Exactly, which is one of the reasons why (as someone else pointed out) most stores have two exit doors you have to pass, with nothing saleable after the first... leave the first with unpaid merch, you've shown attempt/intent to shoplift - but still can be stopped. Leave the second, and in many states (or if you are in a shopping plaza and don't "own" (rent) that sidewalk and parking lot, you cant do a thing to the person...
Not quite... since it is a commercial establishment, the laws are usually different... and as one of the links I posted show, a certain procedure should be followed (and even the procedure on that page needs to be adjusted due to variances in laws in different jurisdictions).
If anything, it would probably be closer to you catching someone robbing your home, and you detaining them... as opposed to you catching someone on the street doing something illegal and detaining them - and even then, there are still specific laws that grant those "powers" of detainment that are specific to businesses.
In most other states, the person detaining you under such conditions can be charged for illegal detainment and possibly kidnapping under the right conditions. Worse yet, if the person did so under order of his/her manager, they might be looking at conspiracy charges, again under the right conditions. Besides, unless the store can prove they give receipts to every customer and a law exists which makes it illegal to refuse or dispose of said receipt before you leave the store, they have absolutely no reasonable basis to demand presentation of said receipt as they can't reasonable establish every patron has said receipt to present.
"Under such conditions" - as suspicion of theft? They have every right to detain you. What defines suspicion of theft varies in each state.
In NY, if you shove $10K of merchandise in your clothing, that's valid reason for suspicion. In VA (at least 10 years ago... dunno about now), you could shove the whole store in your clothing (assuming it fit), and as long as you didnt walk out (sans paying), we couldnt do a thing.
He's wrong because he is making generalizations that dont apply a lot of places... and furthering those generalizations by saying that is the way it is IN MOST STATES (which is a point he keeps saying) - which is flat out innaccurate.
Most stores do this in one fashion or another... loss due to theft is a very large thing unfortunately... and though the employees commit a decent portion of it, the "customers" commit a very large portion.
Not all stores enforce such a policy properly though. Some, like CompUSA, have a Loss Prevention Department that schools us in what we can and cannot do (and also knows that on a state by state basis)... at least CompUSA managed to do one thing right. Others are a bit overzealous.
IANAL but,
Stopping you and asking you to show a receipt though is not a crime - and would be thrown out of court if the person asked tried suing. Detaining the person for failing to do so is an issue that would be different on a state by state basis. I think in that case - in MOST (but not all) states, with a judge that knew the law - the customer would win.
That's a good question, but not what I was discussing... but since you brought it up, keep in mind that though the norm for ascertaining a belief of someone having shoplifted usually requires something concrete (it having been witnessed, the person having been watched - all the way from the point of suspected shoplifting to the confrontation), that is not necessarily the case in every state. And worse than that... even if such is required in a particular state, the judge would make the final determination. While detaining someone for not showing the receipt under suspicion of shoplifting may be incorrect in many states, a judge might still (erroneously) rule that the store management/security were given sufficient reason to suspect shoplifting because you failed to show your receipt. I am NOT saying such a ruling would be correct... but if you have been on/. for any length of time, you have seen tons of similar instances.
In addition, carrying a bag full of merchandise proves nothing. Many shoplifters use one of the three following methods to shoplift... (1) come in with a bag to return something, grab something else on the way out and shove it in said bag, walk to the door with receipt in hand and try to get past the receipt checker with them only giving it a cursory glance (ie: not matching the items on the receipt to whats in the bag)... (2) buy something, drop it in the car, go back in with the bag and receipt, re-fill the bag and leave again... (3) buy a bunch of stuff, shove a bunch more in your clothing, hope they dont check your bag and receipt (so they hopefully wont notice your bulging clothes) and make off with what's on your clothing...
So, there are multiple reasons why having a bag full of paid for items is irrelevant to whether someone has shoplifted. You, (apparently) having never shoplifted may not have made that connection... but any decent security person must - because we have seen it happen - numerous times...
I also agree (IF Ohio's laws are similar to most) that the store in question doesnt have a leg to stand on... BUT that may also not be the case... try standing on a corner in a bad neighborhood where cops suspect (or know) drug deals go on. Courts have considered that (at least in quite a few cases) sufficient reason to suspect the person standing there of suspicious activity. Is it right? Well, frankly in this guy's case (if the court leans that direction) it doesnt matter (except maybe in an appeal). That's the sad thing.
So, I'm not disagreeing with you about what is right or wrong... just pointing out that Reality rarely is about things that are right or wrong... Reality just is... whether we agree or like it or not...:-(
Here's another very pertinent thing which you can also find with a little Google Searching.
