Re: Budget-priced, my arse
That combination of words in your post title was exactly those I intended to post before I clicked onto this page. That's like some wierd meme shit. I must add "like the iPhone C was budget-priced..."
389 posts • joined 24 Dec 2011
That combination of words in your post title was exactly those I intended to post before I clicked onto this page. That's like some wierd meme shit. I must add "like the iPhone C was budget-priced..."
I think the analogy is the policeman and the thief. The thief breaks into someone's house, the policeman turns up, and says "freeze or I'll shoot". The thief tries to run out of the back door.
When the police officer shoots the fleeing thief, who caused the thief's injury, the police officer or the thief?
My point is that I'm not sure if it's these sanctions ultimately causing harm to Russians. I think the ultimate cause is Putin's unacceptable seizure of Crimea and East Ukraine.
Why have the holiday bookings stopped?
I like your point about wearing reflective stuff a lot - I actually had no idea my lights might not be nearly as visible as reflectors, but that makes perfect sense. Do you think a high-vis vest counts?
However I was very concerned about your other point. It doesn't surprise me that drivers didn't think you'd be cycling at 30mph. I think you (and we all) will find that, always, simply because 1) a bike is small and you notice it much later therefore than cars and thus don't see it moving for a period and can misjudge its speed, and 2) because for reasons of strength and safety (see 1) most cyclists simply don't cycle that fast, so it's extremely unexpected that someone will be, contributing to the misjudgement.
It winds me up as much as anyone else when a driver pulls out in front of me but I think for the reasons I gave, 30mph is too fast to ride in many if not perhaps almost all circumstances, for your own safety, and possibly that of pedestrians, to whom you/we are just as un-visible as drivers, and who are not so visible to you yourself in fact, and yet who have even less protective padding than you.
Agree agree agree. But - the un-ISIS-enhanced version of Sharia law wouldn't prohibit scientific knowledge, in fact I'm pretty sure scholars in the Islamic world were pretty great with science and maths, the first to systematize algebra, decimals, the decimal point, they preserved for us the works of the classical Greek and Roman canon (although I honestly don't know what they were thinking when they allowed Ovid's Ars Amoris to be transcribed...).
Hahaha excellent :-)
Just a note for newbies to the small claims process, you have to do a couple of things before going to the moneyclaim process. 1) ask the retailer to fulfil their obligations. 2) if they refuse 1), write to retailer recorded delivery (possibly with just certificate of posting but not sure), informing them that you're going to make a small claim against them, and saying why, unless they fulfil their obligations in a reasonable period e.g. 2 weeks. 3) then you're good to go with moneyclaim/small claim.
Note though that if your purchase is over £100 and you paid (even a penny of it) by UK credit card, then under s 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1975 the credit card company is jointly liable under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, for the goods (e.g. including their being of reasonable quality and durability considering all factors including the price). In the English language this means if the retailer turns you down, rather than going through moneyclaim, if you want you can just ring up your credit card co and tell them what's happened, and invite them to see you right.
More likely someone who thinks Putin is! "Oh at least he stands up for his country and wants it to be strong unlike the limp West etc etc..."
In a very real sense your point is accurate, from a constitutional point of view. Indeed in a system with an all-powerful sovereign we do indeed have what rights the ruling power permit us. However that ruling power is the people. The parties you speak of put to the country at election time, precisely the issues it thinks concern you. That's why the Labour party in 1996/97 campaigned on their white paper "bringing rights home", which promised to entrench the European Convention on Human Rights within the British legal system, so that all branches of government would be strongly bound by it, except for Parliament which chooses to honour it and also chooses to honour the procedure whereby all legislation must be certified compliant with the Human Rights Act.
Why should it be a privilege granted by society, and not a moral right, that one should be safe from cruel treatment by the state? What is it do you think that makes the authority of that society's leadership and rules legitimate, if not protecting its members from cruel treatment?
another bonkers thing Putin says or does. Is he mad or is he pretending?
