Cruise control relieves you of one task. You are still driving the car. Having the car do everything is much worse, I think, because now you have nothing to do but sit there and watch. You can't perform any other tasks like you could if you were a passenger, and you aren't occupying yourself doing anything except sitting their waiting for the computer to screw up.
The problem with that thinking is that while there are statistics on how many times a human driver 'got it wrong', there are NO statistics on how many times a human driver encountered a situation and got it RIGHT. How many times have you been instructed to drive on the 'wrong' side of the road by a construction worker, emergency personel, etc? Did you know what to do? Did you know what to do even if he did not have some special equipment? How many times has bad weather caused you to do something unusual? How many times have you driven on a road that has stripes from brining, and have not been completely baffled like my lane assist is (no, I do not want to turn into the highway dept garage just because the salt truck did)? How many times has your GPS given you directions that are obviously wrong (like using someone's driveway as a road)?
The 'unique' thing they add is not the copyright notice. It is cleaning up the image (adjust contrast, etc). That is copyrightable, because it is a creative work.
There is no hypothetical vector for disabling the brakes. There is a hypothetical vector for turning off the anti-lock function. Big deal.
When these sensors fail (which is what this hypothetical attack simulates), the computer turns off the affected system and lights the malfunction lamp. That is all that happens.
A failed airbag system does not cause you to crash, it just makes it more dangerous if you DO crash.
Which do you think is more likely to happen: some wiring gets corroded and the computer starts getting bad data about your ABS, or some scary hacker remotely sending bad data about your ABS? The first is probably thousands of times more likely to occur, so the systems should be designed to handle that, which they are.
They don't have to be making a 'decision'. But their collective actions certainly influence what happens to the retailer, to a much greater extent than the retailers own decisions do.
Of course some people find it much easier to assign blame to someone else rather than look in the mirror.
Huh? What do you mean 'targets the brake system'? If the brakes are in any way controlled by the CAN bus, and the default for any component of that failing is anything other than 'apply the brakes', then THAT is a much more serious concern, and much more likely to happen, than this theoretical hack.
Now, it is possible for it to target the antilock brakes, because they do have sensors connected to the bus. But all a failing anitlock brake sensor causes (which is what the hack simulates) is the ANTILOCK function is disabled (along with a corresponding dashboard light telling you that). The actual BRAKES will still work just fine.
What happens is that the malfunction indicator comes on. Screwing up the anitlock brakes means that the 'antilock' function no longer works, not that the brakes don't work.
companies are evil. they're greedy as fuck. they will choose the cheaper option 999 times of 1000 without any other considerations.
Companies? How about consumers?
Companies used to manufacture in the US. When asian imports became available consumers flocked to them because they were CHEAP. Two particular glaring examples of this were consumer electronics and textiles. The US manufacturers had a choice: become as cheap as the imports, or die. Some went the outsourcing method and survived. Most just died.
I have an acquaintance who is losing her job at a retailer. Naturally, this is all the greedy retailers fault. When I pointed out to her that she buys damn near everything on Amazon, her response was 'well it is cheaper.' Remind me again who will choose the cheaper option without any other considerations.
When WB says his taxes are not high enough, he doesn't just mean himself personally, he means a segment of the population.
Presumably, WB has certain areas that he thinks are underfunded by taxes. And, presumably, he thinks that if there was more tax revenue then those areas could be properly funded.
But, the reality is that the tax revenue is currently not high enough to fund those areas, and if he DID voluntarily pay more taxes very little of that money, if any, would go to the areas he is concerned about.
So, given the reality of the current tax situation, it makes much more sense for him to directly fund those areas of concern than it does for him to voluntarily pay more taxes.
There is nothing even slightly hypocritical about saying 'I think taxes should be higher so we can properly fund x,y, and z, but until they are I will directly fund those things myself'.
What is the problem with that? If you have $10B, you could give away $1B/year for 10 years. That is good. Or, you could put that $10B in a tax-advantaged trust that yields 10%, and just give away the proceeds. That way, you can give away $1B/year forever. That is better. I fail to see the problem.
Try to think. The amount of tax that would be owed if the securities were not donated is between 0% (if there were no capital gains) and 15% (if the securities had a cost basis of $0) of the value of the securities.
