UNwanted Inventions

[Guy N. Heels]

I'm not quite sure I understand you. People 'dumpster dive' in the UK too, although we don't call skips and bins dumpsters. I work in a mall and you often see staff (and the public is they can get in!) raiding the bins of others shops to see if they can get free stuff - usually when HMV or Waterstone's clear out their stockrooms. I'm pretty sure it's illegal, I thik someone told me once that even though you have thrown it away if someone went through the bin for it it is still stealing...

Well, I don't know about the laws in the UK, but here in the US an important case was once tried and the appeal was totally based upon improper evidence that was obtained from the defendant's garbage can. I can't remember if the US Supreme Court heard the case or not, but the final opinion was that once it goes into the garbage can (regardless of what it is) it becomes public domain. The only exception is when the trash recepticle is still located on the person's premises in such a manner that inspection of the recepticle would constitute invasion of privacy or violation of property rights (locked-up, etc). But in general, whenever it goes in the trash can, it's public domain and is up for grabs by anyone that wants it. Therefore, anyone in the US can legally obtain virtually anything that goes into somebody's trash can.

This is one of the main reasons that shredders are such big business here. Any documents, including old bills, etc, can be legally removed from the trash can by anyone. Therefore, the only way to protect sensitive information is to either shred it or burn it. In most cases, burning isn't feasible.

Many years ago a company called Dempster developed a huge trash bin (on the order of several cubic yards) that could only be removed or "dumped" by a rather large truck (lorry to you Brits), hence the name "Dempster Dumpster" which eventually became shortened to just "dumpster". The average dumpster is so large that a person could be injured just by jumping into one (quite different from the average 32 gal. garbage can), hence the term "dumpster diving".

I hope this clears things up a bit. Please try to remember that the Americans and the British are a kindred people divided by a common language.

[Guy N. Heels]

...But in general, whenever it goes in the trash can, it's public domain and is up for grabs by anyone that wants it. Therefore, anyone in the US can legally obtain virtually anything that goes into somebody's trash can. This is one of the main reasons that shredders are such big business here. Any documents, including old bills, etc, can be legally removed from the trash can by anyone. Therefore, the only way to protect sensitive information is to either shred it or burn it. In most cases, burning isn't feasible...:

Just a follow-on to my previous post, the other day an employment agency was evicted from their downtown Washington office by US Marshalls (presumably for non-payment of rent). However, in the process of tossing them out into the street they also indiscriminately threw out all of their personnel files. Therefore, all of the people who had ever submitted sensitive personal information with that particular agency were placed at-risk because all of their sensitive information was literally out in the street! And of course, all of the legal ramifications I mentioned previously apply. When the Marshalls were confronted about the matter, they simply shrugged and said they were just doing their job.

[Guy N. Heels]

When someone disses someone else's choice, they're just struggling inside about something, like what they don't like about theirselves.

I never really thought about matters that way, Inscapable, but it makes sense. I think someone once defined envy as: that discomfort or upset one experiences over what someone else has that you either don't or can't have. If that is the case, then what you said begins to sound to me a whole lot like envy.

[Puffer]

The question has been asked whether removing items from a skip (dumpster) or similar in the UK is illegal. There can be no absolutely universal answer but the short one is ‘yes’ as it is likely to constitute theft. Section 1, Theft Act 1968 states that a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates the property of another with the intention of permanently depriving that other of it. (The key words are underlined.)

If something is dumped or abandoned, to whom does it belong, if anyone? Possibly the original owner – the skip contents may be for resale as scrap or landfill. If not, to the person who has contracted to remove it and who may or may not lose out if some is taken from him, depending upon its intrinsic value. Dishonest intent will be established if, on the facts, the taker had no demonstrable right to remove or use the item, i.e. he knew or should have known that it was not his property. Likewise, permanent deprivation will be proven when it is clear that the item was not merely borrowed – which is why ‘taking and driving away’ a motor vehicle is a special type of theft offence as it is committed even when (as is common) a ‘joyrider’ merely borrows a car briefly and then abandons it.

So, although it is common to remove items from skips in the street, such as builders’ leftovers or old furniture, on the basis that, if asked, the dumper would usually be glad to let it go to a new home, the appropriation is not without legal dangers. And more so if the skip or dump is on private property – as the dumper could always argue that he was merely storing it on his own land until using it later. There should be a very clear indication of abandonment to the world before specific dumped property is treated as a free-for-all; the ‘public domain’ argument apparently applicable in the US does not seem to have an exact parallel in the UK.

