimate sense you are throwing your vote away. This was made obvious in the Gore vs Bush election. This is a direct consequence of the winner-take-all system.
How much of a democracy is it when the choice is that limited? It's a soft limit, but still an effective limit.
It's not a good example of a false dilemma when two choices are what practically arises. That's what happens when you have a winner-take-all system of voting.
I can't understand why people rented from them to start with except marketing brainwashing them into thinking it was a better place somehow.
They were a better place. Big stores with lots of space to browse around in. Clean. Good selection. And if you wanted a copy of a new release, they had it.
I have spent many hours studding each word in Revelation
Fixing them in place?
If something doesn't make sense we cross reference other scriptures until it makes sense.
You can make "sense" of just about anything given enough interpretation.
There will always be hard heads who see one thing and science easily defeats if, Don't wast time correcting the wrongheaded, But at least give a well presented explanation a listen,
Get a good night's sleep. You aren't making much sense here.
Wonderful! You know the Bible. Did you go to Sunday School and then decide everyone there was wrong or did you just read the Bible as a work of fiction you found laying around?
I don't know what bearing that question has on the topic under discussion. But since you bring it up, too few people who profess to be Christian either know very little about the Bible or do not follow its proscriptions (I'm looking at you, rich, war mongering Christian right).
Am I right in assuming that you don't take the phrase, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the first amendment quite so literately?
Is this an attempt to dismiss the failings of the Bible as figures of speech?
To me a few things from the Bible are consistent enough to sustain my faith.
Such as?
The enduring hatred of the Jews by the Arabs. The protection of the Jewish nation by the US even though it cost us hundreds of $billions in military expenditures and higher oil prices.
I can't tell, is this part of what sustains your faith? It would be rather strange if it were.
How else are the Nations supposed to see the two witnesses lie dead in the streets of Jerusalem without the internet and cell phones?
Ah, Revelation. Good mythology. Helps to sell fiction and non-fiction alike.
Maybe you will get to see that live. I don't plan on being around.
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
The End Times were supposed to have happened. The prophecy failed. That alone should tell you how bullshit the Bible is, nevermind all the fanciful imaginings you find in Revelation.
What goals do you oppose? Personal Liberty? Lower taxes? Less intrusive Government? That's kind of the heart of the tea party movement.
Those are Libertarian ideals. The Tea Party basically wanted lower taxes and less government handouts. I heard some muttering about opposing gun control. I didn't hear anything about doing away with the drug laws or "war on drugs" that is costing us immensely in prisons.
If I believe that God created an entire universe why can't I believe God created an old Earth with special effect dinosaur bones already in place?
Because the major Hebrew-based religions don't think God is a trickster in that regard. The problem is that if you adopt that position, you cast doubt on the reliability of "God". Might as well worship Loki.
Of course, God of the Bible did play a few tricks now and then, but that's just par for the course when it comes to inconsistency in the Bible.
When you can tell me what dark matter is composed of we'll talk.
Scientists will figure out dark matter before you can adequately explain how your religion is different from mythology.
Phoronix actually benchmarks applications. They also keep track of stuff like GPU support on Linux. Is there anybody that comes close to filling this Linux niche? I don't understand all the hate.
Therein lies the problem. Even in the USSR, where profits shouldn't have been an overriding concern, they screwed it up badly. How can you trust anybody to do it right?
Slashdot Mirror
I gave the facts related to the post I was replying to. You guessed wrong
You can't blame me for poor reading comprehension when you present the lawyer's case and leave it at that. It's poor writing if you don't want to be associated with the position. I'd bet most people thought similar.
But none of that matters to the question of "can you fight it". To that the answer is"no",.You will not be able to successfully fight a tarnish on your report for less than paying it and getting it removed.
That's what one lawyer said (or rather, what you said one lawyer said). The person you responded to you say court costs come out of the defendant. But even if the lawyer is 100% right, your plain answer here to "can you fight it" is wrong. You can fight it, it just might cost you more money than otherwise. Some people value principle more than giving money to a bully or suffering a poor credit report.
That's a lot of text to justify your pussy remark.
But I never paid the bill.
You didn't state that originally.
The question wasn't about paying it.
You made it so by giving the lawyer's suggestion. You even furthered that by saying, " I also didn't buy any cars or houses on credit for 10 years. Well, I did, but in a different country, so my credit was clean. "
The really amazing part is that the neighbor (who filed the charges) testified that she noted that the rabbit was not getting fed, and yet she didn't actually do anything about it either. The food was not under lock and key.
For that matter, she could have just thrown the poor thing a carrot.
Can I have your name and address? There's a bill I need to send you.
The question is why continue to support companies that do this? In the '90s, people boycotted companies like Nike for the labor practices of their sub-contractors
And how well did that work out? It got lip service in the press, but people still bought Nike. And where, exactly, are you going to buy your e-gadget that isn't made in a place like Foxconn or worse, and how much extra are you willing to pay? That's the free market.
I laughed :)
The problem is that the api to widgets is far larger than the images themselves. Remote widgets would actually increase bandwidth, not decrease it.
Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. Just consider the number of pixels that would be rendered in an editor window with a scrollbar. Now imagine all the painting a remote host would do if it wasn't native and you scrolled down.
The difference is night and day between a non-native widget and a native one. I've done professional work using remote desktop, and I always knew when an app wasn't using native widgets.
Best yet, when the user customizes fonts, colors and whatever else, your program adapts like other truly native applications.
