How is it ironic? The memo is about actions taken to protect CLASSIFIED information. The memo itself is not classified, nor is there any reason it should be.
If that happens the ABS is malfunctioning. The ABS will allow normal braking on the wheels on the center of the road, while allowing the wheels on the ice to continue turning, instead of locking up (which is dangerous). It is not an 'all braking or no braking' situation. The speed of each wheel is measured independently, and the brake for each wheel is modulated accordingly.
I don't recall ABS ever being touted as good for avoiding rear-end collisions (which would not make sense, since they can increase stopping distance). ABS was (and is) touted for not causing a loss of control (skid) during braking. I don't know how much it shows up in accident statistics, but I can say that my personal observation is that I see a whole lot fewer cars skidding into the oncoming lane, going off the road, etc during snowstorms than I did 20 years ago.
There are laws that say she can't be banned for BEING a "40 year old black female Jamaican catholic disabled veteran with children". She CAN be banned for any other reason, just like everyone else.
Really? So if your company's payroll system made an error and deposited $400,000 extra in your bank account, you think they wouldn't get that back? Or if their accounts payable system paid someone too much, they wouldn't get that back? I call bullshit.
Yes. Technically you are a thief even if you didn't ask them to do it and they did anyway. If you take something you know you don't have a right to you are a thief, no matter how the thing wound up in your possession.
This is incorrect. The casino does (and can) NOT cancel the payout because of win-loss ratios. How could they, it would require them to see into the future After all, if the machine has a 1/1,000,000 chance of paying a jackpot on each play there is just as much chance it will pay it the very first time it is played as the 1,000,000th time it is played.
None of the links provided say nothing about exceeding win-loss ratios. They say they were voided because the supposed winnings were greater than the amount the game was capable of paying. If you are playing a machine that has a top prize of $2500 (which they always display in BIG letters), you have no right to expect that a supposed win of $1M dollars is legitimate. Obviously a mistake has been made.
I once received a letter from my bank stating that because my mortgage was payed off they would be refunding my escrow account. I thought this was odd, because I was only 5 years into a 30 year mortgage. I called the bank and they said 'oops, we meant to send a letter saying that the LTV was less that 80%, so you didn't need to pay PMI any more'. Years later I asked a lawyer friend what would have happened if I stopped paying my mortgage because of that letter, and he told me the bank would insist on being payed, and if I attempted to use that letter of proof of not having to pay I could be charged with fraud, because I knew it was not true.
If you were paying a bill on-line and instead of 100.00 you typed 10000, would you just say 'oops, my bad, keep the extra 9900.00?' Or would you expect the payee to return the money to you?
What are you talking about? How is craps dictated by any players actions? The only thing a player can do is place bets (and one throws the dice). Each player's bets are entirely independent of the other player's (and even their own) bets. Your chances of winning or losing have nothing at all to do with any other player.
You quote a story about someone who thought they won a jackpot but didn't, and then claim she was charged with stealing. She was not, she just didn't get the money. So the only one of your examples is the cash register one. I am quite sure that if you had a store, and the cash register made an error and said that the customer's change is $4 million, you would NOT be giving them $4 million. You would say 'oops, something is wrong here'.
In case you are talking about the actual case the article is about, then you are not being honest in your examples. This was not a case of the customer (player) accidentally got more than he should, it was a case of he found an exploit, tested it over a period of months, got other people involved, and used the exploit at various casinos around the world. So, if you had a snack machine company, and someone found that if you press a certain sequence of buttons the machine would empty it's contents, and that person then went around town emptying your machines, you most certainly would charge that person with stealing (or you're an idiot). If someone comes into your store and confuses the cashier and causes them to give too much change, you certainly are withing your rights to charge that person with theft.
There was a case near my house recently where an ATM was loaded with the wrong denominations, so that it gave out $50s instead of $20s. Most of the people who received money incorrectly notified the bank and gave the money back. The remainder were contacted by the bank, and most of them gave the money back. A few idiots claimed that the mistake was not their problem. They were indeed charged with (and convicted of) theft.
