Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not surprised. (Score 1) 107

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) 107

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:Arneson (Score 1) 158

by plover (#47562119) Attached to: How Gygax Lost Control of TSR and D&D

D&D as a system wasn't really all special; there were competing systems back in the days he was at TSR which were every bit as enjoyable and arguably easier to play. But D&D had two big things going for it. First, when the three basic manuals for AD&D were published it had by far the best organized and written materials. The Monster Manual was particularly useful. Second it had the network effect: it was the best system to learn to play because everyone else knew how to play it. You could start a campaign at a drop of a hat -- no need to bring everyone up to speed on yet another set of rules.

Actually, those two things made it remarkably special! It's the overall accessibility and organization that made the system work. While my friends and I tried to start out with Chainmail, we didn't have anyone to show us how so we never really figured it out, and it wasn't very satisfying. But when AD&D came out, we were able to read the books, grasp the concepts, and actually play the game. The game mechanics aren't important, as you can just skip over the awkward rules you don't like (psionics! Bah!) The real magic was the whole of the system didn't hinder our imaginations.

And Troy, if you're reading this, I want my White box set back, please, along with all the other supplements. You've had them for 35 years, now it's my turn.

Comment: Re:For domestic use only (Score 1) 136

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) 152

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) 136

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) 136

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) 648

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.

If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer.

Working...