Jump to content

Bingoloid

Members
  • Content Count

    3,965
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bingoloid

  1. During the big northeast blackout some years back, I heard that is where the edge of the local power failure was. Wager there's some significant piece of electrical equipment located right in that area, maybe it's malfunctioning or installed improperly.
  2. Bingoloid

    Repeating a Question From About 2 Years Ago

    One of two possibilities, other than it just not being able to make emergency calls: 1) The rep genuinely doesn't understand your question. 2) The rep is trying to upsell you by avoiding your question. Try this: when it says "unregistered SIM", try to call somebody. According to what I found Googling briefly, you may get an "emergency calls only" message when you do that, which would suggest, er, that you can make emergency calls. From what I understand (which may be simplified), your phone automatically grabs the strongest tower for 911 calls and all towers give them priority, regardless of which network your phone "belongs" to. The network should not even need to "know" whether your SIM card is activated or not.
  3. Bingoloid

    Repeating a Question From About 2 Years Ago

    I believe that you are correct, that carriers must handle emergency calls, even from phones that are not valid on their networks. I don't know much about the Tracfone interface. What, exactly, happens when you turn it on? There should either be some kind of an icon indicating that you can place an emergency call or you should be able to just dial 911 regardless. (Not that I'm suggesting you try. The 911 people may frown on that.)
  4. Bingoloid

    Obama's Jobs Bill. Let's Take Small Business to Court.

    I'm having difficulty seeing where you're going with this. Establishing that an employment practice has a disparate impact requires some knowledge of the employment practice you're suing over. The practice you're describing, simply not hiring anybody, impacts everyone equally. Maybe you can explain what you're going for here. I think the issue here is that you're imagining some employment dystopia where the courts are going to entertain fishing expeditions by people who did not get jobs and don't know why, as if everyone who sends a resume and doesn't hear anything will be able to drag their employer to court. The reality of employment discrimination is that very few people who are discriminated against for unlawful reasons are even able to build a case that an attorney is willing to spend time on, and of those that are filed, all but a tiny percentage are dismissed. All legislation before Congress is available on legislative search tools on the internet. When you insisted that the exact language assumed the validity of the plaintiff's claim without evidence and placed the burden of proof on the employer, I think a reasonable person would read that to mean that you knew what that language was and could back it up. We're now moving from "the exact language says" to "it may be reasonable to expect" and "this would be". That's very different from what you were saying, don't you think? In your own words, your own stated understanding of the law, it would be "unlawful to refuse to hire applicants solely because they are unemployed". Again, this is not proving a negative. That is just not what that phrase means. If I asked you to show that you did not refuse to hire me because I was unemployed, I would be asking you to prove a negative. Instead, I'm asking you to show that you refused to hire me for any other reason. I dropped out of college, I went to a college you don't trust, I was fired from my last job for being late all the time, I have bad credit, I smell bad, I bombed the interview, you weren't hiring anyone at all regardless of their qualifications. All you're being asked to do is state the actual reason you refused to hire. This is pretty straightforward, and it gives employers such a wide berth that is precisely the reason that so few of these types of discrimination claims ever go anywhere.
  5. Bingoloid

    How Dumb Are Today's Kids? Let's Go To Fukushima!

    What he said. American popular culture has a 1950s sci-fi movie concept of radiation, and people throw numbers around without having anything to compare them to. I wouldn't especially want to move to Fukushima and raise a family around the additional low-level exposure (which is actually probably excessive caution on my part), but as far as my health goes, I think I'd be an awful lot better off touring Fukushima for two weeks over a year after the initial release than I would have been working on the World Trade Center cleanup or, frankly, living here during the flood. Even if any of these students did get thyroid cancer in later life as a result of this (not bloody likely), that's generally highly treatable, and as for having kids, they've studied this in the tens of thousands of children of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people who intentionally had atomic bombs dropped on them, and there was no meaningful increase in birth defects. The kids are alright.
  6. Bingoloid

    Yup, he's our Man!

    Ed, the only tool you're using is your boss who pays you to do this all day. This must be a pretty sweet deal. On behalf of those of us with real jobs that produce things and make money, I salute you.
  7. Bingoloid

    Obama's Jobs Bill. Let's Take Small Business to Court.