As for your 'notoriously lucrative' comment - got anything to back that up? I just looked up the financials for MGM Resorts International (owner of City Center, Bellagio, MGM Grand, Mandalay Bay, The Mirage, New York-New York, Excalibur, Luxor, Circus Circus et al) and they had a LOSS of $318 Million in the 3 months ending in September ($1.2 BILLION loss YTD). Or maybe you were thinking of Caesars Holdings (owner of Caesars, Harrahs, Ballys, Showboat, Flamingo, Paris, et al)? Seems they had a LOSS of $164 Million in the same quarter, which is better than last year when they had a LOSS of $1.6 BILLION in the same quarter. Quite lucrative indeed.
I read comments like this on here when the TPMS story was first out, and they are just as wrong now as they were then. You claim 'poorly written firmware'. Do you have any evidence of that at all? Here is the situation: a safety system in the vehicle gets data that doesn't make sense. What is it supposed to do, just ignore the bad data (which MOST LIKELY means something is wrong with the system)? Maybe a better idea would be to inform the driver that one of his safety systems is not working correctly (turn on a light). So the driver takes his car to the dealer, and the dealer scans the error and finds out the computer logged that it was receiving crap data. What is the dealer supposed to do, just turn off the light and send the customer home with a potentially malfunctioning safety system? No, the dealer will do what the manufacturer suggests - replace the unit.
You know what most people don't like even more than having to replace a TPMS because some dickhead intentionally screwed with them? Having malfunctioning safety systems, and having to return to the dealer because the dealer did nothing to FIX a problem, he just turned off the light.
Have you ever actually watched Jeopardy? Here is a sample from last night: Category 3 to 1. Answer: It'll land a kid in hot water
Please show the google search you would use to get the correct single question (what is sass?), and not a document (or bunch of documents) that may contain something vaguely having to do with the subject.
Players can not buzz in before the answer is completely read and the light comes on. Attempting to buzz in before that locks out your buzzer for a period of time, which is why sometimes you see players clicking wildly trying to get in.
To the general public, it is just for the 'cool' factor. To IBM's customers, it says 'We figured out how to solve this difficult problem, and we can figure out your business problems too'.
So what do you propose we do about that? Yes, in the hands of unethical prosecution circumstantial evidence can be mis-used. So can physical evidence. Eyewitnesses can lie or be mistaken. Confessions can be coerced, or just falsely made. Jurors can be biased, even if they are not conscious of it. Short of ceasing to prosecute any cases at all there are unfortunately always going to be people wrongly convicted. So what is your solution?
This has zero effect on studying unsavory topics. You and the summary writer make it sound like the police randomly decided to search this guys computer, found some 'unsavory topics', then looked for something they could charge him with.
I do understand the point of neutrality, I just don't agree with it. I, as a consumer, am not the slightest bit interested in bandwidth, just like I am not interest in signing a contract with UPS so that ALL my packages are delivered 'next day'. I don't care if my email takes a few seconds longer to arrive. I don't care if OS updates take much longer to arrive. However, I am very interested in having the two or three NetFlix movies I watch a month being displayed at high quality and smoothly. If that requires NetFlix to send some of my monthly fee to my ISP, I have no problem with that. If I am paying for access to a news site, I have no problem that they pay some of that money to the ISP so their pages load faster than the ad-supported pages I don't pay for.
Now, I understand that not everyone has the same usage patterns, but choice should be allowed.
Evidence does not have a reasonable doubt test, the entire case that the prosecution presents has a reasonable doubt test. Is browser history alone enough to convict someone of murder? No. But when you add in the husband having an affair, emails to his lover that he would get out of his marriage, the wife telling multiple people (including the police) that she was afraid her husband was trying to kill her, etc AND the fact that multiple ways of killing someone (including the way that ultimately caused her death) were in the browser history, AND that an attempt was made to clear the history, AND that he told so many lies it took 10 years to uncover them all, then things start to look pretty bad for the husband.
How would net neutrality allow offers of higher bandwidth, etc? If they are truly neutral then they must either raise the bandwidth for everyone or no-one. And that is exactly what I said - their only options for differentiation are raise the bandwidth (expensive) or engage in a price war.
I don't understand your point about 'nothing you can do about it'. There IS something you can do about it - you can pay the same rate as Amazon does to get the better service. UPS (and all the other shipping companies) offer multiple levels of service depending on how fast you want the delivery made and how much money you are willing to spend. If you want the package delivered in a day it will cost you a lot, if you can wait more than a week it is substantially less. Lastly, when you buy something from Amazon, etc you will choose a shipping method. Even though there are different choices offered, they are all typically from the same company, because they DO sign long term contracts and that IS the only way to get your package delivered.