You're talking about rights as against your fellow citizens (that they not murder you). Do you not think you should have any rights against the state? E.g. that it not pass laws excessively restricting your freedom of religion, association, private life, expression; that you never be tortured or executed by the state, or detained or punished without pre-existing legal grounds, or deprived of a fair trial, or discriminated against in the enjoyment of these liberties against the state, because of your gender/sexuality/ethnicity, etc?
Or do you believe all states should be allowed to pass whatever laws they like? Because it sounds like that's what you're arguing.
I had someone win my car on an eBay auction, and the day they'd arranged to pick it up they emailed and said "my brother hijacked my account so I won't be buying the car" - after I'd made the journey 30 miles to meet them. So he then offered me 65% of the price agreed. I took it because it was only £40 loss and they seemed too scary to risk suing, and they knew my mum's address. But if it was anyone else I would resell the car and sue the buyer for the difference. Suing is good.
You could do a breach of contract claim in the small claims court, on behalf of yourself and your neighbours, on grounds that provision of the service has not been carried out with reasonable care and skill. Sounds pretty slam dunk to me. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/29/section/13 Unless you go for fibre, there's no guarantee any other provider will take the problem seriously.
You're right - a directive gives choice of how to implement.
And in principle, smart grids actually ought to make for cheaper energy and thus less returns to foreign extractive industries and more to higher-monetary-velocity industries (which seems to me a decent enough policy for co-ordination among the member states, assuming this objective wasn't in one of the treaties signed from time to time, which it probably was anyway).
I suspect we had the opportunity to veto the rule and didn't? If so that would make it a law of our own making - not something imposed on us.
You may be right with some or all of the negative results of intervening in Libya, but the intention was to stop the large-scale massacre by hired mercenaries of Libyan citizens, and it seemed to have succeeded. Even if we take a completely results-led view of the morality of that intervention (and ignore the intentions and feelings at the time about the awfulness of the massacre, which I think is a pure hindsight-based approach and not sound), then alongside the disorder which now plagues Libya, you have to place the lives of the people who seem likely to have been killed had the US not intervened. So, morally speaking, there are goods and harms there to weigh, and intentions and results.
Afghanistan you're right about, but I don't see how that particular unforeseen result of an action taken to stop Soviet global expansion, bears on the morality of training people to defeat the Soviets. And I said post-Clinton anyway.
As for Maidan, I'm sorry but I completely disagree about it installing the West's man. There was a popular uprising against Moscow's puppet Yuschenko, who fled, and the Ukrainian parliament (who appoints the government) appointed a new one, and the people elected a president who was more acceptable to them, one who had not Russia's nor the West's interests at heart but Ukraine's. I see nothing constitutionally controversial about that.
WMDs were indeed problematic and I did indeed say Bush II argued poorly and provocatively for a war which we may today not even properly understand.
The US today, since Clinton and with the exception I mentioned of some of Bush II's public claims, is not at all "no better than any other country that interferes with the politics abd sovereignty of another." That's nonsense. Moscow invaded half of Europe and Asia and kept it militarily subjugated for 70 years, and now it's doing it again with Ukraine. It's in that context that you have to view the US actions in trying to forestall socialism and Soviet dependency in Lat Am - although I agree it was unacceptable - but it was a long time ago, and America, unlike Russia, is not in the business of militarily expanding its territory.
After Rwanda, people like Michael Ignatieff developed the "R2P" or Right To Protect doctrine, which held that where atrocity were to occur on a grand scale without military intervention, military intervention in a sovereign territory was permissible. This was the principle which for the US permitted Bosnia, Libya, and Kosovo, although it was more problematic in Afghanistan, and so Afghanistan turned on a self-defence/averting-failed-state-harbouring-terrorists rationale (the "they won't educate women" wasn't enough imho), and to this day I don't fully understand Iraq II - although think we should take an open view and disregard the less persuasive rhetoric used at the time to justify it.
Grenada, Panama, contra etc were pre-Clinton and indeed they were pretty dubious. And yes I agree perhaps outside the military realm, countries aren't good to each other. But there ought to be some minimum standard for prohibiting military expansion of your territory, and I think it's largely obtained, between legally recognised states, since the fall of the Soviet Union, at least until Crimea/East Ukraine.