Detaining Shoplifting Suspects
Definition: As used [herein], the term "security person(s)" is intended to include only store proprietors and managers, store plainclothes security agents sometimes called "detectives," and uniformed security officers also called security guards (either proprietary or contract). The term does not include sales clerks, maintenance persons, or stockers, for examples. The term "security person(s)" is not intended to apply to off-duty public law enforcement or special police personnel unless they have been instructed by store management to follow the same procedures required of ordinary citizens, which procedures do not include police powers of arrest.
In almost all jurisdictions in the United States, merchants are legally empowered to detain shoplifting suspects for investigation and possible arrest and prosecution in the criminal justice system. This power is called "merchant's privilege."
Sorry, I've managed places for quite some time... I needed to know the law in order not to break it.
Actually you are incorrect. MOST states DO allow merchants to detain shoplifters (Google it)... a sufficient degree of probably cause is supposed to be determined by the merchant - and that degree, as required by law, varies per state.
In our case, an employee had to witness the act - or suspect the act and be able to verify it on the recorded video footage...
Now, in the event a detention occurred without probable cause (as defined by local and state laws/ordinances) then you would be correct.
You can't just detain anyone...
Here's one of many references...
http://www.iapsc.org/uploaded_documents/bp1.doc
a. The merchant's privilege provides for detention of persons suspected of shoplifting only when probable cause or reasonable cause exists to believe a person has committed theft. The best practice for establishing this probable cause (as compared to any legal standard) is the security person's having met all the following six steps: (1) observe the customer approach the merchandise, (2) observe the customer select the merchandise, (3) observe the customer conceal (or otherwise carry away) the merchandise, (4) keep the customer under constant and uninterrupted observation, (5) see the customer fail to pay for the merchandise, and (6) detain the customer outside the store.
b. The merchant's privilege permits detention for limited purposes which vary by state. Common among these limited purposes are: (1) ascertaining that stolen merchandise is possessed by the suspect, (2) identifying the suspect, (3) investigating the alleged theft, (4) recovering stolen merchandise, and (5) notifying the police of the offense. Some states permit limited searches of the suspect, some states limit the extent to which identity may be established; and the use of force which can legally be used is, if mentioned, always non-deadly. Many company or store policies further restrict permissible actions in dealing with shoplifting suspects; e.g., prohibiting pursuing suspects beyond company property.
Part a.6. definitely varies per state, and in some you have to stop them before they leave whatever is defined as your last point of pay (first exit door, decently past all registers, etc).
MOST states allow a lot more than you think.... SOME even allow use of force to detain. SOME allow limited searches, AND MOST allow detainment. SOME (VERY FEW) require it to be done by a state licensed security person.
Well, it depends... and can be murky. Our (state licensed) security guard can be instructed to detain the person (and certain of them can physically detain them). Our employees can, through blocking the exit, attempt to detain them without initiating physical contact. We cannot lock the door as long as any customers are in the building (Fire Code).
Ok, the alternative would actually be.. the company can't operate securely. Therefore, they will not be able to make as much money.. and be able to hire less workers.
So then you are left in a jobless position ANYWAY -- PLUS the world is deprived of whatever service that company was offering... then what happens to your kids then.. not only are you jobless but the economy in general & quality of life in general will be crappy for them.
Actually, your analysis is idiotic - and wrong.
An RFID chip can be removed and implanted in someone else - as already noted by others... or it's "code" can be duplicated to make it seem like one person is someone they are not (kinda like the car lock buttons and the numerous devices to copy the codes to steal cars). It can and will happen.
There are other technologies that are even more secure... visually matching the employee to a picture in the database at the security station, fingerprints (more difficult to cut off someone's finger than to duplicate their RFID chip), retina scans, etc.
Chances are, any of the technologies I listed are cheaper than RFID tagging someone sub-cutaneously... so why choose a more expensive, more likely to be rendered useless, more invasive method such as RFID tagging people?
IANAL but I seem to recall (from researching it when I owned a storefront):
Actually, this varies per state and per jurisdiction (ie: county, city, town) depending on the specific laws.
Some states require that you must actually walk out the door with a product before you can be accused of attempting to shoplift... inotherwords if I go into a Circuit City and stuff a bunch of CDs in my shirt, until I step through that door, it isnt a crime... other states allow that action that (seems to) constitute intent as attempted shoplifting.
As for jurisdictional borders/property... that varies as well per state. In some states, you cannot try to detain the person once they have left your building... in others you can (as long as they have not left your parking lot)... and in a few I believe you could try to detain them even after that.