    This argument makes no sense. I am a small business owner, and this isn't troubling at all. We're given wide deference in hiring decisions, and as long as a business can offer any basis for choosing another candidate, employment discrimination claims typically implode. (Hence, "solely". I'm not sure why you're so thrown by that word. It means it's the opposite of proving a negative.) The truth is that plenty of employers do discriminate on race, gender, age, disability, and there's nothing anybody can do about it as long as the person doing the discriminating keeps their mouth shut. It would definitely be a problem if the law confused this with a person's work history, but I do see where it contains specific language warning that this is not to be the case. (Employers are not prohibited from "considering an individual's employment history or examining the reasons underlying an individual’s status as unemployed". In other words, the law specifically says that the kind of people you're talking about, who are unemployed due to being lazy, shiftless, unmotivated losers, would have no claim. This remains a perfectly valid basis for refusing to hire.) I'm not saying this is a good law, and I don't think it's needed. I'm just saying this looks like a completely dishonest criticism and Gohmert is being a drama queen. You did bring up one interesting argument, but I find it unlikely that this bill is turning the law on its head by shifting the burden of proof to the defendant without first examining the merits of the plaintiff's claim. I encourage you to paste the "exact language" you're talking about. That would be alarming, but show me, or it's BS.
  8. Bingoloid

    Eyewitnesses Place Romney at Bilderberg Last Week

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Jones showed up screaming it through a bullhorn, repeatedly emphasizing that he was not joking. The only way his show could possibly be watchable is if you're stoned out of your mind.
  9. Bingoloid

    Eyewitnesses Place Romney at Bilderberg Last Week

    Yup. Many Americans think that the British press is authoritative because they associate the British with intellect and refined debate. However, by our standards, outside of the Financial Times, nearly all British newspapers are comparable to American tabloids with wolfmen on the cover. Brits know this and read the newspaper with a grain of salt. There used to be a joke that went around about how NHS doctors would note poor, ignorant, hippy patients as "GROLIES", for a "Guardian Reader Of Low Intelligence in Ethnic Skirt". It's not that it's some evil thing. It's no less credible than the Telegraph and more credible than the Daily Mail. It's just that the standards of British journalism are very different from what Americans are accustomed to. It's there to agitate and entertain a target audience with pre-existing biases, and it's fairly routine for the reporting to be manufactured wholesale. British newspapers are basically just outrage factories.
  10. Bingoloid

    Abdelazim creates fictitious position for himself

    Exactly. This is why I've long said that Ed is Broome County's conversation-ruiner. 90% of the time, he's on the right side of things, but his obsessive, just-misinformed-enough-to-be-embarassing hatred inevitably leads the discussion off a cliff, making everybody else who opposes these people look crazy and foolish by association. Ed's ranting probably does more to improve Abdelazim's name recognition and make him look like a serious contender than anything Abdelazim will do during his entire "campaign". If you put Ed and Matt in a room together, Matt will actually come off looking like the mature, reasonable one, because although Matt acts like an infant, Ed acts like a fetus. He needs to let the adults handle this.
  11. Bingoloid

    Abdelazim creates fictitious position for himself

    It was easy to find the city publishing statements identifying Abdelazim as deputy mayor. It's obviously terminology accepted by his employer. http://www.cityofbin...icle.asp?a=1233 http://www.cityofbin...icle.asp?a=1189 http://www.docstoc.c...ASTE-MANAGEMENT You've uncovered an important conspiracy, here. The entire city government, both parties, as well as the media, is in on it. What I would suggest that you do is write a letter to YNN, the Press & Sun, WBNG, News Channel 34, the Star-Gazette, Pipe Dream, the Greater Binghamton Council of Governments, the Rochester Business Alliance, the New York Daily News, and all of the other media outlets and organizations that are incorrectly promoting this false information. Demand a correction and explain how you're going to have your army of high-priced lawyers sue them for violating your rights if they don't cooperate. If they ignore you, just send it again. You may have to do this a few hundred times, but eventually, they'll realize what a big deal this is and pursue the issue. If they don't, that just proves that they're all involved in the cover up.
  12. Bingoloid

    Abdelazim creates fictitious position for himself

    That's fair enough. A lot of people probably think a corporation's vice-president automatically gets to become president if the current one gets shot, too. I'm not sure if I'd agree that someone is "implying" something if the problem is the listener's own misinformation, but it's not really important. Taking over is in no way part-and-parcel with the title, if anything specifically because so many deputy mayors are appointed, rather than elected. If the use of the term "deputy mayor" was somehow controversial or misleading, the city council, every candidate for mayor, the local press and the voting public has had a decade to say something while the city has gone through three different deputy mayors. Instead, there's widespread acceptance. Ed was apparently the last to be informed.
  13. Bingoloid

    Abdelazim creates fictitious position for himself

    Except it's not them. It's everybody. You're the only one who is "surprised" by this. It's never been controversial in Binghamton. Regardless, if they can "call themselves whatever they like", what are you crying about? No, it doesn't. In some cities that's the case, in others it isn't. Nothing is "implied" to anyone but you.
  14. Bingoloid

