Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the checks/balances systems seems to be easily bent/broken. A call for legislation goes out in DC, and something is written up to answer that call. At this point it is a given that someone will be there to say "The way this is written means it could be used for alternative purposes, but we would Never do that, nope!" The legislation then becomes formalized, and (sometimes immediately) gets used in precisely the manner that the public was informed it would not be used for. Since the guarantee was not in the legislation, it is virtually worthless. If there were some way to make sure that the legislation would not be used for alternate programs/uses/violations of privacy, then I would be much more able to get behind such a thing. As of current, our administration does not have the best track record when it comes to honest dealings in any arena.
As much as I hate DRM, I have to disagree. Giving people false information to make their decisions will only lead to angry people. It does not matter if the reason is good or noble. False information give the opposition a way in to the people you are trying to effect. They can go "See? It really isn't like they say. Here is proof." Once that president has been set, your target audience/market/group/whatever will be more likely to discard what you tell them, and accept what your opponent tells them.
So if it's the difference between them hiring me or you wouldn't it be valid? Bad credit does not equal a bad person but it is indictive of their priorities.
Not really. As I noted, there are any number of situations that are realistically beyond the control of someone that can damage their credit report. It's nice to know that you were able to go from a poor family to University. I don't think that makes you a better employee than someone who had to take on debt due to circumstance. I do think it makes you lucky. That is not even taking into account all the errors the credit groups process and keep as fact. The first time I examined my credit reports I found almost 30 errors.
Being irresponsible is what leads to bad credit.
So, how would paying rent and buying groceries for a year and a half (because even the local fast food has that much competition for jobs) be irresponsible? When you can't afford to leave an area and start fresh elsewhere, and can't find a legal means of employment, you are left in a nasty situation. Throw on top of that being a college student, and it get even better. Yes, there are some people that manage to be poor and not have bad credit. One is not always an indicator of the other. Bad credit is not always the choice of the person, though - I actually have had to take out cash advances for six months to pay my other credit cards, when I was younger. A short-term no-win situation. The assumption that bad credit equals an irresponsible citizen is just that - an assumption. I will agree that there are cases where this is accurate, not nearly all of them.
Mr. Irwin died in the equivalent of an underwater car accident.
According to this link he was actually just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The speculation seems to be that the camara crew and everyone else being in the water likely spooked the stingray, and when it went defensive the 2.5m stingray swung it's barb strait up... into Mr. Irwin. Also, from the article, this is only the 18th such fatality on record worldwide. (17 before=18 now)
~~Restricting where someone can live isn't nearly as big a deal as locking them away.~~
IANAL (or law student)
I have to disagree. If you happen to live somewhere that is 'restricted' and are put on the register, then you have to move. That is a major expense in itself. Depending on someone's situation (financially) and the area that is blocked to them (someone mentioned a whole county that had been blocked off in an earlier comment) this could force someone to have to move far enough away to have to terminate their emploment, as well. So you have someone who has been forced to move, possibly lost their job, and no conviction? And you have the same person looking for a new place to live and/or work with the onus of being listed as a sex offender against them. This could, and in some cases would, be very damaging to any number of people.
You noted this could be appealed, but how long would that take? A month, six months, two years? If the appeal overturned the initial declaration, would anyone look at reimbursing for expenses required, or possibly pursue clearing a persons image. The register is there for everyone to see, but if you know someone is on it already are you going to go checking to see if they are still there, unless required?
Again, IANAL (or law student), but this sounds like there are too many holes in it. I am all for protecting the innocent (a very relative term, but accurate) but this sounds like it could all too easily cause (purposefully or not) notable harm to the public.
The potential to destroy someone's life does rate (to me) at the same level as sending someone to prison. Of course, last I had heard, we don't have any major redress if we send the wrong person to prison for something, either.
Then increasing the wireless transmission rate any higher is kind of pointless, isn't it?
No, it could have some (eventual) uses. When you start looking at the all-in-one packaging that is becoming more common, it would allow better usage of similar packages for companies. (Or even multi-residential apartments and such)
It's also another brick in the super-network home setup - route your TV, internet, phone, etc. through one point.
--
Just My Opinion/Could Be Wrong
I think this would be a big risk for them to take, unless they were very slow and controlled about it. If someone told me that I would not be able to see any more (new) movies unless I paid them $1000+ for decent HW, I guess I would be doing something else with my time and money. I think they would only be able to do this until it was spread that it was a directing tactic, and then (I hope) it would backfire in their face.
--
Just My Opinion/Could Be Wrong
A friend of mine upgraded to a 7.1 system (card and speakers) and ran the demo disk that had the audio tracks recorded to such - the difference was astounding.
I think it falls back to there not being enough of a market for a 7.1 disc to be produced, though.
And people won't really even consider adopting until they are provided with a decent quality and selection of media. Catch 22, or would that be 2.2...