Fair enough. But, would any of those services (outside USPS) exist if we had 'mail neutrality' rules that meant all shipping companies were REQUIRED to carry first class mail, bulk rate mail, magazines, packages, etc, and were PREVENTED from offering differentiating services like expedited delivery? That would mean that the only way for those companies to 'compete' would either be to a) have faster overall service for all mail (very expensive), or b) get into a price war. Neither one of those options is a good long-term business plan, so it is doubtful anyone would enter the market. Which, oddly enough, is what we see happening with ISPs.
The purpose of these pictures is to actually LEARN something about Mars. They are not 'my vacation on Mars' snapshots. Learning something means that the photos need to show details, even subtle ones. Details require contrast (in all photos, not just space pictures). Your choices for getting good contrast are either a) adjust the lighting, or b) adjust the image. Option A works great in a photo studio, or even outdoors with proper fill lights and reflectors. It is not an option at all in space. So that leaves option B, which is what they do.
As for color: what is the 'real' color anyway? Turn off auto white-balance on your camera (after all, you wouldn't want to photoshop the picture), and take a picture of the same white piece of paper under three conditions: sunlight, incandescent light, and florescent light. Now look at the three pictures: one is white, one is yellow, and one is blue. The paper looks white to you under all three conditions, but different to the camera. Which is correct?
And how did they pay the rent and feed the family for the excruciatingly long time between starting development and making enough sales to cover those expenses? Many (probably most) people would gladly take $120K (or even $60K) vs $175K if it meant they weren't starving and homeless.
But that would be a completely different design. Not only would they have to put paint on the hooks, but they would intentionally have to tie the two hooks together with a piece of wire or something, which obviously is not done in the lighted version. That makes no sense.
Looking at the closeup of the hook you can clearly see the leather cover under the hole, so it doesn't look like the two hooks are connected with anything at all.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it ironic? The memo is about actions taken to protect CLASSIFIED information. The memo itself is not classified, nor is there any reason it should be.
If that happens the ABS is malfunctioning. The ABS will allow normal braking on the wheels on the center of the road, while allowing the wheels on the ice to continue turning, instead of locking up (which is dangerous). It is not an 'all braking or no braking' situation. The speed of each wheel is measured independently, and the brake for each wheel is modulated accordingly.
They probably wouldn't prosecute you for $20 dollars, because it isn't worth it. However, for a case more applicable to this one, see http://current.com/news/92888249_bank-error-in-your-favor-go-to-jail.htm
I don't recall ABS ever being touted as good for avoiding rear-end collisions (which would not make sense, since they can increase stopping distance). ABS was (and is) touted for not causing a loss of control (skid) during braking. I don't know how much it shows up in accident statistics, but I can say that my personal observation is that I see a whole lot fewer cars skidding into the oncoming lane, going off the road, etc during snowstorms than I did 20 years ago.
There are laws that say she can't be banned for BEING a "40 year old black female Jamaican catholic disabled veteran with children". She CAN be banned for any other reason, just like everyone else.
Really? So if your company's payroll system made an error and deposited $400,000 extra in your bank account, you think they wouldn't get that back? Or if their accounts payable system paid someone too much, they wouldn't get that back? I call bullshit.
Yes. Technically you are a thief even if you didn't ask them to do it and they did anyway. If you take something you know you don't have a right to you are a thief, no matter how the thing wound up in your possession.
This is incorrect. The casino does (and can) NOT cancel the payout because of win-loss ratios. How could they, it would require them to see into the future After all, if the machine has a 1/1,000,000 chance of paying a jackpot on each play there is just as much chance it will pay it the very first time it is played as the 1,000,000th time it is played.
None of the links provided say nothing about exceeding win-loss ratios. They say they were voided because the supposed winnings were greater than the amount the game was capable of paying. If you are playing a machine that has a top prize of $2500 (which they always display in BIG letters), you have no right to expect that a supposed win of $1M dollars is legitimate. Obviously a mistake has been made.