Even in states that allow you to detain people suspected of shoplifting in your parking lot, the waters get kind of murky there too... If you are in a shopping center, the parking lot is quite possibly not yours. If you are renting a space that has it's own parking and no rights of egress to others, then it is different. If you own the property and the parking, that too is different...
As for Ohio, I have no clue.... but don't assume Ohio fits a particular circumstance as the laws are quite different in many places.
In New York if I remember correctly, [at least in the county I was a store manager in (not a Circuit City)], we can detain you, and even request to see your receipts or request you let us inspect your bag(s), but cannot forcibly do so... if you refuse, which is your right, then we can detain you until the police arrive who then can search your bag if we sufficiently prove to them/convince them a crime (shoplifting) has occurred.
He's 76 years old. Kind of hard to do action scenes, ain't it? What will he be doing the whole movie? Debating Vulcan philosophy?
Well, just last year they came up with something new in the motion picture industry... what was it they called it? Oh yeah... a Stunt Double!
My silliness aside... Shatner and Nimoy (and Kelley) had stunt doubles for TOS... so no big deal.
On top of that, it was always quite rare for Spock to exert himself physically - and most of the time that he did, it was usually very understated moves because of his character's far greater than human strength. Mark Lenard played Sarek's "fight" scene in a similar way for that matter. Unless it was an all out brawl (Mirror, Mirror style), I think even Nimoy could handle it - without a stunt double.
I'd say it's more true that you can't have Spock with out McCoy, since it was their ever-present banter (and to a degree, rivalry since Spock's logic and McCoy's emotionalism often came into conflict usually resolved by Kirk) that was so entertaining.
I agree with you 100%... though of course, to be more accurate, it was Spock acting illogically under the pretense of making logical remarks - to either incite McCoy or win some banter/argument that McCoy started. Nothing logical about it;-) As much as Spock would pretend he was being logical... which made it even more humorous, because Nimoy managed to deliver the lines deadpan - and then give McCoy that sly, slightly understated "Go ahead, come up with a comment to top that!" look.
This is a dynamic I really don't think Paramount will get right without a lot of effort.
You are sort of correct... their TOU have changed since the last time I checked (which was a couple months ago - and I copied and pasted it as it was at the time someplace here on slashdot... but I can only pull up my last 24 posts - brings me to my user account when I search for my own)...
But, even with the changes, the following term could still be construed in a similar fashion:
use, copy, distribute, display, publish and modify your submission, each in connection with the service; publish your name in connection with your submission; and grant these permissions to other persons.
Use, distribute or publish are the three "vague" ones. Use can cover many aspects of... well, use.
Publish holds the less vague, and possibly more applicable (because it allows them to do so - ie: sell your stuff) definition:
To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.
Emphasis mine.
Distribution (from either the definition of publish - or from MS's TOU) is defined as:
The process of marketing and supplying goods, especially to retailers.
That means both terms seem to imply sale of the stuff you post through their services - at least as an option they or others can exercise.
They used to (and may still) have partnerships with various companies through which you could purchase images posted by others through their services (just as Yahoo does). The fact that their new TOU is very ambiguous about it I think means that section took a lot of flack and thus they re-wrote it to say the same exact thing, but in more ambiguous terms.
See, the thing is, their TOU still, by the definition of the words they have chosen, allow them to sell your (whatever) that you uploaded through their service(s). Will they? I dont know... Did they at one time? Yes - and they have left themselves open to be able to again - even with the changes and more vague wording.
The parent poster is 100% correct... and in addition, it is added shielding to prevent someone who posts something publicly available from later suing Google because people got their content from said publicly available service.
It's also a far cry from MS's (paraphrased) "However you post it, wherever you post it, on any of our services (public or private) we have the right to use it, sell it, license it to our partners" clauses.
You are not in the business of making or financing motion pictures or record albums, so you have no real stake in the argument.
Let me correct this error. Everyone of us who buys DVDs or VHS or goes to the movies, or watches them on Pay Per View IS in the business of "financing" motion pictures.
It does not affect your ability to earn a living and feed your family one way or another.
Well, in the case of people erroneously sued by the **AA, it definitely does. Suggesting a business model that protects the investments the labels have made - that we are then expected to pay off (and then some) - while dropping the "Sue em all - whether they are guilty or not" business model would be quite valid topics to discuss... show interest in protecting the **AA's properties, while protecting innocent consumers as well. (Innocent) "consumers" is in bold because I am referencing people who buy their music/movies - as opposed to pirates - which I have no problems with the **AA suing.