So Chile - whatever other empirical differences obtain (including fighting a seemingly life-or-death strategic battle against actual soviet military expansion following its then ongoing and now revived military subjugation of sovereign European states) - whatever other empirical differences obtain, there's a pretty obvious one you should note, and it's this:
Chile was then. This is now. We live in a different world, sustained not merely or even necessarily by the ability to enforce our wishes, but actual moral principles of state-to-state behaviour. To claim that someone perpetrated an apparent evil long ago (even if it is a comparable case), does not to my mind make an argument that an "anything goes" doctrine should today be permissible. In fact it's an argument against. It's saying "we can do evil because you did evil". That's still a claim about evil. And one itself based on largely false premises: if you look at all US military actions since Clinton, you see overwhelming moral justifications for each (with the exception of some aspects of Bush II exceptionalism, a tragic era, but one characterised by a style of rhetoric targeted at appeasing domestic bigots, as much as anything else).
Yes that is an acknowledged problem among legal theorists who deal with legal punishment. The problem is thought to be that you equally condemn greater and lesser harms. However in the age of the internet perhaps we don't tend to physically harm one another so much, and our reputation and mental wellbeing maybe count for much more than they used to, compared with physical wellbeing, so maybe the sentences are proportionate.
Yeah a reasonable person standard for intent to cause harm which happened, sounds quite sensible tbh. Glad the land of the libertarian is catching up with the land of John Stuart Mill in actually prohibiting some hate speech (although the question of harm to *what* tends to have pretty unsatisfactory answers in a libertarian context, i.e. it's always harm to an individual as society isn't thought to exist).
Questions of nudity will probably turn on caselaw definitions, i.e. those definitions judges have developed over the years, with flexibility for the judge/jury, and questions about their sexual nature are something for the jury to make a finding of fact concerning, (that is, if the defendant opts for a jury trial, otherwise the judge makes the finding of fact). Legislation can't decide everything in advance, it has to leave some things to human judgement.
But "unauthorized posting of nude or sexual images of an individual with the purpose of causing emotional distress" really has a quite narrow purpose. I simply don't think you can come up with an instance where someone might post breast pictures, unauthorised, intending them to cause distress in the person pictured, and it NOT be worthy of consideration for prosecution under this law. Those are cumulative conditions, they're all necessary but not sufficient for a conviction. Conviction depends on the prosecutor, judge, and possibly a jury, all believing that the person ought to be convicted, as well as the offence being made out on the facts and on the law.
sound pretty weak. The big firms know that to have proper markets in creative intellectual property once again, then they'll need ordinary bods onside in fights against the big filesharers.
on Android is the main reason I couldn't ditch my Moto G for a coveted Nokia 1020. RSI. Swiftkey saves me quite a lot of typing/swyping by giving me that AND next-word options which are genuinely peculiar to my usage patterns. It's genuinely better than its competitors. If you don't have a disability giving you difficulty typing, you may not worry about this kind of thing.
"If there was a levy on blank media to pay for piracy, then morally there can be no objection should I choose to fill that media with pirated stuff - I already paid the premium for that, and so there can be no loss on the other side."
I think the analogy is more with the Motor Insurer Bureau's fund for harm caused by uninsured drivers, which pays out a small fraction of the cost of an accident, in a limited number of cases - and it's paid for by all motorists. You pay a) because the key market players have decided your altruistically part-compensating victims for others' harmful acts is the correct course; and b) perhaps because because the medium (driving a car) as a whole carries with it a risk of unlawful and uncompensated harm - or some similar argument about drivers paying for (a fraction of) the harm of unlawful driving whosoever causes it, just as with tapers paying for (a fraction of) the harm of unlawful taping, whosoever causes it, and not just abandoning the victims wholly to their own resources. It doesn't compensate for the whole harm, no way.
Your claim seems to be that paying such a premium once, gives you moral permission to steal a car, drive it around uninsured, and crash it into people/things. How that is morally justified, and indeed how it follows that there is "no loss" as you say, when you do so, baffles me utterly.