I once received a letter from my bank stating that because my mortgage was payed off they would be refunding my escrow account. I thought this was odd, because I was only 5 years into a 30 year mortgage. I called the bank and they said 'oops, we meant to send a letter saying that the LTV was less that 80%, so you didn't need to pay PMI any more'. Years later I asked a lawyer friend what would have happened if I stopped paying my mortgage because of that letter, and he told me the bank would insist on being payed, and if I attempted to use that letter of proof of not having to pay I could be charged with fraud, because I knew it was not true.
If you were paying a bill on-line and instead of 100.00 you typed 10000, would you just say 'oops, my bad, keep the extra 9900.00?' Or would you expect the payee to return the money to you?
What are you talking about? How is craps dictated by any players actions? The only thing a player can do is place bets (and one throws the dice). Each player's bets are entirely independent of the other player's (and even their own) bets. Your chances of winning or losing have nothing at all to do with any other player.
You quote a story about someone who thought they won a jackpot but didn't, and then claim she was charged with stealing. She was not, she just didn't get the money. So the only one of your examples is the cash register one. I am quite sure that if you had a store, and the cash register made an error and said that the customer's change is $4 million, you would NOT be giving them $4 million. You would say 'oops, something is wrong here'.
In case you are talking about the actual case the article is about, then you are not being honest in your examples. This was not a case of the customer (player) accidentally got more than he should, it was a case of he found an exploit, tested it over a period of months, got other people involved, and used the exploit at various casinos around the world. So, if you had a snack machine company, and someone found that if you press a certain sequence of buttons the machine would empty it's contents, and that person then went around town emptying your machines, you most certainly would charge that person with stealing (or you're an idiot). If someone comes into your store and confuses the cashier and causes them to give too much change, you certainly are withing your rights to charge that person with theft.
There was a case near my house recently where an ATM was loaded with the wrong denominations, so that it gave out $50s instead of $20s. Most of the people who received money incorrectly notified the bank and gave the money back. The remainder were contacted by the bank, and most of them gave the money back. A few idiots claimed that the mistake was not their problem. They were indeed charged with (and convicted of) theft.
As for your 'notoriously lucrative' comment - got anything to back that up? I just looked up the financials for MGM Resorts International (owner of City Center, Bellagio, MGM Grand, Mandalay Bay, The Mirage, New York-New York, Excalibur, Luxor, Circus Circus et al) and they had a LOSS of $318 Million in the 3 months ending in September ($1.2 BILLION loss YTD). Or maybe you were thinking of Caesars Holdings (owner of Caesars, Harrahs, Ballys, Showboat, Flamingo, Paris, et al)? Seems they had a LOSS of $164 Million in the same quarter, which is better than last year when they had a LOSS of $1.6 BILLION in the same quarter. Quite lucrative indeed.
I read comments like this on here when the TPMS story was first out, and they are just as wrong now as they were then. You claim 'poorly written firmware'. Do you have any evidence of that at all? Here is the situation: a safety system in the vehicle gets data that doesn't make sense. What is it supposed to do, just ignore the bad data (which MOST LIKELY means something is wrong with the system)? Maybe a better idea would be to inform the driver that one of his safety systems is not working correctly (turn on a light). So the driver takes his car to the dealer, and the dealer scans the error and finds out the computer logged that it was receiving crap data. What is the dealer supposed to do, just turn off the light and send the customer home with a potentially malfunctioning safety system? No, the dealer will do what the manufacturer suggests - replace the unit.
You know what most people don't like even more than having to replace a TPMS because some dickhead intentionally screwed with them? Having malfunctioning safety systems, and having to return to the dealer because the dealer did nothing to FIX a problem, he just turned off the light.
Have you ever actually watched Jeopardy? Here is a sample from last night: Category 3 to 1. Answer: It'll land a kid in hot water
Please show the google search you would use to get the correct single question (what is sass?), and not a document (or bunch of documents) that may contain something vaguely having to do with the subject.
Players can not buzz in before the answer is completely read and the light comes on. Attempting to buzz in before that locks out your buzzer for a period of time, which is why sometimes you see players clicking wildly trying to get in.
And? If it increases their profits by more than that amount it is worth it.
To the general public, it is just for the 'cool' factor. To IBM's customers, it says 'We figured out how to solve this difficult problem, and we can figure out your business problems too'.