Really? That's impressive! I am aware of that claim... but MS made the same claims about Win95 (errr... DOS with an extended Win3.1). And the last stack "they" totally wrote from scratch came from the BSD world - which they then proceeded to hose. I severely doubt the "new" stack was written from scratch. Maybe purchased/borrowed from someone else and modified a whole lot... maybe modified from the XP stack... but written from scratch? Yeah... so was over 80% of Vista by their claims - which we also know not to be true (lots are glommed on parts from Server 2003 and S2003's add-ons, some is from XP, and the rest was a combination of bought (like much of the multimedia editting/playing stuff), borrowed, "borrowed" and the rest possibly written from scratch).
Either way, lets assume you are correct and MS is being truthful - and that the entire stack was written from scratch for Vista... with oh so many performance enhancements (as claimed by MS and posted ALL over the net)... it is still even more reason this should not be occurring...
So, it doesnt matter how you/I look at it... whether MS's claims of a total re-write are true or not... their claims of far superior performance in the "new"/new stack obviously aren't a reality when you play an MP3 that itself should be using.5% of your CPU power...
Don't be stupid. I'd rather have my network throttled than hear annoying 'pops' in audio if my CPU can't handle both.
You are telling ME not to be stupid? What the heck type computer are YOU running that your CPU can't handle playing an MP3 and handling network traffic? An Etch-A-Sketch? I know in the Linux and OS/2 world, all you need is a 486 to handle those "monumental" tasks without corrupting your audio stream... on Windows (XP/Vist/Whatever) I am pretty sure that a Dual Core 3+GHz system should easily be able to handle it.
There is NOVALID technical reason why this behavior should occur. Vista may be a resource hog, but it isn't that bad that it needs to sacrifice network speeds in order to play an MP3.
How about you go get a clue... and then don't bother coming back?
Ummm... as I already stated in this topic, I don't. BUT... even if I choose not to run Vista that does not mean that the company I work for didn't buy into MS's "Faster, better, more secure" pitch and upgrade all their workstations and server to Vista leaving me no choice.
Fortunately for me, the company I work for isn't that stupid... but enough companies have switched. Regardless, you are still missing (ignoring) the more important point in my posts - which is this is not normal, it is not acceptable, it is not a wanted feature (DRM be damned), and it should not be happening on any piece of hardware that is out today.
Ummm... Flash Player is NOT free for many Operating Systems... it's NON-EXISTANT
In the Linux and OS/2 world, Gnash and numerous other (non-Adobe) Flash Players have yet to reach the latest release level compatibility with the actual Flash Player. While that isnt always a problem, I am running into more and more sites that check for and require a higher level Flash version (ie: 8 or 9).
"The French website Deezer.com has struck a deal with the SACEM (the French equivalent to the RIAA) and is now legally providing Internet users around the world with more than 100,000 full songs, streamed on demand and without restrictions. The site, formerly named Blogmuzik.net, had had to close down last March under pressure from the recording industry."
Ummm... let me be the first to point out that SACEM is NOT the French equivalent of the RIAA... at least not if they are allowing "more than 100,000 full songs, streamed on demand and without restrictions."
But maybe the RIAA will take a lesson from this and come to their senses and convince their member companies (themselves) to come up with and/or support more viable Internet distribution methods as a business model instead of their current "Sue 'em all and then some more people for good measure" attitude. In addition, their Internet Royalty Arm (SoundExchange) is still leaning the exact opposite way (making such things costly, and waffling back and forth between forcing the websites to add encumbering restrictions to the content - ie: DRM). While SoundExchange seems to be/have waffled on some of that, they are still a far cry from what SACEM seems to be allowing and setting up.
Hopefully this will prove to be enough of a viable business model in France that the RIAA/SoundExchange will take note and head down a different road than their current one...
DUH!!!!!!!!! It's NOT off topic. The point it was relevant to you apparently missed. Let me spell it out to the moderator who obviously has no brain or just likes modding anything that mentions OS/2 as off-topic.
- Z! (which I use exclusively on OS/2) works on Windows
- Someone asked is this an aspect of playing MP3s via Windows Media Player which on Vista seems to talk to MS no matter what you click - or if this can be repeated using non MS audio playing apps.
- This was in response to, and for providing more information about; testing this with a non-Windows Vista/Media Player app to evaluate that question.
- I don't (and won't) run Vista, so I cant test this... but the idiot moderator who flagged my post as off-topic maybe could...
Hmmm... lets say I do graphics all day, and archive the raw data to our file server (or perhaps even store the data there)... instead of wasting the power of my iPod's battery (assuming I have one) or needing a dock with speakers... why can't I just play MP3s from my computer while I am working? And when I do, why should I wait 3 minutes (or 5 minutes) for a file transfer that should take 1.5 minutes?
