Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:sterile sex and the star trek premise (Score 1) 320

and i see this as being on the path toward the point where money/property/power etc become immaterial..

Possibly.... but probably not before several generations have gone by who will be living heavily under the control of those who will try to hold onto the older ideals, never to realize the futility of doing so before they themselves die.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

Preventing death or great bodily harm is a valid legal reason to use deadly force... preventing loss of property is not. And yes, I know that there are a few jurisdictions (Texas, most notably) where it is legal to kill someone who is simply trying to steal from you, whether or not there is any evidence they are going to cause any bodily harm to anyone, but this is why I explicitly said "in general", because that is not actually the norm. A vast majority of robberies are of the "grab and dash" type... where an opportunistic robber happens to identify some property that is not adequately protected and is small enough for them to easily carry, makes a grab for it and tries to run away. If the robber has made no other threatening moves or otherwise suggested he would harm anyone if he was stopped, it is generally illegal to use lethal force to stop them.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

This is why I said "in general".... Yes, I know you can do that in Texas, and of course, in all jurisdictions that I know of you *ARE* allowed to use lethal force against someone who is armed or you had reason to believe was armed, and there was some reasonable basis to conclude that they would cause harm to you if you did not surrender your property.

But if the person is not armed, or in particular has just tried to grab and trying to escape with some stolen property without ever actually threatening to harm anyone (which is a *HUGE* percentage of robberies), you are not allowed to use lethal force to stop them in most jurisdictions.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

In general, deadly force may not be used to simply defend ones property, and can only be used to defend someone's life or safety. An unarmed thief who has grabbed a cash box right in front of the landlord and then tries to immediately run away is not a threat to one's life, and shooting him to stop him would be highly illegal.

Comment Re:paypal is not a bank and they can take your fun (Score 1) 183

Even if a bank account has $5, if one authorizes someone to do direct debits, they can suck out $1000.

In general, the banks will side with their own customers... at least in my experience. Having once been the victim of an online scam around 15 years ago, I was ultimately very happy with how quickly and efficiently my bank resolved the issue.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

True enough.... Never happened, however. I think it's safe for me to say at this point that my roommate at the time was not the sort of person who would have done that any more than I am the sort of person who would do that to anyone else. Hypothetically speaking, if it had happened, I imagine I would have explained to the landlord what happened, given the landlord a money order, and moved out immediately, and chalked up the cost as a life lesson. However, I would not ever live with someone that I did not feel I could trust with my life, let alone my money, so the possibility of what you are describing had not even crossed my mind. Certainly with anyone that I do not know, I have always asked for a receipt if I am paying in cash.

Comment Re:paypal is not a bank and they can take your fun (Score 1) 183

Paypal cannot lock you out of accessing your own funds if Paypal does not actually have them. That is, money that you have received or has otherwise been transferred into your Paypal account is the only money that they can potentially block you from. If you routinely transfer money from Paypal to your bank account, and simply do not ever keep a large balance in your Paypal account, then the amount they could ever block you from accessing is minimal. One has to weigh for themselves the transaction fee costs of doing this with their overall level of comfort at simply keeping their money in their Paypal account. However, access to your main funds through banking or credit card access gives them no more ability to lock you out of accessing your funds than any other company that accepts electronic payments. As you said, Paypal is not a bank.

Comment Forced to accept cash? (Score -1) 183

Does that mean that people and companies in that jurisdiction will be *required* to accept cash if a customer wants to pay that way? I have had landlords, for example, that plainly stated that they cannot accept cash for rent as a general rule because there would be too much of a high risk of theft. Both times that it happened to me, they allowed it the first time but told me that they wouldn't accept cash again in the future. I resolved it the first time by just paying my share of the rent to my roommate at the time in cash and letting him pay the landlord by cheque, and the second time it happened, at another place, I ended up just getting a chequing account. Still, I can understand a landlords concern on the matter. Enough cash being all in one place, and without having the levels of security around it that are typical for a bank might motivate someone to resort to (possibly armed) robbery who wouldn't otherwise bother because they might perceive (rightly or wrongly) they could get away with it.

That strikes me as having a potential to go horribly horribly wrong.

Comment Re:Who cares if they are wrong? (Score 1) 94

Because they won't let you after they invest

Your sentence is missing some context.... I never suggested that one would do anything in particular other than not care what they think.... and since they have no way to compel you to care, what are you thinking of that they supposedly not going to let you do, exactly?

Comment If a person doesn't already see this point.... (Score 2) 154

... then telling them about it isn't any more likely to convince them you are right. Clearly, those who would support encryption bans probably feel like there is any significant legal market for such technology is far outweighed by the extra efforts that law enforcement must go through because of it, or else they would not be suggesting a ban in the first place.

What I believe is more effective at convincing them is to point out that even if banning strong encryption genuinely made law enforcement's job easier in absolutely every way they expect it to, if law enforcement can read your confidential data, however benign they might claim to be, then potentially, so could someone else.... someone with less benevolent intentions, and law enforcement would actually be *further* burdened with the task of keeping those who are innocent protected from predatory criminals who would seek to exploit the now weaker security systems that everyone is supposed to use, as mandated by law. The net effect is that the law enforcement has *more* work to do... not less, and the general public's safety is weakened, not improved. The only ones that can possibly come out ahead in the game are those who break the law.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Because he's a character who's looking for his own identity, [He-Man is] an interesting role for an actor." -- Dolph Lundgren, "actor"

Working...