So what do you propose we do about that? Yes, in the hands of unethical prosecution circumstantial evidence can be mis-used. So can physical evidence. Eyewitnesses can lie or be mistaken. Confessions can be coerced, or just falsely made. Jurors can be biased, even if they are not conscious of it. Short of ceasing to prosecute any cases at all there are unfortunately always going to be people wrongly convicted. So what is your solution?
This has zero effect on studying unsavory topics. You and the summary writer make it sound like the police randomly decided to search this guys computer, found some 'unsavory topics', then looked for something they could charge him with.
I do understand the point of neutrality, I just don't agree with it. I, as a consumer, am not the slightest bit interested in bandwidth, just like I am not interest in signing a contract with UPS so that ALL my packages are delivered 'next day'. I don't care if my email takes a few seconds longer to arrive. I don't care if OS updates take much longer to arrive. However, I am very interested in having the two or three NetFlix movies I watch a month being displayed at high quality and smoothly. If that requires NetFlix to send some of my monthly fee to my ISP, I have no problem with that. If I am paying for access to a news site, I have no problem that they pay some of that money to the ISP so their pages load faster than the ad-supported pages I don't pay for.
Now, I understand that not everyone has the same usage patterns, but choice should be allowed.
Evidence does not have a reasonable doubt test, the entire case that the prosecution presents has a reasonable doubt test. Is browser history alone enough to convict someone of murder? No. But when you add in the husband having an affair, emails to his lover that he would get out of his marriage, the wife telling multiple people (including the police) that she was afraid her husband was trying to kill her, etc AND the fact that multiple ways of killing someone (including the way that ultimately caused her death) were in the browser history, AND that an attempt was made to clear the history, AND that he told so many lies it took 10 years to uncover them all, then things start to look pretty bad for the husband.
How would net neutrality allow offers of higher bandwidth, etc? If they are truly neutral then they must either raise the bandwidth for everyone or no-one. And that is exactly what I said - their only options for differentiation are raise the bandwidth (expensive) or engage in a price war.
I don't understand your point about 'nothing you can do about it'. There IS something you can do about it - you can pay the same rate as Amazon does to get the better service. UPS (and all the other shipping companies) offer multiple levels of service depending on how fast you want the delivery made and how much money you are willing to spend. If you want the package delivered in a day it will cost you a lot, if you can wait more than a week it is substantially less. Lastly, when you buy something from Amazon, etc you will choose a shipping method. Even though there are different choices offered, they are all typically from the same company, because they DO sign long term contracts and that IS the only way to get your package delivered.
Fair enough. But, would any of those services (outside USPS) exist if we had 'mail neutrality' rules that meant all shipping companies were REQUIRED to carry first class mail, bulk rate mail, magazines, packages, etc, and were PREVENTED from offering differentiating services like expedited delivery? That would mean that the only way for those companies to 'compete' would either be to a) have faster overall service for all mail (very expensive), or b) get into a price war. Neither one of those options is a good long-term business plan, so it is doubtful anyone would enter the market. Which, oddly enough, is what we see happening with ISPs.
The purpose of these pictures is to actually LEARN something about Mars. They are not 'my vacation on Mars' snapshots. Learning something means that the photos need to show details, even subtle ones. Details require contrast (in all photos, not just space pictures). Your choices for getting good contrast are either a) adjust the lighting, or b) adjust the image. Option A works great in a photo studio, or even outdoors with proper fill lights and reflectors. It is not an option at all in space. So that leaves option B, which is what they do.
As for color: what is the 'real' color anyway? Turn off auto white-balance on your camera (after all, you wouldn't want to photoshop the picture), and take a picture of the same white piece of paper under three conditions: sunlight, incandescent light, and florescent light. Now look at the three pictures: one is white, one is yellow, and one is blue. The paper looks white to you under all three conditions, but different to the camera. Which is correct?
And how did they pay the rent and feed the family for the excruciatingly long time between starting development and making enough sales to cover those expenses? Many (probably most) people would gladly take $120K (or even $60K) vs $175K if it meant they weren't starving and homeless.
But that would be a completely different design. Not only would they have to put paint on the hooks, but they would intentionally have to tie the two hooks together with a piece of wire or something, which obviously is not done in the lighted version. That makes no sense.
Looking at the closeup of the hook you can clearly see the leather cover under the hole, so it doesn't look like the two hooks are connected with anything at all.