Yes but everything had a margin of error. If the failure rate is estimated to be 7% of the routers per year and it's actually something like 7.5-8%, no one is going to bat an eye on that. He could have made a very steady profit over many decades.
I think I'm learning the wrong lesson from the stories. Don't steal a lot - steal a little bit over a long time, and you probably won't get caught. =\
There's a difference between loopholing your way out of taxes and (practically) buying your own airfield. This is pretty clean cut IMO. There's fees at a local airport but not a private one, and therefore some rich dudes buy a hangar at the private airport. I don't really see that as "evasion" per se. It'd be like owning a garage and someone calls you out for "stealing" revenue from the city's parking meters by not using them.
Mind you, it's very much possible to be a parodist and make someone part with their money (such as by buying your wonderful book on a certain noodly heavenly father). It's really a matter of whether or not you do it ethically.
On a related note, Apple has always used silly analogies ("Desktop", "Trash", Eject by dropping to trash). I hope I offended everyone now.
Yeah, I'm not sure why everyone is jumping on this one, other than maybe there's an entire generation of "power" users who don't realize the modern desktop's origins stem from the first Macintosh in 1984?
I'm personally very aware of it. I like to point it out all the time. "Man, check out the original Mac! You could mess with the software, change out hardware, it's awesome! Too bad you won't be able to do any of that pretty soon."
What do you think is more likely - that the Russian government deliberately disabled Iran, or that the American or Israeli government bought (or otherwise acquired) insider knowledge from Russia?
I don't know. This seemed like a pretty specifically targeted piece of hardware.
Dumbing it down a whole bunch here, but say that the virus modifies the CENTRIFUGE_MAX_SPEED variable from X to X+100 or something. It's affecting a specific piece of software. It's not as if the ventilation or reactor rod system run on the same software, and even if they did it would be doubtful that they would be affected by the same command.
I use the wonderfulness of the Internets to research candidates. I don't just look into what they say, I look into what they do and where they've worked previously. If they're an incumbent or previously held another office, I look into their voting record.
A lot of the time I end up voting for nobody because I feel nobody represents me on the issues that I care about. Then again, I'm largely against how most of the stuff in my state (New Jersey) is run, so I usually have a hard time finding a candidate I like.
2027: Frivolous 1, a mega spaceship that all of humanity has gathered together to build, launches into space with the majority of the world's lawyers on board.
2035: A Zeta Reticulan delegation approaches Earth and demands compensation for pollution of their star system.
I have no problem letting guilty people go free in exchange for making sure an innocent person never ends up in jail. Moreover, I have no problem with jurors using nullification to overturn your example because they can also use it to protect other people from insane laws.
I agree with the whole self-imposed beauty standard thing, but you have to wonder how many of them are destroying their bodies because of how much money they can make doing it.
How many women actually want to look like that and not just be paid to look like that?
It's not like I go out starting fights. But I will defend myself if I'm assaulted, robbed, or my home is broken into. This is not an "if", this is practically an absolute. If the odds are stacked against me where I can't go hand to hand, I will escalate my response in order to survive and/or protect other innocent folks.
Meanwhile in Britain, a man will likely end up in jail for defending his home by killing an intruder.
In the linked story, I would have likely done the same thing. If I ended up in jail, so be it. I'd rather life a good chunk of my life in prison than let someone I care about die, but I'd really prefer to live somewhere where there aren't laws that I believe to be rather insane to say the least.
"And here are our contestants! Taylor Smith! Taylor Jones! Casey Jones! Casey Taylor! Taylor Jones-Casey! And finally, Bill Kowalski!"
(It was less a comment on one specific ethnic group and more a comment on the hilarious propagation of unoriginal names in any culture. It just happened to be tailored for a Middle-Eastern flair.)
Fashion designers apparently use rail-thin models because they lack the curves of your average woman and therefore the folds, lines, depths, etc. of their clothing will be more emphasized.
That is, fashion models are generally nothing more than walking, living mannequins. I'd be glad to see this particular part of the fashion industry disappear altogether. How many of these women are naturally that skinny, and how many torture and damage their bodies to fit into that archetype?
I'm not as worried. Print-on-demand has been around for a while and it's only getting cheaper. I'm sure that the individual could buy an out-of-print book, or real "book stores" would end up being a novelty carrying actual paperbacks in stock that they themselves ordered.
To be fair, though, that's just the budget on the books.
I mean, wasn't the CIA basically propping up cocaine lords in the 70s/80s in exchange for funding? What's to say that that exact thing is not happening in another fashion elsewhere? It's not as if you can look up the national budget and see "Afghanistan heroin sales: $230,241,532,000" as a line item.