Data transfer speeds aren't always critical to wanting to reach maximum transfer rates (as in my example). Nonetheless, you are still missing the point. There is no reason for the network degradation (under these circumstances) - regardless of what MS claims. Period. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, which is one of the reasons why (as someone else pointed out) most stores have two exit doors you have to pass, with nothing saleable after the first... leave the first with unpaid merch, you've shown attempt/intent to shoplift - but still can be stopped. Leave the second, and in many states (or if you are in a shopping plaza and don't "own" (rent) that sidewalk and parking lot, you cant do a thing to the person...
Not quite... since it is a commercial establishment, the laws are usually different... and as one of the links I posted show, a certain procedure should be followed (and even the procedure on that page needs to be adjusted due to variances in laws in different jurisdictions).
If anything, it would probably be closer to you catching someone robbing your home, and you detaining them... as opposed to you catching someone on the street doing something illegal and detaining them - and even then, there are still specific laws that grant those "powers" of detainment that are specific to businesses.
Actually, he pretty much did...
In most other states, the person detaining you under such conditions can be charged for illegal detainment and possibly kidnapping under the right conditions. Worse yet, if the person did so under order of his/her manager, they might be looking at conspiracy charges, again under the right conditions. Besides, unless the store can prove they give receipts to every customer and a law exists which makes it illegal to refuse or dispose of said receipt before you leave the store, they have absolutely no reasonable basis to demand presentation of said receipt as they can't reasonable establish every patron has said receipt to present.
"Under such conditions" - as suspicion of theft? They have every right to detain you. What defines suspicion of theft varies in each state.
In NY, if you shove $10K of merchandise in your clothing, that's valid reason for suspicion. In VA (at least 10 years ago... dunno about now), you could shove the whole store in your clothing (assuming it fit), and as long as you didnt walk out (sans paying), we couldnt do a thing.
He's wrong because he is making generalizations that dont apply a lot of places... and furthering those generalizations by saying that is the way it is IN MOST STATES (which is a point he keeps saying) - which is flat out innaccurate.
Most stores do this in one fashion or another... loss due to theft is a very large thing unfortunately... and though the employees commit a decent portion of it, the "customers" commit a very large portion.
Not all stores enforce such a policy properly though. Some, like CompUSA, have a Loss Prevention Department that schools us in what we can and cannot do (and also knows that on a state by state basis)... at least CompUSA managed to do one thing right. Others are a bit overzealous.
IANAL but,
Stopping you and asking you to show a receipt though is not a crime - and would be thrown out of court if the person asked tried suing. Detaining the person for failing to do so is an issue that would be different on a state by state basis. I think in that case - in MOST (but not all) states, with a judge that knew the law - the customer would win.
But as always, the few ruin it for the many...
That's a good question, but not what I was discussing... but since you brought it up, keep in mind that though the norm for ascertaining a belief of someone having shoplifted usually requires something concrete (it having been witnessed, the person having been watched - all the way from the point of suspected shoplifting to the confrontation), that is not necessarily the case in every state. And worse than that... even if such is required in a particular state, the judge would make the final determination. While detaining someone for not showing the receipt under suspicion of shoplifting may be incorrect in many states, a judge might still (erroneously) rule that the store management/security were given sufficient reason to suspect shoplifting because you failed to show your receipt. I am NOT saying such a ruling would be correct... but if you have been on /. for any length of time, you have seen tons of similar instances.
In addition, carrying a bag full of merchandise proves nothing. Many shoplifters use one of the three following methods to shoplift... (1) come in with a bag to return something, grab something else on the way out and shove it in said bag, walk to the door with receipt in hand and try to get past the receipt checker with them only giving it a cursory glance (ie: not matching the items on the receipt to whats in the bag)... (2) buy something, drop it in the car, go back in with the bag and receipt, re-fill the bag and leave again... (3) buy a bunch of stuff, shove a bunch more in your clothing, hope they dont check your bag and receipt (so they hopefully wont notice your bulging clothes) and make off with what's on your clothing...
So, there are multiple reasons why having a bag full of paid for items is irrelevant to whether someone has shoplifted. You, (apparently) having never shoplifted may not have made that connection... but any decent security person must - because we have seen it happen - numerous times...
I also agree (IF Ohio's laws are similar to most) that the store in question doesnt have a leg to stand on... BUT that may also not be the case... try standing on a corner in a bad neighborhood where cops suspect (or know) drug deals go on. Courts have considered that (at least in quite a few cases) sufficient reason to suspect the person standing there of suspicious activity. Is it right? Well, frankly in this guy's case (if the court leans that direction) it doesnt matter (except maybe in an appeal). That's the sad thing.