UKIP are not a symptom of any call for "ever closer union". Such a call is made by a tiny minority of extremists only, who think that a trade association (which is all it is still, for non-Eurozone members) dependent upon the sovereign authority of member states, can somehow be something else with authority and sovereignty springing from elsewhere. But given the EU is a legal entity, with no power other than the active will of the member states, as laid down in the Treaties, and as expressed in Council and elsewhere by the heads of the member states, it is total fantasy thinking, to imagine that the sovereignty of states could be abolished. It is not possible, legally or politically. It is akin to, and as absurd as saying, you will start a transatlantic budget flight service, by physically pulling yourself into the air, by the act of tugging on your bootstraps.
There is no genuine fear UKIP are reacting to in this respect. They are stoking fantastical and nonsensical fears, and failing to help their members live in the reality of modern life.
Great stuff- thank you.
Yeah it is messed up. But it's not really "us" per se. It's a vocal minority whom politicians are obliged to pander to, solely because of lots of Kipper swing votes in marginal constituencies. Honestly there is not a true word spoken about Europe, the EU, the ECHR, the ECJ from day to day or week to week in any CCHQ press release or within the right-leaning sections of the press. It's all a constructing a fictional EU bogeyman to rage against, and latterly also to reassure that section of voters who've BOUGHT all that made-up shite.
I like all this but surely you have to have SOME words to begin with - so I'd ask which ones and where should you get them from, how do you get to that point where you CAN just benefit from ordinary conversation? How many times do you let yourself ask in conversation what a word is, and doesn't the explanation just lead to more words you don't understand?
hey, what problem isn't reducing the population supposedly the solution for?
mass deaths, bish bosh, sorted
If it comes out green, ring NHS direct.
Saying you've been gouged over an iPhone selling at the regular price, is like saying "Mercedes are gouging people with the buying price their top-of-the-range convertible, because it costs so much". That's an absurd statement, right? Because nobody is forcing you to buy the Merc, and in fact the only people who want the expensive one, partly want it because it's expensive. So that can't happen with an iPhone, when everyone knows it costs loads, and in fact that's part of why people like it.
I just don't think it's logically possible to price-gouge people over a veblen good. A veblen good is something which people want more of, the more you charge for it, so it contradicts the basic law of supply and demand, which is that the cheaper something is, the more likely people will be to buy it. Gouging is like when you charge people US$100 for a cup of water in a desert, or US$2000 to take a 1hr taxi ride during a flood (what happened to my mum visiting her dying friend in New York this time last year). It's when you've really REALLY got someone over a barrel and you hit them with an unexpected charge because they really have no choice, like they'll get ill or lose even more money if they don't pay.
Quite right. I'd be really interested to know actually what Visa's (or their merchant services provider, or whoever's) Ts & Cs say about use of merchant accounts for this kind of thing, some clause about "disreputable use" or so which just allows the provider discretion to say "this is crazy shit, we are pulling the plug dude".
I'd also be interested to know what's the procedure for reporting this behaviour to the merchant services provider- is it just something that Visa or Mastercard do after they approve a chargeback (I don't think Visa or Mastercard are actually the MSP, that's going to be more like an org like RBOS or so).
sent from another planet, to plant the seed of intelligence within the grunting sweaty bearded Homo Sapiens.
A capital after a full stop is not a matter of style, it's a matter of grammar.
You originally said this "is" totalitarianism, not that it is "leading to [it]". I won't deal with your second claim about what this is leading to. Your claim that this "is" it, seems to me not to match the common dictionary understanding of totalitarianism.
As for "In a nutshell, the call for (non-State sanctioned) violence is itself already illegal in liberal democracies, so attempting to make the vehicle for said calls also illegal is redundant and subject to misuse." I think you completely fail to grasp the purpose of the criminalisation of "non-State sanctioned" (sic) violence and its promotion. The purpose is to minimise such violence. Measures which are vital to achieving this purpose are anything but redundant: they are the purpose for which the original criminalisation of violence-promotion was enacted.
If, then, you criminalise the original making of a statement calling for violence, but not, for example, the infinite rebroadcast of that statement on social media (which is the position you advocate), you a) fail to prevent the initial call (because these people are often beyond our borders, and criminalisation of online activity is a very weak deterrent, cf copyright theft), and b) you end up with the message they posted, endlessly rebroadcast. Ergo, you end up with their pro-violence propaganda being essentially permitted - in law and in fact.