[Guy N. Heels]

The question has been asked whether removing items from a skip (dumpster) or similar in the UK is illegal. There can be no absolutely universal answer but the short one is ‘yes’ as it is likely to constitute theft. Section 1, Theft Act 1968 states that a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates the property of another with the intention of permanently depriving that other of it. (The key words are underlined.)

...There should be a very clear indication of abandonment to the world before specific dumped property is treated as a free-for-all; the ‘public domain’ argument apparently applicable in the US does not seem to have an exact parallel in the UK.

Thank you for a rather detailed explaination of what is, obviously, a huge difference between US law and British law. If I'm ever in the kingdom I shall endeavor to remind myself to keep my hands out of the garbage cans.

However, the real purpose of this thread was to plumb the merits of the Parade Magazine article in which Marilyn vos Savant claims that high heels are an unwanted invention. If anyone agrees with that assessment, now is the time to speak up.

[Guy N. Heels]

Thank you for a rather detailed explaination of what is, obviously, a huge difference between US law and British law. If I'm ever in the kingdom I shall endeavor to remind myself to keep my hands out of the garbage cans.

However, the real purpose of this thread was to plumb the merits of the Parade Magazine article in which Marilyn vos Savant claims that high heels are an unwanted invention. If anyone agrees with that assessment, now is the time to speak up.

Well, I've tried to revive this thread before it goes off into cyber-oblivion. But I guess I'm flogging a dead horse here.

[jmc]

I think we've come to the conclusion that high heels are an "unwanted invention" in the mind of Marilyn vos Savant herself. She is supposed to have a very high I.Q. (if I remember correctly she is a Mensa member) and she likes to sit upon that I.Q. as if it was a throne from which to direct the lives of all we plebes. As I have said before, there are a lot of high heels for sale out there -- a plethora of different styles, sizes, colors, heights, etc. Just look on eBay, most online shoe stores, or in most real shoe stores and there will be a whole bunch of heels available, and they do sell. For an "unwanted invention", somebody sure wants 'em -- and not just the members of this site!

[Guy N. Heels]

I think we've come to the conclusion that high heels are an "unwanted invention" in the mind of Marilyn vos Savant herself. She is supposed to have a very high I.Q. (if I remember correctly she is a Mensa member) and she likes to sit upon that I.Q. as if it was a throne from which to direct the lives of all we plebes.

As I have said before, there are a lot of high heels for sale out there -- a plethora of different styles, sizes, colors, heights, etc. Just look on eBay, most online shoe stores, or in most real shoe stores and there will be a whole bunch of heels available, and they do sell. For an "unwanted invention", somebody sure wants 'em -- and not just the members of this site!

An excellent point! After all, there is a huge difference between the mailbag and the sales charts. Somebody's sure selling a lot of "unwanted inventions" to a whole lot of somebodies out there.

BTW, I've finally figured-out that Mensa is really a self-worship religion with a minimum threshold requirement for their priests and priestesses.

[metalspikes]

In this week's Parade Magazine's ask Marilyn column Marilyn vos Savant lists the 10 most unwanted inventions.

I think we've come to the conclusion that high heels are an "unwanted invention" in the mind of Marilyn vos Savant herself.

People who haven't the courage and integrity to take responsibility for their own opinions and feelings are often seen to hide behind passive voice statements that use such weasel-words as "inappropriate," "unacceptable" or, in this case, "unwanted." The hidden reference is to the ubiquitous "they," as in "Oh, you know what they say!" It is common for all of us to use such words as "good" and "bad" as though they describe objective qualities of things out in the world, when they actually describe the (subjective) impact of those things and events on the observer. We need to eat and breath to live-- this is good, right? Each breath we take kills thousands of microorganisms floating in the air, and each meal we eat requires the sacrifice of life, whether animal or vegetable, to provide our nutrition. "Good" for us, but not so great for them, is it? Depends upon your point of view. Or, when a friend asks if a movie I just saw was "good," I assume that is not a request for a discussion of its technical merits and qualities, but instead for a subjective opinion. I will usually respond with "I liked/didn't like it."