So, I'm not disagreeing with you about what is right or wrong... just pointing out that Reality rarely is about things that are right or wrong... Reality just is... whether we agree or like it or not... :-(
By employees I mean : Security (Store and hired), management. Not just anyone... sorry I didnt clarify that in the parent post.
Here's another very pertinent thing which you can also find with a little Google Searching.
Detaining Shoplifting SuspectsDefinition: As used [herein], the term "security person(s)" is intended to include only store proprietors and managers, store plainclothes security agents sometimes called "detectives," and uniformed security officers also called security guards (either proprietary or contract). The term does not include sales clerks, maintenance persons, or stockers, for examples. The term "security person(s)" is not intended to apply to off-duty public law enforcement or special police personnel unless they have been instructed by store management to follow the same procedures required of ordinary citizens, which procedures do not include police powers of arrest.
In almost all jurisdictions in the United States, merchants are legally empowered to detain shoplifting suspects for investigation and possible arrest and prosecution in the criminal justice system. This power is called "merchant's privilege."
Sorry, I've managed places for quite some time... I needed to know the law in order not to break it.
Actually you are incorrect. MOST states DO allow merchants to detain shoplifters (Google it)... a sufficient degree of probably cause is supposed to be determined by the merchant - and that degree, as required by law, varies per state.
In our case, an employee had to witness the act - or suspect the act and be able to verify it on the recorded video footage...
Now, in the event a detention occurred without probable cause (as defined by local and state laws/ordinances) then you would be correct.
You can't just detain anyone...
Here's one of many references...
http://www.iapsc.org/uploaded_documents/bp1.doc
a. The merchant's privilege provides for detention of persons suspected of shoplifting only when probable cause or reasonable cause exists to believe a person has committed theft. The best practice for establishing this probable cause (as compared to any legal standard) is the security person's having met all the following six steps: (1) observe the customer approach the merchandise, (2) observe the customer select the merchandise, (3) observe the customer conceal (or otherwise carry away) the merchandise, (4) keep the customer under constant and uninterrupted observation, (5) see the customer fail to pay for the merchandise, and (6) detain the customer outside the store.
b. The merchant's privilege permits detention for limited purposes which vary by state. Common among these limited purposes are: (1) ascertaining that stolen merchandise is possessed by the suspect, (2) identifying the suspect, (3) investigating the alleged theft, (4) recovering stolen merchandise, and (5) notifying the police of the offense. Some states permit limited searches of the suspect, some states limit the extent to which identity may be established; and the use of force which can legally be used is, if mentioned, always non-deadly. Many company or store policies further restrict permissible actions in dealing with shoplifting suspects; e.g., prohibiting pursuing suspects beyond company property.
Part a.6. definitely varies per state, and in some you have to stop them before they leave whatever is defined as your last point of pay (first exit door, decently past all registers, etc).
MOST states allow a lot more than you think.... SOME even allow use of force to detain. SOME allow limited searches, AND MOST allow detainment. SOME (VERY FEW) require it to be done by a state licensed security person.
Well, it depends... and can be murky. Our (state licensed) security guard can be instructed to detain the person (and certain of them can physically detain them). Our employees can, through blocking the exit, attempt to detain them without initiating physical contact. We cannot lock the door as long as any customers are in the building (Fire Code).
So then you are left in a jobless position ANYWAY -- PLUS the world is deprived of whatever service that company was offering ... then what happens to your kids then .. not only are you jobless but the economy in general & quality of life in general will be crappy for them.
Actually, your analysis is idiotic - and wrong.
An RFID chip can be removed and implanted in someone else - as already noted by others... or it's "code" can be duplicated to make it seem like one person is someone they are not (kinda like the car lock buttons and the numerous devices to copy the codes to steal cars). It can and will happen.
There are other technologies that are even more secure... visually matching the employee to a picture in the database at the security station, fingerprints (more difficult to cut off someone's finger than to duplicate their RFID chip), retina scans, etc.
Chances are, any of the technologies I listed are cheaper than RFID tagging someone sub-cutaneously... so why choose a more expensive, more likely to be rendered useless, more invasive method such as RFID tagging people?
Just a thought...
-Robert
IANAL but I seem to recall (from researching it when I owned a storefront):
Actually, this varies per state and per jurisdiction (ie: county, city, town) depending on the specific laws.
Some states require that you must actually walk out the door with a product before you can be accused of attempting to shoplift... inotherwords if I go into a Circuit City and stuff a bunch of CDs in my shirt, until I step through that door, it isnt a crime... other states allow that action that (seems to) constitute intent as attempted shoplifting.
As for jurisdictional borders/property... that varies as well per state. In some states, you cannot try to detain the person once they have left your building... in others you can (as long as they have not left your parking lot)... and in a few I believe you could try to detain them even after that.
