Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 685

by sumdumass (#47562815) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

Umm.. if you would have watched that charlie rose interview with Iran's last president "imadinnerjacket" or whatever his name was, you would know that Iran has no gays. That is a western thing.

This was on the "Bush is teh satan" tour to the UN if you want to look it up. He hit quite a few of the news shows on thst tour.

Comment: Re:Not surprised. (Score 1) 246

by sumdumass (#47562297) Attached to: 35% of American Adults Have Debt 'In Collections'

They likely sold your debt to another company who packaged it and sold it yet again. The debt is probably so far down the line that they probably sell it as soon as they figure they won't collect.

If they take you to small claims court, counter sue them for the amount. Someone will show up, or you will win by default and can pay them with their own money.

Also, send request for a validation of the debt in writing. Your state may have other solutions, but I believe federal law requires them to validate the debt once you do this. If they do not, they lose the right to try and collect it.

Comment: Re:Lies and statistics... (Score 1) 246

by sumdumass (#47562225) Attached to: 35% of American Adults Have Debt 'In Collections'

I don't think you understand what he was talking about.

It isn't a matter of no insurance or inability to pay that he describes, it is a matter of something not being billed correctly or coming in later and being missed by the insurance payments (as well as you needing to pay your portion too). So you go through life thinking everything has been taken care of and review your credit report because you are thinking of some major purchase (car, home, RV- whatever) and discover that you have a bill in collections.

You see, this would be in spite of having insurance.

Comment: Re:For domestic use only (Score 1) 154

by sumdumass (#47561611) Attached to: Senate Bill Would Ban Most Bulk Surveillance

Minor correction, it is perfectly legal under US law and constitution to spy on other nations and their citizens (provided they are not in US controlled territories). It may be highly illegal under their laws and system of government.

But yes, I otherwise completely agree. The people in charge of our system of law don't seem to think the same laws apply at all when they do not agree with them. For instance, instead of removing Marijuana from a schedule 1 drug and creating a law leaving it to the states, we are ignoring federal law and making provisions in other laws. Instead of enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders, we seem to be encouraging people to come to the country completely ignoring our immigration laws processes and so on.

People may or may not like the idea of enforcing those laws, but it specifically leads to and enables a concept where some don't seem to think the same laws apply to them.

Comment: Re:Hilarious (Score 1) 153

by sumdumass (#47561413) Attached to: London Police Placing Anti-Piracy Warning Ads On Illegal Sites

Sure I do.. I mean the police would never accuse someone of something that wasn't true, they are the police after all. They fight crime and the bad guys so why wouldn't I believe that the legitimate site isn't piracy site or otherwise involved in illegal activities when I see their banner adds on it. Why wouldn't I close my browser window and never purchase anything from them or view their content again. Why wouldn't I tell all my friends that the site is illegal and the cops are busting people going to it?

All sarcasm aside, its entire purpose is to assassinate the character of the site and scare users into leaving it. If the police didn't think it would have any impact, they wouldn't be bothering with it. Instead, they know it will so when they get the wrong site involved, how is it not slander and libel- you know defamation of character?

Comment: Re:For domestic use only (Score 1) 154

by sumdumass (#47561351) Attached to: Senate Bill Would Ban Most Bulk Surveillance

lol.. that could be part of it but the biggest part is that the ISP over sells it's bandwidth because not all customers will be online at the same time. If they were, their service would come to a crawl if it was still available. If you host servers or resell bandwidth, you (potentially) use up the cushion of bandwidth they maintain and effectively end the not all users will be online at the same time by introducing outside users and uses taking up more time.

So yes, it is for price discrimination but not exactly in the sense you describe. If your servers are not hogging all the bandwidth, they likely won't bother you
(except for blocking mail ports and common infection ports). When they do use up the extra bandwidth, they will cut you and send you a bill for the difference between residential and commercial rates while insisting you pay the commercial rate going forward.

Comment: Re:Alright! Go Senate bill (Score 0) 154

by sumdumass (#47561069) Attached to: Senate Bill Would Ban Most Bulk Surveillance

The claim is that the information belongs to a third party so it isn't a search on you but a regulation on business. This would fit the liberal mindset that businesses are not people and have no rights but the effect is the same as a search on you.

This is why the US constitution is not a living document. Outside of reporting requirements about the business itself, any government mandate for information about others is and always will be a search without a warrant. It would be different if the information was publicly available but it isn't and there is a severe expectation of privacy involved.

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 685

by sumdumass (#47560995) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

We don't know what you know. You haven't told anyone. However, you do sound a lot like a politicians with I have a plan but offer nothing specific or concrete on it. So if your day job goes south, perhaps you could run for office to put bread on the table.

I'm hoping you will share some of these options with us and they will amount to more than "can't we just get along". Even bad ideas might sound better than what we got right now so don't hold back.

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 685

by sumdumass (#47559273) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

So what you are saying is either let them kill you or more people will try to kill you?

That seems to be the jist of the "but they will haye you if you do not let them get thier way" argument. So what will happen is that everyone will become an enemy and everyone will get killed. Sounds like eventually someone is going to say kill them all and let god sort it out. Hopefully, a rash of common sence breaks out and it ends before someone actually tries to do just that.

Comment: Re:Get used to this... (Score 1) 241

What part of all your money is wrapped up in the corporation do you not understand? If you spend it as it was your own speech, it would either be embezelment or the corporation's speech.

But how rediculous do you think it would be if they had no speech rights and the government does something that bankrupts the companies your retirment is invested in. Or perhaps you lose your job because they had no speech rights and couldn't speak out against whatever?

Comment: Re:Get used to this... (Score 1) 241

Sure. That is part of the idea. We can ignore everything else like the investing aspects, fiduciary duties and crap just to suggest a particular point of view.

Tell me. Suppose your retirement was soaked into a company or several of them and something like that was happening. You have no direct involvement in the company and do not know or understand the implications of the ban. Does the company not have a fudiciary duty to both make you aware and attemp to stay in business? What would you think if they could say nothing and you lost your retirement? Even if they notified only the share holders, the stock value would nose drive when they all attemped to dump the stock and you wpuld still lose.

Comment: Re:Get used to this... (Score 1) 241

The idea that they don't is plain silly to begin with.

Imagine stating a business and incorporating it. You soak ypur entire savings into it and it is bearly making money. Now imagine the government wanting to ban dihydogen monoxide because it is evil and you cannot say anything to sway public opinion because all your money is tied up in your compamy and because you incorporated and corporations have no speech rights.

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.

Working...