So, in order for a donation to have a financial benefit, he would have to make back between 85% and 100% of the value of the donation JUST TO BREAK EVEN. It is idiotic to assume that is the case. And if he DID manage to make back ANY money, even below the 85% mark, it would be subject to taxes (unless he gave it away again, in which case it did not benefit him at all).
Millions of non-billionaires donate to all sorts of charities. In 2016 it amounted to almost $400B. In every one of those cases they get a tax deduction. Are all of those people doing something wrong? Are all of those people not 'paying their full tax burden'?
The simple fact is 'your full tax burden' is defined by one thing: the law. If you are not breaking the law, then you ARE 'paying your full tax burden'.
The point that SANE people are getting is there AREN'T any benefits like you suppose.
Let's say you have $1B in unrealized gains. Your tax liability on that is exactly $0.
Supposed you realize the gains, and DO NOT donate. You pay $150M tax, and keep $850M for yourself. However, if you donate the shares, you pay $0 taxes and keep $0 for yourself. Where, exactly, is this supposed 'benefit'? It may be bad financially for the government (aww) if you donate, but it is worse financially for you if you DO donate.
The 'he controls the wealth' is nonsense. The foundation controls the wealth, and their are strict laws on what can and can not be done with the money. Chief among the 'can nots' is that the money can not benefit HIM.
If you count winding up with less money than you would have had if you paid the taxes as a 'tax break', then yes.
What's with the scare quotes around 'donating'? Do you have some evidence that he did not donate, or that the foundation does not meet the criteria of a charitable non-profit?
Charitable donations do not provide a 'tax benefit'. Ever.
A tax benefit leaves you with more money than you would have without the benefit. A charitable donation leaves you with less money.
The only way a donation can be seen as a tax benefit is if you simply do not want to pay taxes, as opposed to keeping more of your money (which is what normal people consider a tax benefit).
Well put. How dumb do you have to be to think that corporate accounting departments and credit card companies don't have all kinds of policies and procedures for dealing with crap like this? And none of them end up with the (ex) employee getting away with it.
No, the company most certainly does NOT 'have to pay the credit card'. Merely possessing a card does NOT give one the authorization to use it. The moment they were fired they lost their authorization to use the card, and using the card from that point on is no different than using a stolen card. Even if still an active employee the card is only to be used for authorized expenses, and any other use is unauthorized use of the card. The company will then dispute the charges as fraudulent when they get the bill. The credit card company can then take whatever action they want (billing the person who made the charges, having them arrested, etc).
Of course, the company COULD just pay the card, and count that payment as 'money owed to the company by the employee'. That money would then be deducted from their pay (if still employeed) or from their final paycheck.
Thinking you found some clever scam to get the company to pay unauthorized charges is REALLY the dumbest thing I've read all day.
So are you suggesting they waste their own money (now that they are jobless), or that they commit fraud and wind up arrested in addition to being jobless?
: of, relating to, or involving the entire world : worldwide a global system of communication; also : of or relating to a celestial body (such as the moon)
Nope. Exhaustion applies to A patent, not ALL patents.
You could patent a new and useful gear. You could also patent a machine that uses that gear. Just because you license someone to manufacture your gear does not mean you lose your patent rights on the machine. It also does not mean that someone who buys your gear from that manufacturer has rights to build your machine. It only means you can not sue someone simply for using your gear.
Exactly how does it prove that? Do you think that anyone who buys any component from anyone who was licensed to make that component automatically has a license to make everything that could be made with that component?
Speaking of 'paid for itself'. Just a couple of months ago I was on a trip with someone in a rental car. He was driving, and is one of those 'GPS knows everything' types. Anyway, we're driving along and the GPS says 'keep left'. I said, 'you need to exit to the right'. He listens to the GPS. Happened two more times. We get to our destination and he is gloating about how the GPS was right and I was wrong. I say 'just wait'.
About a month later he calls me up - he is irate because he got a bill from the rental car company for fines that had been billed to the car. Seems all those times he listened to the GPS and stayed left he should have been listening to me and going thru the cash toll plaza. Had $150 in fines for toll evasion, and expected me to pay 'my share'.
Slashdot Mirror
Cruise control relieves you of one task. You are still driving the car. Having the car do everything is much worse, I think, because now you have nothing to do but sit there and watch. You can't perform any other tasks like you could if you were a passenger, and you aren't occupying yourself doing anything except sitting their waiting for the computer to screw up.