When you hear weasel-words like "inappropriate," "unacceptable," "unlikeable," and the rest, flip it over into active voice by asking "who?" "Who doesn't like, accept, or want it? You? Your friends? Some identifiable group of people, for which you have the research evidence to identify them?" Then just sit back and watch 'em run for cover!

yeah, and a fair few of them [women] would answer that men pressure them into wearing cos they feel they have to try and look attractive............

That's the "second wave" of the feminist movement-- play the victim, scapegoat on men. And so many men swallow it whole: hook, line, and sinker!

they pressure themselves into it because women compete among themselves to look better and more attractive than the women around them. therefore if they know everyone else is wearing them, they have to too or they wont feel as attractive as them. celebrity rolemodels and magazines also contribute i suspect

Thank you for pointing out that, in certain arenas (and not just in athletics and business), women are as fiercely competitive as men (if not more so). While traditional women's values do tend to emphasize cooperation, there are those certain areas where they can really shred each other.

What with some women's clothes and shoes going for upwards of $500, I would have surely thought that women dress for their men. But NOPE, not so.

I would call this the number one misconception among men about women, that the primary (if not the only) reason why women dress up is to attract men. It is this assumption that is at the root of why crossdressers and freestylers get branded as homosexual: dressing sensually is so inextricably linked with femininity in modern western society that people assume that a man who dresses up is also trying to attract a man-- even women, who know that attracting a man is not necessarily their main reason for dressing up, make that assumption.

One of the most shocking things I ever discovered is that women dress for other women!

Let just one gal in a crowd show up in heels or a particularly stunning gown or hair-do and then every gal in the room has to have one or even more: expensive, higher, whatever.

The way you've equated female competitiveness with motivation, it would be more accurate for you to say that women dress at each other, not for each other. My observation is that women dress primarily for themselves. The textures, colors, and shapes of "feminine" fashions for women are all designed with one quality in mind: sensuality. When a guy "crossdresses" and gets erotically stimulated, psychiatrists (and the rest of sociaty) really start slinging the labels: it's fetishistic, a paraphilia, maybe even autogynephilia. However, when a woman describes from behind the safety and anonymity of the internet how the feel and appearance (in a mirror) of a stunningly effective costume combine to cause her to become positively wet, that gets ignored or taken for granted.

The primary reason for women to dress and adorn themselves (and men too, when we do it), then, is because it feels good. Everything else follows from that. Looking and feeling good reinforce each other-- nothing looks better than self confidence, and the responses that self confidence brings builds more confidence. There's more that I can say, but I think I'll leave it there.

I never really thought about matters that way, Inscapable, but it makes sense. I think someone once defined envy as: that discomfort or upset one experiences over what someone else has that you either don't or can't have. If that is the case, then what you said begins to sound to me a whole lot like envy.

Psychologists call this "shadow". In a moment of inspiration, I wrote...

When We Claim Our Shadow

When we claim our shadow;

The parts of ourselves that we don't wish to see,

The parts of ourselves that we're afraid we might be;

What we wish we could be and think that we're not,

So that we become jealous when we see what others have got--

When we claim our shadow,

The chains that have bound us start falling to dust,

Our unneeded armor will moulder and rust,

A change in our lives soon shall we see

As our souls and our spirits we work to set free.

[Guy N. Heels]

All of your points are well-taken, Metalspikes! I really love it when I find someone who can tear a thing apart and then put the nuts & bolts under a microscope. How very different from the 80% or 90% of people who go through life without ever really understanding who they are and why they act in the ways that they do.

[metalspikes]

All of your points are well-taken, Metalspikes! I really love it when I find someone who can tear a thing apart and then put the nuts & bolts under a microscope. How very different from the 80% or 90% of people who go through life without ever really understanding who they are and why they act in the ways that they do.

"...and if again I say that to talk every day about virtue and the other things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me still less." -- Socrates, as quoted in Plato

[thedesigner]

well give me high heels anyday and take away speed cameras, traffic wardens, anti smoking laws (yes i know pls humour me), illegal immigrants, bomb threats (see previous), miserable people, guns, enough already! The case for heels is well made!

[metalspikes]

Apologies to Guy N. Heels for quoting him out of context in a previous post. Please follow the links back to his original posts to see his comments in context. Sorry 'bout that!