Even in states that allow you to detain people suspected of shoplifting in your parking lot, the waters get kind of murky there too... If you are in a shopping center, the parking lot is quite possibly not yours. If you are renting a space that has it's own parking and no rights of egress to others, then it is different. If you own the property and the parking, that too is different...
As for Ohio, I have no clue.... but don't assume Ohio fits a particular circumstance as the laws are quite different in many places.
In New York if I remember correctly, [at least in the county I was a store manager in (not a Circuit City)], we can detain you, and even request to see your receipts or request you let us inspect your bag(s), but cannot forcibly do so... if you refuse, which is your right, then we can detain you until the police arrive who then can search your bag if we sufficiently prove to them/convince them a crime (shoplifting) has occurred.
Well, just last year they came up with something new in the motion picture industry... what was it they called it? Oh yeah... a Stunt Double!
My silliness aside... Shatner and Nimoy (and Kelley) had stunt doubles for TOS... so no big deal.
On top of that, it was always quite rare for Spock to exert himself physically - and most of the time that he did, it was usually very understated moves because of his character's far greater than human strength. Mark Lenard played Sarek's "fight" scene in a similar way for that matter. Unless it was an all out brawl (Mirror, Mirror style), I think even Nimoy could handle it - without a stunt double.
-Robert
I agree with you 100%... though of course, to be more accurate, it was Spock acting illogically under the pretense of making logical remarks - to either incite McCoy or win some banter/argument that McCoy started. Nothing logical about it ;-) As much as Spock would pretend he was being logical... which made it even more humorous, because Nimoy managed to deliver the lines deadpan - and then give McCoy that sly, slightly understated "Go ahead, come up with a comment to top that!" look.
This is a dynamic I really don't think Paramount will get right without a lot of effort.
You are sort of correct... their TOU have changed since the last time I checked (which was a couple months ago - and I copied and pasted it as it was at the time someplace here on slashdot... but I can only pull up my last 24 posts - brings me to my user account when I search for my own)...
But, even with the changes, the following term could still be construed in a similar fashion:
use, copy, distribute, display, publish and modify your submission, each in connection with the service; publish your name in connection with your submission; and grant these permissions to other persons.Use, distribute or publish are the three "vague" ones. Use can cover many aspects of... well, use.
Publish holds the less vague, and possibly more applicable (because it allows them to do so - ie: sell your stuff) definition:
To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.Emphasis mine.
Distribution (from either the definition of publish - or from MS's TOU) is defined as:
The process of marketing and supplying goods, especially to retailers.That means both terms seem to imply sale of the stuff you post through their services - at least as an option they or others can exercise.
They used to (and may still) have partnerships with various companies through which you could purchase images posted by others through their services (just as Yahoo does). The fact that their new TOU is very ambiguous about it I think means that section took a lot of flack and thus they re-wrote it to say the same exact thing, but in more ambiguous terms.
See, the thing is, their TOU still, by the definition of the words they have chosen, allow them to sell your (whatever) that you uploaded through their service(s). Will they? I dont know... Did they at one time? Yes - and they have left themselves open to be able to again - even with the changes and more vague wording.
-Robert
"Yeah, so I talked to the janitor at MS, and he says he doesnt care... so lets keep AutoPatcher up..."
The parent poster is 100% correct... and in addition, it is added shielding to prevent someone who posts something publicly available from later suing Google because people got their content from said publicly available service.
It's also a far cry from MS's (paraphrased) "However you post it, wherever you post it, on any of our services (public or private) we have the right to use it, sell it, license it to our partners" clauses.
Let me correct this error. Everyone of us who buys DVDs or VHS or goes to the movies, or watches them on Pay Per View IS in the business of "financing" motion pictures.
It does not affect your ability to earn a living and feed your family one way or another.Well, in the case of people erroneously sued by the **AA, it definitely does. Suggesting a business model that protects the investments the labels have made - that we are then expected to pay off (and then some) - while dropping the "Sue em all - whether they are guilty or not" business model would be quite valid topics to discuss... show interest in protecting the **AA's properties, while protecting innocent consumers as well. (Innocent) "consumers" is in bold because I am referencing people who buy their music/movies - as opposed to pirates - which I have no problems with the **AA suing.
Actually he doesnt - if I understand him properly.
NO CARRIER used to mean something picked up/started a connection but the modem cannot obtain carrier.
CARRIER LOST usually meant just that - had one, lost it.
In the more modern days of modems, NO CARRIER was more commonly used for CARRIER LOST situations and NO CARRIER situations...
So I guess you are both right...
