Your credit card is not free for you. It just seems that way. The cost of handling credit card transactions, debit fees (Interac), and even the handling of cash are all included in the cost of goods that we buy.
But paying with BTC does not make that cost go away.
In California, businesses (like restaurants) can refuse to accept money from anyone for any reason. They are not required to do business just because you have dollars or legal tender. If they don't like the fact that you are trying to pay in pennies, they don't have to accept it. Therefore, some business could legally refuse dollars but accept bitcoin if they wanted to.
Poster below nailed it, but to add: you don't have to accept dollars as settlement of a debt - you are free to forfeit the debt altogether. The key word is 'debt', not 'payment'.
And if the Linux kernel has a vulnerability that was exploited, Home Depot would be on the hook for billions of dollars? Or if the software from a vendor included a unpatched 3rd party library (such as OpenSSL?) It just wouldn't work, and it would be a nightmare of responsibilities and dependencies. The only winners would be lawyers.
Lawsuits should proceed if (and only if) the company responsible was negligent in things under their control:
Then you'd have the case that companies outsource everything to a sister company with no assets purely to ensure that they cannot be sued.
They way it is now is fine, thanks - the company is responsible for ensuring that its vendors are diligent. No one else can be responsible for that except the company who made the decision to go with a negligent vendor.
Driver-less cars, using CURRENT technology would be safer than what we have now.
That's a trick statement - it's only true because current technology can't drive far enough without user input to get into trouble.
IOW, Of course it's safer - they can only drive on highways, in good weather, with no unexpected obstacles, and with a driver ready to take over when something unexpected happens.
Current human drivers are on average a great deal safer than the 20-year old tech you think is current (You *DO* realise that SDC performance has three orders of magnitude more resources thrown at it since the 90s, but only perform marginally better than the 90s? Of course you didn't, else you wouldn't have been under the impression that there were proportional improvements in SDC in the last 20 years.)
They also chemically castrated Turing for breaking the law. You'll have to forgive me if I don't automatically think that their laws are always justified.
Nice going white man. Or would you prefer I call you 'massah'? Fuck you too, you white piece of trailer trash. #notyoufuckingshield. Learn to respond with respect when black men ask polite questions.
Check your privilege, white man, when you're talking to non-whites. You think black people are idiots. That kind of racist downtalk to me, a black man, puts you squarely in the same room as those nazis you want to shut up.
Ok, this is a bit to far. Why does Google or Apple give a shit at all if an app has any sort of moderation?
They don't. They care if you have the 'wrong' politics.
I'm actually very curious - I thought political affiliation was a protected class. Should a political movement be created with a mission statement of "furthering the goals of white people", for example, and self-identified Nazis/KKK/etc join does it then become illegal to discriminate against them?
You sound surprised. You do understand that it's possible to be both against the alt-right, and against the hard-left?
After all, the nazis and antifa have more in common than they differ. However, only one of them is any serious threat, and it's not the one that everyone regards as a joke.
If Antifa and BLM had just stayed home and not gone to Charlotte, then KKK and Nazis would have had their rally, looked like fools, and then gone home.
Everyone would see what fools they are. The press would make a single mention o the rally and that would be it. No one would care what they said or think.
But nooo. They had to go in and start some shit. Now, they are the opposite side of the coin. Anyone who wanted to justify the KKK and Nazis just had to point to Antifa and BLM.
Good job guys.
yes, let's just let the KKK and Nazis go unchallenged that'll show them.
Because tooling up to go meet them head on worked so well!. Please - the counter-protesters were anything but pacifist.
One group of assholes held rally. Another group of assholes went along specifically for the purposes of disrupting that rally.
Simmering tensions amongst two opposing groups of extremists was going to end badly regardless of who you think is right.
And just for the record, the videos I've seen show both groups being belligerent; it's pretty obvious that people were going to get hurt.