The problem with that thinking is that while there are statistics on how many times a human driver 'got it wrong', there are NO statistics on how many times a human driver encountered a situation and got it RIGHT. How many times have you been instructed to drive on the 'wrong' side of the road by a construction worker, emergency personel, etc? Did you know what to do? Did you know what to do even if he did not have some special equipment? How many times has bad weather caused you to do something unusual? How many times have you driven on a road that has stripes from brining, and have not been completely baffled like my lane assist is (no, I do not want to turn into the highway dept garage just because the salt truck did)? How many times has your GPS given you directions that are obviously wrong (like using someone's driveway as a road)?
The 'unique' thing they add is not the copyright notice. It is cleaning up the image (adjust contrast, etc). That is copyrightable, because it is a creative work.
There is no hypothetical vector for disabling the brakes. There is a hypothetical vector for turning off the anti-lock function. Big deal.
When these sensors fail (which is what this hypothetical attack simulates), the computer turns off the affected system and lights the malfunction lamp. That is all that happens.
A failed airbag system does not cause you to crash, it just makes it more dangerous if you DO crash.
Which do you think is more likely to happen: some wiring gets corroded and the computer starts getting bad data about your ABS, or some scary hacker remotely sending bad data about your ABS? The first is probably thousands of times more likely to occur, so the systems should be designed to handle that, which they are.
They don't have to be making a 'decision'. But their collective actions certainly influence what happens to the retailer, to a much greater extent than the retailers own decisions do.
Of course some people find it much easier to assign blame to someone else rather than look in the mirror.
Huh? What do you mean 'targets the brake system'? If the brakes are in any way controlled by the CAN bus, and the default for any component of that failing is anything other than 'apply the brakes', then THAT is a much more serious concern, and much more likely to happen, than this theoretical hack.
Now, it is possible for it to target the antilock brakes, because they do have sensors connected to the bus. But all a failing anitlock brake sensor causes (which is what the hack simulates) is the ANTILOCK function is disabled (along with a corresponding dashboard light telling you that). The actual BRAKES will still work just fine.
What happens is that the malfunction indicator comes on. Screwing up the anitlock brakes means that the 'antilock' function no longer works, not that the brakes don't work.
companies are evil. they're greedy as fuck. they will choose the cheaper option 999 times of 1000 without any other considerations.
Companies? How about consumers?
Companies used to manufacture in the US. When asian imports became available consumers flocked to them because they were CHEAP. Two particular glaring examples of this were consumer electronics and textiles. The US manufacturers had a choice: become as cheap as the imports, or die. Some went the outsourcing method and survived. Most just died.
I have an acquaintance who is losing her job at a retailer. Naturally, this is all the greedy retailers fault. When I pointed out to her that she buys damn near everything on Amazon, her response was 'well it is cheaper.' Remind me again who will choose the cheaper option without any other considerations.
When WB says his taxes are not high enough, he doesn't just mean himself personally, he means a segment of the population.
Presumably, WB has certain areas that he thinks are underfunded by taxes. And, presumably, he thinks that if there was more tax revenue then those areas could be properly funded.
But, the reality is that the tax revenue is currently not high enough to fund those areas, and if he DID voluntarily pay more taxes very little of that money, if any, would go to the areas he is concerned about.
So, given the reality of the current tax situation, it makes much more sense for him to directly fund those areas of concern than it does for him to voluntarily pay more taxes.
There is nothing even slightly hypocritical about saying 'I think taxes should be higher so we can properly fund x,y, and z, but until they are I will directly fund those things myself'.
What is the problem with that? If you have $10B, you could give away $1B/year for 10 years. That is good. Or, you could put that $10B in a tax-advantaged trust that yields 10%, and just give away the proceeds. That way, you can give away $1B/year forever. That is better. I fail to see the problem.
Try to think. The amount of tax that would be owed if the securities were not donated is between 0% (if there were no capital gains) and 15% (if the securities had a cost basis of $0) of the value of the securities.
So, in order for a donation to have a financial benefit, he would have to make back between 85% and 100% of the value of the donation JUST TO BREAK EVEN. It is idiotic to assume that is the case. And if he DID manage to make back ANY money, even below the 85% mark, it would be subject to taxes (unless he gave it away again, in which case it did not benefit him at all).