Knowingly hosting pro-violence propaganada seems to me entirely culpable. It is this which regulation properly prohibits. I don't see how you can claim that it is not culpable and worthy of criminalisation.
Oh and I think your drawing moral equivalence between "state-sanctioned" and most unlawful violence is unsupportible. We cannot have individuals or militia deciding and enforcing disagreements privately through force. A sovereign authority is required, one accountable to the people and its representatives.
"if this is not totalitarianism I don't know what it is."
OK 1) it's not totalitarianism. 2) Totalitarianism, according to the OED, is "a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state".
So now you know. M'kay?
Hang on, you're now agreeing with me. I asked why ought material calling for violence not be regulated, and you said (and I paraphrase) 'because they are regulated [prosecutable under existing laws]', and presumably you agree they should be. So your argument has the form "they shouldn't be regulated, because they are regulated, and they are regulated because they should be regulated". :-/
And if you're arguing we shouldn't actually regulate material itself, but just prosecute people who put it up instead, why should we (i.e. the government which acts on our behalf) only prosecute people for putting up videos calling for murder, and not take the videos down too? Would not the material then be viewable forever? Of course it would.
So you then say (I quote) "because they are protected under the principle of freedom of expression". Are videos calling for murder protected under the principle of freedom of expression? No they aren't. There is no such principle which protects incitements to criminal violence. Not in any country. And since the principle in question, is a "should" principle, i.e. free expression isn't a fact but is an expression of our nuanced moral views on what should obtain, you haven't actually said why we should be free to post pro-murder videos, except that you've said 'FREE EXPRESSION, YEAAAAAHHH!!'. Which doesn't really explain for me why we should be free to incite murder.
Hang on, why ought internet videos imploring you to go and cut your neighbours' heads off not be regulated?
Correct me if I'm wrong but small claims excludes the possibility of claiming for solicitors' fees; and solicitors' fees are only claimable in relation to a specific form of action (e.g. breach of contract) which you sued on and won, and where the court then felt you ought to be awarded fees, over and above just "litigant in person" (£9ph) fees.
So you need a specific action to sue under, but to do that you have to show you've exhausted all reasonable modes of dealing with it, including alternative dispute resolution methods, i.e. going to the industry arbitration (CISAS) panel after requesting a deadlock letter (but has to be within 6 months of grounds for complaint arising in case of CISAS. Also not sure if they deal with pure billing issues).
The ultimate case and authority of course is Ferguson v British Gas http://www.5rb.com/case/ferguson-v-british-gas-trading-ltd/
Sorry but if you don't run businesses as numbers exercises at some level, they just won't exist.
The problem here isn't that though. It's a single shop manager failing to follow procedure and also being a total dick/bastard, and others not taking responsibility for ensuring T-Mobile's billing systems behaved in the right way, and the different departments being in total silos without any insight into each others' processes or priorities. Underfunding/mismanaging the integration of systems may be in some part responsible, and, yes, un-empathy may play a role in that.
In the UK there is a system called the Direct Debit Guarantee, under which all erroneous bills can be refunded in full within about 48hrs upon calling your bank to invoke the guarantee. They sorted it for me within about 15 minutes, and I wasn't on hold for long. You then have to afterward liaise with the company which billed you though.
Oh and you can shut off the automatic payment 100% just by going to your online bank account and cancelling the Direct Debit. Although some companies may get a bit upset at that.
The 90s were great!
Yes I can see how it doesn't seem to have been designed purely to look like an alien in Autocad 3d, but that's good sometimes no?
You don't necessarily have to go to small claims to get your pro-rata refund when Amazon won't cough up for faulty goods (the pro-rata refund based on how long the item ought to last given the price, which is always up to six years).
If you pay in part or full by credit card - NOT debit card - for an item costing over £100 in the UK or as a distance sale while in the UK, then the CC provider assumes the same Sale Of Goods Act obligations as the retailer (or which the retailer would have if they were subject to UK law). CCA 1975 s 75.