"If AI kills everyone in the future, then we cannot be living in a computer simulation created by our decedents. And if we are living in a computer simulation created by our decedents, then AI didn't kill everyone. I think it a fair deduction that Professor Bostrom is wrong about something."
Well there is a basic logical error if I have ever seen one. If an AI is smart enough to kill all human beings (and we humans can be pretty resourceful when we are pushed), then why would that same AI not be able to create simulations? Come to think of it, when an AI comes to the level of where it simply wants to know everything there is to know, there is a high probability that it would build simulated worlds, just to find out how stuff like evolution works on a macro scale.
Taken a little further, it's possible that we are the AI for an advanced species, running in their simulation.
(Looking around, I guess the mice might be a little disappointed at how things turned out, though)
It's biological essentialism. The author seems to think that biological causes, testosterone in this case, are the only correlation for wanting to dominate socially. Maybe they have never heard of Thatcher.
'Correlation' doesn't mean what you think it means. It does not mean "every single element of this population will follow this rule", it means "there is a relationship between these two variables". A strong correlation is a strong relationship, and a weak one is a weak relationship, but even an exceptionally strong correlation between dominance and testosterone does not rule out the occasional female leader.
While both of those books accept that there is some biological element, they state that it is overblown and largely based on poor science. Results that are not reproducible, use too small sample sizes, inadequate controls and extravagant conclusions.
Were you hoping people wouldn't follow your links? Because one book has already been thoroughly discredited (see below) and the other doesn't actually support "all brains are alike".
The second one (wikipedia) is debunked in the very page you linked to by a few respectable journals, notably Biology of Sex Differences and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
In the page you link to a fairly prolific and respected scientist says this about the first book:
"strongest in exposing research conclusions that are closer to fiction than science...and weakest in failing to also point out differences that are supported by a body of carefully conducted and well-replicated research."
There is a body of carefully conducted and well-replicated research for the assertions of the fired googler. The conclusions that are closer to fiction than to science are not any that he made.
You mean the thing where a bunch of women hating basement dwellers tried everything possible to get women who dare criticize or work in video games fired or killed?
Ironically, reading the thread over here and over here shows that the biggest supporters of firing critics are, in fact, the ones who were the biggest supporters of the games journos.
This whole google-firing scandal is rich in irony - I'm waiting to hear those same supporters whine about the silencing effect of the government when google gets slapped with a fine for illegally firing someone (AKA silencing the dissenting opinions). There is literally no way out of this that does not reveal all the "feminists" to be intellectual midgets.
He needs to sue for violation of his civil rights.
He wasn't fired because of his race or gender. He was fired because of his opinions. Unless his employment contract says otherwise, his employment is "at will" and Google can fire him for any legal reason, or for no reason. It is generally legal to fire someone because you don't agree with them, and that happens all the time.
I'm pretty certain that political opinions are protected. Ironically if he had relied on fewer facts and more on political affiliation to make his point he would be protected from firing.
"I support this political party" = protection from firings.
"Here is the science" = no protection from firing.
Slashdot Mirror
Your credit card is not free for you. It just seems that way. The cost of handling credit card transactions, debit fees (Interac), and even the handling of cash are all included in the cost of goods that we buy.
But paying with BTC does not make that cost go away.
In California, businesses (like restaurants) can refuse to accept money from anyone for any reason. They are not required to do business just because you have dollars or legal tender. If they don't like the fact that you are trying to pay in pennies, they don't have to accept it. Therefore, some business could legally refuse dollars but accept bitcoin if they wanted to.
Poster below nailed it, but to add: you don't have to accept dollars as settlement of a debt - you are free to forfeit the debt altogether. The key word is 'debt', not 'payment'.
And if the Linux kernel has a vulnerability that was exploited, Home Depot would be on the hook for billions of dollars? Or if the software from a vendor included a unpatched 3rd party library (such as OpenSSL?) It just wouldn't work, and it would be a nightmare of responsibilities and dependencies. The only winners would be lawyers.
