That's what we did when my identity was stolen. My name, address, SSN, and DOB were used to open a card in my name. I was lucky and the credit card company sent it to me (due to the thieves paying for rush delivery) instead of processing the address change and sending it to the thieves. It's a pain when I want to use my credit (refinance mortgage, buy a car, etc), but most days I don't need to touch my credit and don't want anyone else touching it either.

Of course, the credit agencies don't like when you freeze your credit. Frozen credit files are less profitable (can't sell them to credit card companies hawking even more lines of credit) and so they like pushing "fraud alerts" instead. These expire every 90 days unless you renew them and are voluntary. If I were a credit card company opening a line of credit on someone, it's recommended that I check the fraud alert, but I could just ignore it, open the credit line, and suffer no consequences.

To credit agencies and credit card companies, identity theft is an inconvenience that you just write off. No big deal. To the victim, though, it's a horrible experience. I felt completely violated knowing that someone was walking around with my private information, pretending to be me, and doing their best to run up a huge tab to send my way.

I've done some research on the topic, being a victim of identity theft myself. From what I understand, the person who steals the identity rarely uses the stolen identity. Instead, they sell it to someone else who then uses it. This way, the real thief gets some quick cash with less risk of getting caught - especially if it's an inside job. (e.g. Someone in HR at your company downloads your company's employee records to a USB drive and decides to make a little money on the side.) Meanwhile, the people using the stolen identities can run up a big tab on the stolen credit lines without needing to do any messy hacking of computer systems. It's a win-win for the criminals - and a lose-lose for the person whose identity was stolen.

I think the union just acknowledged that nobody is safe with their drivers, no matter what. Shameful that they are pressing the attack in light of the fact that one of their drivers is responsible.

No I am using the term "drivers" divisively. If they truly were engineers, they would be demanding safety protocols to be implemented and equipment to be installed.

Even though I'm opposed to this merger, I'd be afraid that a summary rejection would result in some sort of lawsuit and overturned. Better to let it go through the process and THEN kill it.

I have plenty of choices where I live. I can choose from Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Cable, Time Warner Cable, or even Time Warner Cable!

I have one ISP choice also. In my case, Time Warner Cable. I've got to not only agree with your points, but expand on one of them. Cable ISPs not only offer Internet access but also offer TV/Video services. They want to push their video services and will often engage in various shady practices to promote their video services above alternatives (Internet Video, satellite, etc). For example, they might institute caps to prevent you from streaming "too much" (as defined by them). Overage fees might make streaming more expensive so you'll either flee back to your cable company for video or pay your cable company more money in overage fees. Package pricing can be manipulated to make Internet Only more expensive than Internet+TV (while TV alone isn't more than Internet+TV). Finally, as mentioned before, the ISP can fiddle with the traffic to slow down or otherwise degrade connections to video services like Netflix knowing that it will be easier for customers to switch to another video provider (*cough* cable TV *cough*) than it is to switch to another ISP - since there usually is no other one to switch to!

Would a government run ISP be perfect? Of course not. I'm open to any and all suggestions. However, something needs to be done because company-alone, minimal government regulation ISPs have clearly resulted in monopolistic ISPs willing to abuse customers to get more money.

If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable.

...Taxis carrying who? The same people who are now using their own cars? Why would that make things any worse? If anything, they should get better when more drivers are professionals.

That said, if the license system is abolished, then the government should reimburse the current license holders. After all, having had to pay for a license when newcomers don't puts them at an unfair competitive disadvantage due to opportunity costs.

Spoken just like someone who doesn't actually have to deal with that situation...

Okay, time for the facts of life: I, who work for a living, pay taxes too. For all intents and purposes that's an investment of time and effort, rather than money. So what happens if I'm not satisfied with my level of return and choose to cease investing - that is, quit? Why, I don't get paid, of course.

Perhaps you've never had to deal with that situation. Good for you. But don't except those who do to have much sympathy for your plight.

Don't attribute to malice that which can be blamed on stupidity.

The problem is, stupidity is sufficient. The police don't need to be actively malicious if their institutional culture - "the brainwashing they've been given" - constantly prompts them to perform unfair and destructive actions.

Also, you're wrong. "Naturally enough, when they realized they fucked up they looked around for a way to cover their ass and saw the guy had a revoked license." Yes, it's perfectly natural to sacrifice a bystander to save your own skin. It's also not something you can blame on stupidity. It's deliberate, selfish cowardice.

As you say, the Guardian wants us to believe that the chemical industry is some cigar-smoking shades-wearing embodiment of corporate evil here, which is unlikely.

Of course not. It's a "nothing personal, just good business" embodiment of corporate evil. Someone wants a bonus and is somehow able to convince himself the resuls of the means used to get it aren't really his fault. Just like every other group of monsters in human history managed to convince themselves that their ends justified their means. The only difference is that corporate ends tend to be pettier.

It seems to be more like a dispute over the costs and benefits of enacting a ban before harm is conclusively established.

It's a matter of a few people getting all the benefits and everyone sharing costs - a known failure mode of capitalism. Or "success mode" if all you care about is maximizing profits or economic indicators.

The Euro zone treaties aren't what prevent Greece from running a deficit during a down-turn.

Running a deficit during an up-turn is what does that.

Jimmy Fallon?

I keep reading AI (A.I.) as Al (as in "Weird Al").

Completely changes the tone of the summary.

Banning Mosques is cultural self-defense.

You mean cultural suicide. After all, it violates the freedom of religion, which is absolutely vital for the marketplace of ideas to exist. That marketplace is the essence of Western Culture, underlaying every currently reigning local ideas.

The only thing mosques do is give the local populace a chance to copy whatever good ideas Islam might have, and of course the other way around. And the only ones it threatens are those who are on top in current status quo and wish it to remain.

Raise the tax rate to 75% of the corporate profit and see what happens...

Companies will reinvest revenue rather than pay it out as dividends. Also, stock prices fall as future expected dividends are cut by 75%, and then rise again as said reinvestment makes economy grow faster.

Actually, this could be just the stimulus economy needs...