Really? That's impressive! I am aware of that claim... but MS made the same claims about Win95 (errr... DOS with an extended Win3.1). And the last stack "they" totally wrote from scratch came from the BSD world - which they then proceeded to hose. I severely doubt the "new" stack was written from scratch. Maybe purchased/borrowed from someone else and modified a whole lot... maybe modified from the XP stack... but written from scratch? Yeah... so was over 80% of Vista by their claims - which we also know not to be true (lots are glommed on parts from Server 2003 and S2003's add-ons, some is from XP, and the rest was a combination of bought (like much of the multimedia editting/playing stuff), borrowed, "borrowed" and the rest possibly written from scratch).
Either way, lets assume you are correct and MS is being truthful - and that the entire stack was written from scratch for Vista... with oh so many performance enhancements (as claimed by MS and posted ALL over the net)... it is still even more reason this should not be occurring...
So, it doesnt matter how you/I look at it... whether MS's claims of a total re-write are true or not... their claims of far superior performance in the "new"/new stack obviously aren't a reality when you play an MP3 that itself should be using .5% of your CPU power...
You are telling ME not to be stupid? What the heck type computer are YOU running that your CPU can't handle playing an MP3 and handling network traffic? An Etch-A-Sketch? I know in the Linux and OS/2 world, all you need is a 486 to handle those "monumental" tasks without corrupting your audio stream... on Windows (XP/Vist/Whatever) I am pretty sure that a Dual Core 3+GHz system should easily be able to handle it.
There is NO VALID technical reason why this behavior should occur. Vista may be a resource hog, but it isn't that bad that it needs to sacrifice network speeds in order to play an MP3.
How about you go get a clue... and then don't bother coming back?
Ummm... as I already stated in this topic, I don't. BUT... even if I choose not to run Vista that does not mean that the company I work for didn't buy into MS's "Faster, better, more secure" pitch and upgrade all their workstations and server to Vista leaving me no choice.
Fortunately for me, the company I work for isn't that stupid... but enough companies have switched. Regardless, you are still missing (ignoring) the more important point in my posts - which is this is not normal, it is not acceptable, it is not a wanted feature (DRM be damned), and it should not be happening on any piece of hardware that is out today.
Ummm... Flash Player is NOT free for many Operating Systems... it's NON-EXISTANT
In the Linux and OS/2 world, Gnash and numerous other (non-Adobe) Flash Players have yet to reach the latest release level compatibility with the actual Flash Player. While that isnt always a problem, I am running into more and more sites that check for and require a higher level Flash version (ie: 8 or 9).
Not everyone runs Windows ya know...
Ummm... let me be the first to point out that SACEM is NOT the French equivalent of the RIAA... at least not if they are allowing "more than 100,000 full songs, streamed on demand and without restrictions."
But maybe the RIAA will take a lesson from this and come to their senses and convince their member companies (themselves) to come up with and/or support more viable Internet distribution methods as a business model instead of their current "Sue 'em all and then some more people for good measure" attitude. In addition, their Internet Royalty Arm (SoundExchange) is still leaning the exact opposite way (making such things costly, and waffling back and forth between forcing the websites to add encumbering restrictions to the content - ie: DRM). While SoundExchange seems to be/have waffled on some of that, they are still a far cry from what SACEM seems to be allowing and setting up.
Hopefully this will prove to be enough of a viable business model in France that the RIAA/SoundExchange will take note and head down a different road than their current one...
DUH!!!!!!!!! It's NOT off topic. The point it was relevant to you apparently missed. Let me spell it out to the moderator who obviously has no brain or just likes modding anything that mentions OS/2 as off-topic.
- Z! (which I use exclusively on OS/2) works on Windows
- Someone asked is this an aspect of playing MP3s via Windows Media Player which on Vista seems to talk to MS no matter what you click - or if this can be repeated using non MS audio playing apps.
- This was in response to, and for providing more information about; testing this with a non-Windows Vista/Media Player app to evaluate that question.
- I don't (and won't) run Vista, so I cant test this... but the idiot moderator who flagged my post as off-topic maybe could...
Ah well... at least only some mods are idiots.
Hmmm... lets say I do graphics all day, and archive the raw data to our file server (or perhaps even store the data there)... instead of wasting the power of my iPod's battery (assuming I have one) or needing a dock with speakers... why can't I just play MP3s from my computer while I am working? And when I do, why should I wait 3 minutes (or 5 minutes) for a file transfer that should take 1.5 minutes?
Data transfer speeds aren't always critical to wanting to reach maximum transfer rates (as in my example). Nonetheless, you are still missing the point. There is no reason for the network degradation (under these circumstances) - regardless of what MS claims. Period. End of story.