How would protesters organise and send videos etc without cellphones (and internet)? These comes with "surveillance tech" as standard.
There is a very, very important distinction between surveillance tools in the hands of a private citizen and surveillance tools in the hands of a corporation or private government.
Aren't the majority of CCTV cameras in Britain (and most other places) private, though?
I mean, a lot of this seems like an unfortunate collusion of events. Businesses want to protect their property and therefore they will install security cameras on the interior and/or exterior of their buildings. (I'm 90% certain that there are bonuses in insurance coverage for having a functional CCTV system, so there is yet another incentive.) There are very few places where businesses have exactly 0 presence (such as the suburbs or rural areas), so there would naturally be a large area of CCTV coverage under a lot of different private entities. If a crime were committed under the view of a camera, wouldn't it be irresponsible of the police not to try to legally acquire the video as evidence?
Now if we're talking a situation where there's a government-owned camera on nearly every street corner, then yes we have a problem. But for the majority of places, it seems less like a government conspiracy to watch everyone and more like the government (of whatever country you may choose) electing to make use of the CCTV cameras that are already there anyway.
One of the major differences, though, is that people can fight against the illegal spying and torturing without being horribly murdered for "falling out of line".
I believe in right-ism. That is, the more someone is to your right, the more evil they are. Europe is bad, but Russia and the Middle East are worse because they're farther to the right (from our perspective.)
Don't even get me started on those Samoan bastards.
Don't forget about the hilariously strong libel laws in UK. That, the lack of the ability to legally own and carry a firearm, and the difficulty in justifying defending yourself with reasonable force are the three major reasons I would never live there. (And if it weren't for those three big things, I'd have moved there a long time ago.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but everything had a margin of error. If the failure rate is estimated to be 7% of the routers per year and it's actually something like 7.5-8%, no one is going to bat an eye on that. He could have made a very steady profit over many decades.
I think I'm learning the wrong lesson from the stories. Don't steal a lot - steal a little bit over a long time, and you probably won't get caught. =\
There's a difference between loopholing your way out of taxes and (practically) buying your own airfield. This is pretty clean cut IMO. There's fees at a local airport but not a private one, and therefore some rich dudes buy a hangar at the private airport. I don't really see that as "evasion" per se. It'd be like owning a garage and someone calls you out for "stealing" revenue from the city's parking meters by not using them.
Mind you, it's very much possible to be a parodist and make someone part with their money (such as by buying your wonderful book on a certain noodly heavenly father). It's really a matter of whether or not you do it ethically.
Oh man, what I would have given to be there for that conversation.
"How many addresses do you figure we need?"
"Couple billion I guess."
"But what if we need more?"
"Dude, okay, let's just say one per person. 4 and a half billion or so. Now everyone on the world can have one."
"But what if, you know, there ends up being a few more people than that in the future?"
"Jesus Christ man, it's not like 3 billion extra people are gonna pop up out of nowhere in the next 30 years!"
On a related note, Apple has always used silly analogies ("Desktop", "Trash", Eject by dropping to trash). I hope I offended everyone now.
Yeah, I'm not sure why everyone is jumping on this one, other than maybe there's an entire generation of "power" users who don't realize the modern desktop's origins stem from the first Macintosh in 1984?
I'm personally very aware of it. I like to point it out all the time. "Man, check out the original Mac! You could mess with the software, change out hardware, it's awesome! Too bad you won't be able to do any of that pretty soon."
Occam's Razor Part II: The Razoring
What do you think is more likely - that the Russian government deliberately disabled Iran, or that the American or Israeli government bought (or otherwise acquired) insider knowledge from Russia?
I don't know. This seemed like a pretty specifically targeted piece of hardware.
Dumbing it down a whole bunch here, but say that the virus modifies the CENTRIFUGE_MAX_SPEED variable from X to X+100 or something. It's affecting a specific piece of software. It's not as if the ventilation or reactor rod system run on the same software, and even if they did it would be doubtful that they would be affected by the same command.
Too many Republicans are far right.
(Hey, I tried. I can't think of a good joke using "Isosceles". Anyone who does may be granted an Internets.)
I take a middle ground.
I use the wonderfulness of the Internets to research candidates. I don't just look into what they say, I look into what they do and where they've worked previously. If they're an incumbent or previously held another office, I look into their voting record.
A lot of the time I end up voting for nobody because I feel nobody represents me on the issues that I care about. Then again, I'm largely against how most of the stuff in my state (New Jersey) is run, so I usually have a hard time finding a candidate I like.