It also makes a huge difference if you're using an app via a remote desktop. Native widgets can be efficiently mirrored without sending all the pixels over.
You can use LGPL version of Qt and link statically.
Note that the LGPL requires that you provide a way to relink in a new version of the library (QT in this case).
That's a silly thing to say - most libertarians would not advocate everybody suing everybody else for everything, because that's a crummy liberty position for all
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Environment.htm
"Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution. We demand the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. Rather than making taxpayers pay for toxic waste clean-ups, the responsible managers and employees, should be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property. Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve one of the responsibility.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party , Jul 2, 2000 "
On the other hand there are market-based approaches that could deal with situations like these, now that we've got an Internet that require neither prior restraints on liberty nor hyperlitigiousness.
I don't understand how your market-based approach works without either regulation or lawsuits to define the market (make the polluters pay). Again, another example of why I am not a Libertarian.
Regulation is the wrong approach though. This is why we have COURTS. If its leaking an effecting your health / property, then your neighbor has not met his obligation to not damage the property of others.
This is an example of why I say have a Libertarian bent, but am emphatically not a Libertarian. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Oh, look, I have cancer. Let me go sue that guy.
Federal standards have done a lot to clean up the environment. You can look at the before and after of the environmental movement.
Apparently, that's not obvious enough here on /.
Your statement was written incorrectly:
"But to the .05% of the customers who are subject to fraud, especially identity theft, they lose 100% of their stuff."
Adding "especially identity theft" doesn't indicate at all that you are limited to $50 in credit card fraud.
Nokia had excellent products and a very large and loyal 'user base'.
Blackberry had nothing similar.
Err, what? They didn't call them "Crackberries" for nothing. Even Obama had one. Before Android and iPhone took over, pretty much anybody in business had one.
It's not really a false dilemma, because as you said yourself, "It's a soft limit, but still an effective limit." The issue about not voting for the minor party is a real one, not something made up by the media.
If you care about which party wins, and enough people don't vote your way, then in a very legitimate sense you are throwing your vote away. This was made obvious in the Gore vs Bush election. This is a direct consequence of the winner-take-all system.
How much of a democracy is it when the choice is that limited? It's a soft limit, but still an effective limit.
It's not a good example of a false dilemma when two choices are what practically arises. That's what happens when you have a winner-take-all system of voting.
I can't understand why people rented from them to start with except marketing brainwashing them into thinking it was a better place somehow.
They were a better place. Big stores with lots of space to browse around in. Clean. Good selection. And if you wanted a copy of a new release, they had it.
I have spent many hours studding each word in Revelation
Fixing them in place?
If something doesn't make sense we cross reference other scriptures until it makes sense.
You can make "sense" of just about anything given enough interpretation.
There will always be hard heads who see one thing and science easily defeats if, Don't wast time correcting the wrongheaded, But at least give a well presented explanation a listen,
Get a good night's sleep. You aren't making much sense here.
Wonderful! You know the Bible. Did you go to Sunday School and then decide everyone there was wrong or did you just read the Bible as a work of fiction you found laying around?
I don't know what bearing that question has on the topic under discussion. But since you bring it up, too few people who profess to be Christian either know very little about the Bible or do not follow its proscriptions (I'm looking at you, rich, war mongering Christian right).
Am I right in assuming that you don't take the phrase, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the first amendment quite so literately?
Is this an attempt to dismiss the failings of the Bible as figures of speech?
To me a few things from the Bible are consistent enough to sustain my faith.
Such as?
The enduring hatred of the Jews by the Arabs. The protection of the Jewish nation by the US even though it cost us hundreds of $billions in military expenditures and higher oil prices.
I can't tell, is this part of what sustains your faith? It would be rather strange if it were.
How else are the Nations supposed to see the two witnesses lie dead in the streets of Jerusalem without the internet and cell phones?
Ah, Revelation. Good mythology. Helps to sell fiction and non-fiction alike.
Maybe you will get to see that live. I don't plan on being around.
Hello, Gospel of Mark!
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
The End Times were supposed to have happened. The prophecy failed. That alone should tell you how bullshit the Bible is, nevermind all the fanciful imaginings you find in Revelation.
What goals do you oppose? Personal Liberty? Lower taxes? Less intrusive Government? That's kind of the heart of the tea party movement.
Those are Libertarian ideals. The Tea Party basically wanted lower taxes and less government handouts. I heard some muttering about opposing gun control. I didn't hear anything about doing away with the drug laws or "war on drugs" that is costing us immensely in prisons.
If I believe that God created an entire universe why can't I believe God created an old Earth with special effect dinosaur bones already in place?
Because the major Hebrew-based religions don't think God is a trickster in that regard. The problem is that if you adopt that position, you cast doubt on the reliability of "God". Might as well worship Loki.
Of course, God of the Bible did play a few tricks now and then, but that's just par for the course when it comes to inconsistency in the Bible.
When you can tell me what dark matter is composed of we'll talk.
Scientists will figure out dark matter before you can adequately explain how your religion is different from mythology.
Phoronix actually benchmarks applications. They also keep track of stuff like GPU support on Linux. Is there anybody that comes close to filling this Linux niche? I don't understand all the hate.
It applies to any organization. The USA just does it better.
For an author of typically insightful comments, you would do us all well to educate yourself rather than citing nonsense and propagating FUD.
Typically modded insightful. They are quite often off the mark.
as long as it's done properly
Therein lies the problem. Even in the USSR, where profits shouldn't have been an overriding concern, they screwed it up badly. How can you trust anybody to do it right?