Lawsuits should proceed if (and only if) the company responsible was negligent in things under their control:
Then you'd have the case that companies outsource everything to a sister company with no assets purely to ensure that they cannot be sued.
They way it is now is fine, thanks - the company is responsible for ensuring that its vendors are diligent. No one else can be responsible for that except the company who made the decision to go with a negligent vendor.
Driver-less cars, using CURRENT technology would be safer than what we have now.
That's a trick statement - it's only true because current technology can't drive far enough without user input to get into trouble.
IOW, Of course it's safer - they can only drive on highways, in good weather, with no unexpected obstacles, and with a driver ready to take over when something unexpected happens.
Current human drivers are on average a great deal safer than the 20-year old tech you think is current (You *DO* realise that SDC performance has three orders of magnitude more resources thrown at it since the 90s, but only perform marginally better than the 90s? Of course you didn't, else you wouldn't have been under the impression that there were proportional improvements in SDC in the last 20 years.)
That island you speak of hung one of the chief "sticks and stones" types at Wandsworth Prison.
Lord Haw-Haw
They also chemically castrated Turing for breaking the law. You'll have to forgive me if I don't automatically think that their laws are always justified.
You mean the unintended acceleration that for some strange reason only occurred in the US where people are litigation happy to get rich?
Did you read the results of the code review? You won't ever cross the street in front of a Toyota again.
Apparently the software magically gets better design and development when it's self-driving software.
What's a Waymo?
A car for people who don't diet anymore
Nice going white man. Or would you prefer I call you 'massah'? Fuck you too, you white piece of trailer trash. #notyoufuckingshield. Learn to respond with respect when black men ask polite questions.
You are an idiot.
Check your privilege, white man, when you're talking to non-whites. You think black people are idiots. That kind of racist downtalk to me, a black man, puts you squarely in the same room as those nazis you want to shut up.
No, it most certainly does not. It takes more than that to be fascist; nationalism, for example. Some of us prefer our words to have meaning.
Words like IngSoc? Mini-Truth?
Ok, this is a bit to far. Why does Google or Apple give a shit at all if an app has any sort of moderation?
They don't. They care if you have the 'wrong' politics.
I'm actually very curious - I thought political affiliation was a protected class. Should a political movement be created with a mission statement of "furthering the goals of white people", for example, and self-identified Nazis/KKK/etc join does it then become illegal to discriminate against them?
they have pretty much confirmed circumcision causes ED, and non circumcised males have higher quality erections even when they get ED.
Is this some elaborate joke that I don't get - do you have a link to back up the (apparently) contradicting assertions above?
What country do you live in that allows you to buy bleach?
Where the hell do you live?
Sites that moderate user content would lose their safe harbor protection using your argument.
That's the point. If you're going to moderate you can't also claim you're not responsible.
Even Damore has come out against the Alt-right.
You sound surprised. You do understand that it's possible to be both against the alt-right, and against the hard-left?
After all, the nazis and antifa have more in common than they differ. However, only one of them is any serious threat, and it's not the one that everyone regards as a joke.
If Antifa and BLM had just stayed home and not gone to Charlotte, then KKK and Nazis would have had their rally, looked like fools, and then gone home.
Everyone would see what fools they are. The press would make a single mention o the rally and that would be it. No one would care what they said or think.
But nooo. They had to go in and start some shit. Now, they are the opposite side of the coin. Anyone who wanted to justify the KKK and Nazis just had to point to Antifa and BLM.
Good job guys.
yes, let's just let the KKK and Nazis go unchallenged that'll show them.
Because tooling up to go meet them head on worked so well!. Please - the counter-protesters were anything but pacifist.
One group of assholes held rally. Another group of assholes went along specifically for the purposes of disrupting that rally.
Simmering tensions amongst two opposing groups of extremists was going to end badly regardless of who you think is right.