2027: Frivolous 1, a mega spaceship that all of humanity has gathered together to build, launches into space with the majority of the world's lawyers on board.
2035: A Zeta Reticulan delegation approaches Earth and demands compensation for pollution of their star system.
I have no problem letting guilty people go free in exchange for making sure an innocent person never ends up in jail. Moreover, I have no problem with jurors using nullification to overturn your example because they can also use it to protect other people from insane laws.
I did the exact same thing. I then proceeded to cut myself repeatedly with a clear plastic protractor to feel better.
I agree with the whole self-imposed beauty standard thing, but you have to wonder how many of them are destroying their bodies because of how much money they can make doing it.
How many women actually want to look like that and not just be paid to look like that?
It's not like I go out starting fights. But I will defend myself if I'm assaulted, robbed, or my home is broken into. This is not an "if", this is practically an absolute. If the odds are stacked against me where I can't go hand to hand, I will escalate my response in order to survive and/or protect other innocent folks.
Meanwhile in Britain, a man will likely end up in jail for defending his home by killing an intruder.
In the linked story, I would have likely done the same thing. If I ended up in jail, so be it. I'd rather life a good chunk of my life in prison than let someone I care about die, but I'd really prefer to live somewhere where there aren't laws that I believe to be rather insane to say the least.
Doesn't Israel do behavioral profiling? i.e. if someone is acting weird, they pull them aside and interview them.
How's this one?
"And here are our contestants! Taylor Smith! Taylor Jones! Casey Jones! Casey Taylor! Taylor Jones-Casey! And finally, Bill Kowalski!"
(It was less a comment on one specific ethnic group and more a comment on the hilarious propagation of unoriginal names in any culture. It just happened to be tailored for a Middle-Eastern flair.)
Fashion designers apparently use rail-thin models because they lack the curves of your average woman and therefore the folds, lines, depths, etc. of their clothing will be more emphasized.
That is, fashion models are generally nothing more than walking, living mannequins. I'd be glad to see this particular part of the fashion industry disappear altogether. How many of these women are naturally that skinny, and how many torture and damage their bodies to fit into that archetype?
I'm not as worried. Print-on-demand has been around for a while and it's only getting cheaper. I'm sure that the individual could buy an out-of-print book, or real "book stores" would end up being a novelty carrying actual paperbacks in stock that they themselves ordered.
To be fair, though, that's just the budget on the books.
I mean, wasn't the CIA basically propping up cocaine lords in the 70s/80s in exchange for funding? What's to say that that exact thing is not happening in another fashion elsewhere? It's not as if you can look up the national budget and see "Afghanistan heroin sales: $230,241,532,000" as a line item.
How would protesters organise and send videos etc without cellphones (and internet)?
These comes with "surveillance tech" as standard.
There is a very, very important distinction between surveillance tools in the hands of a private citizen and surveillance tools in the hands of a corporation or private government.
Aren't the majority of CCTV cameras in Britain (and most other places) private, though?
I mean, a lot of this seems like an unfortunate collusion of events. Businesses want to protect their property and therefore they will install security cameras on the interior and/or exterior of their buildings. (I'm 90% certain that there are bonuses in insurance coverage for having a functional CCTV system, so there is yet another incentive.) There are very few places where businesses have exactly 0 presence (such as the suburbs or rural areas), so there would naturally be a large area of CCTV coverage under a lot of different private entities. If a crime were committed under the view of a camera, wouldn't it be irresponsible of the police not to try to legally acquire the video as evidence?
Now if we're talking a situation where there's a government-owned camera on nearly every street corner, then yes we have a problem. But for the majority of places, it seems less like a government conspiracy to watch everyone and more like the government (of whatever country you may choose) electing to make use of the CCTV cameras that are already there anyway.
Exactly! Investors clearly care about ethics when they're factoring in where to spend their money, and not the oh-so-unimportant profit margins!
One of the major differences, though, is that people can fight against the illegal spying and torturing without being horribly murdered for "falling out of line".
I believe in right-ism. That is, the more someone is to your right, the more evil they are. Europe is bad, but Russia and the Middle East are worse because they're farther to the right (from our perspective.)
Don't even get me started on those Samoan bastards.
But how much restriction of free speech
Don't forget about the hilariously strong libel laws in UK. That, the lack of the ability to legally own and carry a firearm, and the difficulty in justifying defending yourself with reasonable force are the three major reasons I would never live there. (And if it weren't for those three big things, I'd have moved there a long time ago.)