--
**Just My Opinion/Could Be Wrong**
I agree that getting an A is great, but why do people always seem to focus on getting a C as bad? Last time I checked, C was meant to be the average grade. B and A were meant to be above average, D and F below.
Where do you fit people like me into the breakdown? If I find a movie or a track or CD that I like enough to keep I generally will pay for it to support the artist or the product. (Most of my CD purchases are from sources where I know the money goes to the artist - If I buy a song from a label, it's by the track) It's not even a question of honesty, so much, as fairness. If I want this, then I have to give something. If I feel what they ask for is acceptable, then I do so.
Now, I dislike DRM, don't get me wrong. I do feel that the **AA go too far, already, in what they can do to 'protect their rights.' When it tramples my rights, it is no longer just a question of your rights. I don't want to see the artists loose out on support, if I appreciate their work, either. (One of the reasons I pay as little as possible to the big labels is that I like to actually think some of the money makes it to the artist.) That, I feel, is the true fine line; protect the rights of the consumer, and the rights of the artist. Honestly, I think the label should have the least say in things - they should return to what they were meant to be: a middle man. The middle man gets a cut, yes, but not the lion's share!
Sorry if I'm preaching to the church...
Thank you. So many times, I see people who just assume that a "terrorist" can not ever be born in their own country. Terrorism is about acts, not nationality, race, sex, creed, political leaning, sexual leanings, or anything else. The moment someone decides to inspire terror in a target they cross the line between not a terrorist and terrorist - that simple.
According to the Powers-That-Were yes, they were. Since we managed to change out our government successfully it became fighting for our freedom. It comes down (in part) to a matter of perspective.
Got the $$ for it? A decent LCD screen to replace a living room TV is not the cheapest thing in the world, so there are going to be a lot of people who just can't afford to upgrade, especially if the Tube-TV works fine.
It's been years since I had an account with any pr0n type websites, but I bet they still do free trials. Would some enterprising person not be able to sign up for a "free trial" account, log themselves in to the site via their site, initiate the required process to gain access, and then cancel their legitimate account before the "free" trial ends? (Sorry if this doesn't make sense; been a long night)
Ocassionally, you can do a web search for the data provided and find a solution. I've only had about 50% success rate on this, though, and that is personal vs. professional.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the checks/balances systems seems to be easily bent/broken. A call for legislation goes out in DC, and something is written up to answer that call. At this point it is a given that someone will be there to say "The way this is written means it could be used for alternative purposes, but we would Never do that, nope!" The legislation then becomes formalized, and (sometimes immediately) gets used in precisely the manner that the public was informed it would not be used for. Since the guarantee was not in the legislation, it is virtually worthless. If there were some way to make sure that the legislation would not be used for alternate programs/uses/violations of privacy, then I would be much more able to get behind such a thing. As of current, our administration does not have the best track record when it comes to honest dealings in any arena.
**
Just my opinion / Could be wrong
**
Shouldn't that have been "...teh SUXORZ!!"
As much as I hate DRM, I have to disagree. Giving people false information to make their decisions will only lead to angry people. It does not matter if the reason is good or noble. False information give the opposition a way in to the people you are trying to effect. They can go "See? It really isn't like they say. Here is proof." Once that president has been set, your target audience/market/group/whatever will be more likely to discard what you tell them, and accept what your opponent tells them.
So if it's the difference between them hiring me or you wouldn't it be valid? Bad credit does not equal a bad person but it is indictive of their priorities.
Not really. As I noted, there are any number of situations that are realistically beyond the control of someone that can damage their credit report. It's nice to know that you were able to go from a poor family to University. I don't think that makes you a better employee than someone who had to take on debt due to circumstance. I do think it makes you lucky. That is not even taking into account all the errors the credit groups process and keep as fact. The first time I examined my credit reports I found almost 30 errors.
Being irresponsible is what leads to bad credit.
So, how would paying rent and buying groceries for a year and a half (because even the local fast food has that much competition for jobs) be irresponsible? When you can't afford to leave an area and start fresh elsewhere, and can't find a legal means of employment, you are left in a nasty situation. Throw on top of that being a college student, and it get even better. Yes, there are some people that manage to be poor and not have bad credit. One is not always an indicator of the other. Bad credit is not always the choice of the person, though - I actually have had to take out cash advances for six months to pay my other credit cards, when I was younger. A short-term no-win situation. The assumption that bad credit equals an irresponsible citizen is just that - an assumption. I will agree that there are cases where this is accurate, not nearly all of them.
I want to patent.. the Alphabet! I'll settle for the american english alphabet, A-Z. What do you think? [ END Sarcasm ]
Mr. Irwin died in the equivalent of an underwater car accident.