Millions of non-billionaires donate to all sorts of charities. In 2016 it amounted to almost $400B. In every one of those cases they get a tax deduction. Are all of those people doing something wrong? Are all of those people not 'paying their full tax burden'?
The simple fact is 'your full tax burden' is defined by one thing: the law. If you are not breaking the law, then you ARE 'paying your full tax burden'.
The point that SANE people are getting is there AREN'T any benefits like you suppose.
Let's say you have $1B in unrealized gains. Your tax liability on that is exactly $0.
Supposed you realize the gains, and DO NOT donate. You pay $150M tax, and keep $850M for yourself. However, if you donate the shares, you pay $0 taxes and keep $0 for yourself. Where, exactly, is this supposed 'benefit'? It may be bad financially for the government (aww) if you donate, but it is worse financially for you if you DO donate.
The 'he controls the wealth' is nonsense. The foundation controls the wealth, and their are strict laws on what can and can not be done with the money. Chief among the 'can nots' is that the money can not benefit HIM.
If you count winding up with less money than you would have had if you paid the taxes as a 'tax break', then yes.
What's with the scare quotes around 'donating'? Do you have some evidence that he did not donate, or that the foundation does not meet the criteria of a charitable non-profit?
What you are complaining about is that he didn't pay taxes on money he never had and never will have. Do you pay taxes on money you never had?
Charitable donations do not provide a 'tax benefit'. Ever.
A tax benefit leaves you with more money than you would have without the benefit. A charitable donation leaves you with less money.
The only way a donation can be seen as a tax benefit is if you simply do not want to pay taxes, as opposed to keeping more of your money (which is what normal people consider a tax benefit).
Well put. How dumb do you have to be to think that corporate accounting departments and credit card companies don't have all kinds of policies and procedures for dealing with crap like this? And none of them end up with the (ex) employee getting away with it.
No, the company most certainly does NOT 'have to pay the credit card'. Merely possessing a card does NOT give one the authorization to use it. The moment they were fired they lost their authorization to use the card, and using the card from that point on is no different than using a stolen card. Even if still an active employee the card is only to be used for authorized expenses, and any other use is unauthorized use of the card. The company will then dispute the charges as fraudulent when they get the bill. The credit card company can then take whatever action they want (billing the person who made the charges, having them arrested, etc).
Of course, the company COULD just pay the card, and count that payment as 'money owed to the company by the employee'. That money would then be deducted from their pay (if still employeed) or from their final paycheck.
Thinking you found some clever scam to get the company to pay unauthorized charges is REALLY the dumbest thing I've read all day.
So are you suggesting they waste their own money (now that they are jobless), or that they commit fraud and wind up arrested in addition to being jobless?
Wrong. From Merriam-Webster:
: of, relating to, or involving the entire world : worldwide a global system of communication; also : of or relating to a celestial body (such as the moon)
emphasis mine
Only the 'journalist' who wrote TFA used the word hacking. The actual court documents use the words 'accessed a computer without authorization'.
Nope. Exhaustion applies to A patent, not ALL patents.
You could patent a new and useful gear. You could also patent a machine that uses that gear. Just because you license someone to manufacture your gear does not mean you lose your patent rights on the machine. It also does not mean that someone who buys your gear from that manufacturer has rights to build your machine. It only means you can not sue someone simply for using your gear.
Exactly how does it prove that? Do you think that anyone who buys any component from anyone who was licensed to make that component automatically has a license to make everything that could be made with that component?
Speaking of 'paid for itself'. Just a couple of months ago I was on a trip with someone in a rental car. He was driving, and is one of those 'GPS knows everything' types. Anyway, we're driving along and the GPS says 'keep left'. I said, 'you need to exit to the right'. He listens to the GPS. Happened two more times. We get to our destination and he is gloating about how the GPS was right and I was wrong. I say 'just wait'.
About a month later he calls me up - he is irate because he got a bill from the rental car company for fines that had been billed to the car. Seems all those times he listened to the GPS and stayed left he should have been listening to me and going thru the cash toll plaza. Had $150 in fines for toll evasion, and expected me to pay 'my share'.
Who uses a map to navigate an interchange? That is what signs are for.