And just for the record, the videos I've seen show both groups being belligerent; it's pretty obvious that people were going to get hurt.
Your previous post is you complaining that people call everyone they disagree with Nazis. Here you are calling everyone you disagree with an idiot.
Yeah, but idiots are still allowed a platform.
When you support the silencing of dissent, don't be surprised when your dissent is silenced.
What goes around, comes around.
"If AI kills everyone in the future, then we cannot be living in a computer simulation created by our decedents. And if we are living in a computer simulation created by our decedents, then AI didn't kill everyone. I think it a fair deduction that Professor Bostrom is wrong about something."
Well there is a basic logical error if I have ever seen one. If an AI is smart enough to kill all human beings (and we humans can be pretty resourceful when we are pushed), then why would that same AI not be able to create simulations? Come to think of it, when an AI comes to the level of where it simply wants to know everything there is to know, there is a high probability that it would build simulated worlds, just to find out how stuff like evolution works on a macro scale.
Taken a little further, it's possible that we are the AI for an advanced species, running in their simulation.
(Looking around, I guess the mice might be a little disappointed at how things turned out, though)
It's biological essentialism. The author seems to think that biological causes, testosterone in this case, are the only correlation for wanting to dominate socially. Maybe they have never heard of Thatcher.
'Correlation' doesn't mean what you think it means. It does not mean "every single element of this population will follow this rule", it means "there is a relationship between these two variables". A strong correlation is a strong relationship, and a weak one is a weak relationship, but even an exceptionally strong correlation between dominance and testosterone does not rule out the occasional female leader.
procrastination), but happy wife = happy life.
My observation is that all the men who say that are exceptionally unhappy.
Their mistake was trying to build an impossible product: an internet connected, secure lock that people can rely on.
Don't worry. They'll get it correct when they build a self-driving car that cannot be remotely hacked.
The problem with someone like Mr. Damore is that their views, whether well researched or not, create toxic work environments,
Scientific findings are now toxic? Empirical and peer reviewed research is toxic?
Not all experts agree on this matter.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/cat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While both of those books accept that there is some biological element, they state that it is overblown and largely based on poor science. Results that are not reproducible, use too small sample sizes, inadequate controls and extravagant conclusions.
Were you hoping people wouldn't follow your links? Because one book has already been thoroughly discredited (see below) and the other doesn't actually support "all brains are alike".
The second one (wikipedia) is debunked in the very page you linked to by a few respectable journals, notably Biology of Sex Differences and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
In the page you link to a fairly prolific and respected scientist says this about the first book:
"strongest in exposing research conclusions that are closer to fiction than science...and weakest in failing to also point out differences that are supported by a body of carefully conducted and well-replicated research."
There is a body of carefully conducted and well-replicated research for the assertions of the fired googler. The conclusions that are closer to fiction than to science are not any that he made.
You mean the thing where a bunch of women hating basement dwellers tried everything possible to get women who dare criticize or work in video games fired or killed?
Ironically, reading the thread over here and over here shows that the biggest supporters of firing critics are, in fact, the ones who were the biggest supporters of the games journos.
This whole google-firing scandal is rich in irony - I'm waiting to hear those same supporters whine about the silencing effect of the government when google gets slapped with a fine for illegally firing someone (AKA silencing the dissenting opinions). There is literally no way out of this that does not reveal all the "feminists" to be intellectual midgets.
He needs to sue for violation of his civil rights.
He wasn't fired because of his race or gender. He was fired because of his opinions. Unless his employment contract says otherwise, his employment is "at will" and Google can fire him for any legal reason, or for no reason. It is generally legal to fire someone because you don't agree with them, and that happens all the time.
I'm pretty certain that political opinions are protected. Ironically if he had relied on fewer facts and more on political affiliation to make his point he would be protected from firing.
"I support this political party" = protection from firings.
"Here is the science" = no protection from firing.