    Abdelazim creates fictitious position for himself

    "Misrepresentations"? Rich David "misrepresented" himself as a former Deputy Mayor as a central point of his campaign; YNN reported that Rich David and Tarik Abdelazim were both Deputy Mayors with comments on the importance of the position from David, Ryan, and Drazen (nobody arguing that it doesn't exist); and Andrew Block currently holds that title according to his own LinkedIn profile and everyone who actually lives here. I think Abdelazim's a douche, but you're making yourself look pathetic and desperate, Ed. Everybody in this city accepts that title. Its use has been uncontroversial for many years, since before Ryan. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that you're the only one who is surprised.
  15. I'm not missing your point at all. I'm just saying that the law actually does require disclosures about flooding and moisture problems when you're buying a home, so it's a bad example. You're absolutely right that, as a buyer, you should do your own research. Proving that a seller had knowledge of something like this is difficult, and it's better to avoid the situation in the first place. However, once you're in it, the seller isn't magically free of all responsibility once the the truth is uncovered. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what you think should have happened. This is what did happen. They didn't walk away, and it takes two. The owner wasn't forced into this, and we can easily apply your logic to him. He surely has his own attorney. If leasing this property to Gander without offering greater disclosure of the flood risk created a liability for him (maybe it did, maybe it didn't, neither of us know the terms of their contract), he shouldn't have agreed to lease it without making the disclosure. Hell, he shouldn't have bought/built the damn thing. I mean, it's below street level and has a creek running behind it. What kind of an idiot would invest in that, right? I agree. However, there it is. Somebody spent the money to build it, somebody thought it was worth offering to tenants, and somebody thought it was a good idea to put their business there. The deal is done. Far from being "why lawyers are so hated", upholding private contract is what the system is there for. It's central to the efficient operation of a free market. It may be a very stupid contract, but that's a problem for the very stupid person who agreed to it. They're all adults. If it was so obvious that it was going to flood and the owner still accepted a contract that made this his problem, it's his carelessness that will cost him. It's just business, and it's always been this way.
  16. Well, that sounds like compelling legal reasoning. No, it isn't like that. However, since you brought it up, if you're selling a house, you're obligated to disclose any knowledge of the property's flood risk or history of water problems. If the buyer can show that you knew of something that you were required to disclose and failed to do so, they can certainly sue you and win. That's nothing new, nor is it unique to our state. It's in line with widely accepted common law principles of fraud. Here's the NYS version of the disclosure form: http://www.dos.ny.gov/forms/licensing/1614-a.pdf
  17. Bingoloid

    Abdelazim creates fictitious position for himself

    Uh, Ed? http://www.richdavidformayor.com/About.aspx http://centralny.ynn.com/content/video_stories/486646/deputy-mayor-s-role-could-impact-election/?ap=1&MP4 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-block/29/392/740 Maybe you'd do well to stop trying to tell actual Binghamtonians what should surprise them.
  18. Bingoloid

    Are there Rich People in Broome County?

    Well, I don't think $100k+ is the kind of "rich" the OP is talking about. At that level, you might be able to accumulate a few million over a lifetime, but that really isn't a big deal anymore. Even "top 5%" would hardly get you into "private jets" territory. In more stable parts of the country, that's considered pretty typical middle class income, and I think that was the OP's point. He's not asking about "Binghamton rich", where some yahoo hangs out at the bar at Number Five bragging about paying cash for a car and taking his wife shopping in New York City, but rich, the kind of wealth where you have enough that your professional success is no longer the biggest controlling factor in your lifestyle. There are probably very few households like that here. However, I do know that there are some nice homes in the surrounding areas that serve as second homes for some very wealthy people from all over the country, and I'm assuming some homes are used that way in the Southern Tier, as well.
  19. Bingoloid

    Hope Nobody Bought any Facebook Shares

    Davy, maybe, if you're going to make that claim, you'd like to say what it is that you think is incorrect. Facebook's current active user count is over 900,000,000. I will concede that I was thinking of an outdated estimate of the total world population of internet users when I said "half to two thirds", but that has little to do with China. Facebook's unique obstacles there are thoroughly documented. http://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2012/05/18/facebook-and-the-china-problem/
  20. Bingoloid

    Hope Nobody Bought any Facebook Shares

    Somewhere between half and two thirds of all of the people on Earth with internet access are already active Facebook users, and a similar proportion of those who aren't using it are in China, where the government routinely blocks it. It's one of the three most popular websites in nearly every country on Earth. That sounds great, until you think about it. There's no way they are going to keep growing the company at the pace they're used to and everybody knows it. The company makes a lot of money and will continue to make a lot of money, and Zuckerberg and his gang are all wealthy beyond our wildest dreams. However, you're right, buying it at $38 would have been crazy. They should have done this two years ago, when it would have been relatively close to the ground floor. This is more like the crawlspace in the attic.
×