Lots of companies have engaged in this practice over the years. I've worked for a Credit card company in the past, and they did the same exact thing. It's basically preying on the weak. Those who tended to overspend and could never pay off a debt were the most vulnerable to the sales pitch to keep the card open and active. This used to be called the "sub-prime" market, but that term fell out of good graces back in 2004 - 2006 when the word "sub-prime" referred to poor people; which was true. The original intent of sub-prime was to help people with bad / no credit establish a foundation for building good credit. Just like everything else, it got corrupted by corporate greed.
Even simpler solution:
Act all distraught, make it sound like you're sobbing just thinking about it, and explain that you're cancelling the service for the account user who has recently Died.
Any telemarketer calls I've ever gotten I start sobbing and claiming I don't have time for them because I just lost my family to some tragic accident of type . I get an apology and my number is removed from the lists immediately.
Since I have a backlog of older bulbs, I haven't had the need to pull out an energy saving one. Thus I selected the only option that made sense, Never had One.
... with the room for me to lay out my paints and canvas allowing me plenty of room to do my Art thing.
. . . because an adult woman was playing an on-line game several hours a day.
. . . because it invoked a sense of light-heartedness when playing.
. . . because young family members always said I was real silly.
It was a clean screen name, it's what I've used for forever.
Please lets not forget, that the bible is a collection of stories written by men, not a deity.
Humans have judged other humans for thousands of years, not a deity.
We definitely need to get Government out of marriage business.
I Google the number of licensed drivers in the US (http://www.ask.com/question/how-many-people-in-the-us-have-a-drivers-license).
There are approximately 196,165,666 licensed drivers in the US.
This does not include those people driving around with no license, revoked, or suspended licenses
Of the196,165,666 licensed drivers in good standing we have (we'll round up) 15 deaths and 1,125 injuries
15 / 196165666 = 7.646598054523976e-8
1125 / 196165666 = 5.734948540892982e-6
Geezsus people, an average man could fart and injure / kill more people than that percentage.
Hmmmmmm decisions decisions decisions. I look at it this way, both are wrong and at fault.
If a corporation forces you to have a CC on file at all times and then allows a 30 minute window of massive funds spending, then they own some responsibility in all of this. Companies want income this is an easy way of doing it, and by placing the info in the EULA as a default action is just a "F U" consumer, we'll do what we want because we've got you addicted to our product. A CYA would be a user setting that is either device wide or insist on the App developers to add a Selectable Option: Must Use Password for every purchase? If yes, then the password must be entered for every freaking purchase, otherwise default to system settings of 30 minute window.
WTF parents. How the hell can you blame a kid for their continuous purchases. Every parent knows that if a kid wants something they will get it. If you give a child a cookie, they always want more, and if you don't hide the cookies and the child knows how to get to them, the child will get them and consume them until they puke and will still continue eating them. How the heck is a cool application that allows you to make a purchase which enhances the game any different. Why is it the big corporations fault for you handing over your phone with either the password already entered for a purchase or telling your kid what the password is? You refuse to engage with your kids, but rather prefer to entertain them with devices that are TIED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD. Quit your bitching, take responsibility for your children's actions, and Parent Your F'ing Kids,
I thought Apple also allows a few purchases for x # minutes after the password is entered. I think that was the compromise of no password at all.
Don't get a Smart Phone. With all the theft of Smart Phones, it appears to me to not be smart to own a Smart Phone.
I am always amazed how much people are willing to spend on a hand held device for making roaming phone calls.
To own a Smart Phone, you've spent the equivalency of a small but working laptop computer, and then pay for it 3 to 4 times over in a given year just to have it be more than a phone.
And they are tracked to death by government and every company in the world who wants to sell you their crap. You're actually paying them to advertise to you.
Point 1, while I agree does happen, more often than naught, doesn't quite fit the topic of discussion.
Point 2, you have nothing to compare too.
As a woman, I have seen my own fair share of discrimination, but I know it exists under the surface and I go out of my way to try to prove myself. The study in this article does show a trend of hiring and pay practices in particular fields to show little to no discrimination; however in other fields such as a stock broker, or other high-paying fields, women don't fair as well. The higher up the chain of most companies the more white males see in a position of power and authority.
Granted not all industries are like that, but a majority, and pay discrimination at the beginning of a career is not indicative of the issues of pay disparity that women face the longer they are in a career. This of course, is not easy to break apart to find the one answer, because there is no One answer to this topic.
I have heard that in the past (don't know if it still happens today) that men in positions of authority would hold high level discussions at a Men-Only golf club or a strip club. I know this to be true because I've seen it first hand. These types of tactics by a few close out opportunities for women at the same level to move higher in ranks of their company. So a woman must either report the matter to HR, which always gets out, even though it's supposed to be private; or she must step into those uncomfortable situations, such as going to a strip club, to keep herself in the loop of what's going on in the company. If she's forcibly kept out of the loop, on open dialog then that is clear definition of discrimination which will lead to pay disparity.
When someone is filming out in public and they are making it fairly obvious that they are filming, I have the ability to see this action and avoid being in their scope of frame or I can cover my face from the filming that is on going. This is MY choice to NOT be filmed. It is not a matter of having something to hide, I just don't want to be in your feature video, whether personal or posted on line.
You may have the right to film in public, but I have the right to hide from that filming. It's utterly insane to me to listen to those who don't care whether they are filmed or not to tell me to "Just Get Over It". Why is my right to remain private less important than your need to video everything? Simply put, it is NOT.
If it was OK, then why, through out television history, can people request that media obscure their face on film, but the average Joe can just film me and post it to the world wide web? Why is there a double standard? There shouldn't be.
I don't want to be filmed unless I approve of the filming, and I should have the right of refusal and those with the filming devices should be courteous enough to accept my right of refusal and honor it.
Just because I'm in public, doesn't mean I expect 100% privacy, clearly I can't, but I have a reasonable expectation of limited privacy. I mean if I'm in a bar enjoying a cocktail (or anywhere public for that matter), those individuals that are in close proximity of me are privy to seeing me or hearing my conversation, if I'm being loud enough to be noticed in the sea of faces. But once you film me and posting it, you're taking away my reasonable expectation of limited privacy. You're now making my business available to the entire internet world who weren't in the room. This essentially steals from me the ability to be myself without being monitored by the whole world.
If you still feel like I should just shut up and go away, then you really are oblivious.
I find Anti-Gay legislature to be an awful step in the wrong direction. What would stop a Gay business owner from then refusing to sell to straight people? Shit would hit the fan then.
I understand people have their personal beliefs and prejudices, but to go to such extremes as to put Anti-anything in the laws is just immoral in my humble opinion.
Discrimination is in everyone, some are more extreme than others, but if a potential customer walks into a jewelery store and that person's actions make it look like they are casing the place, doesn't a business owner have the right of refusal of a point of sale, in order to protect themselves. Some would say yes, some would say no. That example is not really the same as an Anti-gay legislature to prevent sales based on open discrimination, but if someone's strong moral beliefs feel that they must protect themselves from a potential customer who is gay, they under that same scenario one would think they have a right of refusal. To me it's a ridiculous perspective, but I'm sure someone will say "See, she gets it."
This is only a point being made for discussion, playing devil's advocate as it were. Talk amongst yourselves.
Got you beat for worst. . .
I heard on the radio where a woman was told by her husband that his gift to her was the cost of the initial consultation visit to a weight loss clinic.
. . . . so if I'm not in that room, I don't hear it.