When is someone going to invent the "sarcastic" font? Sometimes, I still can't tell if people are being serious.
I think many people who read Slashdot likely went to college, so I would still say relevant.
Proof this guy is a financial idiot, "You might want to follow these steps: Get as many credit cards as you can before your credit is ruined." Yeah- get as many credit cards as you can, because you're so awesome at paying back things you owe. Although I might agree with the sentiment behind the article- schooling can be cost prohibitive, and rich people can make tons of money off people just trying to better themselves, I totally disagree with the author's reasoning, logic, and their lack of responsibility.
A company exists to make money for the owner and the shareholders. They are going to make the best deal possible for them. And yes, you can negotiate. Suing IS a form of negotiation, is it not? We're only reading her side of the complaint, which will, of course, be biased in her favor. "Intermex did not immediately respond for comment." She could have been fired for being a horrible worker, or being rude, or any number of other things- she's merely complaining that she was fired for this reason. Time will tell. Until then, a lot of people seem to be jumping on the emotional bandwagon of "work is mistreating or taking advantage of me" and (confirmation bias) thinking her story is legit and not missing other information. The truth always lies somewhere in between...
This is only an issue if the following criteria are met 1) she was required to have phone on her 24/7 2) she was not advised the tracking would happen and be monitored in her contract If not both of those, then it's a non issue as she could have left her cell phone home, and she was aware what she was getting into- and getting paid mighty fine for it. A company has a right to track the location of its equipment at all times. It's their equipment.
Thank God it looks like he'll be alright. Imagine how horrible it would be to have lost a main Star Trek and main Star Wars actor in the same week. Geekdom wouldn't have survived.
All the Level 1 offenses in the world can't make their prison stay LONGER than what they were originally sentenced for. It just makes their time in prison more boring- it's punishment because they shouldn't have access to phones in the first place, because inmates run their gangs and can make hits on officers and civilians from behind prison walls using the internet. So the comparison between an Inmate accessing facebook for 2 weeks getting more severe punishment than an inmate who murders people is ludicrous- because the person who murders people and then runs away will be charged with several different counts and will get MORE prison time, whereas the dude who accessed Facebook will keep his original sentence.
Actually I had posted prior to his comment, my post detailing similar rhetoric. I was just happy to see that another person would have the understanding that, just sometimes, people are not entirely truthful, biased and *gasp* even (what!?) lie in their own accounts of an event. It's unwise to chose sides until all the details and facts, as all as all individual's accounts come out, lest we look like fools (old example- UCLA pepper spray incident, current example- teen who said he made $27 million in stock investments).
Good post! I agree wholeheartedly. How the hell do you "+1" on Slashdot, or is it only editors that can do it? Finally, a person who can think for themselves and not be led like a sheep as the others on this thread seem to be doing, having read only one biased account of the incident and "assuming" that what was said was truth.
You ASSUME what she said is true- that the police deleted the video. Why do you assume that, because she said so? If she was looking to make an issue of this, hence all the shouting and drawing attention to herself to get their attention and get arrested, is it not possible she deleted the file herself and said they did it so people reading only one account of the incident (hers) would automatically assume that she was telling the truth, thus bolstering her chance of financial benefit? Do we not realize that she could have prevented the whole situation by not breaking the law in the first place, and legally recording from a parked position not blocking the flow of traffic?
My computer's internet access died in the storm so I had to transfer the txt to my phone to use mobile to submit, looks like character artifacts were left in...
You all seem to be on the "cops are bad" side on this one. ÂListen up to some other possibility. ÂIt says it in the article, she stopped her car in the middle of the street to record. ÂYou have all the right to record you want, from a safe distance, while not breaking the law. ÂYou DO NOT have the right to block traffic to record an incident, as you are now impeding on others movements (the cars behind you). ÂAlso, why does she keep drawing attention to her self saying she's recording? ÂIs she trying to start an altercation? ÂIs it not also possible that with police in front of her, she did pull forward almost hitting them? ÂThat's what they're saying. ÂThe video doesn't show evidence either for or against it. ÂThat would be Assault with a deadly weapon- a felony (though I doubt she intended to, it's hard for police to know or care much about it when they are in front of a vehicle with a person acting strangely and moving towards them, they're only though is safety first, they have to assume the worst). Â Â There are certain facts that, if known, could have made this situation virtually all her fault, as we know she WAS breaking the law (operating a cell phone for non gps purposes in traffic, at least). ÂThere are facts that, if known, could make this seem like just annoyed police officers. Â Â And IF she did almost run over them with the car, the fact that they called her a bitch, though stupid, is PETTY. ÂSticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me. ÂIt's words, against her possibly almost hitting them with a car? ÂAnd she does seem like a dumb chick for bringing it upon herself. ÂWhy didn't she just pull over first and then record? ÂBecause she's stupid like so many other people and heard from the media, "You have the right to record the police no matter what they tell you" and ignorantly thought that to mean anytime, anywhere, rather than listening to the caveat most news agencies failed to say, "from a safe distance, and as long as it doesn't interfere with the officers and you're doing nothing illegal."
You were doing it as a means of defending your computer, not as a punishment or to be malicious. Also, you wanted to be able to identify your suspects (similar to an attack victim who scrapes suspect skin dna under their nail).
All landline for me. Though I did get a BofA scam call on cell phone the other day.
They are not monitoring your computer until you give them access. That they are monitoring your computer is the ruse they use to give them access.