According to this link he was actually just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The speculation seems to be that the camara crew and everyone else being in the water likely spooked the stingray, and when it went defensive the 2.5m stingray swung it's barb strait up... into Mr. Irwin. Also, from the article, this is only the 18th such fatality on record worldwide. (17 before=18 now)
~~Restricting where someone can live isn't nearly as big a deal as locking them away.~~
IANAL (or law student)
I have to disagree. If you happen to live somewhere that is 'restricted' and are put on the register, then you have to move. That is a major expense in itself. Depending on someone's situation (financially) and the area that is blocked to them (someone mentioned a whole county that had been blocked off in an earlier comment) this could force someone to have to move far enough away to have to terminate their emploment, as well. So you have someone who has been forced to move, possibly lost their job, and no conviction? And you have the same person looking for a new place to live and/or work with the onus of being listed as a sex offender against them. This could, and in some cases would, be very damaging to any number of people.
You noted this could be appealed, but how long would that take? A month, six months, two years? If the appeal overturned the initial declaration, would anyone look at reimbursing for expenses required, or possibly pursue clearing a persons image. The register is there for everyone to see, but if you know someone is on it already are you going to go checking to see if they are still there, unless required?
Again, IANAL (or law student), but this sounds like there are too many holes in it. I am all for protecting the innocent (a very relative term, but accurate) but this sounds like it could all too easily cause (purposefully or not) notable harm to the public.
The potential to destroy someone's life does rate (to me) at the same level as sending someone to prison. Of course, last I had heard, we don't have any major redress if we send the wrong person to prison for something, either.
I see you have discovered the Secret Marketing Tactic(tm)!!
Then increasing the wireless transmission rate any higher is kind of pointless, isn't it? No, it could have some (eventual) uses. When you start looking at the all-in-one packaging that is becoming more common, it would allow better usage of similar packages for companies. (Or even multi-residential apartments and such) It's also another brick in the super-network home setup - route your TV, internet, phone, etc. through one point. -- Just My Opinion/Could Be Wrong
I think this would be a big risk for them to take, unless they were very slow and controlled about it. If someone told me that I would not be able to see any more (new) movies unless I paid them $1000+ for decent HW, I guess I would be doing something else with my time and money. I think they would only be able to do this until it was spread that it was a directing tactic, and then (I hope) it would backfire in their face. -- Just My Opinion/Could Be Wrong
A friend of mine upgraded to a 7.1 system (card and speakers) and ran the demo disk that had the audio tracks recorded to such - the difference was astounding. I think it falls back to there not being enough of a market for a 7.1 disc to be produced, though. And people won't really even consider adopting until they are provided with a decent quality and selection of media. Catch 22, or would that be 2.2 ...
--
**Just My Opinion/Could Be Wrong**
I agree that getting an A is great, but why do people always seem to focus on getting a C as bad? Last time I checked, C was meant to be the average grade. B and A were meant to be above average, D and F below.
5600... For some reason this reminded me of the Atari commercials from the 80s...
Amsterdam?
Where do you fit people like me into the breakdown? If I find a movie or a track or CD that I like enough to keep I generally will pay for it to support the artist or the product. (Most of my CD purchases are from sources where I know the money goes to the artist - If I buy a song from a label, it's by the track) It's not even a question of honesty, so much, as fairness. If I want this, then I have to give something. If I feel what they ask for is acceptable, then I do so. Now, I dislike DRM, don't get me wrong. I do feel that the **AA go too far, already, in what they can do to 'protect their rights.' When it tramples my rights, it is no longer just a question of your rights. I don't want to see the artists loose out on support, if I appreciate their work, either. (One of the reasons I pay as little as possible to the big labels is that I like to actually think some of the money makes it to the artist.) That, I feel, is the true fine line; protect the rights of the consumer, and the rights of the artist. Honestly, I think the label should have the least say in things - they should return to what they were meant to be: a middle man. The middle man gets a cut, yes, but not the lion's share! Sorry if I'm preaching to the church...
Thank you. So many times, I see people who just assume that a "terrorist" can not ever be born in their own country. Terrorism is about acts, not nationality, race, sex, creed, political leaning, sexual leanings, or anything else. The moment someone decides to inspire terror in a target they cross the line between not a terrorist and terrorist - that simple.
According to the Powers-That-Were yes, they were. Since we managed to change out our government successfully it became fighting for our freedom. It comes down (in part) to a matter of perspective.
Got the $$ for it? A decent LCD screen to replace a living room TV is not the cheapest thing in the world, so there are going to be a lot of people who just can't afford to upgrade, especially if the Tube-TV works fine.
It's been years since I had an account with any pr0n type websites, but I bet they still do free trials. Would some enterprising person not be able to sign up for a "free trial" account, log themselves in to the site via their site, initiate the required process to gain access, and then cancel their legitimate account before the "free" trial ends? (Sorry if this doesn't make sense; been a long night)
Ocassionally, you can do a web search for the data provided and find a solution. I've only had about 50% success rate on this, though, and that is personal vs. professional.
What do you mean the matches are wet?! I have to start over, again!! ARGH!!!