Incidentally the 'EU 2 year warranty' is no such thing. It is a requirement that the item "conform to contract" for 2 years. If the price is sufficiently low, then the contract might be construed as providing that the item last for a very short time indeed, e.g. maybe 2 months for something you bought at Poundland, depending on what it is! Poundland will not be liable for a 2 year warranty because their requirement is only that for 2 years the item "conform to contract [in lasting for 2 months]". D'y'see? :-)
I'm just not sure how lots of people being wrong, makes wrong right. It isn't illiberal to claim that to surveil for would-be terrorists, requires checking out some who aren't terrorists - and that that requires mass surveillance. It is simply a factual, empirical claim, not a political or moral one, no matter what the spook referred to in the story says about 'people preferring a bit of surveillance' or so. It doesn't matter whether you prefer safety. Safety is prior to politics, prior to government even.
The idea that because we feel dry (i.e. safe), therefore it isn't raining (i.e. there haven't been hundreds or thousands of attempted attacks, many of which would not have been possible to thwart without massive surveillance), is a deeply fallacious piece of logic.
I mean I love the reg and its readers but I think with the greatest of respect, and I sincerely mean respect, you've all got this one very, very wrong.
You mean an action without specific legal authorisation. Ordinarily, under the rule laid down by the courts in the 1765 case Entick v Carrington (searching a writer's house without a warrant), government bodies must have legal authorisation for their specific acts, covering the whole act. However the royal prerogative still can enable the executive branch (i.e. the government), to in certain specified AND unspecified (but always emergency-type) scenarios, act without specific legal authorisation. These include most famously, the exercise of the war power, choosing whether to issue passports, appointing chairs of public inquiries, among other things - and I'm virtually certain, such acts as are necessary to stop atrocities, including surveillance.
Client-lawyer privilege is I believe a customary, not statutory rule which would ordinarily be protected by Article 8 and Article 6 ECHR. However both those Articles are subject to derogation, and although Article 6 doesn't really list derogations, they're generally permitted by the Strasbourg court when "the life of the nation is at stake". The ECtHR doesn't want unhindered terrorist atrocities on its hands. I think that they would likely honour proportionate action under the royal prerogative mentioned above.
Proportionate is the word. Proportionate to the reasonably perceived risk. Obviously the government can't just do this so as to not lose cases. That would be illegal, bigtime. There must be a genuine security reason.
I think he means if you're nice to junior customer service workers, they may go out of their way to try to help you, whereas if you're not nice to them, they may treat you at best with merely the contractually required minima of 'niceness'.
Yeah I think your argument is that DDT harms the environment and that some idiot decided we should rather harm people instead. Were that true about DDT, then I think it would be a perfect analogy. I think DDT though does cause people such harm (birth defects, isn't it?) that it's trading off one human harm against another and I suspect the funders probably thought this would be the least human-harming-option (they have sophisticated ethicists making policy in the US too ;-))
china is indeed doing a good thing by making those solar panels, but it seems to have much of the mainland lit up 24/7 like a jackolantern, it's incredible, lights everywhere, on bridges, buildings, streets, honestly it makes times square look like cabin in the woods.
I smell BS.
How do they calculate the socially-necessary rate of profit and return-on-investment in order to qualify the wages and non-expropriative, non-exploitative under Marxian analysis? Is there a return for risk capital? What about the holders of property, e.g. the factor owner, do they get paid a rent and how was it calculated? Was the factory built using exploitation in the Marxian sense?
Wearable 3d printer indeed, that made me laugh.
I suppose one could strap cake-icing attachments onto one's rear end.
"You can speak up, as long as you are gay for gays. "
I don't really understand. Why can't you just be tolerant? Given we're no longer into forcibly converting people to Christianity, or jailing them for homosexuality, or forcing chemical castration, or blue-hat-wearing, etc, or interfering in any way whatever with people's harmless and self-regarding consensual actions, why do you feel the need to hold up as if it were some placard, "I DON'T LIKE GAYS"? What's the point of it? I can only assume you feel deeply status-deprived and inadequate, and wish to drag someone down to your level so you can feel some sense of power.